About the Journalists

by emptywheel

Damn Jeff. Damn him for alerting me to this filing regarding what materials on journalists Fitzgerald has turned over.

Download fitz_response.pdf

Because now I'm not getting anything done but reading this filing.

The filing is very heavily redacted, but using some of the tools we've used before (namely, recreating the document in Word), it may reveal who Mr. X is. (And, at least preliminarily, I have to eat some crow.)

I'll jump to Mr. X right away. Using one inch margins and Times New Roman, I recreated the passages at paragraph 43 and paragraph 52 that name Woodward's (and Rove's) source. Richard Armitage fits at paragraph 53, and Armitage fits in both spaces at paragraph 43. Cheney, Bush, Hadley, Rice, Joseph, Bolton ... none of those alternatives fit. The one other possibility I can think of (it is slightly shorter than Armitage, but with the non-justified pages, it's hard to tell) is Fleischer. Update: I think Rumsfeld is an outside possibility, too. Note that the passage at 43:

Moreover, Libby has been given a transcript of the conversation between Woodward and [redacted] and Novak has published an account briefly describing the conversation with his first confidential source ([redacted]).

Which would still allow two different sources for Novak and Woodward.

There are some other items of interest in this filing, though. The footnote on page 9 indicates which reporters he claimed to have learned of Plame's identity from:

Indeed, Libby stated that when he talked to reporters about Wilson's wife's employment he understood that "reporters" in the plural -- namely Russert and Novak -- were saying that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

This is interesting because it means Libby was specifically excluding Judy as one of those reporters, even though he had spoken with her on June 23 and July 8 of Plame's identity (or perhaps for precisely that reason). Libby was trying to distract attention away from the people he had leaked to. And, at least when Libby testified, they weren't trying to claim Judy was the one who told everyone in DC about Plame's identity.

The part of paragraph 22 that appears on page 10 has some spatial funkiness to it. Using the same Word trick and spelling Libby with three "bs" as the document has it, I tried the text, "further provided Libbby's defense team with a copy of Rove's email to Hadley referencing the conversation with" and it was too short. Mr. Hadley fit, Armitage did not. Which alerts you to one of the problems with this whole game of filling in redactions. In some cases, the document refers to Mr. someone, at others, it refers to people by last name alone.  I'm going to assume this passage refers to the Rove-Hadley email.

At paragraph 46, Fitzgerald lists the reporters whose testimony he has released to Libby. At least two names--and possibly more--are redacted. (Kessler, Pincus, and Woodward are named.) This suggests Fitzgerald handed over testimony from other reporters (my guesses are Andrea Mitchell and Clifford May, and possibly Nicholas Kristof).

Note, in that passage, Fitzgerald says the following about the Woodward testimony he has handed over:

Robert Woodward (that part of his deposition where he discusses his conversation with Mr. Libby and that part describing the substance of his conversation with his other source,  [redacted], with [redacted] name redacted).

Notice how he calls this person Woodward's "other" source. Does that mean Libby shared some details about Plame or Wilson in their June 25 conversation?

Finally, at paragraph 52, Fitzgerald says,

In addition, in the February 2 letter we took the added step of setting forth the nature of our understandings with counsel for Ms. Miller and the New York Times, though much of that information had not been reduced to writing previously.

This information would presumably reveal details of how Fitzgerald got Judy to admit to her June 23 meeting with Libby, as well as any details about limitations on her publication at the time. And it might include any legal jeopardy she was in when she testified.

Well, I'm going to go try to recreate my post describing under what circumstances Armitage would have shared Plame's identity, since (rather inconveniently) it gotten eaten by Typepad months ago.

Comments

[emptywheel]

Here's another question.

Mr. X is either Armitage (most likely, because of Woodward's not at the White House statement) or Fleischer.

Did either of those people know about Plame's NOC status? After all, Woodward was clearly told only what was in the INR memo--that Plame worked as an analyst in WMDs. But Novak, contrary to his October 2003 claims, was told Plame was an operative, covert.

So do we still buy Rove's claim (and Novak's, presumably) that Mr. X leaked the really damaging bit, that Plame was an operative?

[emptywheel]

Actually, I've thought of one more possibility, and it looks like it might fit:

Rumsfeld.

He'd certainly have more of an incentive than Armitage to leak this. THough I'll keep eating my crow until someone comes along and agrees this might be possible.

[John Casper]

OfT: Pulled this off the WaPo political chat with John WATB Harris
"Princeton, N.J.: Wow, is George Will finally admitting it was a grave error to have invaded Iraq? How do you interpret his column?
John F. Harris: I was likewise struck by the column and its skepticism toward the Iraq venture and the rhetoric Bush is using to describe the current difficulties. I don't believe he has ever stated as plainly as you say that the war was an error, though he has previously expressed skepticism about the influence of neoconservative foreign policy ideas in the administration."
Looks like your "neo-feudalist" post has some real traction, if a fourth-rate thinker such as Harris starts writing negatively about the,"influence of neoconservative foreign policy."

[Tug]

That is awesome that you guys are trying to decipher names in the redacted spaces. LOL.

Did you see the article Steve Gilliard put out about bloggers cracking the 1942 German WWII Enigma codes?

Put the word out - get everybody working on it...until the Judge realizes what is going on and starts putting happy face stickers over names instead...

YOu guys rock.

[emptywheel]

Well, I don't have a lot of confidence that we can say for sure who Mr. X is. But it's clearly not Bush, Cheney, Hadley. Which is worth noting.

Just don't tell the judge. 'Kay??

[Jeff]

Damn Jeff.

Hey, when I'm looking to be abused for performing due diligence on Plametc, I post over at Maguire's place.

I am inclined to think the way paragraph 43 starts off, referring to one significant piece of information being withheld from Libby, indicates that Woodward's and Novak's sources are one and the same, although I suppose it is possible that Fitzgerald is saying only one of their sources is significant in this context, and the other not. There's no question the last sentence of that paragraph reads somewhat oddly if the source for both reporters is the same person.

Does that mean Libby shared some details about Plame or Wilson in their June 25 conversation?

No, Woodward's account specifically says that Libby did not say anything on the subject of Wilson or his wife during the conversation (which was June 27, not June 25, by the way). I suspect Libby is characterized as a source because Woodward says it's possible he raised the subject and/or they discussed the still-classified October 2002 NIE (paging Murray Waas on that one).

[emptywheel]

I meant Damn only in the best way, I hope you realize.

Anyway, it was the phrasing of that last sentence that has thrown me. Though Fitz is totally inconsistent with reference in this filing. (Damn him, while we're at it!) So it's possible.

Also, jbalazs at DKos says Vice President fits in one spot, and Cheney in the other. I'm waiting for viget to come along and do this exercise with some more exactitude.

Finally, ReddHedd pointed out two more possibilities: Matalin and Addington. I THINK Matalin is too short. But like I said, I'd like to see someone do this with more exactitude.

[HS]

EW
Are you out of your fucking mind?! Are you some sort of forensic genius? Who the fuck ever heard of recreating a document to fit a name. You're a moron. A complete fucking idiot. There is no way in hell that would solve the mystery of Mr. X and you are simply misleading people by suggesting so.

[HS]

I'd like to know how you can say who Mr. X isn't. How are you so sure who this person isn't?

[TM]

Great job. I would (somewhat gloomily) note one other point - Fitzgerald promises a detailed description of the broader investigation on pages 2-12, and it is *all* redacted.

For folks like me who think Fitzgerald has come to the end of his game, that is eleven pages I can't quite explain - could it all really be Karl? Or is there enough space to cover Karl Plus [Cheney, Bush, etc]?

As an aside, the ongoing investigation is mentioned as covering conversations in the fall of 2003 (and afterward), so Novak's silence may be explained as well.

[John Casper]

HS, I strongly suggest you withdraw your first comment, fast, and issue a very clear, unambiguous apology for it. With respect to your second comment, if you don't understand, then go back and read emptywheel's past posts. It's not emptywheel's job to reexplain a year's worth of posts to someone who, apparently, is simply too lazy to read them.

[HS]

John,
I am sick to death of self-righteous bloggers who suggest they have the answers to everything. And i am equally sick to death of their cult-like followers like you

[emptywheel]

HS

I would really challenge you to take the redacted sections and find a way to fit a 4-letter last name in the available space. Not going to happen. It's very very basic. Each letter in a word takes up so much space, and an 8-letter work takes up approximately 8 letters of space (accounting for proportional type, which is why, eyeballing this, I suspect Armitage fits much better than Fleischer, though I welcome someone doing this with more exactitude to correct me), while a 4-letter word cannot completely fill that 8-letter space, unless you're playing some pretty serious tricks with typeface or kerning. Perhaps you haven't looked at the document, which makes it utterly obvious that this is not a 4-letter name? I could be wrong about Hadley. But I'm not wrong about Bush, Rice, Joseph and Bolton, to say nothing of Abrams who was my recent fave.

So no, I'm not a moron. I know that 8 doesn't equal 4. DO you?

TM

I read your comment about his post-July 14 stuff. Sounds to me like he's concentrating on the obstruction of justice to cover-up the outing. That is, Rove and Novak chatting on the phone to coordinate the story they're going to tell investigators. Rove disappearing the emails. THat kind of thing. Libby could well be a part of that, too (though I've always imagined it was Rove, since his story actually did coincide with Novak's madeup one at one point). Add in Abu Gonzales and anyone else who helped out those late September days, and you've got a whole chunk of ongoing investigation.

I suspect (and have always suspected) that Rove will not be cleared to tell his side until Fitzgerald has squeazed the life out of this obstruction charge, because that's probably why Novak talked and that's what Rove would love to ask him about.

[emptywheel]

Ah, John Casper,

HS appears to be harry shep, the same sock puppet complaining over at Jane's place. I suspect Jane has reason to believe mr. shep is a noted journalist who is cranky that the 250 email story isn't getting picked up. The same journalist would have reason to complain if it were generally accepted (but don't worry, shep, I don't think this is that compelling of proof) that Hadley was not Woodward's source.

Though frankly shep, keep in mind I'm refuting my favorite theory here (that it is Cheney) as well as yours.

[HS]

Yes. I am a moron. Everyone who knows me knows that.

[John Casper]

HS only AFTER you respond appropraitely to emptywheel's really generous response given your obscenity laden, personal attack on her, please enlighten me with all of the mistakes that you have found in emptywheel's posts.

[chow]

Interesting work. Let me ask a question -- when you were fitting names into the blanks, did you use "Mr." before the last name. It appears from the document, unless a name is a defined term (like "Libby"), Fitz would typically precede a last name with a "Mr.", (i.e., "Mr. Russert," as opposed to just "Russert").

[emptywheel]

chow

Well, the most compelling substitution (paragraph 52) it doesn't really matter. A Mr. or a first name would both fit on the non-justified right side of the page. So you're pretty much guaranteed that the space on the following line is just the last name (though at DKos jbalazs says "the Vice/President" fits in the space). Then, assuming that Woodward's source remains the same, the space at 43 appears to be (first instance) Mr. X and the second (which is smaller space) just plain X.

Though you're right. Fitzgerald's inconsistent reference to people, by Mr., by first and last, and by last name, does make this somewhat dicey. That's why I mention the Hadley email, which is a good example of the problem.

[emptywheel]

TM

Sorry, I meant Novak won't be cleared to talk until...

[obsessed]

What font is the pdf in? I think the relative spacing of the different letters varies widely.

[William Ockham]

emptywheel,

I respectfully disagree. In paragraph 43, "George Bush" and "Mr. Bush" fit perfectly in the first redaction on line two and the redaction on line four. "George W. Bush" fits exactly in item 52.

Now, here's something that is very puzzling. Item 43 says refers to the one significant piece of information that Libby is not being told is the identity of REDACTED as a source for REDACTED. Why is the reporter's name redacted in that passage? Did another reporter get a leak that we don't know about?

[emptywheel]

It matches closely with Times New Roman, which is what viget has used in the past for Fitz' stuff.

And yeah, the relative spacing is pretty distinct. That's why I'd bet Armitage first, and then Fleischer and Rummy. Plus, this appears to be a scan of the document, rather than a PDF of it (makes since, otherwise we'd be able to unredact and we'd know Rove is the guy who told Libby about Novak). So there's going to be some distortion there.

[emptywheel]

William

You swing the W to the second line of 52? I hadn't tried that.

There is a little inconsistency of the redaction. Note Rove got left in by mistake at one point.

[Shez]

HS sez: "Yes. I am a moron. Everyone who knows me knows that."

Yes harry shep, you're always the last one to know, moronarchist poppets usually are. (Includes sock puppets) I agree with the esteemed true gentleman John Casper that you owe Lady emptywheel an apology.

Lady emptywheel, your diligent work is fascinating and impressive as always!

[viget]

Sorry for the delay EW. I was at *shock* journal club, doing real work (which I seldom do these days :) ), when this all broke here.

Anyway, I agree with you 100%. It's Richard Armitage. Possibly Rumsfeld, but I put that as a longshot.

The clincher for me is paragraph 39, which you didn't mention, but with which the way the redaction is done gives us a HUGE clue.

Note that there are parentheses that are unredacted around redacted text following: "Mr. Novak has published a brief description of how he learned the information, albeit declining to name his sources". If you notice, there is significant space after "sources" and where the presumptive right margin would be. Given how MS Word does soft returns, that means there is no space character between where the open paren _should_ be (one space after the s in sources) and the margin (so the whole block is wrapped around to the next line). Which means, that the names in parentheses cannot be "Mr. X and Mr. Rove" because Mr. followed by a space would fit on the same line with "sources" and thus the open paren would be on that line, not the following line.

We also know that "Mr. Libby indisputably knows" Karl Rove, and "Mr. Rove" (or "Karl Rove") fits in the second redacted space, which means Rove is one of Novak's sources (not that we didn't already know that).

I would also hazard to say that Libby "indisputably" knows Cheney, Hadley, Bush, Condi, or anyone else at the WH (including Ari). So they're not possibilities for Mr. X. I guess Rumsfeld is technically still a possibility. But Armitage is just obscure enough that it's possible to expect Libby not to "know" him (personally?).

And of course, the clincher, "(Armitage and Rove)" fits perfectly in the first redacted space. Rumsfeld could fit ok too, but the s's in the "sources" line up perfectly there, whereas in the affy, the lower s is slightly to the left of the upper s, as it is when I use Armitage. But there are other typo's we've identified, so an extra space here or there is sort of inconclusive.

In paragraph 43, I have "Mr. Armitage" in the first redacted space, and "Armitage" in the third and fourth spaces (note that the second is that big long blank). There must be some court policy against redacting parentheses though, as again they're there for us as a guide, and help us show that Armitage must fit in that space. I don't know why the Court or Fitz just didn't redact the whole block (this gives you a huge hint IMHO as to who the redacted name could be). Again, Rumsfeld could substitute here too.

Paragraph 52 has "Richard Armitage" in the redacted space (again, Donald Rumsfeld could work too).

Finally, paragraph 46 has two redacted space's for Woodward's source. "Armitage" and "Armitage's" fit perfectly. Again, "Rumsfeld" and "Rumsfeld's" is okay, but does not line up the "u" of "substance" with the "e" of "name" perfectly as does Armitage.

So, if I had to guess, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that it's Armitage. Rumsfeld is a close second, but given the fact that Scooter should "indisputably" 'know' him and the two minor mis-alignments in paragraphs 39 and 46, I'm more inclined to say Armitage is the winner here.

Now the real question: why?