Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« You Fish, I'll Hold The Rod | Main | Bill Clinton's New Book »

May 17, 2006

Comments

windansea

here's a comment by Jeff at the Washington Note

I have been saying for a while that there's no obvious reason why Woodward's source wouldn't be in trouble, though no one has seemed to agree with me, on right or left. But the obvious thing he - that is, Armitage - would be in trouble for would not be for the leak, but for obstruction-type charges. We know that Armitage testified in the case, and apparently testified to being a source for Novak, but failed to say anything about being Woodward's source. That didn't come out until just after Libby was indicted, when Armitage went to Fitzgerald essentially because Woodward pressured him. We also know from Woodward that Armitage did not simply forget about being his source, since twice between their June 2003 conversation and October-November 2005, when Armitage went forward to Fitzgerald, Woodward pushed Armitage about going public or anyway talked with him about their Plame conversation. One remaining question is whether Fitzgerald asked Armitage any questions where the response would have been a downright lie in omitting mention of the Woodward conversation. Either way, I suspect, Armitage may be on the hook for obstruction-type charges (whether it be perjury, false statements, and/or obstruction etc).

If Armitage is 1x2x6 - that is, Priest and Allen's source for the famous September 28, 2003 story - things really don't look so good for him, as that story looks more like an effort to direct attention to some of the other leakers and away from him. As for underlying crimes, we don't know nearly enough. But there are several possibilities. One is that there was not a concerted effort on the part of Armitage in conjunction with OVP. There were different things going on. And then once Armitage realized he might be in trouble, he executed a very effective redirection toward the White House. Another is the possibility that OVP knew Armitage was talking about this, and capitalized on that fact - this has been, I think, a working hypothesis of emptywheel's over at thenexthurrah. And finally, there's the possibility of active cooperation with OVP on Armitage's part, though I consider this the least likely possibility. But in any case, we know far too little about Armitage's role in the original leaks to say confidently what's going on in that regard.

Posted by Jeff at May 18, 2006 11:19 AM

topsecretk9

Hey...I just had a thought...

Does anyone know who Armitage's lawyer is? Patton Boggs is a big and powerful firm in DC...who knows, maybe Armitage's attorney office resides on the 4th floor. HEH

Dwilkers

Plus we know whoever leaked to Woodward (Armitage) testified or was interviewed but did not reveal that.

It has always seemed to me that was a far more glaring case of obstruction than Libby's mealy mouthed horsehockey.

I've just never been able to figure out a good reason why he was being given a pass as I've posted here a few times. Maybe he's not. Maybe he's the target now.

Makes more sense to me than Rove vs Cooper. I mean come on that one is wafer thin.

windansea

Maybe he's the target now.

this would give me a bit more faith in blind justice, and will enrage lefties who want the Rovester so desparately

PeterUK

Lurker,
Leftism is beyond politics it is a belief system,part of the host's psychological make up.Leftists are unshakably convinced of their own moral superiority that all others are wrong.
Basically,leftists have to be right

Sue

How come UGO was protected at the hearing after Libby was indicted? Didn't Fitzgerald want his name withheld because he was facing no charges?

clarice

Do you suppose that Rove testified that Novak called him and said he'd heard it from Armitage and that is what his last appearance before the gj was about.

Dwilkers

this would give me a bit more faith in blind justice

Mine could certainly use some restoring.

and will enrage lefties who want the Rovester so desparately

Not according to one of the lefties here, I think it was Jeff matter of fact. He thinks the left will be just peachy keen thrilled with Armitage or anyone else.

/rolleyes

topsecretk9

Dwilk

Based on the 2 NY's reports on Rove's 5th appearance it did mention he was asked about Novak contacts --since NYT was really the only report on it and it was scant it sort of fell of the radar.

Couple things confounded me.

Why would Novak be called before the GJ AFTER Woodward and how the heck does that related to the Rove case aspect?

