The Plame Investigation

Libby's Sentence

Libby is sentenced to thirty months but will be free pending a resolution of whether he should be allowed to remain free on appeal - the defense and prosecution will file briefs and next week Judge Walton will rule on whether Libby's grounds appeals are sufficiently novel and substantial that he should be allowed to remain free while the appeals percolate through the system.  Per Marcy Wheeler's liveblog, the judge is not being asked to rule on the likelihood that Libby's appeals will be successful:

Mr. Libby’s status. Only issue is whether appeal would raise substantial questions of law or fact.

Wells: Our position that based on number of extensive opinions your honor could rule form bench that there are substantial issues.

Walton: I think all those opinions are correct. [And who does not respect a judge with self-confidence?  TM]

Wells:  ...We don’t have to establish with caselaw there is a probability, we only have to prove there are substantial questions, wrt to those alone, the court recognizes that the court was going into uncharted territory.

My guess - next week Judge Walton will send Libby to the slammer, which seems to mean he would report in 45-60 days.

Assuming that to be the case, what does Bush do next?  Does Dick Cheney still have any sway in this Administration, and how hard will he push for a Libby pardon?  Will a Libby pardon be offered as an olive branch to the righties who are furious with Bush over immigration?  Would such an olive branch be accepted by a newly-reconciled right, or would it be used to smack Bush forcefully about the head and shoulders?  After all, immigration reform will have a much greater impact on people's lives than the question of whether Libby does or does not go to jail.

If Bush wants to mend fences with the right, he better start mending the border fence.

And if Bush wants his comprehensive bill, maybe a Libby pardon that alienates the media and a big chunk of the public in a futile attempt to placate the right will not be seen as the best way to get it.  (Hmm, am I saying a Libby pardon would be stupid and ineffectual?  Call it a lock, then!)

Last wrinkle - Fred Thompson has been a big Libby backer.  He laid out his objections to the process that led us to Fitzgerald last winter.  And he makes similar points here - his main theme is that there was no IIPA violation because Ms. Plame was not covered by the statute:

The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody — the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a “covered person” under the statute and it was obvious from the outset.

He may be right about that.  A bit more:

I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.

OK - does a Libby pardon become a hot potato for the other Republican Presidential aspirants?

ADD THIS:

Thursday, May 03, 2007
Pardon Scooter Libby?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Of the GOP presidential field, only Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado raised their hands to indicate they would pardon Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation in the Valerie Plame leak case.

-- CNN Political Researcher Xuan Thai

But wait - last May, "let the case play out" was the dodge.  What now, assuming Libby is sent to jail?

If Judge Walton, President Bush, and Citizen Libby can agree, would Libby take this: no jail pending appeals in exchange for no pardon now or ever?

MORE: 

ROSTOCK, Germany (AP) - President Bush feels "terrible" for the family of I. Lewis Libby but does not intend to intervene now in the case of the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was sentenced to prison Tuesday, the White House said.

Bush was informed by aides of Libby's sentencing in Washington two 2 1/2 years in prison after he got on Air Force One Tuesday to fly from the Czech Republic to Germany for the G-8 summit of industrialized nations.

They can kick this down the road at least until the judge rules next week.

EQUAL JUSTICE:  Jeff Goldstein is vivid on the gap between the Libby and Berger coverage:

For months and months now we’ve been hearing that the Libby trial was about the dangers of the “powerful” covering up their secrets—that Plame’s “outing” could actually jeopardize national security, and other self-righteous, hyperbolic, and patently absurd justifications for pushing forward in the hope of grabbing a Republican scalp.

Meanwhile, right here in front of us, we have a case where Sandy Berger, a former National Security Advisor, has voluntarily surrendered his law license rather than come clean about what documents he destroyed, why he destroyed them, and who he was trying to protect in doing so.

When I begin to hear the same people who’ve been braying for Libby’s blood take similar aim at Berger—and by all rights, their animus should be even more concentrated, given Berger’s position and power, and given the nature of his crime, which involved the pilfering and destruction of classified documents. 

No reason to think of this as Berger protecting a former President; think of it as Berger protecting a future First Spouse.

Well, Berger can become an issue as Hilary runs.  And her supporters can claim she is being swift-boated, and the media will continue to ignore Berger, and the right (yes, me, dammit!) will seethe... Barack, anyone?

WHILE MY GUITAR KEYBOARD GENTLY WEEPS: On the off chance that someone is wondering just what in the world my official editorial position is on any of this (and because having an official editorial positions seems so very tidy and responsible), let me reprise some of my commentary following the Libby verdict last March.

On the underlying validity of the Fitzgerald investigation - this relates to Fred Thompson's point that the DoJ should have shut this down:

From Mar 6, 2007:

Obviously in some cases, there is no argument that obstruction can obstruct an investigation.  However, in this specific case Mr. York could have been more emphatic - Libby's alleged lies did not, for example, obstruct an investigation into murder, because there was no dead body anywhere in evidence.  Similarly, it can be argued (as by York or Toensing) that Libby's testimony did not obstruct an investigation into the outing of a covert agent because Ms. Plame was not "covert" as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  Similarly, the Espionage Act has hurdles that no reasonable prosecutor could have hoped to overcome, beginning with the intent clause of the first sentence:

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States...

In this view, Fitzgerald spent two years investigating whether the Administration attempted to manipulate the media and avoid embarrassment while rebutting a critic.  Since those activities are not crimes, Libby's testimony could not have obstructed a criminal investigation.

Of course, the Department of Justice could have made this determination before appointing Fitzgerald as Special Counsel, so the real failure of leadership was elsewhere.

I think Fitzgerald was handed a perjury/obstruction case and ran with it, which is fine as far it goes, since those are crimes, too.  However, Fitzgerald's pretense that he was engaged in a search for "the truth" is not sustained by his own record:

In Jan 2004 Fitzgerald learned from Ari Fleischer that David Gregory had received a leak on the morning of July 11, which certainly gave Russert time to chat with Gregory and then with Libby.

Did Fitzgerald call Gregory to verify Fleischer's testimony?  No. Why not?  Ask Fitzgerald.  But my guess is that he figured that Gregory would only undermine the case he was constructing against Libby, and building that case was more important than learning the truth.

Let's note that I am using the word "learned" loosely there - John Dickerson denied (in print, not under oath) receiving that leak from Ari Fleischer; Fleischer's story was that he leaked to both Dickerson and Gregory while chatting in Africa.

But as of Jan 2004, as best Fitzgerald knew Russert's colleague had received a leak on July 11.  Where was the follow up?  And when will NBC News follow up on this loose end?  (NBC's timetable revealed!)

My position on Ms. Plame's covertiness is that it is a subtle legal point that has never been fully briefed or litigated, and we still don't know enough to know.  I also have an original thought about a place to look for non-definitive guidance that I think the Libby defense overlooked, to wit, Ms. Plame's  pension calculation; by law, she receives additional credit for service abroad, a key point of dispute in the applicability of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  (A religious question - since I think Ms. Plame's covert status is knowable but currently unknown, I am rejecting the label of "agnostic".  Am I right on the usage?)

On the broad question of Libby's guilt, I am not chasing him with a noose or pitchfork but I am not pretending he is an angel, either: (or Raw Story)

Maguire doesn't completely buy Libby's "I forgot" story, and believes that it's possible that the former vice president aide was just trying to keep his boss's involvement hidden.

"Personally, I think the single most probable scenario is that Libby uhh, shaded his testimony to keep Cheney out of the story," Maguire says.

And on the pardon question, my temporizing suggestion was that Bush ought to declassify some of the underlying material so that We the People can see for ourselves the seriousness of the crime and the Fitzgerald investigation - my goodness, the judge just sentenced Libby for obstructing an investigation into whether Ms. Plame was covert, and the judge still does not know if she is covert (He does know that the CIA says she is covert under their definition, and that their definition does not mirror the IIPA - quite a difference.)  Time to find out.

FEEL THE LOVE:  Scooter's letter, mostly positive, at The Smoking Gun.

NRO Editors - Pardon Libby.

FDL Comment Thread

I just want to commemorate this lest the fdl moderators delete it.

Post

Comment 66

Tom Maguire says:

the tight-lipped Fitzgerald drives them apeshit, but that is the law.

Non sequiteur, but I see from my traffic stats that most readers here won’t follow the link to see for themselves.

Just to sample one of my problems with Fitzgerald - in a letter to defense in Dec 2005 negotiating discovery, he named the five reporters who had received a Plame leak, then added this:

We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time magazine discussed the trip by Mr. Wilson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson’s wife. Any conversations involving Mr. Dickerson likely took place in Africa and occurred after July 11.

Why no mention of David Gregory, who received the same leak at the same time (or didn’t - Dickerson denies it)?

Is that, hmm, ethical?  I would think a prosecutor ought to tell the truth in discovery, but perhaps opinions vary.

And what this has to do with Ken Starr, or in being tight-lipped, absolutely eludes me.                             

From Marcy Wheeler at 98, who quotes my post and then adds this:

I don’t know Tom (as someone who did follow the link). You think maybe they did speak to Gregory and Ari had oversold what he said to journalists? Dickerson sure thinks so. At some point, I’ll do a big smackdown of your Andrea Mitchell stuff, too. Libby’s team had the ability to call both Gregory and Mitchell; they chose not to do so (and LIbby’s team withdrew their request for Mitchell’s notes, just when they had a shot at them). You might think about why that is.

But for a guy trumpeting honesty, I don’t see how you make so many mentions of Russert without noting that Libby called Russert just when it became clear that Russert would get subpoenaed. You want suspicious, I call that suspicious. You want a reason why Russert fought testimony, you might look to what Libby’s lawyer told him (same guy who tried to tell Judy not to testify unless she’d corroborate Libby’s story).

Truth goes two ways, you know.

I reappear at 125:

Tom Maguire says:

From 98: You think maybe they did speak to Gregory and Ari had oversold what he said to journalists?

Huh? Maybe if we had some evidence, for starters; secondly, if the prosecution didn’t believe Ari, why cite Dickerson at all; third, if Gregory “talked” to them, where is the NBC News announcement or discovery to the defense?

At some point, I’ll do a big smackdown of your Andrea Mitchell stuff, too.

Bring it.  It’s been months now, IIRC.  But I may be having a Libby moment.

Libby’s team had the ability to call both Gregory and Mitchell; they chose not to do so (and LIbby’s team withdrew their request for Mitchell’s notes, just when they had a shot at them). You might think about why that is.

It is the job of the defense to introduce reasonable doubt, not mount an independent investigation. But I welcome your theories as to why neither Dickerson nor Gregory were called by Fitzgerald; for a guy ostensibly running a leak investigation, who was mighty incurious about Ari’s leaks. (I think Fitzgerald didn’t want to further undermine Fleischer after he washed out on Pincus, but that is just me).

But for a guy trumpeting honesty, I don’t see how you make so many mentions of Russert without noting that Libby called Russert just when it became clear that Russert would get subpoenaed.

I’m not following - I presume you are not arguing that it is OK for Fitzgerald to file false affidavits and offer phony discovery letters when he is going after perjurers (that would be really tough on the legal system if he were going after a murderer…)

But I can’t imagine your actual point.  Is it that Libby is a liar?  I thought we were talking about tight-lipped Fitzgerald.

Ms. Wheeler at 150:

From 98: You think maybe they did speak to Gregory and Ari had oversold what he said to journalists?

Huh? Maybe if we had some evidence, for starters; secondly, if the prosecution didn’t believe Ari, why cite Dickerson at all; third, if Gregory “talked” to them, where is the NBC News announcement or discovery to the defense?

You have this remarkable habit of believing your absence of evidence is stronger than common sense. You have never had evidence to support your Mitchell charges, your Russert charges, most of your “theories.” I’m just suggesting there are very SIMPLE explanations that you like to overlook in the face of your overwhelming lack of evidence.

As to the “evidence” of a Gregory conversation? You might look to the same place as they put the announcement abotu Russert talking to FBI in Fall 2003. We don’t get such announcements every time.

I don’t know that they spoke with him–but then neither do you know that they didn’t speak with him. I should think the Dickerson explanation–as a way of saying there was a conversation that didn’t apparently include a leak, actually hurts your argument.

At some point, I’ll do a big smackdown of your Andrea Mitchell stuff, too.

Bring it.  It’s been months now, IIRC.  But I may be having a Libby moment.

Oh, it hasn’t. I really thought your Mitchell points were fair until the Defense acted in the way it did. The main point is, the defense chose not to call Andrea Mitchell, even though they were sure she got a leak. They chose not to get her notes, just as it became clear they could have them. They likely know what Libby said to her on July 8. You want evidence? That strikes me as evidence that they did not want her unless they could use her for self-impeachment. THey certainly didn’t want her “truth.”

Libby’s team had the ability to call both Gregory and Mitchell; they chose not to do so (and LIbby’s team withdrew their request for Mitchell’s notes, just when they had a shot at them). You might think about why that is.

It is the job of the defense to introduce reasonable doubt, not mount an independent investigation. But I welcome your theories as to why neither Dickerson nor Gregory were called by Fitzgerald; for a guy ostensibly running a leak investigation, who was mighty incurious about Ari’s leaks. (I think Fitzgerald didn’t want to further undermine Fleischer after he washed out on Pincus, but that is just me).

Well, Ari’s leaks couldn’t qualify him for IIPA, since Libby was so sloppy in the way he informed him of the matter. On the other hand, Libby COULD have been found guilty of IIPA, depending on what he said to Judy. You keep whining about underlying crime. Ari couldn’t have been guilty of IIPA, LIbby could have. SImple difference.

But as to your independent investigation theory. Hmm. Gregory and Mitchell were central to Wells’ opening. But he didn’t call them. Instead, he called a bunch of people–Sanger, Woodward, Thomas, etc–who were safe. Why not Mitchell? Again, it’s pretty clear they didn’t think they’d help.

But for a guy trumpeting honesty, I don’t see how you make so many mentions of Russert without noting that Libby called Russert just when it became clear that Russert would get subpoenaed.

I’m not following - I presume you are not arguing that it is OK for Fitzgerald to file false affidavits and offer phony discovery letters when he is going after perjurers (that would be really tough on the legal system if he were going after a murderer…)

But I can’t imagine your actual point.  Is it that Libby is a liar?  I thought we were talking about tight-lipped Fitzgerald.

No. You keep babblng on and on about how suspicious Russert’s fight against testifying is, which is the basis (I might call it “evidence” if I were more generous) for your allegation that Fitz filed a false affadavit. But in every one of those discussions, you ignore a very simple explanation, one that has an exact parallel with Judy. Libby contacted Russert in the same manner as he did Judy, at an equivalent time. It is not unreasonable to assume he acted in teh same way–that is, telling Russert he shouldn’t testify if he couldnt’ corroborate Libby’s story.

Given the absnece of real evidence behind the rest of your allegations, I’d think someone smart as you would start where teh evidence is–in another Libby attempt to coach a witness.

But I guess you don’t want to go there, do you?

I reappear at 283:

From Ms. Wheeler at 150:

You have this remarkable habit of believing your absence of evidence is stronger than common sense.

I am declaring a Self Awareness Moment before I read any further.

I’m just suggesting there are very SIMPLE explanations that you like to overlook in the face of your overwhelming lack of evidence.

Sorry, one last Self Awareness Moment and I will press on. As the conversation unfolds, I suspect we will see that I am not alone in leaping from small hills of fact across great chasms of, well, emptiness.

Meanwhile, if you can stray back to the actual point for a moment - I don’t see any attempt by you to explain why Fitzgerald thought it was worth flagging Dickerson but not Gregory in his discovery letter to the defense. Your earlier guess, as I understood it, was that the prosecution investigated Gregory’s story (but not Dickerson’s) in a way that produced no paper trail or discoverable info. Hard to see how they could do that and stay within the rules.

My guess was that Fitzgerald chose to leave it out to protect Gregory and Russert.  Which idea is simpler?

The main point is, the defense chose not to call Andrea Mitchell, even though they were sure she got a leak.

You should check the live-blogging - the opportunity to call her was quite restricted (unless the reporting is wrong.)

And that relates to Fitzgerald’s dubious affidavits and discovery how?

Well, Ari’s leaks couldn’t qualify him for IIPA, since Libby was so sloppy in the way he informed him of the matter.

Again, I exhort you to follow the trial on the fabulous FDL liveblog - Ari also learned about Ms. Plame from Dan Bartlett while paging through a classified CIA memo describing the Wislon trip.

Since the CIA memo in question is an attachment to the INR memo (also marked Top Secret), one might surmise that Ari saw the INR memo as well, but who can tell - either way, he was surrounded by classified info when he learned it from Bartlett - worth investigating?

On the other hand, Libby COULD have been found guilty of IIPA, depending on what he said to Judy. You keep whining about underlying crime. Ari couldn’t have been guilty of IIPA, LIbby could have. SImple difference.

Having been reminded of the Ari’s Bartlett chat, do you want to stand by that?

You keep babblng on and on about how suspicious Russert’s fight against testifying is, which is the basis (I might call it “evidence” if I were more generous) for your allegation that Fitz filed a false affadavit.

Whining, babbling - folks can judge for themselves who is doing what, I suppose; for myself, I figure that ad homninems are a sign of a collapsing argument.

Anyway, since my point may have not been made sufficiently clear, my allegation is that *RUSSERT* filed a false affidavit, with Fitzgerald as a complicit bystander. The specific phrase I question is in paragraph six, where Russert tells the judge that he cannot even confirm to the government that he has spoken to the government official in question - that seems like a lie of omission, since he had already confirmed that to the FBI.

SO, do you think that statement of Russert’s was true, or false?  Ethical or not?

And Fitzgerald said nothing. Fitzgerald also made a point of *not* mentioning Russert’s FBI testimony in his own filing. Why? Should an officer of the court countenance a false filing with a judge?

My theory - he was coddling Russert, his star witness.  Seems simple.  Your view?

Libby contacted Russert in the same manner as he did Judy, at an equivalent time. It is not unreasonable to assume he acted in teh same way–that is, telling Russert he shouldn’t testify if he couldnt’ corroborate Libby’s story.

I refer to your opening comment about absence of evidence not being a bar to speculation. Did Libby send Russert a poem about Aspens, too?

Well. Your delightful flight of fancy notwithstanding, is it your argument that, since Libby called Russert, it is OK for Russert to lie to a judge while Fitzgerald plays along?

Given the absnece of real evidence behind the rest of your allegations, I’d think someone smart as you would start where teh evidence is–in another Libby attempt to coach a witness.

But I guess you don’t want to go there, do you?

I’m sorry - the absence of evidence that Russert’s affidavit has a lie in it?  Have you read the affidavit?

Or the absence of evidence that Fitzgerald disclosed Dickerson but not Gregory, despite Ari’s court testimony that he leaked to both? Have you read that letter, or the trial reports?

Those are facts - everything you have offered in defense of that is speculation, much of it (Libby was coaching Russert, a near-perfect stranger?) irrelevant.

Just trying to clarify the difference here.

I then pitch in the Libby GJ testimony at 284:

Sorry to chew up bandwidth, but this is from Libby’s GJ testimony:

Q.   Since, since July 14th when the Novak column
       appeared, have you spoken to Tim Russert about the
       uranium/Niger issue?
            A.   I — no, I think not.
            Q.   Have you spoken to him about the leak investigation?
            A.   Not directly, but I did speak to him once.
            Q.   Okay.  And, and what do you mean by not directly?
            A.   I mean, I spoke to him but not — I didn’t talk to
       him about the content of the investigation.  I did call him at
       one point to ask if he would be willing to talk to my lawyer.
            Q.   Okay.  And did you talk to him about — besides
       asking him if he would be willing to your lawyer, did you talk
       about the substance of the leak investigation?
            A.   No.
            Q.   Did you indicate whether or not you thought you were
       involved in the leak?
            A.   Whether I thought I was involved in the leak?
            Q.   Right, to Mr. Russert.
            A.   No.
            Q.   And did you ask him what his position would be about
       whether he would testify or not if asked?
            A.   No.
            Q.   And do you know the time when you reached out to
       talk to Mr. Russert?
            A.   A few weeks back.
            Q.   Okay.  A few weeks back being in March of 2004 or –
            A.   February, March, somewhere in there.
            Q.   And have you spoken to Mr. Russert since?
            A.   No.

A question - what do we suppose Russert said when asked about this vile attempt at witness-tampering?

Or dare we infer by the absence of any charges or discussion that Russert did not see it as tampering?

FWIW - you know I am going to check the liveblog to see if Russert was asked about this in court.  Forewarned…

And here we sit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Novak Interview With Brit Hume

A fair use excerpt:

SHOW: FOX SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME 6:00 PM EST

July 12, 2006 Wednesday

071203cb.254

NEWS; Domestic

3283  words

Interview with Robert Novak

Jim Angle, Brit Hume

Robert Novak

HUME: In a couple of minutes, I'll have an exclusive interview with the syndicated columnist Robert Novak on how he came to reveal the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, a revelation that triggered an extensive investigation, an indictment and let also the allegations that the Bush administration deliberately outed Plame to discredit her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson. Some highlights and background first from chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)JIM ANGLE, FOX NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Bob Novak flatly disputed the assertion by Joe Wilson and other critics that the Bush administration mounted a concerted campaign to discredit him after he criticized pre-war intelligence. Novak, whose July 2003 column unleashed the whole controversy, says he saw no indication of that.  ROBERT NOVAK, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I saw no such campaign. Nobody in the administration ever said anything critical about Wilson to me. And my column was not critical of Wilson. ANGLE: And he said no one belittled Wilson. In his first interview about what he calls the firestorm ignited by his original column, Novak says he simply set out to explain how it was that Joe Wilson, a fierce critic of the administration, had been sent to Africa to investigate reports Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium for nuclear weapons.He says he first learned it was Wilson's wife who suggested him for the job from a still unidentified official with whom he was discussing general foreign policy issues and who mentioned it in passing. NOVAK: I don't believe that it was a conscious leak. As I have said a couple of times in the column, I said this is not a political gun slinger.ANGLE: The next official Novak called was White House adviser Karl Rove. Novak says they only talked about it for some 20 seconds and when asked about Wilson's wife, Rove said only that he'd heard that too.Wilson went to the African counter of Niger in early 2002 to investigate reports Saddam's agents were seeking uranium. When he returned, he told the CIA it was highly unlikely that Saddam's agents had succeeded because of safeguards.But according to former CIA director George Tenet, Wilson also found that a former prime minister of Niger was approached by a visiting Iraqi delegated in 1999 and Tenet later issued a statement saying, "The former official interpreted the overture as an effort to discuss uranium sales."President Bush didn't mention that, but did talk about Iraqi nuclear ambitions in his 2003 state of the union address, including similar reports from the British, the famous 16 words. GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.ANGLE: In July 2003, Wilson wrote an op/ed in the "New York Times" sharply critical of the administration. He left out the Iraqi delegation seeking uranium and focused instead on their failure to obtain any. Then concluded, "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."(END VIDEOTAPE) ANGLE: That argument still rages, but even after Wilson's column, former CIA director Tenet said most of the intelligence community had believed that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. He said a classified report cited six reasons, none of them involving the African issue that became the center of the controversy. Brit? HUME: Jim, thank you. Next on SPECIAL REPORT, Bob Novak describes for the first time the actual conversation in which Valerie Plame's role with the CIA was revealed. Stay tuned. HUME: I'm joined now by the syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Robert Novak whose original column three years ago sparked the whole Valerie Plame so-called leak investigation.Bob, welcome. NOVAK: Thank you. HUME: Characterize, as best you can, the conversation you had with the person who told you that Valerie Plame was CIA. How did you come to be talking to this person? What were you principally talking about? What was said? NOVAK: it was an interview with a senior administration official who wasn't an easy guy to get to see. He gave me...HUME: In person?NOVAK: In person. He gave me an interview, hours interview. Nobody else present. It was the kind of interview that you know is not to be attributed to him. We didn't sit down and sign a contract, but you knew what it was because he was very candid.We talked about a lot of things, including Joe Wilson's mission to Niger, which he was paying a lot of attention to as a reason why the president misstated the need to intervene in Iraq.In the course of that interview, he told me that it was initiated -- his mission in Niger.I said: Why would they send Joe Wilson to Niger -- he's not CIA? Why would the CIA send him there -- he's not a CIA agent. He is not anybody who knows Niger that well. He served there a long time ago.He said his wife worked in the Office of Nuclear Proliferation in CIA and she suggested he go. HUME: And that was it? NOVAK: That was it. HUME: All right, now... NOVAK: I wrote a column about his mission to Niger, which was not very critical of Joe Wilson. I was more of a free reporting column. And I threw that in the middle of it. HUME: Now, when you first heard that, did you think some real nugget had just dropped in your lap?NOVAK: Yes, it was a nice nugget. It wasn't anything that I would lead the column with, but in the middle of the column... HUME: All right. Now, you subsequently have said that that was confirmed to you by Karl Rove. NOVAK: That's right. HUME: Did you call Rove or did he call you? NOVAK: I called Rove. HUME: Did you call him for the purpose of getting this confirmed, or did this come up in passing? NOVAK: I called him for several reasons. I wanted to talk about the column I was writing about the mission to Niger. This is also, as almost all my conversations with Rove were, was not for attribution.And in the course of that, I asked him about Wilson's wife at the CIA working at the CIA and initiating this visit. And, as I remember the conversation very distinctly, Karl said to me, "Yes, I know that, too." And I took that as confirmation. HUME: "And I know that, too"?NOVAK: Yes. HUME: He didn't say you know that, too? NOVAK: No, no. He said, you know that -- I'm sorry -- he says, "You know that, too?" Well, he said, "Oh, you know that, too?" That's what... HUME: Now what did you take that to mean? Did you take that to mean he talked to other journalists who knew that? Or did you... NOVAK: No, I took that as a confirmation that she worked at the CIA and initiated it.He said, "Oh, you know that, too?"Now as Karl -- the reason I'm using Karl's name is he has talked through his lawyer about the conversation. HUME: Right. NOVAK: As he remembered it, he said to me, "Oh, you heard that, too?" I very distinctly remember him saying, "You know that, too?" And there is a difference there. HUME: Right. But (inaudible) now, you subsequently talked to Bill Harlow at the CIA, public information officer. NOVAK: That's right. HUME: A lot of us have known Bill for a long time around town. What was the nature of -- did you call him expressly to confirm this? NOVAK: I called him. He said, "I'll get back to you." And he talked to somebody, I just guessed that he had talked to the CIA director, George Tenet. I have no idea, though, if that's true.He came back to me and he told me yes, that she worked for the CIA in the Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He told me that Mrs. Wilson did not suggest the mission by her husband, but she was asked to get him to do it by other people in the CIA.That subsequently was repudiated by a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which... HUME: Which said she suggested it? NOVAK: She suggested it, and there were no Democratic dissenters.Bill Harlow then said to me that, although she would likely never have another assignment abroad, he said it might be embarrassing if her CIA connection was written, and he asked me not to write it. HUME: Did he say her status was classified? NOVAK: No, he did not. HUME: He did not. But he encouraged you not to write it? NOVAK: He asked me not to write it. A lot of people ask me not to write things. I thought it was a pro forma request. He says, now, that he was very strong on it. I believe he was not. HUME: All right. Let's go back just a moment to your original source. Everybody in town wants to know who that is. I know you're not prepared to divulge that. But what can we know about this person -- I assume, from the start of the conversation, that you're talking to this official and the conversation was principally about other things.Is that a fair statement? NOVAK: I think the conversation started about other things. About general foreign policy and the administration policy, and this was just a few days after the Joe Wilson column had appeared. And I started to ask him about the Joe Wilson column, asked some questions about it, which he answered to me, which I assumed was a background basis, and then he volunteered this information about Mrs. Wilson. HUME: And you have said that you don't think that there was a leak involved. Why do you say that? NOVAK: I don't believe it was a conscious effort... HUME: That's what I mean. NOVAK: I don't believe it was a conscious effort to manipulate me.As I said in the column that ran today, subsequent to the announcement of the federal investigation of this, a third party who is close to the source called me up and said that this source believes that he inadvertently gave me information that was classified about Mrs. Wilson.Well, whether it was inadvertent or not, I don't believe that it was a conscious leak. As I have said a couple times in the column, I said, "This is not a political gunslinger." By that, I mean this official was not known as somebody who did a lot of political manipulations. He was more of a substantive person. HUME: More of a policy person? NOVAK: Yes. HUME: More on the interview with Bob Novak in a moment... [A Jeff Goldstein interlude]: An adjunct professor at the University of Arizona has resigned after her threatening comments about a web blogger's two-year-old son created on- line uproar. Self described left-wing psychology instructor, Deborah Frisch, escalated a foreign policy argument with blogger Jeff Goldstein last week writing that if "someone shot you and your tike, it wouldn't slow me down one iota." She also wrote that she hopes "no one JonBenets the child" the reference to the brutal murder of a young Colorado girl 10 years ago. And made disturbing sexual remarks about the boy. Frisch, who stepped down after her department was flooded with e-mails, has apologized to Goldstein, but tells inside higher education that the real issue is how these rabid crazy right-wing nut cases have stalked me, told on me, reacted totally out of proportion to joke in bad taste, end quote... And now more of my interview with columnist and FOX News contributor, Robert Novak as he tells his side of the Valerie Plame leak story.(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HUME: Why is Mr. X, your source, still unwilling to become known publicly known? Known to the prosecutor, known to, obviously, other key players in the case, why not publicly now? NOVAK: Because he's never come forward. He has never said -- he has not -- I think an important factor in this is that there was nobody indicted for the violation of the intelligence identity act -- intelligence -- U.S. Intelligence Identity Act of undercover -- uncovering a secret agent. Of course, if you want to get into that, she wasn't really a secret agent, that as the main reason. But there was no indictment made on that at all. So the -- the Mr. X, the first source, has decided, apparently in his own mind, that he doesn't want to revel himself as the source. HUME: May we know if this is this still someone in the government? NOVAK: I'm not going to do any further identification on that, whether he's in the government or not. At any time that -- I really do believe that he has to come forward. I feel -- you say well, how could you testify before his name to the special prosecutor and to the grand jury, because they know who he was. They knew exactly who it was.(CROSSTALK) HUME: So until he releases you, you're no going to say? NOVAK: Exactly.HUME: All right, and he has not done so? NOVAK: No. HUME: Have you asked him to do so recently? NOVAK: No, I have not asked him to do so. I. HUME: And I want to ask you about two other things in particular. One is, so now you got Bill Harlow saying please don't do this. Give me again, more clearly, your reasoning for not. Did you not think there was some possibility that some damage could result from the disclosure of the CIA person's name? NOVAK: No. I had no idea that she was a covered person, that she was not just a -- she was working as an analyst at the CIA. HUME: At the time. NOVAK: At that time I had no idea that she was in any way a covered employee. He'd never said -- if he had ever said to me somebody's life was in danger if you do this, if you got George Tenet come on the phone with me, I would not have written that. But as a matter of fact, her life wasn't in danger and he said it is very -- he said it is very unlikely she will ever go to Europe. That meant to me she was not doing any kind of work as an agent in Europe. So, all he was saying, and it might be embarrassing to her if she went on a vacation trip with her husband if she was identified as a CIA person and that wasn't a good enough reason for leaving the name out. HUME: The allegation has grown out of this whole episode with the conversations that Karl Rove had with you and with some other journalists with the Scooter Libby role in the matter, that all of this was part of a campaign by the Bush administration to discredit Joe Wilson after he wrote a column in the "New York Times" critical of the administration on Iraq and suggesting the administration had misled about evidence of the Iraq's mass weapons program. You were now -- you were the principle -- you're the person who's at the point on all of this. What is your view of whether there was a campaign underway to discredit Wilson? NOVAK: I saw no such campaign. Nobody in the administration ever said anything critical about Wilson to me. And my column was not critical of Wilson. As I say, this -- the information came out to me in the course of an -- by -- by -- in the course of an interview by a person who was not, believe me, not in the business of playing political dirty tricks. My call -- I initiated the call to Karl Rove. We talked about Joe Wilson's wife for maybe 20 seconds in the course of the conversation, which I took as a confirmation. HUME: So you didn't call him about that specific thing, you called him about something else? NOVAK: I called him about the mission to Niger and, but not -- but in the course of asking him about the mission in Niger, I said I understand that his wife works at the CIA and she initiate the mission. HUME: And he said "you know that, too?" NOVAK: "Oh, you know that too."HUME: And he recalls it slightly differently. Did he belittle Wilson and his allegations? NOVAK: At no time did he belittle him. The -- we were talking about the entire -- some of the specifics. I feel constrained not to say exactly because it hasn't come out the conversation I had with both Mr. X and Karl Rove about some of the details of the mission in Niger, which I put in the column because I still consider that was given to me on a background basis. HUME: Let me ask you a question others are sure to want to know the answer to. Why did you consider this -- and I think I know the answer to this but I'd rather hear it from you -- why did you consider this newsworthy? What was the story here that made Joe Wilson's wife's job relevant? NOVAK: The column was about the mission, what he found. Some of the things in column indicated, where contrary to what Mr. Wilson said, for example, he never -- that this was a specifically asked for by Vice President Cheney, that there was -- I wrote that there was never a real report written about it, that it was not a conclusive report and in the course of that, I wondered and that's why when I asked my original source, I asked him, why in the world would they send Joe Wilson on this? Why would it be somebody who was not a CIA person, was not familiar with this situation, why would they send him? And I thought it was interesting that his wife suggested it. It was a throwaway line in the middle of the column. HUME: Of course, it turned out to be, as one of the senate intelligence committee investigated, it did, I guess, turned out to be an important reason why he was sent according to the committee... NOVAK: Absolutely they have a document that says they put in the committee report that's gotten very little attention, I wrote about it later, that the chief suggested it at the CIA that her husband was well plugged in and that she suggested that he be sent there. I still think it was an extraordinary decision to be made, but that was the decision that was made. HUME: Bob Novak, great to have you. NOVAK: Thank you sir.(END VIDEOTAPE) FWI - per the State Dept website, Richard Armitage was in Washington (presumably available for interviews) on July 7 and July 8. By July 8, Wilson had heard the Plame tip.

Useful Documents

Here are some documents that may be useful

(1) Feb 24 2006 court hearing - "innocent accused" discussion.  Libby_060224_CourtTranscript.pdf

The innocent accused discussion cites a Fitzgerald affidavit from Feb 16, 2006:  Libby_FitzAffidavit_060216.pdf

(2) May 5 2006 court hearing -  Libby_060505_CourtTranscript.pdf

(3)  Tatel opinon in Miller subpoena, with eight redacted pages restored.

Nick Kristof - A Plame Leak Recipient?

Was Nick Kristof aware that Valerie Plame was at the CIA prior to the publicatiobn of the Novak column on July 14, 2003?  He has not disclosed this to be the case.  However, he may be waiting in the wings as the next Bob Woodward, with a bombsheel revelation o fhis own.  There are three separate strands suggesting that Kristof may have been "in the know".  Let's review:

In the Vanity Fair article made famous by the photo of the loving Wilson couple, we learn this about Joe Wilson's first sit-down with Nick Kristof:

In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.

So Valerie Plame, CIA officer, sat and listened politely while her hubby rattled on about a trip her own department had organized.  Did Mr. Kristof, trained observer, detect by the most subtle of body language that she had heard this before?  Or did she blurt out, "Oh, Joe, we set it up differently, tell the story the right way", like any other wife in the world?  Oh, never mind.

Let's flash forward to October 2003, following the announcement of the criminal referral and the commencement of the Plame leak investigation.  Nick Kristof writes an "Everybody chill" column with these near-confessional moments:

I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her CIA career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47,'' as a classmates at the CIA training "farm,'' Jim Marcinkowski, recalls. I'll be more careful around her, for she also turns out to be skilled in throwing hand grenades and to have lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots. (Mrs. Wilson was not a source for this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence community.)

Uh huh.  We have emphasized the obvious weasel words.  For example, I know Mr. Kristof is a Times columnist, but I am unfamiliar with his career; similarly, he may have known Ms. Plame as a CIA analyst without being aware of her glam and covert past.

And if Ms. Plame was never a source for a column, why not just say so?  The particular phrasing leaves one wondering if she was a source for an article about something other than the intelligence community - North Korea's nuclear aspirations, for example.

Here is a bit more:

Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the CIA and moved to State Department cover, but her job remained a closely held secret.

Meaning what?  Her intelligence connections were known but her job was not?  Huh?

One might almost read that as "Folks knew she was at the CIA, but did not know about her past".  Do tell.  And just who was Kristof's source for that?  Hold on, I'm getting a name... Andrea Mitchell?  Or had Mr. Kristof simply heard from several folks about her CIA link? Why wouldn't he have heard that - as far as the INR was concerned, she was a CIA liason person with nothing to hide.

