In The Bull's Eye

Steve Clemons reports back from a Princeton conference that, according to BobbyRay Inman, the man in Special Counsel Fitzgerald's bull's eye is... Richard Armitage.

Questions I can ask, but not answer (yet):

(1) Why would Inman know this?  OK, as "simply one of the smartest people ever to come out of Washington or anywhere", he may know this as part of knowing everything.  But maybe there is more.

(2) Do Inman and Armitage have bad blood?  For example, some quick googling hints at an Armitage/Perot/Inman ruckus on missing Vietnam POWs, but who knows?

(3) What did Inman actually say?  I have a pretty good opinion of Steve Clemons, who makes clear that he is delivering this news as testimony against interest.  However, Dan Drezner and Peter Beinart were among the illuminati cited as being at the Princeton conference where this news nugget was delivered - did they pick up on this?  They may not have, since Steve tells us that Inman "shared with some of us", perhaps away from his main presentation. [UPDATE:  Dan Drezner has lots on this - see below, or here.]

Let's excerpt Steve and press on:

Here is where it gets complicated. Inman told many of us a number of interesting things which I am going to treat off the record.

However, he said one very provocative thing about the CIA Valerie Plame outing investigation that I have confirmed that he has stated at other venues, publicly. I don't feel that Admiral Inman was guarded about his comments -- nor did he ask anyone he was speaking to to treat his comments with discretion.

So, I am only reporting this because he said it elsewhere.

...

What Inman shared with some of us -- and this was a repeated assertion from comments that I have confirmed that he made in Austin -- is that the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye is Richard Armitage.

I have written about Armitage many times in the past and hope that this rumor is incorrect. 

But I do believe that Armitage was possibly a key source for Dana Priest and Mike Allen early in the Plame outing story and wrote such in November 2005. I don't have more information on whether Armitage was Novak's source or not -- and what legal consequences there might be, if any, if that was the case. I always assumed that Armitage was cooperating closely with Fitzgerald and would not be in any legal jeopardy.

After all, Armitage was recently knighted and a new oil firm board member.

But Inman stating this matters.

As to the plausibility of Armitage having a legal problem - no kidding.  I have been whining for a while now about the Mystery Man who leaked to Woodward in mid-June, probably leaked to Novak, and then disclosed only his Novak interaction to the special counsel.  No obstruction/perjury charges?  No harm to national security?  Well, Inman says differently, but how does he know?

As to the plausibility of Armitage leaking the news of Wilson's spousal connection - there is some resistance to this notion by folks who can't grasp why Armitage would participate in a Cheney smear campaign against Wilson.

From the left, the Emptywheel tackled this - her short version is, Armitage mentioned the Cheney spousal pushback only to deride it. 

I mused about Armitage's motive and opportunity here; the short version is, Armitage mentioned the wife to take a swipe at the CIA - "ask the CIA about Africa and they call in their hubby from State anyway".  Less of a smear, more of a punchline.  And I still like this old post examining the history of the Novak/Armitage reporting relationship - they were friendly.

On the legal front, it is hard to square Inman's "Crosshairs" comment with this WaPo story telling us that the judge was going to keep Woodward's source secret since he did not face charges:

But Walton's decision to continue to protect the anonymity of one administration official, whom Libby's attorneys described as a confidential source about Plame for two reporters, one of them apparently Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, is a blow to Libby's case. Defense attorneys had said they needed to know the official's identity and the details of his conversations with the two journalists to show that Libby was not lying when he testified that many reporters knew about Plame's identity.

But 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.

Well - that might have meant "no charges at this time".  Or they may have been referring to someone else - the transcript is not crystal clear on this.

OOPS:  We are stopping, rather than ending.  In an earlier discussion, Jeff detailed ambiguities from the transcript and argued that the WaPo had this wrong, and that Judge Walton was protecting someone else; somewhere, I responded that future redactions to a subsequently-released document are discussed in the transcript, and may solve Jeff's puzzle.  Well, there is enough here for folks to get started, I hope.

UPDATE:  Dan Drezner confirms Steve Clemon's report and adds this:

1) I can confirm Inman's statements as Clemons reports them. I can confirm them because Inman made these assertions (and others that, like Steve, I will treat as off the record) to me and the others at my lunch table on the second day of the conference.

2) I would describe Inman's knowledge of this as coming from sources who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on these events. It's not simply that a former NSA head still has automatic insid info privileges.

and

4) Related to (3), it is my understanding that what has been blogged here is pretty much common knowledge inside the Beltway. I am genuinely surprised that it hasn't appeared anywhere else in the blogoshere.

Comments

[Seixon]

If Novak and Armitage are friendly, that might explain why he has been so damned quiet about his role in all of this. I'd probably have gone insane by now if I was Novak and couldn't really tell everyone just what in the hell actually happened. It's most likely Armitage who got wind of this wife business, and threw it out there for Novak and Woodward as a snappy criticism of the CIA.

Remember, Wilson's anonymous leaks contended that both Cheney's office and the State Department had received an alleged report about Wilson debunking the Niger forgeries. You can bet that the State Department was doing the same thing as the OVP, trying to debunk lies alleged against them by Wilson and his VIPS posse. Since INR was at the meeting where the Wilsons were in attendance, the State Department got to know about Mrs. Wilson on their own knowledge. Of course, they didn't know Mrs. Wilson's classified employment, it seems.

It looks like perhaps the CIA was incompetent in more ways than one...

