Anatomy of a White House Smear, 3.6

by emptywheel

(Previous parts 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5)

In my last installment of this series, I showed the excuses journalists used so they wouldn't have to testify--ranging from claiming the First Amendment covered cocktail parties, to only asking for a waiver from the sources you couldn't damage, to refusing a waiver if you could do damage. In the culture of access, the journalists proved very unwilling to testify, even if they were asked to testify about something that had nothing to do with reporting on a story.

In this post, I'll look at how Rove and Libby capitalized on the culture of access journalism in several ways. They received near-stenographic treatment of their views from some writers. With some of their stenographers and others, they appear to have created a red herring to draw pressure away from themselves. There were the amazing stories of Bob Woodward and Viveca Novak, who sat on stories of their own involvement. And they appear to have used the press to try to coach testimony.

The Stenographers

BushCo found (and funneled leaks to) a number of journalists who would present the Administration side of the case rather uncritically, thereby allowing them to present their case in the most favorable light. Rove has famously done this with Michael Isikoff, starting with the article suggesting the 1X2X6 leaker made a mistake (the article suggested that all of the leaks may have appeared after Novak's column, which is logically curious, seeing as how Novak's column itself cited two leakers). Isikoff again helped Rove just before Cooper testified, presenting a very technical denial--that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA" in an article that revealed Rove was Cooper's source.

But the truly marathon effort to present Rove's side to the public came from the WaPo's Jim VandeHei, who has proven a loyal voice throughout the time Rove has been publicly under legal threat. VandeHei appears to have started covering this story on July 13, 2003, with an A1 story detailing the GOP's efforts to defend Rove in spite of Cooper's revelation that Rove was his source.

Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday.

VandeHei reported (along with Carol Leonnig) Luskin's quote the following day, spinning Cooper's testimony as a direct result of Rove's cooperation.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said that Cooper's grand jury appearance was enabled by Rove's assurance that he was not asking for confidential-source status and did not object to the reporter's testimony. "By facilitating Cooper's testimony, Rove has helped ensure the special prosecutor has access to all relevant information from every source," Luskin said. "Cooper's truthful testimony today will not call into question the accuracy or completeness of anything Rove has previously said to the prosecutor or grand jury. . . . Rove has cooperated completely with the special prosecutor, and he has been repeatedly assured he is not a target of the investigation."

Not long thereafter, in articles quoting Luskin, VandeHei (with Mike Allen) begins to float the INR memo red herring (discussed below).

As the excitement around Rove simmers in July, VandeHei and Allen publish a story summarizing the leak story thus far. VandeHei appears to include Rove's side of the story, including the Rovian talking points about Wilson being a Democrat, as if that were the main substance of the leak.

The White House response was swift. There is a simple rule in politics: Kill a story before it kills you. The Bush team spread word to reporters that Wilson was a Democrat, a supporter of Bush's political opponents who was sent on an inconclusive mission that people in power knew nothing of.

Then, they went a step further.

Two days after Wilson went public, columnist Robert D. Novak told Rove that he was hearing that Wilson had been sent on the mission at the suggestion of his wife, who was working in the CIA, a lawyer familiar with the conversation said. "I heard that, too," Rove replied, according to the lawyer. Rove said Novak had told him Plame's name and that that was the first time he had heard it, the lawyer said.

In the same article he has Luskin backing off Rove's "I heard it from a journalist, and only a journalist" claim.

A lawyer familiar with Rove's testimony hedged a bit on who precisely told Rove about Plame, saying it may have come secondhand from another aide, as well as from Novak.

And VandeHei publishes Rove's excuse for why his demonstrable leaking after the Novak article didn't matter legally (and, Rove would have you believe, ethically).

On July 14, Novak's column ran, naming Plame for the first time and saying two senior administration officials had provided him the information. The White House anti-Wilson campaign continued, but legally it did not matter, because once Plame's name was in the public domain, Rove and others were free to gossip about her.

Shortly thereafter, as the apparent discrepancy between Cooper's story and Rove's becomes clear, VandeHei prints what is apparently Luskin's explanation for Cooper's absence in the White House phone log.

Two lawyers involved in the case say that although Fitzgerald used phone logs to determine some contacts between officials and reporters, they believe there is no phone record of Cooper's now-famous call to Rove in the days before Novak's column appeared. That is because Cooper called the White House switchboard and was reconnected to Rove's office, sources said.

And VandeHei helps Luskin build the case, pre-emptively, that Rove revealed his role in leaking to Cooper of his own volition.

Rove has at some point testified that he passed on information about Plame to Cooper, according to two lawyers involved in the case. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say when Rove gave this testimony.

But a source close to Rove said the senior adviser volunteered the information: "It appeared they were not aware of the conversation."

VandeHei was involved in the article usually blamed on Steno Sue (see below) that may have helped Libby coach Judy's testimony. Then, just before Rove testified for a fourth time, VandeHei channeled Luskin dismissing the worries.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said in an interview yesterday that Rove has not been notified that he is a target of the investigation, and does not fear testifying despite Fitzgerald's warning. Luskin declined to say whether he knows the topics Fitzgerald wants to question Rove about.

"Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed to me that he has made no charging decisions, that he believes Karl continues to cooperate fully with the investigation, but beyond that, I don't want to comment at all about any communications with Mr. Fitzgerald's office," Luskin said.

After Rove testified, VandeHei presented the spin that Rove might be indicted, but he still didn't commit a crime.

Rove's defense team asserts that President Bush's deputy chief of staff has not committed a crime but nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks, the source said.

Not long after Rove testifies the fourth time, VandeHei is second with the scoop that Rove "may" attribute Libby as one of his sources (following the AP's John Solomon--thanks, pollyusa, for the link).

In a talk that took place in the days before Plame's CIA employment was revealed in 2003, Rove and Libby discussed conversations they had had with reporters in which Plame and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV were raised, the source said. Rove told the grand jury the talk was confined to information the two men heard from reporters, the source said.

Though it appears this is a scoop VandeHei didn't get directly from Luskin.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to comment. The development was first reported last night by the Associated Press.

Nor did Luskin want to talk to VandeHei on Fitzmas Eve.

People close to Rove said he fears a perjury charge because he did not initially tell the grand jury that he had spoken with Time reporter Matthew Cooper about Plame before her name was publicly disclosed. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to comment yesterday.

A lawyer other than Luskin who is familiar with Rove's legal strategy said the aide testified that he believed he was trading on publicly available information in discussing Plame with reporters.

But VandeHei becomes a reliable Luskin source again during the Viveca Novak silliness. And when Rove testifies for a fifth time, Luskin (or Corallo) gives VandeHei yet another spin on why Rove--a liar of legendary scale--wouldn't lie.

In his fifth appearance before the grand jury, Rove spent considerable time arguing that it would have been foolish for him to knowingly mislead investigators about his role in the disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, the source said.

[snip]

Rove also testified that he was aware that several aides had been subpoenaed in the case before that first grand jury appearance and that they would be forced to turn over documents.

VandeHei's credulity about his sources' spin is why I distrust his most recent article in the case, claiming the investigation is over.

With Rove's situation resolved, the broader leak investigation is probably over, according to a source briefed on the status of the case. Fitzgerald does not appear to be pursuing criminal charges against former State Department official Richard L. Armitage, who is believed to have discussed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame with at least one reporter, according to the source.

[snip]

A source briefed on the case said that the activities of Vice President Cheney and his aides were a key focus of the investigation, and that Cheney was not considered a target or primary subject of the investigation and is not likely to become one. There are no other outstanding issues to be investigated, the source said, though new ones could emerge as Fitzgerald continues to prosecute I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, on charges of lying to investigators and a grand jury.

The attribution "briefed on the case" has long been used for lawyers representing one of the main figures in the case. And from everything Armitage has said about the case, it doesn't seem like Fitzgerald ever considered charging him. Which, IMO, suggests this source is working from second-hand impressions of Fitzgerald's intentions or simply trying to spin something he knows only one side of. So who is this source that is so quick to tamp down any thoughts of an ongoing investigation?

Now let me be clear. I find VandeHei's reporting very useful (though I think it is profoundly dangerous for democracy), precisely because he presents Luskin's spin in such an unmediated way. VandeHei actually provides one of the most reliable accounts of what Rove testified to when. And when VandeHei reports with Walter Pincus or Carol Leonnig or (before he left for Time) Mike Allen, the articles end up being very balanced. But VandeHei, by himself, generally reports his source's perspective on the case with no reflection on the agenda of his source. (Heck, no lesser judge than William Jeffress, Libby's Nixon lawyer, complains about VandeHei's inability to read public documents and understand their import.) At times, VandeHei parrots out and out Republican myths, as when he repeated the myth that Plame sent Wilson to Niger. And in two cases below, he seems to have (willingly or not) helped BushCo attempt to obstruct justice. But mostly, VandeHei and a number of reporters like him simply replicate the spin coming from BushCo lawyers. Which is one way that Karl's clear ethical culpability has been dismissed solely because he has escaped legal culpability.

Impugning Witnesses

There's another example of journalistic complicity, however, that is more troubling. Journalists appear to have helped Rove (and possibly Libby) undermine likely witnesses--even suggesting alternative guilty parties.

This starts with the introduction of the INR memo as a prop in the Republican campaign to discredit Joe Wilson in Fall 2003. Apparently, an account of the memo circulated among Republican operatives, offering them "proof" that Plame had sent Wilson to Niger. The WSJ published an odd article on the memo on October 17, 2003, though it appears David Cloud's sources were either relying on the SSCI report or making stuff up; his sources reflect no direct knowledge of the content of the memo. Apparently picking up from the WSJ report, but working with a more accurate understanding of the contents of the memo, JimmyJeff GannonGuckert started flogging the memo shortly thereafter, at one point claiming.

A memo written by an INR (Intelligence and Research) analyst who made notes of the meeting at which Wilson was asked to go to Niger sensed that something fishy was going on. That report made it to the outside world courtesy of some patriotic whistleblower that realized that a bag job was underway.

....

The classified document that slipped out sometime after the meeting put her name before the public, albeit a small group of inside-the-beltway types, but effectively ended the notion that she was still covert.

The CIA continued to complain about the inaccuracies and ongoing circulation of the memo. But then, about the same time as Fitzgerald was appointed Special Prosecutor, mentions of the memo disappear...

...until July, in the period when it appeared that Rove, at least, might face an indictment. On July 15, just a few days after Matt Cooper's testimony and one day after Democrats called for Rove to lose his security clearance, the NYDN publishes a Thomas DeFrank (who has his own weird relationship to BushCo) and Kenneth Bazinet story reintroducing the INR memo (from paid archives).

Along with Bush political guru Karl Rove, the grand jury is investigating what role, if any, ex-White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer may have played in the revelation that the former covert operative Plame was married to former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

"Ari's name keeps popping up," said one source familiar with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe.

Another source close to the probe added there is renewed interest in Fleischer, "based on Fitzgerald's questions."

A State Department memo that included background on Wilson - and who in the White House had access to it - appears to be a key to revealing who gave conservative columnist Robert Novak Plame's name, both sources said.

The same article implicates Scooter Libby (which suggests Rove, not Libby, was the primary creator of this campaign).

Another person of interest in the case is Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Lewis (Scooter) Libby, who was described as "totally obsessed with Wilson," the sources said.

At the same time, the article emphasizes Bush's ongoing support for his Turdblossom.

A grinning Bush, meanwhile, tried to show support for Rove by walking with him yesterday at the White House while TV cameras rolled.

On July 16, both the NYT and WaPo pick up the story about the INR memo. Now, the NYT account includes a lot of details that correlate with the actual INR memo, including the key detail that the memo doesn't mention Plame's maiden name.

The memorandum was dated June 10, 2003, nearly four weeks before Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times in which he recounted his mission and accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq. The memorandum was written for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and it referred explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Mr. Wilson's wife, according to a government official who reread the document on Friday.

When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell.

[snip]

The memorandum was prepared at the State Department, relying on notes by an analyst who was involved in meetings in early 2002 to discuss whether to send someone to Africa to investigate allegations that Iraq was pursuing uranium purchases.

[snip]

But it appears to differ [from Novak's leak] in at least one way, raising questions about whether it was the original source of the material that ultimately made its way to Mr. Novak. In his July 14, 2003, column, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson as Valerie Plame. The State Department memorandum referred to her as Valerie Wilson, according to the government official who reread it on Friday. [my emphasis]

But this NYT story also places Powell wandering around holding the memo.

Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation.

And Ari Fleischer as the focus of attention of the memo.

The special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has sought to determine how much Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman at the time of the leak, knew about the memorandum. Lawyers involved in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions about Mr. Fleischer's role. Mr. Fleischer was with Mr. Bush and much of the senior White House staff in Africa when Mr. Powell, who was also with them, received the memorandum.

VandeHei and Allen's discussion of the memo offers none of the detail offered by NYT, but it does offer the same incrimination of Powell and Ari, even while using it to exonerate Karl.

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who was on the Africa trip with Bush, carried with him a memo containing information on Plame, as well as other intelligence about allegations made by Wilson.

[snip]

Lawyers involved in the probe said prosecutors are interested in whether anyone called back to Washington to talk about information in the memo. Prosecutors have asked numerous questions about then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who was on the trip and aboard Air Force One, according to the lawyers. Fleischer has declined to comment.

Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said he can say "categorically" that Rove did not obtain any information about Plame from any confidential source, such as a classified document.

June 18, Bloomberg piles on with its own story implicating Ari.

On the same day the memo was prepared, White House phone logs show Novak placed a call to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, according to lawyers familiar with the case and a witness who has testified before the grand jury. Those people say it is not clear whether Fleischer returned the call, and Fleischer has refused to comment.

The Novak call may loom large in the investigation because Fleischer was among a group of administration officials who left Washington later that day on a presidential trip to Africa. On the flight to Africa, Fleischer was seen perusing the State Department memo on Wilson and his wife, according to a former administration official who was also on the trip.         

By July 17, people at State who had been involved with the memo started to push back against the insinuations that the memo could be the source of the leak.

One former State Department official, who because of the sensitive nature of the case asked not to be named, said that the information on Plame in the memo was sparse, but that her identity was known through other means in much of the intelligence community, suggesting that the memo might not have been the way her name spread among government officials — and the media. As the former State Department official recalled, the memo identified Plame only as "Wilson's wife" — it did not give her first or last name, and it did not mention her undercover status.

Followed by this July 20 article written by the AP's diplomatic writer.

The June 2003 memo had not gone higher than Grossman until Wilson's op-ed column for The New York Times headlined "What I Didn't Find In Africa" and his TV appearance to dispute the administration.

Just one article that I know of, during this entire leak-fest, gets a quote from an ally of Ari, a July 23 NYT article.

Fleischer told the grand jury that he never saw the memo, a person familiar with the testimony said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Fleischer's role has been scrutinized by investigators, in part because his telephone log showed a call on the day after Wilson's article appeared from Novak, the columnist who, on July 14, was the first to report Valerie Wilson's identity.

Now, I have no idea whether Ari ever did have the INR memo in his hands on Air Force One or whether he returned Novak's call or not, but it doesn't really matter. Because there is no logical reason why this story would be circulating at this time except Cooper's testimony and the threat of Judy's testimony. The sources attesting to Powell's or Ari's actions on Air Force One would have been able to leak that in October 2003, as soon as the investigation started, when INR memo stories were circulating among Republican operatives. But they didn't. Further, a Pincus and VandeHei article reveals prosecutors showed an interest in the memo early in the investigation, not in July 2005, when Cooper was testifying.

Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.

So the people leaking the story about Fitzgerald's interest in the INR memo could have leaked it in 2004. But they didn't. They leaked it when the only thing happening in the case was key testimony implicating Rove and Libby.

And as several articles pointed out even in the first days of the leak campaign, the memo was not sufficient to be the source of the leak to Novak, since it didn't use Plame's maiden name. (We wouldn't find out that the memo described Plame as a "WMD manager"--and not a covert operative--until much later.) And as we now know, the indictment alleges that Scooter Libby told Ari of Plame's status, giving him some indication that she was covert, before Ari even boarded the plane, so the memo was moot even if Ari did leak to Novak.

No. The INR memo campaign, with its insinuations about Powell and Ari, often accompanied by claims that Karl hadn't seen the memo and therefore couldn't have been the leaker, served to exonerate Karl while offering the names of two different Senior Administration Officials who could be the source of the leak to Novak. Effectively, from the time the public first discovered Rove was one of the leakers of Plame's identity, until after Karl escaped indictment (the first time) in October 2003, the INR memo was repeatedly floated as the most logical explanation for the leak. Good old faithful VandeHei, for example, kept flogging the Ari Fleischer angle even after collaborating on stories that showed that the memo wasn't sufficient for the leak. Not until October 20, in a story that cites Powell making it clear why the memo was not sufficient for the leak, does VandeHei give up on Luskin's spin.

And not only did that leak serve to cast suspicion on a likely witness for the trial over the course of three months. But it established a reason to legally pursue more information on Fleischer, one Libby's lawyers have recently made use of.

The press has reported that Mr. Fleischer reviewed the State Department report sent to Air Force One during the Africa trip, and has speculated that he divulged information to reporters concerning Ms. Wilson during the trip. (A Leak, Then A Deluge, Exhibit I; Prosecutor’s Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls (Update 2), BLOOMBERG, July 18, 2003, attached as Exhibit J.) On cross-examination at trial, the defense will be entitled to question Mr. Fleischer on issues such as: (1) when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson’s identity; (2) the nature of his conversations with reporters; and (3) any efforts he undertook to criticize Mr. Wilson. If the press reports are correct, and Mr. Fleischer disclosed information concerning Ms. Wilson to reporters, he himself may have been a subject of Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation. Mr. Fleischer may thus have a motive to shade his testimony. Such possible bias will be vigorously explored on cross-examination.

Pretty nice trick, huh? Planting the appearance of guilt against a likely key witness so you can use that appearance of guilt in your legal briefs trying to impeach a witness? All of it possible because some journalists can't even read their own stories closely enough to figure out the leaks they've received make no logical sense.

Source Protection Reversing the Flow of Information

MR. WOODWARD:  And you know what?  The special prosecutor, Fitzgerald, in a way, has discovered that there is an underground railroad of information in Washington.  You're smiling because no one knows more about it than you.

MR. BERNSTEIN:  Well, you were down there.

MR. WOODWARD:  Well, you talk to people, you talk to somebody in the White House or the CIA or the Democratic Party, and you say, "I've heard or I understand; what are you hearing?"  And one of the discoveries in all of this is that reporters, in asking questions, convey information to even somebody like Karl Rove.

--Meet the Press, July 17, 2005

Along with acting as stenographers, even helping lawyers frame probable witnesses, the journalists helped Rove and Libby by perverting the notion of source protection, protecting sources as sources of access, rather than as sources offering information they would share with their readers.

During and just after Indictment Week, two surprising new examples of journalistic involvement appeared: The revelation that Bob Woodward had been sitting on his own involvement in the case for two years (all the while criticizing Fitzgerald's investigation). And the revelation that Time reporter Viveca Novak disclosed to Rove's own lawyer that Rove was Cooper's source. Woodward's and Viveca Novak's closely guarded source relationships effectively clogged or reversed the flow of information, contributing information that got sucked back up to feed the bureaucratic in-fighting, but not ever to inform the public.

Early in indictment week, Bob Woodward apparently suddenly decided to report on the story. He seems to have discovered, either via a tip or asking (presumably) Armitage directly, that Armitage was Novak's source. At this point, he appears to have told Len Downie of his own involvement, for the first time.

By Fitzmas Eve, Rove favorite Michael Isikoff and others--clearly working on tips--were badgering Woodward to reveal Mr. X, the first Novak source.

[ISIKOFF] 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. So, I don't know, maybe this is Bob's opportunity.

KING:  Come clean.

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 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.

KING:  (INAUDIBLE).

WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do it 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 it."

There's even a Viveca Novak-Mike Allen article with this quote:

But Fitzgerald's intentions aren't the only mystery. 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."

After he sees the indictment's assertion that Judy's conversation with Libby on June 23 was the first known leak, Woodward approaches (presumably) Armitage, who admits he has to go forward to Fitzgerald. Shortly after the indictment, Fitzgerald arranges to get a deposition from Woodward, which takes place on November 14, and he apparently interviews Armitage again.

The leak to Isikoff, the coincidence of Woodward's new reporting efforts with Luskin's herculean efforts to avoid a Rove indictment, the curious detail that Viveca Novak got the scoop explaining Bob Woodward's involvement, these details point to Luskin's involvement. For example, Rove's team suggested, for a VandeHei-Leonnig story, that Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation targeted Armitage, not Rove.

Two sources close to Karl Rove, the top Bush aide still under investigation in the case, said they have reason to believe Fitzgerald does not anticipate presenting additional evidence against the White House deputy chief of staff. Instead, lawyers involved in the case expect the prosecutor to focus on Woodward's admission that an official other than Libby told him about Plame one month before her identity was publicly disclosed in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.

Now I'm not sure, really, whether Woodward will end up helping or hurting Libby and Rove. Armitage's delay in admitting the conversation with Woodward may have damaged his own credibility, which, if he was a key witness to Rove's obstruction, would damage that case. And Woodward may make it easier for Libby to claim "all the journalists" knew about Plame's identity, though Woodward believes he didn't mention Plame to Libby in their June meetings. But the revelation of the earlier leak also gave Fitzgerald a way to get Woodward to testify willingly, presumably revealing more information on Libby's leaking of the NIE to Woodward, which may eventually contribute to the demise of Libby's lies about what he was ordered to leak to Judy on July 8. So it's not clear how Woodward's involvement in this case benefitted or hurt Libby and Rove.

But it seems clear that Viveca Novak's involvement has helped Karl Rove's case. According to Viveca Novak's own story, she spoke to Luskin five times between Fall 2003 and Fall 2004. Now, as Viveca describes them, her meetings with Luskin don't sound like meetings with a source.

Did I take notes at those meetings? No. Luskin was more likely to speak freely if he didn't see me committing his words to paper.

In fact, Luskin was the one who first broached the subject of the Plame case and revealed he was Rove's lawyer.

In October 2003, as we each made our way through a glass of wine, he asked me what I was working on. I told him I was trying to get a handle on the Valerie Plame leak investigation. "Well," he said, "you're sitting next to Karl Rove's lawyer."

Viveca reveals when four of the five meetings took place in her article. If we compare when those meetings took place and what Viveca wrote on the Plame case, it appears that Viveca didn't gather enough information in at least two of those meetings to contribute to an article.

October 2003, when Viveca contributed to three articles:

• Why Leakers Rarely Do Time
• Leaking with a Vengeance, with this bit:

And on the other, there was President Bush at the University of Chicago, asking reporters who covered him to turn in anyone on his staff who had given up Plame. There was no danger of that, because any reporter who might have learned Plame's name in a leak is duty bound to shut up about it, even to federal investigators, if the situation comes to that. Such obligations did not stop hundreds of reporters and politicians who thought they knew the identity of the leakers from buzzing about it, exchanging winks and nods about the supposed culprits. The ultimate irony is that the Administration may now be depending on journalists' rectitude.

• NOC NOC, Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent, with this bit:

Government sources tell TIME that the FBI has interviewed more than two dozen officials in several Washington offices, including White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bush political adviser Karl Rove as well as other West Wing aides. The FBI has obtained desk diaries and phone records and is examining the network server that handles White House e-mail. So far, the initial face-to-face interviews, which are typically not done under oath, have been somewhat informal. In a sign of high-level interest in the leak case, several of the interviews were conducted by veteran G-man John Eckenrode, the lead FBI official on the investigation.

January 2004, when Viveca contributed to A Shifting Probe, with this bit:

If there are culprits in the White House who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, they may now be dependent on reporters to protect their identities.

[snip]

Divulging an agent's ID knowingly is a federal crime, which is why the FBI is probing the affair. Its agents have interviewed and scoured the e-mails, calendars and phone logs of several dozen White House staff members, including Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Now the agency is asking Administration officials to sign a declaration absolving reporters of the obligation to keep conversations on the matter confidential. Lawyers say this is a likely precursor to calling journalists such as conservative columnist Robert Novak — the first to reveal Plame's identity — before a grand jury.

Justice Department rules require that reporters be subpoenaed only as a last resort. The staffers' permissions will lay the legal groundwork for that step. Novak's lawyer, James Hamilton, had no comment.

It's still likely that no charges will be filed when the investigation winds down. Whatever the outcome, it will test the adage that, in politics, the cover-up is more damaging than the crime. [my emphasis]

March 1, 2004. Viveca did not, apparently, write an article associated with that meeting.

May 2004. Viveca did not, apparently, write an article associated with that meeting.

A friendship going back ten years, yet Viveca doesn't even get a summary of Karl's first grand jury appearances? What did Viveca do wrong and VandeHei do right?

But now look back at those dates and consider what happened during the case: Just after the case begins, Luskin asks Viveca what she's working on, before he announces he's Rove's lawyer. They may have discussed how journalists are bound to protect their sources (or one of Viveca's colleagues could be responsible for that bit). Then, just after the FBI gets waivers from White House staff, Luskin and Viveca appear to meet; they may have discussed the circumstances that would force journalists to testify. Again, Luskin may have stressed the unlikeliness of indictments, because reporters can only be subpoenaed as a last resort. In March, after Karl has testified that he didn't talk to Cooper, but before Libby testifies, they meet again. Luskin apparently offers no details of Rove's testimony. And then, around the time that Cooper receives his subpoena, they meet again. And once again, Viveca gets nothing for a story.

Meanwhile, look what Luskin got from Viveca at one of those meetings.

Here's what happened. Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around TIME." He looked surprised and very serious. "There's nothing in the phone logs," he said. In the course of the investigation, the logs of all Rove's calls around the July 2003 time period - when two stories, including Matt's, were published mentioning that Plame was Wilson's wife - had been combed, and Luskin was telling me there were no references to Matt. (Cooper called via the White House switchboard, which may be why there is no record.)

I was taken aback that he seemed so surprised. I had been pushing back against what I thought was his attempt to lead me astray. I hadn't believed that I was disclosing anything he didn't already know. Maybe this was a feint. Maybe his client was lying to him. But at any rate, I immediately felt uncomfortable. I hadn't intended to tip Luskin off to anything. I was supposed to be the information gatherer. It's true that reporters and sources often trade information, but that's not what this was about. If I could have a do-over, I would have kept my mouth shut; since I didn't, I wish I had told my bureau chief about the exchange. Luskin walked me to my car and said something like, "Thank you. This is important."

While Viveca got almost no information she shared with Time's readers from Luskin during this period, he got the critical information that Cooper considered Rove his source. Call me crazy, but I wonder whether Luskin got any more details about how Time would respond to subpoenas? Because it sure looks to me like Luskin was interviewing Viveca, and not vice versa.

Luskin reveals the conversation to Fitzgerald during Indictment Week, in his last-ditch attempts to stave off an indictment. As a result, Viveca meets with Fitzgerald for two hours on November 10 (nine days before Rove's leakers claim that the ongoing investigation has nothing to do with Rove). A day before Rove's leakers claim the investigation is about Armitage, Fitzgerald tells Viveca he will want her to testify. And on December 8, she testifies, after Luskin has already given a deposition. And her testimony, by all accounts, is one of the reasons why Rove escaped charges.

This shows how the notion of source protection really went haywire in this case. It revealed the logic that says you protect your sources--even if you never publish the information they provide you, even if in fact you're the source, but your information isn't benefitting the public.

"I apologized because I should have told him about this much sooner," Woodward, who testified in the CIA leak investigation Monday, said in an interview. "I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's job number one in a case like this. . . .

"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

In the same breath that Woodward talks here about protecting a source (protecting him precisely by not publishing the news he revealed), he also talks about wanting to avoid subpoena. Viveca did much the same, hiding her involvement from even her editors, in the hope she wouldn't get in trouble for participating in this economy of leaking. And rather than holding the powerful accountable--what protecting sources is supposed to achieve--Viveca, at least, seems to have helped Karl Rove evade accountability.

Coaching Witnesses

So journalists wittingly or unwittingly served as Rove and Libby's accomplices by presenting their case uncritically, helping them to frame witnesses, and providing information helpful to their cause. The journalists were less helpful in assisting Rove and Libby to coach journalist-witnesses. Don't get me wrong, the journalists do appear to have facilitated coaching attempts. But apparently when it's their own hide on the line, journalist-witnesses care more about the truth than when they're reporting for readers.

The first apparent example to coach a witness came in a Byron York column just before Cooper testified, when Luskin claimed that Cooper burned Karl, suggesting Cooper mischaracterized the content of their conversation.

In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

If Cooper were the type to troll at NRO, he'd have learned that Rove disputed his version of the story. As he would have learned reading more mainstream stories, in which Luskin provided specific details suggesting that Cooper had called Rove to discuss a story on welfare reform, not Joe Wilson, as Cooper's email had suggested. As Cooper describes,

A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the  article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking  if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.

It appears that, if Luskin attempted to telegraph to Cooper that Rove had testified to talking about welfare reform, it didn't work. Cooper appears to have given real consideration to the possibility that he asked about welfare reform, but did not testify to that effect.

It's less clear whether Libby's coaching of Judy had an effect. First of all, we have no idea what he said during their 10-minute phone conversation, when she was in jail. If it resembles his famous "Aspen letter" at all, it probably included some barely-hidden appeals to solidarity. Keep in mind that, at the time Libby wrote his love letter to Judy, Fitzgerald had been pressuring Libby's lawyer, Tate, to get Libby to give a specific waiver. If I read it right, Fitzgerald was suggesting strongly that Libby's unwillingness to give the same kind of specific waiver as he had for Cooper was beginning to look like obstruction. Which explains why Libby spends most of his letter to Judy rehashing the negotiations between their lawyers, trying to spin them into a portrait of perfect cooperation on his part. Then Libby gets into the part that is likely coaching. Libby provides Judy the out of claiming they didn't speak at all, by referring only to conversations, "if any," that related to Plame (though surely Judy's notes would have foreclosed this option). Then, Libby reminds Judy of his central strategy--to say that either journalists knew of Plame when they first came to him, or he didn't tell them. Libby is basically telegraphing his "reporters leaking" lie to Judy.

Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call. I waived the privilege voluntarily to cooperate with the Grand Jury, but also because the reporters' testimony served my best interests. I believed a year ago, as now, that testimony by all will be helpful.

I admire your principled fight with the Government. But for my part, this is the rare case where this "source" would be better off if you testified.

[snip]

If you can find a way to testify about discussions we had, if any, that relate to the Wilson-Plame matter, I remain today just as interested as I was a year ago.

And then we get Libby's piece de resistance, which looks more and more like a plea for her to continue to parrot the party line, to protect the little cluster of leakers.

You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover--Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work--and life.

There have been a number of plausible explanations for the Aspen reference--that it's a reference to one of several conferences in Aspen, CO, where the Neocons have met, that it's a reference to Dick Cheney, who owns a house in a subdivision named Apsen in Jackson Hole, WY. All of these suggestions, however, argue this comment is an appeal to solidarity, which seems hard to dispute. In an equally cryptic description in her own tell-all, Judy points to some of the same elements: Aspen, Jackson Hole, and the Neocons.

In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

Funny, though, that Judy basically validates the theory that she was meant to read hidden meaning in Libby's mention of aspens.

Libby's next attempt at coaching Judy came against this background of reminded solidarity. The day before she testified the first time, a Libby associate attempted to leak details of his testimony to at least three media outlets.

Finally, on September 29, the night before Miller was scheduled to testify before the grand jury, a source sympathetic to Libby spoke to journalists for at least three news organizations to leak word as to what Libby himself had said during his own testimony.

Journalists at two news organizations declined to publish stories. Among their concerns was that they had only a single source for the story and that that source had such a strong bias on behalf of Libby that the account of his grand jury testimony might possibly be incomplete or misleading in some way.

Two outlets refused to publish the leak, but the WaPo's Steno Sue and Jim VandeHei published it. The article, which elsewhere quotes from Joseph Tate, provides the same account that Tate is alleged to have given the NYT the previous Fall.

According to a source familiar with Libby's account of his conversations with Miller in July 2003, the subject of Wilson's wife came up on two occasions. In the first, on July 8, Miller met with Libby to interview him about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the source said.

At that time, she asked him why Wilson had been chosen to investigate questions Cheney had posed about whether Iraq tried to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger. Libby, the source familiar with his account said, told her that the White House was working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected.

Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.

Libby had a second conversation with Miller on July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he said he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame's name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

Judy's own NYT printed a slightly less detailed version of the same story.

According to someone who has been briefed on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes that his statements show he did nothing wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during their conversations in July 2003 whether he knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to discuss the conversations.

Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Libby did not know her name or her position at the agency and therefore did not discuss these matters with Ms. Miller, the person who had been briefed on the matter said. Ms. Miller said she believed that the agreement between her lawyers and Mr. Fitzgerald ''satisfies my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources.''

So on the morning Judy testifies, the two most important newspapers in the country print an account of Libby's testimony on A1. This account exactly repeats Libby's lie, as described in the indictment. Judy raised the issue of Wilson on July 8. By that point, Libby was working with the CIA to find out more about the trip, and had heard Wilson's wife was involved in sending him. But it wasn't until their later meeting, on July 12, when Libby revealed Plame worked for the CIA.

One of the problems gaging whether Judy listened to Libby's coaching is that we don't know what she said in her first grand jury appearance and what she said in her second. VandeHei (writing with Leonnig) offers some help with this quote from just after she testified the first time, which would have reassured Libby that Judy didn't testify that he had violated the IIPA.

Sources familiar with Miller's testimony say her account of two discussions with Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, that July are similar to the account Libby reportedly gave the grand jury last year. Both said they spoke about Plame's husband, administration critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, on July 8 and again on July 12 or 13. On at least one of those occasions, Libby told Miller that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the sources said.

[snip]

A sourceclose to Miller said yesterday that her testimony does not implicate Libby as intentionally and knowingly identifying Plame. [my emphasis]

Look at what this "source close to Miller' is saying. He's not just describing Judy's testimony. He's describing it in terms of what Libby is reported to have testified. It's as if he's reporting back that Judy has done what Libby asked.

But it's clear that, once Judy admitted an earlier meeting--which itself proves that Libby's claims about the July 8 meeting were false, Judy was also forced to admit that several of Libby's other points were false. After all, this comment about the July 8 meeting parrots Libby's coaching perfectly--it takes responsibility for raising the subject of Wilson.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I almost certainly began this interview by asking about Mr. Wilson's essay, which appeared to have agitated Mr. Libby.

But then Judy was forced to come back and testify to the following regarding their June 23 meeting.

"Was the intell  slanted?" I wrote, referring to the intelligence assessments of Iraq and underlining the word "slanted."

I recall that Mr. Libby was displeased with what he described as "selective leaking" by the C.I.A. He told me that the agency was engaged in a "hedging strategy" to protect itself in case no weapons were found in Iraq. "If we find it, fine, if not, we hedged," is how he described the strategy, my notes show.

I recall that Mr. Libby was angry about reports suggesting that senior administration officials, including Mr. Cheney, had embraced skimpy intelligence about Iraq's alleged efforts to buy uranium in Africa while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Such reports, he said, according to my notes, were "highly distorted."

Mr. Libby said the vice president's office had indeed pressed the Pentagon and the State Department for more information about reports that Iraq had renewed efforts to buy uranium. And Mr. Cheney, he said, had asked about the potential ramifications of such a purchase. But he added that the C.I.A. "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" by sending a "clandestine guy" to Niger to investigate. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I thought "clandestine guy" was a reference to Mr. Wilson - Mr. Libby's first reference to him in my notes.

In May and in early June, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist at The Times, wrote of Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger without naming him. Mr. Kristof wrote that Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger "at the behest" of Mr. Cheney's office.

My notes indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson," I wrote, referring to the vice president. "Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us."

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A.

Judy effectively describes a scenario in which the first time they discussed Wilson, Libby raised the issue, not she. I don't know about the other incriminating tidbits--the Hill staffer attribution, the Valerie Flame notation, the three separate references to Plame working at CIA--whether Judy admitted these in the first grand jury appearance, or only after the June notes undermined Libby's basic story. Presumably, her own notes would force her to deviate from the Libby lie slightly. But the quote in the VandeHei-Leonnig article suggests Judy's ally wanted to reassure Libby's team that Judy had followed the script.

Libby's attempted coaching might have worked. But reality intruded, to spoil his story.

Now let me be clear. I don't think there's any evidence of criminal conspiracy on the part of these journalists, at least not the ones reporting the story. But both Libby and Rove (and their lawyers allies) know the habits bred by access journalism. Over and over, BushCo could rely on the credulity of reporters and their desperation to protect their sources, even when they weren't actually sources for information, as they attempted to beat the rap publicly and legally. And in the case of Karl Rove, that attempt appears to have succeeded.

Comments

[emptywheel]

There are a few details I noticed while I was writing this.

First, one of the things Fitz got out of Rove when he testified in October 2005 (when I suspect he may have started Big-C cooperating) is that Libby may have been his source. Now, Fitz didn't request that testimony until after Judy's first testimony (at least not that we know of). I don't know whether Fitz already knew of the July 11 meeting, at which they discussed (supposedly) Russert and Novak. But Fitz would have been able to ask whether Libby mentioned his conversation with Judy (and by the time ROve testified, Judy had testified a second time). That is, Fitz would have been able to sniff out whether accounts of that meeting were sheer cover-up or not.

It's also really clear that the Armitage spin came out of Rove's camp--they were pushing it hard the week of the indictment. Which means a lot of the spin about Armitage might just be Luskin's spin on it. Interestingly, I have a gut feel that they knew about the Woodward leak. But they couldn't mention it to Fitz without revealing they knew more about the leak than they could admit. Was Rove the one who tipped Woodward that Armitage was Novak's first source?

[margaret]

I find VandeHei's reporting very useful (though I think it is profoundly dangerous for democracy,) precisely because he presents Luskin's spin in such an unmediated way. Exactly.

The endless machinations, spin, deceit, manipulation of people, the facts, as well as trashing the valuable work of Valerie Plame Wilson is something else which is "profoundly dangerous for democracy."

The question is, will we ever find any justice in this case of treason and conspiracy, with all the lies attached? And, will we get the reporting we deserve from some fresh person who can sort it all out as you have, asking the right, penetrating questions? Maybe, the Washington Post should hire you to do the reporting from the White House from now on.

[Del]

Fitzgerald is not a counter intelligence prosecutor. He is criminal conspiracy prosecutor, traditionally how bad CIA agents are handled. Notice the CIA backs off after he is appionted.

'I don't think there's any evidence of criminal conspiracy on the part of these journalists' and Valerie Plame." See what happened in Iraq the day she admitted being a CIA Operations Officer, paramilitarily trained. See what happened to Spain, Wilson's father's diplomatic assignment. This may be where a prosecutor sees a criminal conspiracy. Plame's work was important, but the minute she admitted who she was, she was, in effect, making requests of persons she knew of and putting in profound danger the other operations officers in the community who she worked with in Iraq.

[JohnLopresti]

Some of the principals in this case have appeared in the news with statement revisions and new court motions seemingly in InstaResponse to things you have written at various times in the past year. I wonder if ew has looked at that dynamic as a reflexive sense of how the newswriting alters the stream of the story.

[p.lukasiak]

I continue to find the most intriguing aspect of this story to be Woodward -- who claims he finally disclosed his involvement to Downie on 10/24 because he had a big story -- then denies he has any kind of story on TV on 10/27.

So what happened to the big story?

Then there is Woodwards bogus disclosure to Downie that Pincus knew from Woodward about "Wilson's wife". A shitstorm erupts when Woodward makes this public.... with Pincus publicly denying it, and Woodward subsequently backing off that claim. Why would Downie not have checked with Pincus, and allowed Woodward to publish his false accusation without resolving the discrepancies between the stories his two reporters were telling?

Finally, why would Woodward subsequently go to his source based on a detail (Libby was the "first known" discloser of Plame's identity) that was irrelevant to the case against Libby, and once again try and get him to tell the story to the prosecutor? And why would Woodward's source -- who had previously rejected such suggestions in the past, suddenly change his mind?

As I've posited before, the only explanation that I can come up with is that the Post went to Fitzgerald immediately upon being told of Woodward's story about Pincus because of the Post's legal exposure in arranging for Pincus' testimony.

Fitzgerald would tell the Post not to put Pincus in the loop -- he didn't have time to investigate Woodward's claim with only days before the grand jury expired, and he didn't want Pincus and Woodward co-ordinating their stories. Woodward does, however, tell his source that the cat is out of the bag, and that he'd better high-tail it to Fitzgerald's office....

[emptywheel]

I was thinking a lot about that when writing this, p luk (I haven't been as fascinated by this as others, so it was the first tiem I tried to think it through all the way).

Finally, why would Woodward subsequently go to his source based on a detail (Libby was the "first known" discloser of Plame's identity) that was irrelevant to the case against Libby, and once again try and get him to tell the story to the prosecutor? And why would Woodward's source -- who had previously rejected such suggestions in the past, suddenly change his mind?

I think there are some other possibilities. First, I think it quite likely that Rove, knowing about the earlier Woodward leak but not able to introduce it directly without revealing some cooperation he can't reveal, leaked the Novak detail to Woodward. He basically set up Woodward learning that HIS source was also Novak's source. Which meant that there was a good chance Rove was going to come after him. I still think it possible, since the question was being posed differently, it wasn't just about a story this time, that Armitage just forgot or didn't add the detail of timing or whatever. But even assuming the worst about Armitage, that he deliberately hid that bit, if he knew Rove as shopping the leak, then he'd have to come forward, particularly since he was looking at testifying against ROve.

But one thing is clear. Rove KNEW that Armitage could testify against him. What better way to undercut his credibility than to make sure this got out in sordid fashion. And if Rove was behind it, then it worked, he made Woodward, and Armitage, look like scheming wusses.

[p.lukasiak]

Marci...

how would Rove know about a (theoretical) leak from Armitage to Woodward? (If Armitage wasn't willing to fess up to Fitzgerald, I don't see him telling a lot of other people about it.)

My personal opinion is that Woodward's "big story" was Viveca Novak. When the Vivak/Luskin story was eventually leaked elsewhere, it was presented in a way meant to shield Rove from the accusation that he deliberately withheld info about his conversation with Cooper. (Thanx to your brilliance and perseverence, its obvious that it does not shield Rove).

[emptywheel]

Huh, I hadn't considered that he had the Vivnovka story. I'll have to think about it.

I'm not sure exactly how Rove would have the Armitage to Woodward leak (though Armitage is a big blabbermouth). I rather suspect that 1) Woodward may have said something to Libby, or 2) It may have come out at the Principals meeting in Fall 2003, that Libby keeps trying to introduce, and therefore got shopped to Libby and Rove for their defense. I wouldn't be surprised if Powell was forthcoming at that meeting about Armitage's involvement.

Though it's possible that Rove just wanted to get the Armitage to Novak leak out--which Jeffress claims Novak told Libby either directly or through Rove. That is, we know Rove knew about the Armitage to Novak leak (if that's who it is), and I can see him using it during indictment week to confuse the issue. Just one question, though. Why pick Woodward to receive the leak?

[p.lukasiak]

Just one question, though. Why pick Woodward to receive the leak?

because it guarantees front page, above the fold, coverage in the Washington Post -- and there are lots of people in America who don't realize the extent to which Woodward has sold out, and would consider his reporting authoritative...silly! ;)

[emptywheel]

If you can get him to publish it. But that's no sure thing, as events would bear out.

[p.lukasiak]

If you can get him to publish it. But that's no sure thing, as events would bear out.

Under ordinary circumstances, the only impediment to Woodward publishing a story is whether he wants to save it for his book or not. In this case, his disclosure to Downie occurred because he wanted to publish a story in the Post about what he had found out....

Woodward decided to bigfoot the story a couple of weeks before the grand jury expired -- he wasn't assigned to the story by Downie, he assigned himself with Downie's acquiescence. (BTW, this is another reason why I suspect that the rumors of a 22 count indictment were true at the time -- why would Woodward suddenly become interested in covering a "non-story?" Woodward had more than sufficient White House access to know that something big was coming down the pike.)

According to Woodward, the Monday before the grand jury expires, Woodward goes to Downie and says he has a scoop he wants to publish....and discloses that he was a leak recipient to Downie and claims that he told Pincus about Wilson's wife. Three days later, he is publicly denying that he has a scoop.

Something happened that prevented Woodward from publishing the story -- and given Woodward's standing at the Post, that something had to be pretty damned extraordinary.

To me, the best explanation is that Woodward's "disclosure" about Pincus forced the Post to notify Fitzgerald...

and instead of a 22 count indictment that involved a number of administration officials in which Pincus' testimony played a key role, we got a five count indictment against Libby that treats Pincus' testimony as if it didn't exist.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! ;)

[emptywheel]

Well, who do you think Pincus' testimony affects?

There are the two people known to have testified after Kessler (Powell and Bush). I doubt both of them, the latter because they don't let Bush talk to journalists, much less intelligent ones, and he didn't know the "intell" even to fake it properly.

So that means Pincus' testimony involved lying from another official, one who had testified before Kessler but didn't reveal it. I do think Dick is still possible. Swopa insists it's Ari (though I don't buy that, mostly because Pincus doesn't need a PR flack for a source and plus Ari was in Africa). Or it could be Hadley. Plus, in this scenario (in any scenario), you'd add a perjury/false statements charge to Libby for claiming he had told Kessler (bringing his total up to 7).

I can understand why you'd drop the PIncus-related charge if he could be easily impeached. But you still need to understand why Fitz dropped the Kessler-related fs/perjury charge. I mean, Fitz included the ones related to Cooper, even though they're the weakest part of the Libby case, when the lie served to protect Rove, even though he didn't pursue the Rove charges. Why not keep the Kessler charges?

I don't really know, but I suspect something else happened. Maybe he got some kind of cooperation from the Pincus source, someone like Hadley?

[p.lukasiak]

I can understand why you'd drop the PIncus-related charge if he could be easily impeached. But you still need to understand why Fitz dropped the Kessler-related fs/perjury charge. I mean, Fitz included the ones related to Cooper, even though they're the weakest part of the Libby case, when the lie served to protect Rove, even though he didn't pursue the Rove charges. Why not keep the Kessler charges?

re: Kessler... charges related to Kessler would be a matter of "he said/she said", and insofar as no conspiracy charges were filed (and assuming your theory that the Kessler lie was part conspiracy) it detracted from the larger case which centers around Libby's obstruction of the investigation as an individual. A charge related to the Kessler testimony, in other words, only makes sense within the context of a "22 count indictment" that included conspiracy charges.

(its also possible that Kessler based charges were not included because, in an abundance of caution, Fitz decided not to use anything from Post reporters as the basis of a charge until he got the "Woodward disclosure" sorted out.)

There is a key difference between Kessler and Coopers testimony -- Cooper's testimony is (I assume) backed up by notes. IIRC, Kessler wouldn't have notes because he claims the conversation never occurred. Coopers testimony is thus the basis of a charge because his testimony is backed by contemporaneous notes.

I'm sure that "lots of other stuff happened" that influenced the nature of the indictment that was handed down on October 28. I'm not nearly as informed about the case as you are, so my speculation on other possibilities is pretty worthless. All I know is that Woodward's story doesn't add up, and the additional circumstances related to Woodward's story all point to a conclusion that the Post notified Fitz about what Woodward had told them, and it threw a wrench into Fitz's overall plans for more extensive indictments.

[emptywheel]

IIRC, Kessler wouldn't have notes because he claims the conversation never occurred.

That's not entirely true. Kessler and Libby did have a conversation. It's just that Plame didn't come up, at all. Though that does get you in the position of proving a negative.

Though there's little more evidence in Russert's case. The only corroboration for Russert's side of the story is his phone call to NBC president afterwards.