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

[clarice]

Gary, maybe they can find a way to blame Diebold or Halliburton.

[Patton]

cathyf,

Good point. Libby's team short start by subpeoning all of Fitz information about Woodwards contacts and discussions...that way we may find out more about how much more investigating Fitz felt like doing..

[Sue]

Gary,

You are really stepping in Jeff's flower garden. Armitage is a republican and any old republican will do.

[Gary Maxwell]

No way Clarice. They are out compaigning for Ned Lamont to take on Joe Lieberman. 0 for 17 to become 0 for life soon enough. They will spontaneously combust at some point I am sure.

[brenda taylor]

well obviousley armitage is protecting powell ,bit more than that i think hes covering hiss own agency in all this.

[PeterUK]

This investigation seems to ignore the Inverse Law of Bureaucracy,"Those at the top are always the last to know".Fitz is simply head hunting using the odd expedient of starting in the middle and working his way outwards.
The indictment of Libby has most probably done more to hinder the case than the obstruction Libby is accused of.
When BTW is Fitzgerald going to expedite the job he was appointed for?

[Gary Maxwell]

Sue

When I used to go to New Orleans I looked forward in great anticipation to a muffaleta sandwich. If I ended up at Wendy's for a double, it was not going to be the same, just cuz it was a sandwich. Hell the missing Linc says he is a Republican and so does Ron Paul. Take em both and see if I cry or laugh uncontrollably.

[Cecil Turner]

The "first leaker" detail is all about Fitzgerald being sure that he had a complete chain of custody of the information, and who said it.

I think that's exactly the way he sees [saw] it. But of course that logic is faulty: there are other possibly sources.

[Kate]

I have to admit that I took a look at Madsen's blog and he's is really out there. It's sad that the reporting is going down from Leopold. Didn't think that could happen, but guess it did.

The media blog on NRO is curious as to who the MSM folks were who were getting info from the same 'sources' as Leopold.

[Chants]

Maybe TSK9 can apply her steel-trap intuition to the fact that this is not the first time Inman's name has been raised in this Plame affair.

Long time ago, NRO's media blog said something about Inman's opinion about the covert nature of Plame. Larry called the blogger a liar. Larry then misrepresented or misunderstood a conversation he, Larry, had with Inman.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/27
/152959/031

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=
ZGQ2YTQ0OWM1NmIzZWFmYmIwZjkyY2Y2
NTk3NGZkMGM=

(The links are broken up for formatting; cut and paste into your web-browser line by line)

TSK9 and others. Could this have something about Mr. Drezner's discretion?

[windansea]

Rove is the filet mignon
Cheney a porterhouse

Libby is a salisbury steak
Armitrage is a tofu burger

[Jane]

I apologize for the multiple posts. New computer here and I'm working out the bugs.

[Kate]

You know, now that it's Fitzmas eve, I must confess there are certain things that really puzzle me about Rove.

We know that Fitz was close to indicting Rove the same day as Libby. We know that Rove had testified more times than Libby. We know that the GJ has met ony twice to hear evidence since the indictment-Rove and we don't know who else. The others all talked to Fitz in an interview. (Woodward, V. Novak)

Something gave Fitz pause before he indicted Rove. My sense is that the indictment must have looked weak or Fitz would not have paused. He had plenty of time to listen to the evidence that Rove produced at the last minute. He could have indicted Rove at any time between November 1 and 1 May.

Instead Rove is invited back to testify one more time. If Fitz discounted the talk w/V. Novack as useless, why the time, why the invite.

I just don't know.

[Cecil Turner]

"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 inside info privileges."

Well, that clears that up. Inman's political contributions are certainly interesting. (Eclectic contributions to GOPers and Jane Harman.)

Apparently, there was other relevent dirt that Dr. Drezner could not report. *sigh*.

I'm somewhat nonplussed by the fascination with dirt. What was this investigation supposed to be about, anyway?

[topsecretk9]

follow the Media Blog links (ps. you have to scroll to bottom of the page)

A SIDENOTE: This is not the first time I've written about Larry Johnson. Back in July, he called into question a post I wrote about an interview with Admiral Bob Inman, former deputy director of the CIA. Johnson spoke with Inman after reading my post. Then Johnson reported that Inman said I misquoted him. Then Johnson called me a liar.

I didn't have time for a lengthy response as I had taken some time off to get married, but I did post a quick rebuttal and left it at that. However, I spoke to Inman after I returned from vacation just to clear things up between us. I told Inman that Johnson had accused me of misquoting him. Inman, it turns out, hadn't read the original item in which I had quoted him — he only knew what Johnson had told him. When I read to him what I had written, including the line, "[The leaking of Plame's identity] is still one I would rather not see," he said that he found nothing wrong with what I had written. He said that's not the way Johnson had presented it to him. So Johnson had the nerve to accuse me of misquoting someone when I was the one who had been misquoted.

[Lurker]

" Byron York's Latest Fact-Checking
I do not endorse Byron York's post, but these guy's at the National Review are anything but stupid. York would not be going after this story as he is if he didn't think it was completely false.

From York:

THE ROVE INDICTMENT WATCH, CONT'D [Byron York]
I had to be away for much of the day, so I have just caught up with some new developments in the lefty-blog Karl Rove indictment watch. The focus of the story seems to have shifted away from the Jason Leopold report , in which CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have informed Rove last Friday that Rove had been indicted, to a new report by Wayne Madsen, a freelance writer in Washington who has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch, and other publications, and who now publishes on his own website, Wayne Madsen Report.

Last night Madsen reported that a number of the details in the Leopold story -- the 15-hour meeting, the 24-hour "get your affairs in order" notice -- were wrong. They might even have been put out by Rove himself, Madsen suggested, as part of a Rove effort "to create diversions and smokescreens." The real news, Madsen reported, was that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales went to the U.S. Courthouse in Washington last Friday, where he met with the grand jury in the CIA leak case and was told about the Rove indictment. From Madsen:

WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.

Madsen's report has raised the hopes of Rove indictment fans who have become somewhat dispirited after Leopold's "24 business hours" passed without action against Rove. But it appears that they might again be destined for disappointment, because the details of Madsen's account are, if anything, even more farfetched than Leopold's.

First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12.

Second, Gonzales, like his predecessor John Ashcroft, has recused himself from the CIA leak investigation. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had taken part in the White House's response to the Justice Department in the early days of the probe. When he became attorney general, there was no doubt that he would have to recuse himself from the matter. He was asked about it during a press conference in October 2005, when there was great anticipation that indictments were coming in the CIA leak affair, and this is what he had to say:

QUESTION: And does Patrick Fitzgerald -- will he notify you if he's about to indict anyone? And lastly, is he under any obligation [to file] a public report?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I am recused from this investigation. I have been since coming to the Department of Justice. That means that not only am I recused from making decisions or participating in decisions regarding this investigation, I am recused from receiving information about the investigation. Quite frankly, you probably know more about this case than I do. I do not receive briefings. I do not receive any information about this particular case.

And in terms of what will happen going forward, you -- you have as much information about that as I do. That's -- that'll be a decision made by Pat Fitzgerald.

Finally, it simply defies common sense to think that Fitzgerald and the grand jury would give the attorney general a preview of an indictment in the CIA leak matter. "Gonzales would not be given that kind of information," says one insider. "The reason one is recused from the case is so that one cannot make decisions that would affect the case -- like he might tell the White House."

And one more note. Madsen also reported that Fitzgerald told Rove lawyer Robert Luskin that he, Luskin, is now a "subject" in the probe because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Luskin "may have violated laws on obstruction of justice." I asked Rove spokesman Mark Corallo whether Fitzgerald has informed Luskin that he, Luskin, is a subject of the investigation. "No," was Corallo's answer. And Corallo repeated his earlier denials about the purported meeting last Friday at Patton Boggs. It simply did not happen, Corallo said."

[Lurker]

Byron York

He sure keeps up with the leftie news, doesn't he? :)

[Cecil Turner]

Ah, sorry. I got the link wrong on Inman's contributions (put in the second page). Here's the right one.

[PeterUK]

"[The leaking of Plame's identity] is still one I would rather not see,"

There it is again! Why are they allowed to get away with this? I would posit that revealing Plame was CIA would add credence to Wilson's claims rather than the converse.
Cetainly in the fertile imaginations of the Liberal Left.

[Fresh Air]

Guys, Madsen was a prime mover in the TANG memos fiasco. He is a Bush-hating leftist and total fruitcake. I'm surprised York is foolish enough to even visit his website.

I would completely ignore anything the man has to say.

[Lurker]

"JOHNSON: His information — his information — his information on this issue has been repeatedly wrong. And, again, I'll bet Clifford May $5,000. Find the reference prior to Robert Novak's column in which that information was out there. It wasn't out there. Not only that. When Valerie wrote that check to Al Gore's campaign as a member of Brewster-Jennings, she was living her cover. Not a single neighbor knew that she worked for the CIA."

So, TS, who won the bet? Cliff Mays or Larry Johnson?

Cliff Mays should really take up on that bet!

[Lurker]

Fresh Air, I guess you can call us "foolish" for visiting WMR site earlier this morning....

Think York was reviewing WMR's article first before calling Corallo with questions.

[Lurker]

Ah, Inman contributed to several that I like...Cornyn, Hensarling, Hutchinson, etc.

But not Harman!

[PeterUK]

"Wayne Madsen, a freelance writer in Washington who has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch,"

Says it all,nothing so impressive as a lefty on the make.

[Lesley]

Rick Moran on Bobby Inman

[xrayiiis]

Can anyone tell me if is known who the other six people are who were allegedly at the meeting where Grosssman allegedly told Libby about Plame? And if so, how reliable are they as witnesses?

Thanks in advance.

[clarice]

Drezner does have the story, BTW..

[xrayiiis]

correction: "if it is known", not "if is known"

[Lurker]

Oh, sorry for the duplicate link on York's latest fact-check findings.

[clarice]

It doesn't matter because they all said the WH people referred them to the Novak piece..IIRC

[Lesley]

BONUS! Larry Johnson comment in Moran article.

Larry Johnson Said:
1:20 am

"Hey boneheads,
I actually spoke with Admiral Inman. He said he was misquoted (Gee, what a surprise, the NRO can’t get its story straight). He’s disgusted by the attacks on Valerie Plame. You guys only got one thing right, Admiral Inman is a class act."

[clarice]

The "first leaker" detail is all about Fitzgerald being sure that he had a complete chain of custody of the information, and who said it. That's why I think he's a moron. Trying to track such a thing in DC is a lunatic mission. Trying to track it when you are only asking certain reporters about certain sources is dishonest and moronic.

In any event,early on he knew who was the source for the first reporter to put it in print, and if he wasn't going to charge him, he should have packed up his briefs and rambled on.

[clarice]

Re: Woodward not remembering everyone he told--do not forget Ben Bradley's interview with Vanity Fair. He tried to retract it but they had him on tape. And he's no longer working with Woodward--that story was spreading like wildfire.

[clarice]

fresh air, I forget Madsen's role in the TANG affair. Could you refresh my recollection?

[Rick Ballard]

Given the INR memo's preparation by State, it is interesting to note that Powell had unclassification authority (pursuant to Executive Order 13292) regarding its content. It would be hilarious if he gave the destruct order to Grossman and Armitage of his own volition. I won't let go of the fact that Powell's appearance before the UN was of more import thant the SOTU and that Wilson's assertions make him look like a sock puppet. Nor would Powell have taken kindly to ole "Slam Dunk's" outfit and its total incompetence (perhaps 'inaccuracy' might be kinder). It might even be a possible explanation for Powell's "here's your hat, what's your hurry?" exit from government.

Powell sure hasn't been making much news since his rather abrupt departure.

[PeterUK]

Rick,
IIRC,didn't Powell have prostate trouble,enough to make any man hors de combat?

[clarice]

Well, Rick, both Powell and Armitage are on the star studded Libby witness list. Armitage first as a matter of fact. So whether or not Fitz indicts him, the story will get out.

[Lurker]

"But it does weaken Fitz' case against Libby. He is relying heavily on Grossman's testimony. And while he's backed off the claim, he believed Libby was the "first to leak"--indeed, that's why he seized on the bafflegab conversation with Miller on June 23 because it was the earliest conversation he could find --until Woodward showed up."

And how do we know that Woodward was the first source of the information?

[xrayiiis]

Can anyone tell me if it is known who the other six people are who were allegedly at the meeting where Grosssman allegedly told Libby about Plame? And if so, how reliable are they as witnesses?

Thanks in advance.

[PeterUK]

"Powell's appearance before the UN was of more import thant the SOTU and that Wilson's assertions make him look like a sock puppet."

plus the stiletto in the back by De Villepin,synchronicity?

[Dwilkers]

Welp. It wasn't 24 hours, and it wasn't 24 business hours. Guess I should head over to TruthOut and see what they're saying (and laugh at Specter mocking them).

[Sue]

LOL. Old Scary Larry is running around the internet trying to put out the fires he started that are about to burn him on his hiney...

::grin::

I must admit, I take special delight in seeing Larry in a quandry...

[Lurker]

There was a post over at TO saying that when Fitz was ready to make a public announcement, he must inform the press the previous day.

I wondered if that was correct so I asked here and the answer is no.

[PeterUK]

"In the beginning there was the Word......"

[clarice]

"MUST" is the operative word. Where do they get this stuff from. What's the regulation?
Of course, if you want maximum coverage you put it on the wire the night before. But there's no MUST.

[Sue]

xray,

I don't think everyone is ignoring you, I don't think we really know who the 1x2x6 refers to.

[Chants]

Perhaps more comical than L. Johnson's cameo on Mr. Moran's page is Tom Christian's.

Tom Christian, bless his tortured soul, is unquestionably the most disturbing character in the Plame affair.

[Patton]

OK, I am not a lawyer and I don't work in DC, but Jason Leopold just called me to see if I gave Mr. Luskin Friday off.....

Something about if he could prove there was no cat..he could string them along another few days before he becomes a 'tar baby'.....

[Lurker]

Wyden

Mac was quick to note how Wyden guestioned Hayden's credibility; yet, he is still being investigated for those CIA leaks plus he has strong connections with Rocky and Durby.

[Joel Loria]

SOrry, that was me, Patton.

[Lurker]

Hi, Clarice, I am not questioning your answer but rather questioning the TO poster's "MUST" policy. Just explaining why I asked earlier today. Thanks for the answer. :)

[Boggs]

"OK, I am not a lawyer and I don't work in DC"

So why am I giving you half the profits Mr Patton?

[clarice]

Among the 6 was Mitchell and I believe Cooper. I forget the others..their names came ut in drabs. Again it is insignificant because all six said the WH press conference simply referred them to the Novak article IIRC. The significance of the article (the charge actually) is it rather set in stone the notion first floated by David Corn that that this was a revenge "outing" of a secret agent.

[clarice]

I know, Lurker, it's just that the claim (like everything there) is so stupid. Stay away you guys, you'll lose brain cells on every visit.

[xrayiiis]

"xray,

I don't think everyone is ignoring you, I don't think we really know who the 1x2x6 refers to.

Sue"

Sue,

Thanks for the reply.

Actually, I wasn't asking about 1X2X6, but about the meeting where, according to Grossman, he told Libby about Vallery Plame's identity. Libby says he does not remember tha meeting. Grossman said six other people were present.

BTW, I loved the way you toyed with Larry Johnson on his blog a couple of weeks back (and everyone else, too, of course, but you were particularly entertaining.)

[clarice]

Actually, Jeff is the master of 1X2X6-- email him..I think he'll tell you I'm wrong in some detail.

[danking70]

Since someone mentioned tar baby again...

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQyMjQ0ZjU0OGQwMmEzOWI5ZTlkNzQxMGY4Yzc1MDk=

Getting Away "Scot-Free"?

05/18 11:45 AM - Kerning

I've gotten several e-mails like this one from Joseph H.:

I notice Froomkin said "He got away almost scot-free using a term - "tar baby" - that many consider racist."

I'm sorry "scot-free"? Isn't that a dig at my highland ancestors? How come its OK to say scots are unpunished criminals? Is it the kilts? The Cabers? The Haggis?

He owes me an apology.

I am also of Scottish descent, so I thought about looking up the origins of the phrase "scot-free" to find out if actually had anything to do with Scottish people. I found this:

As with the word hopscotch, scot free has no connection with Scotsmen, frugal or otherwise. It’s a Scandinavian word meaning “payment”. The expression derives from a medieval municipal tax levied in proportional shares on inhabitants, often for poor relief. This was called a scot, as an abbreviation of the full term scot and lot, where scot was the sum to be paid and lot was one’s allotted share.

At first, I figured this meant I didn't really have a case against Froomkin. But then I realized, according to Froomkin's logic, that a phrase doesn't necessarily have to be racist — all that matters is that people somewhere consider it racist.

Therefore, I'm calling for the Post to mandate "sensitivity training" for Froomkin. He obviously harbors a deep anti-Scottish bias — so deep, perhaps he doesn't even know he's harboring it.

Plus an update:

A Gracious Correction and A Persistent Error
05/18 03:12 PM - The Markup
Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin graciously corrects a mistake he made yesterday regarding Tony Snow's first televised press briefing. One point I will concede to Froomkin, which I also pointed out in my write-up of the briefing, is that Snow tripped up by citing polls to support the NSA program one minute, then denigrating the validity of those polls the next.

Regarding the other issue I raised, Froomkin insists, "I wasn't wrong, however, to call attention to Snow's use of the term — "tar baby" — that some consider racist." I guess we'll agree to disagree. Froomkin excerpts from Snow's appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show:

HH: Now I've got a couple of issues of the day for you. First, the Post this afternoon, on their blog, is blasting you for the use of the term tar baby. Is that just a way of smacking Tony Snow around to welcome him into the game?

TS: Well, apparently, what's happened is, apparently some people are unfamiliary with the pathways of American culture, and don't realize the old Uncle Remus story where somebody hugs a tar baby.

HH: Exactly.

TS: And the point is, I wasn't going to get myself involved in an issue that would be very difficult to extract myself from. So I look upon that..if that's the worst that happens, that's not so bad.

HH: Agreed.

TS: I've decided, though, because it's a classic case of, I think, somebody trying to sort of pick a fight. I'll probably take that out of my toolchest of rhetorical devices, rather than having to explain a hundred and fifty years of American culture.

I don't think Snow is admitting that he was wrong. I think he's lamenting the sad fact that one's character can be called into question so easily over something so trivial.
While I appreciate that Froomkin noted my post and corrected the mistake, I am concerned that he continues to ignore the growing controversy surrounding his use of the phrase "scot-free." While it's pretty clear that Froomkin meant "without consequences," he should have realized that the phrase can have other, hurtful connotations in the Scottish community, especially when used in such contexts as, "America would be a better place if it was Scot-free." Will Froomkin follow Snow's example and remove this controversial phrase from his rhetorical toolchest?

[clarice]

xray--the indictment is on the right side of the page and you can most easily find it there.

[xrayiiis]

Thank You, Clarice. I shall do so.

[Sue]

Thank you. I would still be toying with him if he hadn't banned me. He is easily riled. I like to kill him with kindness and watch him explode. ::grin::

[Cecil Turner]

Can anyone tell me if it is known who the other six people are who were allegedly at the meeting where Grosssman allegedly told Libby about Plame? And if so, how reliable are they as witnesses?

It was apparently a briefing at the White House while the Africa trip was going on (Grossman standing in for SecState). I don't know of any list of the other officials, but one would expect they were fairly reliable. Per the indictment:

On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

That's the day after the INR memo was written, so it would appear to be the source. If so, Plame would be a very minor part of the discussion.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
"The significance of the article (the charge actually) is it rather set in stone the notion first floated by David Corn that that this was a revenge "outing" of a secret agent."

That is what is so reprehensible about this case,too many important points have gone unquestioned,the referal,Plames status and this.
It sets a dangerous precedent to allow the CIA this kind of defensive power.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
It seems very important for Jeff to prove you wrong,are you his mother?

[clarice]

It is reprehensible. But they didn't count on the alternate press to ferret them out. Just as Mapes and Rather overlooked that.

If this happened a few decades earlier they'd get away with it, but in the end, I think they will fail. They have some advantages, but we are smarter than they and equally determined.

[xrayiiis]

Thank You, Cecil.

The reason I asked was because I thought Grossman may have been making it up. But that is not likely if there were 6 reliable witnesses, is it?

[clarice]

PUK, absolutely not. My son is a capitalist who like most kids raise in DC abhors politics and political discussions.

I don't dislike Jeff at all. I think he has a fine grasp of the facts. I just question the inferences he draws from them.

[Sue]

I may be slow to realizing this, but the person who Joe was talking to at State was Grossman.

[clarice]

Beginning on June 14, 2003 at the EPIC meeting Joe was describing himself as a "whistleblower" who would be facing retaliation for his truth telling. I think not only his reports were lies, but the game was set up to get Plame's name out and put Rove and Libby on the line for that.

[PeterUK]

I thought not Clarice.There is a chap who can tell you exactly to the minute, all the train timetables,connections and stations in the British Isles,and he does, endlessly!
Decent enough,he never tries to apply Newton's Laws of Motion to them.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Perhaps Jeff would like to produce a timeline for the "retaliation" meme.

[danking70]

And Grossman was part of the set-up...

I hope TM has started that book.

[topsecretk9]

--I may be slow to realizing this, but the person who Joe was talking to at State was Grossman.--

Yep. In fact he said the first thing he did was call friends at State -- this of course was way, way before he was prodded by someone --close to the administration that he would have to go to reporters (IIRC that person close was at State) - I'd always guessed Armitgae.

Regardless, if Wilson called Grossman right after the SOTUS then Grossman was well apprised and so I wondered about that INR memo he apparently didn't share.

[Cecil Turner]

The reason I asked was because I thought Grossman may have been making it up. But that is not likely if there were 6 reliable witnesses, is it?

I'm not sure. If you look at the INR memo, and posit he briefed it as written, it's wouldn't be surprising that background point would be omitted or fail to stick with the audience. It also doesn't imply her status is classified. Further, Grossman's not an impartial source or could be misremembering. This is one of the least compelling bits of evidence, IMHO.

[topsecretk9]

yike...correction

- I'd always guessed Armitgae. = - I'd always guessed Scowcroft.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I'm back from the land of Cultural Anthropology and the Migration of the Quakers and the first thing I read in catching up goes to ...

JEFF -- you said "Libby had reason to lie ... but, in many of our opinions, including mine, Libby had no reason to lie. I cannot understand why you keep beating that drum except for the theory that you are part of the Gossip mindset and we are part of the Wonk mindset when describing the motives of the WH/OVP on the pushback. Were you here for that discussion or busy trashing those here somewhere else?

[Specter]

Hey all,

Just an update. It appears TruthOut has locked me out from making further comments. Can't make comments on any article and permission denied to make a diary. So much for TO.

[Chants]

Specter,

But you were so sympathetic to thier plight and pain!

[Lurker]

Spector, Guess they are not interesting in seeking the truth, huh?

[Sue]

Specter,

If Larry Johnson is involved, that is the only way to keep the echo chamber intact. ::grin::

[topsecretk9]

So Wilson communicates about the SOTUS-16 words with Grossman...if Grossman is the one who told him to go to reporters OR WAS AWARE Wilson was going to go to reporters...Grossman needs to "know" through official channels? hence, the request pronto for the INR memo? I know Libby asked, but do we know what he asked?

Huh...because Grossman didn't really share the actual paper memo with anyone (I don't think) and later is was re-addressed for Sec.Powell.

PS. has Jason said who is sources are yet?

[topsecretk9]

truthNOT

[Fresh Air]

Clarice--

Madsen was one of the kooks defending the memos and fanning the story on lefty blogs. I would go look it up, but I hate to spoil my evening by getting dog crap on my keyboard.

[Sue]

Hmmm...I've been doing a little surfing and I don't think Jeff is right. The left will not be happy with Armitage. In fact, Armitage is considered Powell's 'man' and hated Rumsfeld.

[topsecretk9]

Specter

What's the word on Jason now? Is he going to give up his sources or have they moved the deadline to sometime in January 2007?

[Tom Maguire]

Regardless, if Wilson called Grossman right after the SOTUS then Grossman was well apprised and so I wondered about that INR memo he apparently didn't share.

Well - the lightbulb over my head is saying that the mysterious emails cited by the Libby lawyers connect Grossman to Wilson.

I don't trust the lightbulb - just for starters, why would a Grossman-Wilson email have even been responsive to a document request? - but maybe the germ of the idea is good. Maybe, e.g., Grossman mentions a chat with Wilson in an email to someone else.

[clarice]

No.That's okay.I wrote a couple of pieces on the Rather fiasco and just didn't remember his name.

[Lurker]

Miller and NYT received 9/11 tip

[clarice]

Grossman can come clean now to Fitz or face cerain devastation on the stand.

[eliza]

You said:
"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."

What are you talking about "smear campaign against Wilson". Since when is correcting the record with facts which rebut the lies told by Wilson a "smear" (let alone a "smear campaign")? It was Wilson that conducted a smear campaign. Wilson has been proved over and over to have lied in his attacks against Bush. You know that. And about a critical matter (war).

[Lesley]

TM: wrt to Drezner's linking to your November 20, 2005 entry: is this Drezner's way of saying -

"McGuire, you magnificent bast**d. I read your blog!!!"

[topsecretk9]

--Grossman mentions a chat with Wilson in an email to someone else.--

If they pre-date the INR memo, or the onslaught then??

oh great!!...now I have a new unknown conspiracy theory to obsess on.

[Sue]

Tom,

I don't remember the legal term, but Fitzgerald said he turned over the emails to Libby as part of what would be used for impeaching a witness. Clarice? What is the legal term?

[Lurker]

Rick Moran just now talked about Judith Miller along with bush-bashing implicating that Bush adm completely ignored the 9/11 warnings.

[Tom Maguire]

And here is the thread where Jeff first pointed out that the transcript of the court hearing that led the WaPo to say that Walton is protecting the Woodward leaker is, in fact, ambiguous.

Darn - somewhere I noted an additional tidbit from p. 4 - the judge recommended the consideration of an additional redaction to protect someone:

It seems to me fundamentally unfair to start to reveal the information about people who may be subject to a case and their name is tarnished in the public for no good reason.

So I would agree with you, if this were a closed investigation and we knew that the case wasn't going anywhere other than Mr. Libby, I would agree. But I guess I have a
problem because of the nature and the status of the investigation at this point in buying full-heartedly on what you suggest.

What I'm going to do at this point, because I want there to be an open proceeding, is to require that an additional redacted version for public dissemination be proposed. To the extent that the government believes that the information in the current redacted affidavit still needs to be maintained under seal, counsel will need to articulate, as you just did, why you believe that this true. Then I'll make the call.

[clarice]

Imagine you are sitting in the WH..signint reports unusual traffic signalling an attack and what do you get from the FBI? Bupkis. What do you get from the CIA? Bupkis.
And why do you get bupkis? Because no one in the FBI wanted to act on the Moussaoui tip. No one in the CIA has any information, They're relying on geniuses like Sheuer who thinks OBL is an admirable chap and Pillar thinks terrorism is not a problem we should just learn to live with it.

[xrayiiis]

Specter told the truth.
Now he is out.
Hence the name.

[Lurker]

Clarice, don't forget the "Gorelick Wall"...

[PeterUK]

Eliza,
According to the slim volume"How to be a Lefty",every statement by their opponents is a smear or racist.