[JohnH]

another question: if George Tenet approved the CIA referral, whom was he hoping to ensnare? Maybe CIA were aiming at Armitage, not Cheney/Rove.

This is way above my pay grade, but is there anyone who can opine on this?

[Cecil Turner]

I think number 3 is the big one: "What did Inman actually say?" "Crosshairs" might mean anything from the target of an investigation to a central player in the initial leak (where confirmation of Armitage as UGO would be news, but hardly a shocker). Without knowing his actual words, this is impossible to evaluate.

Further, I'd note Inman's deep legal analysis of the NSA issue:

"There clearly was a line in the FISA statutes which says you couldn't do this," said Inman

Excuse me if I wait for a bit more detailed legal opinion.

[maryrose]

If true this is a huge development and will blow this case wide open-here's hoping!

[topsecretk9]

Oh...I have no doubt Tenet pushed it to snap back at Armitage...and this started as a leak investigation, I am sure most/many inside the beltway --inside and out of government-- knew Armitage was Novak's source -- that's why the WH cooperated so generously with waivers and whatnot.

It will be really interesting to root through Millers notebook.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Admiral Inman:

Admiral Inman served in the U.S. Navy from November 1951 to July 1982, when he retired with the permanent rank of Admiral. While on active duty he served as director of the National Security Agency and deputy director of Central Intelligence.

That seems a long time ago to have any current knowledge about intelligence matters unless one of the following is nothing more than a front for one of the agencies:

After retirement from the Navy, he was chairman and chief executive officer of the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in Austin, Texas, for four years and chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Westmark Systems, Inc., a privately owned electronics industry holding company, for three years.

Admiral Inman also served as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas from 1987 through 1990. Admiral Inman’s primary activity since 1990 has been investing in start-up technology companies, where he is a managing partner with Gefinor Ventures. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of Fluor, Massey Energy Company, Science Applications International Corporation, SBC Communications and Temple Inland. He serves as a trustee of the American Assembly, the Center for Excellence in Education and the California Institute of Technology.

[Syl]

Well, I think one could think of Inman as kind of a loose cannon. He spouts a lot of things, mostly off the record. I doubt he has any direct knowledge of this but he's a smart man, probably followed the case a bit and put his two and two together.

We figured out Armitage, so why couldn't he? Inman just took the extra step of being positive that Armitage is the target.

But it's good. It gets us talking about Armitage again. Going over old stuff and folding in any new stuff.

But it was Clemons, not Inman, who thinks Armitage was the source for the 1x2x6, right?

I never even considered that, truthfully. No reason, it just didn't cross my mind. Grossman's just as good for that so ::shrug::

Except it was JL who said it was Grossman, so now maybe I hope it was Armitage instead. ;)

[Fresh Air]

If this is true, can someone explain why Robert Novak wasn't tossed in prison, while Judith Miller was?

Here is the logic diagramed:

Libby :: Miller
Indicted :: Prison

Armitage :: Novak
Crosshairs :: ????

I don't get it.

[Sue]

Squig,

You can cross of Fluor as a front company.

It is not a front company unless of course the people working there are doing double duties.

[Sue]

Eeeeoooggggghhhhh....that drives me nuts...

[Sue]

Fluor

[Chants]

She was put in jail (not prison) for civil contempt of court.

Novak apparently cooperated with the investigation.

[clarice]

I repeat from the other thread--if this is true, what does it do to the Libby case:
Ok--You're Fitz..and you've got the Libby case..Your witnesses are Cooper( weak--his wife/Calibresi plotting with Wilson), Miller (pure bafflegab) and Russert(seems evasive ;Mitchell everyone knew;Matthews clearly partisan and from JL's fiasco obviously getting crap info from the Wilsonistas) . Libby's screaming he didn't leak and he heard it from reporters or from officials who said they'd heard it from reporters.(Woodward says that may be true)
Grossman is also a key witness--says he told it early to Libby. (Grossman worked for Armitage and is a long time Wilson friend)

And now you've got Armitage who told, deliberately obstructed and who is Armitage's boss.

Your next play is?

[Epphan]

If a person were not following this situation very close, he might not know that everyone knows that Armitage was Novak's source. And if you weren't following close, common sense would tell you that Fitz is after Novak's source. Then along comes a guy that assumes you know a lot more than you know and, all of sudden, Armitage is a target...even though folks who are following close know that Fitzgerald has given no indication he is going after anyone outside the greater White House area...Ask Leopold...it's dangerous thinking other people know more than you do...

[clarice]

*******and who is Grossman's' boss.

[Chants]

Armitage?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Thanks for the link Sue. I was starting to work through the list with Google, but my son has his final paper due today for his final class before hopefully graduating and getting his degree. Mom has to type it and hopefully correct the spelling and grammatical errors. This is a big deal since my son took nearly 16 years after h.s. graduation to decide that a college education might be helpful in moving out of the low pay, take orders from those less qualified category and into the jobs he really wanted.

[Chants]

Your next play is Armitage.

But what do you, as the prosecutor, do with Libby?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Chants, that is my question too. I am very much wondering whether Fitz is thinking he moved way way too quickly against Libby. And if he did, and I believe he did, what the heck does he do about it at this late date?

[Sue]

What exactly do those emails contain?

Now let's assume I want to show this jury that Mr. Grossman is not being totally truthful, that I want to show, for example, that Mr. Grossman went to college with Mr. Wilson and they were classmates and throughout their careers they traveled together through the State Department and the diplomatic arena from college right on through. I want to give you a sample of just two emails that are classified so you will see the importance of these documents for purposes of discovery and how they may permit me to materially advance my examination of Mr. Grossman and to try to show that he is not being totally candid and that there are relationships that should cause the jurors to doubt what he said to Mr. Libby, when he said it.