It wouldn't, at least in a negative way to Rove. My hunch has been Rove's last appearance was as a cooperating witness -- he finalized the VNovak aspect and answered new questions raised by Woodward that had less to do about him but more about Novak and Armitage. (especially given the CW - if you think you are a target no lawyer worth his salt is going to let client go back)

Also, I would not be surprised if given this interest in Armitage if the interest also extends to Novak too..

clarice

If it is true and he's indicte, what's Fitz going to say:"He was the first to leak and this time I really mean it."?

topsecretk9

Clarice
I seems we are channeling each other today. You are ahead of me a minute or 3

clarice

It might explain why neither Novak nor Armitage has commented on the case.

clarice

ts--great minds and all..*wink*

Rick Ballard

Gary,

The conflation of Christian and dominionist in Madsen's dribble leads me to believe that he is referring to Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

There may be literalist Christians who use the text in contra the Gaia crowd but I have not seen that verse used in that manner.

I need to find a rabbinical site which does decent English translations of the Tanakh. The KJV's use of LXX as the authoritative translation continues to engender problems.

Dwilkers

If it is true and he's indicte, what's Fitz going to say:"He was the first to leak and this time I really mean it."?

Hah. One thing I'd bet on is Fitz will be a helluva lot more careful in his next appearance before the press.

Rick Ballard

Dwilkers,

Thanks for the Herbie post - great job.

clarice

Well, my sense of justice was always outraged by the fact that Woodward's source blocked him from testifying earlier. From the ridiculous questioning of reporters, I suspected UGO had not been properly questioned either, but the failure to give a waiver to Woodward bothered me a lot.

Sue

Why would it extend to Novak? Unless Armitgage told him about his earier conversation with Woodward, which I doubt. I seriously doubt any of these people thought much about Plame other than gossip.

windansea

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

WAPO 2x6 article

this certainly looks like misdirection to me
and Armitrage is definitely in Fitz's sights if he is the leaker for above

topsecretk9

Sue

I am just grappling with Novak saying he did not know the *name* Plame on July 9th when he talked to Rove...implies that he learned it after that call from his source...which probably seemed OK not knowing UGO was blabbing it way back in mid June.

Also, saying he did not know the name when he talked to Rove --absent knowing about Woodward/UGO back in June -- made Rove look more suspicious.

clarice

If it were Armitage and he had been asked, he may be in a bind.Had it not been for the fact that Woodward twice reminded him and asked for a waiver, he might credibly have responded that he'd forgotten that came up in that interview...which after all was for a book to be published sometime later, not a news story to be done contemporaneously.

Dwilkers

Heh NP Rick I had fun with it. ;-)

Sue

I agreed to do an interview with her the following day in my office. Although I had planned not to appear on any television shows prior to Thursday, July 24, when I was scheduled to do The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I felt I had no choice but to try to stop the White House from continuing to push this http://politicsoftruth.com/excerpt.html>canard.

Isn't it odd that Wilson felt he had no choice but to try and stop the WH from continuing to push this canard...the same thing the WH was trying to do with Wilson...stop him from pushing his own card?

topsecretk9

I still think 1x2x6 is Grossman...working both ends of the stick...Wilson buddy who like the focus be on WH not his boss.

clarice

Me, too. And isn't it interesting that TruthOut reported that it was Grossman..?

Dwilkers

Jeez what an ass Jeff is. This is from over at Washington Note:

Listen to Jeff.

Armitage (if he truly is UGO and Woodward's source) has nothing to do with the OVP pushback. Armitage's motive was the State pushback.

Posted by Dwilkers at May 18, 2006 11:40 AM

Do not listen to Dwilkers. He is mischaracterizing what I have said, and is one of a number of commentators at Tom Maguire's place who think, ludicrously, that OVP was the victim in all of this. And even more ludicrously, some of them don't appreciate the fact that Armitage is a rock solid Republican and full-on member of the Bush administration in 2003 (and Armitage of course continues to do lots of freelance diplomatic work for the Bush administration while he avoids talking to the American press). Some of them are in utter denial about the significance of the new revelation that Cheney was passing Libby notes on Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed article immediate after its publication detailing exactly the key piece of the hit on the Wilsons - the claim that Wilson's trip was nepotism on the part of his CIA wife. Tom Maguire himself is a different story, and had the honesty to be rather deflated by that revelation. It drove many of his regular commentators almost literally crazy when that happened.

The INR memo from June 2003 made clear that State was no more enamored of Joe Wilson than OVP.

