Reading Novak

by emptywheel

I got into a rather unproductive discussion with Cecil about whether Novak's original leak article refuted Wilson's claims. The real point I was trying to make was that Novak's article had some remarkably balanced statements (as well as some really outlandish ones). In an effort to demonstrate what I mean--and perhaps discover more about the roles of Novak's sources--I'm going to separate the claims he makes according to their source, then speculate on the source for the remaining claims.

I will argue two points below:

• Novak received a total of three classified leaks (details about the Italian forgeries, details from Wilson's trip report, and Plame's identity); I think Armitage is responsible for the first of these leaks
• Armitage almost certainly provided extensive background challenging the Niger claims--which suggests his conversation with Novak was an attempt to refute White House spin, and certainly not to smear Plame

Click more to read my attempt to reconstruct Armitage's and Rove's conversations with Novak. All of these lines come directly from Novak's column, though I have shuffled the order. Keep reading to see how I derived these reconstructions and see more analysis.

Armitage's Reconstructed Novak Conversation

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.  [Bush's SOTU] attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government ... the British relied on forged documents

Rove's Reconstructed Novak Conversation

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa ... was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. ... Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger ...

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. Wilson's report ... was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.

All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.

---

My Analysis

In other words, this totally unscientific exercise suggests that Armitage's conversation dismissed the Niger claims because they were always based on the crappy Niger forgeries. If I'm right, it seems that Armitage was trying to dismiss the importance of Wilson to disproving the Niger claims altogether. The story, for Armitage, was largely the same as Wilson's (that Bush had to have known better), but that they should have known from the start, when "con man" Rocco Martino, who had already been discredited by the CIA, delivered forgeries to an Italian journalist.

Note, by the time Armitage would have had this discussion (presumably July 7 or 8) he probably would have had a copy of the INR memo (he is named on the July 7 distribution cover sheet). The information about Italy and Niger might be the redacted information in the third and sixth paragraph. But there doesn't appear to be a place in the memo relating to the role of Rocco Martino (the first redaction appears out of context, while the second appears after the discussion of how the forgeries came into State). In other words, if I'm right about the content of Armitage's side of the conversation, he was relying on information beyond what was included in the INR memo.

Rove, on the other hand, appeared to be attempting to turn the story into one about Wilson's trip report, and the Mayaki allegation. He appears to have been leaking directly from the report. Certainly, he got Novak to make a case for the declassification of the trip report.

Rove also appears to have offered more details about the leak history. I attribute the messages from Africa comment to him since he is suspected to have spoken to Novak second (which makes it more likely that the differences of opinion within the Administration would be discussed). But Rove almost certainly provided Novak with a false story (though Rove may not have known that) about the genesis of the White House attack on Wilson.

---

How I Reconstructed the Conversations

Okay, here's how I cam up with those reconstructed conversations. First, here are the claims that are easy to tie to one of Novak's sources.

Richard Armitage and Karl Rove

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.

Karl Rove

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.

Joe Wilson

"I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

"The story was never me," he told me, "it was always the statement in (Bush's) speech."

Bill Harlow

The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. (Novak confirmed this was Harlow in 2005.)

---

And here are the Novak claims that are not definitively from one source or another.

Unknown Source

1. The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa ... was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge.
2. Wilson's report ... was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it.
3. [Bush's SOTU] attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government ... the British relied on forged documents
4. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.
5. Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government.
6. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.
7. After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts.
8. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances.
9. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.
10. All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm.

Before I discuss the likely sources for these claims, let me suggest there may be one more source for this article. In his October 1 column, Novak references an additional CIA source on Plame's identity:

While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

And in a 2005 column, he said:

According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

So by October 2003, Novak had talked to someone else at the CIA, and by August 2005, he may have talked to at least one more. There is nothing in either of these columns, however, that indicates he spoke to his "unofficial source" before the initial leak. (Also note, the October 1 column is where he used Valerie Flame, which may have come from this unofficial source.) I presume that this source is a CIA person friendly to--and perhaps implicated in--OVP's smear program.

Also note, for the purposes of this post, I will set aside my suspicion that Scooter Libby spoke to Novak about the Niger claim on July 2, but suffice it to say, if that suspicion is correct, some of the information I attribute to Rove may come from Libby.

Okay--here's my argument about the sources for the remaining claims:

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa ... was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge.

This is exactly what Tenet said in his mea culpa. Given that Rove's leakers have claimed he was involved in drafting Tenet's statement, I'll attribute this to Rove, though it could be the unofficial CIA source. This seems to slightly contradict Harlow's story, which is why I don't think he is the source.

Wilson's report ... was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it.

This could be either Rove, Armitage, or the unofficial CIA source. Rove presumably would have learned of it via Libby's collection of all the CIA documents. Armitage would have learned about the CIA's response via the INR. Because of the comment about Wilson's trip report clearly attributed to the White House, however, I will assume Rove is the source.

[Bush's SOTU] attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government ... the British relied on forged documents

This one is really curious. Ari had admitted on July 7 that the SOTU claim was based on the Niger claim, so if Novak extrapolated from there, he may have concluded on his own that the British claim was sourced to the forged documents, too.

The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger.  The President made a broad statement.  So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David.  So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q  So it was wrong?

MR. FLEISCHER:  That's what we've acknowledged with the information on --

Q  The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.

But Novak's argument is slightly different. He validates the claim that the SOTU derived from British claims. And the White House was still, at this time, asserting the British claim was valid. So this detail probably comes from someone else. It might come from an unofficial CIA source, though that source seems to be rather friendly to the OVP spin, so I doubt it. Which suggests that the assertion that the British claim derived from the forged documents probably came from Armitage.

Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.

I'm more curious about why Novak included this than its source. The source could be either Rove or Armitage ... or both. Whoever shared this detail, it suggests an awareness on Novak's part that there was a squabble within the administration that involved those on Air Force One. Which might suggest (or might not) that the versions Armitage and Rove gave differed dramatically.

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government.

Now, as I've pointed out before, this is a second leak of classified information. At least at the point the SSCI was declassified, the Italian source for the forgeries was still classified. The Italian connection had been made publicly by this point ... sort of, in this March 2003 WaPo article.

U.S. intelligence officials said they had not even seen the actual evidence, consisting of supposed government documents from Niger, until last month. The source of their information, and their doubts, officials said, was a written summary provided more than six months ago by the Italian intelligence service, which first obtained the documents.

But Novak's column appeared months before Seymour Hersh's Stovepipe provided substantive details of the Niger forgeries. And Novak is not just revealing that the original Niger intelligence came from Italy and from the forged documents, but he's suggesting he knows about Rocco Martino's role in peddling the forgeries. And that someone knew Martino to be a con man already in 2003. This is a leak revealing sources and methods--both Rocco and the SISMI connection.

This claim could come from Rove, the unofficial CIA source, or Armitage. But I strongly suspect it comes from Armitage. He would have more reason than Rove to know this level of detail about the forgeries. And this detail totally undermines the White House claims that the Niger claim was still (or ever) credible.

The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.

As Cecil pointed out to me (thanks Cecil--it wasn't totally unproductive), this is precisely what the SSCI claims.

Officials from the CIA's DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information.

And the SSCI cites CPD for this claim. Given that Harlow seems to have asked CPD about the genesis of Wilson's trip, I suspect this comes from Harlow (though it is not a detail Novak mentions in his spat with Harlow).

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts.

The first part of this claim likely came from Wilson's op-ed, citing as it does the eight days (and to Novak's credit, he doesn't emphasize the sweet mint tea that all the other wingnuts latch onto). But the second part of the claim--referring to the Mayaki part of his report--is another example of Novak having been leaked classified information, in this case from the CIA report on Wilson's trip.

Several people have asked my why Novak gets the detail here so wrong. He attributes the Mayaki comment to 1988 rather than the 1999 that we know the report describes. Given that Novak admits within this article that Wilson's report remains classified (see the last claim below), I suspect the date is mis-stated to hide its provenance.

This detail, like all of those relating to Wilson's trip, I attribute to Rove. Novak notes that the White House is trying to declassify "the CIA summary of what their envoy reported" so I assume that all references to the CIA trip report come from Rove. 

CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances.

This might come either from the CIA report on Wilson's trip, or from the INR, so it may come from either Armitage or Rove (or even Harlow).

The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

This seems to directly relate to the CIA report, so I attribute it to Rove.

All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm.

This is another really intriguing detail. It attempts to claim that Wilson's trip was totally forgotten until June 12, which we know not to be the case. Someone in the Administration used Wilson's trip report to support the Niger claim in February 2003. Further, Novak's comment suggests the White House reaction (or rather, the "firestorm"--curiously, Judy uses the same word to describe the leak) started only in response to Wilson and not, as we now know to be the case, in response to Pincus' article.

Now, this almost certainly comes from Rove, given the detail of White House reactions to Wilson. You could argue, I suppose, that Rove was just ignorant of the February use of Wilson's trip report and of the June work-up on Wilson (indeed, that is precisely what Rove seems to have argued in his testimony). But given the direction of the case, so far, I find it interesting that Rove is trying to spin its response to Wilson as just a legitimate response to his op-ed. In some ways, Wilson's op-ed provided the White House the post hoc excuse for attacking an Administration critic. And in this case, that's the story Rove was telling.

Updated: Totally reorganized the post, but the content remains the same.

Updated: Some tweaks in the order of the reconstructed conversations.

Comments

[emptywheel]

I'd like to move discussion of today's NYDN article on Armitage up here, so I'm going to copy Jeff's comment from the last Plame thread:

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

[emptywheel]

I agree that some of this reads like Armitage's friends spinning. And I agree that the "co-conspirator" argument is kind of bogus, unless it relates to the cover-up conspiracy, in which case it would almost certainly not relate to Armitage or the leak to Cooper.

But I do think, given my reconstruction here, that it's possible that Armitage went to Fitz and said, "I spoke to Novak, mentioned Plame, and leaked information on sources and methods relating to the Niger documents. I'd like to deal."

We obviously still don't know details about how damaging the Woodward conversation was.

[Jeff]

My quick current take on Armitage: the NYDN makes it sound like he has testified twice since LIbby's indictment. I think he went in after Woodward came to him, and Fitzgerald basically had him on the hook, and Armitage is cooperating. At least that saves my hypothesis that Armitage may be in legal trouble.

[emptywheel]

Agree. If the sneak the source in recently is right, then my double March testimony is wrong.

[obsessed]

1) How much validity does each of you ascribe to the theory that Armitage would not have taken a high level position with a large corporation unless he knew he wasn't in legal jeopardy and that his public reputation would emerge from the Plame affair largely unscathed?

2) The term "Team Powell" is intriguing. What would you say are its goals and liabilities?

[emptywheel]

I believe the point is he could not. Securities law says felons can't be board members or something like that, so they would have had to make sure he wasn't about to be a felon.

I don't think Armitage is in legal jeopardy. I don't think it's that difficult to explain his delayed reporting on Woodward (particularly since the only claims about Woodward's earlier attempts to go public seem to relate to publication, not legal release. And I thin if Armitage came forward and said, "I leaked sources and methods information about Niger" then Fitz might be really willing to deal.

Also note, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the referral from CIA had to do with the declassification of Wilson's trip report, particulalry if CIA refused to declassify it, and the WH declassified it anyway; Fitz would have a pretty significant interest in hiding the interest in the trip report, as the chain of conspiracy is almost certainly more clear with taht.

[Snive]

>'Because it was based on the yellowcake from Niger.'

Some points that may have played into 'the speech' thing:

Wilson was a Peace Corps volunteer.

Chris Matthews was a Peace Corps Volunteer

Plame was leaked by Aimes, a Peace Corps Volunteer and operations officer for CIA.

Plame married a returned Peace Corps volunteer.

Bush mentioned he had doubled the size of the CIA and planned the same for Peace Corps.

Peace Corps laws regarding the five year law banning the volunteer from intelligence employment may or may not have been changed before and after the speech. Aimes' trainer at CIA may or may not have retired into a Peace Corps Volunteer position.

The Director of CIA quit right after the The Director of Peace Corps announced he was moving on the UN work.

>'Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government'

Wilson was a paid contractor sent by the Direcorate of Operations. Plame admitted she was an operations officer, paramiliarily trained at 'the farm' in "Vanity Fair." The intent, beyond spreading disinformation into the US government, may have been to use Wilson further after he submitted his report. The 'threat,' at that point, would have been from the Directorate of Operations, who had used others like Wilson in the past. Other motivations in the Directorate of Operations would have been considered unimportant and his wife did work there.......that would be insurance. Plame was leaked again, but not by any of the intended targets, it was a goal to out others in the community as seen by her admission with this intent having failed everywhere, except, maybe, advisors - Plame was known for this.

>So, it was'nt really an advisor and I doubt it's Libby.

>Fitz is a crminial conspiracy prosecutor who passed on his job, 'looked the other way.'

[&y]

Great post. Random thought: Does anyone like Fleitz as Novak's "unofficial CIA source?" Fleitz was both CIA and Bolton CoS at the time, right?

[emptywheel]

&y

I always like Fleitz in the role of the smarmy CIA guy doing Dick's bidding for him. And yes, he was WINPAC and Bolton's COS. Though now he has apparently moved to the House Intelligence Committee.

[Jim E.]

Is Armitage now represented by Luskin? Cuz that NY Daily News piece reeks of spin upon spin, as Jeff demonstrated. Reminds me of the Rove-friendly leaks of months past--as in putting lipstick on a pig. Something is weird with that story, particularly if there's any truth to the claim that Armitage was snuck into the GJ room. Is Fitz that concerned about protecting an innocent accused? Sounds strange to me.

I wonder why we are hearing about Armitage in today's NYDN. Did Steve Clemons's posts shake the tree, and inspire reporters to chase after Armitage? Or does Armitage's team know that Fitz is going to disclose some peculiar information (in a legal brief, a new indictment?) that might raise a few more eyebrows in Armitage's direction? (And if not from Fitz, maybe it is an upcoming Waas article that could cause Armitage some embarrassment?) People following this case closely already assume Armitage was Novak's and Woodward's source, but I wonder if Armitage's team is pre-emptively pushing him into the story now in anticipation of an upcoming news cycle in the near future. After all, Team Armitage has been notably tight-lipped until this week.

[Marilyn Garis]

Doesn't letting US taxpayers foot the bill while Karl Rove, a White House staffer works for the Republican Party to maintain their majorities comprehensively violate the Hatch Act?

The way his new position is described it sure sounds that way?

Who, is paying Karl Rove’s legal bills?
Is it the American taxpayers?
Has anybody looked into that - or is it classified too?

[emptywheel]

I think in this case Armitage is represented by Wilkerson. Don't know why, but both Clemons' rebuttal and this sound like him--a little ham-handed with the media but oh so earnest.

There's also a little confusion with sources (go figure--on the Plame case?) It says two people were the source for the general "Armitage was trying to dissuade people from writing about her." Then the one I think is Wilkerson, who refers to Armitage as Rich (though don't some of his friends call him Dick?). And then it cites one more as the "third" source.

I think it may be largely correct (except the unindicted co-conspirator). I think Armitage has cooperated (leaving aside the gaping Woodward hole) and I think he was trying to get people to stop writing abotu Plame (though I think he was trying to get them to write about something else--the Niger forgery story).

I also have been wondering in the last two days--who is Pincus' source, Dick or Rich?

[&y]

emptywheel -- smarmy CIA guy doing Dick's bidding

Love it. That quote holds the essence of my thought process: "Hmm... yeah. Emptywheel is right--Novak talked to some sort of smarmy-sounding, Dick-friendly guy at the CIA... and WINPAC are the smarmiest, Dick-friendliest ones in the CIA heap... so umm, how about Fleitz? Oooh--and by calling him a "CIA source" at the time of a dual-posting with Bolton (Bolton!) lends a delightful odor of 'former hill staffer' to whole thing. Not to mention that whole business about the CPD secure-documents vault. Must ask the wizards of TNH about this."

Snive -- What are you driving at with all the Peace Corps stuff? Am I jumping in on the continuation of a discussion that started elsewhere? Because I don't follow. And as a returned Peace Corps volunteer, I try to keep up on the charges leveled against us. (I also remain miffed that the CIA never tried to recruit me--not while in country, not after one year, and, as of today, not after 5+ years--despite the well-above-average contacts I'd developed with the Russian criminal underworld.) And where did you hear that the 5-year ban might have changed?

[emptywheel]

Damnit, &y, do you have to sic the NSA on us two days in a row?

And in case they ask, it's rhubarb pie.

[emptywheel]

Marilyn

It's a good question. Though mostly he's paying for Luksin to leak.

But Rove has a fair amount of money on his own (as distinct from, as I understand it, Libby). So he may be footing his own bill ... so far.

[&y]

My thinking is, now that I've sicced them on TNH once, I have to keep it up forever. Otherwise the not-mining, not-trolling, not-confirmed, not-denied, very-limited algorithm will detect my lack of suspicious activity and flag it as even suspiciouser activity. Up is the new down, dontcha know.

And with that, I apologize. I'm sorry. No more suspicious talk from this IP address, tovarishi er... comrades er... folks er... my fellow Americans.

[Jeff]

I defer to emptywheel on all questions having to do with corporations. She clearly knows much more about them than I do.

I am intrigued by the suggestion that Armitage confessed early on to the Niger stuff but emphasized the Plame thing really was a casual aside, and so in the context of this investigation, Fitzgerald let him slide early on, with Armitage being cooperative. (And I find the broad lines of who said what to Novak here persuasive, though I've got some specific different suspicions.) But if that's so, and if Armitage has testified twice since Libby was indicted - even just the latter fact alone - suggests to me that Armitage had, shall we say, extra incentive to tell what he knows this second set of grand jury appearances around. Now, it's possible that Armitage went in just to talk about his own role in outing Plame to Woodward, then Woodward was in, then Fitzgerald wanted Armitage back in to follow up. But I doubt that was all there was to it. On my scenario, Armitage was in trouble, he came in, told about his leak to Woodward, and then came back to provide more helpful evidence to the grand jury about the roles of others.

I'm just not getting this:

I don't think it's that difficult to explain his delayed reporting on Woodward

So what's the explanation? The significance of Woodward talking to Armitage about going public twice in 2004-2005 has nothing to do with whether it was about publishing or going to Fitzgerald. The point is that it means Armitage cannot claim he forgot about the conversation with Woodward, which would be one easy explanation. What else is there as an explanation? Fitzgerald didn't ask about telling other reporters? I find that inconceivable. Perhaps he limited his questioning to post-July 6? Less inconceivable, though I still doubt it; if that's it, it may mean Armitage is out of legal jeopardy, it certainly doesn't qualify him for being real helpful with the investigation. The only other explanation I can imagine, not for why Armitage didn't disclose the Woodward conversation, but for why Armitage is not facing perjury charges, is that Armitage went in to Fitzgerald on, say, November 1, told his tale, and explained to Fitzgerald that he was doing this voluntarily, not for fear of being revealed by Woodward, because, after all, we're talking Bob Woodward here, and if Armitage had commanded Woodward to keep quiet about their conversation, the guy on the receiving end of Deep Throat certainly would have.

Other than that, I think Armitage went into Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald put the legal screws to him, and Armitage got a lot more cooperative.

Team Powell? I take it their main goal right now is to pin the blame for Iraq on DoD and Cheney, and make their main man look as little like the willing stooge he was. With regard to the Plame case right now, I agree with Jim E's suggestion. I think they obviously knew at some point that the fact that Armitage blew Plame's cover with not one but two reporters, including the Prince of Darkness himself, would come out, and they had a media strategy for dealing with that eventuality. (If there's one thing Team Powell has been good at, it's media strategy, except when it counted, and I think that shows where they really stood on the war.) Why they chose Clemons' post as that moment, when TNH and JOM had both pretty definitively shown that Armitage was Woodward and Novak's source, is not clear to me, and after that WaPo story on the Vanity Fair story that included Bradlee's fingering Armitage, is not entirely clear to me, but the obvious explanation is that this was the first time that there was real buzz that Armitage was in legal trouble. That would need to be shut down asap.

As for Pincus' source, unless he's pulling a Woodward and just flat out lying in his characterization of the source, Pincus has said s/he's White House. So it's not Armitage. I've lost track of the reasons for my probability ranking, but I think the leading candidates have to be Cathie Martin, Dick Cheney, and Ari Fleischer (who has risen as a candidate recently, since it looks like he had something to be worried about). The advantage to it being Fleischer is that that would salvage at least the tiniest bit of what was easily the most ingenious hypothesis regarding 1x2x6 - Swopa's.

[tnhblog]

Novak is being disingenuous:

So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.

In other words, nowhere does Novak deny that he was warned not to reveal Plame's name. He merely contends that such a warning was "meaningless" because anyone could look up Wilson's name in Who's Who, a blatant attempt to obfuscate the issue because, of course, Who's Who does not mention that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. What Novak does claim is that Harlow informed him, perhaps in addition to warning him, that publishing the information would cause "difficulties." But he published the information anyways because he did not think it would endanger anyone after having been explicitly given the warning not to reveal her identity and being told that it would cause difficulties. Obfuscation is consciousness of guilt. In my opinion Novak should be prosecuted.

[Mimikatz]

Chatty Cathie Martin certainly talked willingly to Seymour Hersh in that period, per the stovepipe article. I was surprised when EW recently related those parts of the article, because I didn't really appreciate her significance when I first read the article.

[Tom Maguire]

On behalf of Jim E, I have to read the original post under protest - Robert Novak on July 14 practically plagiarizes Andrea Mitchell from July 8, which really ought to be addressed.

Andrea, July 8:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he 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.

Novak, lead paragraph:

WASHINGTON -- The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.

And eventually, Novak uses the word "operative".

And Mitchell claims a CIA source.

I will hold my breath until blue until this gets reflected in the analysis. On behalf of Jim E, of course, he noticed this.

[emptywheel]

Okay, you can have it Tom. Do you want me to update the post?

The reason I put it in Rove's camp is because that is exactly what Ari Fleischer was saying. It was a talking point. Was it a talking point Tenet or McLauglin bought off on? Who knows? But I assume anything out of Ari's mouth that week (with the exception of some of his admissions on 7/7) was a talking point that Rove was involved in.

[pollyusa]

On Woodward's attempt get a release from his source. Three points

1. Woodward says he called his source after the indictment, but I think its possible Woodward called his source sometime during indictment week as well (he told his editor on Monday 10/24, indictment on Friday) when he was in "incredibly aggressive reporting mode". It's also possible that Woodward's source talked to Fitzgerald during indictment week.

Another reason I think Woodward probably called his source during indictment week is the comment from Isikoff on CNN on 11/27/05. "I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who is behind the whole thing".

The WH knew that Woodward was running amok.

2. There are several references to Woodward reminding his source about the timing of their conversation, which makes me think that when Woodward tried to get his source's release the timing wasn't an issue.

3. Woodward says in the CNN interview that he wanted his source "to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book". Woodward says he wanted information, not that he wanted to tell about his conversation with the source.

I didn't want to clutter your thread EW. The links to Woodward's comments about his source are here. There are a couple I don't think Jeff found.

[pollyusa]

What I have on the public record regarding Woodward's source's testimony.

Powell could be talking about Armitage or Grossman here regarding "And some of us in the State Department had some knowledge of this matter".

POWELL: I only know right now what I read in the paper. I appeared before the grand jury, the State Department. . And we all immediately made ourselves available to the Justice Department and the FBI even before the prosecutor was...
CNN 10/17/05

Asked if this was the first time his source had spoken with Fitzgerald in the investigation, Woodward said "I'm not sure. It's quite possibly not the first time."
TIME 11/18/05

A lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury in the leak case.
Reuters 11/18/05

Woodward, who was questioned by Fitzgerald on Monday, has refused to reveal the source's name publicly, but a person familiar with the investigation said the source had testified earlier in the case.
WaPo 11/19/05

Crazy link for the WaPo...all there is.

Doesn't really clear up how many times Woodward's source tesified, but the Powell comment is interesting.

[pollyusa]

Tom,

Mitchell had this " at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president."

You really think the CIA was covering for Cheney? No way. It more likely Mitchell is spilling everything she knows and conflating sources. In fact the very low level part and the not Cheney part are in the same breath.

Novak himself in his 7/14/03 column gives the CIA version as

The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him

Pincus has it that

Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD)
WaPo 8/11/05

[QuickSilver]

Great Plameology from emptywheel, Jeff, pollyusa, and Tom Maguire.

pollyusa, I agree that the White House knew Bob Woodward was running amok in the week before the indictment, and he was set up on Larry King Live with that "bombshell" challenge.

Tom Maguire, I did not know before what Andrea Mitchell said on July 8th, and what she said was telling. Anyone have a good reason why Cheney couldn't be her sole source?

[tnhblog]

Further elabobaration on the Novak's deception:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

Novak was told that the info he had been given was wrong but he kbnowingly published false information. Moreoever it is clear that Harlow had intended that Novak not reveal Plames's identity as a CIA official, and that even revealing her name without mentioning her covert identity was not acceptable. If even revealing Plame's name in connection to this matter were not acceptable, then how could revealing her name in addition to her identity as a CIA official be anything but criminal?

[windansea]

Polly

Your cites of Novak and Pincus are sourced to "the CIA"

That's nice....

however, Novak's piece also cited "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."

seems like UGO told the same thing to Woodward and Pincus

then there's that pesky Senate Intel report that has a CIA official (pesumably live and in living color) going on record that Val suggested Joe and wrote a memo to that effect and the next day Joe got the Job.

:) tough call huh?

I'm thinking pretty soon you all will need to decide when Armitage (or whomever UGO is) became a friendly cooperating witness

[windansea]

He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

PINCUS: [Harlow] said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

“[I]f he did write about it, her name should not be revealed?” That is a stunningly weak request, yet Harlow describes himself making this request both times he spoke to Novak. What makes that request so weak? As every good liberal correctly noted when Karl Rove tried to offer a silly defense, the mere omission of Plame’s name would not have protected her covert status. Indeed, if Novak had written his column but omitted her name, her name would have instantly obvious—“Mrs. Joseph Wilson”—and her maiden name, “Valerie Plame,” would have been available from several on-line bios of Wilson. Indeed, how weak was Harlow’s request? Here’s what Novak wrote in his original column—followed by what he would have written if he had done what Harlow asked.

[windansea]

He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used

must have felt his first response was too nuanced ;)

[Jeff]

Regarding Tom's beloved Andrea Mitchell quote from 7-8-03, I do suspect Novak heard something similar from the top of the CIA, that is, from Tenet and/or his circle. It served to protect Tenet. But it was a talking point, as emptywheel points out, and it wouldn't be at all surprising if she also heard it from the White House. As a talking point, it also functioned to distance Cheney from Wilson's trip. And some proof of that is what Mitchell goes on to say, which Tom does not seem to love as much, since he never seems to quote it. It's understandable that he wouldn't love it, since it's a falsehood, and one evidently pushed by the White House at Cheney's service:

So one of Wilson's assumptions, which is that Dick Cheney asked the CIA about this allegation from a foreign intelligence service and that he was sent as a result of that, may not, in fact, be true.

Of course, it's possible that Mitchell was making this - false - inference all on her own. What are the odds? Well, whatever they are, lets make them longer by noting that Ari Fleischer, as emptywheel suggests, was pushing exactly the same set of talking points, mixing falsehood with truth in order to entirely disconnect Cheney's office from Wilson's trip, which again is bs. Here's what he said on July 7 2003, in the midst of some true stuff (like, Cheney didn't request Wilson's trip):

So this was something that the CIA undertook as part of their regular review of events, where they sent him.

No it wasn't. Pure bs. Cheney asked a question, the CIA wanted to provide an answer - regardless of what role questions coming from State and DoD also may have played. (On that note, I could swear I read something about a meeting at the CIA on July 12 regarding a possible trip, at which Plame was present. Sound familiar? Polly?)

This is obvious, but it's worth remembering that when it comes to "CIA," there's the CIA, and then there's Tenet. Tenet is a dastardly guy all around; but a lot of what he said and did represented the viewpoint not of the CIA but of the White House, as well being designed to protect his own ass even if it meant at the expense of the Agency. Also, it's worth remembering, as Libby's own lawyers recently reminded us, that Mitchell is an access journalist. Whatever she was getting from the CIA, she was getting from Tenet; and Tenet was more than happy to throw Wilson and even the Agency under a bus to protect his own ass while serving his political masters in the White House. But of course he was also happy to stab those masters in the back, as with parts of the July 11 statement.

[tnhblog]

“[I]f he did write about it, her name should not be revealed?” That is a stunningly weak request, yet Harlow describes himself making this request both times he spoke to Novak. What makes that request so weak? As every good liberal correctly noted when Karl Rove tried to offer a silly defense, the mere omission of Plame’s name would not have protected her covert status. Indeed, if Novak had written his column but omitted her name, her name would have instantly obvious—“Mrs. Joseph Wilson”—and her maiden name, “Valerie Plame,” would have been available from several on-line bios of Wilson. Indeed, how weak was Harlow’s request? Here’s what Novak wrote in his original column—followed by what he would have written if he had done what Harlow asked.

The request is not weak in itself. In fact, the request is unequivocal: do not mention Plame's name. Not only does Novak proceed to mention her name, he then blows her cover. The only thing that makes the request appear weak is Novak's willful blindness to its import.

[pollyusa]

windansea

I think you missed my point. My point is that the low level talking point comes from the WH not the CIA.

I disagree with Tom Maguire who is saying that the CIA told Mitchell that Wilson was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level.

I am saying that Mitchell did NOT get that from the CIA and that Pincus and Novak who when directly sourcing the CIA do not use the low level talking point.

Tom,

I ran across this as well. Fleischer the phrase "lower-level official" when referring to Wilson in the 7/12/03 gaggle.

EW

Tenet never said lower level in his statement. He said this

CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative.

Jeff,

I have looked around and there is no one sourcing the CIA saying that lower-level or low level CIA sent Wilson except the Mitchell quote in which she is obviously stringing together sources. As I said upthread she has the CIA protecting Cheney, no way.

I don't think Novak heard it from the CIA either, When he directly sources the CIA, Novak has this "The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson".

[pollyusa]

windansea,

What point were you making? I honestly can't make it out.

Also I responded to something you said over at TWN, I'll repeat my response here.

Where did you get this?

Woodward's source gave him the name Plame and CiA WMD analyst...why wouldn't he give the same info to Novak?
windansea

I don't know of any source that says Woodward's source gave him the name Plame. In his account of his testimony Woodward refers to her as Mrs. Wilson and Wilson's wife.

[Jeff]

polly

I think I've now seen all those reports on Woodward and his source. It's pretty clear that Woodward got in touch with Armitage on Monday, October 31 - which would explain the reference to "last month" without recourse to the idea of a pre-indictment contact, though that could have happened, I suppose. So Armitage goes to Fitzgerald some time between that conversation and November 3, when Fitzgerald gets in touch with Woodward.

The interesting thing, as you point out, is that the White House evidently knew Woodward was on to something before Libby's indictment, and thought it was Mr. X, that is, Novak's source. Here is one possible scenario (just a guess, obviously): one candidate for the new piece of information Woodward learned that led him to go to his editor, Downie, on October 24 (before Libby's indictment) and confess that he had a Plame source is that Armitage was Novak's source. Say that's it. How would the White House learn that? Two possibilities: he told the White House, or the White House told him. Personally, I like the second possibility. And there is a plausible motive: the White House wanted America's most credited investigative reporter (and a good friend to the Bush administration) to break the news that Novak's original source wasn't even in the White House right before the possible indictment of one or two top White House officials in the case in order to blunt the blow of that/those indictment(s).

If all of that is right, wouldn't it be funny that what probably stopped the Post from publishing the story about Armitage as Novak's source was the fact, probably unbeknownst to the White House, that their chosen conduit had also been leaked to about Plame by Novak's source. There's no way the Post could publish a story by Woodward disclosing Armitage as Novak's source in view of the likely complications Woodward and the Post were about to face, as they did.

Again, this is just speculation, but it fits with what we do know.

[Jeff]

polly

Part of my point is that Tenet should be distinguished from the CIA here. CIA protecting Cheney? No way, generally speaking. Tenet protecting Cheney? Yes way, when it also protected himself.

Also, I meant to claim that Novak likely heard the same talking point from multiple sources, both the Tenet circle and the White House, i.e. Rove, just as Mitchell probably did. There's no need to imagine any one point came only from one place, or was identically motivated.

Do you know of anything on a purported February 12 2002 meeting at the CIA responding to Cheney's question of that same day? at which Plame may have been present?

[pollyusa]

EW

Cecil and I went down the same road over at JOM a couple of weeks ago. You got off easy.

Actually, I like debating with Cecil, we both generally like the details.

[Valtin]

Great analysis, emptywheel.

Re the "unofficial CIA source". That could very likely be Robert Walpole. He is CIA and was Tenet's weapons analyst and known to be tight with Robert Joseph and the neo-con crowd. You might remember my discussion of his memo to the White House pushing the Niger story as late as January 2003.

For reference, the link to that story is here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/11/3394/28583

Any thoughts on Walpole as a Novak source?

[pollyusa]

Jeff,

I only know of two sources regarding the CIA response to Cheney's request for information.

SCCI

The SSCI does not explicily say that the CIA held a meeting.

The SSCI says officials from CPD discussed ways to obtain additional information.It doesn't say when the officials from DPD discussed ways to obtain additional information. Since the Plame memo is appartently dated 2/12/02, I would conclude this discussion happened on 2/12/02.

This is probably a meeting, but may be an exchange of email. The statement from the CPD officer that Plame "offered up his name" could imply that he was in a room with her. The CPD officer could also be referring to the memo as a means of offering up Wilson's name, I think this unlikely because the report says "offered up his name" and a memorandum.

Officials from the CIA’s DO CounterproliferationDivision (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President’s Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. (pg39)

The SCCI states that this happened on 2/12/02;

1. on February 12,2002, the DIA wrote a finished intelligence product titled Niamey signed an agreement to sell 500 tons ofuranium a year to Baghdad (pg38)

2. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations.. (pg39)

the SSCI implies that this also happened on 2/12/02

After reading the [February 12, 2002] DIA report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA’s analysis of the issue.(pg38)

Wilson

Either Wilson gets the 2/19/02 meeting confused with what the CPD did on 2/12/02 or the CPD officer's remark that Plame "offered up his name" was in reference to the 2/19/02 meeting. Wilson says that the CPD officer claiming that Plame "offered up his name" couldn't have been at the 2/19/02 meeting.

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Wilson Letter

[Jeff]

Thanks, polly. The reason I ask is this. The first righty talking point, as I suggested above, was that Cheney had nothing to do with the events leading to Wilson's trip in February 2002. Turns out, of course, that that's wrong. But the new version is that Cheney's questions on February 12 2002 didn't trigger the events at CIA that led to Wilson's trip. Cecil is leading the way here among Plameologists, and the claims are (a)planning for a trip to Niger were probably already underway at CIA before Cheney asked his questions on February 12, since we know DoD and State were also asking questions; (b)Cheney's questions probably didn't make it to CPD until after February 12, in part because perhaps Cheney didn't even see the February 12 DIA report until later (this is the weakest claim, if you ask me); (c)therefore, when Plame wrote the memo on February 12 documenting Wilson's qualifications for a trip, this could not have been in reply to a plan triggered by Cheney's questions for a trip to Niger. Furthermore, there's the distinct question of whether this is evidence that Plame suggested her husband for the trip; as we know, there is evidence suggesting otherwise, that she was responding to a question about her husband, rather than originating the idea with that memo. Righties don't want to accept that.

Of course, it may be true that even if there were questions floating around from State and DoD, as soon as word came down that OVP wanted questions answered, CPD saw a new urgency in getting an answer on the Niger story. And frankly, even from other evidence of how things moved, I feel very confident that Cheney saw the DIA report on February 12, and asked his questions that day. I also strongly suspect word got to CIA, and CPD, in particular on that very day. But it would be nice to nail down the chronology and relevant events on February 12 here. Of course, if it turns out I'm right, expert righty hairsplitters will just say they believed this all along and come up with some new account of why Cheney's questions didn't trigger Wilson's trip. But what are you going to do. The very fact that the SSCI report is characteristically unilluminating on this question, and obscure on chronology when there is no obvious reason to be, I take to be heartening for my account.

[emptywheel]

Folks, at least according to Wilson, that reports officer claimed he never said "offered up her name."

When that CIA officer read the quote in the report, he went to see Valerie to tell her that he had never said anything of the kind. He was so distraught that he offered to write a memo to clarify that it had been him, not Valerie, who had initially suggested that the CIA talk to me. Valerie made it clear to him that she could not advise him one way or another. Valerie told me he wrote such a memo and shared the contents with her, but that the supervisor would not allow him to send it to the committee. (Politics of Truth lvi)

Also remember, if Jerry Doe's allegations have a shred of truth, then CPD's head was on the Bush/Cheney side of the fence.

[Jeff]

emptywheel

I don't think that particular item is in question (from my perspective anyway). The specific issue concerns the memo Plame wrote enumerating her husband's qualifications, about the existence of which there seems to be no question. The question (for me) is not even so much whether this was Plame suggesting her husband - the SSCI misleadingly tries to use the memo of evidence of such - or Plame responding to a question from colleagues, as it seems to have been. The question is whether that episode a)postdates and b)is responsive to Cheney asking questions of his CIA briefer about the Niger report. I think the answer to a) is pretty clearly yes; I also think the anser to b) is yes, though there is more room for doubt. Did the CIA briefer go back to the CIA after the morning briefing and tell them of Cheney's questions that day, and did CPD start right then figuring out how to answer Cheney's questions, coming up with the idea of a trip to Niger, and brainstorming who to send on such a mission? Again, I think the answer to all of those questions is yes, and I'm collecting as much evidence as we have.

[emptywheel]

OT, but here's something else funky I just realized about the Rove portion of Novak's column (assuming, always, that I'm correct in my guesses). Rove alleges that Wilson gave his oral report at Langley. Why include that detail--which contradicts what Wilson and the SSCI tell us?

[pollyusa]

Jeff,

I have arrived at the same speculation as you. I think Woodward learned that Novak's source was the same person who told him about Plame. I think it most likely that the WH told Woodward that Novak's source was Armitage.

Did the WH know Novak's source? I think so and they were leaking that they knew as well.

I was looking around to support the idea and found this article by Viveca Novak and Mike Allen. What are the odds that the "lawyer who's involved in the case" is Luskin.

It looks like Luskin knows Novak's source and Luskin also knows that Fitzgerald knows. It looks like this article was available by 10/17/05.

Another character in the drama remains unnamed: the original source for columnist Robert Novak, who wrote the first piece naming Plame. Fitzgerald, says a lawyer who's involved in the case, "knows who it is--and it's not someone at the White House."
TIME 10/24/05

There is something in a transcipt that indicates Rove knew Novak's source, I'm looking.

This is before Luskin called Viveca Novak to tell her he was telling Fitz about their conversation.

Woodward learned something during indictment week.

In the final weeks before the grand jury indicted vice presidential aide I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby on Oct. 28 for perjury and obstruction of justice, Woodward says he was asked by Downie to help report on the status of the probe. In the course of his reporting, Woodward says, "I learned something more" about the disclosure of Plame's identity,
TIME 11/18/03

"Exactly what triggered Woodward's disclosure to Downie remains unclear. Woodward said yesterday that he was 'quite aggressively reporting' a story related to the Plame case when he told Downie about his involvement
WaPo 11/17/05

Woodward: An excellent question. The week of the indictment I was working on something and learned another piece of this puzzle and I told Len Downie about it and I told him about the source and what had been disclosed to me and there was a sense before the indictment, well, this is kind of interesting but it's not clear what it means.
CNN 11/21/05

[pollyusa]

Jeff & EW

I don't see any evidence that the CIA had been planning to send Wilson before the Cheney inquiry. Alot of people would be lying to the Senate Committee if they had.

Here is what I think happened on 2/12/02

1 Cheney read the DIA report
2 Cheney asked his CIA briefer for more information
3 The CIA briefer notified the CPD
4 The CPD discussed ways to answer Cheney
5 The CPD decided to look into sending Wilson
6 re; sending Wilson, the CPD asked Plame for a memo
7 Plame wrote the memo

At some point the CPD decides to have a meeting to discuss a Wilson trip with DIA and INR. Wilson is notified that he may be asked to go to Niger and prepares for the 2/19/02 meeting.

[emptywheel]

One more point about the February 12 chronology. There are times when the SSCI refers to DIA but the content sounds more like something Dougie Feith dreamt up. This is one of those cases. If it were Feith, it is conceivable Cheney (or Libby more likely) saw a draft of the report. Which might put the day Cheney read it before February 12.

I had another point, but I forgot it.

[pollyusa]

I had another point, but I forgot it.

I know the feeling.

[Jim E.]

Man, you folks make me feel like an air-head with all of this stuff. Very impressive. Yes, I think there's an interesting circumstantial case that the Bush folks have known for awhile who Novak's source was. And I like the idea that they leaked it to Woodward, who they didn't know was told about it already.

This supposition would lend credence to Novak's statement from a few months ago: "I'm confident the president knows who the source is. . . . Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is."

Of course, this raises two questions:
1. How did Rove and the rest of team Bush already know Armitage was the source?
2. Why would Novak know that the President knew?

My possible answers:
As to Team Bush knowing, it appears that Novak, in talking with Rove in early July 2003, explicitly told him that Armitage was his source. That shows up in the indictment, right? So I guess this is a pretty simple answer. (And it offers yet even more evidence of Novak as a godawful reporter. I mean, he blows one source to another source?? Nice.)

Hmmm, so I guess the idea that Novak knowing the president knew the source isn't so complicated either. Novak would assume that Bush's Brain simply told the president.

OK, so this is an extremely weak contribution by me. Nevermind. Not much of a mystery to solve. But it is more evidence that Bush was lying in 2003 when he said no one knew who Novak's source was and that the media was good at keeping secrets (which isn't true since Novak explicitly told Rove).

I do have a factual question: who was the first person to suggest that Novak's and Woodward's source were one and the same? Was it Woodward? And if it wasn't Woodward, how would that person have known? Like, how did Ben Bradley know this? An open DC secret that no one, aside from Vanity Fair, ever reported on?

[Jeff]

polly

That is exactly what I think happened as well. But what I am looking for is evidence of each of those items and the exact chronological order of events.

The only slight modification I would make is that I don't think it's clear that Wilson was notified before the 2-19-02 meeting that he might be asked to go to Niger (though maybe he was); he might just have been told to come in to draw on his expertise on Niger. Not a lot hangs on the distinction, in any case.

On Woodward et al, it looks like you're starting to compile evidence that there was an effort by the White House in October to get published information about if not the identity of Novak's source. They pointed reporters in the direction - or at least away from the White House, as with that VNovak and Allen article (though I should add that Allen is really well sourced at the White House, so that lawyer could well be someone else connected at the White House besides Luskin). It will be interesting to pursue that. Isikoff is obviously relevant here, as is that Times reporter I think he mentions (Johnston? Jehl? Who?).

[emptywheel]

On the White House knowledge of Armitage.

First, don't forget that Jeffress once claimed Novak told Libby who his source was.

MR. JEFFRESS: Mr. Libby said that he had heard this. One of the reporters told Mr. Libby offical one discussed Ms. Wilson. The government says one of those didn't tell him that. However, the government in the indictment has revealed another person who did tell him that. So you know we have two people but the government specifically alleges in the indictment that when Mr. Libby said that he was hearing this from other reporters that was part of the lie that's charged in this case.

It's looking increasingly possible Novak told both Libby and Rove Armitage was his source--which (in Libby's case) might only be possible in the context of a cover-up.

But given the Novak quip about asking Bush who his source is, I wonder whether the Colin Powell comment that Libby repeated in his FBI interview may have related to Powell telling the Principles that Armitage was one of Novak's sources. (Though of course Novak might only know this through a cover-up.) If Powell and Armitage said they came forward from the start, doesn't it make sense that they'd tell Bush?

Finally, one answer to a question we were asking before. If these guys knew Armitage was Novak's first source, why didn't they out him? One reasons is because that would free Armitage to do what Team Powell appears to be doing right now--revealing that Armitage didn't do the worst of the leaking (which then incriminates Rove). But another reason might be because Armitage would then have explained what he really told Novak about--how BushCo ignored obvious clues that the Niger documents were bunk.

[emptywheel]

Jeff,

Don't forget, too, that Allen is the only one who definitively knows who 1X2X6 SAO is.

[pollyusa]

EW & Jeff

According to Martin Cheney first learned of the yellowcake reports independently of his regular CIA briefing.

How Mr. Cheney first learned about the yellowcake reports isn't clear. Ms. Martin said he had heard of them independently of his regular CIA briefing. Once he received the agency's response, she says, he made no further inquiries about the information
WSJ 10/17/03

“The Vice-President saw a piece of intelligence reporting that Niger was attempting to buy uranium,” Cathie Martin, the spokeswoman for Cheney, told me. Sometime after he first saw it, Cheney brought it up at his regularly scheduled daily briefing from the C.I.A., Martin said. “He asked the briefer a question. The briefer came back a day or two later and said, ‘We do have a report, but there’s a lack of details.’”

...

according to a former high-level C.I.A. official, however, Cheney was dissatisfied with the initial response, and asked the agency to review the matter once again.
Hersh Stovepipe 10/20/03

[pollyusa]

The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations.. (pg39)
SSCI

I think this sentence can be read as two separate pieces of information.

1 "The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name”" (there is no indication of when)

2 "a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations"

EW

I believe Wilson when he says the CDP officer says he didn't say it that way and offered to set the record straight. That will not help to knock down the theory coming from the right as described by Jeff.

[pollyusa]

EW

First, don't forget that Jeffress once claimed Novak told Libby who his source was.

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

[emptywheel]

polly

You're right about Wilson not being a credible retort to the nutters.

I think the Martin quote is really fascinating. This kind of intell is just the kind of thing John Bolton and Dougie Feith would latch onto (indeed, their roles were to find the raw intelligence that would make their case, sidestepping the intelligence analysis process. Therefore, I find it highly plausible that one or both of them learned of the SISMI intell (hell, maybe they were given a heads up by Pollari), and they shared it with Dick right away. And harrassed the CIA to pay attention to it. Which might explain the State and DOD reference.

[pollyusa]

EW

Finally, one answer to a question we were asking before. If these guys knew Armitage was Novak's first source, why didn't they out him?

I'm guessing Armitage beat them to the punch by doing two things. First he is a possible source for the 1x2x6 and second I think he talked to the FBI very early.

I really think this from Waas shut them down for awhile.

as many as a half-dozen White House officials have been asked by federal investigators about contacts they had with the Republican National Committee and conservative political activists.
Waas 10/31/03

[Jeff]

That bit of the 2-24-06 hearing is, I think, really obscure, and I'm not sure what can be made of it. Is Jeffress referring to Rove reporting what Novak told him about what Armitage told him? Is Jeffress saying that Libby claims/testified that Russert told him that Armitage told him - which is fast going to emerge as a favored theory on the right of what actually happened, thanks to Maguire's speculation along these lines. (And for what it's worth, I find it completely believable that Libby may have testified along these lines, since if he knew that Armitage was Novak's source by fall 2003, it would be helpful for him to claim this, in order to point the finger back toward Armitage and point the investigation in his direction.) I think it's that passage of the hearing, by the way, that Jim E may be thinking of, not the indictment.

The bs Cathie Martin was slinging in October 2003 is perhaps the purest example of OVP's misleading casuistry, legalism and so-called "Clintonism" - which we have seen some direct evidence of in the form of the note Libby passed to McClellan for him to tell the press at the beginning of October or end of September 2003. Martin works to make it sound like Cheney asked a question of the CIA, and got an answer back in a day or two, and that was it. This is especially clear in the WSJ report if you include the paragraph preceding the one polly cites (which is very close to what polly cites from the New Yorker):

The investigation was given a big push in early 2002 after Vice President Dick Cheney asked his CIA briefer for an assessment of the reports. According to Mr. Cheney's spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, the CIA reported back quickly that it was possible Iraq had made attempts to purchase yellowcake, but the agency couldn't be sure because it said the information "was fragmentary and lacked detail."

How Mr. Cheney first learned about the yellowcake reports isn't clear. Ms. Martin said he had heard of them independently of his regular CIA briefing. Once he received the agency's response, she says, he made no further inquiries about the information.

Now, we know that the CIA did report back to Cheney quickly, but what Martin leaves out is that the CIA also told OVP at that time they were working to get more information (and of course this meant, at least in part, a mission to Niger, though that doesn't seem to have been specified). And in fact Cheney did make further inquiries, asking some time early in March for an update. On March 5, Cheney's briefer was told by Winpac (I believe) that a source was being debriefed that day; this was, of course, Wilson. The SSCI - which I am getting this from - doesn't tell us whether the briefer related this information to Cheney, but I bet s/he did. However, it appears that there was nothing further on the matter after that. Which is frankly bizarre, and led me to be suspicious about whether OVP got wind of WIlson's report and just didn't ask. However, Fitzgerald has recently told us that neither Cheney nor Libby learned of the results of Wilson's trip in 2002 - or at least, he is not contesting that idea (it's a little unclear). Regardless of the output side, Martin was being deeply misleading on Cheney's role on the input side.

Martin does the same thing in the New Yorker story with her "End of story" comment.

[pollyusa]

Jim E.

As to Team Bush knowing, it appears that Novak, in talking with Rove in early July 2003, explicitly told him that Armitage was his source. That shows up in the indictment, right? So I guess this is a pretty simple answer

No it doesn't appear in the indictment, I think what you're thinking of is the Libby/Official "A" conversation.

But there are a couple of reasons to think they did know Novak's source. The Jeffress quote and the 10/17/05 TIME, I'm looking for more.

I do have a factual question: who was the first person to suggest that Novak's and Woodward's source were one and the same?

Good question, I will look around.

[pollyusa]

Jeff,

Is Jeffress saying that Libby claims/testified that Russert told him that Armitage told him - which is fast going to emerge as a favored theory on the right of what actually happened, thanks to Maguire's speculation along these lines.

I missed that, do you have a link to the speculation?

[Tom Maguire]

What will people say when I mention that Armitage is a member of the Aspen Institute?

In Judy's version, she was quite hazy about whether she had also heard about Plame from others. Hmm.

Anyway, as to Jim E's point about low-level operatives, Novak and Mitchell:

It was a talking point. Was it a talking point Tenet or McLauglin bought off on? Who knows?

Well, in a bit of good news for CIA officers, Reuters gave then a promotion on July 8:

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

Reuters had a US intel official; Mitchell had "CIA sources" - I concur it was a talking point, but how exactly do we justify attributing it to Rove?

Ari having it on July 12 shoudln't count, since that follows Tenet's very similar statement on July 11.

Sorry, I need to re-read this whole thread.

But FWIW - I am *not* suggesting that Libby says Russert told Libby that Armitage was a source.

My *wild speculation* was that, in thinking about the *possible* harm done by Armitage's failure to come forward promptly with the Woodward leak, it has become impossible for Fitzgerald to get at the truth. *IF* Russert got the leak from Armitage but promised Armitage to keep it quiet, Armitage knew by reading Libby's indictment that Russert had kept his word. Hence, Armitage could sit on his leak to Russert with no fear in his November 2005 appearance.

I am not saying it did happen; I am saying that Fitzgerald has no good way to show it didn't, since both guys are on record, and Armitage got a sneak preview of Russert's once secret testimony. Which would be a good reason for Fitzgerald to consider this obstruction to be material and indictable.

[Jim E.]

You are all correct--I was apparently thinking of the Feb transcript, not the indictment.

[emptywheel]

Fitzgerald has recently told us that neither Cheney nor Libby learned of the results of Wilson's trip in 2002 - or at least, he is not contesting that idea (it's a little unclear). Regardless of the output side, Martin was being deeply misleading on Cheney's role on the input side.

I always wonder how many of Fitzgerald's concessions (this and the NIE declassification are two examples) he makes doubting their veracity, but knowing that if the WH were to change it's mind and tell him a new story, they'd be even more fucked. He's giving them a whole lot of rope by not contesting these assertions.

polly

I don't think the 1X2X6 story answers why they didn't go after Armitage in public. Remember, Novak's "not a partisan gunslinger" comment was a specific reference to the 1X2X6 article--he mentions it. I thought then and now that Novak meant to cast suspicion on Powell with the gunslinger comment. So that 1X2X6 article actually brought almost instant retaliation.

But I also think they really didn't go after Armitage as hard as they might have in the July 2005 period, when they leaked the BS that Ari was reading the INR memo and Powell was shopping it around. There are those articles saying Armitage had gotten the INR memo in June, which I suspect are part of the same smear campaign. But that's awfully tame compared to what they could have been doing. No mention of a Novak phone call to Armitage? No mention of Armitage chatting up IC about Plame? Honest, it seems like there's a lot more material for the smear for Armitage, and they didn't use it.

[Jim E.]

With regard to TM's "wild speculation": do you really think that Big Russ--the moral and Holy exemplar of all things journalistic and otherwise--would instill values such that Pumpkinhead would split hairs in a legal matter and then needlessly lie on national TV? What would Big Russ say?

[emptywheel]

Tom

Where do you think talking points come from, the tooth fairy? They don't come from the Bill Harlow, that's for sure. Plus, there's a distinction between the Reuters and the Mitchell--the talking point was "low level." Mid-level is accurate and probably not the talking point.

I also think your Russert idea is far-fetched. First, we don't know that Armitage hid the Woodward conversation. More importantly, we know that Fitzgerald has phone records and visitor logs. There's no reason Armitage would sit on another leak because if he had indeed hidden the Woodward one, he would know that Fitzgerald would double check all his other contacts (including any with Judy Miller).

Also, wrt Judy Miller, she doesn't call unfriendly sources, she waits for them to call her. So Aspen Institute aside (which I doubt is the source of that reference), I doubt she talked to Woodward. She didn't use any State sources in her reporting on the conflict between State and DOD over IRaq reconstruction, so why would she here?

Finally, assuming this post is correct on the speculation that Armitage was talking about the Niger forgeries and Rove was talking about the CIA report in their context of the leak, I think it risible to imagine Armitage would talk to Russert who wasn't reporting on the story. He was trying to stop people from reporting on it, not spread the rumor.

Now if you want to spread your story, I'd advise you to argue that Tweety got an Armitage leak. The Tweety report Libby was calling to complain about--the one that said Libby was responsible for retaining the uranium claims--sounds a lot closer to what it seems Armitage leaked. Even if Tweety was an Armitage source, did Armitage mention Plame? I don't know. But it'd be a much more compelling argument.

But for some unknown reason, Libby's team didn't even go for Tweety's notes from the period, even though it's clear he got some inside dirt.

[emptywheel]

In fact, Tom, can you provide a link to your Tweety posts? I'd bet money Tweety talked to Armitage for that story.

[tryggth]

Powell has Armitage's back.

[Jeff]

What will people say when I mention that Armitage is a member of the Aspen Institute?

Tom, are you suggesting that Libby was signaling to Miller that she should finger Armitage? That Libby was saying, we've turned on Armitage in our testimony, so should you? Wouldn't that be mixing too many literals into one metaphor?

I do see now the point of your speculation.

In Judy's version, she was quite hazy about whether she had also heard about Plame from others. Hmm.

I don't think so. She was quite clear that she had also heard about Plame from others. She was completely obscure on who they were or even when she talked to them.

But I also think they really didn't go after Armitage as hard as they might have in the July 2005 period

Good point, even if you're right that Armitage with INR in June was a smear. This is a good point too:

So that 1X2X6 article actually brought almost instant retaliation.

[pollyusa]

OK - More leaking on Novak's source

It is still not publicly known who first told the columnist Robert D. Novak the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Novak identified her in a column on July 14, 2003, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald knows the identity of this source, a person who is not believed to work at the White House, the lawyers said.
NYT 10/21/05

Another possible target is the as-yet unidentified original source for columnist Robert Novak, who first reported Ms. Plame's CIA status. Mr. Novak has said only that the person is "no partisan gunslinger."
WSJ 10/24/05

Woodward and Novak - same source

Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same
Newsweek 11/28/05 (may have been avaliable earlier)

• His source for the Valerie Plame information is, he is confident, the same as The Washington Post's Bob Woodward's. He would be surprised if President Bush didn't know who "he" was (Ed.: So we know it wasn't Mary Matalin, Karen Hughes or Laura).

UPDATE: On hearing an audio of this portion of Novak's talk I learned that the above is in error. He said, rather, that Woodward speculates that his source and Novak's source are the same and that he is confident that President Bush knows who the source is.
John Locke 12/13/05

“His source[Novak] was not in the White House, I don’t believe,” Woodward said of Novak over a private dinner at the Institute of Politics on Dec. 5. He did not indicate what information, if any, he had to corroborate the claim.
The Crimson 12/19/05

This article is about Bradlee's statements in Vanity Fair

The identity of Woodward's source is one of several mysteries that remain in the leak case. Lawyers involved in the case have suggested Woodward's source and Novak's source are the same person. Novak has refused to discuss the source for his column but suggested in a speech in December that he and Woodward shared the source. Novak and his lawyer declined to comment yesterday.
WaPo 3/14/06

[Tom Maguire]

Where do you think talking points come from, the tooth fairy?

Compelling rebuttal. Your point is what, that Karl and only Karl coordinates all responses from the CIA? Who knew?

I also think your Russert idea is far-fetched. First, we don't know that Armitage hid the Woodward conversation. More importantly, we know that Fitzgerald has phone records and visitor logs. There's no reason Armitage would sit on another leak because if he had indeed hidden the Woodward one, he would know that Fitzgerald would double check all his other contacts (including any with Judy Miller).

My idea is that, as Fitzgerald contemplates the *possible* harm to his investigation, he realizes that he can't trust Armitage's denial.

To say, well, no worries, it is not likely anyway sort of misses the point. Unless juries these days are convicting on a pretty low standard of reasonable doubt.

As to "Fitzgerald would double check all his other contacts", the outline of their testimony was clear from the indictment - maybe they want to change their story and get hit with perjury themselves? Why would they?

On the point that "Fitzgerald has phone records", I am clearly having a bad afternoon - I am familiar with the subpoenas for AF One and WHIG records, but I seem to have forgotten the bit where he subpoenaed State.

Anyway, the Russert name is meant to be illustrative, although I forget how literal people can be when it suits them. Presumably, a leak by Armitage to either Matthews or Mitchell would pose a similar conundrum for Fitzgerald re Tim Russert (if we can bear the undocumented assumption that the NBC newsirs tlak to their boss). I guess I could list the other NBC reporters cited by the defense as well, if that would help. In any event, I missed the publicity that surrounded Fitzgerald bringing all of them in for questioning after Armitage came forward last November.

...we don't know that Armitage hid the Woodward conversation.

Well, we know he didn't disclose it, we think we know he had reminders about it, and a casual observer would consider it to be material, so I am OK with "hid".

Now, we don't know whether Fitzgerald specifically asked him about contacts with other reporters where Plame was mentioned. It can be left to the reader to judge the quality of Fitzgerald's investigation if, having heard from Armitage that he leaked to Novak, Fitzgerald never followed up with "Did you leak this to other reporters?"

[Jeff]

He was trying to stop people from reporting on it, not spread the rumor.

Ok. The absurd Daily News story yesterday floated this idea. I am extremely skeptical - or skeptical that it makes a difference - with regard to those reporters we know about Armitage talking to. It makes no sense with regard to Woodward and Novak - or anyone else to whom Armitage outed Plame - since Armitage was the guy who brought it up. (I suppose it's possible that Novak came back to Armitage, and Armitage tried to discourage him from publishing. That would look Novak look even worse, since he was hearing the same basic message from the Harlow at the CIA. But it's not much salvation for Armitage.) But it would be a different story if there are reporters out there who went to Armitage with the information, having gotten it from elsewhere, and he discouraged them. The known candidates are, of course, Miller, Cooper and Pincus (and Dickerson, sort of). Cooper and Miller we know had as yet unnamed sources, though as emptywheel points out, Miller is not a highly probably candidate. And Pincus? He's well connected everywhere, it seems. But how interesting would it be if there were other reporters, unknown to Fitzgerald before Armitage's recent confessions? Very interesting, but I doubt it's the case: we know Armitage testified in November 2005, and as of January 23, 2006, as Fitzgerald's letter to Team Libby that day indicates, Fitzgerald only knew of the five reporters (and we can add Dickerson to the lot). I doubt Armitage would leave out any such juicy bits in November, even if he has testified once again since.

[tryggth]

Fitzgerald never followed up with "Did you leak this to other reporters?"

Probably in over my head, but perhaps it depends on whether Armitage considered the June 14/15ish conversation with Woodward a discussion with a reporter or with someone who was commissioned to produce the official administration apologia.

[Tom Maguire]

Re Judy:

For critics of the Iraq war, the downfall of Ahmad Chalabi occasioned a hearty, unapologetic outpouring of Schadenfreude...

An analysis by David Sanger went so far as to name names of individuals who had associated themselves with the discredited leader of the Iraqi National Congress. The list, he wrote, included “many of the men who came to dominate the top ranks of the Bush administration . . . Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz, Douglas J. Feith, Richard L. Armitage, Elliott Abrams and Zalmay M. Khalilzad, among others.”

The phrase “among others” is a highly evocative one. Because that list of credulous Chalabi allies could include the New York Times’ own reporter, Judith Miller.

Hmm Aspen Institute, Friend of Ahmad - nahh, they couldn't have talked. Of course, Judy's account was that she recalled discussing Plame with others, but couldn't remember who. But so what?

[emptywheel]

Um, the CIA doesn't issue talking points. They issue NIO documents. And, at this point, Tenet blabs off about stuff that the rest of the CIA usually disagrees with. Ergo the talking points--which are absolutely identical to ones used by several people at the White House--probably came from the White House. Or do you think the tooth fairy sprinkled the same magic dust in Bill Harlow's ear (who pointedly didn't use the talking points) and in Ari Fleischer's ear at the same time?

We know only that Woodward didn't report the date of the meeting with Woodward to Fitzgerald. We don't know anything else.

Also, I raised the Tweety issue because there is a distinct similarity between the (I'm arguing) Armitage half of the Novak leak and what Tweety reported. Further, it is completely consistent with everything we know of Armitage to think that he was leaking that Libby was the one pushing the uranium claims. Therefore I think it highly likely that Armitage spoke with Tweety too. But I also suspect he may have revealed it to Fitzgerald.

Remember too that in one of Fitzgerald's filings, he listed the journalists whose testimony he had given to Libby--there were at least two obscured. Do we know he never spoke to Tweety? One assumes he would ask Tweety to testify, at least to learn more about the Karl Rove "Fair Game" comment. And given his willingness to go on the record with Wilson, he might well testify without a subpoena. So it is possible Tweety went to visit Fitzgerald. As I pointed out, Libby didn't go after Tweety's records, even though he had good reason to do so. Why not???

[emptywheel]

Jeff

You're assuming, based on a good deal of evidence, I grant, but not definite evidence, that Armitage spoke to Novak first and that Novak wasn't cued to ask about Plame. You're also assuming that Armitage was aware Plame was a NOC. I think that's increasingly likely, but at least given what Woodward reported, Armitage said nothing that indicated Plame was covert.

As I pointed out in my Armitage document, the Armitage leak almost certainly came in the days after Pincus' first article mentioning Wilson appeared, also alleging the intelligence was mishandled. It is not inconceivable that Woodward asked about the background to the trip. (Also note Woodward's meeting with Libby also closely followed a damaging Pincus article, which is likely why Libby brought up the NIE.)

I guess I just don't see any way to have Armitage leak all the Niger forgery stuff and have him argue for the importance of Plame. I rather think that we could split the two Plame comments in Novak's column--if I'm right about this reconstruction, Armitage clearly gave Novak the "Plame suggested Wilson to follow up on the Italian intelligence" (because Rove wouldn't mention the Italians at all--also it would exactly replicate what he told Woodward) and Rove the Covert Operative stuff.

Here's a question: did Armitage say she was an analyst and Rove an operative and Novak chose the most damning description?

[Jeff]

polly

Don't forget Woodward's response on Larry King Live to Isikoff's comment about hearing from the White House that Woodward was about to reveal who Novak's source was. It's adds some more players, albeit in the mode of playing telephone:

BOB WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker, I'm sorry. In fact I mean this tells you something about what's the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.

Maybe the Times reporter heard it through the journalistic grapevine, and didn't know the part about revealing Mr. X, though I doubt it.

I don't have the original 10-27-05 transcript; I'm working from the replay of it on 11-21-05, when King interviewed Woodward about his role in the case. So this bit might be slightly different, but note what Woodward says right after:

KING: And you (INAUDIBLE) tonight right?

WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie who is the editor of "The Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on that?"

This makes it sound like Downie talked to Woodward on October 27th, which would make it highly unlikely that the new discovery that Woodward made that led him to tell Downie about his new discovery and about having a source on Plame on October 24th was the identity of Novak's source. On the other hand, maybe Woodward just is talking about the conversation with Downie on the 24th, and describing, in effect, what led him to reveal to Downie that he had a Plame source. On the third hand, Woodward could just be making up a story to obscure everything, as he is wont to do.

[Jeff]

You're assuming, based on a good deal of evidence, I grant, but not definite evidence, that Armitage spoke to Novak first and that Novak wasn't cued to ask about Plame.

Yes. I will completely revise what I am saying in this regard if it turns out that Novak brought up Plame with Armitage. But as of relatively recently - certainly after Armitage's November 2005 testimony; and what about Novak's recent grand jury appearance? - Fitzgerald evidently has no knowledge of a Libby-Novak encounter, and he refers Libby to Novak's brief published account of his interaction with his sources, which seems to imply that it is more or less accurate as far as it goes. I doubt he would do that if he was confident the story was a cover-up. But it's true that things change.

You're also assuming that Armitage was aware Plame was a NOC.

I don't think so. Are you saying that because I talk about Armitage out Plame and blowing her cover? The point is that that's what Armitage did, just as Rove did it with Cooper and Libby with Miller, perhaps among others. Maybe he didn't do it knowingly or deliberately, or maliciously. But he did it. So I'm not assuming that part. I do tend to think there's more to suggest that Armitage was not as sympathetic to Wilson as you and some others think, which makes it more likely - I'm not ready to say how likely - that it was not just idle gossip or innocent explanation of the background of Wilson's trip, especially with Novak perhaps. But even if it was one of the latter, he still blew her cover, and he should have known better.

As for who gave Novak the bit about her being an operative, that is one of the most puzzling mysteries to me. Since Novak's own explanation (it was an innocent use of the term along the lines of "political operative") is an obvious and blatant lie, that suggests there's something more there than what Tom is hoping for - Novak simply completed a syllogism and guessed right - although I suppose Novak might try to cover that up anyway, since it makes him look really bad and irresponsible to out a CIA operative on his own. But both Armitage and Rove are reported to have told another reporter (Woodward and Cooper, respectively) nothing about Plame's status as an operative. I even think it's possible Rove didn't know she was an operative, especially if he got his Plame info from Libby (but Libby knew, I believe, or at least knew it was likely and should've really checked, given that Cheney told him she worked in CPD). In fact, if you're looking for a dot to connect to your Libby-to-Novak theory, there it is. I'm still not ready to buy it. But i can still try to be helpful.

[emptywheel]

I actually do think the most likely is Armitage to Novak first and Rove second. My Libby theory usually doesn't include details that Libby leaked Plame's identity. It's that Libby asked the same kinds of questions--before July 6--that Ari was asking much later: "Go find out who sent Wilson on the trip." The most likely, at this point is the mystery July 2 conversation, though Fitzgerald must currently believe that Wilson didn't come up, given his recent hearing statements.

I think with Rove, his relationship with Novak really has to be considered, in comparison with Cooper. He has been leaking to Novak for decades and getting reliable results. Cooper was a new face. Therefore I see no reason to think he'd use the same approach with Cooper as with Novak.

But you're right, he did say this to two people. But by all appearances, Fitzgerald thinks he didn't break the law by doing so. That may mean he didn't leak her identity. Or it may mean there's some other catch. But there appears to be a really big catch that we don't know about.

[pollyusa]

I've always wondered about this reporting from Waas about Novak.

Before Fitzgerald took over the investigation of the Plame case from a task force of career Justice Department prosecutors, investigators were proceeding with the strong belief that that Novak was attempting to mislead both them and the public, according to people close to the case. Whether Fitzgerald has reached similar conclusions cannot be determined.

...

Later, when administration officials, such as the one who spoke to Pincus, admitted to investigators that they had told reporters that Wilson had been sent to Niger only as a result of his wife's purported nepotism -- but did not know she had ever been a clandestine operative -- the investigators came to believe that Novak and his sources might be misleading them
Waas 4/22/04

and this rumor

several beltway insiders close to the investigation say special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned of Miller’s involvement from Novak himself.
Radar 7/15/05

I've always thought Rove was a strong possibility for Pincus's source, reading the 4/04 Waas makes me think it even more.

[emptywheel]

Well, Radar also had the 22 indictments scoop, so...

Also, wasn't Rove on vacation on the 12th?

[Jeff]

The most interesting line in that Waas article to me is:

The Bush administration official, according to attorneys familiar with his testimony, told a federal grand jury that he made the claim to the Post reporter and others in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility

If those attorneys know what they're talking about, and presuming the "others" means "other reporters," Pincus' source also talked to Novak, Cooper, Miller and/or Woodward - and Woodward is really doubtful. That would mean either (a)Pincus' source was Rove; or (b)Pincus' source also had contact with one of these reporters that we have heard nothing about. As I said, Cooper and Miller have sources as yet unknown to the public.

On the other hand, it's perfectly possible that what Waas' sources have in mind is that Pincus' source was Cathie Martin, and she made the claim to Pincus and others like Lewis Libby, who she probably told about Plame around July 8. But that's sure not the way they make it sound.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

Too questions. Judy definitely have other sources. But why do we know Cooper has other sources?

Also--could it be Dick? Dick as Pincus' source could answer a lot of questions.

[Swopa]

Outstanding comments in this thread; I've just linked to it in my post at Needlenose arguing that Armitage wasn't Novak's source -- I agree with EW, given that Fitz seems to consider Armitage essentially an innocent party, if he talked to Novak there's a big catch we haven't been told about.

But is it really confusing who Pincus's source is, and how he could have spoken to other reporters? Jeff, Jeff, why has thou forsaken me? :)

[pollyusa]

EW

Cooper said he had other source for his article

"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
MTP 7/17/05

Judy's additional sources

From her BBC interview

All others I know of are here

[MikeinDC]

EW:

Long time, no posting on my part! Just emphasizing information that I got from a good source from quite a while back.

Armitage was the source for Woodward and Novak. Even though he cooperated with Fitz, Armitage thought he was going to be indicted the first time around. He was very surprised when he wasn't.

Armitage did not tell Fitz about his conversation with Woodward though and when Woodward started his theatrics after the Libby indictment, Armitage wouldn't give him permission to go public. Armitage called Fitz right away, who had him come back to testify within 2 weeks of the Woodward disclosure.

Fitz is a smart one. He had Armitage come in the front door early and, after his testimony, Fitz made a very public exit out the front door with his whole entourage. When the reporters followed Fitz in masse, Armitage walked out the front door and went the other way.

I don't have any insight into whether Fitz changed his perspective on Armitage after his second time in front of the grand jury. I do know that Armitage does not have a lawyer.

That's it for now - should be an interesting week!

[Jeff]

From my perspective, the three main candidates for Pincus' July 12 source are Cathie Martin, Dick Cheney, and Ari Fleischer. I will add that for reasons I can't quite reconstitute at the moment, neither Bartlett nor Hadley seem like nearly as likely candidates as they used to to me, especially if you read PIncus' July 13 2003 article (coauthored with Allen), which has Bartlett as a source and may have Hadley as an unnamed one (though it may all be Bartlett).

So yes, I know of nothing that rules Dick out. OVP was obviously quite active that day. And while I still lean toward Martin, we now know that Cheney had taken the unusual step of replacing her with Libby as press contact with some reporters in order to talk about Wilson's trip and the NIE. On the one hand, then, given the importance placed on media strategy that day, one could imagine Cheney himself participating directly in seeking to discredit Wilson. Pincus is a sort of senior statesman among reporters, so perhaps that would qualify him for the Cheney treatment. On the other hand, if Pincus wasn't to hear about the NIE, and given his generally IC-friendly inclinations and liberal associations, it's easy also to imagine that they thought he deserved no one higher than Martin, since he wasn't going to be any kind of friendly conduit for them anyway; and she just went a little off the reservation, repeating what she had heard on AF2 (which she knew already - the point is she would have heard it as as part of the media strategy). Martin had also been an on-the-record source for Pincus before, although that doesn't tell us much.

As for Fleischer, one of the main things he has going for him as a candidate is that it might help to make sense of the apparent fact that he has some kind of cooperation agreement or whatever the lawyers call it. (Swopa does some nice pushback today against Armitage as Novak's first source on behalf of Fleischer and doesn't even mention Fleischer's apparent flipping, nor - and this is by way of thanks to Swopa for the compliment he gives us in the Update - the fact that the end of paragraph 10 (on p. 5) of Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit has a redaction perfectly placed for a sentence detailing the essence of his hypothesis: after hearing all about the Wilsons from Libby at lunch on July 7, Fleischer returned a call to Robert Novak and disclosed Plame's CIA affiliation. I'm sticking with Armitage. But I do sort of wonder whether maybe Fleischer did tell Novak, but somehow didn't count as a source for Novak, or something like that.) And maybe someone in OVP did in fact talk to Pincus that day, maybe referred Pincus to Fleischer's press conference that day, or to Fleischer himself. But would Pincus call Fleischer himself, and then get the callback, rather than have the WaPo reporter on the Africa trip talk to him? And Milbank from Africa did contribute to Pincus and Allen's July 13 article.

One last thing. It's always puzzled me that Pincus' source seemed to have screwed up the nepotism attack on Wilson, implying that the White House had early knowledge of Wilson's report but ignored it because of nepotism. Of the three, that reminds me most of Fleischer during that week, when he repeatedly messed up the talking points, his mind perhaps on his impending post-White House life.

As for Cooper, I don't have links, but check out July 17, 2005 Meet the Press and Reliable Sources.

[valtin]

pollyusa

You quoted Hersh Stovepipe article 10/20/03 to the effect:

"“The Vice-President saw a piece of intelligence reporting that Niger was attempting to buy uranium,” Cathie Martin, the spokeswoman for Cheney, told me. Sometime after he first saw it, Cheney brought it up at his regularly scheduled daily briefing from the C.I.A., Martin said. “He asked the briefer a question. The briefer came back a day or two later and said, ‘We do have a report, but there’s a lack of details.’”

...

"according to a former high-level C.I.A. official, however, Cheney was dissatisfied with the initial response, and asked the agency to review the matter once again."

+++++++++++++
OK, here's my question -- Why would Cheney ask the CIA to review the yellowcake matter again, especially if he had no idea who would get the task? If true, this leads to the following differing hypotheses:

1. Cheney took stovepiped information and had it submitted to the CIA for further vetting? But that takes away from the whole purpose of stovepiping the info to begin with.

2. Or Cheney was not paying close attention to the importance of stovepiping intel, i.e., to bypass the critics at Langley? But this goes against almost everything we know.

3. Or Cheney was not involved in stovepiping info at all (but see #2 above)

4. Or -- and I think this was the case -- it was a tactical error by Cheney, and one that blew up in his face. He KNEW the yellowcake was a forgery, or at least real shaky intel, and he figured that CIA would find an old report and that would be that (the 98 report, for instance). In other words, he was VERY conscious he was going to pull off an act of fraud, and was looking for some legit intel cover. Imagine his surprise when someone at CIA took their job seriously.

5. Or, Cheney sent it on knowing someone in the agency -- one of his men: Feith? -- would flag it and give it the correct treatment... and that person let him down.

Otherwise, lacking some variant of the above, why oh why would Cheney have gotten the CIA involved at all? Why act dissatisfied?

[Jeff]

Untimely Meditations by Walter Pincus. Hopefully they'll correct the misdating of the May 5 hearing to May 12. In light of earlier discussion about Pincus' source, and particularly the Waas article from April 05 polly links to, there's an interesting evocation of Martin at the end.

[pollyusa]

My take from the WaPo

Fitzgerald - I'll see your CIA official who maybe didn't tell Martin who didn't tell Libby that Plame was classifed... with my CIA official who told Libby directly about "the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson"

Jeff - I'm not seeing the connection with the Martin reference to the Pincus source, unless you are saying that Martin might be Pincus's source and she wasn't saying the classified part.

Also, I've been meaning to mention that I did add a couple more Waas articles to your list at the end of the FDL thread.

[Jeff]

polly

I was mostly looking for something interesting to say about the Pincus article; but all I meant is that Team Libby's description of Martin's position bears some resemblance to how Waas' article describes Pincus' source, knowing about Plame but emphatic about not knowing that her status was classified or covert.

Will look at the fdl update.

[pollyusa]

A few additional points relating to the discussion here.

First, I read this article to say that Martin and Fleischer were interviewed very early in the investigation, possibly (I can't tell for sure from the article) in October 2003. I question whether it was publicly known as claimed in the article.

In October 2003, agents interviewed several administration officials, who described conversations they had with Libby about Plame in June and early July of 2003.

...

Even early in the investigation, two key people were publicly known at the time to have been interviewed by the FBI: Ari Fleischer, then-White House press secretary, and Catherine Martin,
WaPo 11/13/05

Second, Pincus had characterized his source as a senior administration official until 10/20/05 when his source became a WH official. Note that Pincus's source becomes more specifically a WH source shortly after the accounts in TIME and the NYT that Fitzgerald knows the identity of Novak's source who is not in the WH.

Third, Tom's try at a CIA source saying the low level talking point (elevated to mid level) doesn't say CIA source it says "A U.S. intelligence official". Could be DIA, INR, even NSC.

I haven't seen any thing in the public record (and I've been looking), besides the Mitchell quote in which she is clearly stringing together sources, sourced directly to the CIA that has low level officials sending Wilson. I have seen many CIA sourced quotes that the CPD sent Wilson.

EW

So that 1X2X6 article actually brought almost instant retaliation.

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Don't forget, too, that Allen is the only one who definitively knows who 1X2X6 SAO is.

I think Dana Priest (shared the byline on the 1x2x6) knew as well.

Priest: There—I don’t want to go beyond it. But what I do want to state again that the point of the—of putting it so high in the story was that people within the administration, who support the administration, even, believe that it crossed over the line. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.
MTP 10/5/03

[pollyusa]

Forgot this

EW - Armitage does call himself Rich (last quote)

[MayBee]

Let's not forget that whoever told Pincus, he didn't believe his WH source that Valerie sent Joe. Pincus didn't know Joe was married until after the 4th of July picnic, but his WH source was unable to convince him of her role. I'd say that means WH source wasn't a heavy hitter.

pollyUSA:
I think Dana Priest (shared the byline on the 1x2x6) knew as well.

Priest: There—I don’t want to go beyond it. But what I do want to state again that the point of the—of putting it so high in the story was that people within the administration, who support the administration, even, believe that it crossed over the line. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.
MTP 10/5/03
---
Don't you think that's probably from Grossman?

[Tom Maguire]

From Polly:

Third, Tom's try at a CIA source saying the low level talking point (elevated to mid level) doesn't say CIA source it says "A U.S. intelligence official". Could be DIA, INR, even NSC.

And it was by eerie concidence that it came on the same day Mitchell cited CIA sources. Oh, sorry, she was lying, I forgot.

Um, the CIA doesn't issue talking points. They issue NIO documents. And, at this point, Tenet blabs off about stuff that the rest of the CIA usually disagrees with. Ergo the talking points--which are absolutely identical to ones used by several people at the White House--probably came from the White House. Or do you think the tooth fairy sprinkled the same magic dust in Bill Harlow's ear (who pointedly didn't use the talking points) and in Ari Fleischer's ear at the same time?

Fine, then there won't be any trouble tracking down the White House issued talking points. I imagine the Rove Fairy sprinkles them, uhh, not liberally, but freely everywhere.

Lest my disregard for this objection is not crystal clear - are you seriously contending that never in the history of the CIA did someone write a memo saying, "this is our position on "X", keep it straight if a reporter calls"? Never? And there has never been a meeting where two or three CIA oficers agree on something to tell the press - something that might even be described as "talking points"? Absurd. Or there has never been a time when one person, e.g. Tenet, gave a similar answer to three different reporters? Whatever.

To further our fun, let's examine the notion that "the talking points... are absolutely identical to ones used by several people at the White House".

In this thread, we have a cite from Ari on July 7:

So this was something that the CIA undertook as part of their regular review of events, where they sent him. But they sent him on their own volition, and the Vice President's office did not request it.

No mention of high, mid, or low level. An oversight, no doubt.

We have my two from July 8:

Mitchell:
MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he 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.

Reuters:
A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

Tenet on July 11:
In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

Ari, July 12, but somehow his cite of Tenet was dropped earlier (Jeff will want to impute bad faith, I will not):
In fact, in one of the least known parts of this story, which is now, for the first time, public -- and you find this in Director Tenet's statement last night -- the official that -- lower-level official sent from the CIA to Niger to look into whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought yellow cake from Niger...

So let's review the argument I am being offered as an alternative to my "tooth fairy" theory:

(1) No one at the CIA ever agrees on a story for the press unless they document it as an NIO;

(2) Ari's July 7 claim that the Wilson trip was something "the CIA undertook as part of their regular review of events" is *identical* to the July 8 claim that low-level or mid-level CIA officers sent him. The obvious fact that the July 8 claim specifically disqualifies Tenet and the top guys in a way that Ari did not, and may in fact represent Tenet pushing back and saying, hey, don't blame me for that trip, is utterly ignored (since the claims are identical).

Or, Mitchell is lying and the Reuters person had a non-CIA source, becuase... unclear - maybe the INR felt solidarity with the top guys at the CIA and wanted to bail them out on this.

(3) Ari's specific quote of Tenet on July 12 doesn't count becuase, well, this all came from Rove anyway, so really, Tenet was just quoting Rove.

So as I understand the Karl Fairy view, Ari's July 7 attribution of the trip to "the CIA" was subsequently modified by the Karl Fairy to cut out and cover for the top CIA guys on the 8th. Mitchell got confused, or lied about her source, and the INR, or someone, felt a sudden urge to rally to defend the top echelon at the CIA.

My absurd, "tooth fairy" view is that Tenet didn't like getting saddled with the Wilson trip and told Mitchell and Reuters on the 8th that this was decided well below him - "lower level" became "low-level" for Andrea (from her lofty perch, we are all "low level"), and "mid-level" to the mid-level toiler at Reuters; later, Tenet made clear it was someone below his level ("on their own initiative").

And eventually, in the Karl Fairy scenario, (July 11, pre-Tenet's statement), Novak got "low level operative" from Rove because Novak made, what, exactly three phone calls - one to Armitage, one to Rove, one to Harlow and then type the column? Or was there a fourth to the CIA guy on Rove's secret payroll?

In my absurd "tooth fairy" view, there is an off chance that Novak thought to call a senior CIA guy and got ahold of him. He then got something similar to what Mitcehll was told, and which tenet was about to announce.

Or he used Lexis. I have no idea how Novak and his researchers operate.

Hey, I'm sold, that's ridiculous. Stay with the Rove Fairy. Everyone on the left will like the image of Karl flitting about in tights, anyway.

As to Cooper having other sources - there was a note somewhere at TIME to check the Rove/Libby with the CIA. I have long figured that Cooper was just glamming a bit with the TIME call to Harlow. Maybe they played "Secret Agent Man" while he testified.

Put another way, why would Cooper fold up like a cheap suitcase and start outing confidential sources after two court fights, and a deal to testify about Rove? Judy Miller clearly played the "I forgot" route when the testimony went past here agreement to talk about Libby.

Well, I am sure there is a much more compelling "Karl Fairy" theory.... hmm, Cooper's mystery source was Cheney, the grand jury has everything, indictments are imminent. There you go.

Unless.. do you think Cooper's source as George Bush?

[emptywheel]

polly

First, Priest shares the first byline. But the later 10/12 article, which includes new quotes from SAO, is an Allen Pincus article. So Allen is the only one who DEFINITELY knows who SAO is.

I say instant retaliation because Novak's 10/1 article specifically attempts to refute SAO's charges (saying, for example, that he wasn't the 6th person leaked to). Throw in the "not a partisan gunslinger" which seemed an attempt to throw suspicion away from Libby and Rove, and the SAO article turned more attention onto State as a source (Powell first and foremost, because he fits the term).

[emptywheel]

I need to come back to Tom's points. But first, re CIA and talking points. What you describe is the sense of the IC community, which quite literally comes out of NIO--that's why NIO exists. I don't doubt that the public spokeperson of the CIA has his or her own set of talking points--what he is allowed to say about confidential issues. But if Harlow had talking points, they don't resemble what Mitchell said.

Also, Libby's court filings have referred to teh WH talking points. So we know they exist and we can expect to see them some day.

wrt Cooper's extra sources. We know of one more source for that article--Joe Wilson, presumably in an interview with Calabresi. So there MAY NOT be more (though it is certainly possible that big mouth Armitage talked to them as well--anyone on that byline a State reporter?).

[emptywheel]

Two more comments. Note that Condi and Ari set up Tenet's statement off the record before he gave it. It is likely they were already on talking points at that point.

And if Cooper's additional source is Armitage, and Armitage came clean about it, then there would be no reason to subpoena Cooper on it. Though given the way the second subpoena was written, it would include Armitage and therefore allow Fitz to ask questions about it.

[Jeff]

Everyone on the left will like the image of Karl flitting about in tights, anyway.

There you go again stereotyping the left, Tom. I am sure I am not alone in being horrified by that image. That aside, I agree with your

absurd, "tooth fairy" view . . . that Tenet didn't like getting saddled with the Wilson trip and told Mitchell.

Maybe he told Reuters, though I'm less confident. But whoever this talking point originated with - and remember that the story is that Rove and Libby, and perhaps Hadley, were deeply involved in crafting Tenet's statement all week - and whatever the original motivation, it was also clearly a talking point the White House was more than happy to adopt. Don't forget, this was the central message conveyed to John Dickerson by both Fleischer and Bartlett in Africa.

Part of what I take from that is not that Tenet wasn't floating this line - it seems clear he was - but that in this regard, as in many (though not all) others, Tenet was a member of the Bush administration, and a self-protecting bastard, not a representative of the CIA.

As for Cooper, maybe his other source was just Harlow. But the obvious answer to why he would easily testify about that source is that maybe he really was convinced the source wanted him to testify.

[emptywheel]

Also wrt to Cooper, remember there have always been some interesting redactions in Fitz' early documents on the case (his August affy for example). There's definitely more involved with Cooper.

[pollyusa]

I am not saying the low level part came from Rove. I am saying it didn't come from the CIA. I agree, Tenet was distancing himself from the story.

My point here is that the only report that claims the CIA said low level officials sent Wilson is Mitchell's.

I think a fair reading of Mitchell's claim would be that she is stringing sources together. She has the CIA saying that Wilson's trip was not "in fact, tasked by the vice president". She also has Cheney saying it was at a low level.

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he 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.

So one of Wilson's assumptions, which is that Dick Cheney asked the CIA about this allegation from a foreign intelligence service and that he was sent as a result of that, may not, in fact, be true. It could very well be that the vice president is correct, that he never asked for Joe Wilson to be sent, that it was a much lower level. And Condi Rice may, in fact, have been accurate when she said very recently to Russert on "Meet the Press" that this was buried deep in the bowels of the CIA.
Mitchell 5/6/03

CIA sourced references regarding what level CIA officials sent Wilson.

The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him
Novak 7/14/03

Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD)
WaPo 8/11/05

CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region
Tenet Statement 7/11/03

Mitchell

Low Level

Reference to "low level" source unknown

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge
Novak 7/14/03

Fleischer refers to Wilson as lower level

and you find this in Director Tenet's statement last night -- the official that -- lower-level official sent from the CIA
Gagggle 7/12/03

Low level sourced to WH

Some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission. I was told I should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.
Dickerson 2/7/06

Low level sourced to CIA

Mitchell

Reference to mid level - source US intelligence official

The Reuters article is not sourced to the CIA and it doesn't have "low level". It doesn't read to me that this official is from the CIA.

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

"He is placing far greater significance on his visit than anyone in the U.S. government at the time it was made," the official said, referring to Wilson's New York Times article.
Reuters 7/8/03

Here's the reference to the talking points

On July 6 the article is printed. On July 7 in response to that, the office of vice president sends some talking points to Mr. Fleischer about the vice president didn't know about this trip before.
Transcript of Motion Hearing 5/5/06

[emptywheel]

Man, polly, are you ever superb.

[obsessed]

Yes, truly amazing, Polly. How do you do this? Do you have some kind of searchable database of every known Plame document?