Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Woodward and His Source | Main | General Shinseki, Again »

November 20, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d8345b994e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Isikoff And Thomas Point To Armitage:

» Latest speculation on Plamegate leak from Sister Toldjah
With the revelation earlier this week that Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward learned of Valerie Plames identity about a month before Robert Novaks now-infamous column in which he mentioned Plames name, the spe... [Read More]

» Anti-Neocon Armitage in a Fitz of Trouble from Thoughts
According to JustOneMinute, we may have just witnessed the first major blemish on Richard Armitage's CV. Maguire, does a good job of assimilating the information out there and cutting away the noise. He postulates that Novak and Woodward's source for... [Read More]

» Who Is Woodward's Source? from The Political Pit Bull
A report by Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff in Newsweekspecu... [Read More]

» Woodward's Source: Richard Armitage? from Ace of Spades HQ
So hints Newsweek, and Tom Maguire suggests the reasons he -- "no partisan gunslinger" -- migh have leaked the tidbit. Bonus: He wasn't a supporter of the Iraq War (being Colin Powell's right-hand man). If he did the leaking at... [Read More]

» Speculation on Armitage in Plame Case from Hypotheses Non Fingo
I agree with JustOneMinute that if Armitage was the original source on Plame's identity, then it should be clear it wasn't from malicious intent. I don't know if Woodward's revelation actually helps Libby on the specific crimes he's charged with. I don... [Read More]

» Armitage Under the Microscope from The American Mind
Is Richard Armitage Bob Woodward's Deep Throat II? Tom Maguire has the analysis. "Sources of Confusion"... [Read More]

» Problem for the Conspiracy Theorists from BroncoBlog
The Left has been going on & on & on about how poor Joe Wilson was smeared by big bad Dick Cheny & Karl Rove. But what if in fact it wasn't someone in the White House, what if it... [Read More]

» Problem for the Conspiracy Theorists from BroncoBlog
The Left has been going on & on & on about how poor Joe Wilson was smeared by big bad Dick Cheny & Karl Rove. But what if in fact it wasn't someone in the White House, what if it... [Read More]

» BLOG: Quick Links 11/25/05 from Baseball Crank
*David Pinto notes some ridiculous puffery by Scott Boras about Johnny Damon, including an assertion that Damon is somehow better than Rickey Henderson. Of course, he's just advocating for his client, but there's a difference between honest and dishone... [Read More]

» My quasi-inside dirt on the Plame Game from Daniel W. Drezner
Steve Clemons also attended the Princeton conference on liberal internationalism. Today he reports as follows: [O]ne other who was there was former National Security Agency Director Bobby Ray Inman. Here is where it gets complicated. Inman told many of... [Read More]

» My quasi-inside dirt on the Plame Game from Daniel W. Drezner
Steve Clemons also attended the Princeton conference on liberal internationalism. Today he reports as follows: [O]ne other who was there was former National Security Agency Director Bobby Ray Inman. Here is where it gets complicated. Inman told many of... [Read More]

Comments

Patrick R. Sullivan

'...undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. '

No kidding?

So what does Fitz's not indicting anyone over that do for the argument, geniuses?

Geniuses

We do not appreciate your tone, Mr. Sullivan.

clarice

Armitage as the source is the best possible outcome for Libby,I think--second only to Vallely's testimony that Wilson outed Plame to him..(How's the betting going on Libby,TM?)

richard mcenroe

No, dammit! It was Bush ! BUUUUUUUUUSH!

Oh, sorry, aren't we on House rules now?

sideshow joe

TM still thinks it's Cheney!

AcademicElephant

Armitage rings pretty true to me. And it begs the question, just what kind of ship was Powell running over there at State?

(insert your preferred "leak" pun here.)

clarice

I'm thinking Jonah Goldberg has a point--In this new gj Fitz will find out it is impossible to trace such a widespread story to its ultimate source..the media will never call for such an investigation..no prosecutor will ever touch one of these..and Fitz is going to drop the whole effort..

Now, it would be in the media's interest to volunteer (without naming sources) to come in and tell when they first heard it and descibe whether or not it was from anyone in the WH or from Wilson his wife or allies..Let's end this nonsense..

Truzenzuzex

Hmm...

If Armitage is the source, wouldn't Fitzgerald want to know if he discovered about Wilson/Plame's involvement from the now-infamous classified memo? If he did, couldn't he be liable under 18 CFR 793, especially if Fitzgerald determines he is at the top of the food chain?

