Isikoff And Thomas Point To Armitage

Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek review the bidding in the Woodward leak mystery, and single out former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as a likely suspect:

So who is Novak's source—and Woodward's source—and why will his identity take the wind out of the brewing storm? One by one last week, a parade of current and former senior officials, including the CIA's George Tenet and national-security adviser Stephen Hadley, denied being the source. A conspicuous exception was former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, whose office would only say, "We're not commenting." He was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward's, and he fits Novak's description of his source as "not a partisan gunslinger." Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same.

If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson.

Motive and opportunity.  Let's start with opportunity - was Armitage in a position to pass along news of a Wilson and wife connection by mid-June?  From Jeralyn Merritt, we get this from the Aug 25 LA Times:

After a June 12 Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified "Secret" that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to "Wilson's wife."

Fair enough - Washington was buzzing about the June 12 Pincus story and the Kristof columns of May 6 and June 13 on the secret envoy that debunked the uranium reporting and discredited the Sixteen Words, and Armitage wanted the inside scoop.

And how about motive?  Let's accept their assertion that "[Armitage] had no motive to discredit Wilson."  However, the State Dept. had a strong motive to discredit the CIA.

As excerpted in this post, the State Dept (INR) representative at the meeting that launched the Wilson trip was skeptical that the trip would provide any useful intelligence, and was not impressed by the resulting Wilson report.

Furthermore, the INR / State Dept had been consistently more skeptical of the uranium reporting than the CIA.  However, in the hastily marshalled October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the INR dissent on the uranium reporting was lost in a footnote in a different section (SSCI Report, conclusion 17).

So, if asked about the Wilson trip being glorified by Kristof and Pincus, what might an informed person at State say?  After snorting derisively, they might say that on the uranium question, it was amateur hour at the CIA - they put together an ill-conceived and inconclusive trip, misplaced the timely INR dissent, mishandled the forgeries, and generally bungled the issue.

And as further evidence of the amateur-hour approach, the tidbit that Wilson was tapped for the trip by his wife may have been tossed in an amusing bit of supportive gossip intended to discredit the CIA, not Wilson.

Is that what happened?  Might be - Newsweek seems to be leaning that way.

MORE:  Add Condi Rice to the denials list.

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"
???