A Great Day For Karl Rove!

Byron York tells us that Karl Rove is back with Special Counsel Fitzgerald before the grand jury for the fifth time (more here).  [Here is the AP by Pete Yost.]

The NY Times has coverage as well, and they are confused, or confusing:

In his initial testimony to the grand jury, in February 2004, Mr. Rove failed to disclose that he had ever discussed the issue of Valerie Wilson, a C.I.A. operative, with any reporters. Mr. Rove came forward months later to change his story, acknowledging that he had a phone conversation with Matt Cooper of Time Magazine in the summer of 2003 that eventually turned to the subject of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ms. Wilson's husband.

Mr. Rove said he had forgotten the call, one of hundreds he participates in each day. Lawyers for Mr. Rove say he will be exonerated in the case, in part because he volunteered details of his conversation with Mr. Cooper.

Tht Times is focusing on Rove's grand jury testimony but what about Bob Novak?  Jane Hamsher has a good round-up of reporting on Karl's early testimony, where he forgot about saying "I heard that, too" to Novak in his initial FBI testimony.  That said, if I recall correctly the conventional wisdom is that Rove noted his Novak chat in his first grand jury testimony.

The Anon Lib had a good reprise of the missing Hadley e-mail.

I hope to have more later.  As to why this may be a good day for Rove - as I recall, prosecutors are discouraged from bringing to the grand jury folks that have decided to indict, so presumably, a candle is still flickering for Karl.

And don't forget this - how can Karl be indicted but not He Who Must Not Be Named?

It's worth keeping in mind that (very probably) someone leaked to Bob Woodward in June, then again to Bob Novak in July.  When queried by investigators, this Unnamed Government Official only mentioned his chat with Novak; it was not until November 2005 that the UGO remembered his leak to Woodward.

So, one might suppose that the UGO is in Dire Do-do, as we Bushies say, since he committed two criminal leaks topped by obstruction of Fitzgerald's investigation.

But one might be wrong - in a February 2006 hearing (42 p. transcript), Special Counsel Fitzgerald sought to protect this leaker from the defesne, and the judge concurred:

...[Judge] Walton said the source's identity is not relevant, and there is no reason to sully the source's reputation because the person faces no charges.

No kidding?  Not facing charges?  Perhaps a balky grand juror (this grand jury has never met with Karl) is wondering just why the UGO gets a pass while Karl faces indictment.  I know I am!

Rick Ballard with MJW tackled the UGO mystery, as did Emptywheel, by studying a redacted court filing.  They both lean towards Richard Armitage, then-deputy Secretary of State; I had been pushing that way myself.  Among the MSM, Evan Thomas and Mike Isikoff (don't flush this) also fingered Armitage.

Comments

[clarice]

I believe this is a reference to the redacted transcript of the Woodward interview with the interviewees name to be kept secret to protect his reputation.

[clarice]

Also new to me in the NYT article is the apparent demotion of Cooper to editor of the mag's web site.

[topsecretk9]

Sue and Kim

RATS, you're banned for the day...rest up sisters and/or brothers and/or brother and sister...tomorrow is a new open comment DAY!

Also, remember Seixon's comment fisking of Scary Larry he left at TPM Cafe (and I think Larry's site too) ? In AJ's comment's Seixon says that a fan of Larry's asked Larry if would respond to Seixon, and the 4 year EXPERT said?

-- OH YEAH, HE"S GONNA RESPOND TO ALL THE OBFUSCATION, OH YEAH THE EXPERTS GONNA RESPOND, YEAH BUT THERE IS SO MUCH OBFUSCATION THAT IT'S GONNA TAKE THIS **EXPERT** A WEEK, SO CHECK BACK NEXT WEEK WHEN THIS EXPERT, THIS CIA EXPERT, RESPONDS BECAUSE THERE IS JUST TOO MUCH OBFUSCATION TO RESPOND TO RIGHT NOW.--

paraphrasing here

[Jeff]

clarice - You have no basis for that belief, and there is substantial basis for thinking otherwise. The knockdown evidence is that Fitzgerald is referring to information that he has revealed to the defense but that he does not want revealed publicly. Yet we know that the defense does not officially know who UGO is. Therefore, the document referred to cannot be the transcript of Woodward's interview with UGO.

Furthermore, if you actually look at p. 9 paragraph 22 of Fitzgerald's 2-16-06 affidavit, and you look at what seems to have been redacted from the defense and then what was redacted from view by the public even though it had been seen by the defense, the odds are that it has to do with someone else entirely and other documents. In fact, I would bet that it has to do with Rove or Hadley. Which would be pretty funny, in light of the near hysteria the inaccurate reports of what the judge ruled with regard to UGO provoked around here.

[Tom Maguire]

SUE, LIKE KIM, SPINS BULLSHIT AND WANTS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
LARRY JOHNSON

IF there was a consistent application of that rule, LJ would ban himself next.

OK, I am going to struggle, briefly, with that transcript.

[ed]

This really says it all: "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation."

As to Matt Cooper, his move to Washington editor of Time.com was seen as a promotion by most blogs that reported it.

[Squiggler]

Last time I checked, DOJ was one of the biggest users of WordPerfect. I guess it goes back to the Microsoft anti-trust days .. who knows.

More likely that they believe it is a far superior, more fexible product and that they've been using it since the old DOS days, long before Microsoft became a household word or that Word was even remotely conceived.

Word Perfect Rules! (okay off my soapbox)

[MayBee]

Jeff- I misunderstood your 8:32 post. Yes, it's clear that the defense doesn't know Novak's source's name. It seems the judge rules that:

reach that point but we are not at that point now.
04 Obviously there has to be a showing of materiality in
05 order to warrant under Rule 16 this information being provided
06 clearly based upon what's been submitted to me and what was
07 submitted to me ex parte.
08 There is no indication that this information would in
09 anyway amount to Brady and I don't conclude that it satisfies
10 the materiality requirement. I just think it is too attenuated
11 to conclude that the revelation of this information would, in
12 fact, lead to information that would assist Mr. Libby in his
13 defense. So in reference to that particular request, it will
14 be denied
----
I am not certain why UGO remains such a secret and apparently of no interest to Fitzgerald as an obstructor or perjurer.

In that same section, it appearts that Libby says he remembers someone else that told him about Plame since his last Grand Jury testimony. Is that Woodward? Have we discussed that?

[MayBee]

not me

[clarice]

Jeff, what is MayBee's reference to?

[Jeff]

clarice - That is the passage where Walton is ruling against Libby's access to the identity of UGO a.k.a. official one. Note that, as Cecil said, it is on materiality grounds and he says nothing about not sullying UGO's reputation because he has not been charged.

[Tom Maguire]

From p. 13 of the .pdf:

23 So we anticipate this is going to be a hard job. But 24 we are, at least, entitled to the information in the possession 25 of the government that would enable us to do that. 00028 01 If you take official one, for example. Official one 02 -- we know of two reporters that official one talked to. And 03 you know, and I don't mean, and by the way we talked about 04 innocent accused. And certainly I'm not here to tell you that 05 official one did anything wrong whatsoever. But we do know 06 that he did discuss Ms. Wilson with at least two reporters. 07 How many others did he discussed it with? How many 08 others discussed it with him? We don't have a single piece of 09 information from the government as to what official one said 10 about that. We presume that they have interviewed official one 11 and we presume that he has testified . But we don't know that 12 and we don't know a single thing that he has said about that. 13 How would we investigate? We would go talk to 14 official one. If official one won't talk to us, we would serve 15 him with a trial subpoena. Right now since we don't even know 16 who he is, we can't even serve him with a trial subpoena.

That reads to me like they want Official One's name, that they don't have it, that OO talked to two reporters, that the "innocent accused" conversation from about p. 2 applies to OO - what am I missing?

[MayBee]

Which would be pretty funny, in light of the near hysteria the inaccurate reports of what the judge ruled with regard to UGO provoked around here.

I can't agree with that. It is one thing to keep someone's name quiet if they are still under investigation. If I recally correctly, jeff, you argued the (possibly misreported) name-sullying reference meant UGO was still under investigation. I see absolutely no evidence of that, either.

The unique thing about UGO is that he is the source that started this whole investigation, he seems to have not told all to the grand jury (aka obstruct), and his name is still secret for one reason or another. I don't understand that, but if it wasfor the reason of maintaining his reputation, that would be a travesty.

It isn't so shocking if it is about someone not involved, or someone still under investigation.

[Syl]

There are many trees here and two forests. We're getting our forests confused (with a nod to ghostcat for the analogy).

Maybee's quote just above refers to UGO.

Tom's quote refers to Rove. (Official One)

It's in the public domain that Rove spoke to two reporters (novak and cooper) but it is not in open court records.

Walton rejected revealing UGO's name to Libby on materiality grounds.

Fitz put up roadblocks on reveailing Rove on grounds that the investigation isn't over so it's not fair to include Rove's name because he may not be indicted for anything.

(I still think UGO is material tho IANAL because of the chances UGO revealed Plame to more than two people. Only under coercion has UGO revealed his involvement. But that's fishing I guess. Libby's not allowed to fish.)

[Syl]

I think at this point Libby should confess:

(1)I told Judy Miller that wilson's wife works at the Bureau
(2)Russert and I didn't discuss mrs wilson at all
(3)Cooper told me there was this rumor going around and I told him 'I heard that too'.

Done.

Fitz and Libby's lawyers decide on a plea deal.

No jail.

One month of community service which entails Libby guarding the doors of congress and not allowing cynthia McKinney access.

[Jeff]

what am I missing?

You are missing that you are quoting Team Libby. You now want to make the argument that the claim that outraged everyone here to no end - that official one was deserving of protection because his reputation should not be sullied because he had not been charged - to Team Libby?!? Even as Team Libby obviously wants access to official one's identity? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And of course Team Libby is not saying that official one is the very same person they had been talking about on p. 2 of the pdf. If that were the case, there's no issue: Team Libby doesn't need access to his identity, since Fitzgerald has already revealed it to them. But as the whole point of Team Libby's argument is that they want access to official one's identity, I think it's safe to say that their allusion back to the earlier passage is to the principle of innocent accusedness, not to the particular person referred to there. And it makes perfect sense that they would insist on the point, since the last thing they want to do is to say that, yes, at the bottom of all of this there is a violation of the law in leaking Plame's CIA affiliation, only it was done by someone not in the White House.

[clarice]

Syl..you are wicked.But truthfully,it is hard to see that those three statements are material to anything.

Add, that Woodward says he may have told Libby and Rove and others may have told Libby about what reporters were saying and that Wilson was blabbing all over town , including to Senators who surely told some reporters, is it impossible to believe that Libby might have confused which reporters he heard it from and when.

[Syl]

Although, Tom, it does sound like UGO, doesn't it? Same circumstances, actually. Name redacted, two reporters, who else did he speak with? what exactly was said?

It could be either one.

But the terminology 'Official One' I think refers to Rove, not UGO.

And Libby's team does not know 'officially' who Official One is. They may know it's Rove, but they can't issue a subpoena to a name that is nowhere to be found in the court records.

[Syl]

Clarice

Ooops. Rove's name was revealed to team Libby?

If that's the case then Official One is UGO. Okay. We're back to one forest.

[Syl]

Jeff

Give me a break. That's what the WaPo said too. Stay off the outrage and lay it out point by point, quote by quote.

[MJW]

Neo: here is a problem with the analysis. They used Word to do the analysis. Last time I checked, DOJ was one of the biggest users of WordPerfect. I guess it goes back to the Microsoft anti-trust days .. who knows.

When the affidavit was first released, I compared nonredacted sections to WordPerfect versions, and the spacing is quite different. I'm virtually certain WordPerfect wasn't used.

[Syl]

Ignore my above messages. I can't tell a UFO from a flying saucer. It's all about UGO.

I've spent all this time reading the pdf (though my eyes glazed over halfway through the second half). After fighting Adobe changing my font in notepad AND IE just because I copied text to the clipboard, I'm back again.

I tell you, after reading this, I don't think anyone should ever be indicted until an investigation is closed. Makes this discovery stuff a lot harder. But then prosecutors would lose the ability to indict with the aim of jumping up the ladder.

I can see where Jeff's coming from with all the talk of protecting someone because the investigation is ongoing and he would be unfairly accused in the public eye. That was pretty much all that was said.

And it was Libby's lawyers who mentioned something about no crime committed.

BUT

Jeff missed something Fitz said.

Just before the judge ruled Libby would not get UGO's identity, Fitz said:

I think we go far
24 a field and jeopardize the rights of innocent people if we
25 start turning over an investigation of somebody else.

Why would fitz say that? What is its applicability here unless fitz means UGO is innocent. Which implies all that we've accused him of implying.

[Syl]

Now for the fun stuff. Though I think all this was caught during the original reading frenzy on that day.

Libby writes just like he speaks:

Libby's lawyer
11 Experience teaches that when it comes to Mr. Libby's
12 notes that transliteration and review process takes a long
13 time.

LOL

and this from fitz talking about the burden of obtaining more data from the gaps in the time period:

If you look at the burden here, I think we probably had about a portion of close to three months of notes that we've given because we have most of June and July. We have September. Maybe it is two and a half months. Going to 11
months, maybe four times that amount. It sounds like the notes from the portion we had were 500 pages and these are the hieroglyphics.

[Syl]

What happened to that tape?

What does fitz mean by sorta burned? is he claiming he sorta burned the tape and only the transcript remains? Maybe the tape would make the contested issue (what 'everyone knows it' pertains to) clear. But fitz sorta burned the tape?

04 THE COURT: Let me ask government counsel. Is there
05 anything in that transcript or tape recording whereby this
06 government official number one says something to the effect
07 that everybody in the media corps knows about this?
08 MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, now that we have sort of
09 burned what was sealed, my understanding of that conversation,
10 there are people talking over each other, my understanding is
11 that was a reference that everyone knows it, that Mr. Wilson is
12 the unnamed ambassador.

[Tom Maguire]

Tom's quote refers to Rove. (Official One)

Rove is Official A; What's on second.

Jeff - in the passage I cited, I am quoting Team Libby - good point.

However, they are clearly referring to the earlier conversation where the judge worries about tarnishing reputations. However, it may be true that they are not referring to the person under discussion earlier. Or, they might be - I don't see anything conclusive as yet.

However - the reporter may have been following along in court, picking up on non-verbal cues, and may have asked one of the participants just what that Kabuki was all about.

The idea that the transcript does not prove it, and therefore the reporter is wrong strikes me as a leap of hope, or faith.

[Squiggler]

It is nearly 4 AM and I've just finished fighting a major technical problem on a project I'm working on, so this may explain my following thoughts ...

The more I think about and learn about this case, the madder I find myself getting. I wish I had followed everything more closely from the git go, so that I don't always feel like I'm playing catch up ... however, that said, what I've learned so far isn't very convincing.

A recap:

-- I don't see any proof or indication that Plame was covert, and if her status was classified, it wasn't a secret.

-- Her husband, Joe Wilson, seems more at fault for her "outing" than anything said by any other third parties, WH or any other entity.

-- I think it is impossible to determine what exactly Libby is supposed to have lied about based on what is available publicly since we can't compare transcripts of witness statements against each other.

-- Inferences regarding the case can be tentatively made based on wording in the various filings and the indictment itself.

-- Nothing reported by reporters should be believed as being accurate. (Side note: years ago I was a cyber juror for the OJ case and we dissected that case on a daily basis both before and during the prelim and the trial and including all hearings. We poured over transcripts, evidence, and any other documents available to us ... there were 178 of us and at the end of the trial, we voted and the vote was 176 to 2 for acquital. Compare that against what I would bet the majority here believe regarding OJ, and I'll bet you are just as surprised as the public was the day the jury came back with not guilty. We were not surprised. 98% of your surprise is due to the biased or uninformed reporting that was done at the time. I mention this, because that is very likely what is going on now.)

-- The motives stated by media, anti-Bush factions, and to some extent Fitzgerald do not make sense in context with what the WH is really focusing on day to day, hour by hour.

-- Recent revelations regarding McCarthy and her associations is extremely disturbing. The feeling is growing in my gut that this whole Plame deal is a plot. I cannot believe I'm saying this as I'm usually very wary of conspiracy theories, but this just stinks. I want to know if Comey and Fitzgerald are part of the cabal or can Fitzgerald still be trusted? If he can still be trusted, then there is hope. And if there is some kind of plot afoot, then anyone testifying at odds with WH testimony has got to be viewed with much greater suspicion than up to now.

[Rick Ballard]

Squiggler,

A bit worse if everything is read in the context of the Rockefeller Memo. Party above country with sedition and subversion as tools of the trade.

[topsecretk9]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/27/D8H8ENMG0.html

Judge Won't Dismiss Case Against Libby
Apr 27 12:05 PM US/Eastern
By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

A federal judge refused Thursday to dismiss charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former top White House aide who was indicted on perjury and obstruction charges last year in the CIA leak scandal.

In a 31-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton turned down a motion by lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney's onetime top assistant, who challenged the authority of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to handle the case.

[maryrose]

Squiggler:
I feel that same anger and frustration. Fitzgerald needs to be scrupulously fair and I believe the entire picture has not been revealed yet. A worry I have is that the McCarthy cohorts are scrambling now to cover their tracks or have already retired and hope to evade discovery. Some eggs will need to be broken and some toes stepped on but this whole mess must come to the light of day.

[clarice]

Doug Hanson has a very interesting article on African yellowcake, McCarthy and Wilson.
Here are the concluding graphs:
Speaking of dealing in commodities, this whole affair brings us back to square one and Mary McCarthy. One of her previous employers was Beri, SA. Possibly by coincidence Beri provides a Mineral Extraction Risk Assessment service for up to 145 countries that are expected to show rapid growth in oil, gas, and mineral extraction capacity. If one had advance access to economic intelligence and had fostered close business ties over the years with uranium producers, huge financial gains would be possible. Could the Wilson-McCarthy-Africa connection may indicate another instance of US intelligence and Foreign Service personnel taking advantage of regulatory loopholes and lax security in third world countries for personal gain?

There have been many indicators since the Iraq War started that the CIA’s internal war against the administration is much more than ideological. For some in the CIA, the Global War on Terror is not just about the struggle for democracy and freedom to protect our national interest. http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5447

[Jeff]

However, they are clearly referring to the earlier conversation where the judge worries about tarnishing reputations. However, it may be true that they are not referring to the person under discussion earlier. Or, they might be - I don't see anything conclusive as yet.

First, if you look at the passage from Fitzgerald's 2-16-06 affidavit to which the earlier discussion refers, and the pattern of redactions, it can't be proven conclusively but it sure looks like they are more likely talking about Rove or Hadley than about Armitage. But second, the conlcusive evidence is a point of logic: the earlier discussion refers to a passage, and therefore a person, from Fitzgerald's 2-16-06 affidavit that Fitzgerald had already revealed to the defense, just under seal, and the dispute was over whether to publish a passage like that unredacted. By definition, then, that person cannot be known to be official one by the defense for the purposes of the courtroom argument -- even if it is Armitage, which it looks like it's not.

Furthermore, you simply can't take what the defense is arguing in an argument they lose as indicative of the rationale for the judge's ruling. The judge's ruling is on the basis of materiality and Brady. Yes, Fitzgerald mentions bringing innocent people in. But none of that supports the characterization in the Post that so outraged people here. The simply fact is that Walton gave no indication that he was acting to protect the reputation of official one and he makes no mention of official one not facing charges and therefore in need of protection.

Finally, even if he had, the context for Walton's earlier remarks about innocent accused or whatever you want to call them is in the context where an investigation is ongoing and therefore where it is unclear who will eventually be accused and who will not be. In fact, this adds to the richness of the likelihood that they are actually discussing Rove or Hadley in that context.

[boris]

this adds to the richness of the likelihood that they are actually

For Jeff probablilty is measured in emotion.

[JM Hanes]

Jeff

From the Washington Post on Feb.25th:

Defense attorneys in yesterday's hearing described the official as someone who did not work at the White House and was the source for two reporters. They said that one of those reporters had revealed in November that he learned about Plame from the official in mid-June 2003.

See the article for more details. The WaPo is not the only paper that reported it this way, and as far as I know, nobody's issued a correction either.

[Cecil Turner]

However, it may be true that they are not referring to the person under discussion earlier. Or, they might be - I don't see anything conclusive as yet.

Concur.

. . . it can't be proven conclusively but it sure looks like they are more likely talking about Rove or Hadley than about Armitage.

I'd say it clearly isn't Rove (though it may reference a conversation Rove had with the "someone who may be totally innocent"), since Rove is referred to twice elsewhere in the document. Hadley is a possibility, but I don't see why Fitz would single that paragraph out if it were him. And the affidavit had two sets of redactions, it's impossible to tell whether the name was present in the defense's version, though that's a sensible reading of the transcript. My best guess would be either UGO or one of the unnamed reporters whose documents were redacted on pp 15-16, but that's pure speculation. Insufficient data.

[JM Hanes]

Cecil

Just want to let you know I did read, with interest, your your last reply on Quirin etc. The discusssion was very useful in fleshing out the issues & rulings involved, much appreciated.

[Syl]

Where's the redacted affidavit?

Or can someone who has it, give us

Page 9 Paragraph 22

[Jeff]

Cecil - I haven't looked back at the mentions of Rove, but at least one of them is clearly a mistake. That is, it should have been redacted and wasn't.

JM Hanes - That's just a description of official one. No relevance to the issue.

[JM Hanes]

Jeff

Huh? Did you look at the article? It's describing the official in the Walton ruling. Is that not whom you were talking about?

[Jeff]

JM Hanes - Yes, but it begs the questions we're talking about all around.

[MJW]

Not that I think anyone will doubt that I long ago tried WordPerfect and found the spacing was wrong, but here's my comment about it.

[MJW]

Page 9, paragraph 22:

REDACTED
We have also produced to Libby the documents obtained from Cooper regarding his conversation with REDACTED

We have further provided Libby's defense team with a copy of REDACTED email to REDACTED referencing the convrersation with REDACTED
REDACTED

(As Jeff has pointed out, this obviously concerns Rove's conversation with Cooper and his email to Hadley.)

[Jeff]

Also, MJW, if you compare the pattern of the two different "redacted" stamps, one obviously from before the document was given to the defense and one from after (when Fitzgerald re-redacted it for publication purposes), which is what Fitzgerald and Walton were talking about, it makes it more likely that the redaction concerned Rove and/or Hadley.

[MayBee]

Yeah, that appears to be it. It is interesting that it is different than the way the WaPo reporter described it also in that Walton clearly said it was unfair to publicly bring in the name of someone that is innocent but still under investigation.

So next question. Why is Rove's name material to the defense, but not UGO's?

[Syl]

So next question. Why is Rove's name material to the defense, but not UGO's?

Well Rove and Libby had a conversation, no?

[MayBee]

Syl- thanks, I lose track sometimes.

[kim]

Now I say Joe Tomaytoe and you say Joe Tomahtah, kudasai.
==============================

[Cecil Turner]

I haven't looked back at the mentions of Rove, but at least one of them is clearly a mistake.

I'm not seeing that, but in any event, Rove's name coming out in this case would hardly be news. Hence Walton's statement wouldn't make sense, nor does the "totally innocent" descriptor seem apt. Perhaps Hadley, but I see no supporting evidence for him, either.

I'm also not convinced you can determine where the two-step redaction process is. Differing marks may be the result of two passes over the document in the same step of the process. Again, I think your reading is sensible, but hardly exclusive.

The discusssion was very useful in fleshing out the issues & rulings involved, much appreciated.

Thanks. I'm interested from the standpoint of someone trying to apply the rulings to real-life POW detention. (And obviously I'm not enthralled by trying to apply US civil law to combatants . . . but I find the cases fascinating.)

[MayBee]

Now I say Joe Tomaytoe and you say Joe Tomahtah, kudasai

ha!

[Jeff]

Cecil - None of this is decisive for the basic question, but for the record, it looks to me like the second mention of Rove in paragraph 39 should have been redacted, given the redaction of his identification as Novak's second source in the immediately preceding sentence, which the last sentence is explaining (and the parentheses in the sentence preceding that).

I agree that the different redaction prints (or sizes) could just be random or a result of space to be covered. I do suspect they track different rounds of redactions, since we know at least two of those took place. But again, that's not dispositive in any case.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . given the redaction of his identification as Novak's second source in the immediately preceding sentence . . .

Seems to me that's the redaction that's odd, since Rove as Novak's second source is hardly a mystery at this point. I'm trying to think of anything else that could fit in there, and failing miserably. (But at least I see what you're getting at now, thanks.)

I agree that the different redaction prints (or sizes) could just be random or a result of space to be covered.

Looks to me like there are at least three different sets. They probably do track somewhat, but I'd be reluctant to try to conclude anything from them.

[MJW]

Jeff: Also, MJW, if you compare the pattern of the two different "redacted" stamps, one obviously from before the document was given to the defense and one from after (when Fitzgerald re-redacted it for publication purposes), which is what Fitzgerald and Walton were talking about, it makes it more likely that the redaction concerned Rove and/or Hadley.

Jeff, I initially thought the same thing, but I think the redactions in paragraph 43 make it unlikely. The first (large) REDACTED is presumably either Woodward's or Novak's UGO, or more likely both's, while the third and fourth (small) REDACTEDs are Woodward's then Novak's UGO. I assume they were all redacted at the same time. I still think there may possibly be some pattern to the redaction stamps, beyond the size of the redacted area. The second paragraph 43 REDACTED is small, but redacts a large area. I'd like to know exactly how they're done. My guess is some kind of opaque tape.

[MJW]

Cecil, as odd as it may seem that Rove's name is still being redacted, since that cat's been out of the bag for so long, it is nevertheless true. The footnote on page 9 clearly refers to Rove (and "Rove" fits the space), yet his name is redacted.

[Cecil Turner]

It doesn't surprise me that Rove is being redacted in places he did something that isn't public knowledge . . . but the confirming source for Novak isn't one of those places.

[MJW]

Cecil, I don't think it's much less known that "Official A" in the indictment is Rove, and that's what the page 9 footnote is about. Also, the last lines of paragraph 39 says: "Mr. Libby indisputably knows at least one of Mr. Novak's sources: REDACTED. Mr Libby testified in the Grangd Jury that Rove told Libby that Novak was publishing a column about Wilson's wife before it was ever published." Not only does "Rove" exactly fit the redacted space, but there's no logical way the second sentence follows the first unless the first refers to Rove. It may surprise you and it may surprise me, but Rove's name is being redacted as Novak's confirming source (though it obviously slipped through in the case when a source wasn't explicitly being named).