In The Bull's Eye

Steve Clemons reports back from a Princeton conference that, according to BobbyRay Inman, the man in Special Counsel Fitzgerald's bull's eye is... Richard Armitage.

Questions I can ask, but not answer (yet):

(1) Why would Inman know this?  OK, as "simply one of the smartest people ever to come out of Washington or anywhere", he may know this as part of knowing everything.  But maybe there is more.

(2) Do Inman and Armitage have bad blood?  For example, some quick googling hints at an Armitage/Perot/Inman ruckus on missing Vietnam POWs, but who knows?

(3) What did Inman actually say?  I have a pretty good opinion of Steve Clemons, who makes clear that he is delivering this news as testimony against interest.  However, Dan Drezner and Peter Beinart were among the illuminati cited as being at the Princeton conference where this news nugget was delivered - did they pick up on this?  They may not have, since Steve tells us that Inman "shared with some of us", perhaps away from his main presentation. [UPDATE:  Dan Drezner has lots on this - see below, or here.]

Let's excerpt Steve and press on:

Here is where it gets complicated. Inman told many of us a number of interesting things which I am going to treat off the record.

However, he said one very provocative thing about the CIA Valerie Plame outing investigation that I have confirmed that he has stated at other venues, publicly. I don't feel that Admiral Inman was guarded about his comments -- nor did he ask anyone he was speaking to to treat his comments with discretion.

So, I am only reporting this because he said it elsewhere.

...

What Inman shared with some of us -- and this was a repeated assertion from comments that I have confirmed that he made in Austin -- is that the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye is Richard Armitage.

I have written about Armitage many times in the past and hope that this rumor is incorrect. 

But I do believe that Armitage was possibly a key source for Dana Priest and Mike Allen early in the Plame outing story and wrote such in November 2005. I don't have more information on whether Armitage was Novak's source or not -- and what legal consequences there might be, if any, if that was the case. I always assumed that Armitage was cooperating closely with Fitzgerald and would not be in any legal jeopardy.

After all, Armitage was recently knighted and a new oil firm board member.

But Inman stating this matters.

As to the plausibility of Armitage having a legal problem - no kidding.  I have been whining for a while now about the Mystery Man who leaked to Woodward in mid-June, probably leaked to Novak, and then disclosed only his Novak interaction to the special counsel.  No obstruction/perjury charges?  No harm to national security?  Well, Inman says differently, but how does he know?

As to the plausibility of Armitage leaking the news of Wilson's spousal connection - there is some resistance to this notion by folks who can't grasp why Armitage would participate in a Cheney smear campaign against Wilson.

From the left, the Emptywheel tackled this - her short version is, Armitage mentioned the Cheney spousal pushback only to deride it. 

I mused about Armitage's motive and opportunity here; the short version is, Armitage mentioned the wife to take a swipe at the CIA - "ask the CIA about Africa and they call in their hubby from State anyway".  Less of a smear, more of a punchline.  And I still like this old post examining the history of the Novak/Armitage reporting relationship - they were friendly.

On the legal front, it is hard to square Inman's "Crosshairs" comment with this WaPo story telling us that the judge was going to keep Woodward's source secret since he did not face charges:

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.

Well - that might have meant "no charges at this time".  Or they may have been referring to someone else - the transcript is not crystal clear on this.

OOPS:  We are stopping, rather than ending.  In an earlier discussion, Jeff detailed ambiguities from the transcript and argued that the WaPo had this wrong, and that Judge Walton was protecting someone else; somewhere, I responded that future redactions to a subsequently-released document are discussed in the transcript, and may solve Jeff's puzzle.  Well, there is enough here for folks to get started, I hope.

UPDATE:  Dan Drezner confirms Steve Clemon's report and adds this:

1) I can confirm Inman's statements as Clemons reports them. I can confirm them because Inman made these assertions (and others that, like Steve, I will treat as off the record) to me and the others at my lunch table on the second day of the conference.

2) I would describe Inman's knowledge of this as coming from sources who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on these events. It's not simply that a former NSA head still has automatic insid info privileges.

and

4) Related to (3), it is my understanding that what has been blogged here is pretty much common knowledge inside the Beltway. I am genuinely surprised that it hasn't appeared anywhere else in the blogoshere.

Comments

[Lurker]

You do have a longer and better memory of these things than I.

Re: Sid working for Soros...UGH!!