by emptywheel
Updated: Damnit. I checked Steve's site before I posted this. Anyway, he has a new post up saying that Inman is full of it. I'm glad Steve checked up on this--I hope in the future he doesn't treat people as credible simply because they're well-connected to things unrelated to the facts at issue. More thoughts on Steve's new post below.
Steve Clemons got sloppy yesterday with the way he printed rumors that Richard Armitage is a target of indictment. Here's what he said:
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'll get into assessing what it is, exactly, that Clemons seems to imply. But for now, I'd like to discuss why this feels like just another crappily sourced rumor on the Plame Affair. I don't mind that Clemons is implying that Armitage is, in some way, a target of Fitzgerald's investigation. I've been rather convinced Armitage was involved since March. It's the way Clemons qualifies his source, Bobby Ray Inman, as a legitimate source.
But Inman stating this matters.
[snip]
Inman stating that Richard Armitage is the target of indictment is news and could have some veracity because of who Inman is. [my emphasis]
By virtue of Inman saying something, it makes it somehow more credible than any of the other rumors floating around the beltway (more credible, for example, than demonstrating that Armitage is the only name that fits Fitzgerald's redacted filings on the case perfectly). Having read a lot of poorly-sourced rumors on this case recently, my eyes glazed over and when I read Clemons' post and all I could see on my screen was, "Armitage is going to jail because a source, who is big and powerful but who has nothing to do with the case, says he is." For all the evidence Clemons provides to support his rumor, Inman may know no more about this case than my dog (who is pretty smart and gets to watch me blog Plame all day, though he admittedly naps a lot). Is there any reason Inman would have learned that Armitage "is the target of indictment" from one of the four people who might have direct knowledge of that information--Fitzgerald, Armitage, Novak, and Woodward?
As it turns out, Clemons didn't need to appear like Judy Miller's beltway brother. Dan Drezner gets into the act and describes why, beyond being someone big and powerful, Inman might have an inside scoop.
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 inside info privileges.
Aha! See that Steve? That's the way you give reporting credibility!!! By explaining how your vaunted source knows what he knows!! "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." I'll also add the very helpful comment peraspera offered in a DKos thread yesterday:
Inman, Armitage, and Powell have moved in the same social circles since their Reagan days. Inman was also CIA deputy director. If Inman knows anything it's likely plain old gossip from those people rather than him having any special insight from Fitz's end of things. Inman is smart and connected but seems to delight in being an insider bubble boy. I wouldn't trust him to get isolated facts put in the proper context in Plamegate.
Now frankly, I don't know peraspera nor do I know the source of her knowledge here. But this is the kind of detail someone who wants to establish the credibility of a source provides--describe how the source knows, rather than claiming the source has credibility "because of who [he] is." If Inman is an associate of Armitage, and if Armitage got a sense after a post-Woodward bombshell interview that Fitzgerald was miffed that Armitage hadn't been completely forthcoming from the start, then it's perfectly likely that Inman knows that Armitage is worried. (He likely doesn't, however, have a clue what Fitzgerald is thinking, unless Armitage has already been informed he's a target.) My point is not that Inman is definitely wrong. My point is that, in the sea of pre-indictment breathlessness, reasonable people would do well to remember how sources earn credibility. They do so not because they're powerful and well-connected generally. They earn credibility because they have a direct involvement in the matters at hand. Shew. Now that I've got my rant off my chest, let's return to what these folks are telling us. Clemons describes this in clear terms. Not only is Armitage "the person in Patrick Fitzgerald's bull's eye," but "Richard Armitage is the target of indictment" [my emphasis]. Clemons describes this in stark terms--Armitage is the one and only person in Fitzgerald's scopes and he's going to be indicted. But Drezner says something different:
3) There was more that Inman said, and I'm tempted to spill all the beans -- but I'm not going to do it. It would be unfair to Inman, who has probably never heard of danieldrezner.com and would not necessarily have known he was talking to a blogger with any kind of audience. I know this stinks to the reader, but that's what my ethics tell me to do here. UPDATE: There is one other reason -- because this was a group lunch, and not me on a phone talking to a source, I didn't and couldn't press Inman on the complete provenance of his knowledge, Armitage's possible motivations, the relationship between what Armitage did and what Rove/Libby/Cheney did, etc.
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.
Now, I'm going to guess that Drezner's Bullet 3 relates to more details of Armitage's involvement. By suggesting a comparison between "what Armitage did and
what Rove/Libby/Cheney did," Drezner comes close to suggesting that Inman told his audience that Armitage did the same thing Rove/Libby/Cheney did, leak information about Valerie Plame. (Though it's worth pointing out that Inman apparently didn't describe the provenance of his knowledge, which raises more source questions for me.)
Okay, let's pretend that Inman told his listeners that Armitage is Mr. X--that he was a source on Plame's identity for both Woodward and Novak. Assuming Inman has recent knowledge from Armitage (but again, Drezner tells us we don't know the provenance of any of this information), then there are two reasons why Armitage would be the "target of indictment." The first, for knowingly outing a covert agent, Valerie Plame. Or, the second, for claiming to cooperate fully with Patrick Fitzgerald, while imploring Woodward not to reveal to Fitzgerald that Armitage had leaked Plame's identity earlier.
Before I assess these two possibilities, let me point out something that should be obvious. If Armitage is getting indicted for either of these crimes, it in no way erases Rove's apparently fast and loose treatment of the truth. That is, while Armitage may well be a target of indictment, he is almost certainly not the target of indictment (if Rove is in fact even that). Armitage may have been Novak's source that Valerie Plame was covert (in which case he'd be subject to the IIPA charge and Rove would not), but Armitage's troubles, if any, don't affect Rove's perjury troubles.
But is Armitage a target of indictment for these other two crimes? Could someone repeating an allegation from "sources
who would be/would have been in a position to know the fact chain on
these events" know whether Armitage was getting indicted? Well, it depends. As Drezner says, Inman said absolutely nothing about motive, which is a key part of any IIPA violation. And the existing evidence--what Woodward says he learned and what Novak leaked before he spoke to Rove--is inconclusive. Woodward's leak fell far short of outing Plame as a covert agent.
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst.
This may be a violation of classification agreement, but it's not an IIPA violation. Novak's blabbing to Wilson's friend is no more conclusive. According to Joe Wilson, Novak told the friend,
Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him. (344)
Like I said, this is totally inconclusive. Novak adds the allegation that Plame was involved in sending Wilson. But he doesn't use the term covert and the the term "weapons of mass destruction specialist" doesn't specify covert status.
To this inconclusive evidence, let me repeat something Drezner says:
it is my understanding that what has been blogged here is pretty much common knowledge inside the Beltway
Well, I'm far from the beltway. But I have read many beltway insiders say they have "heard Armitage" was Novak's (and Woodward's source). If that's all Inman alleges, then we're not really at indictment stage, are we? That is, a lot of people accept that Armitage is Novak's source. But I've never ever heard the allegation that Fitzgerald is preparing to indict him for it.
Indeed, recent court transcripts suggest the opposite may be the case. In the February 24 court hearing, for example, Bill Jeffress goes to some length to rationalize getting information on Official One (who I will assume is Armitage). He makes it clear that this person--obviously not in the White House--is not Ari or Rove or Hadley.
First, there is the identify of a particular government official, obviously not in the White House, who told two reporters as early as mid-June of 2003 about Mrs. Wilson. I don't feel, because a lot of these revelations are made in letters that are marked confidential and are covered in an affidavit filed under seal, I don't feel comfortable going beyond I guess that description publicly.
But when it comes to arguing why he should get information on this person, he admits the issue of not impugning the innocent accused has been discussed in respect to this person.
Official one -- we know of two reporters that official one talked to. And you know, and I don't mean, and by the way we talked about innocent accused. And certainly I'm not here to tell you that official one did anything wrong whatsoever. But we do know that he did discuss Ms. Wilson with at least two reporters. How many others did he discussed it with? How many others discussed it with him? We don't have a single piece of information from the government as to what official one said about that. We presume that they have interviewed official one and we presume that he has testified . But we don't know that and we don't know a single thing that he has said about that. [my emphasis]
That is, when Jeffress argues that Libby should have access to all details on Official One, he is careful to state that he's not trying to impugn an innocent accused. And when Fitzgerald responds to Jeffress' argument, he suggests that providing the information on Official One would jeopardize the rights of "innocent people."
I think we go far a field and jeopardize the rights of innocent people if we start turning over an investigation of somebody else.
Now, I admit that this argument is only slightly more conclusive than the evidence on whether Mr. X leaked details of Plame's covert status to Novak and Woodward. But let me reiterate the credibility of my source. My source, using the term "innocent people" in a discussion that appears to be about Armitage? He's the guy who, with the help of a grand jury, gets to decide whether what Armitage has done might constitute a crime or not. He's the guy who has been studying "Armitage's possible motivations, the relationship between what Armitage did and what Rove/Libby/Cheney did" for the last two years.
Now this hearing was February 24, so it's possible things have changed in the interim (remember, Novak was reported to have testified post-indictment by Anne Kornblut). And again, I admit this is not conclusive evidence. But it does suggest that the lawyers directly involved in this case have been discussing Official One--who may well be Armitage--as if he is an innocent accused.
So I don't think this Inman revelation offers us much new, beyond the possibility that Armitage has admitted to being Woodward's and Novak's source to his associates. We have known for some time that Armitage was likely Mr. X. But that doesn't tell us a damn thing about what Patrick Fitzgerald thinks about that fact.
About Steve's New Post
The most interesting detail from Steve's new post is this passage:
Another person with deep knowledge about this investigation called to say that Fitzgerald seems to have abandoned any interest in securing indictments regarding the "outing" of Plame and has invested his efforts in challenging the "white collar cover-ups" involved. According to this source, the information provided by Richard Armitage is -- more than any other information -- what has put Karl Rove at major risk of indictment.
I noted in my Armitage as Mr. X post that, if Armitage did talk to Novak but didn't tell him more than Plame the WMD analyst worked at CIA, then it would incriminate Rove. Rove, after all, has claimed to be a confirming source for Novak. Which suggests that Armitage, not Rove, told him the really damning things--Plame's status and name. But if Armitage can prove he didn't tell Novak those things, then it will suggest that Rove lied his ass off about the nature of his conversation with Novak. And that Rove told Novak a lot more about Plame than he has let on.
Clemons has a new post today saying Inman is wrong. Therefore, Clemons has already validated your rant!
He also adds--strangely, in my opinion--that Armitage has provided testimony that specifically harms Rove.
Posted by: Jim E. | May 19, 2006 at 10:46
To a layperson's (non-Plameologist's) eye, the comments of Steve Clemons' sources in his post today seem to imply that Armitage was the one who disclosed Plame's identity to the White House, realized how they were going to use the information, fessed up to Powell and has cooperated in full with the Fitzgerald investigation.
This takes IIPA charges off the table, allowing Fitzgerald to focus exclusively on the cover-up. Which, in terms of public perception of the story (and a future jury's response to it), is more damning for Libby, Rove et al (and Cheney?). People might be unsure about how executive privilege and the IIPA do or don't cancel each other out, but everyone can grok obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury.
Posted by: gbs | May 19, 2006 at 10:59
Forgot to add: If Armitage is involved so closely with the investigations (three appearances before the grand jury), I suspect Fitzgerald might be pursuing conspiracy charges in addition to the OOJ and perjury stuff.
Posted by: gbs | May 19, 2006 at 11:02
It seems to me that the lines
could mean that what Armitage did is less serious than what Libby et al. did, i.e., Armitage told Woodward and possibly Novak, but not to smear the Wilsons and not with the intent that it be printed. Now I'll go read Clemons.Posted by: Mimikatz | May 19, 2006 at 11:11
So Clemons' sources, one of whom is almost certainly Armitage himself or, more likely, his lawyer, basically confirm your analysis. Armitage was the one who (inadvertently) gave the "Wilson's wife" connection to Novak, presumably also to Woodward, and as well to the WH (Rove) and, maybe, OVP. Maybe the INR memo was really written to explain why State didn't think Wilson was a big deal (since their analysts and their ambassador had debunked the Niger forgeries on their own) and when Armitage repeated the Fleitz/Bolton canard that Valerie had sent Joe, he didn't realize that Rove and OVP would use it as a way to publicly smear Wilson and scuttle Valerie's career, and possibly her operation.
So Armitage indeed is the unwitting person who we heard early on launched this disaster without meaning to or even intiially realizing it. But it is surely Rove's involvement that caused Ashcroft to recuse himself, and if Armitage came clean (mostly) early on, then Fitz must have known from early on that Rove knew about Plame from the get-go.
I can see Armitage spilling the Novak interview and whatever involvement he had in high-level meetings where the smear was either launched or where the details of what became the smear were discussed. But also "neglecting" to mention he had also talked to Woodward, knowing that Woodward, at least, could keep his mouth shut and wasn't going to publish the info.
But Woodward, who is clearly something of a prima donna, saw himself as being at the center of a part of the story and wanted Armitage to reveal that he had talked to Woodward too ("I'm important too!"). I can also see Fitz seeing this for the rather petty grandstanding that it was and understanding that Armitage's slip, in light of all that he had given, was no big deal.
Posted by: Mimikatz | May 19, 2006 at 11:30
More on the Rove details.
First, I suspect Steve is still getting details from people with an outside view of Fitzgerald's investigation. He hasn't lost his big eyes for "very prominent Washington insider[s]" or "well-placed insider[s] who has interacted directly with many of the key personalities involved in the investigation." Assume, for example, he was talking to Wilkerson (with whom he is buddy buddy) and Armitage's lawyer--or hell, even Powell. While it may be very easy for them to determine, based on the questions Armitage got asked and the way he was likely set up, that his testimony can directly disprove Rove's testimony as to what he told Novak, I don't know if they can rule out the IIPA violation unless one didn't occur (that is, unless Rove didn't have direct knowledge of her covert status, but leaked it anyway). I doubt Armitage leaked Plame's covert status to Novak. I suspect, rather, he got his info from the INR analyst notes, in which case he would know neither her name nor her covert status. SO either Rove told Novak those things, or someone else did, in an earlier conversation (say, Mr. Libby). Plus, it's not clear that Clemons' very prominent Washington insiders would know what was in those emails that Fitzgerald belatedly found.
In other words, assuming Clemons' sources really do have a reason to know these things (and I've lost some respect and trust for Clemons with his Inman post), then it doesn't necessarily mean they really know where matters unrelated to Armitage are going.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 12:05
I'm totally willing to abandon my pet theory on Armitage in jeopardy in the face of the apparent fact that Inman is clueless and confused and Clemon credulous of a connected DC guy. But the pushback that Clemons got strains credulity in its depiction of Armitage. Clemons says
Two sources have reported that Richard Armitage has testified three times before the grand jury and has completely cooperated and has been, as one source reported, "a complete straight-shooter" and "honest about his role and mistakes".
Well, that pretty much shoots at least one of those source's credibility. Unless Armitage forgot about his conversation with Woodward - and there is reason to think that's not the case - he failed to communicate the fact of that conversation to Fitzgerald and the grand jury until well after he had testified, until after Libby was indicted, and until after it was pretty clear the information was going to come out anyway, since Woodward freaked out and went to him after the indictment. And that doesn't qualify him as a straight shooter who has been honest about his role and mistakes.
What's more, of that is right, there's something screwed up with what Clemons says about Powell too:
According to several insiders, as soon as Armitage realized mistakes he had made, he marched into Colin Powell and laid out "everything" in full detail.
Again, assuming Armitage didn't forget about his conversation with Woodward, either this is just total bs, or Powell, who testified to the grand jury relatively early on, also failed to share his knowledge that Armitage had blown Plame's cover with Woodward.
Here's what we know. Armitage and Powell both were questioned in the investigation relatively early on - Powell at least on July 16, 2004 before the grand jury, and I can't pin down Armitage at the moment. Obviously neither of them revealed Armitage's cover-blowing with Woodward in mid-June 2003. Fitzgerald didn't learn of until after Libby was indicted at the end of October 2005, when Armitage went forward to Fitzgerald, but only after Woodward, all freaked out, went back to Armitage realizing that their failure to disclose their conversation meant Fitzgerald believed something, to the best of his knowledge, that was not so - that Libby was the first to blow Plame's cover with a reporter.
Now, if Armitage had forgotten about the conversation, he's probably off the hook. But I am seriously skeptical that he had forgotten the conversation, not least because it looks like Woodward reminded Armitage of the conversation twice between its occurrence and Armitage's confession to Fitzgerald. Here's Woodward on Larry King Live last November:
I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.
I'm almost positive there is a more specific comment from Woodward or Downie on the point, but even this (and what Woodward goes on to say in the interview, about hos Downie wouldn't have done anything differently even if he knew on account of the source's refusal to let Woodward go public) makes it pretty clear that Woodward and Armitage talked about the June 2003 Plame-related encounter once in 2004 and once in 2005 before their October or November 2005 conversation. The point, then, is it's highly doubtful that Armitage didn't remember the June 2003 conversation.
The only other way I can see Armitage off the hook is if he can make the claim that even in fall 2005 he went forward not because he feared being revealed but out of a sense of responsibility. Woodward does say in the LKL interview that after Libby's indictment:
I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"
And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
Does Armitage get off because he can credibly claim that if he had told Woodward to keep quiet, Woodward would have undoubtedly done so, thereby implying that Armitage was not motivated to go to Fitzgerald and alter his testimony by the fear that the falsehood of his earlier testimony would be revealed anyway?
Finally, a question. If Armitage has testified to the grand jury three times, were one or two of those times after Libby's indictment?
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 12:32
What is going on with firedoglake.com? Hacked by Rove?
Posted by: TeedOff | May 19, 2006 at 12:47
I can't get in either.
Posted by: John Casper | May 19, 2006 at 12:48
Jeff
Here's the more specific quote, from Vivnovka's coverage of Woodward:
Now, note what Vivnovka says. Not "to release me to tell Fitz," but "to remove the confidentiality restriction."
I also think it highly likely that Fitz, facing the prospect of a case with at least 4 top-ranking "very connected Washington insiders" with conflicting stories, he went through two rounds of GJ hearings. We know Rove and Libby both testified twice in March. I'd bet money Armitage and Ari did too. (And probably Hadley and Tenet, but that's just a guess.)
And we still have no idea what Armitage testified to Fitzgerald about. He may have said he leaked to Woodward, Novak, and two other people, but didn't know when he leaked to Woodward. Which wouldn't become important until after the indictment appears. And if you're Fitzgerald and a celebrate investigative journalist offeres to testify without a subpoena, and if that guy may help you to disprove Scooter Libby's claims about when he was authorized to leak the NIE, you do it. Voila, free witness!!
While I think your suspicions about CLemons' sources stories are well-founded. I strongly suspect the "very prominent washington insider--today's very prominent washington insider, I mean--is Wilkerson. Wilkerson, after all, is pretty close with Clemons. And I'm not sure how much I trust Wilkerson to know about what ARmitage told Powell or--more importantly--how current that knowledge is. After all, Powell has distanced himself of late from Wilkerson, because of Wilkerson's boisterousness slamming Bush. But Wilkerson is very much a team player, and very happy to put his boss (and with him, presumably, Armitage) in the best light.
Btw, the Armitage to Powell discussion MIGHT explain the Powell comment in September 2003. If Armitage were the 1X2X6 source, and if he had already told Powell "all" in Fall 2003, then Powell might have been sharing something related to that in a meeting.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 12:49
TeedOff -- It works fine from my terminal at the NSA.... and all the screennames come annotated with fascinating information. Did you know Jane buys vanilla ice cream five times more frequently than your average U.S. citizen? Think about it. Children's ice cream!
(I'm kidding. FDL hasn't been loading for a few hours now. It's complacating my Regular Friday GJ Vigil.)
Posted by: &y | May 19, 2006 at 12:55
Imagine that - Rove gets indicted today and firedoglake can't report the news. That would be tragic. I think I'd cry for them.
Posted by: TeedOff | May 19, 2006 at 12:57
The most interesting detail from Steve's new post is this passage...
I disagree - I think the most interesting part of the follow-up post is what is missing, to wit, any attempt by any of Armitage's backers to pin the Woodward/Novakleak back on Hadley.
Should we take that point as settled - Armitage leaked?
As to the issue of "What did Armitage remember", his own followers provide a strong hint:
...as soon as Armitage realized mistakes he had made, he marched into Colin Powell and laid out "everything" in full detail.
Well - Colin Powell was not Secretary of State in Oct 2005 when Libby was indicted. Unless Armitage had the idea of 'fessing up to his former boss who was now in the private sector, I think we can assume the "complete straight-shooter" talked to Powell before Rice took over in Jan 2005.
As to Which suggests that Armitage, not Rove, told him the really damning things--Plame's status and name. But if Armitage can prove he didn't tell Novak those things, then it will suggest that Rove lied his ass off about the nature of his conversation with Novak. And that Rove told Novak a lot more about Plame than he has let on.
Maybe. But Novak had other sources - Bill Harlow, for example. Her name was public record (or at least, internet record). And I will never let Jim E forget his very interesting catch of Andrea Mitchell describing the Wilson trip as follows on July 8:
Well, people at the CIA say ...because he [Wilson] was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.
If Ms. Mitchell got that from the CIA, maybe Novak did too. Or maybe he has Lexis. And maybe Novak completed a syllogism - Low level operatives sent Wilson; Plame was involved in sending Wilson; ergo, she is an operative.
Anyway - it is not as simple as saying that whatever Armitgage did not provide must have com efrom Rove.
My guess, BTW - the "Armitage nailed Rove" is of a piece with "complete straight-shooter" - just an attempt to reassure the base that Armitage is a swell guy, and to keep our eye on the prize - even though Armitage shatters the Evil White House revenge conspiracy, he still helped nail Rove.
In other words, spin and BS.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | May 19, 2006 at 13:00
&y
LOL, I planted that ice cream information. It's working like a charm, feeding the NSA bad data to throw of the scent. Everyone knows Jane eats chocolate ice cream!
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 13:00
makes it pretty clear that Woodward and Armitage talked about the June 2003 Plame-related encounter once in 2004 and once in 2005 before their October or November 2005 conversation. The point, then, is it's highly doubtful that Armitage didn't remember the June 2003 conversation.
And exactly how big a part of that conversation dealt with Wilson's wife? If we're talking a parenthetical aside like the INR memo has (almost certainly Armitage's source), it's hard to see why it would be a significant part or especially memorable. Also, Woodward's quotes appear to be in the context of asking for a release, not rehashing the details of the conversation. Finally, there's no indication Fitz ever asked (nor any compelling reason to think it was his focus, since he was tracking down Novak's source), and apparently Fitz is the one who asked him not to talk about it. At best, I think you have a "not proven."
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2006 at 13:02
All right - firedoglake is back up for me!!! The NSA/Rove hackers probably got nervous and pulled the plug once they realized emptywheel's ability to play dirtier than the NSA.
Posted by: TeedOff | May 19, 2006 at 13:05
I think FDL is back up, taking comments. I would trade that for a "media advisory," from Fitz, however, of which I see none on his site.
Posted by: John Casper | May 19, 2006 at 13:08
Everyone knows Jane eats chocolate ice cream!
"All the bloggers know about it."
"Jane doesn't have a chocolate ice cream problem."
"That's not what I hear around TNH."
"It was an offhand revelation from this blogger, who is no partisan icecreamslinger."
Bleh. It's all fun and games until the FBI comes a-knockin'.
Hah! Preview tells me FDL is back online. Mission accomplished.
Posted by: &y | May 19, 2006 at 13:15
I'm most bummed about Steve's second post because I was just about to post a picture of McCaffrey the MilleniaLab, my secret source on all things Plame. Which I think I will start to do on every new post in which I shred crappily-source Plame rumors.
But here's what McCaffrey's scoop of the day is, in any case:
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 13:22
I wouldn't be surprised if Woodward was one of Clemons sources defending Armitage.
Posted by: kim | May 19, 2006 at 13:23
Thanks, emptywheel, for the VNovak cite, which is what I was thinking of. The key question on the two Armitage-Woodward conversations across 2004-2005 is the one Cecil raises: did Woodward specifically raise with Armitage the fact that they had talked about Plame back in June 2003. Woodward sure makes it sound that way, but it's not certain. If he didn't, it's slightly more plausible that Armitage might have forgotten that he had outed Plame to Woodward - although he seemed to have no problem remembering it when Woodward reminded him right after Libby's indictment (though that's not 100% certain either).
I'm pretty sure Fitzgerald didn't know Woodward was a leakee when he indicted Libby, so it's unlikely that Armitage owned up to it early on. And there's no way Fitzgerald wouldn't have tracked it down if he had known, given the story Libby told about reporters' knowledge.
I agree that whether it's Wilkerson or someone else, there's a push to put Armitage and especially Powell in the best possible light. I'm just saying they don't succeed, given what we know - which is a distinct question from whether Armitage is in legal jeopardy. I am deeply bothered by the tendency to think that because State folks were the neocons' adversaries within the administration, they were on Wilson's side in this matter, or on the anti-war side in the run-up to the war more generally, and therefore their conduct has to be viewed in a positive light in either case.
As for the September 2003 meeting, I sort of wonder if things didn't move in the opposite direction. That is, if one of the State folks - say, Armitage - is 1, I wonder whether Powell might have learned 2x6 (or some approximation thereof) at that Situation Room meeting.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 13:27
And what flavor does the NSA say McCaffrey's scoop is today?
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 13:29
Lemon sorbet, I think.
Jeff, I base my viewpoints about State on the animosity that pitted State, on the same side as CIA, against DOD and OVP. I'm not saying they were anti-war. In fact, in many senses, they were advocating a non-democratic solution (a strongman agreed to by all major groups) more than a democracy (which DOD thought they could game). They were advocating realism versus Neocon imperialism. And I'm not fond of either stance as it played out in Iraq.
At this point, I'm most interested in Woodward's motivations in the whole affair. He says, early on, that he wishes Scooter Libby was responsible for the leak, presumably indicating his unhappiness that his buddy Armitage appears to be the culprit. Then, he sees the indictment and realizes he got a leak first and goes forward--for all he knows putting Armitage in more jeopardy--to tell the prosecutor.
It all makes it more likely, I think, that Woodward's "scoop" was a story pushed by Luskin or Libby (I actually think Libby) that Armitage was the real leaker. I think it's Libby because Armitage's earlier leak helps Libby, but bringing Armitage in only helps Rove.
Or maybe they though they were looking at an IIPA and they wanted to introduce someone who more plausibly could have been the guilty party than Ari.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 13:38
I wonder if Woodward would consider clarifying his conversation with what we all reliably assume is Armitage. While Woodward says his source (Armitage) didn't free him from any confidentiality agreement, it seems he should be able to clarify what he's already talked about--namely, the degree to which he returned to his source to talk about the source's disclosure of Plame.
And if Woodward won't talk about that, I wonder if anyone can ask him about Libby's notes. In one of Woodward's books, aren't Libby's handwritten notes described as neat and meticulous? If we learned anything in this case, it's that Libby's not are NOT neat--they're indescipherable. I'd like to hear Woodward explain that discrepancy.
Posted by: Jim E. | May 19, 2006 at 13:46
OT topic message: I don't know if "SDangerfield" reads the comments here, but I'd like to say that I've agreed with just about every syllable he's written over at TalkLeft (where I'm not registered) the past several days, in particular his lament that TalkLeft has been way too trustworthy of Leopold. I find TalkLeft's defensiveness in the face of SDangerfield's well-intentioned criticism to be unfair and unfortunate. I do think TalkLeft has been admirably transparent in linking to debunkers as well as Leopold this week, but I think she's also being disingenious when she says she doesn't have anything invested in Leopold's story. SHe said she believed him, for crissake, and SDangerfield merely suggested that Leopold's track record shouldn't garner him that type of immediate trust. It's too bad she basically told such an excellent contributor to buzz off.
ANyways, sorry to muddle emptywheel's board with a conversation better suited for TalkLeft. Just wanted to high-five SD.
Posted by: Jim E. | May 19, 2006 at 13:52
emptywheel - Leaving aside the run-up to the war more generally, my point is that both in early 2002 and in spring-summer 2003, State was not on the same side as CIA - and the Wilsons - against DoD and OVP. The INR memo makes crystal clear that in February 2002 INR was pissy with the CIA about CIA encoraching on its territory and going over ground it had already covered - State felt confident the embassy in Niger had effectively debunked the Niger story, so Wilson's trip was unnecessary (this is Maguire's point). And the same INR memo also makes clear that State was pissed at Wilson in spring 2003 (this is, I think, my point): one major point of the INR memo was to refute Wilson's suggestion, floated in Kristof's May 6 piece, that he had reported back to the State Department (or at least INR) as well as the CIA, which made it sound like the State Department knew what he reported and must have known that the documents were forgeries and so on and not shared that information with the White House, perhaps in a hedging strategy or as a setup. The INR memo also emphasizes INR's opposition to the trip in the first place, thereby minimizing its own role in Wilson's trip. (Forget for the moment that these two points - State pissy in 2002, State pissed in 2003 - don't really go well together. We're talking strategy here.)
In other words, there was a deliberate effort on the part of State to distance themselves from Wilson and to push back against Wilson. In fact, I think it's safe to say that some of the main talking points in the White House's own pushback against Wilson originated here (whether directly or via the substance in the INR memo being conveyed to the White House). Which does not mean that State sided with the White House against the Wilsons, and against the CIA. It just means that in the spring-summer 2003 you have a many-cornered fight. But State was not in either the CIA's or the Wilsons' corner.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 13:56
mi casa es su casa, Jim E.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 13:56
KING: OK. Your source, did the source indicate whether Mrs. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?
WOODWARD: Good question. And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst.
******
WOODWARD: Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.
I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.
I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"
And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
Posted by: windansea | May 19, 2006 at 13:59
Then, he sees the indictment and realizes he got a leak first and goes forward--for all he knows putting Armitage in more jeopardy--to tell the prosecutor.
Actually, what happened was that right after Libby's indictment - it sounds like it would be Monday, October 31 - Woodward went back to Armitage to remind him of the date Armitage outed Plame to him, and its newfound significance in light of what Fitzgerald had said about Libby being the first, as far as he knew. At that point, Armitage said something to the effect of, I have to tell the prosecutor, I have to tell the truth, and then he goes to Fitzgerald, and also makes clear that Woodward is released from confidentiality for the purposes of talking to Fitzgerald. Then Fitzgerald gets in touch with Woodward, and Woodward gives his deposition.
As for what Woodward learned that led him to finally tell Downie, on October 24, that he had a Plame source in Armitage, I have fleeting insight into that and then always lose it, but it could well have been that Armitage was Novak's first source. But I don't have strong confidence in that.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 14:02
Armitage shatters the Evil White House revenge conspiracy
Not so fast, Tom. All Armitage means is that the Evil White House revenge conspiracy was not the only thing going on, not that it wasn't going on.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 14:31
I agree with Jeff's latest comment. If anything, the Armitage story confirms there was a targeted pushback/conspiracy against the Wilsons.
Posted by: anon | May 19, 2006 at 14:39
Jeff
Actually, I think you and I are both wrong, and both right. There are factions of State that saw CIA as an ally and factions that saw them as not and a lot of efforts on both agencies not to be the scapegoat for the WH's shameless politicization of intelligence.
But above the granular detail of the INR memo, State was supporting precisely the same argument that Wilson had made--that the intell sucked. And there is very strong evidence to suggest that Wilson talked to people at State before he started going public with his complaints about BushCo gaming the intelligence. At the very least, Brent Scowcroft is a major background player here (hey! He'd be a likely Clemons source too!!), which puts Wilson, in 2003, in the State camp. (To say nothing of his lifetime career there.)
In other words, while State was trying to CYA against allegations that they were responsible (allegations that, for all we know, were being floated internally), they were also clearly trying to do the same thing Wilson was--prove that the Niger allegations had been proven wrong in early 2002.
Finally, the more important allegiances, IMO, come down to the basic argument I've been making about Armitage from the start. I'm no fan of him. But it's clear that Armitage is a whipping boy for the Neocons--the where's Waldo of scandal scape goating. He spent much of his time as Deputy Sec State fighting bureaucratic battles against these guys. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that in this case Armitage was part of the conspiracy.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 14:40
Here's a question.
What if the super secret Grossman emails are from Wilson, complaining that the WH was making Niger claims that weren't true?
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 14:46
emptywheel
I totally agree about disaggregating both State and CIA into multiple factions and forces.
I also agree that State was supporting the same argument as Wilson that the intel sucked. Again, my point is that in spring-summer 2003, State - INR and Powell and Armitage, and others in between - didn't like the way Wilson was doing it, not least because he was making it sound precisely like he was more involved with State than he was (according to State). So another part of the motivation behind the INR memo, which I am suggesting was mirrored in Armitage and Powell's attitude, was just to distance themselves from Wilson in his attack on the White House. Wilson may have thought of himself in the State camp, but those at the top of State, I am suggesting, didn't want him to be seen that way, even as they stuck it to the White House yet again.
This perspective continues to be seen from the top State folks. Just recently Powell commented something to the effect that he knew the intel on Niger was bad, he didn't need Wilson to tell him that. That perfectly encapsulates my point: Powell and others at State agreed on the substance with Wilson; but that didn't make them allies.
So I think there was some animosity toward Wilson on the part of Armitage and Powell in the spring of 2003, which I suspect helps explain Armitage's leaks to Woodward and Novak, however gossipy they were. I seriously doubt they were mere indiscretions.
But that does not mean that Armitage was part of the conspiracy. I suspect not. But nor does it seem right to call him the neocons' scapegoat in this case. I mean, the guy blew Plame's cover with two journalists (and think of which ones!). And on my account, he was probably running Wilson down, so it was not mere gossip.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 15:07
Sorry, I don't buy it. As I suggested, Scowcroft was almost certainly one of the people Wilson contacted after Condi's speech. He almost certainly talked to others, which may even include Armitage. I don't see how you go from a close colleague and ally on these issues telling Wilson "Well, I guess you're going to have to go public with these issues" (or something to that effect) and Powell and Armitage having "animosity" towards Wilson. Someone close to them--Scowcroft--almost certainly had the opportunity to advise Wilson to shut up, and he didn't. And I think Powell's comment is utterly ambiguous--to me it suggests an impatience with the attempts to keep trying to float the intelligence, not any animus to Wilson.
Further regardless of what the INR memo says (and aside from the fact that it bears the traces of Bolton tension), I don't think you can extrapolate from it to Powell and Armitage. Without, at least, some evidence.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 15:20
I have always wondered not just who made that early June comment to Wilson - Grossman maybe? - but the tone of it as well. Maybe I'm misreading Powell and Armitage's attitude toward Wilson. As for going from the INR memo to their attitude, one piece of evidence is the increasingly plausible report that Armitage read the memo in mid-June, and the certainty that Powell and perhaps Armitage did in early July. And the point was precisely to get up to speed on what was going on.
Also, here's a test of my hypothesis: by some time on July 8, Novak was saying really nasty things about Wilson, including the bit about his wife. He talked to his first source, Armitage, that day. It remains somewhat ambiguous whether he talked with Rove that day or the next. If it was the next - and if Novak did not talk to Libby on July 2 (or whenever) - then Novak got his nasty talking points from Armitage.
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the supersecret emails are Grossman-Wilson. The only thing about that is that Libby's lawyers seemed to imply that they also threw some doubt on the purported timing of Grossman telling Libby. I don't know what to make of that.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 15:49
In other words, there was a deliberate effort on the part of State to distance themselves from Wilson and to push back against Wilson.
The distancing is fairly obvious . . . and since it's also rice-bowl protection, it'd be de rigeur. Not sure the "pushback" part is. The White House already had Wilson's report (from 9 June), and wouldn't need State to tell them things like: "The reporting we have from his trip makes no mention of documents, fraudulent or otherwise."
In fact, I think it's safe to say that some of the main talking points in the White House's own pushback against Wilson originated here . . .
I also find this unpersuasive. OVP knew they didn't send him, they knew he was lying about debunking the forgeries, and they knew they hadn't previously read his report. State appears to've been one of their early sources, but the pushback was OVP-centric and didn't rely on their data.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2006 at 15:57
See I would argue that we're closer than ever to establishing that Armitage didn't get the INR memo. He wasn't on the circulation list (there was no circulation list, beyond Grossman). And the few sources who say he did all date to the "frame the witnesses" phase, and are all very poorly sourced. The INR analyst's notes, maybe, but I believe the former State officer who said clearly that the INR memo didn't circulate higher than Grossman, because we have documentary evidence to support that.
I also don't think Novak needed talking points for his nastiness. I have, of course, my theory that Libby spoke with Novak in the pre-op-ed phase (perhaps on July 2?); had Libby said, "Wilson is the Ambassador and he's lying" it wouldn't make him a source for Novak. But even without that, Novak was on Meet the Press the day of the leak, he is prone to criticize extra-partisan hires, and he is, all by himself, an asshole. He doesn't need Armitage to give him that.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 15:57
Oh, one more point about INR memo v INR analyst notes. It makes a difference because if Armitage found out about Plame from the INR analyst's notes, it puts a different spin on the information. The analyst notes has less a CYA spin and more of a "what stupid idiots they were for not believing this"--remember the "Sudan" comment. Also, in the redacted section of the INR analyst notes, there appear to be some more points against the Niger case.
And one more thing--Armitage WAS on the distribution list for the July 7 version, so presumably we know he got it then.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 16:10
I can't remember if I'm supposed to be convinced or not about the 8-25-05 LAT piece that had Armitage getting a slightly later copy of the INR memo in mid-June, after seeing Pincus' article and also after taking back over from Grossman as head of the Department. But the LAT always strikes me as having good sources in this case at State. But maybe I'm just wrong about that. Also, are you suspicious of the reports - from the LAT too, I believe, but maybe not just there - that Armitage had the INR memo sent to Powell on July 7, implying that Armitage at least knew about it then. But maybe he just called Ford and asked him what they had for Powell on Wilson's trip?
I agree that it's possible that all Novak added to his arsenal on July 8 from Armitage was the claim about Wilson's wife's role in his trip. I guess I just find it hard to imagine Armitage just mentioned this in an utterly neutral way (and I've never seen Armitage quoted as being neutral in tone or content on anything) and Novak provided all the asshole part.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 16:16
On May 15 I heard Ret. Admiral Inman on NPR declaiming that he knows the archive capability at NSA and it is impossible that the USA Today story about the 10 million callers' wholesale records being stored there could be true. On the same program the USA-T's journalist was present describing a long investigative process that assured the accuracy of the story prepublication. Maybe Libby's folks have assigned Inman to make a flurry of speeches this week; that and providing cover for other prominent neoCons besides Libby. Inman stated his credentials as former director of the agency. I am not sure how much credibility he has, though obviously he enjoys the afterglow of having held high office. We know that radio station has changed its format to assure there is always a Republican counterargument for every aired segment, a new approach to programming shepherded in since election of the new director last year. I imagine Libby counsel plans to besmirch as many of the moderates as possible to assure postBush neoCon ascendancy within the Republican Party. Democrats may be painted quixotic, but Libby's folks are looking lemuresque.
Posted by: JohnLopresti | May 19, 2006 at 16:20
I'm not a Plameologist, and I know only a fraction of what most of you know about the leak investigation. But I'm an OK armchair psychologist and judge of personality and character, and I think it FAR more likely that it was Rove who dished the really damaging stuff than Armitage. If you read James Mann's The Rise of the Vulcans, the portrait of Armitage that comes through is of someone fiercely devoted to duty, loyalty, respect for those who put themselves in harm's way, and for fulfilling one's obligations to those who make sacrifices for the country. Screwing with Valerie Plame as part of a political hatchet job would be very out of character. Sure, Armitage is conservative, and it shows just how radical this administration is that he was one of the administration "moderates." But if there's anyone who's served in this administration who could be described as honorable and not cause me to gag, it's probably Richard Armitage.
Posted by: DHinMI | May 19, 2006 at 16:29
The reason I discredit the 8/25 LAT story is that:
Meanwhile, there is a report, again, sourced reasonably clearly, that aligns much more closely with what we now see in the memo that say Armitage didn't get the memo.
So it's much like this Clemons thing--you've got allegations that don't source someone that would really know saying Armitage got the memo. And others sourced with at least some explanation for the source's knowledge describing that he didn't get it or need it. Which do you believe? Or do you believe the copies of the memos themselves, which say Armitage only got the July 7 one?
The AP version of these stories, btw, states that Armitage asked only that Powell be "given an account of Wilson's trip" which doesn't mean he knew of the memo or even specified he wanted that memo to be sent.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 16:31
and Novak provided all the asshole part.
I'm having a hard time seeing Novak's a**holiness, at least for this article, from your perspective. In fact, he seemed to support Wilson's contention that getting to the bottom of the Administration handling of the report was important (after claiming no senior officials had seen it, which was a bit weird). His reporting on factual corrections to Wilson's story (sent by CPD, suggested by Plame, report routing) have held up quite well, and you can't blame him for those.
The 8/25 column also describes the memo as classified Secret, when it appears to have been classified Top Secret (though at the same time it suggests it is SCI), which just seems like some Leopoldian muddle . . .
Most folks can't read the markings with a copy in front of them. (And wouldn't understand the ramifications if they could.) I wouldn't read too much into that.
Meanwhile, there is a report, again, sourced reasonably clearly, that aligns much more closely with what we now see in the memo that say Armitage didn't get the memo.
If he didn't, and yet he's Novak's and Woodward's source, he must've gotten it from somewhere. He'd obviously be cleared for it, so unless we want to posit another leak . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2006 at 16:47
Cecil
You make a good point about the different tenor in the July 14 column and his reported comment on July 8. I guess I was just thinking of the number of reports of Novak being an asshole in person (getting physical with people who question him on Plame, storming out of the CNN studio). But you do raise a good question--did something calm him, give him more perspective between July 8 and whenever he wrapped up the article.
I agree that Armitage would have known about this. As I've said, I think it more likely he saw the INR analyst notes--or perhaps an unknown document that describes her as a WMD analyst. I only raised the INR memo in this context to explain that I don't think we can assume the spin of the INR memo represented Armitage's view, since it has been reported (and the INR memo itself seems to indicate) that he didn't see it until July.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 17:00
Cecil - I'm going to just avoid my utter disagreement - on the facts and on the gist and point - of Novak's column, since it would get us into a disagreement over his quote unquote factual corrections and also over the rhetorical conventions of columns like Novak's, which I'm sure I'll never persuade you exist - since I wasn't talking about Novak's column, but rather his nasty comments to a stranger on the street on July 8, to the effect of, "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him, his wife Valerie sent him, she works for the CIA." And I'm quite sure you'll agree with me in characterizing Novak, since you have the good taste, or whatever it is, to put those two asterix in after a.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2006 at 17:00
Wilson is an asshole...
Zalmay Khalilzad? I'd like to punch him right in the face. I've never seen met him and I'd prefer never to see his face but yeah. He has never been right about one thing in 20 years. He is simply another neoconservative that has gotten every single thing wrong.
It still amazes me when I still see that drunk Bill Kristol on tv every week still spewing the same nonsense he was spewing 3 years ago
I mean I'm the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women
Posted by: windansea | May 19, 2006 at 17:16
Well, I tend to think Novak's more than a bit of an idiot, but the points in his Jul 14 column that differ with Wilson's earlier statements (and implications) are hard to argue with:
- "The CIA's decision to send [Wilson] . . . was made routinely at a low level"
- "Wilson's report . . . was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not . . ."
- "The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it."
- "Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger . . ."
I wasn't talking about Novak's column, but rather his nasty comments to a stranger on the street on July 8 . . .I don't want to be rude, but I refuse to accept anything coming from Joe Wilson on this subject as fact. And this story in particular strikes me as even less believable than his other stuff.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2006 at 17:27
Cecil
Wow. I was willing to agree that Novak's July 14 was more temperate. But I disagree with most of your points.
* "The CIA's decision to send [Wilson] . . . was made routinely at a low level" How is a CIA managerial type a low level, even assuming the discredited assertion that Plame was responsible
* "Wilson's report . . . was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not . . ." This one I buy: less than definitive, hedging on Tenet, definitive on Bush (who never sees this level of intell anyway)? I don't think you're helping your case or Dick Cheney's here though. Also note this cites Wilson's report, not Wilson's debrief, the former of which which the SSCI suggests was different from both Wilson's and the INR analyst's versions
* "The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it." I'm not sure how you justify this claim? Every official document (including Roberts' SSCI) says the trip was a response to a Cheney request.
* "Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger . . ." I will agree this was the dominant version the week of the leak. But there seems to be a lot of evidence (though not definitive) that Plame suggested Wilson for the 1999 trip, not the 2002 one.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 17:36
windansea: would you please indicate which parts of your posts are quotes and which aren't? It makes your posts very frustrating to follow.
>either do it like you would in email
or use the super-easy html method described HERE to put the quoted part in italics
Posted by: obsessed | May 19, 2006 at 17:42
Wilson is an [size=20]ASSHOLE[/size]...
[i]Zalmay Khalilzad? I'd like to punch him right in the face. I've never seen met him and I'd prefer never to see his face but yeah. He has never been right about one thing in 20 years. He is simply another neoconservative that has gotten every single thing wrong.
It still amazes me when I still see that drunk Bill Kristol on tv every week still spewing the same nonsense he was spewing 3 years ago
I mean I'm the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women[/i]
thanks for the link!
Posted by: windansea | May 19, 2006 at 17:56
oops...didn't work right
Posted by: windansea | May 19, 2006 at 17:58
windansea: just change the brackets to less than and greater than signs
Posted by: obsessed | May 19, 2006 at 18:03
How is a CIA managerial type a low level,
Compared to the VP sending him? Concur it's a relative term, but apt, I think, in this case.
I don't think you're helping your case or Dick Cheney's here though.
Wilson claimed they had to've seen it. (And hence Bush was lying when he uttered the 16 words.) They didn't. I think it makes the case eloquently.
Every official document (including Roberts' SSCI) says the trip was a response to a Cheney request.
The SSCI seems to support Novak:
Further, I think the timing suggests that the VP's question wasn't the first.But there seems to be a lot of evidence (though not definitive) that Plame suggested Wilson for the 1999 trip, not the 2002 one.
The memo cited in the SSCI suggests she suggested him. At the least she had a more active role than merely acting as a conduit.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2006 at 18:11
Dick Armitage is a good egg.
Humor Me...
Baby Steps
Let's pretend for a moment - that I am a special prosecutor - have an evil doer (for these purposes we will refer to him as Official "A") - by the short ones - on charges of lying to investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice - all very serious crimes - with someone going to jail - it is not me.
Naturally, Official "A" is an unhappy person - very unhappy - all the money in the world - his good looks - powerful friends - high priced defense lawyers - can't help him beat this rap.
Also pretend - there might be other evil doers on my radar - Official "A-" and Official "A+" - that this special prosecutor - is building cases against as well.
In exchange - for Official "A's" cooperation and testimony - in helping bring these other evil doers to justice - hypothetically - I just might cut Official "A" some slack - on one or more charges - at sentencing.
[More than 90 percent of federal defendants plead guilty. Some do so during the pretrial phase as part of a plea bargain, in exchange for the prosecutors' dropping some charges or recommending a more lenient sentence.]
Naturally - as a special prosecutor (remember, humor me) - I have presented evidence - before a grand jury - on more than one occasion - finding of probable cause for grand juries - necessary to issue an indictment - is a relatively low standard of proof.
Finally - imagine - 12 of the 23 jurors - have already voted to indict Official "A" - consider the proposition - that I might want to keep that information secret (e.g. "sealed") - use it as leverage - to negotiate with Official "A" - and his lawyer - for unconditional cooperation - to bring all the evil doers to justice.
In a perfect world - this would be - swell.
PJF
http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Patrick J. Fitzgerald | May 19, 2006 at 18:17
Cecil
Ooh, I'm going to get as frustrated as Jeff, soon--I don't have his patience.
In the context, in which people claimed Plame was a veritable secretary, no, the "low level" is not relatively sensible coming from a "managerial" type. Not to mention, no greater source than Dick Cheney is witness to the fact that sending a former Ambassador pro bono was anything but routine.
The parsing that Bush didn't see Wilson's trip and therefore it was alright to use the claim in the SOTU is ridiculous. Bush didn't see the raw intell on ANY of the claims in teh SOTU. Even with the false Aluminum tube claim (which Bush knew about before the SOTU even according to Hadley), Bush didn't see the raw intell. The point is that a lot of people who DID see Wilson's report were responsible for drafting the SOTU, and they kept the claim in.
I'll grant you the State/DOD thing. Though it pretty clearly isn't INR at State--which makes it very likely that Bolton, Feith and Rummy asked for this information ... which doesn't really get you far from OVP. All of which suggests it DID happen all at once.
And the memo (mis)cited in teh SSCI almost certainly says no such thing. It says, "In a ... meeting convened by Valerie Wilson." And the notes on which that memo is based say, "Meeting apprently convened by Valerie Wilson ... with the idea that the agency and the larger USG could dispatch Joe Wilson to Niger..." Furthermore, the guy who wrote these notes wasn't at the meeting where it was decided to invite Wilson in to see whether it would make sense to send him (per the SSCI--only CPD people were there). So when he says "apparently convened," he doesn't know.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 18:39
Ooh, I'm going to get as frustrated as Jeff, soon--I don't have his patience.
I'll quit if you like. I find this sort of thing a bit tedious. But I think a precise handle on the facts (where possible, competing claims where it isn't) is helpful.
the "low level" is not relatively sensible
Possibly we're arguing semantics. If we both accept the decisionmaker was the CPD chief (who reports through the Directorate of Operations to Tenet), and that neither Tenet nor the VP had any prior knowledge of the trip, then you can describe it as you wish. The point is that the trip wasn't directly ordered by the VP or Tenet, and they didn't know about the decision to send Wilson.
The point is that a lot of people who DID see Wilson's report were responsible for drafting the SOTU, and they kept the claim in.
The claim is true. (And far from debunking it, most analysts who read Wilson's report actually thought it supported it.) The claim should have been removed because it relied on British intelligence . . . not because it was false. Butler's much maligned report is the authority, and it called the statement "well founded."
All of which suggests it DID happen all at once.
I'd suggest several folks who actually did the analysis (correctly) thought the forgeries report was silly, and Plame was one of them. The trip was in the works before the high-level questions came in. There's nothing wrong with that, except Wilson's implication the VP had to've seen the report. Turns out there's no evidence he did (nor that it would've been very convincing if he had).
And the memo (mis)cited in teh SSCI almost certainly says no such thing.
I'm talking about a different memo. The one Valerie Wilson wrote saying, in part:
(On the same day of the report the VP questioned, though I suspect his question was likely asked the next day.)Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2006 at 19:06
Yeah, the 'patrick fitzgerald' blog deletes critical comments. Leopold/Truthout/and that stupid blog deserve to be put in the trashbin where they belong.
Posted by: anon | May 19, 2006 at 20:01
Cecil,
All Valerie's memo is proof of is that--as has been reported--she was asked to summarize his qualifications for the trip. That's a far cry from supporting Novak's claim that "Wilson's wife suggested sending him." But let's include the full quote, shall we, because Novak himself suggests the case is in doubt:
Uh, Rove and Armitage told Novak that Plame suggested Wilson. But neither the INR memo nor the SSCI backs that. And, apparently, the CIA told Novak that CPD selected Wilson and then asked her to contact him.
On the question of where Bush got the intelligence. First, my complaint about that point is that it is clearly a parsed claim. It doesn't even address the central issue of the week--whether anyone in Cheney's office had seen Wilson's report. And we know someone high up did (though it could be someone in State), because someone used it as justification for the Niger claim to the IAEA. So yeah, Bush didn't see it, but that's a really stupid point to make in the first place (no one ever said the President got this, just the Veep), and just as stupid to repeat as repudiating.
Your suggestions that everyone thought Wilson's trip supported the Niger claims is false on the record. There was variance. I invite you to go read eRiposte on this, and you'll see that the only time anyone used Wilson's trip as justification of the Niger case--before his op-ed, anyway, was in February 2003. And while you're over there, go ahead and read his work on the Niger intelligence. He will thoroughly disabuse you of your fantasy that the Butler report is either an authority or that the claim was well-founded. In fact, no better witness than Robert Novak will tell you it was false. From his article:
So, let's see. We've got Dick Cheney disproving Novak's case that this trip was routine, and Robert Novak disproving your case that the British claim was well-founded and casting doubt on your claim that Plame suggested Wilson.
Gosh, a bunch of conservatives, destroying your argument. You're not doing so well, Cecil.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 20:29
Let's assume, arguenda, that Plame did suggest Wilson for the trip to Niger.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with that? Wilson isn't some schmoe who knows nothing about the region; he had years of experience there, in Niger specifically, and a long list of contacts within the government.
In fact, IIRC, when Wilson's name first surfaced as the person to send to Niger (whatever the source of that suggestion), the CIA decided to send him because they couldn't find anyone else as qualified.
So I'd like to know, if it's true that Plame suggested Wilson, why that's a Bad Thing.
Posted by: CaseyL | May 19, 2006 at 21:58
Sorry in advance for the formatting. So where are we? (And sorry, no hyperlinks) Its looking like:
had (though he may or may not be leaning that way)
known to the principals for awhile)
On the other hand:
flow was being established
written questions)
Also (really wilded-ass speculation):
Tenet statement), the admin was still hiding all negative
indicators in the intelligence they now so gleefully deride
public domain. This was about election 2004. Just keep the bullshit confusing
anything other than hiding the above point. Somehow the issue became whether the Prez had contradictory evidence at the time of the SOTU. That isn't the issue. The issue that the admin, up to July 2003 was still running an op to effectiively hide the coerced and misrepresented intel from the US populace.
extraordinary effort to protect
Americans with domestic spying) because that was about hiding a political spying operation whereas what was going on up to July was hiding a manufactured war.
Posted by: tryggth | May 19, 2006 at 22:14
Uh, Rove and Armitage told Novak that Plame suggested Wilson. But neither the INR memo nor the SSCI backs that.
INR memo (attachment):
SSCI: I don't think any fair reading would be that they don't back that up. Agreeing to disagree on this point is probably wise.It doesn't even address the central issue of the week--whether anyone in Cheney's office had seen Wilson's report.
Wilson claimed the VP had. It's the central issue, and there's no indication of that.
Your suggestions that everyone thought Wilson's trip supported the Niger claims is false on the record.
Hmm, don't think I claimed that. However, most who found the report persuasive did so because of the former PM's statement. And, as you noted, Wilson's information was cited in support of the connection, not as a debunking.
[eRiposte] will thoroughly disabuse you of your fantasy that the Butler report is either an authority or that the claim was well-founded.
I read him. The [much] shorter version is that he seems to think because the Brits won't share their sources they must not have any. And that the separate reporting from Congo is a lie (because?). Very persuasive. (Another good point to agree to disagree on.)
Gosh, a bunch of conservatives, destroying your argument.
That's funny. Now Novak is an authority? Novak's obvious mistake about the British claims being based on the documents is easily disproved (how did they base that Dec 2000 JIC report on a set of 2001 forgeries, I wonder? Time warp?). And I'm not sure what your point is about the Administration use of Wilson's information to support the claim Iraq sought Nigerien uranium, but I don't think it helps your case.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2006 at 22:57
Cecil
I'll agree that the SSCI representation of unnamed interviewees supports the Plame allegation. Butif you believe that, I've got a whole state of FL to sell you--I didn't think anyone believed that anymore. It's like Santa, a nice fantasy, but stinks when you get too close. And I'm not sure how you get "Valerie suggested Wilson" from a clause that makes no mention of her. Convened is not "suggested," not even close.
On Wilson's trip, you're misrepresenting what I said. The interpretation of Wilson's trip varied. But it was NEVER used as support for the Niger case until BushCo got desperate in Feburary 2003, which doesn't really suggest anyone took it as corrborating. Plus, we'd both do well to refer to Wilson's trip REPORT, since the SSCI notes that the INR analyst (and indeed, his notes, as we can read) back up Wilson's contentions that the trip was directly related to Iraq. In other words, the trip report misrepresented the case (possibly for no other reason than compartmentalization, possibly for other reasons).
It doesn't appear you've read eR that closely. The British claim (as Ari Fleischer admitted on July 7, 2003) came from the US NIE. Is Ari wrong now, too? Damn these Republicans aren't helping you much.
I don't think Novak is a credible source. But seeing as how this discussion started with your contention that his article had been proven true, but Novak's own column (and Cheney's annotations, and Ari's admissions, but that's just gravy) easily disprove some of your interim arguments, I think your argument is in terrible shape. I mean, either Novak is wrong (in which case your overall argument is wrong) or you're wrong.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 19, 2006 at 23:34
I'll agree that the SSCI representation of unnamed interviewees supports the Plame allegation. But if you believe that . . .
You are the one who brought it up . . . and said it didn't. ("But neither the INR memo nor the SSCI backs that.")
And I'm not sure how you get "Valerie suggested Wilson" from a clause that makes no mention of her.
The previous clause has her name in it. That one has "the idea" and no thinkers connected to it. I don't think it's that big a stretch to suggest the only person named in the sentence is the one with the idea. (I admit other interpretations are possible.) And again, it was your claim . . .
In other words, the trip report misrepresented the case . . .
I'm not sure why that's pertinent. The report is the only thing any Administration official would have seen. And it manifestly did not "debunk" the African uranium claim. Wilson's claim was clearly wrong (whether he knew it and thus it was a lie is irrelevant to that point).
The British claim (as Ari Fleischer admitted on July 7, 2003) came from the US NIE. Is Ari wrong now, too? Damn these Republicans aren't helping you much.
Oh please--now Fleischer is an expert on this subject? (Though I wasn't aware he said anything quite so stupid as that.) Again, the British have reports of Iraq seeking uranium in a Dec 2000 JIC report. No report after 2000 can possibly account for that . . . certainly not the 2002 Iraq NIE.
But seeing as how this discussion started with your contention that his article had been proven true, but Novak's own column (and Cheney's annotations, and Ari's admissions, but that's just gravy) easily disprove some of your interim arguments, I think your argument is in terrible shape.
What I actually said:
Note that things like agreeing with Wilson on the forgeries falls under the previous clause ("I tend to think Novak's more than a bit of an idiot"). This isn't substantive, and I think a waste of both our time. Cheers.Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 20, 2006 at 00:13
Just to chime in on Novak's use of "low level" - that was exactly the phrase Mitchell reported on July 8, based on her CIA sources, as noted upthread.
Maybe Novak and Mithcell are both wrong (or maybe he lifted her work), but to thump Novak exclusively is not quite right.
As to Valerie suggesting Wilson - my impression is that folks often ask "Who's meeting is this?", or "Who's running this meeting?", with the notion that finding an answer will help establish who is in charge.
Someone reading a memo that Ms. Wilson "apparently convened" a meeting may have leapt to the conclusion that she was a decision maker in it.
FWIW, this struck me as very trusting:
See I would argue that we're closer than ever to establishing that Armitage didn't get the INR memo. He wasn't on the circulation list (there was no circulation list, beyond Grossman). And the few sources who say he did all date to the "frame the witnesses" phase, and are all very poorly sourced. The INR analyst's notes, maybe, but I believe the former State officer who said clearly that the INR memo didn't circulate higher than Grossman, because we have documentary evidence to support that.
We are talking about a guy who did not exaclty sprint to the Special Counsel to correct his earlier errors. Is there any chance at all that maybe there is a tiny bit of a cover-up going on here? A State officer leaking that the INR report never went above Grossman - uh huh. When someone leaks that a report circulated in OVP but never reached Cheney, do you believe it?
Viewed differently, the theory that Armitage did not ask for the memo presumes that Cheney is asking questions, Tenet is asking questions, Pincus is asking questions, Washington is buzzing, but Incurious Dick just does his job and never inquires as to what is up with the Wilson trip everyone is talking about. That strikes me as odd.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | May 20, 2006 at 01:19
Someone reading a memo that Ms. Wilson "apparently convened" a meeting may have leapt to the conclusion that she was a decision maker in it.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean such a conclusion would be correct.
Perspectives can be an interesting thing. From the perspective of the CIA's counterproliferation staff, knowing that their staffer was Joe Wilson's wife but obviously (due to her non-managerial position, as well as nepotism rules) wouldn't have anything to do with deciding on whether he went to Niger, it might be quaint and harmless to have her introduce him to the various people from multiple departments who would make that decision.
But from the perspective of someone from State, if she walked into the meeting with Joe Wilson and was the first person to speak, she might seem like the person who convened the meeting.
The possibility of such differing perspectives is rather obvious to anyone acquainted with the reality of human nature. But for that same reason, it could easily be an incomprehensible mystery to conservatives. ;-)
Posted by: Swopa | May 20, 2006 at 02:13
these blogs are a perfect example of homogeniety in the "gestalt".
i get banned for saying simple stuff.
If you think outside the box and are " blasphemous "...same dance, different night.
be ever vigilant for your fears come back to haunt you.
the more you think you are "right"...
... the further you drift from sense.
Posted by: ron | May 20, 2006 at 05:03
so splain this like I'm an idiot
Armatige told rove, who has security clearance, and that act is a crime ???
rove told novakula, who doesn't have security clearance, and that act ISN'T a crime ???
I think you're a little confused here. you seem to think that one cleared person passing classified materials to another cleared person is a crime
but when a person with security clearance passes classified materials to a person who doesn't have security clearance, you claim there is no crime
so splain it to me like I'm an idiot, cuz I don't see how passing classified materials between two people authorized by SF-312 to have access could be a crime
and I also fail to see how a person who has authority under SF-312 could pass classified materials to somebody who isn't authorized under SF-312 and that exchange isn't a crime
Posted by: free patriot | May 20, 2006 at 05:34
free patriot
First, I think the point here is that Armitage probably isn't be charged with a crime. Second, I think the contention is he did pass information that was, at least, classified, to two reporters.
Tom
Let me repeat, again and again, that I'm not alleging Armitage didn't have a way of knowing that Plame worked at CIA and was involved in the Feb 19 meeting. I've said as much already in this thread. One of the articles I cite says that there were other ways to know.
I'm saying he didn't get the June 10 INR memo based on reporting that is more credible than the countering story and, more importantly, on the INR memo itself. We have documentary evidence that it's the case. But you want to argue two totally unmarked sources are better evidence?
It's funny--this thread is about making stupid use of sources. The whole point is--unless you can explain why a source knows something, that source doesn't have credibility. Well, all your evidence that Armitage had the INR memo doesn't cite how your source knows something.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 20, 2006 at 07:36
have you guys seen the third motion to compel from Libby and PF's response? Posted at, of all places, Americablog.com via PJF's spoof site. Check it out.
Posted by: lemondloulou54 | May 20, 2006 at 09:04
Yeah my quick impression is this is their argument:
Which is where their argument falls down. Put aside the obvious contradiction that Libby is using a document that undermines his argument to make his case. They really want to prove that Grossman was influenced by people around HIM, not that Libby was influenced by Grossman. But given the way the charges are written, they're having a difficult time justifying getting documents on Grossman.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 20, 2006 at 09:15
I'm so far from being a lawyer, but my impressionistic take on the Fitz May 19th response is that its suggests a jiu jitsu reverse gray-mail approach. Beware, political dragons lie beyond the four corners of this indictment. And you know they are there.
Posted by: tryggth | May 20, 2006 at 10:16
Two quick comments on Armitage and the INR memo, which are far from decisive; and I'm not so sure how much follows from Armitage seeing the memo, even if he did. First, the 8-25-05 LAT story is that he asked after PIncus' story was published, i.e. June 12 or shortly thereafter. Remember, he was out of the country when the INR memo went to Grossman on June 10 - Grossman was Acting Sec of State at that time, I believe. So it makes sense that Armitage wouldn't be on the circulation list for the June 10 memo. Maybe he was given his own copy on June 12 or 13, when he was back in the saddle at State, or maybe, since it was all in-house, he was just informally shown a copy of the thing. It's also possible that the AP's claim that it didn't go higher than Grossman until it was sent to Powell in July is just based on someone inferring that from the circulation list on the June 10 memo. I'm just saying these are plausible possibilities, not more than that. Second, the 8-25-05 LAT is a really good article in part because it clearly has sources in a variety of the factions within the administration, contra what I think emptywheel was claiming. An on-the-record - and, I suspect, also a background - source for the article is Wilkerson. So the least that can be said is that the LAT is not just getting the story from already published sources and White House-friendly sources.
Posted by: Jeff | May 20, 2006 at 11:14
Reported this morning that Armitage is key witness for prosecution as person who did contact reporters to fight back against Rove and Libby leaks!
link
Posted by: Patriot Daily | May 20, 2006 at 11:17
Jeff
I just don't buy that. The one LAT source that cites a State source says the memo was SCI. You just don't show people SCI documents informally, you create a record of the circulation of them. And I agree, the LAT article is widely sourced. But non-State sources are pointless for questions about the INR memo (and Armitage is one of them, in a separate section from the INR memo one). The particular section relating to the INR memo doesn't mention a source at all.
Whereas the AP article is from a person who claims to have direct knowledge of the memo.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 20, 2006 at 11:33
On the new filings, the most interesting factual matter to me is that there is a dispute between Team Libby and Fitzgerald over Cheney's annotated copy of Wilson's article. Libby, it turns out, testified that he had never seen Cheney's copy with the hit-notes until he was shown it by investigators (or he can't recall - and, as a sidenote, I suspect we are going to be hearing a lot more of that phrase from Libby's and others' testimony, to the chagrin of Clinton-hating, Libby-loving righties who love to talk about Arkansas Alzheimer's). Fitzgerald either believes that Libby did see the notes, or - and this is not flatly contradictory to Libby's testimony, as far as we can see, but it's pretty close to contradictory to what Libby's lawyer says - that Cheney expressed the exact thought about Wilson's trip being a junket set up by his wife contained in Cheney's notes. From pp. 3-4 of the new Libby filing (transcribing):
p. 3-4: Mr. Libby testified before the grand jury that he did not see this document until it was shown to him by the FBI in November 2003. On his first day of grand jury testimony, when asked if he recalled discussing this particular document with the Vice President, Mr. Libby testified: "I don't recall that . . . I subsequently learned that he had such an article from the FBI agents who talked to me." Mar. 5, 2004 Grand Jury Tr. at 82. During Mr. Libby's second appearance before the grand jury, the Special Counsel asked him: "[W]hy don't I show you the copy of the July 6th column with some handwriting on it. And I believe we showed this document to you the last time, or at least discussed it, and you indicated that you had not see this copy of the article with the handwriting until the FBI showed it to you?" Mar. 24, 2004 Grand Jury Tr. at 86. Mr Libby responded: "That's my recollection, sir." Id."
In his response to Libby's third motion to compel discovery, Fitzgerald made it clear that he believes that Libby got the message contained in Cheney's notes, though he doesn't specify how that message was conveyed or why he believes it. On p. 18, he says
At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant's immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife.
That last phrase closely echoes what Cheney had written on his copy of Wilson's column. Does he have some reason to think Libby saw Cheney's copy, despite Libby's testimony? or does he have some reason to think Cheney expressed the same thought to Libby orally? Obviously, if they found Cheney's copy in Libby's files, say, that is a problem for Libby. But it could also be testimony from another witness about something Cheney said in Libby's presence.
The article is being introduced at least partly as evidence of the significance placed by OVP on responding to Wilson. But as Libby's lawyers note
The government may also wish to argue that because the Vice President wrote down certain information about Mr. Wilson's wife, it is more likely that the Vice President communicated that information to Mr. Libby.
I suspect that's right. But the question is, what other evidence is there that Cheney communicated that information to Libby?
Finally, Team Libby observes that Fitzgerald has represented that he does not intend to call Cheney as a witness, which makes them wonder how he intends to authenticate the handwriting as Cheney's. Have we heard before that Cheney probably won't be a witness?
Posted by: Jeff | May 20, 2006 at 11:34
Here's the link to the NYDaily News story on Armitage. It's weird and unpersuasive. First off, you know this is bs coming from Team Powell:
Unlike Rove and Libby, Armitage appears to have tried to dissuade reporters from writing about her.
This is total bs, unless the idea is that Armitage realized he had screwed up and went back to Novak to try to get him not to publish. Or it's misleading casuistry explaining away the to me damning fact that he talked with Woodward twice in 2004-2005 and refused to let Woodward publish on the matter - which is totally irrelevant to blowing Plame's cover in 2003. Furthermore, the case can be made that Rove was trying to dissuade Cooper from writing about Wilson at all and hence about Plame by extension - that was at least part of the point of privately discrediting Wilson to Cooper. Furthermore, it's quite clearly the motivation of Pincus' White House source. So this is some kind of Armitage-friendly slant, nothing more.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald recently had to sneak Armitage into a Washington courthouse to get past reporters - a sign of his value in the case, according to one source.
Well, that's interesting. But I was under the impression that that wasn't allowed, that the judge had ruled that grand jury witnesses and subjects had to walk up the front steps. Maybe - and I'm not kidding here - Armitage walked up the front steps at 2 a.m. and then hung out in Fitzgerald's office until 9:30, then left at 7 p.m. or some such. Or maybe it's more bs.
"Rich has been cooperating with Fitzgerald since day one," said another source, who has close ties to Armitage. "He was one of the first people to offer his testimony."
Yeah, he offered his testimony and it was fulle of holes and possibly lies, as he didn't tell Fitzgerald about outing Plame to Woodward until after Libby was indicted. Again, maybe Armitage forgot - though I seriously doubt it. If he didn't forget, this is pure and simple bs.
But then here's the most intriguing item:
Even if Rove escapes indictment, he could still be forced to resign for talking about Plame with a Time magazine reporter.
"People don't seem to want to talk about the possibility that Karl could be named an unindicted co-conspirator," a third source close to the case said. "Can an unindicted co-conspirator remain at the White House? Personally, I don't think so."
Since the amount of bs in this article is large, I'm keeping my powder dry, as Steve Clemons likes to say and not always do. And this just may be another move in the ongoing war between now-former State folks and the White House. But if Rove is an unindicted co-conspirator, who's the indicted one? Again, I don't put a lot of stock in this part of this bs report. But it will be fun to see what else reporters come up with.
Posted by: Jeff | May 20, 2006 at 11:54
And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."
************
"I have to tell the truth" imples that he has lied and now knows that others know that he has lied, which is exposure of the worst kind.
If it had been a case of forgetfulness, he'd have said "Damn it! I'd forgotten all about that conversation. I'll have to add it to my testimony."
If someone has been deposed, there is usually a written transcript which they get to look over later. They can add or correct information before signing off on it.
Adding information is far less damaging than changing one's story. Memory can be jogged by all sorts of things... we all suffer lapses and recoveries. However, by referring to truth, he unmasks a previous lie.
Posted by: hauksdottir | May 20, 2006 at 13:21
Hilarious.
Posted by: KM | May 21, 2006 at 13:17