Posted by Jeff at May 18, 2006 11:51 AM

Would someone please remind me not to be nice to lefty jerks next time I'm leaning that way?

topsecretk9

"Late on Tuesday afternoon,* July 8*, six days before Robert Novak’s article about Valerie and me,..."Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, *Valerie*, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.”

See, I don't get how Novak can say he did not know the name *Plame* on the 9th when he knew at least he knew *Valerie* on the 8th.

I suspect they led Fitz to believe he got specifics after he talked to Rove -- and again absent the Woodward June blabbing -- seemed plausible.

The entire investigation was predicated on Libby being the first to start talking about Plame and so all of Novak/UGO statements weren't scrutinized. Once Woodward says UGO was blabbing way back when, makes Novak and UGO look like they were not that honest about their contacts.

Sue

Wow. Jeff talks about us behind our backs? At least we have the decency to talk about him to his face...

clarice

Yes--and we have a motive for UGO's repeated refusal to allow Woodward to speak to Fitz.

This makes a great deal more sense than the rumor that Rove would be indicted.

Sue

Okay...back away from the cliff...we don't want to become TO or TL and start making a story true because we want it to be true...

JohnH

I have not read all 6543 posts since the Leopold "revelation", but the idea that Fitz will indict Rove would make sense if Fitz were really in the tank for the Dems and figured that even though there is no case against Rove, an indictment would tie Rove up for at least a year and hinder his work on the fall elections.

topsecretk9

Dwilk

Jeff is a snob. He also defended Fitz use of the word *first known* in the press conference, indicating that Fitz had the foresight to know a Woodward would pop up, rather than accept Fitz had conducted a narrow predetermined investigation and believed it a true statement and so many were "utter denial about the significance of the new revelation" Wooward posed.

windansea

This makes a great deal more sense than the rumor that Rove would be indicted.

yes...Maybe Leotard just got the names wrong :)

Sue

I gave up on Jeff when he wouldn't acknowledge that Wilson, as the anonymous source for Kristoff and Pincus, claimed to have debunked the forgeries, 13 months before the IAEA did.

topsecretk9

we don't want to become TO or TL and start making a story true because we want it to be true...

Don't worry Sue...pure speculation on my part and NO WAY of knowing anything. Under no illusions, just having fun.

yes...Maybe Leotard just got the names wrong :)

I'm telling you...would be a hoot if Armitage's attorney was a Patton Boggs associate...the firm is huge.

windansea

***Would someone please remind me not to be nice to lefty jerks next time I'm leaning that way?***

Jeff is cranky cuz it looks like Fitz is going after Armitrage and not Rove...notice how he soothes his wounds with "Armitage is a rock solid Republican and full-on member of the Bush administration in 2003"

then Jeff happily returns to the Cheney notes

Rick Ballard

It may be more profitable to consider the people involved who have an affinity for the oil ticks. Scowcroft, Armitage, Novak, Grossman, Powell, Wilson, Johnson et al?, all have a predilection that is unmistakeable and the State oil skunks do link up nicely with the CIA skunks.

A Venn chart of the Aspen group with an overlay of the linkage chart that TS found would provide hours of entertainment. A little additional effort would allow inclusion of most of the French government plus Kofi & C.

Not a cabal at all, just a list of people of very reasonable virtue - if you're a Saudi prince.

Gary Maxwell

OK who here did not know Jeff was a lefty jerk who would creek right up to calling someone a liar and would refer to all of us as Ludicrous. Sheesh everyone knows that Ludicrous is a rap star.

Sue

Jeff knows the timeline of the Plame case. What he won't do is acknowledge that BDS has shaded his view of that timeline. I

Sue

I wonder if it means anything that FoxNews had Armitage in the mix for CIA director?

clarice

Inman is a crackpot, but this is the first rumor in a long time about the gj that makes sense.

windansea

**Inman is a crackpot, but this is the first rumor in a long time about the gj that makes sense.**

uh huh...and I want full credit for posting it here :)

owl

Fitz nailing Armitrage would not make me feel a bit better.