If Armitage is on the hook, what does that mean for Libby? Part of the theory from the right is that there was no underlying crime, but if Armitage is the source, it seems to me that he could be indicted under 18 CFR 793, and there you would have your underlying crime.

And perhaps this could explain why Libby wasn't charged with disseminating classified info to unauthorized people - because Fitzgerald couldn't that he was the first source.

Of course, that isn't what he said in his news conference...

SteveMG

undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. '

Not necessarily. It's certainly conceivable - indeed likely - that the State and VP's office had different agendas when leaking Plame's status.

I.e.:
Armitage - "Woodward, here's what these screwups at the Agency did"

versus

Libby - "Judy/Marc/Novak, here's what these bastards at the Agency did trying to undermine us"

The infighting, after all, was between CIA and the W.H. specifically VP and not between Langley and Foggy Bottom.

Although I've never really believed in the neocons-outed-Plame-to-get-at-critics- argument. Never made sense.

SMG


clarice

I wrote up something on this for AT the other day with Neuro's permission--The UK Times piece on Hadley was nonsensical--Macsmind has a blurb on it and the background of Smith who co-authored it.

Truzenzuzex

SteveMG:

Not necessarily. It's certainly conceivable - indeed likely - that the State and VP's office had different agendas when leaking Plame's status.
The point, though, is that once she was outed by Armitage, it is concievable (and in my opinion, likely) that the source of the information for Libby and Rove were not government sources.

That kind of renders the whole idea of an adminstration-wide conspiracy to "leak" Plame's name unlikely. Rove and Libby could have simply decided that getting the press talking about Plame's role in the Wilson trip could not but help the administration. After all, "nepotism" involving an administration critic is certainly something the administration would want the public to know.

topsecretk9

If Armitage is the source, wouldn't Fitzgerald want to know if he discovered about Wilson/Plame's involvement from the now-infamous classified memo?

I am not qualified to know if this is true or not, and I don't know if this effects your point, but might this (Armitage) explain Colin Powell's adamant statement recently (but before this Woodward bombshell) that the Memo did not name Plame by name? Especially if Armitage was Novak's source too.

TP

Armitage might be pressed to find a non-official source for his knowledge of Wilson/Plame. I'll bet he can do it. The Kristof article on May 6 would have made the gossip mill at the State Department work and Armitage goes back to the Bush I days. I still think Scowcroft, among others will prove a source of non-official information on the Wilsons for Realists in the State Department. I don't care what kind of differences the Realists have with the NeoCons, if they are under oath, they are not going to lie to protect somebody else.

clarice

Wilson/Plame were close to Scowcroft and DoS (Plame had recently been switched from there IIRC; Wilson had worked there and, in fact, said he'd contacted DoS about his trip to Niger before he left on it..Of course, there are lots of non-official sources there.

Interesting point about Powell's statement that Plame's name was not in the memo..

SteveMG

she was outed by Armitage, it is concievable (and in my opinion, likely) that the source of the information for Libby and Rove were not government sources.

Hmm, but the record (such as it is) is that Woodward never wrote a story on the leak and only told Pincus, who himself says he doesn't remember Woodward informing him of the information. Pincus, then, couldn't have passed it on to other reporters or officials.

Essentially then, the leak to Woodward went nowhere. Unless Woodward (and Pincus?) told other reporters and officials and forgot about it.

Second, clearly Libby didn't first learn about Plame's status from a reporter. There were, I believe, at least 5 instances where he was told about her role - from Big Time, the CIA, Hadley and I believe two other sources.

Anyway, my major point was that we could fairly argue that the motivation to leak Plame's status was different for State/Armitage then VP/Libby.

SMG

Syl

finding the source of the source.

Sheesh.

this goes back to the various threads of various 'leaks' and how reporters would put two and two together, or not.

Mrs. wilson is CIA
Mrs. Wilson is CIA and was involved in sending him.
Mrs. Wilson is CIA WINPAC
Mrs. Wilson is CIA CPD

We STILL don't know how the name Valery Plame got in there.

topsecretk9

TP
REALLY, REALLY, REALLY (did I say that enough?) Good point! There may have been many friendlies to Wilson talking about the story at State. Wilson has admitted that supposedly when he heard the SOTUS he called people at STATE and asked if the Pres. was referring to Niger and said they better check into it.

Also, Wilson's person(s) at State seemed somewhat sympathetic to Wilson and reassured Wilson it was probably some other intel. AND ALSO WIlson may have tipped Pincus and Kristof to these people at State to back up his story!!!!!

The realist may be at odds with the so-called neo-cons, but not necessarily on the same page as Wilson friendlies. Does that make sense?

WOW TP, that was good (did I say that enough?)

Syl

On the "Valery Plame" bit Novak said he could have gotten it out of Who's Who but he didn't.

He could have been told the name by the mysterious stranger, who turned out to be a friend of Wilson.

But Judy had something in her notebook. Valery Flame.

Other than Judy and Novak we have NO clue as to how that name got into any stream. None.

clarice

Well, even the indictment doesn't say Libby or Rove told anyone (unless you think I heard that, too is divulging anything sugnificant) .

He's charged with lying and obstructing justice for not correctly testifying from where he first heard it ,and as more and more people come forward to say they heard it (and one that he heard it from Wilson himself), the case looks tissue thin.

sideshow joe

"Libby didn't first learn about Plame's status from a reporter"

That is true. But now what is not clear is if Libby could have heard it from Woodward (or another reporter) before Libby spoke to any of the reporters in question (Miller, Cooper, Russert).

What I do not understand legally, is if a gov't employee (e.g. Libby) hears info from another gov't source (e.g. Hadley) and shortly thereafter also hears the same info from a non-governmental source (e.g. Woodward) and then passes the info on to other reporters (without saying he has confirmed it from gov't sources but rather says he heard it from reporters), is that a crime? Assume that the info may not be and is not known to be classified.

I do not believe Libby ever denied hearing about Wilson's wife from government sources, he just recalls hearing it from reporters first.

TP

TS. Thanks. I'm sure it will be shot down later, but it sure does put a lot more fish in the water.

clarice

TP, TS-is the greatest sleuth, her well-deserved praise for your idea is something of value.

Jim E.

Except for writing that Woodward knows his source is the same as Novak's source, the Isokoff piece doesn't seem (to me, anyways) to have any actual reporting in it. It appears to be based on speculation. The speculation looks reasonable, but that's all it seems to be.

Here's an English newspaper that claims Hadley is the source. Who knows, maybe they're merely plagiarizing Rawstory. But they base their claim on "lawyers close to the case." For what it's worth:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1880016,00.html

TM

SMG:

Anyway, my major point was that we could fairly argue that the motivation to leak Plame's status was different for State/Armitage then VP/Libby.

I agree - the CIA was caught in a crossfire, having been too hawkish for State and too dovish for Cheney.

And Libby is looking a bit better on TradeSports - from low 50% to mid 40% probability of conviction.

topsecretk9

TP
I don't think it will be shot down...I think you just figured out where this is all leading and I suspect it is leading straight to the Wilson's doorstep.

Wilson called his friends at State. He has stated that he and Val were in contact with and very fond of Scowcroft, and close with Rand Beers and Richard Clarke (via Rand).

The chances of any of these guys running around touting Wilsons information from his call are very likely and in the sense of adding Valerie working at CIA as a validation AND many at State are already aware of the trip because when they went to the meeting at CIA SHE INTRODUCED WILSON .

And I bet that if Amritage is the source he will say that he was told this by various people within State before this memo.

and much more I am sure.

Jeff

might this (Armitage) explain Colin Powell's adamant statement recently (but before this Woodward bombshell) that the Memo did not name Plame by name? Especially if Armitage was Novak's source too.

I was thinking the same thing. Plus consider the fact that so many members of the Bush administration have broken their solemn pledge not to discuss the case in order to issue denials that they were Woodward's source, which might be explained by their desire to simultaneously narrow the field for members of the press and fan those members' desire to know who it was, so that eventually Armitage is revealed. However, if, as both Woodward himself in Howell's column in the WaPo today and Isikoff and the other doof at Newsweek both suggest, Armitage were both Novak's source and Woodward's, and that was known chez Bush, wouldn't the White House have taken the same sorts of steps to put the press on the trail of Armitage as Novak's source way back when? It could be too that Armitage and Powell are playing the same game of fanning the press' interest in order to keep them on the trail leading to Hadley, say.

Whoever it is, they're in deep trouble, at least for reasons laid out by the Anonymous Liberal in the previous thread, and possibly for reasons specified by Truz. above. And if it is Armitage, it shows either that he was not the source for the Aug. 25 LAT article cited by talkleft and TM here, or he was shamelessly lying through his teeth.

Jeff

TP - Best as I can see, your theory is completely at odds with the one floated by TM in his post, right?

TM

Oh, my wild speculation du jour explaining Woodward's notion that he told Pincus about this in June - what Woodward is misremembering is that his source told him that his source had also told Pincus in June.

And that is not something anyone has asked Pincus, or that he has ever denied.

That does not fit with Woodward's statement, of course"

I testified that after the mid-June 2003 interview, I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. Pincus does not recall that I passed this information on.
boris

I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst.

There does not seem to be an inkling in any of this that anyone knew her job was sensitive information. If it were not for the effect it had on Wilson's credibility, pro or con, it would not have been particularly memorable for it's own sake. In hindsight that information takes on a level of importance orders of magnitude greater.

owl

I think it came from Wilson and Plame to Kristof/wife to DNC. Then all reporters happen to also have wives w/DNC connections. So...my point....it didn't have to come from Armitage, first. Probably did but can't quite let loose of Wilson going to work for Kerry (May 3) and all those reporter/wives connections. Woodward said gossip.

Jeff

But now what is not clear is if Libby could have heard it from Woodward (or another reporter) before Libby spoke to any of the reporters in question (Miller, Cooper, Russert).

This is precisely what Fitzgerald appears to have been looking into, among other things, in questioning Woodward. However, if we can trust Woodward's account of his testimony and his testimony itself, as well as what Pincus has said, it is clear that Libby did not hear from Woodward or another reporter who heard from Woodward. Woodward says the only person he told the info he learned about Wilson's wife was Pincus, and Pincus says he never received such information. So regardless of the efforts of Libby's lawyers, Woodward's testimony is not helpful.

Syl

Heh

Pincus does not recall that I passed this information on.

Because Pincus learned it from someone else and doesn't remember Woodward mentioned it too.

clarice

[quote]And Libby is looking a bit better on TradeSports - from low 50% to mid 40% probability of conviction[/quote]

That's the most significant news I've heard all day, TM.

Personally, we should just watch the market and ignore the media..LOL

clarice

TS--of course. If you doubt that Kristof and Pincus didn't know about Plame being Wilson's wife, you have to ignore the fact that Kristof said he had lunch with both of them before he wrote the first story and that Pincus reports being at a BBQ with both of them at Wilson's house. They didn't just take the word of a washed up "envoy" about the trip--and either Plame confirmed it (revealing she worked at the Agency) or gabblers at DoS who Wilson pointed them to, did..Round up the whole town, Fitz Let the Rumpus Being!

JM Hanes

Libby's problem is not who he heard it from originally. In order to pass the story along without breaching security he had to be able to attribute it to non-administration sources, i.e. he was passing along info in the public domain, not officially confirming it.

Everybody in the Administration was probably talking about it, and Libby might have been told by a third party or someone else in the Administration (or even pretty easily assumed) that reporters were already in the know. I suspect that his real problem was that no reporter actually told him directly.

If he decided it was better to risk a charge of perjury than getting nailed on a national security charge, then it became a question of picking someone who showed up in the records -- and someone who was the most likely to have known already. Given the Mitchell pipeline, Russert was an obvious choice. Consider the difference it would make if Russert were saying I didn't tell Libby, but yes, I knew about it. Or I knew about it, but I don't remember telling Libby about it.

JM Hanes

Make that, Libby's problem was not that he originally heard about Plame from administration sources.

Jeff

Nicely put, JM Hanes.

clarice

TM! Where do you get this from?

what Woodward is misremembering is that his source told him that his source had also told Pincus in June.

And that is not something anyone has asked Pincus, or that he has ever denied.

TP

Jeff, I don't necessarily think
I am at odds with TM. I haven't followed Pincus that close. My theory is that, like Libby, but to a lesser extent than Libby (because, unlike Libby, Armitage knows that Fitz is reluctant to indict under the espionage acts), Armitage might feel compelled to come up with a non-official source of information because he may have told investigators that he did not leak official information.

I think Pincus' source is one of Wilson's Linda Tripp type buddies in the WH, not State, but I will defer to TM on that.

clarice

Technically right, JM, but now take a pen and paper and outline the opening statements of the Prosecutor and the Defense.

For the defense will certainly argue that since it was not illegal for the Administration types to have this information and since they didn't out Plame let alone conspire to do so, he had no motive to lie. And since he did come forward and tell about the Cheney discussion it is far more reasonable to conclude that in all this chatter he simply forgot who he heard what from first, and in that respect hs seems no different than any of us or the prosecution witnesses.And when all the facts in the case are known no jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jeff

it is far more reasonable to conclude that in all this chatter he simply forgot who he heard what from first

This works, of course, if you don't pay attention to the specifics of the indictment with respect to what falsities Libby is actually accused of. It's not a matter of who heard what from whom first.

sideshow joe

Jeff,

You say "Woodward says the only person he told the info he learned about Wilson's wife was Pincus..."

But that is not quite the case. Woodward said "When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes."

So Woodward is saying it was possible that he told Libby, but he does not recall. But he does say that Libby did not tell him or else he would have put that comment in his notes.

I agree that the indictment is accusing Libby of lying about what he told reporters. But if the possibility is now out there that Libby did hear it from a reporter (Woodward) before he talked to the other reporters. I think it helps Libby's case that there is a possibility he heard it from a reporter before talking to the reporters in question. Does that exonerate Libby completely, probably not. It also helps that Woodward says Libby did not tell him when Libby alledgely knew the info at that time. Does it help the case for reasonable doubt? I think so.

JM Hanes

Clarice --
There's what I suspect may have actually happened, and then there is what I expect the defense will argue. I do tend to think that it probably never occurred to Libby that Plame might be covert, or even anonymous, or that he realized the potential legal repercussions till later in the game. Assuming this case ever gets to trial in our lifetimes, I doubt it will end in a conviction.

clarice

Don't forget that Woodward conversation with Libby took place on June 23. And that happens to be the very same say >ibby talked to Judy Miller who he apparently thought was his first source.

clarice

Judy had forgotten about the June 23 discussion. Libby obviously gave that up to the gj --for some reason, I'd argue , he remembered the date but confused the reporter.

Jeff

So Woodward is saying it was possible that he told Libby, but he does not recall.

Untrue, but undoubtedly what LIbby's defense team will try to suggest. The trouble is, there's also a prosecutor in the courtroom, and he will point to the actual facts: Namely, it is possible because Woodward had knowledge of Plame, but in order to believe Woodward actually passed info about Plame to Libby, you have to believe: 1)Woodward's memory is faulty; 2)he asked Libby and Libby said absolutely nothing in reply, since Woodward's notes have nothing about it, and he says they certainly would have had Libby said anything about it; and 3) Libby also failed to remember this very same thing, which is highly exculpatory for him.

Jeff

Judy Miller who he apparently thought was his first source.

clarice - I've never heard anything to that effect. Where are you getting the info that libby thought Miller was his first source?

Dwilkers

I'm going to try to reign in my enthusiasm for Armitage.

Its simply be too rich. It would blow up virtually everything that's been said about this by the media, Wilson and the left for the last 3 years. It would make this the biggest political hoax of my lifetime.

It can't be true.

sideshow joe

"1)Woodward's memory is faulty; 2)he asked Libby and Libby said absolutely nothing in reply, since Woodward's notes have nothing about it, and he says they certainly would have had Libby said anything about it; and 3) Libby also failed to remember this very same thing, which is highly exculpatory for him."

Well Pincus will be happy to testify as a defense witness to #1. As far as #2, why did Woodward even say there was a possibility then. On #3, we alread know Libby have a faulty memory :) plus it if Woodward mentioned in passing in a long list of questions and Libby did not respond and it is exculpatory, it goes to now assisting in the crappy memory defense.

Serge

Hey, Is this a serious blog?
What kind of title it is:
"Isikoff And Armitage Point To Armitage"
???

boris

Untrue, ... in order to believe Woodward actually passed info about Plame to Libby

Claiming something is "untrue" because of "what you have to believe" is a little too strong. If Libby dodged a question about Wilson's wife from BW that would not necessariy count as "saying something about it". After all if that was the very first time it came up unofficially Libby could not use the "I heard that too" line.


Truzenzuzex

SteveMG:

Hmm, but the record (such as it is) is that Woodward never wrote a story on the leak and only told Pincus, who himself says he doesn't remember Woodward informing him of the information. Pincus, then, couldn't have passed it on to other reporters or officials.
True, but let's assume for the nonce that Woodward's source was Armitage. Woodward claims that his source informed him in a casual, offhand way.

Who else did his source tell in a casual, offhand way? One would rather doubt that Woodward would have been the only recipient of that comment given the news of the day at that time, and all the buzz.

sideshow joe

LOL Serge. I didn't notice that before. But I say if Armitage is pointing toward himself, then he must be the one!

Truzenzuzex

JM Hanes:

Libby's problem is not who he heard it from originally. In order to pass the story along without breaching security he had to be able to attribute it to non-administration sources, i.e. he was passing along info in the public domain, not officially confirming it.
Well now, hold on there just a sec.

It doesn't matter where he heard it first if he didn't have reason to know it was classified.

sideshow joe

Off topic, but AP is reporting...

"Al-Zarqawi May Be Among Dead in Iraq Fight"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&printer=1;_ylt=AglsTyJnsdtmZIYN.kbPD18UewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

I know we have heard this before, but at least it is a major media source this time.

Sue

What if Woodward did in fact mention it to Libby and Libby didn't have anything additional to add? Or said I'll check it for you? Or in fact didn't respond to the question, i.e., changed the subject or whatever, would Woodward have necessarily scribbled that down? To answer that, you would have to know what Woodward's SOP is.

Sue

Truz,

I believe Libby had reason to question whether it was classified, since he didn't want to discuss it on a non-secure line.

clarice

Jeff------,Judy Miller who he apparently thought was his first source.

clarice - I've never heard anything to that effect. Where are you getting the info that libby thought Miller was his first source?

If you recall Judy was to testify and provide documents only for a later period. After her testimony she provided new docs--of a June 23 meeting with Libby and returned to the gj to testify.

Since the SP was confined to questioning her only about the later perios, we speculated about how this earlier meeting became a subject of inquiry.and I thin many of us believed that Libby disclosed it in his last appearance so the SP raised it with Miller. Miller had apparently forgotten about that meeting.


As to Woodward and Libby on June 23--let's be clear..He said he intended to question Libby about Plame and had her name in his notes but doesn't BELIEVE he did..that Libby had said nothing about her and that is confirmed in his tapes..So, he might have asked--that is disclosed this to Libby on June 23 though Libby did not reply --that is ,Disclose ---it to Woodward.

clarice

owl

Unless Russert has a tape, why do you believe him?

Gary Maxwell

Wow almost LLL troll free. It must really suck when the arrow starts pointing to State Dept moderates, plus the sting is fresh from the Murtha amendment drubbing. Not to mention DeLay is soon to be back as majority leader in the House.

Lesley

Owl, that part about Russert having a tape has bothered me. Clarice mentioned there are laws pertaining to taping phone conversations, ie whether they can be used in court.

That said, I can't imagine, in this day and age, any insider (press or government) in DC who wouldn't have scrambling devices on ALL their phones.

Syl

Jeff

in order to believe Woodward actually passed info about Plame to Libby, you have to believe:

1)Woodward's memory is faulty;

Or believe Woodward is lying when he says he doesn't remember.

2)he asked Libby and Libby said absolutely nothing in reply, since Woodward's notes have nothing about it, and he says they certainly would have had Libby said anything about it;

or Libby simply said 'I heard that too' which is nothing so Woodward didn't bother writing that down.

3) Libby also failed to remember this very same thing, which is highly exculpatory for him.

Libby remembered he heard it from a reporter, he just forgot which one.

Marcel

Woodward states that he has no recollection of Libby telling him about Wilson’s wife in 2 conversations – on June 23 and June 27, 2003.

This could indicate that Libby was not actively putting out the story. Or it may be that Libby knew that Woodward had already been told about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA. (Woodward claims to have learned about it in “mid-June”).

Syl

Actually, whoever Libby heard it from, who did he pass it to?

Who do we know Libby passed info to concerning Wilson's wife is Cia? I mean this is sooooo basic. Without that motives and what, what and when are meaningless.

Miller and who?

Annie

Sue: Libby had reason to check out its classification in any event. That's what comes with security clearance.
I don't think Fitz was as far off as some of these posts post.
We'll see.

Rob W

The Sunday Times of London is reporting it is Hadley. They're the first major newspaper to so report.

topsecretk9

--about Wilson’s wife in 2 conversations – on June 23 and June 27, 2003.

