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.