He should have shut down this farce or went after Val and Joe. Nothing else even remotely resembles justice. If he wanted conspiracy....it would bite him on the leg if the MSM did not love him so much.

windansea

maybe a focus on Armitrage and State would lead to Joe and Val

Chants

Didn't Fitzgerald already state that he wants to keep the UGO unidentified because he is not a subject of the investigation and, for that reason, does not want to tarnish his (the UGO's) reputation?

If Armitage is the UGO, Fitz and Inman apparently view this investigation from different perspectives. Fitz's perspective is probably a bit more accurate then Inman's.

PeterUK

"Wow. Jeff talks about us behind our backs? At least we have the decency to talk about him to his face..."

Yes Sue,but which face?

clarice

windansea, if I write it up, and you want credit, I'll give it you. How's about "sharp-eyed reader"?

topsecretk9

Fitz nailing Armitrage would not make me feel a bit better.

Well, Novak was a little cranky when he was asked why UGO wasn't charged ... he didn't break the law.

Armitage seems like he'd be a Col. Nathan R. Jessep type witness

topsecretk9

How's about "sharp-eyed reader"?

Wind and sniff...Wind-a-sniffer!

clarice

Fitz has talked about protecting the "innocent accused" and most of us believe that is Armitage, but in the back of my mind I also seem to recall that he's talked about the need to protect gj testimony to preclude wrecking the ongoing investigation. I don't have the timeline, but perhaps his "innocent accused" statements were made before Novak and Rove's testimony which may have put RA into the target box and out of the IA one.

windansea

I don't have the timeline, but perhaps his "innocent accused" statements were made before Novak and Rove's testimony which may have put RA into the target box and out of the IA one.

Obviously Fitz found out about UGO shortly after Libby indictment and presser...that's when Woodward pressured UGO to confess.. right?

clarice

Did Armitage testify before a grand jury? Did Rove's very recent testimony and Novak's come after Fitz referred to UGO as an innocent accused?

Other Tom

Patton Boggs cannot simultaneously represent Rove and another subject or target of the investigation. If they did, and both were indicted, they could end up in the position of having to cross-examine--or even give up in a plea bargain--their own client.

windansea

I think so Clarice...Jeff implied this in his post at the WN

windansea

***windansea, if I write it up, and you want credit, I'll give it you. How's about "sharp-eyed reader"?***

actually it was a subtle hint to TM....as he will surely write a post on this...

a plaintive cry for help from the Rodney Dangerfield of JOM :)

topsecretk9

Patton Boggs cannot simultaneously represent Rove and another subject or target of the investigation.

thanks for the cold water...Okay...is the building exclusively Patton Boggs? Like PB is the top 6 floors?

Keeping forth floor alive.

disclaimer: just goofing around.

windansea

TM post on this here

Boggs

Hey Patton,do you think you could get back here and do some work?

Boggs.

topsecretk9

Well, he is making plans...

WHAT DOES IT SAY about the media savvy of the New Hampshire Republican Party when the first announcement of a high-profile guest speaker for one of its biggest events comes from the state Democratic Party?

State GOP officials had apparently known for a few weeks that chief White House political adviser Karl Rove would keynote their June 12 annual dinner in Manchester.

They sat on the news, allowing themselves to be scooped by state Democratic Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan. She spun it her own way and connected it to the phone-jamming case that is once again in the news this morning...


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Granite+Status%3A+Democrats+scoop+GOP+on+Rove+visit&articleId=a0937801-ced0-4dfc-b045-47a5a09f5dc9

Sara (Squiggler)

Remember the Wonk vs Gossip expanation. Jeff buys into the Tabloid Gossip gossip and not the Wonk side. He can not expand his mind beyond the gossip mongers and thinks that everyone in OVP including Libby are nothing but small-minded gossips with nothing better to do than whisper the latest rumors and run to the nearest fence to trade "dirt" with the neighbor.

And this:

Tom Maguire himself is a different story, and had the honesty to be rather deflated by that revelation. It drove many of his regular commentators almost literally crazy when that happened.

I don't know about anyone else, but what drove me nuts (and I am not invested in protecting anyone of any political bent) was Tom's capitulation to the lefty loonyness after his field trips. He still hasn't posted anything compelling to convince me as to why he had such a seed change in his own position re: Rove than the lefty talking points he got exposed to that seemed to shake his own reasoning power.