Oh, well.  One last straw in the wind is this: Nick Kristof broke the story of the mysterious envoy with his May 6 column, and rejoined the effort with columns in June and July of 2003. 

He wrote the "Be Cool" column in Oct 2003, and then - two years of radio silence.  As best I can tell from the Times archives, he did not tackle the subject of the story he broke until just before Mr. Fitzgerald was slated to announce indictments.  His theme then (which included the use of the phrase "Javert") - Special Counsel Fitzgerald had gone too far.

Hmm.  Bob Woodward had a similar view.  He, of course, was criticized for offering his opinion without disclosing his own personal involvement in the case.

Well, maybe back in 2003 Mr. Kristof was advised by an editor that he was a bit too close to this story, and he did essentially what folks say Woodward should have done - lay low.

Again, it is an easy question to ask, if some intrepid reporter can get ahold of Mr. Kristof.  In the interest of avoiding a chat with Mr. Fitzgerald, we assume Mr. Kristof will duck it.  However, his time with the Libby team will come soon enough.

Court Filings - More Discovery From Libby

:  GoLibby's team files for more disclosure.

My quick thoughts and links to the WaPo and Times coverage are at my main blog.

Let's get some court filings:

The Case Number at Pacer is:

1:05-cr-00394

Here is a 25 page .pdf file; it may lack the proper file suffix, so opening it may be problematic.  Never be daunted!

Main Document

Exhibits A-C: this is some very interesting correspondence between Special Counsel Fitzgerald and Libby's attorneys.  Key bits - Fitzgerald is not aware of any CIA documents suggesting that Ms. Plame's status was *not* classified in the relevant tie period; and, as far as Fitzgerald knows, the only five reporters that were aware that Valerie Plame (and/or Joe Wilson's wife) was at the CIA were Woodward, Miller, Pincus, Cooper, and Novak.  That means Russert and Mitchell 'denied' it (depending on what they were asked; evidently, Fitzgerald took from their statements that they knew nothing).

Exhibits D-F: pretty tedious; Ex. D is a transcript of the Fitzgerald press conference of Oct 28, 2005; Ex. E is the Oct 1, 2003 WaPo story noting the CIA criminal referral; and Ex. F is the White House order to folks to cooperate with the investigation or die trying.

Proposed Order: self-explanatory - the Libby team's wish list.

UPDATE:  Via Jeralyn Merritt, here are case numbers for the subpoenas from Libby to various news organizations:

CASE #: 1:06-mc-00123-RBW:  NBC NEWS & AFFILIATES
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00124-RBW:  MATTHEW COOPER
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00125-RBW:  JUDITH A. MILLER
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00126-RBW:  ANDREA MITCHELL
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00127-RBW:  TIM RUSSERT
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00128-RBW:  TIME, INCORPORATED
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00129-RBW:  NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY

 

Libby Defense Seeks Discovery Against Fitzgerald

Here is a link to the Part One of the court filing by the Libby team.

Part Two contains the exhibits, including lots of transcripts.  Good grist for the mill here, I am sure - some of the transcripts are obvious, bit others have no obvious relevance.

Part Three is the proposed order.

Here is my original post with links to the AP, Reuters, the WaPo, and the NY Times.

Andrea Mitchell

This post includes excerpts from Andrea Mitchell's key statement on the Plame case.  What to look for:

In Oct 2003, Ms. Mitchell said it was "widely known" amongst the journalists on her beat that Joe Wilson's wife was at the CIA; in Oct 2005, she said she had spoken to the FBI about some part of her involvement in the story; and in Nov 2005, she denied both the advance knowledge about Wilson's wife and her cooperation with the investigation (or at least, her cooperation since Fitzgerald took over, but why weasel?)

Here we go:

Oct 3, 2003 (Taranto, WSJ):

And this is an exchange between host Alan Murray and guest Andrea Mitchell   on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003 (transcript   not available publicly online):

Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

More context is provided in this post, which includes an extended excerpt to refute the notion that Ms. Mitchell misunderstood the question:

MURRAY: Andrea, a couple of quick questions. One, you said something earlier that I wasn't sure about. Bob Novak reported that two administration officials told him this. Are we any closer to having any idea who those two people are?

MITCHELL: No. And you know, there's a lot of rumor. There's been denials from the White House. Joe Wilson, he now inappropriately suggested that Karl Rove may have been the person. What he really should have been saying is that he believes Karl Rove was circulating the story after Novak put it out. So we don't know who that person was. There have been suggestions regarding the vice president's office. These have been denied. But it's really...

MURRAY: Right.

MITCHELL: ...inappropriate, I think, for any of us to suggest that someone might have been involved, because we're talking about a possible crime, and we have no evidence of that.

MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

Don Imus asked Ms. Mitchell about this following the publication of the Taranto piece.  Ms. Mitchell's first disavowal was on Nov. 10, 2005.  Here is a NewsMax transcript:

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL:  Well, that was out of context.

IMUS: Oh, it was?

MITCHELL: It was out of context. 

IMUS:  Isn't that always the case?

MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."

And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.

I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had known in that period.

IMUS:  So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL: I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.

IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL:  Yes.

IMUS:  Did you mention . . .

MITCHELL:  It was in a long interview on CNBC.

IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated that his wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . .

IMUS:  OK, so you did say that.   It took me a minute to get that out of you.

MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column. And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview.

IMUS:  When was the Novak column?

MITCHELL:  The Novak column was on the 14th, July 12th or 14th of '03.

IMUS:  So this was well after that?

MITCHELL: Well after that. That's why the confusion. I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview.

IMUS:  Who'd you find it out from?  Russert?   

MITCHELL:  I found it out from Novak.

IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?

MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie.

IMUS:  Which would break little Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.

MITCHELL: Well, which has not happened. But this is (unintelligible). We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view. And . . .

IMUS: Bingo.

MITCHELL:  Bingo.

That answer satisfied no one, so Don Imus tried again just before Thanksgiving.  Here is NewsMax from Wednesday, Nov 23, and my commentary is here:  Briefly, this new answer does not exactly ring true, and MS. Mitchell adds the news that she has "in no way" cooperated with the Fitzgerald investigation:

MITCHELL: I know the question now. I've gone back and reread it. And I frankly - I thought - I think that I thought he was asking about, did I know there was an envoy. But I know that I didn't know about Joe Wilson's wife until after the [Novak] column. Because when the column came out I went in to my producer and said - "Look at this. How the heck did we not know that?"

And at the same time we were talking with [Tim] Russert and everyone else. You know - this is a different part of the story that we didn't know about.

So clearly back in Oct. of '03, I screwed it up. 

IMUS: Well, [Alan Murray's] question seems plain. "Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. And you said that his wife worked . . .

MITCHELL: When you look at my answer, I said: "It was widely known - and we were trying to track down who among the foreign community was the envoy to Niger." So far, so good. Okay? [Quoting herself again.] "So some of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact the she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

IMUS: Well, that part is clear. 

MITCHELL: That's clear. So, what's not clear is that I didn't know about her role at the CIA until Bob Novak wrote it. And I obviously got it muddled.

IMUS: Well, what this suggests to me is that, you knew she worked at the CIA but you didn't know what she did there. 

MITCHELL:  Yes, but that's not . . .

IMUS: Is that fair?  Did you know that?

MITCHELL:  I didn't.

IMUS:  Well, then - why did you say you did, Andrea?

MITCHELL:  Because, I messed up.

IMUS:  Oh.

MITCHELL: I think that I was confused about the timeline. We weren't all as focused on the timeline then as we really are now. And I think I just was confused.

IMUS:  Did you ever have a discussion with Russert about it?

MITCHELL:  Sure, after the fact.

IMUS:  Oh.

MITCHELL: Well, I think Russert, conversations with Russert, obviously after Joe Wilson came out on "Meet the Press" - and we all talked about those 16 words. That's what we were focused on. We were focused on Niger, uranium, were there WMD? That's what the whole focus was. Not on his wife.

Then Joe Wilson's wife was mentioned by Bob Novak and it became a major issue when the CIA referred it to the Justice Department for investigation. . . . . [SNIP]

IMUS: I think the reason that there's a question about you, and I'm not patronizing you, but it's because the respect you have as a journalist and as a reporter.

MITCHELL: I appreciate that but I've got to tell you . . .

IMUS:  I mean, [reporters are] very careful about what they say and when they say it.

MITCHELL: I have gone back over this, I can't tell you how many times. I was quite surprised to hear about it because it's inconsistent with anything in my memory. I can't find any notes that reflect this - this alleged knowledge. And so I was muddled on the timeline - that's all I can imagine.

IMUS:  Have you been subpoenaed?

MITCHELL:  No, no - not at all.

IMUS:  Have you ever - have you talked to Fitzgerald informally?

MITCHELL: No - in no way. I was - I didn't have any knowledge about this. You know, one of the things that happened was that the Washington Post wrote an inaccurate story in the middle of this whole period, saying that I was one of the six people who had been leaked to before the Novak column. And that's how my name first got into this.

Which was not true. They didn't check with me. They didn't call me. I was in the office all day. It was a Sunday. They wrote the story on Monday morning.

Well, perhaps she did not talk to Fitzgerald, but Ms. Mitchell may have spoken with investigators before Fitzgerald took over the case at the end of 2003.  This is what she said on Oct 29, 2005 when discussing the case on CNBC's "The Tim Russert Show":

MITCHELL: You know, I should have spoke--'cause there's been a lot blogged about all of this--I was called by the CIA because it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been. So I was never questioned because I simply told the FBI--and, you know, NBC put out a statement that night--that I had not been a recipient of the leak; in fact, I had learned about it from Novak's column like everyone else. Then after the fact, a lot of us had gotten calls and conversations with people, you know, `Hey, how about the Novak column?' But that was after the fact.

She was "never questioned because [she] simply told the FBI"?  What did the FBI do, make declarative statements and wait for her to nod yes or no?  Get me Jack Bauer.

Wrapping it up:  In Oct 2003, Ms. Mitchell said it was "widely known" amongst the journalists on her beat that Joe Wilson's wife was at the CIA; in Oct 2005, she said she had spoken to the FBI about some part of her involvement in the story; and in Nov 2005, she denied both the advance knowledge about Wilson's wife and her cooperation with the investigation (or at least, since Fitzgerald's took over, but why weasel?)

Lots of questions for Ms. Mitchell.

MORE:  Let's include the circumstances that got Ms. Mitchell involved in this - here is Howard Kurtz of the WaPo, with Joe Wilson as his source:

A senior administration official told The Post on Saturday that two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday.

She couldn't be reached, even though she was at the office all day on a Sunday in the summertime.

Let's cut to Newsweek:

But after the Novak column ran, Wilson says, he got plenty of calls. As NEWSWEEK reported in this week’s issue, Andrea Mitchell called him on Sunday, July 20, and told him that she “heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that was the real story.”

Finally, here is Tom Brokaw and the NBC denial:

TOM BROKAW: NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified           by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent.           But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion           with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert           Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the           record.

My point - the investigators may have pursued a very limited line of questioning, such as, "Did you get a leak from anyone in the White House". 

And the NBC denial has wiggle room - she denies any knowledge prior to the Novak column of "the matter", but what's the matter?  Is it that Ms. Plame suggested her husband for the job, that Ms. Plame is "an operative" in WMDs at the CIA, or is it merely that Ms. Plame is employed in the CIA in some capacity? 

And is "the matter" tied to the fact that Novak's cited White House sources, thereby removing non-White House sources from "the matter"?  Ms. Mitchell covers the State Dept., and Woodward's leak may well have come from Richard Armitage when he was Deputy Secretary of State there.  And by cheery, eerie coincidence, here we have Ms. Mitchell breaking news from the State Dept. about how the CIA botched the pre-war reporting on Niger by mis-placing the INR dissent in the National Intelligence estimate.  Did her sources include any other swipes at the CIA?

Questions, questions, questions.

Let's recap - Ms. Mitchell was misplaced at the scene of the incident by Joe Wilson; NBC issued a denial of her involvement in that part of the leak, but left open the possibility that she had received the tip elsewhere; she covered the State Dept, where senior people knew about Wilson's wife and had reason to bash the CIA; there is serious speculation that Armitage of State leaked to Woodward, so we don't think State was sphinx-like on this.

Did Andrea Mitchell get an early tip that Joe Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA from the State Dept.?  You make the call!