Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Woodward and His Source | Main | General Shinseki, Again »

November 20, 2005

Comments

DougJ

It is pretty tough to believe Newsweek after that Koran story they made up whole cloth.

Still, this has Armitage's M.O. Truly, he's hardly better than Wilson. I almost wonder if he and Wilson hatched this whole scheme to try to embarrass the White House. You know, Armitage outs Wilson's wife, then they try to pin it on Cheney. It's a neat trick and it seems to have worked on Fitzgerald.

topsecretk9

OWL
Spoon fed ESP, no?

Also..."Don't get too far out on Wilson"

What a flippin smear. I am starting to think that MSM have been hiding behind the "smear outing" concept because they DID get too far out on Wilson.

Syl

boris

LOL DO NOT CONFUSE ME :)

Libby:Cooper and Rove:Novak = 'I heard that too'

Libby:Miller God only knows

Neo

I'm glad that my taxes are going to keep this "soap opera" alive in DC.

Please give Wilson and Plame a one-way ticket to Niger (or Antarctica). Please.

owl

Except some have more ESP than others.

David Corn
Wilson on forgeries repeated by Kristof and ?(now I forget but one other for sure).

Kate

Neo...haven't you heard. The favorite couple of the left is moving to California.

They were being bothered by the "paparazzi". I kid you not, that's what I read. That's just another name for the DC press corp. Can't just leave that crazy couple alone! It hurts to be stars!!

owl

Read that Kate. I figured it was a better location for the movie? Play themselves?

topsecretk9

Kate- Really? I knew it. Something I read a while ago made me think that. It will sicken me (not that I own it) that it will most likely be in my hometown San Clemente (his brother lives there).

Some commenter on another site had a link to his Ex-wife's (the French Embassy one) home recently was sold in Maryland and was making some speculation. Anyhow, how people get this info is beyond me.

Kate

I had bad feelings about Fitzgerald when he wrote in his brief about the reporters plea - that it was about possible retaliation against a whistleblower.

The second part was when he called Wilson right after Miller got out of jail and before she testified. Wilson acted like they were best buds.

If he set perjury traps for Rove and Libby he just bought off on Corn's narrative and didn't follow the facts.

Kate

Owl, TS9: at least we get them out of DC. The other side of the country is fine w/this resident of Northern Virginia.

Jim E.

Kate wrote: "[Fitz] just bought off on Corn's narrative and didn't follow the facts."

It must be terribly frustrating for you to know more facts about this case than Fitz. How else could you know that Fitz is not following them?

Sue

Jim E.,

For one thing, he limited the testimony of reporters and has been zapped, at least once so far. We will see if there are more zappers out there.

Jim E.

I didn't realize how much the righties are endorsing Fitz to take a fishing expedition.

dogtownGuy

---They were being bothered by the "paparazzi". I kid you not,

Well that's interesting. And I thought it was getting COOLER in DC this time of year?

Sue

I like that term. Righties. As opposed to Wrongies? :)

Rob W

You can't indict anyone under 18 CFR 793 or any other portion of the Code of Federal Regulations. They are regulations, not criminal laws. Only federal law may form the basis for a criminal charge. Federal regualtions are not criminal in nature.

dorf

How funny if true. Armitage really did not like the White House operation, esp. Iraq War. Let's see the media try to paint him close to Prez.

Sue

dorf,

Novak was not a fan of the war either.

richard mcenroe

"Federal regualtions are not criminal in nature."

Well, you can't prosecute anybody under them, but ask any business owner or farmer about the rest of it...

Rob W

Clarice:

More info please, link? Obviously some attorneys for someone are saying that Hadley leaked to Woodward. I haven't seen anything to counteract that. If you have actual information saying otherwise (please no speculation, or attacks on the credibility of the journalist), please share it. Because now we have a major newspaper saying it. The story isn't old, its from this morning.

Mithras

Here ya go, have a closing italics tag: . Enjoy.

Mithras

Another? Better?

Mithras

That should be enough.

dorf

Sue: roger that. Neither was Brent Scarecrow.

akb

The bubble will break --

1. We know that the source for Novak and Woodward is the same.

2. We know from Novak that the source is not "a partisan gunslinger."

3. Armitage is about to be revealed - not by Woodward or Novak - but by other reporters from Post.

4. This will mean trouble for Woodward - expect him to give up his Assistant manging director position by end of Dec. That will spare him to be fired like Miller.

AKB

danking

We'll go fishing after Woodward's source testifies in front of the new Grand Jury.

But so far, Fitz is content with only a statement from him and Woodward.

The Press has taken so much rightful crap for this story, do you think they'll be content to let the name of the first leaker remain anonymous?

If they let it go, then we have more proof they were in the bag to add to the mountain.

The frenzy seems to have started with the fully of denials from the WH and around DC. And now we have the Wilsons moving to California because of the Washington "paparazzi"...

One can hope that the Press is finally getting started to get to the truth and it's not at all like the story they've been peddling so far.

noah

Zarqawi is dead. Kos will weep silently. MM way weep openly. Cindy will probably cancel her plans for thanksgiving. We will have another curious period of silence on the left that followed the January elections. The left will be off their game temporarily until they reasemble their upatriotic talking points.

akb

Also,

Tomorrow, Mon., Woodward will be on Larry King Alive.

Expect --

1. Woodward to NOT refer Fitz. as "Junkyard Dog" or "Disgraceful" as HE HAS DONE IN THE PAST.

2. Instead, expect him to say that Fitz "is total honorable man", "he is very focused", "he will go down in history as a very dedicated ...", etc. In sum, expect Woodward to start licking shoes of Fitz..

3. You heard it here first. Woodward will give up his Asst. Mang. Editor position as part of his error on Post. This will save him from resigning or being fired like Miller at NYT. He will give up by end of Dec.

AKB

jeanneB

There's a little wrinkle in the theory that Novak and Woodward had the same source (whether it's Armitage or not).

From all we've heard, Novak told Fitz who his source was. We have to assume Fitz subpoenaed that person and asked who else he'd talked to. Unless he committed perjury, he would have led Fitz to Woodward from the get-go.

Did Armitage appear before the grand jury? If he did---and lied about Woodward---it's hard to imagine his voluntarily showing up at Fitz's door and suddenly releasing Woodward to testify at this late date.


danking

Trouble for Woodward at the WaPo?

No fucking shit! Now I get all that the anger directed at him.

The WaPo has been letting Dana Priest and Pincus set the tone of the CIA Leak story and Woodward was just sitting their wondering

"Hmmn, maybe I should tell them?"

No wonder they're so pissed at him. LOL!

Their star reporter just took a crap on their frontpage and he knows the real story.

danking

That "no fucking shit" comment probably came across as too aggressive.

God I love this story!

topsecretk9

Owl,Kate, Sue

They were being bothered by the "paparazzi"...

Well they sure aren't doing a very good job, I have yet to see either of their mugs on Enquirer or Starr...unless he is referring to the dignified truth tellers known as the DC Press Corp. of which I am sure they would not appreciate that moniker.

Is this what Wilson means when he dusts off the "the great irony is" sentence starter?

topsecretk9

danking-

It made me laugh!

JM Hanes

jeanneB -

Or maybe Fitz asked him (poss Armitage) if he told Novak about Plame and he just said yes. If Fitz didn't ask about Woodward or others, the witness might have chosen not to volunteer additional info.

topsecretk9

danking-

I also enjoyed

"Their star reporter just took a crap on their frontpage and he knows the real story."

very much.

akb

JeanneB,

Actually we know that Novak gave his source info to Fitz, who had NOT called that source to GJ. How do I know? This was reported a while back. The source then figured that he was in the clear. Then the indictment to Libby. Now Woodward calls the source and says "hey did you tell me this in mid-June". Source realizes that there is a problem and so calls Fitz. Fitz gets the source to GJ. Then Woodward comes.

What do you think? The source is Armitage. Why else Woodward go to CNN and say that this info (Plame) is a rumor. If it was Libby or any other RIght-wing source, then Woodward would not use that metaphor (rumor).

Novak called the source no rightwing gunslinger.

It is Armitage. Expect this to be reported in new weeks...

AKB

topsecretk9

AKB

You think it was Pincus's source too?

topsecretk9

it--- I meant Armitage, not sure if that was a Freudian slip or not

PaulV

Woodward knows where the bodies are buried at the Post. His position is safe. Judy Miller knew where enough dead bodies are buried ar NYTimes to get $2.5 Million

cathyf
The media is biased but what is really scary is their incompetence.
No kidding. I think the thing that fries me the most is the way they are playing dumb (or maybe they are that dumb?!?) on the nepotism charge.

cathy :-)

BurkettHead

Maybe the DC paparazzi are no longer quite as adoring as they once were & are starting to ask the Wilsons real questions. Maybe the Wilsons figure they'll have their star status, adoring crowds and fawning paparazzi in CA.

dogtownGuy

---Is this what Wilson means when he dusts off the "the great irony is" sentence starter?

something like that TSK9...I think it means he is getting the hell out of dodge! Why? Hmmmmm....

Of course it comes wrapped in typical Wilson martyr fashion.

One wonders if the Press Corp will be his tool this time? Or will they finally come up for air and start taking a closer look at Wilson, since others are too.

However, it does make it harder if you are 3000 miles away. Say, BTW what happened to all of Wilson's pending civil suits?

Syl

Fun Speculation Alert!

Do you think Woodward has told us everything?

Have Woodward and Wilson ever been in a green room together?

Just, you know, wishin' for some icing on the cake. :)

Syl

dogtownGuy

However, it does make it harder if you are 3000 miles away

But you can rely on the LA Times!!

clarice

Is everyone at the LAT on crack?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/cl-et-rutten19nov19,0,2580451.column?track=hpmostemailedlink

topsecretk9

Syl

Well maybe if Wilson keeps calling for that Woodward probe, Bob will tell us...on second thought--Maybe that is why Wilson is leaving DC...

Dogtown could be onto something, Burkett too!

Shoes may be JUST about dropping.

topsecretk9

I think the State Dept.(current and former) is going is going to be on fire here shortly...and who and where did WIlson call TO WARN them about the Niger story after he heard the SOTUS?

clarice

Rob W. Hadley has denied it..Armitage hasn't. There's a discussion about it on one of these threads already,

Jim E.

akb wrote: "we know that Novak gave his source info to Fitz, who had NOT called that source to GJ. How do I know? This was reported a while back."

News to me. Got a citation? Does akb's synopsis (esp part about Novak's source not testifying) ring a bell for anyone else?

richard mcenroe

Clarice — That's the smart bet.

topsecretk9

JimE
Honestly, no. Not to my knowledge.

topsecretk9

JimE
Honestly, no. Not to my knowledge.

Rob W

Um, Clarice, Hadley could be lying. Not only that but her personally would not deny it when asked directly about it, instead saying that he had heard White House officials deny he had been the leaker. When asked whether that was a yes or a no, he said "it is what it is." Hadley has NEVER denied it, only White House officials have denied it.

Note that his non-denial sounds suspiciously like Mehlman, who earlier said that Rove has said he's not the leaker.

I think that although Armitage may or mayk not have said anything, Hadley is pretty much been found to be the guy.

Either way, it is utterly immaterial to whether or not Libby lied.

Jon H


TM:

I'd suggest you look at Jane Hamsher's post at firedoglake.

Armitage was out of the country with Powell around the time Woodward had his little chat with someone.

On the other hand, Woodward apparently went to his boss the very day that word came out that Cheney had told Libby that Plame was CIA.

topsecretk9

RobW

Those lawyers close that insist it is Hadley could be lying too! I wonder...which Lawyers would be pointing a finger at Hadley? Libby's? Rove's? And how would they know?

clarice

Yes--the source could be anyone's--Rob believe what you want. It would be stupid for the source who cal;led the SP to lie about it..and if Hadley did leak anything to Woodward I'd expect he'd have resigned.

clarice

Let me redo that--interruptions here--

Anything sourced by "lawyers" could mean any lawyers--it's a great way to dump shit on anyone you consider an enemy..Since Woodward's source contacted the SP, I find it hard to believe he's lie about it..And if Hadley really leaked, I'd expect he'd have resigned.

Jon H

".And if Hadley really leaked, I'd expect he'd have resigned."

Why on earth would you expect that?

clarice

Because he wouldn't want to embarrass the WH--as you recall--no one ther was found to have leaked--or do I have to hit you on the head with a hammer to get that through to you...


And it wasn't Cheney..

Assuming Armitage was out of town when Woodward spoke to his source..was he maintaining radio silence?

Jim E.

clarice wrote: "Since Woodward's source contacted the SP, I find it hard to believe he's lie about it."

If Woodward's source had already testified before the SP, then it'd mean he'd already lied once -- to the SP.

And I'd have zero problem believing one of the people on the list of "deniers" is lying when they deny being the source. I'm not being partisan -- I just won't be surprised if we find out in the coming weeks that Woodward's source was one of those who has issued one of the denials.

Jon H

"Assuming Armitage was out of town when Woodward spoke to his source..was he maintaining radio silence?"

No, but he was probably busy doing diplomacy stuff overseas, with a packed schedule of meetings and state dinners and all that crap.

He would be extremely unlikely to make time to talk with Woodward about events of the prior year (for the book Woodward was working on). Such conversations could wait until his return.

Occam's razor would suggest Woodward's source was someone in town, someone easily accessible at that point of time.

clarice

Trust me--"state dinners and all that stuff " aside, the idea that the conversation was by phone is not impossible. IIRC Armitage gave a speech in Iraq on June 18,2003--Woodward was vague on the date --"mid June"..and there are phones on the official planes..and I dobt there was much in the way of "state dinners" on that trip.l

clarice

You and I have a different idea of Occam's sword..You seem to thing it's like spin the bottle where the tip points towhoever you want it to point at..I think you misunderstand the concept.

Jon H

"Trust me--"state dinners and all that stuff " aside, the idea that the conversation was by phone is not impossible. I"

Not impossible, no. But given that he was traveling, it makes more sense to at least drop him to the bottom of the list of potential sources.

Yes, he could talk by phone, but why would he be talking to Woodward at all when there'd be no rush to talk to him? Books take a long time to write.

It's not like Woodward was working on stories for the next day's newspaper. There's no urgency there.

Lesley

See Tom.

See Tom talk.

Tom on CNN

topsecretk9

Here is June 2003 State -- the links are all mucked up above...June 9 and 10 OOC Japan

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2003/c9415.htm

Maybe TM can delete the comment above!!

clarice

Thanks--My memory was off--But I only saw one trip away too--thought it was Iraq, turns out it was Japan--I checked the DoS site last night..

topsecretk9

Well I hardly think 2 days out of country (if that is all that there is ) eliminates Armitage as a source, even during the given timeframe.

Neo

Kate:
I had no idea that there were any WMD in Hollywood, except perhaps BS's pasta.

What will Flame do out there ? Most of CIA is in DC Metro or WV (Byrd and Rockerfeller must be laughing their asses off).

clarice

Where is that story anyway,Neo?

Rick Ballard

Revised TopsecretK9 list:

June 12
June 13
June 16
June 17
June 18
June 19
June 20

Beyond the 20th isn't mid month. Thanks TS9.

Rick Ballard

We've only read press accounts stating that supersecretagent VictoriaValerieFlamePlameWilson has returned to work at Langley. Perhaps she returned to clean out her invisible desk after her voluntary forced unpaid administrative leave which may or may not have been disciplinary in nature.

The world of the supersecretagent is very mysterious. Perhaps it's a double that's off to Californy with a banjo on her knee? Or perhaps she's going undercover in California? Announcing the move could just be a CIA ploy.

clarice

Maybe they'll star in their own tv series --

sideshow joe

Thanks TS9 for the dates. It looks like Ron H was making shit up. Now we know Ron is a moonbat and can be ignored.

Truzenzuzex

Sue:

I believe Libby had reason to question whether it was classified, since he didn't want to discuss it on a non-secure line.
True. I forgot about that, actually. If that actually happened as alleged, it would tend to blow my theory out of the water.

Truzenzuzex

JM Hanes:

I was making a distinction between being classified and being covert. Considering how much sand Fitz himself has been throwing in our eyes on this one (uses the colloquial expression about her cover being blown, but doesn't ever say she was officially covert), I'm sure he did the same throughout the investigation. In other words, Libby had to assume the higher crime was in play (and conceivably could still be, if in fact she was covert, which I doubt).
Good point. I guess my only real quibble with what you said there is that a higher crime is still in play (18 USC 793), but evidently not for Libby.

Truzenzuzex

Rob:

You can't indict anyone under 18 CFR 793 or any other portion of the Code of Federal Regulations. They are regulations, not criminal laws. Only federal law may form the basis for a criminal charge. Federal regualtions are not criminal in nature.
How does 18 USC 793 work for ya?

Truzenzuzex

AKB:

1. We know that the source for Novak and Woodward is the same.
We do?

How do we know this again? Did I miss something?

noah

Topsecretk9:

LOL. Just noticed the k9 part. Top secret dog...neat.

JeanneB

JMHanes:

Or maybe Fitz asked him...if he told Novak about Plame and he just said yes. If Fitz didn't ask about Woodward or others, the witness might have chosen not to volunteer additional info.

Fitz' statement at the press conference indicates he was focused on WHO was the first gov't official to leak to a reporter. It, therefore, makes little sense that he would put Novak's source on the stand and NOT ask him if he'd leaked to anyone before Novak.

Did Powell testify? Has he denied being Woodward's (or Novak's) source?

Imagine how crushed the MSM will be if it turned out to be Powell...or anyone at State for that matter. They drool when evidence points at the White House and snarl when the Pentagon is mentioned. But they can't seem to work up much interest in State---even tho the memo originated there.

noah

Note to poster way up thread about encrypted phones being all over DC. Encryption protects against interception not against either party taping the conversation.

ron (e) and nancy (p)

Help, help-

Our conspiracy theories have fallen and they can't get up...

Neo

I remember seeing Powell on TV a few weeks before Libby indictments when he said he saw the infamous "State Dept. memo" (as others have said he did) but that he was not the source of the leak.
I see Powell was on Charlie Rose on this past Friday, but can't find a transcript to see if anything new.

cathyf
Either way, it is utterly immaterial to whether or not Libby lied.
On the contrary, the indictment's fundamental accusation is that Libby is lying when he says that before he told any reporter a particular piece of info he heard the info from another reporter. The indictment's logic is that since reporters didn't know, then Libby's story is impossible. If reporters did know, then Libby's story becomes possible. If Libby's lawyers can show a reasonable possibility that the conversation that Libby remembers being with Russert in early July was actually with Woodward in late June, then there's your reasonable doubt and Fitzgerald's prosecution collapses for all 3 conversations.

You can certainly point out that it's still against regulations to disclose classified information after someone else has disclosed it, and you would be correct. But it's probably not against the law, since the law requires some reasonable belief of national security import. But more importantly, this was Libby's story from the beginning, that he stopped treating the info as classified once he heard it from reporters. If Fitzgerald was going to bring charges on that, he would have -- after all, Libby admitted it. If the bank robber says he robbed the bank wearing a red ski mask and the surveillance tape says that it was blue, you don't prosecute for lying about the ski mask while ignoring the bank robbery crime. I'd say, given the presser and the indictment, that if Fitzgerald had actually believed Libby's "once a reporter told me the info I treated it as non-classified" story, then he would not have prosecuted.

cathy :-)

Terrie

Mickey Kaus was watching our Minuteman Tom, too.

Please see his 6:26pm post on Saturday, November 19, 2005:

"On CNN, Tom Maguire looks perfectly normal. How bizarre."

http://www.slate.com/id/2130405/

TM

Jeanne B, 6:19:

From all we've heard, Novak told Fitz who his source was. We have to assume Fitz subpoenaed that person and asked who else he'd talked to. Unless he committed perjury, he would have led Fitz to Woodward from the get-go.

Did Armitage appear before the grand jury? If he did---and lied about Woodward---it's hard to imagine his voluntarily showing up at Fitz's door and suddenly releasing Woodward to testify at this late date

My thoughts exactly.

Also, the timing is odd, as noted by Sue - Novak *presumably* got his first leak in July (or did he get it in June, not care, and them have a hard time getting confirmation in July, finally settling for Rove's "I heard that too"?).

So why was Armitage so quiet for a month?

From Jim E:

I didn't realize how much the righties are endorsing Fitz to take a fishing expedition.

Well, I am not sure what I am endorsing, other than a healty dose of humility on Fitzgerald's part - he might want to remember that, becuase of his difficulties in getting testimony from reporters, he has a far from complete picture.

As to how to solve that, well, good question.

richard mcenroe

Neo — She'll probably get a nice consulting gig with Law and Order or West Wing...

JM Hanes

JeanneB
"Imagine how crushed the MSM will be if it turned out to be Powell...or anyone at State for that matter."

Not just the MSM, but the whole anti-Bush crowd who have painted Powell & State as the good guys trying to keep the WH in check. I always liked Powell, but he spent way too much time positioning himself with the press in Washington & not enough time on the road. Go Condi!

owl

Look over at AJs in comment by SBD.

owl

Pincus---1996 knew

owl

It sure would explain being invited to a JULY4 party....

TallDave

One important question here: who else did Armitage tell?

The answer to that one could be important.

TP

I wonder if some of the attorneys might want to comment on whether Fitz might have wanted to backdoor the DOJ 1st Amendment restrictions by forcing the defense, in Libby's case, to get more discovery under his 6th Amendment rights, thereby allowing the DOJ to probe further. Maybe this is giving the guy too much credit for being clever, or devious, or whatever.

In any event, throwing this cherry bomb has given him a much better picture of the lay of the land and where the rats have scattered. It will be interesting to see what he does with the 2nd GJ.

owl

Okay, "possibly" Pincus knew .....

topsecretk9

Rick Ballard

Thanks for the link fix...I guess I am link challenged when it goes beyond 2 (actually had to change computers and didn't notice the email attached it's own AHERF business too!) Anyways thanks!

Noah
thanks for the compliment, 11 year old offsprings come up with some pretty creative handles huh?

topsecretk9

Owl ---

Oh my buddha! Strata's Commenter ! 4th Comment...

JUST the beginning!!!!!

"BYLINE: Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:
She was a CIA case officer working in Europe covertly, holding herself out as the representative of a Texas foundation that was interested in world economics.

Unlike most CIA case officers overseas who work out of U.S. embassies and purport to be diplomats, she was operating under what CIA calls “nonofficial cover” (NOC).

When tradecraft errors led to her entrapment by French counterintelligence, she left the country and her case eventually became a public embarrassment for both Washington and Paris.


JM Hanes

tops -
Wow! Fascinating....

TP

It sure helps explain Pincus' overwrought denial that she had ever been a source for a story about the CIA.

clarice

It's from a post on FR--and I am unable to get an URL for the Pincus piece..Which I agree is significant.

Sue

TS-K9 (cute, very cute, btw, has it been K9 all along and I just noticed?),

Wow. If Pincus is writing about Plame, things just got interesting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame