We Still Don't Know a Damn Thing

by emptywheel

I've got to be one of the people on the Internets who has speculated the most about this Plame Affair. And I gotta tell you. We're all STILL speculating. Beyond the fact that Libby's in some deep doo doo, we still don't know a damn thing.

Before I lay out the interesting bits from the indictment, let me just throw out three still-active possibilities.

• Libby scored a last minute plea--the perjury and obstruction charges as lesser charges instead of the IIPA charge--in exchange for further testimony
• Rove scored a last minute deal ... or he didn't and he's still in a deep load of doo doo
• Wurmser, Bolton, Hannah, and god knows who else have scored plea deals ... or they're still in a somewhat smaller load of doo doo

Like I said, these are all possibilities. Beyond the news that Libby got busted for lying about his conversations with journalists, we're all still speculating.

Now here's some things I find interesting, or have questions about.

The indictment leaves open the possibility Libby will still be charged under the Espionage Act.
The indictment makes it clear that Libby would be covered by espionage statutes. Why include that in the indictment? Is this a threat?

As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. (2)

One tidbit Fitzgerald said in his presser is that Libby was the first person to reveal Plame's identity to journalists. So if someone is going to get charged with the big one, it'd be Libby. But no charge. 

But the indictment doesn't clarify whether Libby should be charged with this ... because it never clarifies whether Libby knew whether Plame was covert. We know Cheney told Libby that she worked in Counterproliferation (a section in the Directorate of Operations--which of course raises a giant question about why Judy wrote down the WINPAC comment). So the indictment suggests heavily that Libby knew she was covert (if I know Counter-Proliferation is in the DO, or covert side, then it'd be hard to argue Libby doesn't know that). But it never once alleges that he specified he knew she was covert.

Incidentally, the indictment doesn't say that he passed on the name Plame, either. Fitzgerald is still hiding that piece of evidence. Either Fitzgerald doesn't know where the name came from, or he's obscuring it to hide a chain of evidence (possibly, for example, the contents provided by the CIA). If I made a guess about which of these it was, I'd still be speculating.

The indictment doesn't clarify the role of the INR memo--and the potential connection of Bolton to that.
There is a passage that makes it highly likely that the INR memo was central to Libby's learning of Plame's identity.

On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip. (4)

It is highly likely the Under Secretary referred to in this passage refers to Marc Grossman. After all, we know that he asked INR to write the memo at or around the same time as this request was made.

Then there was another passage, which seems to refer to the same Under Secretary of State, which indicates Libby learned the basic substance of the INR memo.

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. (4)

I strongly suspect both passages refer to Grossman. The proximinty of the passages suggests the article "the" refers to the previously-mentioned Under Secretary. And, as I mentioned, the content of the Under Secretary's information matches what we know the INR memo said exactly.

But there is a teeny possibility that Libby ordered Bolton to conduct an investigation. And there is also a teeny possibility that the Under Secretaries referred to are not one and the same. Which would leave open the possibility that Bolton was the second-named Under Secretary and that he called Libby to give him more specifics about the details of the INR memo. I don't buy either of these possibilities, though, much as I'd like to pin this on Bolton.

There are a whole slew of references to people who might still be in legal trouble--or who may have flipped.
These include:

• The CIA faxed documents to Libby and another person in OVP some documents. The person who ordered those documents to be faxed could be involved in this. And the other OVP staffer the documents were addressed to could be legally liable--or could have flipped.
• A senior CIA officer spoke to Libby on June 11. It is unlikely this is Tenet, because Tenet reportedly told Dick Cheney the same news, which Dick passed on on June 12. It wouldn't make sense for Tenet to tell Libby, and then for Dick to tell Libby something he already knew. Although Dick got more information; he learned Plame worked in Counter-Proliferation, which may be the key detail that proves Libby knew she was covert.
• There are two group strategy sessions on responding to media inquiries mentioned, one on June 12 and the other on July 12. Were the other people in those strategy sessions (the latter of which definitely included Dick) witnesses, or potential co-conspirators? There's also the Principal Deputy with whom Libby spoke discussed strategy with in response to the New Republic article. I presume this person has talked, since the information is one of the two bits of evidence that shows Libby clearly knew Plame's identity was classified (since Libby says "there would be complications" if the Deputy spoke of Plame's connection to Wilson's trip to the press).
• Is Tenet--if he is indeed the one and only person who told Dick that Plame worked in Counter-Proliferation--a witness or a potential co-conspirator. I think the former, especially since Fitzgerald made it clear that these senior people with top security clearances were perfectly within the law to talk about Plame.
• The indictment explains where Ari learned of Plame's identity--from Libby at lunch on July 7 (just before Air Force One left for Africa, presumably). This suggests the INR memo is less important to Ari's knowledge of Plame. I suspect it suggests Ari is cooperating. But it's not totally clear.
• Cathie Martin (identity confirmed via firedoglake) told Libby she had learned of Plame's role from another government official. This seems to suggest Martin is cooperating.
• I'm fairly certain Official A is Rove (Rove spoke with Novak before July 10). Remember, Rove's story #247164 is that he learned of Plame's identity from Libby; the indictment doesn't make it clear whether Official A told Novak or Novak told Official A.

Well, Patrick Fitzgerald has quite a little black book. It seems clearer that some of these people (Martin, Ari) told the truth. But there's a whole lot of people not named (and some who have been named) who could still be in trouble.

It's not clear that Russert told the truth in his testimony.
By this I don't mean that Russert has been dodging about what he testified all along. I mean that the false story Libby concocted didn't make sense even before Judy's and Cooper's testimony. I'll do a post on this once I've thought about Libby's attempted some more. But I don't see why Libby would have allowed Russert to testify so willingly (remember, he gave Russert an early, specific waiver) if he expected Russert to say Plame had never come up. It killed his story in 2004. I think Libby expected Russert to tell Fitzgerald that he had mentioned Plame to Libby. But I can only see him doing that if he had really learned of Plame much earlier.

I'm troubled by this last one. But I need to give it some more thought.

Comments

[al-Fubar]

There's one other thing we know besides that Libby is in deep doodoo - namely that Fitz is not done, and we're going into extra innings.

Only one question asked during the presser really touched on the recent flurry of activity, and Fitz sidestepped it with the same deftness that he sidestepped everything else. But I'm left with the impression that (to mix metaphors madly) Fitz just threw out an appetizer to show everyone that he's playing serious hardball. He knew that everyone was expecting *something*, so he delivered something - confirmation that Libby lied through his teeth, without showing his hand on the underlying facts.

-- Rick

[DHinMI]

To follow up on Rick's comment, I'm by no means deeply knowledgable about all the details in this case as are many of you, but I didn't hear much in Fitzgerald's presser that would provide valuable information to the other people possibly being investigated. As difficult as it was for some of us to discern where he goes next, I don't think it was simply because of lack of detailed knowledge, it think it was because he was crystal clear about what he was willing to say, and resolutely unwilling to add much of anything that was written in the indictment other than some explanations of procedural issues.

And I'll say this 'bout the guy: he is most definitely the anti-Ken Starr. With him being from Chicago, if they haven't already, you just know there are a bunch of Elliot Ness comparisons on the way. He just came accross as unimpeachable...and that was an intended pun.

[DemFromCT]

oh, they're there. He's been called an Ivy League Elliot Ness (squeaky clean, etc.) for a while.

[emptywheel]

Oh yeah, he's definitely not done. That was crystal clear. At the very least he's got to get Rove Official A. But I think there's a whole lot more there, that either says there are a lot more people to go get or a lot more people who are only recently testifying. I was just trying to point out the places in the indictment where those people might be. Lots of leads to follow up with in that little black book.

[park]

Reading the indictment again, it's just so crystal clear. To Cheney's people, the press is a joke and/or a tool to be used to satisfy their goals. Laws are a joke. An oath taken before a grand jury is a joke, everything's a joke to them. They have things they want to do and they set about doing them no matter what. It's a miracle that the system is still in place enough to hold them accountable at all.

[viget]

Emptywheel--

Does "Official A" mean that there's a potential sealed indictment for whomever official A is (prob. Rove)? I've seen that kind of language in indictments before (official A, B, C or 1,2,3) and it's almost always used to disguise the identity of a cooperating witness that's still potentially a GJ target(implying a sealed indictment) or an unindicted co-conspirator. I find it fascinating that there are simply other unnamed officials (like Undersecretary of State, or other OVP official), but none are referred to as Official A, B, C, etc. Clearly, there's something different about this official A.

And, in that regard, do you think it possible that there are multiple sealed indictments we don't know about, and that they include conspiracy counts? I've been musing over a "prisoner's dilemma" type scenario where it only takes one conspirator to flip to bring the whole mess down. And if there are lots of conspirators... can you afford not to be the first one to flip when there's no prize for second place?

[DHinMI]

Just posted at the WSJ:
4:05 p.m.: Anne Marie Squeo reports from Washington. Described as Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor at the heart of the case that has ensnared White House officials, is a lot like the legendary law enforcer who brought down gangster Al Capone for tax evasion: While investigating bigger wrongs, he'll settle for easier-to-prove charges to get his target. Read the full report.

[DHinMI]

Oh, I like this too:

2:50 p.m.: Hoping to contain the damage, Republicans turned against Libby. Several welcomed his resignation. "It's time to stop the leaks and spin and turn Washington into one big recovery meeting where people say what they mean and mean what they say,'' said Rep. Jim Ramstad (R., Minn.). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) said through a spokesman that the Senate won't investigate the CIA leak.

"Nothing to see here, keep moving along, nothing to see here..."

[park]

From TomDispatch, prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega about Fitzgerald:

Obviously, Fitzgerald is taking a "big picture" approach to this case. This mirrors his approach to previous cases. In December 2003, for example, Fitzgerald announced the indictment of former Illinois Governor George Ryan on corruption charges in Operation Safe Road, which began in 1998. In that year, the investigation of a fatal accident revealed that truckers were purchasing commercial licenses from state officials. Indictments were announced in stages, culminating in the indictment of Ryan, who was the 66th defendant in the case.

Of course, that was back at his full-time job where he had no real time limitations. Still.

[emptywheel]

viget

I think Rove (Official A, presumably) is the only one Fitz can indict without representing all the information. Not sure how. But obviously things are still under negotiation with Rove.

[al-Fubar]

park -

He has no REAL time limitation here, either; he'd plainly like to get back to Chi-town, but made clear that today wasn't The End Of It All, as everyone had been pretty much assuming.

Didn't Luskin put out a carefully-worded statement last night that Rove's legal status was unchanged? That would imply that Rove dodged the bullet today, but is not off the hook.

-- Rick

[Praedor Atrebates]

Didn't Luskin put out a carefully-worded statement last night that Rove's legal status was unchanged?

I take that to mean that Rove offered up a tiny scrap of new info to try to save his ass and Ness, I man, Fitz, said, "Mmmhmm. I'll check that out and get back to you." If what Rove offered doesn't bear real fruit then Fitz pull out his sealed indictment and slaps Rove's fat ass face with it.

I hope whatever Rove offered up is just so much rotten meat. Indict that shit and flush the toilet.

[greyhair]

We DO know a few things.

1) Libby is gone.
2) The story continues which is paralyzing to the WH.
3) Fitzgerald can use any grand jury he wants (the whole empaneling thing is a non-issue).
4) Fitzgerald has NOT gone home and is still investigating.
5) Speculating...Fitzgerald looked pissed and determined to me. He takes the protection of national security quite seriously.
6) Finally. Anyone who tries to trash this guy is in for it. He's good in front of the cameras in a Paul-Hackett-kind-of-way.

Not a bad days work IMO.

[kim]

Considering emptywheel's suggestion that something's wrong about Russert's testimony, I'll return to my original feeling about this case, that Matalin spread the Plame info to the press.

I'll suggest that Matalin contacted Russert, Libby knew she would and then called Russert; Libby and Russert did talk about Plame and Libby got his alibi, but Russert didn't want to give up Matalin.

Just speculating of course.

[emptywheel]

I'm increasingly less confident that Matalin has cooperated, I will say that. Although I think I've been right all along when I've been guessing that Ari cooperated.

Eh. One for two. Batting .500.

[umzuzu]

Did you catch the reference to truck drivers taking bribes? Was that a reference to the Illinois case and a prosecutorial style that starts humbly and ends with an indictment of the governor?

[viget]

Kim--

Interesting idea. If Matalin did this, did she do this on behalf of the "conspiracy" or was she acting as a lone wolf?

And would Russert seriously consider perjuring himself to save Matalin's butt?

Plus, there's still that bit about Novak and his source (where presumably the whole investigation began), which is totally unanswered in the indictment, except in relation to Official A.

Maybe Matalin is official A? Would make sense if she's trying to hide her cooperation with Fitz.

[viget]

Oops, nevermind. Matalin resigned effective December 31,2002, six months before the leak. And if Libby didn't find out about Plame until June 2003, how the hell could Matalin have known about her?

[Saugatak]

There are 2 things I take from Fitz's indictments:

1. Fitz KNOWS A LOT and has REVEALED A LOT. But,THERE IS MORE INFO THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVEALED. This indictment is a killer and if Fitz can back up everything he reveals in the indictment (and I'm betting he can), Libby is a dead man walking.

2. Now if you're Rove or someone else who is in legal jeopardy, Fitz is sending them the message. Come in and cooperate or I will indict you with the information I HAVE NOT REVEALED YET.

My take: FITZ is like a Jedi master. He could go after a lot of people NOW but has deliberately chosen not to do so. Why? By doing it in pieces, he insulates himself and his office and investigation as being seen as a partisan witch-hunt, a la Kenneth Starr.

Fitz is also trying to induce others to flip. I think Fitz is after the VP and Prez, and he wants every single high-level flipper he can get to pursue those cases.

Fitz indicted Scooter because Scooter refused to flip on Cheney.

My guess is Rove offered something to give Fitz pause (Cheney, Bush?) and that's why Rove was not indicted because based on the info revealed, Rove could have been indicted as well.

[kim]

viget, I've figured Matalin never really lost touch with the WH, the GOP, or WHIG for that matter -- though she's far away from much of that now at Simon & Schuster. After writing my post I was thinking Russert and Fitzgerald could actually have told Fitzgerald and the GJ the "truth" I've imagined it but this hasn't been discussed now, for any number of reasons. It's really just extreme speculation on my part.

Emptywheel, you have been so illuminating for me about this case, forget about the 0.500 stuff!

[The Old School]

emptywheel:

Thanks again for your insights.

Re: Russert.

Did you happen to catch him on MSNBC just a few minutes after noon Eastern time?

The veracity of his comments is very suspect.

At first, he emphatically stated that he had told Fitzgerald that Libby had called him to complain about a commentator on MSNBC, and that they had never discussed Valerie Wilson.

A minute or two later, Russert implied that Libby had discussed Valerie Wilson with Cooper, Miller and himself.

I don't have a transcript, but I'd love to see one. A video clip would be even better because Russert got this sheepish look on his face after that second remark, a look that seemed to reveal his own self-awareness that he was fucking up his own alibi.

[emptywheel]

Matalin came back for some consulting at the time of the leak. So she was a party to the WHIG stuff at that point.

Then, the day after she testified, it was announced she'd do some heavy-duty consulting on the campaign. Which, to my knowledge and googling abilities, she never did. That's one of the reasons I suspected she flipped. She was offered ongoing financial incentives, and didn't collect. (IIRC, Adam Levine was also offered ongoing consulting; not sure if he collected though.)

Which is why I think Matalin may have flipped. But of late, she's been very actively supporting Cheney again. Perhaps she cooperated in a limited fashion (or didn't have that much to offer). And is now one of the fairly risk-free people who can help Dick out.

Anyway, I'm growing re-convinced Russert told the truth. So maybe Matalin did cooperate.

[ScientistMom in NY]

My head is spinning, and I've found the day so stressful that I can't think clearly. But I do have a few random thoughts to offer.

Reading the indictment, two things struck me. First, Fitzgerald has Libby on the charges; there is no way a jury wouldn't find him guilty. Second, the Bush administration absolutely cannot afford to have this case go to trial. Can you imagine all this testimony being given in court? So it seems that Libby will have to plead guilty to something to escape trial, or Bush will pardon him (hard to imagine that he would dare to do this), or the administration will claim executive privilege to prevent officials from testifying and take it all the way to the SC, which by then they will have well-stacked.

I was also struck by how tired and nervous Fitzgerald appeared. I was surprised at the nervousness, because he is certainly accustomed to trying high-profile cases and being "on stage". I wonder whether he is strung out and exhausted from last-minute negotiations, and whether something has been thrown at him at the last minute that threatens his case.

[emptywheel]

Old School

No, I didn't see that. But if Libby tried to tell Russert what to say in Fall 2003, then he would have spoken to Russert, right? He tells Russert to lie, and instead Russert testifies against Libby, which is why Fitzgerald believes him?

See my next post. Fitzgerald clearly believes Russert's testimony to a degree he doesn't believe Judy's. There's got to be a reason why.

[emptywheel]

Scientist Mom

I agree about Fitz' nervousness. But imagine how little sleep he has probably gotten of late. Plus, he strikes me as a naturally shy person (I can't believe I'm saying that about an Amherst Rugby player, but he reminds me of one I knew once, so I guess it's possible).

But remember, there's always the possibility of a civil suit out there. Bush has to consider that. The information--at least about the primary leak and the plot against Joe Wilson--will come out anyway, thanks to Paula Jones.

[Roosevelt Democrat]

The Libby indictment does not explain the role of Robert Novak, and does not reveal who told Novak about Plame. That makes me think that there are two parallel leaks being pursued by Fitzgerald.

The first leak thread is the State Dept Source (and/or Cheney) to Libby to Miller, that did not result in a leak. The second leak thread is the State Dept Source to Hadley and Rove to Novak.

Here's why I think Rove is the leaker.

Rove said he learned the identity of Plame from reporters. He also said that he first heard about her at a social gathering outside the White House in the Spring of 2003. I believe these stories contain a kernel of truth, as follows ...

Rove attended the party for the 40th anniversay of Novak's column on June 19, 2003, about a week after Libby learned of Valerie Plame/Wilson. I think Libby told Rove or perhaps the same source who told Libby told Rove. I think Rove told Novak about Plame at the party. Interestingly, we have that photo of Rove and Novak together, with Rove wearing one of those "I'm a source, not a target" buttoms that were passed around. So, instead of learning at a party from reporters, as Rove's layer said he told investigators, Rove was telling a reporter Novak.

I think that Novak has withheld his testimony about conversations with Rove at that June 19 party, and, of course, withheld the part revealing that Rove outed Valerie Plame to him. This fits, though, Rove has used Novak before to leak information, and I think he was doing it again.

I don't believe that Fitzgerald has been able to connect the dots, at least legally, on the Rove to Novak leak, but I think he is working on it. I expect him to indict Rove on IIPA or Espionage Act violation, as well as obstruction, perjury, and false testimony.

That's how I see it, anyway, based on what we know now. I think Rove is the big fish who will eventually be caught in the Fitzgerald net.

[emptywheel]

Roosevelt Dem

I think that's very plausible.

I'm increasingly convinced that NYT gave Fitz some information on Judy attempt to write a story.

Consider. The story is Judy said she had no significant conversations with Libby except in July. Then Fitz showed her the sign-in log, and she realized she'd been caught. So she testified.

But there is no way Fitz could have known Libby and Judy talked about Plame on June 23 from the sign-in log. There had to be another reason to believe it was important. Important enough to win a face-off with Judy to get more testimony out of her.

So I think someone at the NYT told Fitz that the June 23 meeting was important.

But Novak would really avoid that, both because he kind of sort of testified on his own. And because he's got so many editors (or did, before CNN put him on leave) that you'd not know who to ask. Chicago Sun Times? Town Hall? CNN? Who is Novak's editor?

So no one would have known if Novak were working on this in June.

[ScientistMom in NY]

Emptywheel, do you think the CIA would allow Valerie Plame to bring a civil suit, given that they won't even let her write an op-ed? I would love to think that this is in the offing, but it seems unlikely.

I couldn't help but think, as Fitzgerald spoke at length, in great detail, without notes, what a spectacle his interview of Bush must have been.

[Lisa]

Can the following line in the indictment cited above--"State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip"--be referring to Bolton, Fleitz, Wurmser, and Hannah? Maybe Grossman WAS the Undersecretary who talked to Libby, but the information he was provided was from the propogandists (Bolton, et al) and he just passed it on (unwittingly?) to Libby?

[texas dem]

I haven't seen the press conference yet, but it sounds like Fitzgerald is the kind of guy we're supposed to elect president.

[Mimikatz]

Ryan Lizza says that he confirmed with Fitzgerald that Grossman was the "undersec of State" in the indictment.

But there are still the unnamed and undesignated State Dept gossips that were talking about Valerie Wilosn, and they could have included Bolton and/or Fleitz.

Libby was quoted on the news that he would be exonerated. That seems highly unlikely, given the specificity of the charges and the large amount of info backing them up. So he is facing at least a few years in prison almost certainly, plus a trial that drags on with testimony by the VP and everyone else, and immense legal fees. (Note: See who is paying for his defense now.)

That is a large incentive to plead, and he has to have something or someone to give up, unless he has accepted the role of fall guy willingly.

On the IIPA charges, it isn't a crime, as Fitz noted, to discuss CIA agents, even classified ones, around the office if you have clearance. The crime is in telling unauthorized outside people. Fitz seemed clear this is a serious crime and the public interest ought to be vindicated, even if it is a prosecution for another charge, like perjury. Rove seems to me to be the most vulnerable to this charge.

We know of the leak to Novak from one or two people, one of whom was almost certainly Rove; the leak to Miller, but she didn't write about it--did she tell someone else? Is the fact that she didn't write about it enough to get Libby off the hook? Maybe there is more info we need here. Remember the language in the filing in support of the subpoena about "what she might do with the information". The leak to Cooper as well, from Rove.

I am not so sanguine that Fitz is really going after a lot of other people. Rove, certainly. But I'm not discounting all his "don't get your hopes up" and "No one wants this over more than I" language. Unless he has more sources than we know. The people he would be going after are those who leaked the info to outsiders. And he will use whatever charges he can. But more? I'm inclined to think not, unless it is for lying and/or obstruction.

[Anon]

Emptywheel,

Greyhair's post, raised a question for me. Could Fitzgerald be simultaneously working two or more Federal Juries on this case? The one in DC, and perhaps another couple in ChiTown?

[Mimikatz]

On the grand jury question, there is always a grand jury sitting in DC. Fitz can go to any grand jury with the testimony and statements he has, plus any new evidence or additional testimony, and get further indictments. It doesn't have to be a specially empaneled grand jury. They don't do a new one for every case. It's just that if a prosecutor is going to interview a lot of witnesses, he needs continuity. But once you have transcripts of statements and testimony, you can go to another grand jury that happens to be sitting. Or their could be sealed indictments, or he could accept deals from people under which they provide additional testimony.

Raw Story is confirming Karl Rove as "Official A" and says that several papers will report on this tomorrow, including perhaps the Times. Karl isn't out of the woods at all.

[Mimikatz]

And here's some more awful news: David Addington, Cheney's new Libby, is even worse. He is a principal author of the torture memos and he is a big proponent of expanded executive powwers. Via TAPPED

He is really throwing down the gauntlet to Congress and Powell, who has been agitating against torture with the Senate.

[Anon]

Mimi,

My question was somewhat different. Could he be using two or more grand Juries simultaneously? With the one in DC acting as a front (an intelligence gathering operation,) while the real indictments come from a second or third GJ being run out of Chicago?

[al-Fubar]

Is it possible that Fitz got his main guy, even if not (yet) on the core charge?

We are mostly a bit disappointed that he didn't get Rove, because we view this whole thing in the broadly political context - misdeeds by the Bush Administration, of which Rove is seen as the brains. But Fitz is an old style straight-arrow prosecutor, concerned with crimes, and in this case the particular crime of burning a CIA officer.

Who is the more likely prime mover in that crime, Rove or Libby? I'd argue Libby. Yeah, the general tactic of getting at Wilson by injuring his wife is Rovean, but it isn't like ol' Turdblossom invented scumbag politics. The Iraq War, and the twisting of intelligence to promote it, originated more with the Cheney side of things than the Rove side - and Libby is "Cheney's Cheney."

So is it possible that Libby was in fact the prime mover in burning Plame?

-- Rick

[Rayne]

In re: Fitz' nervousness, as remarked upthread...I had the distinct impression while watching him that Fitz was entirely aware that this was historic and could have wide-ranging far-reaching repercussions extending forward through our country's future. This wasn't just a high profile case; it's a case that requires complete and utter certainty beyond that he might ordinarily expect under the law. I think his demeanor reflects the intensity he expects a case of this import to possess. I also believe he was making a statement to the other targets at the same time. He had every reason to appear tightly wound; no prosecutor who is certain of a crime in his head and in his heart wants to risk the loss of a case through lack of focus. I think he saw some really bad stuff that he knows to be criminal all over the place in the White House, but he's compelled to be absolute in certainty. Look what Starr's lack of seriousness, intensity and focus did to this country, after all.

[orchid314]

Mimikatz,

I agree with you that it didn't sound today like Fitzgerald has established a wide dragnet for this case. I certainly think he's done extensive, detailed background homework on the context and the motivations for the leak, and I believe he'll do his best to pressure Libby to give up any and all information Libby has on Cheney, on the off chance that he might turn on his former boss, but I don't see Fitz moving beyond Rove. Rove, however, is by no means in the clear; he merely bought himself some time with Fitzgerald, while the Special Counsel reviews the information Rove is proffering at this late date.

[ScientistMom in NY]

Rayne, you raise a good point about Fitzgerald's awareness of the importance of his actions. This reminds me of his discussion of the 1917 Espionage Act. I found some of Fitz' statements difficult to understand, but I gathered from what he said about this law that although the criteria were met, he hesitated to apply it because he didn't want to have an "Official Secrets Law" as they do in England. Perhaps he was threatening a target by this discussion, but my impression was that he was trying very hard to do the right thing - is he ever the good Irish Catholic boy - and he didn't want to set a damaging precedent. (By the way, I'm Irish Catholic myself, so I feel free to use this particular ethnic label.)

One statement that I found impossible to understand was his answer to the question of whether the investigation was over. He said something unintelligible. I watched the clip at Crooks and Liars a couple of times and still couldn't make sense of this particular answer.

[ScientistMom in NY]

A trivia question: does anyone know Fitzgerald's middle name? The initial is "J". I'm wondering because one of my sons has "Patrick" as his middle name, and his first name starts with a "J". I may have unknowingly named him after Fitzgerald!

[Saugatak]

ScientistMom, good speculaton. Fitz is handling himself with such class. If I were Irish Catholic, I'd be proud to claim him as one of my own.

I don't know what the J. stands for, but if you named your son after Patrick J. Fitz accidentally, it's a great choice.

If I have another son, I will be tempted to name him after Patrick J. Fitz myself.

Fitz for Prez! The integrity, discretion, professionalism, judgment and intelligence he's shown thus far (in contrast to Bush) is what this country desperately needs.