Waiting For Fitzgerald

A few tidbits as we admire his new website and await announcements from Special Counsel Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation:

(1) The WaPo provides a Cast of Characters.  Moved up from the understudy card to star billing is John Hannah.

(2) The Anon Lib continues the Cryptic Hint Watch of the NY Times, noting a seemingly gratuitous reference to the folks in Cheney's office.

The recurring theme is that the major media probably has some very well-informed guesses as to who did what; over at the WaPo, for instance, Walter Pincus certainly knows who leaked to him.

So, for example, when the WaPo does *not* include McLaughlin or Tenet on the list of characters, that may be a hint that these CIA bigs were incidental to the leak.

(3)  Will Fitzgerald clear the air, or muddy the water?

If Fitzgerald accepts plea deals from a few of Cheney's aides and wraps this up, conspiracists on the left will be mumbling about the Plame cover-up through the Barack Obama - Chelsea Clinton Presidential campaign of 2024.

And plenty of folks on the right want some disclosure of the CIA lies and media complicity in this scandal.

So if there are to be indictments (probable), we are hoping they are sufficiently detailed that the public can understand what this case was about.  Quiet plea deals - no.  Detailed indictments and gory trials - yes!  Assuming, that is, that Fitzgerald won't simply provide the Administration with a detailed clean bill of health.

(4) What are the charges? 

The Commentariat will be astonished if Fitzgerald relies on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a very strictly structured statute with several requirements that do not seem to apply to this leak.

On the other hand, charges under the much broader Espionage Act could greatly impede the normal flow of information between the government and its contractors, and between the government and the press.  Jacob Weisberg of Slate looked at this, but not before Dale Franks did.

And if Fitzgerald settles for perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to do same?  One might argue that he is criminalizing the investigation, rather than the crime; one might then have to answer to Michelle Malkin, who is not buying it - proper Reps are supposed to respect the legal process.

(5) Where are the scalps?

I will remind my friends on the left - if Fitzgerald settles on John Hannah, David Wurmser, and Fred Fleitz, most of America will think they have been asked to play "Dead or Canadian?".  Adding Libby to the mix does not add much impact outside the Beltway (Quick - who was Al Gore's chief of staff in 1999?  I'm sure he had one!)

Karl Rove is the big fish here.  And the direct case against him, at least on the Matt Cooper phone call everyone talks about, is weak, weak, weak.

However, that is subject to two caveats - most of the leaks have been from lawyers sympathetic to the Administration, who may be hiding some gruesome news.

And Fitzgerald may decide to get Karl on a conspiracy to obstruct, which could be easier to prove.

[OK, Stephen Hadley, now National Security Advisor, would be a big fish  (and in a post I should re-file under "Comedy", I picked Hadley as a source of the leak when he was a mere minnow).  John Bolton, UN Ambassador, would merit a headline, and leave us all wondering how an insane White House used a recess appointment to put Bolton there despite a legal cloud.]

MORE:  A point to ponder - it is awfully late in the game for idle speculation, but Glenn Kessler of the WaPo was apparently Libby as having had a relevant conversation about Wilson.  Could it be that Mr. Kessler, flying under the radar, had a similar experience to Tim Russert?  Tim Russert, you recall, may have been cited by Libby as alibi witness.

That remains relevant because, like Russert, Libby spoke with Kessler in July.  If Libby's alibi to Fitzgerald was that Kessler and Russert told him about Wilson's wife, the story about Judy on June 23 looks less like an oversight and more like an attempted cover-up.

NO WORRIES: Libby, at least, is up to speed on controversial pardons:

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.

The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.

BACK AT THE HEADWATERS:  Will we ever get the original source for the information that Valerie, Joe's wife, was at the CIA?

A partial list of candidates would include the Washington cocktail party circuit (which I would trace back to Joe himself, since I doubt Valerie was promoting herself), the INR memo, and personal contact (Fred Fleitz and, IIRC, others, worked at the CIA and later the NSC or elsewhere in the Admin).

Comments

[TexasToast]

Well Well Well

Is this the investigation we have been looking for?