Jeff is a gossip mongerer who buys the Gossip Groupie BS vs the Wonk push back for truth.

Patton

Oggsbay,
Iway amway urrentlycay uckstay onway ethay ourthfay oorflay
ithway ethay ecretsay ervicesay uysgay andway away eternarianvay
. Iway illway ytray otay etgay ackbay
inway enwhay ethay entytway ourfay ourshay expiresway andway
Overay oesday ethay
ogfray archmay. Incerelysay, Attonpay

Boggs

KOay,
Oggsbay

clarice

HEH Patton..

Syl

Chants

Didn't Fitzgerald already state that he wants to keep the UGO unidentified because he is not a subject of the investigation and, for that reason, does not want to tarnish his (the UGO's) reputation?

Actually, no. It seems to have been a misinterpretation and couldn't be found when the transcript came out.

The person who pointed that fact out was none other than Jeff.

There may be some irony in that. :)

Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice -- one of the things that has bothered me all along about the indictment and preceeding to trial with Libby as it seems so premature. Do you believe that Fitz was convinced at the time of the indictment and press conf. that the case was solved and that there was nothing more to find?

Do you think that he acted too hastily and since so much more has been revealed that seems to change the facts surrounding Libby, why does he continue to proceed against Libby? Is it because there really is still a case there or is it a "not losing face" thing for him, or if he should proceed, say against UGO, would that affect the Libby prosecution?

It just seems he acted way to swiftly to bring the case against Libby.

lurker

After 2 1/2 years of investigating?

I felt that Fitz was strongly pressured to bring the case against Libby by our friendly liberal MSM, lefties, and dems.

Seems that the MSM regretted applying pressure on Fitz since they are being subponeaed...

Just my observation...

Syl

clarice

Did Armitage testify before a grand jury? Did Rove's very recent testimony and Novak's come after Fitz referred to UGO as an innocent accused?

It was recent, Clarice. In one of the transcripts within the last several weeks.

However, on my first reading I wasn't sure if 'innocent accused' referred to UGO or Rove. But I messed up a couple things on my first reading anyway. But even on a second reading I was never sure when they were talking about UGO and when about Rove.

Sara (Squiggler)

Loophole and the loony Left:

A policeman was interrogating 3 blondes who were training to become detectives. To test their skills in recognizing a suspect, he shows the first blonde a picture for 5 seconds and then hides it. “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?”

The first blonde answers, “That’s easy, we’ll catch him fast because he only has one eye!” The policeman says, “Well… uh… that’s because the picture shows his profile.” Slightly flustered by this ridiculous response, he flashes the picture for 5 seconds at the second blonde and asks her, “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?”

The second blonde giggles, flips her hair and says, “Ha! He’d be too easy to catch because he only has one ear!” The policeman angrily responds, “What’s the matter with you two? Of course only one eye and one ear are showing because it’s a picture of his profile! Is that the best answer you can come up with?”

Extremely frustrated at this point, he shows the picture to the third blonde and in a very testy voice asks, “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?” He quickly adds “... think hard before giving me a stupid answer.” The blonde looks at the picture intently for a moment and says, “Hmmmm… the suspect wears contact lenses.” The policeman is surprised and speechless because he really doesn’t know himself if the suspect wears contacts or not. “Well, that’s an interesting answer… wait here for a few minutes while I check his file and I’ll get back to you on that.”

He leaves the room and goes to his office, checks the suspect’s file in his computer, and comes back with a beaming smile on his face. “Wow! I can’t believe it… it’s TRUE! The suspect does in fact wear contact lenses. Good work! How were you able to make such an astute observation?”

“That’s easy,” the blonde replied. “He can’t wear regular glasses because he only has one eye and one ear.”

clarice

Sara, I cannot fathom why he did what he did.
If Iman's report is true, however, it might explain a lot of things like:
(a) Novak's gj appearance
(b) Armitage's non-denial
(c) Novak and Armitage's public silence
(d) Why Rove remained under suspicion for so long
(e)why Libby believes he can shoe Grossman's statement about his disclosure to Libby was to deflect suspicion away from his boss.

clarice

**Inman...and shoW not shoe****

lurker

If Fitz plans to make an announcement tomorrow, would he have to notify the press this afternoon?

clarice

No...

Jeff

The person who pointed that fact out was none other than Jeff.

There may be some irony in that. :)

Irony? What irony? It goes hand in hand with being perhaps the only person in all of America who has been holding out for the idea that Armitage may be in trouble with Fitzgerald!

And folks, I did not understand myself to be talking about you behind your backs. I was responding - overreacting, evidently, as I acknowledged - to Dwilkers, and I have learned that you all travel in packs. (Joking, joking - though it's been true with your forays into the lefty blogosphere, no?) So I took it for granted I was speaking to a multitude. And hey, there was near-panic when it looked like Maguire had crossed over to the dark side.

As for Armitage, the reporting has been sketchy, but he's been questioned in the investigation, I mean before he went forward to Fitzgerald after getting the push from Woodward back in October-November 2005.

windansea

WOODWARD: An excellent question. The week of the indictment I was working on something and learned another piece of this puzzle and I told Len Downie about it and I told him about the source and what had been disclosed to me and there was a sense before the indictment, well, this is kind of interesting but it's not clear what it means.

Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.

I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.

KING: Did you also ask -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. Did you ask the source...

WOODWARD: No.

KING: ...then in view of that why can't I announce your name to the public?

WOODWARD: I did later in the week and the source said no.

*****

KING: OK. Your source, did the source indicate whether Mrs. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?

WOODWARD: Good question. And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I've been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except -- in fact, I don't even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they're not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it.

And so -- and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

KING: How did it even come up?

WOODWARD: Came up because I asked about Joe Wilson, because a few days before, my colleague at the "Washington Post," Walter Pincus, had a front-page story, saying there was an unnamed envoy -- there was no name given -- who had gone to Niger the year before to investigate for the CIA if there was some Niger-Iraq uranium deal or yellow cake deal.

I learned that that ambassador's name was Joe Wilson, which was, you know, Wilson eventually surfaced...

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: Most kind of off-hand.

KING: All right.

WOODWARD: One of those things. And so I -- I didn't think much of it.

KING: What did Libby say when you were with him? Was that a more complete discussion?

WOODWARD: No. Now this is what's interesting. And I had two -- one phone conversation and one long interview with Libby during this period. I had questioned lists that had hundreds of questions, one of them Joe Wilson's wife. I had no recollection at all that I asked about Joe Wilson's wife. I'm taking extensive notes. Libby said nothing about Joe Wilson's wife or about this in any way at that time.

So if he was involved in something like this, at least he decided -- when I say this, somehow outing her -- he decided not to converse with me about it. But because it's on a question list, and this is why Fitzgerald was turning over every rock.

He said, "Well, is it possible you asked -- in other words, that you conveyed to Libby that you knew Joe Wilson's wife worked in the CIA? Because it's on a question list."

And my sworn testimony is that it's possible. I certainly don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to.

Woodward/King transcript

clarice

Well, assuming Armitage did not tell about the Woodward conversation--either deliberately or because he forgot(and he may have Woodward says it was off hand )__he did recant his testimony which might make a perjury charge problematic. And the obstruction charge might be equally problematic for the same reason.

But if my recollection is correct that two times earlier Woodward reminded Armitage of the conversation and was unable to get Armitage's permission to reveal that conversation, the picture changes radically.

Syl

Jeff

YOu are full of yourself :(

Irony? What irony? It goes hand in hand with being perhaps the only person in all of America who has been holding out for the idea that Armitage may be in trouble with Fitzgerald!

Did it ever even occur to you that I directed the 'irony' at ourselves and not you? We had just been talking about you. I guess one of your spies tattled.

Sue

Shoot, I talk about him to his face and I dont' travel in packs...unless I'm leading the pack...

Syl

Jeff

Furthermore, I remembered who corrected us and that it was you. Instead of thanking me for acknowledging that fact, you turn around and get snarky at me.

windansea

KING: Doesn't it appear a little that way though when your other source won't let it be public who he or she is? That sounds conspiratorial.

WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.

