Woodward's Source - Now The Times Points To Armitage

Who leaked to Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame was at the CIA?

The NY Times provides a handy pop-up graphic highlighting denials and folks who are "not telling".

The pretty slim "not telling" list consists of Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State and our leading suspect; David Addington, counsel to the Vice President; and Catherine Martin, former public affairs director.

According to Bob Woodward's editor Len Downie, "the source was one who had been interviewed many times for Woodward's 2004 book", according to Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft.

Hmm.  Of the three candidates on offer, who would be the most likely fit?  I'm staying with Armitage.

MORE:  Sure, someone could be lying.

STILL MORE:  What do we know about Woodward's source?  Here is the old clue, from WaPo editor Len Downie:

DOWNIE: ...he had first told me in late October about the fact that he had had this conversation back in June of 2003.

It was a very brief part of a much longer interview that Bob was conducting for his book with a source that he had conducted many interviews with for his book. And at the time, he doesn't think if was very important. And it was a king of byplay that wasn't even part of the interview that he was conducting.

And here is a new clue from WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell:

The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

Does that rule out Armitage, who does not leap to mind as a likely authority on Bush's second term?  Not exactly - in his original statement explaining this, Woodward did mention that in mid-2003 he was doing research on the second term book:

The interviews were mostly confidential background interviews for my 2004 book "Plan of Attack" about the leadup to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for The Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006.

As the astute "MJW" points out in the comments, "The circumstances surrounding Rice's replacement of Powell as Secretary of State will certainly be covered in the book".  So Armitage would certainly have a lot to add to that.

UPDATE:  Laura Rozen tells us that reporter Viveca Novak will be testifying.

Here is the AP:

A second Time magazine reporter has agreed to cooperate in the CIA leak case and will testify about her discussions with Karl Rove's attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against the White House aide.

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or contributed to articles in which Luskin characterized the nature of what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter who testified in the case.

What Fitzgerald hopes to get from her that he can't get directly from Luskin is a mystery to me.  And why the reporter agreed to cooperate is a puzzle - is Luskin suspected of some crime?  Did he lie to Fitzgerald but tell the truth to a reporter?

If Luskin is not suspected of a crime, why does he not retain the normal source confidentialty privileges?  Did Luskin waive them for some reason?  Were all of his interviews completely on the record?  Or has TIME simply thrown in the towel and decided not to oppose this prosecutor?

Sorry for all the questions - here is the TIME article itself, which answers none of them.  Not of interest to their readers, I guess.

And here are two articles by Ms. Novak that seem to be on point: "The Rove Problem", July 17, 2005 and "Rove Testifies in Wilson Leak", Oct 15, 2004.  Perhaps another tea-leaf reader can find something in them, but I do not.

TIME also has their own "Best Of" for coverage of the Plame case.  Perhaps some other piece by Ms. Novak is more interesting.

Comments

[kim]

Whisking his tail among the flies, so to speak.
==================================================

[noah]

Nobody answered JeanneB's question. I am not a lawyer but I think under discovery rules Fitz would be forced to disclose everything outside the GJ process. So was that Fitz's motive for reconvening a GJ...avoiding discovery?

[Jeff]

MJW - I got what you were saying, more or less. But TM added the reminder that in his public statement, Woodward explicitly said that the interviews with the three officials in June 2003 were partly research for his book about Bush's second term. Regardless of that oddity, though, your point stands that Armitage could be a confidential source in the present for Woodward as he works on the book on Bush's second term, so the comment to Howell does not rule him out. I still find it strangely misleading, if Armitage is Woodward's source.

As for AJ Strata, I wouldn't spend time being confused; from reading his contributions here, he gets most things wrong.

[arrowhead]

"Fitz seems to be doing everything except trying to get to the bottom of who leaked classified info. How is Luskin's conversation with Novak going to help him find out who started leaking Plame status, or name, or whatever?"

What Fitz needs to do is obtain a schedule of every Cable TV news program that Wilson appeared on from 2001 through 2003 and get a list of anyone who may have been in the green room with him prior to each appearance. Add to that a list of anyone who may have sat at the same dinner, lunch, breakfast, coffee or picnic table with Wilson during the same period. If he questions as many of those people as possible, he will more than likely discover (surprise!) that Wilson "outed" his own wife and that her "employer" was common knowledge throughout the Eastern seaboard if not the Western World.

[dogtownGuy]

Jeff totally disagre about AJ.

[MJW]

Jeff, I don't why I felt the need to clarify (or repeat) what I said in my first two posts. I guess I just wanted to make clear that I think Armitage was likely a source for both books, and that no matter who was the source for the Plame information, it's unlikely he or she was being interviewed in June 2003 for a book on Bush's second term. Not that I'm sure I made that clear.

As far as the comment to Howell being "strangely misleading," it wouldn't be the first time -- or even the fifth or sixth time -- in this Plame Game case. I favor Kate's explanation: "It sounds like Woodward is shamelessly pushing his new book and trying to increase interest by linking the mystery person to that book as well."

[Neo]

If Ken Starr had researched every possible "obstructionist" communication between the press and the lawyers of the various witnesses before his grand juries, he would still be deposing folks and probably be doing so for another decade or so.

[kim]

Fitz is young. This is his second grand jury, not his second childhood.
==============

[Jeff]

Some confirmation of the MJW/TM line, making the point toward Armitage a little sharper, from Franklin Foer at TNR's The Plank:

This is what I'm reliably told: Colin Powell has been aggressively jockeying to manage Woodward's current book project on the Iraq War. He has been especially irate that Cheney--the Newman to his Seinfeld--has managed to successfully outmaneuver him by currying favor with Woodward. But has Cheney really secured Woodward's ear? Or is he just making it seem that way, so that Powell preemptively gives him all the goods? We can be sure that Woodward's footnotes will never tell.