[cathyf]

I asked this once before, but it was on a thread that was pretty dead and no one answered. Somebody here knows when Judy Miller got back from Iraq. I have this rememberance that it was like June 21st or 22nd. So Fitzgerald is going to indict one party to a conversation because the punch-drunk-from-jet-lag other party to the conversation doesn't remember what was said, but has some ambiguous notes (taken while jet lagged) that may or may not mean something?

Really?

cathy :-)

[clarice]

I agree Cathy--and if he did would Lobby bring in the entire NYT's staff who've said she is a liar to discredit her? LOL

Yesterday Hannah's lawyer is quoted as having flatly denied that his client was a target or had been a cooperating witness for the SP against the WH, contrary to last week's breathless reports that he was..

[clarice]

LIbby, not Lobby--ECH

[cathyf]

TT, did you notice this paragraph from the UPI story?

This opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of the CIA leak case, that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or artificially exaggerated. This was the same charge that imperiled the government of Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after a BBC Radio program claimed Blair's aides has "sexed up" the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Notice what UPI left out? The fact that the BBC took a huge hit to its credibility over this, had its head resign, and drove a source to suicide when it was revealed that it was the BBC who had done the "sexing up." While they claimed to have multiple sources high enough up to know what had happened at the meetings in question, they built this story from a single source who simply did not make the "sexing up" claim and who was not in a position to know whether the claim was true or not.

Amazing. They state totally accurately and totally misleadingly that the charges were bad for the Blair administration. They were, at least until they were totally discredited... And why do I bother laughing at the Weekly World News?

cathy :-)

[Jeff]

One small tidbit - TM's theory that Tenet was Pincus' July 12, 2003 source is definitively dead. Not only did the WaPo report that the source was a White House official, Pincus himself said as much on NPR this past Sunday. My money remains on Hadley, who I still think is the third major player along with Rove and Libby at the center of this. Hadley is, of course, neither dead nor Canadian. He's promoted. I wonder if it will be treated as a big deal if the sitting National Security advisor gets indicted?

Was Hadley also Novak's first source? I have no idea, though lots of speculation seems to be focusing on Fleischer.

[Thomas]

If the UPI story is true, I really doubt it means that Fitz is investigating the pre-war intelligence process. It's probably Fitzgerald's attempt to establish what Cheney, Libby, Rove, etc. were thinking when Wilson went public. Still it's not good for the White House. The forgeries are very suspicious, more so because nobody really seems interested in figuring out who did them. And if Fitzgerald is using them to establish the WH mood, as in 'let's make sure nobody goes further with Niger', then I doubt he's going to settle for dead Canadians pleading guilty. Big if.

[Geek, Esq.]

I'm done speculating until Fitzgerald goes public.

The Starr investigation spoiled the media and the commentariat--Fitzgerald is playing this very secretively.

[Idaho Boy]

It appears that Miller did not think enough about the June 23 meeting with Libby to even pursue any type of story on the "clandestine guy" angle. And her story of that first meeting was not clear at all. But now she says she did not even think about pursuing a story until after the July 8 meeting with Libby. That is after Russert already spoke to Libby (on July 3). Russet has not denied saying something like "Wilson's wife works at the CIA and was involved in sending Joe". Russert just denies using her name and mentioning anything about covert statues.

From Miller today on the July 8 meeting as the driver for her to pursue a story (not the June 23 meeting):

"You chose to believe Jill Abramson when she asserted that I had never asked her to pursue the tip I had gotten about Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger and his wife’s employment at the C.I.A. Now I ask you: Why would I – the supposedly pushiest, most competitive reporter on the planet -- not have pushed to pursue a tantalizing tip like this? Soon after my breakfast meeting with Libby in July, I did so. I remember asking the editor to let me explore whether what my source had said was true, or whether it was a potential smear of a whistleblower."

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/publiceditorswebjournal/index.html?offset=19&fid=.f779788/19

[clarice]

Come on it is clear that Pincus knew who Plame was before he spoke to anyone in the WH--He wrote one of the first stories about the case. IIRC he quoted heavily in it from a "CIA analyst" who was surely Plame.

Interestingly enough, he said he did the piece because he'd learned Wilson was going to have an op ed about the Mission in the competing NYT.

I think Tenet was Novak's original source and so does Mac..and he testified early. If he was and admitted it, that would explain why Novak wasn't called before the gj. The sp can get a subpoena for a reporter under DoJ guidelines only if he can show there is no other way to get the information.

If that is the case, Tenet would have explained why he did so--the fear that there were rogue elements in the Agency who had sandbagged him and the Administration and that pushing back this story was necessary to national security.

[Appalled Moderate]

I leave myself the option to speculate. It might be amusing to discover how bloody wrong I am.

[clarice]

Great catch, Idaho!

[Geek, Esq.]

Okay, one final prediction before the indictments come in:

There will be no indictments for the actual leak. What happened is that someone inside the WHIG found out or was generally aware that Plame worked for the CIA, but was unaware of her specific role.

The WHIGgas then decided to spread this information about her status.

When it turned out that she was covert and that outing her was a horrendous blunder, the WH went into damage control mode and tried to cover it up. But for political reasons, not legal ones.

The cover up involved acts of obstruction and perjury.

[Thomas]

Clarice,
If the Wilsons are truly that clever, maybe they should be running the CIA, and not Goss. Imagine the skill it takes to sandbag the entire Administration and then, when they fight back, concoct (via the CIA and Justice Department) a special prosecutor and grand jury to entrap several aides in perjury and obstruction of justice. And she got her photo in Vanity Fair.

[topsecretk9]

yes that was a good catch..Judy is talking about 2 sources in this...the "tip" of the "war on Wilson" and exploring what her other source said, which was Wilson was sent by his wife and CIA did not report back, exploring which source was right.

[topsecretk9]

I should have said, she is speaking about a "tip" ( in the end becomes a source) squaring with what she had ALREADY learned from her source (Libby)

she met with Libby June 23, and he informed her to the story in the context of defending the VP--Veep didn't know the "clandestine guy", Veep didn't know about the trip, CIA didn't report

then she receives a "tip" about a "war out on Wilson"...so her story angle to verify if the information provided by Libby is true, or or is what Libby said a "lie" to combat Wilson

[pollyusa]

New Rawstory

Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told him that Plame set up the Wilson trip.

Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson and his CIA to Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice

[Jim E.]

Whatever happens this week, we will learn how reliable RawStory is. They've broken a few "scoops" that no one else has really run with. Either they had awesome sources, or they're a joke. Rawstory has a new story up which spells everything out (at least as rawstory sees it). Short version: Geek's 11:10 post above, but with names. We'll see what happens -- rawstory's reputation is riding on it. (Not the most important thing, I realize.)

[TM]

Ok, interesting new on Pincus.

The available non-Rovian big fish might be Hadley and Bolton.

That UPI story on the Niger forgeris could cut either way - expose Wilson and the CIA cabal, or show that Libby (and friends) planted the forgeries, then lay in fear of Wilson.

My guess - Fitzgerald is covering the bases and has no link.

Bonus point - Wilson told the LA Times that Fitzgerald called him in Sept.

I cannot think of a reason for Fitzgerald to do that (unless he has emotionally embraced the "punish the whistleblower" theory).

Also, Wilson could be a bloviating liar.

However, there is *no way* Fitzgerald personally called a target of his investigation. To tell him what, "Don't leave town?"

Fitzgerald would have contacted Wilson's attorney, if Wilson even has one.

(OK, maybe he called Wilson and told him to get one... No.)

[pollyusa]

I don't think Wurmser could be Novak's senior administration source however. I don't think he would be considered senior.

[Geek, Esq.]

It was probably Fleischer. Maybe Hadley.

[Jim E.]

"I don't think Wurmser could be Novak's senior administration source however."

Agreed. I think Hadley would fit as senior and not a partisan gun-slinger.

[Appalled Moderate]

Geek:

I'd pick Cheney over Fleisher, except I can't imagine Dick soiling himself that way. (That's what Chief of Staffs or Mary Matalins are for.) The action here seems to be at the VP office, not over in Ari-land. (Also, Ari has denied being Novak's source -- and I operate under the theory that nobody who is Novak's source would issue a specific denial.)

The Raw Story summary seems plausible -- which makes me skeptical. This is the story somebody who has been reading this blog religiously could deduce. When a rumor tracks what one can make an educated guess about, there's a good chance the rumor is just somebody's educated guess.

[topsecretk9]

I thought June was well established. Was I supposed to be scandalized by the raw story? I'd scandalized if multiple levels and layers in the Gov't were not checking into the claims of an unnamed envoy accusing them of wrong doing in June? Senate report details the non distribution of the report on Wilson's trip ( a report that does not support the envoys claim) why is it suspect for the WH to be learning as much as they could about this...they could have been looking to see if perhaps they did ignore his report (that did not support his claim)

[pollyusa]

I'll go along with Hadley.

On the Fitz/Wilson call

The call occured on the day Miller was released from jail. Fitz interviewed Miller before he let her out.

The call to Wilson must have something to do with the Miller interview.

[topsecretk9]

I'm going with Clarice, Tenet was Novak's 'no partisan gunslinger"

[Geek, Esq.]

AM:

Good points. Though I think that your argument tends to point things in Hadley's direction.

Remember about Raw Story that they're a sensationalist rag. Something that completely undercuts the "Niger Documents/Treason" talking point would certainly not be something they'd be inclined to run with.

[topsecretk9]

However, there was an additional sign that Fitzgerald continued to investigate aggressively. He phoned Wilson on Sept. 29, the same day Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to divulge her confidential source, was released from jail after agreeing to testify in the case. She testified the next day.

Wilson declined in an interview to discuss the nature of their conversation, but confirmed that it occurred.

If Wilson is not a part of the investigation this is just weird wording or weird placement

[clarice]

TM:/Ok, interesting new on Pincus.

The available non-Rovian big fish might be Hadley and Bolton./
*****************
That's an old story. Bolton visited Judy in jail. Do you think he'd open himself up to an obstruction charge by meeting with her then? I don't.
*******************
/That UPI story on the Niger forgeris could cut either way - expose Wilson and the CIA cabal, or show that Libby (and friends) planted the forgeries, then lay in fear of Wilson./

The UPI story is full of glaring errors. It looks like Justin Raimondo wrote it. The only thing missing is an accusation against Ledeen.

Again why would anyone who was for the war submit such a crude forgery ? If the scam is worth doing and you have the resources why do a crap job of it, a crap job sure to be detected along the line?
*******************
/My guess - Fitzgerald is covering the bases and has no link./

Me, too, though if he does he's more than likely to leave that for someone else to proesecute.
**********************
/Bonus point - Wilson told the LA Times that Fitzgerald called him in Sept.

I cannot think of a reason for Fitzgerald to do that (unless he has emotionally embraced the "punish the whistleblower" theory).

Also, Wilson could be a bloviating liar.

However, there is *no way* Fitzgerald personally called a target of his investigation. To tell him what, "Don't leave town?"

Fitzgerald would have contacted Wilson's attorney, if Wilson even has one.

(OK, maybe he called Wilson and told him to get one... No.)/

The only lawyer who has spoken out on Wilson's behalf if not a criminal lawyer. Since Wilson didn't make an appearance before the gj he doesn't seem to have an attorney of record in this matter. The only way to ascertain if he has one, is to ask him.
There probably are some reasons to do that, but I can think of only one at the moment:Who will accept service on his behalf.

[Geek, Esq.]

"but I can think of only one at the moment:Who will accept service on his behalf."

Fitzgerald wouldn't need to ask Wilson that. If he intended to serve Wilson, he'd just serve him directly.

[clarice]

Not having read Miller's statement today that Abramson refused to let her do the story after her July meeting with Libby, Kincaide notes the NYT's role in this matter:
[quote]If Miller deserves criticism, it is for failing to write the story when Libby handed it to her on a silver platter. She had the perfect opportunity to set the record straight about some misinformation that had already appeared in her own paper. After all, it was Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who had asserted, in a May 6, 2003, column, that "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." We now know that Wilson was the source of this information, and that it was false. He whitewashed the nature of the CIA role in the trip because he wanted to protect his wife. Wilson wanted people to think that the Vice President's office was somehow behind his mission.

We also know, because of Miller's account of her testimony under oath, that it was because of this misinformation that Libby talked to Miller and wanted to get out the other side of the story. The Vice President's office, said by the liberal press to be at the center of the CIA leak "conspiracy," was justifiably outraged over Wilson going public with misleading information about his mission and blasting the administration in the process. Miller also testified that she thought Plame's CIA connection "potentially newsworthy." You bet it was. But she didn't write the story. This is where Miller failed her paper and the public.

Consider the record of the Times in this case. Editorially, the Times called for the investigation but didn't want to cooperate with it. The paper also published the misleading Wilson and Kristof columns. And yet Miller, who didn't write anything, is the Times journalist under fire in the press because she wrote stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs before the war and later talked to Libby about how the CIA had gotten the facts wrong! Miller has become a target even though it's her colleagues who put the misleading Wilson column into the paper, published Kristof's erroneous account, and called for the probe that resulted in Miller serving jail time.

Miller's WMD stories are said by the hard left to be evidence of her reliance on the Bush Administration for information. In fact, it shows her dependence on the same sources that told the administration that Iraq had WMD. Those sources included CIA director George Tenet, a Clinton holdover, who told Bush that finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk."[/quote]

http://www.aim.org/special_report/4118_0_8_0_C/

Kincaide notes that as soon as it was clear Wilson was the source, foreign intel agencies would have searched out his family and surely picked up the Plame connection to the CIA, so badly was that hidden.
[quote]

[clarice]

Geek, of course he could serve Wilson direclty, but Fitz is a gentleman, Wilson is unlikely to flee to avoid service and in those circumstances it is S.O.P. to serve counsel and avoid a media show of the sort Ronnie Earle had planned for DeLay.

[Sue]

From TM's WaPo link:

Valerie Plame - The CIA officer was unmasked in July 2003 by columnist Robert D. Novak after her husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized President Bush for stating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein bought nuclear weapons-grade uranium in the African nation of Niger.

[TM]

But now she says she did not even think about pursuing a story until after the July 8 meeting with Libby.

Well, Ms. Miller's very plausible hook was that the Times had run the Wilson op-ed on July 6.

That hook was less compelling in June.

OTOH, it supports the notion that Wilson was very incidental to whatver else they talked about in June.

On Bolton - as best we know, he has never been called by the grand jury, so I will be shocked if he rises to the top at this late date. Still...

[clarice]

Thanks, TM--I was afraid you were slipping..LOL

[Neo]

If the Plame affair is the "tit," I guess this is the "tat".

Or is it the other way around ?

[Neo]

TT:
They also left out that a British (I forgot which one) investigation, found the "Iraq in Africa" story to have merit.

The only spin they (UPI) didn't speculate on is whether Joe Wilson or someone(s) else (perhaps at the CIA) was improperly using classified data for their own purposes. If someone at CIA indicated that Joe Wilson saw the forgeries, there could be indictments that no one has yet speculated on.

The myopic view of this is Libby and Rove, but the view might be much larger. Pehaps Flame for leaking to Wilson and or Wilson dropping it on the Op-Ed pages of the MYT and, of course, the June stories.

[pollyusa]

There is an account from Kessler himself regarding his conversations with Libby in July 2003. I think it unlikely he pulled a Russert.

At Scooter Libby's request, I only discussed whether Valerie Plame or her husband were mentioned in two conversations I had with Libby in July 2003. The answer was no.

[SteveMG]

The indictment?
Kaus from Edward Jay Epstein: Conspiracy to misuse classified information.

Only question is how far up it goes. Stop at Libby or ??? My guess is that it stops with Rizutto, er Scooter Libby.

Libby, Rove (maybe) and perhaps others in the V.P. office.

Conspiracy, misuse of classified information, false statements (no perjury charges; too tough to prove).

Yeah, that makes the most sense even if most of what we've read is inaccurate.

SMG

[Idaho Boy]

Well, Ms. Miller's very plausible hook was that the Times had run the Wilson op-ed on July 6.

There were the May & June Kristof & Pincus articles before the July 6 Wilson article that should have been very plausible hooks as well. Maybe even more so since the "clandestine guy" was still (supposedly) a mystery.

The Wilson discussion being a very small (forgetable) part of the June 23 meeting seems reasonable. But then that gets to how important is the 6/23 meeting afterall.

[paul]

Noteworthy reading:

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/In_The_News/gjnews.htm#Obstructing%20a%20Grand%20Jury%20Investigation

"...the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the convictions of three New York police officers for conspiring to obstruct justice in connection with the investigation of the 1997 assault on Abner Louima in a Brooklyn police station.

The convictions were based on the proposition that the officers had entered into an agreement to obstruct justice by lying to federal agents investigating the assault in order to interfere with a grand jury investigation into the assault. Merely lying to the federal agents would not be enough to establish either conspiracy to obstruct justice or an obstruction of justice under 18 U.S. Code § 1503, which is the statute the conspiracy charge was based upon."

Apparently the talk of conspiracy charges is not going to hold up...at least fitzgerald knows this, one would think.

Aguilar-

"Under the statute, to be guilty of obstructing justice, or of conspiring to obstruct justice, a person must act with the purpose of influencing, obstructing or impeding the “due administration of justice.” The Supreme Court has held that an investigation by federal agents does not constitute the “administration of justice” under the statute; there must be a grand jury proceeding or a court proceeding for the statute to apply."

I'm starting to think that it is an all or nothing proposition for Fitz. If he can't convict Libby-he's going to issue a no report.

Remember, Martha falsifed documents that she later submitted to Court review.

[Geek, Esq.]

"there must be a grand jury proceeding or a court proceeding for the statute to apply."

There is a grand jury proceeding in this case, as I'm sure you're aware.

[Cecil Turner]

There is a grand jury proceeding in this case, as I'm sure you're aware.

By my reading, obstruction of justice requires lying to them, as opposed to investigators. So now we not only need to know who said what, but to whom. Insufficient data.

A point to ponder - it is awfully late in the game for idle speculation . . .

Bite yer tongue!

[Kate]

Am I missing something. I don't see the Raw Story as that spectacular.

Goofy ambassador says he's traveling for the VP. VP's office confused. An assistant finds that the wife works for the CIA and probably helped send him and tells the VP's office. All have an interest in knowing this and all have security clearances.

It is only criminal if they say:

She's a covert agent and let's leak her identity.

[Sue]

Another day, no indictments. ;)

[Kate]

Sue-everyone is saying Wednesday. That means it should be leaking out like crazy tomorrow night.

[Mark Maps]

SteveMG:
"Conspiracy to misuse classified information".

Couldn't this focus on Plame, Wilson, NY Times, et. al as conspirators to undermine a sitting president during a time of war?

[Geek, Esq.]

Here's a fuller explanation, CT:

"The problem was that the government did not have evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Judge Aguilar knew the false statements he made to the agents would go to a grand jury, thereby influencing the grand jury’s investigation and obstructing justice. Under the statute, to be guilty of obstructing justice, or of conspiring to obstruct justice, a person must act with the purpose of influencing, obstructing or impeding the “due administration of justice.” The Supreme Court has held that an investigation by federal agents does not constitute the “administration of justice” under the statute; there must be a grand jury proceeding or a court proceeding for the statute to apply."

Thus, the question would be whether the defendant knew that what he or she said would find its way in front of a grand jury.

If the agents said "anything you tell us will be heard by the grand jury" then there's obstruction.

[Sue]

Kate,

I saw that somewhere. I also saw the same thing last week. ;)

[Sue]

It is crazy. All of the newspapers, up to their eyeballs in this to begin with, keep reporting the story as if Wilson did not lie in his op-ed.