[Chants]

Yeah, it's a little late for a hand shake and an apology.

[Sue]

No problem Squig. I know people who work for Fluor.

[Cecil Turner]

Your next play is?

Go perjury-fishing? (BTW, I have to eat a little crow here on the perjury trap thing. I've previously suggested the questions on count five were a good indication of that, but on rereading the presser it appears they were probably from a grand juror.)

I admit having a jones for Grossman, who appears to be the person who provided the information to the source (or perhaps was the source himself). I'm having a hard time reconciling Fitz's various statements with Armitage being in trouble.

[clarice]

If these facts are true and Fitz doesn't indict Armitage, you can bet that Woodward will talk and when he does he makes Libby's case of selective prosecution.

If these facts are true, and he doesn't indict Armitage, he further weakens an already weak case.

[Syl]

Sara

Congrats to your son!

Chants

But what do you, as the prosecutor, do with Libby?

Pray Libby's counsel isn't as good as they seem to be?

[clarice]

If these facts are true and he DOES indict Armitage, he also further weakens an already weak case.

[clarice]

Cecil, is it possible that Fitz' earlier statements were made before he had additional evidence from Rove and B. Novak?

[topsecretk9]

Yeah, it's a little late for a hand shake and an apology.

Well, if you think about it ... this is a pretty similar scenario as Frank Cowles Jr. situation Fitz was in

(and again note...Robert Luskin, Patton Boggs)

[clarice]

Did the Wilsonistas leak crap to JL to deflect from the fact that Grossman and Armitage may be under the gun?

[Steve]

Clarice- a legal question-
Let's say Libby was mistaken in his original statements to the FBI. And he really thinks that he heard it from reporters, etc. i.e, he doesn't remember the Fleischer conversations, etc, that Fitzgerald alleges in teh indictment as to how he 'really' learned about Plame...

So assuming Fitz has evidence that contradicts Libby's statements (Fleischer's deposition/testiomy let's say)...Is he (fitz) under any obligation to try and reconcile those 2 pieces of info in the grand jury investigation? In other words, would he (or should he) have asked 'you tolf the FBI you first heard about it on such date, we have testimony from XX that he told you the same info on YY date"...

Isn't that why Rove's been back 5 times, to 'correct' testimony? Was Libby not given the same chance? Or did he just stick to his story, and that's why he's being indicted...

But if that is why he's being indicted, as TM has pointed out, doesn't the Cheney writing on the op-ed conflict with his story? Cheney has questions, including one about his wife sending him, but yet Libby, his right hand man, not only doesn't see Cheney's questions, but doesn't answer his boss's questions?

[clarice]

ts--Did I tell you lately that I love you?

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
back at ya!

[clarice]

Steve, we simply have no idea from what is in the indictment all the interrogation so I can't answer your questions.
As to the Cheney annotations, please look and see that (a) we don't know who saw what when, and (b) they underline every Wilson lie. Libby's testimony has consistently been that he was tasked to substantively respond to THOSE, and apparently his task was really complicated by the fact that the declassification of the NIE, necessary to rebut those, was a go/stop/go affair.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I can't help myself. Grossman turns me off and something visceral happens every time I see his smarmy face. I hate to say this, but I want him to go down ... bad! I cannot look at him and remain objective, no matter how hard I try.

[Syl]

clarice

I don't see how fitz can indict Armitage from what we know.

(1)Even if Armitage was the source for 1x2x6 which set the investigation off in a certain direction (along with wilson) there's no crime in lying to the press.

(2)Woodward said it was an offhand comment and no indication it was sensitive information.

(3) We don't even know if fitz asked him whether he told anyone else. Fitz probably did ask but posed the question within a certain timeframe that didn't fit.

But there's a helluva lot we don't know.

What Armitage testified to.
What Novak said.

Whether fitz has any relevant emails or conversations between Grossman and Armitage.

Whether fitz did anything after armitage testified besides questioning Rove and possibly Novak again.

A lot we don't know. But from what we DO know it doesn't look likely. But you know fitzy so, well, who knows.

[topsecretk9]

still think Grossman is 1x2x6

[clarice]

Will you concede that if he was UGO, was asked and didn't tell about Woodward and then wouldn't let Woodward come forward, he is in trouble.

I concede that if he wasn't asked or wasn't asked the right question he may slide.

[clarice]

ts I still think Grossman is 1x2x6, too..but Libby claims that is he was he had an ulterior motive to protect Armitage, his boss. (And Wilson his friend.)

[Syl]

ARgghhhh.. getting sleepy.

Later, peeps!

[patch]

clarice & ts

Knock off the mushy stuff.

[clarice]

Sleep is for sissies.

[Syl]

clarice

Yes, if fitz asked UGO point blank if he told anyone else and UGO said no, then there might be something. Though UGO voluntarily went back to correct himself. That's just one of the things we don't know.

(I think 1x2x6 is Grossman too.)

Later...

[Jeff]

Shockingly, clarice thinks that whatever happens, it weakens an already weak case against Libby. Armitage in jeopardy? Good for Libby! Armitage out of jeopardy? Good for Libby! Cheney pinpointed at the heart of the response to Wilson giving Libby notes that express exactly the bit of information that stepped over the line? Good for Libby! It's unfalsifiably the case that whatever happens, it's good for Libby!

[Barney Frank]

I don't know what the history of Novak and Armitage is but their interests did coincide quite closely leading up to the Iraq war. Both were highly skeptical of it. And Armitage was not exactly making any favorites at the WH with his public pronouncements along these lines. How that would play into this is unclear, but it makes it highly unlikely Cheney and Armitage were passing notes back and forth about that hot chick in the front row, Valerie Plame.

[topsecretk9]

Well if you think about and 1x2x6 specifically...Grossman sort of set-up FUBAR'd everyone - particularly since there is no charge for outing.

1x2x6 only served Grossman, and in a round-about way Armitage had he not talked to Woodward way back when.

That may be why fitz has been teetering on the small case/little case...when Woodward appeared he should have (and could be) taking closer look...and if he is, he'd see the 1x2x6 article was the thing that led things astray

So say Fitz is focusing on Army and say Grossman...and has a shot of reality...he can still keep the little case on Libby.

Just a theory.

[clarice]

But it does weaken Fitz' case against Libby. He is relying heavily on Grossman's testimony. And while he's backed off the claim, he believed Libby was the "first to leak"--indeed, that's why he seized on the bafflegab conversation with Miller on June 23 because it was the earliest conversation he could find --until Woodward showed up.

[topsecretk9]

small case/big case

I meant

[clarice]

And if he indicts Armitage, really the obstruction count against Libby is ridiculous.

[Dwilkers]

Sara-

Congo Rats to you & your son.

8^)~~

[jwest]

If the folks in the White House knew that the Plame cat was out of the bag via State, prior to the Miller/Cooper contacts, it would explain a few things.

1) Libby/Rove could caution reporters “not to get too far out” on the Wilson thing and to wait a few days for portions of the NIE to be released, without having to “out” Plame, due to the fact that the background (Plame inspired junket) was already in the wind.

2) Since the WH knew that reporters already had Plame’s name, they could react to leading questions from the press “as if hearing it for the first time”.

3) The administration’s cooperation in establishing a Special Prosecutor would be understandable if they thought that all roads led to State in the investigation.

[Chants]

What was Rove's relationship with Armitage. I speculate that they were not very close. Armitage is a career stateman. Rove is a political advisor to Bush. I don't see a lot of overlap there.

So if this more recent grand jury has it's crosshairs on Armitage, why the multiple appearances by Rove? What information would he have that would be useful in exposing Armitage's potential culpability?

[topsecretk9]

---why the multiple appearances by Rove? What information would he have that would be useful in exposing Armitage's potential culpability?---

Rove said he learned the **Name** Plame from Novak on their July 9th phone call. Novak said he did not know the actual *name* Plame when he talked to Rove (on the 9th, two days before his story was sent out)

Hmmm, since Fitz is focusing on Rove and Libby this is suspicious to Fitz - like he thinks Rove is being cute -- and obviously he bought the story Novak and UGO had on their mutual contacts...

but then pops up Woodward who says the UGO who - I guess said he only talked to Novak (after the Rove call -- but remember Rove was not a *confirming* source) who tells Fotz your UGO was talking about Plame way back - that is BEFORE Novak called Rove.

In that sense, Rove saying he heard from Novak looks a lot more likely

[ghostcat]

clarice (12:38 and 12:39 pm)-

You got it right the first time. It's pretty clear who's really at the center of this. And everybody ... bar none ... wants to shield him.

[clarice]

I believe Rove was under suspicion because his testimony about his conversation with Novak didn't match Novak's account. (There was the forgotten conversation with Cooper, too, but I believe that proved understandable).

Now Armitage and Novak's conversation is under more scrutiny..and perhaps in Novaks and Rove's last appearances Rove is cleared and Armitage appears more blameworthy, especially after Woodward's testimony that he kept reminding Armitage and he refused to let Woodward come forward and set the record straight.

[topsecretk9]

anyways...call me crazy but it doesn't look like the Rove indictment is going to be announced today...maybe he said 24 days.

[Chants]

That's 24 "business" days.

[clarice]

24 business days on Zongo.
Looks like it'll be a busy weekend, too, with the J's order coming out Fri night. URGH

[ghostcat]

Armitage would take a bullet to protect him. Literally.

[Jeff]

He is relying heavily on Grossman's testimony. And while he's backed off the claim, he believed Libby was the "first to leak"--indeed, that's why he seized on the bafflegab conversation with Miller on June 23 because it was the earliest conversation he could find --until Woodward showed up.

Explain how any of this makes one bit of difference to the case against Libby.

And why it is not possible for two different people, with different motivations, to obstruct justice in a single investigation is beyond me. The short version: Libby was lying about his own actions. And Armitage was lying about his own actions.

[Chants]

Is it Powell, Ghostcat?

[clarice]

I don't think the record is at all clear that Libby deliberately lied. In fact, he had no reason to.
But Armitage deliberately obstructed the investigation if Woodward is to be believed and I do not see why Fitz would say Libby was the "first to leak" if Armitage had been forthcoming about all his conversations with reporters.

[cathyf]

I am very much wondering whether Fitz is thinking he moved way way too quickly against Libby.

Interesting thought... My first knee-jerk reaction was fast?!?!? After 2-1/2 years? But upon further thought...

I think that Fitzgerald had it all worked out: The WH pushback was to out Plame, and the whole lot of them lied and made up the story about giving the NIE to Miller early. All he needed was to get Miller, and get her to testify that they never gave her any NIE info, and they told her about Plame. He was going to have his "first leak" and he can argue to the jury that Libby leaked to Miller so that he could then claim (lying) when the knowledge started coming back from reporters that he first heard it from the reporters. So he throws her in jail for 85 days, and then she talks. After all of this time and obsessive focus, Fitzgerald uses her testimony as a rhorshack test, seeing what he wanted.

There was what, less than a month between Miller testifying and the indictment? Given all of the legal T's to be crossed and I's to be dotted to get the indictment, I have to believe that Ftzgerald decided to indict basically the same day or within just a few days of Miller testifying. A decision which seems more and more hasty now, doesn't it...

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Yes, it does..And you'll note he seems to have overlooked the fact that JM had Wilson's name and phone no in her notebook, that he agreed she didn't have to name other sources, and , therefore, he doesn't know if Armitage was one of her sources, too, and he can't ask her.

[Appalled Moderate]

The only practical thing an Armitage exposure would do to the Libby "small case" is that Grossman's testimony about what he told Libby could be more easily impeached.

But that's a big so what. Grossman is hardly the only person to talk to Libby about Plame. (But, if Armitage is in trouble, I would think Grossman would be too)

I second Jeff. Just because Armitage may have lied doesn't mean Libby was truthful.

[Jeff]

I do not see why Fitz would say Libby was the "first to leak" if Armitage had been forthcoming about all his conversations with reporters.

Right. Fitzgerald certainly would not have believed that, as far as he knew, Libby was the first to leak if he knew that Armitage leaked before him. But again, clarice, that has no particular bearing on the legal case against Libby. And Armitage being first does not alter whatsoever Libby's reasons to lie. Did you think he had reasons to lie before we discovered that Armitage had leaked first? Would you think that Libby had reason to lie if he were in fact the first to leak?

It's one thing to score points about Fitzgerald for having erroneously believed, as far as he knew, that Libby was the first to leak. It's another to make out how it has any impact on the legal case against Libby.

It certainly alters our understanding of what happened in the world in spring-summer 2003. But that's a different matter.

[Seixon]

How about we get Jason Leopold to expose Richard Armitage as UGO in a big news story? Hell, that one might actually turn out true........ ;)

[Fresh Air]

Clarice--

Libby didn't lie! He told Fitz he said something to Russert that turned out to be untrue. That's not the same as lying to Fitz. I know I'm splitting hairs, but a half-hair is not enough to indict someone of probity on perjury.

IMHO, of course.

[Jeff]

he agreed she didn't have to name other sources

False. He asked her about other Plame sources, and she pleaded forgetfulness as to who they were, or even when, while affirming that she had them.

And again, Fitzgerald knew for quite a while that Armitage had apparently been the first leaker to Novak. And he knew that well before he seems to have known that Libby leaked to Miller on June 23, though he knew they had a conversation apparently, or even for sure on July 8 (probably a few hours, maybe minutes before Armitage leaked to Novak, but who really knows). So the point is that you can't make out that Fitzgerald had his narrative of the White House, of OVP, or Libby leaking first all along, and that was suddenly, after two and a half years, upset by the revelation that Armitage leaked to Woodward first. In fact, I do suspect Fitzgerald regrets the press conference comments about Libby being the first known leaker, precisely because nothing hung on June 23 being the first leak.

[Sue]

Unless of course you find something in those emails that were classified that changes Grossman's testimony and therefore, changes what Fitzgerald believes he knows about Libby and Libby's motive. I thought it odd that Fitzgerald thinks it is important to show Libby's motive for lying, and the judge seemed to agree, but when Libby's side wanted to show why they felt they had no motive to lie, the judge wasn't sure it was relevant.

[clarice]

Oh, I agree. I do not think he lied. And I think if Armitage is indicted, if further affects Grossman's credibility. If Grossman's credibility is seriously undercut it further diminishes Fitz arguments that Libby had any reason to lie and did lie.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Questions I can ask, but not answer '

How about how a man in his 70s is still called Bobby Ray?

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil, is it possible that Fitz' earlier statements were made before he had additional evidence from Rove and B. Novak?

Some undoubtedly were. But he had to know UGO was the first leaker to Novak, and I don't see why he'd get too excited about discussions with Woodward. (Even assuming he'd asked the question.)

Cheney has questions, including one about his wife sending him, but yet Libby, his right hand man, not only doesn't see Cheney's questions, but doesn't answer his boss's questions?

Is there any evidence Libby saw the annotated article in question? If not, this speculation goes nowhere. If so, the timing is critical. And in any event, the best explanation for Libby's temporary memory loss is conflating an earlier conversation (possibly pre-July 6) with Russert's, so over-reliance on dates might not be persuasive.

But again, clarice, that has no particular bearing on the legal case against Libby.

Of course it does. UGO's leaks makes Libby's story more plausible. And the earlier it happened, the more plausible Libby's story is.

[ghostcat]

Chants -

Assuming the intelligence, decency and patriotism of Fitz and nearly all of the other players in this cast ... which I do ... there seems to be no other theory which explains such odd behavior. Powell, yes.

(Are you a gardener, by the way?)

[clarice]

Jeff, before Judy got out of jail, she insisted on an agreement with Fitz and got it that she would not have to name other sources. We both know that.

[windansea]

see...I never get

respect!

[Jane]

Could someone please tell me what 1x2x6 means?

Thanks

[Jane]

Could someone please tell me what 1x2x6 means?

Thanks

[topsecretk9]

-- Fitzgerald knew for quite a while that Armitage had apparently been the first leaker to Novak. ---

but, believed --the name drop--took place AFTER Novak talked to Rove

which makes Novaks Who Who make more sense.

[Jane]

Could someone please tell me what 1x2x6 means?

Thanks

[Jane]

Could someone please tell me what 1x2x6 means?

Thanks

[Appalled Moderate]

More on Inman's statements form another Princeton conference participant.

[Chants]

Jane:

One from state tells 2 in the WH who then tells six reporters.

[Sue]

First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12.

Byron York

[Jane]

Thanks Chants!

[topsecretk9]

Thanks Sue...why didn't Libby's lawyers use this in the motion for dismissal (or would they save it for an appeal)

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I am recused from this investigation. I have been since coming to the Department of Justice. That means that not only am I recused from making decisions or participating in decisions regarding this investigation, I am recused from receiving information about the investigation. Quite frankly, you probably know more about this case than I do. I do not receive briefings. I do not receive any information about this particular case.

And in terms of what will happen going forward, you — you have as much information about that as I do. That's — that'll be a decision made by Pat Fitzgerald.

looks like it doesn't matter if the newspapers are for supervision, there is no supervision (do you think the black out those parts when the secretary delivers Alberto "public report"?)

[clarice]

Jane, I apologize for not responding..I was answering some emails. I hope you won't think me rude.

[Jane]

Thanks Chants!

[Jane]

Thanks Chants!

[maryrose]

Jeff:
Libby did not lie. Clarice's logic about this case and the consequences regarding Grossman Armitage and Rove and yes even Libby makes more sense than yours. Why can't you just admit that. You are grasping at straws and dissing us on other blogs at the same time.

[Boggs]

"First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12."

Will Truthout now stand by their liar?

[Appalled Moderate]

Before this thread decends into bizarro Jeff bashing, some news from Dan Drezner's blog, who heard the same comments Steve Clemons did:

"I would describe Inman's knowledge of this as coming from sources who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on these events. It's not simply that a former NSA head still has automatic inside info privileges."

Apparently, there was other relevent dirt that Dr. Drezner could not report. *sigh*.

And, as for the Jeff bashers, do some gazing into the mirror.

[Chants]

Well.

Rawstory has picked up the Armitage story. It now officially has more legs than the recent Leopold story, which Rawstory too unreliable to repeat.

[clarice]

Would it seem to obvious if we invited Inman to dinner tonight?

[Patton]

Boy, how will the judge get Fitz out of this one??

Ban any talk of UGO at trail.

I can hear the judge now:

JUDGE: I see no reason why we have to burden the jury with any of the actual truth of the investigation. Its just not relevant, I mean, unless good old Fitz wants something in, then we need to evaluate it.

[Patton]

Maybe Powells reported comment "everyone knew" could be seen as a excuse/explanation to explain why Armitage wasn't doing anything wrong.

Look, everyone knew this stuff, he wasn't talking out of school, etc. etc....trying to bail his buddy Armitage out...

[topsecretk9]

Who is bashing Jeff? And..um...Jeff is not always bearing roses himself...in fact there is a certain someone Jeff seeks to bash here pretty consistently...

[cathyf]

Some undoubtedly were. But he had to know UGO was the first leaker to Novak, and I don't see why he'd get too excited about discussions with Woodward.

But we don't know what else Novak told Fitzgerald about what he did with the knowledge between when Armitage told him and he published. It may be that Novak is quite adamant that he only spoke to specific people at specific points about Plame and is sure that he remembers them all. Woodward is the loose cannon in Fitzgerald's universe -- he freely admits that while he remembers telling some people, he has no idea how many others he told and when. And thinks that it is reasonably likely that he did tell others.

The "first leaker" detail is all about Fitzgerald being sure that he had a complete chain of custody of the information, and who said it. It's all about it being impossible for Russert to say anything like Libby claims that he said, because it is impossible for Russert to have had the knowledge. So Russert's hair-splitting weasel-words don't need to be examined too closely because he couldn't have known. Now we've got the whole theory of Woodward telling one or more people and gossip getting around, around to Russert, and maybe the Russert/Libby conversation really was as Libby described it, and this puts Fitzgerald in the position where all of a sudden all he has on the Russert counts are Russert's weasel words and lack of notes and if you look very closely Russert doesn't actually contradict Libby. Or maybe the conversation was as Libby recounted it, but with Woodward, or maybe even some other reporter who heard it from a source that goes back to Woodward.

The only way to have possibly eliminated those most reasonable of reasonable doubts is to have an investigation, track down leads, track down all the people Woodward could have told. No time for that now, though, the time for that is past, now that there is an indictment.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Let's hope that the Libby team gets the stories and sends them to the judge..After all we've (a) heard that Fitz can be supervised by reading the newspapers and (b)the jury should be allowed to treat false and prejudicial news accounts as evidence.

[Patton]

I think the best thing to come out of this for Wilson is Armitage will be able to do a much better FROG MARCH then Rove. Armitage has the body for it.

It will be a BULL FROG MARCH!!

[Gary Maxwell]

Is Armitage as tasy a meal as Karl Rove? I have to admit beyond Colin Powell I could nver have named a single employee in the State Dept. Never heard of Armitage before I started reading on this blog. But I knew who Karl Rove was! This is gonna be so disappointing if true for the nutroots crowd. Probably also for those who claim to be moderate but post like a progressive's progressive.

[clarice]

Gary, maybe they can find a way to blame Diebold or Halliburton.

[Patton]

cathyf,

Good point. Libby's team short start by subpeoning all of Fitz information about Woodwards contacts and discussions...that way we may find out more about how much more investigating Fitz felt like doing..

[Sue]

Gary,

You are really stepping in Jeff's flower garden. Armitage is a republican and any old republican will do.

[Gary Maxwell]

No way Clarice. They are out compaigning for Ned Lamont to take on Joe Lieberman. 0 for 17 to become 0 for life soon enough. They will spontaneously combust at some point I am sure.

[brenda taylor]

well obviousley armitage is protecting powell ,bit more than that i think hes covering hiss own agency in all this.

[PeterUK]

This investigation seems to ignore the Inverse Law of Bureaucracy,"Those at the top are always the last to know".Fitz is simply head hunting using the odd expedient of starting in the middle and working his way outwards.
The indictment of Libby has most probably done more to hinder the case than the obstruction Libby is accused of.
When BTW is Fitzgerald going to expedite the job he was appointed for?

[Gary Maxwell]

Sue

When I used to go to New Orleans I looked forward in great anticipation to a muffaleta sandwich. If I ended up at Wendy's for a double, it was not going to be the same, just cuz it was a sandwich. Hell the missing Linc says he is a Republican and so does Ron Paul. Take em both and see if I cry or laugh uncontrollably.

[Cecil Turner]

The "first leaker" detail is all about Fitzgerald being sure that he had a complete chain of custody of the information, and who said it.

I think that's exactly the way he sees [saw] it. But of course that logic is faulty: there are other possibly sources.

[Kate]

I have to admit that I took a look at Madsen's blog and he's is really out there. It's sad that the reporting is going down from Leopold. Didn't think that could happen, but guess it did.

The media blog on NRO is curious as to who the MSM folks were who were getting info from the same 'sources' as Leopold.

[Chants]

Maybe TSK9 can apply her steel-trap intuition to the fact that this is not the first time Inman's name has been raised in this Plame affair.

Long time ago, NRO's media blog said something about Inman's opinion about the covert nature of Plame. Larry called the blogger a liar. Larry then misrepresented or misunderstood a conversation he, Larry, had with Inman.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/27
/152959/031

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=
ZGQ2YTQ0OWM1NmIzZWFmYmIwZjkyY2Y2
NTk3NGZkMGM=

(The links are broken up for formatting; cut and paste into your web-browser line by line)

TSK9 and others. Could this have something about Mr. Drezner's discretion?

[windansea]

Rove is the filet mignon
Cheney a porterhouse

Libby is a salisbury steak
Armitrage is a tofu burger

[Jane]

I apologize for the multiple posts. New computer here and I'm working out the bugs.

[Kate]

You know, now that it's Fitzmas eve, I must confess there are certain things that really puzzle me about Rove.

We know that Fitz was close to indicting Rove the same day as Libby. We know that Rove had testified more times than Libby. We know that the GJ has met ony twice to hear evidence since the indictment-Rove and we don't know who else. The others all talked to Fitz in an interview. (Woodward, V. Novak)

Something gave Fitz pause before he indicted Rove. My sense is that the indictment must have looked weak or Fitz would not have paused. He had plenty of time to listen to the evidence that Rove produced at the last minute. He could have indicted Rove at any time between November 1 and 1 May.

Instead Rove is invited back to testify one more time. If Fitz discounted the talk w/V. Novack as useless, why the time, why the invite.

I just don't know.

[Cecil Turner]

"I would describe Inman's knowledge of this as coming from sources who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on these events. It's not simply that a former NSA head still has automatic inside info privileges."

Well, that clears that up. Inman's political contributions are certainly interesting. (Eclectic contributions to GOPers and Jane Harman.)

Apparently, there was other relevent dirt that Dr. Drezner could not report. *sigh*.

I'm somewhat nonplussed by the fascination with dirt. What was this investigation supposed to be about, anyway?

[topsecretk9]

follow the Media Blog links (ps. you have to scroll to bottom of the page)

A SIDENOTE: This is not the first time I've written about Larry Johnson. Back in July, he called into question a post I wrote about an interview with Admiral Bob Inman, former deputy director of the CIA. Johnson spoke with Inman after reading my post. Then Johnson reported that Inman said I misquoted him. Then Johnson called me a liar.

I didn't have time for a lengthy response as I had taken some time off to get married, but I did post a quick rebuttal and left it at that. However, I spoke to Inman after I returned from vacation just to clear things up between us. I told Inman that Johnson had accused me of misquoting him. Inman, it turns out, hadn't read the original item in which I had quoted him — he only knew what Johnson had told him. When I read to him what I had written, including the line, "[The leaking of Plame's identity] is still one I would rather not see," he said that he found nothing wrong with what I had written. He said that's not the way Johnson had presented it to him. So Johnson had the nerve to accuse me of misquoting someone when I was the one who had been misquoted.

[Lurker]

" Byron York's Latest Fact-Checking
I do not endorse Byron York's post, but these guy's at the National Review are anything but stupid. York would not be going after this story as he is if he didn't think it was completely false.

From York:

THE ROVE INDICTMENT WATCH, CONT'D [Byron York]
I had to be away for much of the day, so I have just caught up with some new developments in the lefty-blog Karl Rove indictment watch. The focus of the story seems to have shifted away from the Jason Leopold report , in which CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have informed Rove last Friday that Rove had been indicted, to a new report by Wayne Madsen, a freelance writer in Washington who has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch, and other publications, and who now publishes on his own website, Wayne Madsen Report.

Last night Madsen reported that a number of the details in the Leopold story -- the 15-hour meeting, the 24-hour "get your affairs in order" notice -- were wrong. They might even have been put out by Rove himself, Madsen suggested, as part of a Rove effort "to create diversions and smokescreens." The real news, Madsen reported, was that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales went to the U.S. Courthouse in Washington last Friday, where he met with the grand jury in the CIA leak case and was told about the Rove indictment. From Madsen:

WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.

Madsen's report has raised the hopes of Rove indictment fans who have become somewhat dispirited after Leopold's "24 business hours" passed without action against Rove. But it appears that they might again be destined for disappointment, because the details of Madsen's account are, if anything, even more farfetched than Leopold's.

First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12.

Second, Gonzales, like his predecessor John Ashcroft, has recused himself from the CIA leak investigation. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had taken part in the White House's response to the Justice Department in the early days of the probe. When he became attorney general, there was no doubt that he would have to recuse himself from the matter. He was asked about it during a press conference in October 2005, when there was great anticipation that indictments were coming in the CIA leak affair, and this is what he had to say:

QUESTION: And does Patrick Fitzgerald -- will he notify you if he's about to indict anyone? And lastly, is he under any obligation [to file] a public report?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I am recused from this investigation. I have been since coming to the Department of Justice. That means that not only am I recused from making decisions or participating in decisions regarding this investigation, I am recused from receiving information about the investigation. Quite frankly, you probably know more about this case than I do. I do not receive briefings. I do not receive any information about this particular case.

And in terms of what will happen going forward, you -- you have as much information about that as I do. That's -- that'll be a decision made by Pat Fitzgerald.

Finally, it simply defies common sense to think that Fitzgerald and the grand jury would give the attorney general a preview of an indictment in the CIA leak matter. "Gonzales would not be given that kind of information," says one insider. "The reason one is recused from the case is so that one cannot make decisions that would affect the case -- like he might tell the White House."

And one more note. Madsen also reported that Fitzgerald told Rove lawyer Robert Luskin that he, Luskin, is now a "subject" in the probe because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Luskin "may have violated laws on obstruction of justice." I asked Rove spokesman Mark Corallo whether Fitzgerald has informed Luskin that he, Luskin, is a subject of the investigation. "No," was Corallo's answer. And Corallo repeated his earlier denials about the purported meeting last Friday at Patton Boggs. It simply did not happen, Corallo said."

[Lurker]

Byron York

He sure keeps up with the leftie news, doesn't he? :)

[Cecil Turner]

Ah, sorry. I got the link wrong on Inman's contributions (put in the second page). Here's the right one.

[PeterUK]

"[The leaking of Plame's identity] is still one I would rather not see,"

There it is again! Why are they allowed to get away with this? I would posit that revealing Plame was CIA would add credence to Wilson's claims rather than the converse.
Cetainly in the fertile imaginations of the Liberal Left.

[Fresh Air]

Guys, Madsen was a prime mover in the TANG memos fiasco. He is a Bush-hating leftist and total fruitcake. I'm surprised York is foolish enough to even visit his website.

I would completely ignore anything the man has to say.

[Lurker]

"JOHNSON: His information — his information — his information on this issue has been repeatedly wrong. And, again, I'll bet Clifford May $5,000. Find the reference prior to Robert Novak's column in which that information was out there. It wasn't out there. Not only that. When Valerie wrote that check to Al Gore's campaign as a member of Brewster-Jennings, she was living her cover. Not a single neighbor knew that she worked for the CIA."

So, TS, who won the bet? Cliff Mays or Larry Johnson?

Cliff Mays should really take up on that bet!

[Lurker]

Fresh Air, I guess you can call us "foolish" for visiting WMR site earlier this morning....

Think York was reviewing WMR's article first before calling Corallo with questions.

[Lurker]

Ah, Inman contributed to several that I like...Cornyn, Hensarling, Hutchinson, etc.

But not Harman!

[PeterUK]

"Wayne Madsen, a freelance writer in Washington who has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch,"

Says it all,nothing so impressive as a lefty on the make.

[Lesley]

Rick Moran on Bobby Inman

[xrayiiis]

Can anyone tell me if is known who the other six people are who were allegedly at the meeting where Grosssman allegedly told Libby about Plame? And if so, how reliable are they as witnesses?

Thanks in advance.

[clarice]

Drezner does have the story, BTW..

[xrayiiis]

correction: "if it is known", not "if is known"

[Lurker]

Oh, sorry for the duplicate link on York's latest fact-check findings.

[clarice]

It doesn't matter because they all said the WH people referred them to the Novak piece..IIRC

[Lesley]

BONUS! Larry Johnson comment in Moran article.

Larry Johnson Said:
1:20 am

"Hey boneheads,
I actually spoke with Admiral Inman. He said he was misquoted (Gee, what a surprise, the NRO can’t get its story straight). He’s disgusted by the attacks on Valerie Plame. You guys only got one thing right, Admiral Inman is a class act."

[clarice]

The "first leaker" detail is all about Fitzgerald being sure that he had a complete chain of custody of the information, and who said it. That's why I think he's a moron. Trying to track such a thing in DC is a lunatic mission. Trying to track it when you are only asking certain reporters about certain sources is dishonest and moronic.

In any event,early on he knew who was the source for the first reporter to put it in print, and if he wasn't going to charge him, he should have packed up his briefs and rambled on.

Re: Woodward not remembering everyone he told--do not forget Ben Bradley's interview with Vanity Fair. He tried to retract it but