Jeff

Syl - I was attempting to make fun of myself. I was attempting to be - ironically - full of myself. The fact that I held that theory of Armitage in trouble makes me perhaps too quick to jump on this new news. After all, it's just one off the record comment. Though it's fine with me if it's true. So it was meant as a joke. I understood what you were saying. Sorry the joke was evidently a bad one.

clarice

Jess, it does turn out to be true, you were the first to guess it and will be entitled to a victory lap dressed in irony.

Syl

"I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

Which sounds like he felt all bad about Libby and had to go to fitz.

But I think Clarice explained it better? :

he did recant his testimony which might make a perjury charge problematic. And the obstruction charge might be equally problematic for the same reason.

Woodward was pushing. Woodward would never rat him out, but he's wondering if he told anyone else. In his panic he can't remember and is worried that if HE doesn't go to fitz maybe someone else will. So he has to go to fitz and has to tell the truth, or as much of it as he thinks will keep him off the hook.

Syl

Jeff

NBD

Shake?

Boggs

"And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst."

Where did Plame go to WMD School? Certainly not anywhere here.

Education

Plame is a 1985 graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, and the College of Europe, an international-relations school in Bruges, in 1995. Soon after graduation, she started working for the U.S. government in Washington D.C. During her time at Penn State, she had worked on the business side of PSU's student newspaper, The Daily Collegian. According to an October 9, 2003 Collegian article, she previously attended Lower Moreland High School in Huntingdon Valley, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. [3]

windansea

Which sounds like he felt all bad about Libby and had to go to fitz.

yeah...but post indictment...Woodward states he "pressed the source hard" before this and got resistance.

the most telling thing about this source is the quote in WAPO pointing the finger at the WH and saying the leak was for revenge and to punish Wilson

Sara (Squiggler)

If there is any doubt left as to where the MSM mindset is, today is a perfect example. All three cable news networks, FOX, CNN, MSNBC have cut away from the Hayden confirmation hearings to cover some boring Duke rape case hearing. Tabloid gossip vs Wonk for sure.

Cecil Turner

And hey, there was near-panic when it looked like Maguire had crossed over to the dark side.

Yeah, we know, we know, we're all reading from the same talking points, except when we differ. Then we're panicking or throwing someone over the side. Dude, come up with a new one, you're boring me.

He is mischaracterizing what I have said, and is one of a number of commentators at Tom Maguire's place who think, ludicrously, that OVP was the victim in all of this.
Real nice, Jeff. And silly. Even Fitz can figure out the victim is national security. He just couldn't figure out who shot it.

clarice

Ok--You're Fitz..and you've got the Libby case..Your witnesses are Cooper( weak--his wife/Calibresi plotting with Wison), 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:

maryrose

Jeff:
Talking behind our backs; how unchivalrous of you. And to think that I defended you on this blog in the past... Not good form Jeffy;how disappointing. How come you didn't say nice things about us?

topsecretk9

But if my recollection is correct that two times earlier Woodward reminded Armitage of the conversation and was unable to get Armitage's permission to reveal that conversation, the picture changes radically.

It was Fitzgerald's press conference, when he said Libby was "THE FIRST known Official" to talk to reporters about Wilson's wife that made Woodward push his source...as in, I've got to go to the Prosecutor about you!

There was a rumor that Woodward got wind of, that he was on a Libby Defense witness list.

Boggs

"Irony? What irony? It goes hand in hand with being perhaps the only person in all of America who has been holding out for the idea that Armitage may be in trouble with Fitzgerald!"

"Mirror Mirror,on the wall......"

MJW

Jeff: Some of them are in utter denial about the significance of the new revelation that Cheney was passing Libby notes on Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed article immediate after its publication detailing exactly the key piece of the hit on the Wilsons - the claim that Wilson's trip was nepotism on the part of his CIA wife.

For the record, Fitzgerald doesn't claim Libby saw Cheney's notes on the op-ed, nor does he claim the notes were made immediately after the op-ed was published. Both may be reasonable assumptions, but that's all they are.

M. Simon

It's Friday.

Any sightings?

M. Simon

For WMD analysis I'd like chemists, physicists, mechanical engineers.

kim

She's covert regime change, don't you get it?
=============================

AB

Friday has come and gone.

Observer

Friday has come and gone.

Rove had the last laugh.

Bad apple dooms the Blogosphere.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame