Who Are The Sources?

It was win some, lose some for Libby in court today.  Here is the Wapo:

Vice President Cheney's former top aide is not entitled to know the identity of an anonymous administration official who revealed information about CIA operative Valerie Plame to two journalists, a federal judge ruled in a hearing yesterday.

To defend himself against criminal charges, however, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby does have the right to copies of all the classified notes he took as Cheney's chief of staff from spring 2003 to spring 2004, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said. Libby sought the notes to refresh his memory about matters he was handling while discussing Plame with reporters and when questioned by investigators about those conversations.

One official, two journalists?  Whom might we be talking about?  More hints:

But Walton's decision to continue to protect the anonymity of one administration official, whom Libby's attorneys described as a confidential source about Plame for two reporters, one of them apparently Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, is a blow to Libby's case. Defense attorneys had said they needed to know the official's identity and the details of his conversations with the two journalists to show that Libby was not lying when he testified that many reporters knew about Plame's identity.

But Walton said the source's identity is not relevant, and there is no reason to sully the source's reputation because the person faces no charges.

The official's identity has been the subject of intense speculation since syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak published Plame's name in July 2003 -- eight days after her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq.

Defense attorneys in yesterday's hearing described the official as someone who did not work at the White House and was the source for two reporters. They said that one of those reporters had revealed in November that he learned about Plame from the official in mid-June 2003.

Woodward came forward in November to reveal that he had learned about Plame's CIA status from an administration official in mid-June 2003. Novak said in a speech in December that President Bush knew the identity of his source, and suggested that the official also was Woodward's source. Sources close to the leak investigation have said that Woodward and Novak received similar information from the same official.

Well, well.  Presumably the prosecution would have corrected the record if the defense was misleading the judge when they said the official was "someone who did not work at the White House".  And it seems to be pretty clear that one of the reporters in question is Woodward.

Let's put back in the mix these comments from Bob Woodward when he spoke at Harvard:

Woodward on Novak:

“His source was not in the White House, I don’t believe,” Woodward said of Novak over a private dinner at the Institute of Politics on Dec. 5. He did not indicate what information, if any, he had to corroborate the claim.

Woodward on the Administration conspiracy to out Valerie Plame:

Responding to Bernstein’s claim that the release of Plame’s identity was a “calculated leak” by the Bush administration, Woodward said flatly, “I know a lot about this, and you’re wrong.”

A lot of pixels have been spilled on speculation as to who might have been Woodward's, or Novak's, source.  This old post followed the trail blazed by the sometimes-reliable Mike Isikoff, who suggested that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage may have been Woodward's source.  And let's remember this about Armitage, from the Isikoff piece:

Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson.

As to discrediting Wilson by leaking the Plame connection, I made the point in that post that the State Department had their own gripes with the CIA on the Iraq-nuclear question, and note that the CIA recruitment of a hubby retired from State may have struck Armitage as an amusing anecdote that discredits the CIA, not Wilson  (My hypothetical cheap shot from Armitage would be something like, "When the CIA needed an answer they came to State anyway - why did anyone even waste time asking them?"). 

As to Armitage being a foe of the neocons, that could describe Bob Novak - I took a stab at their relationship here by reviewing Novak's old columns and concluded this:

Novak praised Armitage regularly, seemed to use him as a source (just from reading between the lines of some of the columns), shared Armitage's skepticism about the war in Iraq - he [Novak] would have to be a much friendlier source than Hadley.

So, is the WaPo telling us that Novak and Woodward shared a non-White House source?  Could that source be Armitage?  There are plenty of straws in the wind.

Now, the judge is currently keeping this from Libby.  What does that suggest?  Some guesses would be: (a) the judge does not think it is relevant, or (b) Libby's team can get what they need by questioning Woodward and Novak.

Here is another stray question - how can it be that Libby's team knows this official is a source for two reporters, but does not know the official's name?  Or do they know the name perfectly well, but just want the grand jury transcripts?

The AP provides another headscratcher:

Libby's lawyers and Fitzgerald disagreed over whether the unidentified government official - who does not work at the White House - was referring to Plame or her husband when he said, "Everyone knows," during a taped interview with investigators.

The defense said the official meant that most reporters knew that Plame worked at the CIA, as Libby testified before a federal grand jury. But Fitzgerald said the reference was to Wilson, who was not identified in initial media reports about the trip to Niger.

So the defense listened to a taped interview but can't identify the person?  How did this tape even come to be played - one imagines the defense had reviewed a transcript and requested a ruling on admissibility.

I'm brainlocking, or missing something.  Not the first time.

Final thought - *IF* the official leaked to Novak and Woodward, it is highly likely that the official neglected to mention the Woodward conversation until November 2005.  So here is someone who leaked to Novak, gave incomplete or misleading information to the prosecutor about his leaks, and yet his anonymity is being protected because, per the WaPo's paraphrase of Judge Walton, "there is no reason to sully the source's reputation because the person faces no charges". 

An official leaked Plame's identity to the press twice and misled the prosecutor about it; now, not only does he not face any charges, but the court is going out of its way to avoid sullying his reputation.  I can't wait to see how that is explained, and I bet Libby's defense will make this an issue.

MORE:  Because he faces no charges *at this time*?  Maybe.  But my own sense is that, with the possible exception of Rove, Fitzgerald is done indicting people, and he won't be indicting someone from State.

UPDATE:  Whoa, talk about differences in story placement - the entire NY Times coverage of the "one official, two reporters, no charges" puzzle is in their last sentence:

Judge Walton also rejected a request by Mr. Libby's lawyers to obtain information about an unnamed official who worked in the administration but not in the White House who discussed Ms. Wilson's identity with reporters.

A quick guess - the WaPo could not duck this because Woodward is one of their guys; the NY Times is engaging in professional courtesy by letting the WaPo handle its own laundry.

But what about Novak, if he is in fact the second reporter?  My theory suggests, look to the Chicago Sun-Times.  If they cover this story, they may tip their hand a bit.  Maybe.

Comments

[MJW]

I typed in the various sentences that named Novak and Woodward's source(s) into Microsoft Word with the default page width and font (Times New Roman) with the font set to 11 point. The tab was set to 0.45" to match what seemed to be the tab setting in the document. I substituted the names Armitage, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Powell, and Scowcroft, sometimes preceded by "Mr." I then compared the alignment of various letters in adjacent sentences to the actual document.

Only Armitage, Rumsfeld, and Scowcroft were close, with Armitage being the best match. Both Rumsfeld asn Scowcroft were too long, with Rumsfeld being a better match than Scowcroft. I conclude it's very likely Armitage.

[MJW]

Let me add that the difference between the length of "Armitage" and "Rumsfeld" is so small that no definite conclusion is possible (at least by me). And, of course, it could be someone I didn't try.

[TM]

This MSNBC article has good details:

WASHINGTON - A snippet of a conversation between Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and an unnamed source in mid-June 2003 appears to be a major focus of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby's defense in the CIA leak case.

According to a newly released transcript of last week's motions hearing in U.S. District Court, William Jeffress, one of Libby's attorneys, is focusing on three words — “Everyone knows it.”

...Woodward revealed in November that a senior administration official — in addition to Libby — told him about Plame and her position at the CIA nearly a month before her identity was disclosed by syndicated newspaper columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

A transcript and affidavit filed Thursday indicate that Woodward taped his conversation with his unnamed source.

Jeffress was given a redacted transcript of the conversation Woodward had with his unnamed source, according to an affidavit filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on Thursday. The Libby team wants the full transcript of the conversation in order to argue that the phrase “Everyone knows it,” uttered by Woodward's source in that 2003 conversation, means that Plame's job at the CIA was common knowledge among Washington journalists.

“Who did he mean by ‘Everyone knows it'?” Jeffress asked the judge.

According to Jeffress, the only inkling of the source's identity in the redacted document “is some person not in the White House.”