This could indicate that Libby was not actively putting out the story. --

Wasn't Libby's meeting with J.Miller on June 23 ALSO? If so, then that does seem to stifle the 'pushing the story" storyline, additionally makes it more plausible the subject only came up with Miller because of Miller's interest (IIRC she was inquiring about some aspect of the Niger story)...so is does become more obvious why Libby moved to point out the Veep didn't arrange the trip.

a.k.a. Libby is only participating in the story when it is brought up by reporters

cathyf

italics off?

clarice

Rob, that isan old rehashed and wrong story..

creepy dude

"Wow almost LLL troll free."

Gresham's law, Maxwell.

Kate

Judy Miller was allowed to protect other souces and just answer questions about Libby. That seems like a big mistake now. Seems like there were the expendable-Libby and Rove; the protectable-Armitage; and the saints-Wilson and Plame.

Why did Fitzgerald limit his investigation so early to Libby and Rove and spring a perjury trap. It's almost Like David Corn's suggestion became the accepted Narrative.

cathyf
in order to believe Woodward actually passed info about Plame to Libby, you have to believe:

1)Woodward's memory is faulty;

Or believe Woodward is lying when he says he doesn't remember.
Or, alternatively, you have to believe that none of these people thought that the factoid was particularly significant until weeks later when Corn printed Joe Wilson's squawkings. No one has to be lying. No one's memory has to be faulty. They could simply be acting like normal non-autistic people and discarding unimportant information.

cathy :-)

topsecretk9

Kate

Maybe Libby's just the sacrificial lamb to get the ball rolling. More people outside the WH have been talking and coming out of the woodwork since the indictment (an indictment that did not include the underlying crime) than seems during the entire investigation.

TP

Fitz's theory of the case was that he was investigating a whistleblower being punished by government officials for blowing the whistle. Libby threw sand in his eyes. Isn't that it? He makes a deal with the press so he can prove his case.

I wonder if he even bothered to find out that Wilson was working for the Kerry campaign.

Sue

TS9,

I think all the reporters knew she wasn't covert. I base that partly on a hunch and partly on the news media's documents filed with the court. I think, based on their understanding that she wasn't covert (they knew the story without being told by Libby/Rove etc.) that many reporters did the same thing Woodward did. Hunkered down and waited it out. The situation changed dramatically when Libby was indicted. We'll see how many reporters (if any) pop their heads up with a story.

Kate

That's the problem with Fitz. He should not have developed a theory. He should have followed the facts.

He bought into Corn's narrative about the mean neocon White House going after poor Joe Wilson.

In the course of his total focus on Libby and Rove and setting a perjury trap for them, he totally botched his investigation.

Also seems like he was intimidated by the reporters. Tim, you can just tell me your side of the conversation. Judy, you don't have to reveal your other sources.

I'm not impressed.

topsecretk9

Sue

Yes I agree. The indictment had a chilling effect in reporter land because it ensured a vigorous defense and that is the hook.

topsecretk9

Kate

I am not an expert, but I would venture that reporters (with journalistic privilege blah blah) are about the hardest bunch to get to, both in terms of time and limits.

TM

Hey, Is this a serious blog?
What kind of title it is:
"Isikoff And Armitage Point To Armitage"

Well, it must be a blog, because you won't get that kind of headline at a big-time paper.

JM Hanes

Truse

"It doesn't matter where he heard it first if he didn't have reason to know it was classified."

I was making a distinction between being classified and being covert. Considering how much sand Fitz himself has been throwing in our eyes on this one (uses the colloquial expression about her cover being blown, but doesn't ever say she was officially covert), I'm sure he did the same throughout the investigation. In other words, Libby had to assume the higher crime was in play (and conceivably could still be, if in fact she was covert, which I doubt).

Kate

TS9-you are probably right. And Fitzgerald went with DOJ guidelines on the media. At least he put one in jail, but he let the problem with the media botch his investigation.

Plus: do we know who Miller's other sources were; and do we know who Pincus' source was.

TP

Isn't it entirely possible that Judy's source was Armitage?

Kate

TP-if that's the case, why did Fitzgerald allow her to protect her source.

I've read that Fitzgerald decides who did something wrong and then gets them on some charge.

I think that's how he blew this investigation.

Wilson ...poor whistleblower indeed!

DougJ

Oh, man, Fitz is screwed, as are Pincus and Kristoff. I almost wonder if Fitz and Pincus might themselves soon face a probe.

Sue

Something isn't clear here. If *Armitage* told Woodward, did he wait until after the op-ed to tell Novak because Novak asked him? That is if Novak/Woodward share the same source? When did Novak start researching the story? Before the op-ed or after?

Because if *Armitage* is the source, it would seem he was shopping a story for State. Does that make it a conspiracy if both State and the WH were shopping the same story? And would State cooperate with the WH to shop the story? (((shaking my head in confusion)))

Sue

I need cheat notes. I can't keep up! Who exactly did Libby and Rove call and tell them Wilson's wife was CIA? I either never knew or forgot.

TP

Kate, Possibly, he didn't need it for his case and she forgot anyway. It also sounds like Woodward's source was a lot more particular about the terms of the waiver than the WH people. It doesn't look like Libby or Rove precluded the reporters from talking or writing about them.

TP

Sue, I think the theory is that State and the WH didn't get along well enough to conduct the same foreign policy, much less a smear campaign. : ^ )

Syl

Sue

I need cheat notes. I can't keep up! Who exactly did Libby and Rove call and tell them Wilson's wife was CIA?

You and me both.

Libby: all I can see is something with Miller. Miller called Libby, no?

Rove: all I can see is something with Cooper at the tail end (after Novak had submitted his story). Cooper called Rove, no?

This whole thing smells even more now than it did in the beginning.

Otherwise it's just talking to each other and other members of the administration.

Kate

Sue: Rove - Cooper and Novak (second source)
Libby - Miller and Cooper

I'm not sure who Pincus' source was...let's make him talk LOL!

cathyf

Sue and Syl -- I don't see that Fitzgerald's timeline asserts that Libby (or Rove) initiated any of the conversations with reporters where the indictment asserts that Plame was identified. Yes, Libby called Russert, but Fitzgerald claims that no Plame info was transmitted and that Libby lied when he described pretending to Russert that he didn't know about Wilson's wife.

cathy :-)

owl

It stinks. What I hold against Fitz is his little story that could have been written by the MSM....or DNC...or Wilson....or evidently half of the CIA.

Did he fail to notice that all those reporters who have been in that town following these issues, KNOW other people? Did he not notice they ALL have ties to the DNC, including Wilson? It's his little story that makes me go off. Is it legal for a SP to go on TV and mislead on purpose? I know they can do it to set a trap but could he go this far? So what is left? To tell that story he had to think Wilson working for DNC nothing. All the reporters and Wives being Democratic.....again nothing. I just don't get it. A blind man now knows that Wilson and Plame outed her to Kristof and Pincus.

topsecretk9

TP- That was funny!

Syl-

Not only did Cooper call Rove, it was just hours before Tenet made his statement on the 11th---Rove just said "wife works for CIA, set up trip--DON"T GET TOO FAR OUT ON WILSON" and then what does Cooper do 6 days later? IGNORES Tenets statement in the context Rove told him and gets "far out on Wilson" because David Corn wrote his ESP article. SHEESH.

Syl

Kate

I don't count:

Libby:Cooper
Rove:Novak

'I heard that too' is meaningless.

Sue

Well, alrighty then. Cleared that right up. :)

The original story was the WH was shopping the story around to reporters to punish Wilson. Has a reporter been found that received a phone call from Libby/Rove? I realize Fitzgerald didn't go that route, apparently because there was no route to go there, but the investigation has been conducted along that route.

Any clearer now? :)

owl

How did David Corn get his ESP?

Kate

Sue-it's amazing how that story has become the CW now. I was watching Eric Burns on Fox News Watch and the ignorance on this topic was appalling.

He framed the debate with...Wow! The White House really wanted this story out about Plame.

I wrote him an e-mail and said that if the WH really wanted the story out then by Woodward's account alone they are doing a poor job since out of 4 conversations only 1 mentioned Plame and that was casual and offhand.

The media is biased but what is really scary is their incompetence.

boris

Syl,

I thought Libby:Cooper was "I heard that too".

Did you mean:

Libby:Miller
Rove:Novak

Syl

Sue

Any clearer now? :)

Yeah. Like this investigation is about the blind, the deaf, and the dumb.

Fitz: Blind to it all

Libby: Deaf as to what reporters said to him

Reporters: Dumb, as in no-speaky to anyone

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame