Useful Details about Armitage Might Be In There

by emptywheel

As predicted, Tom Maguire links to the two affidavits I made available yesterday without pointing out what those affidavits say: that in Fall 2004, Fitzgerald was still actively investigating Armitage and Novak and Rove and Libby on the Novak leak--because their stories all contradicted what the others were saying. Let me help you out, Tom, by quoting the entire passage on Armitage and the Novak column:

A brief discussion is in order to place the Libby conversation with Miller--and the evidence of a broader effort to disseminate information discrediting Wilson--in context with the Novak column and to address the assertion by Miller that Miller's interview may not be necessary "if the government has already interviewed or otherwise queried Mr. Novak."

Let me interject two points. First, Miller's complaint might as well stand in for the Libby Lobby, since the complaint is the same, that Fitzgerald shouldn't have to proceed beyond Novak. And second: note that Fitzgerald references "evidence of a broader effort" to smear Wilson. That means Fitzgerald saw the Novak leak--with or without Richard Armitage's role--to be part of a larger effort. Now back to Fitzgerald:

The investigation to date has conclusively established that columnist Robert Novak spoke to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on July 8, 2003, in the afternoon. In the course of that conversation, Armitage revealed to Novak that the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA. The investigation is still trying to determine precisely what was said during the conversation and Armitage's intent in informing Novak of Wilson's wife's employment.

See that, "investigation is still trying to determine"? That means Armitage may still have been on the hook for espionage or IIPA or what have you. In August 2004, when the Libby Lobby swears (!) that Fitzgerald should have been done investigating.

Armitage has been interviewed and has testified to the grand jury as to his account of the conversation. Novak has been interviewed several times and, when presented with a waiver form executed by Armitage (a form identical to the one signed by Libby), testified before the grand jury as to his conversation with Armitage. Novak and Armitage agree on several important facts, such as the time, date and place of the meeting during which the conversation took place, and the fact that Wilson’s wife and employment by the CIA was disclosed to Novak by Armitage in response to a question by novak as to why the CIA had sent Wilson on the trip. Their testimony diverges as to whether Armitage provided the first name of Ms. Plame, though both agree the last name, “Plame” was not provided. Novak recalls being told by Armitage that Wilson’s wife worked in the area of weapons of mass destruction --[redacted] Armitage does not recall discussing the area in which Wilson’s wife worked. Novak and Armitage give differing accounts of other materials not germane to the instant motion. The investigation of Armitage’s conduct is ongoing.

See that? Testimony diverging on points having to do with whether Armitage shared the name Valerie with Novak and that she worked in WMD? And the "differing accounts of other materials"? Sure sounds like the changing Novak story and the Armitage story didn't exactly corroborate each other.

All that, spelled out plainly, and yet Maguire says only, "Useful details about Armitage might be there."

I guess it's too much to hope that he'll read further and see that Rove's and Libby's testimony similarly contained some, um, inconsistencies with Novak's story, huh?

Comments

[semiot]

EW: I wonder if you are of the opinion, which seems to be rather widespread, that Richard Armitage was just being a "blabbermouth" about Valerie in his interview with Novak, because he was just an inveterate "gossip" more or less all the time? If so, how would one square Armitage's refusal (for years?) of an interview with Novak, and then here's one right here in the middle of leak week? Fitz may not have had solid evidence to prove that Armitage violated IIPA, but does that mean that his role in L'Affaire Plame was therefore "innocent"?

[emptywheel]

semiot

I think the Off the Record Club (Hohlt and Duberstein, among others) brokered the leak. And I think there's a superb chance that both Woodward and Novak were seeded with questions to ask Armitage--because both ask really stupid questions to elicit the information.

Its increasingly clear that Cheney and Libby tried to launder certain info out of the CIA. Why wouldn't they do the same through Armitage?

[semiot]

Fair enough about the laundry. But why would Armitage up and make the delivery in so timely a fashion? Should I take your comment as implying that Armitage - the Deputy Secretary of State, and a PNAC signatory - didn't know what he was doing in revealing information about a CIA agent to Novak? Dick Armitage may look like a bulldozer, but is he a mere tool here, or a willing instrument in Valerie's excavation?

[P J Evans]

EW

I'd say it's all but certain that Novak and Woodward were seeded with questions. They both would be so full of their own status in the DC /w/e/e/n/i/e/ /b/r/i/g/a/d/e/ press corps that they'd think it was a compliment to them. ('Look at me, I'm IMPORTANT!')

I think the information was suggested to Armitage, knowing that he would talk, but not in a way that he'd recognize it was still classified. For him, maybe it was done more as inside-Langley gossip.

[semiot]

Or maybe I should ask, do you have evidence, beyond Armitage's non-indictment, that he was an unwitting tool, rather than an intentional leaker and perhaps a more clever coverer of backside than Libby?

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. Most of what I know about these matters I have learned at your feet. I'm just curious about what leads you to exonerate Armitage - if in fact you are doing that.

[JEP]

This doesn't seem like exonoration for Armitage to me, it seems more like Armitage is getting more balme than he is worthy of, buthis part was much less consequential than Libby's or Rove's, and it is quite possible he was played due to his reputation for gossip.

The fact that he comes from the Powell camp, not the Cheney camp, also suggests that, at least to the conspirators, Armitage was more of a wannabe outsider that they used as a diversion, a veritable living, breathing "shiny object," to try to distract the investigation away from Cheney and by extension, Libby and Rove.

Not that Armitage isn't guilty in his own right, it is just that by accepting that Armitage bears the PRIMARY guilt in this matter is exactly what they planned for to put the hounds off Cheney's scent.

So I don't take this as giving Armitage any breaks, it just recognizes that there are much "more guilty" parties, that Armitage's trivial role may have been contrived or exaggerated just to protect.

[Boo Radley]

"didn't (he)know what he was doing in revealing information about a CIA agent to Novak?"

FWIW, JMO, Armitage knew how embarrassing it would be for his boss, Powell, and the nation, if we did not find WMD. I see his blabbering to Novack and Woodward as consistent with doing everything he could to support the resources and momentum needed to find WMD.

[semiot]

With all due respect, JEP - and I mean that sincerely - I think your explanation for Armitage's role in this reduces him to the level of a fool. And I have a hard time believing that about Dick Armitage. Accomplished actor - yes, indeed. His performance at the 9/11 Commission hearings was a masterpiece of disgusted hauteur. Sure, I reckon Dick can play the part of the fool. I've got a boss who's good at that too. And where did this reputation Armitage all of a sudden has as a "gossip" come from, exactly? It's a too-clever-by-half excuse in my book for participation in a conspiracy to burn a CIA asset who was making too many waves for the SS PNAC.

[lemondloulou]

FWIW, a week or so ago I saw Pearlstine of Time on a Book TV segment on CNN doing his self-apologia. Woodie was in the audience. Irony of ironies, the whole thing took place at the Aspen Institute. Anyway, Woodie said there that when Armitage told him about Wilson's wife, "he didn't feel that he was being leaked to."

[njr]

JEP,
"The fact that he comes from the Powell camp, not the Cheney camp, also suggests that..."

Cheney had his neocon spies in every branch and nook and cranny of the government...
Armitage had earlier retained Libby, aka Cheney's Cheney as his attorney

Armitage had many masters... likely difficult for him to tell where self importance and loyalty began and ended...
He may have indulged in a wienie or two himself.
I'd see him as a Cheney tool before I'd think he had loyalty to any Powell Camp.

[JEP]

"I think your explanation for Armitage's role in this reduces him to the level of a fool. And I have a hard time believing that about Dick Armitage."

Semiot;
I might agree, except that it was Cheney and Rove on the other end of the game. Armitage may be a bright bulb compared to some around him, but when you have the weight of some of the most pernicious influences in modern history conspiring to make you a fool, don't you suppose it might happen.

A lot of people used to hold Clinton in that same "he's too smart to be made a fool of" esteem, and we all know where that went.

Armitage may know more than I am suggesting, but he's not above being played.

I think there was song once that goes to this point.

"Everybody plays the fool sometime" and Armitage might just have found his time.

Powell had his precious moment in the sludge. "They" played him for a fool in front of the whole world.

Do you think Armitage is smarter than Powell? Maybe YOU need to reconsider whether Armitage might be played, or is he somehow above the rest of us and therefor escapes the "everybody plays" dilema? That may just be the problem here. I think your opinion of Armitage as being somehow immune from entering "the foolish realm" may be a bit generous.

[JEP]

"I'd see him as a Cheney tool before I'd think he had loyalty to any Powell Camp."

Do some homework NJR, just google around a bit, Armitage and Powell are much closer than you imagine.

[JEP]

As for Armitage's gossip reputation, I have to admit I got that off one of the talking-head TV shows, and I am pretty sure is has been referenced on more than one blog. Can't actually point to the orogins of it, but it has been floating around "out there" for a while.

This is from an NPR story;
"In Hubris, Isikoff and Corn suggest that Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State in 2003, may be the missing link in the story that has been called "Plamegate." Said to be a notorious gossip, Armitage told several reporters about Valerie Plame's role with the CIA -- but he reportedly didn't realize for several months that he was the source described in one of their articles."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5732395

Now if NPR claims that Armitage is "said to be a notorious gossip" that probably explains why I believed it without double-checking for better sources.

[Looking_for_a_way_Out]

I don't think Armitage is a complete tool. He owed Libby at least one favor. Maybe leaking, or taking responsibility for the leak afterwards, was an attempt to keep or get Libby's fat out of the fire. This whole thing seems like a concerted effort to accomplish something while maintaining plausible deniability. It's all too perfect.

EW, your posts on this subject are great, but sometimes I need to rephrase to understand. Is your contention that the Novak article contains the VP's talking points, and that Armitage didn't have those talking points in the report that generated his spilling the beans to Novak?

[JEP]

"but he reportedly didn't realize for several months that he was the source described in one of their articles."

Smart feller, huh?

[emptywheel]

semiot

First, I look at it from a different direction. There is abundant evidence that OVP (at least Dick and Libby) conspired to out Plame's ID. But there is also abundant evidence they conspired to launder their roles in this outing. Also, there is evidence they used State for the launder part, not the conspire part (as with Grossman, looking for info they likely already had)

Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that the OTR had a really active role--more cognizant than Armi, in any case. So why did OTR have such an active role? Perhaps because they were the go-between between Armi and Libby, but then what was in it for Armi?

Finally, two reasons: the questions from Woodward and Novak were stupid and--in Novak's case--loaded with the same kind of disinformation taht Cheney's questions to CIA were. Why were those questions so loaded?

And finally: Novak's story abotu Armitage doesn't make sense, and there's still the Libby meeting everyone is hiding. Armitage NOT being a central player makes more sense than being one.

I'm not saying Armi didn't go along with coverup for the President's sake, btw.

[JEP]

One last comment before I shut up...

I don't disallow that Armitage knew a lot more than he's telling, or that he was a part of a smaller conspiracy within the larger one. But I still believe that Armitage was not one of the masterminds of the bigger scheme to out Plame, but he did participate in the conspiracy to cover-up the outing.

Accessory after the fact, but an accessory nonetheless.

And always keep in mind. A thirty month sentence for perjury is a lot easier for Bush to commute than a thirty YEAR sentence for violating the IIPA.

[emptywheel]

Looking

Yes. I am saying, first of all, there is almost certainly abundant material in Novak's column from Libby. The content of Wilson's trip report, for one (Rove said it was coming and was classified, which suggests he wouldn't leak it; and he didn't leak it to Cooper). And also some of the talking points, OVP + State + Defense. Not only wasn't that information in the INR memo, but it doesn't make sense, politically, for anyone but OVP to have leaked it.

[Pete]

Armitage told Woodward that Mrs Wilson worked in the area of WMD, so it seems highly likely that he told Novak that too.

[*xyz]

I remember hearing the tape of Woodward and Armitage on the news. Woodward sounded like a total idiot, repeating variations of the same question over and over in a plaintive whine (paraphrased), "but why?!, but why!? why did they send Wilson???"

IFRC, the tactic worked quite well for Woodward.

Woodward got Armitage to repeat his answer more than once, Armitage's voice rising each time because it seemed that Woodward was obtuse or wasn't paying attention.

At least that is what I recall of the tape. Here's the transcript (from http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hear-armitage-tell-woodward-about-valerie-plame):

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He — he’s perfect. She — she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

And here's the audio file of conversation:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/02/12/libby.mp3

[orionATL]

semiot's questions interest me.

i don't have any answers but i was initially of the opinion that armitage would not have leaked plume's name/id.

boy did i take a wrong turn.

i still don't have a good sense of why armitage would have done what he did - what his motive could have been?

what could he - and his organization/boss - have gained?

why even bother to chat with novak or woodward about any aspect of plame?

at the very least, there must have been a lot more to those conversations than a few seconds of spontaneous gossip from the big A.

armitage had a reputation as a savvy veteran of washington bureaucratic trench warfare.

it's hard to believe he would have done this - twice - by accident. not impossible, just hard to understand why.

but maybe he was just one of those washington types who loves to show others how much inside dope he/she knows.

while much has been made of armitage's being the "first" to "reveal" some portion of plame's identity,

that is in a sense only a technical point, compared to libby and rove's efforts,

since armitage, to date at least,

has not been revealed to have intent or motive to harm plame or the cia.

but might he have had such intent?

you would think a state dept guy would protect state department people, even the retired ones.

anyway, this is one of those little parts of the story that i, at least, feel unsettled about.

[emptywheel]

Pete

Correct. But that's not what Novak says he said. Novak says he said she worked in CPD. If she were an analyst, she'd work in WINPAC.

That difference is actually a really important one, because the INR memo wouldn't have told Armi that she worked in CPD. And him spreading CPD would be inconsistent with his apparent claim to believe she wasn't covert, based on the memo.

Also, he didn't tell Woodward the name Valerie. So if he said the same thing twice, then he'd be right and Novak wrong on that count, too.

[tekel]

EW: maybe there is a simple answer, but riddle me this: why would Cheney not just call Armitage and tell him outright what was going on?

"Hey Dick, this is Big Time. We're setting Novak up to call you and ask for confirmation that Wilson is an a55h*le. We're telling people that Wilson's wife sent him on the trip, that it was a junket, a boondoggle instead of responsible intelligence. When Novak asks you, could you act surprised and confirm it, but don't let on that you heard it from me first..."

"Sure thing Mr. Cheney, anything for the unitary executive."

[DCgaffer]

semio, JEP:

Armitage's reputation as a "gossip" was self-described. The money quote comes from Lawrence Walsh's Iran Contra report.

http://history.liberatedtext.org/ic/partviii_2.html#sect22

See footnote 211.

w/o getting into the specifics Armitage may have been played, but I highly doubt that he was in on it. (1) Guys who had been under fire in Vietnam, as a general rule, loathed the "toy soldier" hard-core PNAC crowd (notwithstanding he signed the infamous PNAC letter (2) Armitage was always a great friend of CIA and to argue that he was in on taking a CIA asset down is - suffice to say - out of character (3) Armitage was /is loyal to his immediate boss and this case Powell. That character trait was on display in Iran Contra in his loyalty to Weinberger. Walsh didn't feel he had enough to charge - Armitage's truthfulness there is highly questionable - but it would be sins of ommission (conveniently forgetting) rather than of commission. (4) Wilkerson, who has been one of the most blunt and outspoken critics of the PNAC crowd and the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" has never said a bad word about Armitage - to my knowledge.

[Tom Maguire]

As predicted, Tom Maguire links to...

Geez, I am embarrassed to admit I found these by way of Google and CBoldt, and figured everyone else had read them weeks ago.

in Fall 2004, Fitzgerald was still actively investigating Armitage and Novak and Rove and Libby on the Novak leak--because their stories all contradicted what the others were saying. Let me help you out, Tom...

If you really want to help you might start by citing an instance where I have advanced the argument you are imputing to me. Or did I become honorary spokesperson for the entire "Libby Lobby" without even realizing it? I'm touched, but probably not the best guy for it. But I'm happy to address some of these points if we can also designate you as the SpokesPerson for every moonbat theory out there - fair enough?

That means Armitage may still have been on the hook for espionage or IIPA or what have you. In August 2004, when the Libby Lobby swears (!) that Fitzgerald should have been done investigating.

My particular beef has been that, these affidavits notwithstanding, his "investigation" did not extend so far as to check Armitage's calendar for June, where he would have found Woodard on the 13th and maybe even asked some helpful questions.

By comparison, Libby's calendar for June was eventually checked, and the Judy Miller June 23 meeting was sort of there.

As a practical suggestion - on p. 23 of the Sept affidavit we read that Cooper's testimony "may be dispositive of whether [REDACTED] can be charged with a crime".

From earlier passages it appears that Rove and Armitage were both in playm, as well as other less likely candidates for Cooper's mystery source. My eyeballometric analysis says that "Rove" would not come close to filling the space but "Karl Rove" or "Armitage" might; "Richard Armitage" looks too long.

All that, spelled out plainly, and yet Maguire says only, "Useful details about Armitage might be there."

Oh, take a breath, or exhale, or something - I hadn't even read them and was walking out the door. Jiminy. Left undone was reconciling the Cooper trial testimony with what we see here, just for starters.

My next puzzle is figuring out why the IIPA got a glancing footnoted mention in the Miller affidavit (Aug) but seems to be unmentioned in the Cooper affidavit.

As to your prediction that I would crow about Andrea Mitchell - how is that working out? (But the day is young...)

As to Armitage, I am intrigued to learn he testified to the grand Jury in Sept 2004 - seems late in the day.

And eventually, we may get to a point I made a million years ago - Rove could not have been charged (with a straight face) unless Armitage and probably Fleischer were as well.

And all that said, let's not rule out the possibility that Fitzgerald was hyping the case to move these subpoenas forward - there seems to be no basis for an Espionage Act or IIPA charge against anyone, and Armitage and Fleischer got passes on clearly false testimony, so how seriously was he pursuing them, this posturing notwithstanding?

Or, if charging perjury was tantamount to punishing the leak, why not charge them?

OK, I'll guess - Fitzgerald used his keen insight to judge that Armitage was not attacking Wilson to protect Powell and Fleischer was not attacking Wilson to protect Bush, but Libby *was* attacking Wilson to protect Cheney. Pretty subtle.

[Marky]

Marcy, If you don't mind, I'd like to make an OT comment abuot impeachment. There isn't a recent impeachment diary, which is why I'm asking.

[Boo Radley]

"there seems to be no basis for an Espionage Act or IIPA charge against anyone."

Sure there is, Novack's sources outed a covert CIA agent in July 2003.

[windansea]

Armitage NOT being a central player makes more sense than being one.

to a moonbat conspiracy theorist maybe

[Tom Maguire]

Thanks for clarifying that, Boo.

My fave tidbit was the point that Cathie Martin has undated notes showing that Harlow (probably) told her the DCI briefed the VP on the Wilson matter (p. 11 of Aug affidavit.)

Say it with me (or Murray Waas): although Cheney claims to have learned about Ms. Plame from then-DCI George Tenet, Tenet does not remember the conversation (although I bet he remembers getting a Medal of Freedom!)

[Boo Radley]

So Tom, your point is that Fitzgerald should have indicted Bush, Cheney and Tenet on charges of Espionage and IIPA violations?

[Taechan]

@Tom
Re: "Rove could not have been charged(...) unless Armitage and probably Fleischer as well."

What basis do you have to conclude that either Armitage or Fleischer had 'authorized access' to the covert ID, because if they didn't they fall outside the scope of IIPA and Fitz would need to investigate up the chain for the culprit. I do recall that Libby told Fleischer; I somehow doubt that Fleischer had a legit need to know. That piece alone is sufficient to justify Fitz's investigation of Libby.

So, did Libby have 'authorized access?' If so, Fitz appropriately proceeds to investigate to gather evidence for scienter.

Okay, you don't like that line, suppose not. Who'd he find out from?--seems clear from Libby's notes--Cheney. n'est pas?

So, either (Fitz appropriately investigated) or (Cheney clearly violated IIPA and you can fall back to the was not covert line).

[tekel]

And Boo- they did it with knowledge that she was NOC, and they did it with the intention of destroying her cover and her career.

[Tom Maguire]

What basis do you have to conclude that either Armitage or Fleischer had 'authorized access' to the covert ID..."

Hmm... an INR document marked TS? A CIA document with (I'll wager) similar markings?

Armitage read the INR memeo; Fleischer probably read it, but admits to reading a CIA memo (which was an attachment to the INR package) while Dan Bartlett vented about a TS memo.

By way of contrast, Libby never saw the INR memo, or at least, he denied it and no one could prove otherwise.

Nor did Grossman, Grenier or Harlow (via Martin) apprise anyone, including Libby, of Ms. Plame's status, per their stories.

Tenet doesn't remember telling Cheney; Cheney was interviewed by Fitzgerald but not called by either side, so let's guess his testimony was not definitive - presumably, he forgot too.

Lets review - Harlow and Grenier (of the dubious but improving memory) of the CIA don't mention her status; Tenet doesn't remember. And therefore we are sure he or they did?

That should be enough to convict.

[Tom Maguire]

Well, if its OK I'm going to step away for a bit, but feel free to predict my subsequent posts and I'll do my best to accomodate.

[creepy dude]

Ok, I'll predict they'll be whiny, unfunny, and wrong.

[emptywheel]

And eventually, we may get to a point I made a million years ago - Rove could not have been charged (with a straight face) unless Armitage and probably Fleischer were as well.

I mostly agree with this--certainly after the Woodward discovery. The fact that Novak's story is not credible (doesn't jive with known evidence, doesn't explain everything in his column.) That is, if Novak were a credible witness, someone might have gotten charged. Gosh, what a surprise.

As to espionage--have you figured out whether it was Rove or Libby who leaked the contents of the Wilson trip report to Novak? We know Libby leaked it to Judy. Whoever it was, there is no contest that that was classified--we even know that Rove told Novak that, before someone leaked him the info, and we know that Libby took notes of it being declassified, after he had already leaked it. Because that person, independent of whether Libby knew Plame's ID, committed espionage. Again, you've got two non-credible witnesses saving the day.

And finally, why did Libby balk at Cheney's order to leak Plame's ID, if he didn't know it was classified? He didn't need presidential authorization to leak the NIE--he leaked to Woodward and Sanger without. So it's pretty clear he knew that what he was leaking to Judy--whatever it was--was classified.

[emptywheel]

Oh, and one more question, Maguire.

Are you asserting that Fitzgerald should have subpoenaed all the journalists he listed in his affy? I know you'd support a Mitchell subpoena (me too, probably). Matthews? Calabresi? Mike ALlen? Should Fitzgerald have subpoenaed all those reporters? Because while it would have been nice for Fitz to have discovered the WOodward leak, your argument assumes that Fitz would have gone big on journalist subpoenas, including all those he lists in his affy. Plus some he doesn't list, like David Sanger (earlier meeting with Libby).

[emptywheel]

Oh, and just one more, Maguire--your Cooper quote:

Q And did you have also some information from John Dickerson of TIME Magazine?

A Yes, sir, I did.

Q Did that information concern a government official?

A Yes.

Q Okay. That information was also a source for what you wrote in this magazine, correct?

A Yes.

Q July 11th is the date that you talked to John Dickerson?

A I believe that's correct, sir, yes.

Q It was some time shortly after noon. Is that your recollection?

A Roughly, yes.

[cboldt]

-- found these by way of Google and CBoldt, and figured everyone else had read them weeks ago. --

Outside of commenting on the TNH post that "unveiled" the affidavits, the only mention I've made to the newly redacted affidavits is at this index to filings page, and I tried to credit TNH as my source (click on the link and judge for yourself). I'd been looking for the affidavits myself (using google and manual review of known Libby/Plame websites), and TNH was the first place I saw the affidavits -- and at that, first saw them on July 16th.

Fitzgerald seemed pretty tightly focused on Rove too, and seems to have had a false statements/perjury case brewing there too.

I don't buy that Fitz "knew" an IIPA violation was possible, but for scienter of Libby. The elements of "affirmative measures to protect" and "assigned overseas in the last 5 years" weren't tested, and need not be tested because the IIPA case fails on the scienter element. The "probable cause" is the CIA referral itself, but the CIA hasn't offered evidence of the "affirmative measures" or "assigned overseas w/in the last 5 years" elements.

[dero]

c

[Jodi]

I could no more enter the fray on the level of the likes of a Tom Maquire or that mysterious Cboldt guy, than I would go inside to the basket straight up against Shaq.

Still I can skitter along the outside and look for a crease in the melee.

I notice as always the ever persistent emptywheel has taken a few trifling bits of differing recollection between Novak and Armitage to new heights of conspiracy, and wild accusations.

I can only say oh, come on now! People's memories aren't perfect. Or am I the only one willing to admit that.

[emptywheel]

cboldt

I assume you're addressing your IIPA comment to someone else, perhaps Taechan? I'm arguing here that there is lots of evidence that Libby (and perhaps only Libby) leaked information no one contests was classified at the time--the Trip report. Both Rove and Libby indicated they knew it to be classified, and Libby has not claimed that that was one of the things (presumably plural) that Bush insta-declassified to leak to Judy.

As to IIPA, I think it failed on several things, not leas the appearance that Bush appears to have declassified the identity for the leak. That's a constitutional issue, not an IIPA one.

[cboldt]

-- I assume you're addressing your IIPA comment to someone else, perhaps Taechan? --

I wasn't addressing my IIPA comments to anybody in particular, just sensed this as an opportune time and place to recapitulate where I come down on that point, and briefly explain part of the reason why. And on a re-read, I'd like to restate with a bit more precision: that the CIA did provide something in the nature of "evidence" that they had "made affirmative measures to conceal Plame's relationship with the CIA" and that "Plame had been outside of the US in the relevant timeframe." What hasn't been produced is the combination of particular evidence with particular legal analysis that conclusively shows those legal elements of IIPA were met. The CIA just said, in a rather conclusory fashion, "she's covert as far as we're concerned, but it's up to Justice to undertake the prosecution and prove the elements in court, if they think they have a case."

In the Plame affair, Justice (Fitz) concluded it didn't have an IIPA case because Libby lacked the scienter - so neither Fitz nor the CIA was pressed to prove the other elements.

[Boo Radley]

"People's memories aren't perfect."

Jodi, a lot of "people's" memories were plenty capable of outing a covert CIA agent.

[emptywheel]

cboldt

That, plus Judy is not exactly the witness you want to build a case on.

[cboldt]

Well, my position in short, blunt terms is that I don't believe Plame was covert under the definition of IIPA - that the CIA didn't take affirmative measure to conceal the fact that Plame was associated with the CIA (e.g, Hadley gave her up to Novak), and that her trips overseas don't amount to "being assigned overseas."

Fitz had no need to get to those questions/elements. He lacked an IIPA case because "Libby didn't know Plame was covert." Maybe the reason Libby didn't "know" that was because Plame wasn't covert! That is, nobody would (correctly) know Plame was "covert" per IIPA.

Agreed though, if Fitz did have an IIPA case (assume the elements of "covert" and scienter are met), and his best witness on the scienter element was Miller, he'd be thinking twice about indicting on an IIPA charge ;-)

[Boo Radley]

"Well, my position in short, blunt terms is that I don't believe Plame was covert under the definition of IIPA."

Link please.

[cboldt]

-- Link please. --

I don't know of a link to "not-covert CIA people." I did provide a link to a post that explains a good deal of the rationale I use to reach my conclusion.

I accept that many people believe Plame was covert to the terms of the IIPA, and I'm not of a mind to dissuade them any further than to point out that, as a matter of logic, the Libby case isn't dispositive on the "covert" point in either direction.

I rather enjoy the fact that parties are entrenched on both sides of the "covert or not" debate. It makes for lively exchanges.

[Exorcist]

Maguire knows when to quit. 'Hit and Run' is one of his favorite commenters at JOM

[windansea]

I'm arguing here that there is lots of evidence that Libby (and perhaps only Libby) leaked information no one contests was classified at the time--

So you are saying Libby leaked details about Wilson's super secret trip report after Wilson leaked details of his super secret trip report to 2 reporters and then did so directly in the NY Times (why not..Wilson did not have to sign non disclosure form)

classified baby!!

[Boo Radley]

Your link is to your own arguments which ignore that outing Plame necessarily outed Brewster Jennings. Is it your point that all the other CIA assets with any connection whatsoever to Brewster Jennings were also not covered by the IIPA?

"I rather enjoy the fact that parties are entrenched on both sides of the "covert or not" debate. It makes for lively exchanges."

I would invite you to consider that you're discussing criminal actions which began before most of the US casualties in Iraq occurred.

[Exorcist]

"would invite you to consider that you're discussing criminal actions which began before most of the US casualties in Iraq occurred."

I agree. Entertainment value seems morbid in the extremus.

[Jeff]

My particular beef has been that, these affidavits notwithstanding, his "investigation" did not extend so far as to check Armitage's calendar for June, where he would have found Woodard on the 13th and maybe even asked some helpful questions.

Tom, I've always wondered two things about this. First, how do we know that Fitzgerald did not check Armitage's calendar? Second, let's assume he did not check Armitage's calendar. What has long been obvious is now explicit, as one of the affidavits has now made disclosed, that Armitage was asked and testified that he had no recollection of telling other reporters besides Novak about Wilson's wife's CIA identity before the Novak column. So what, exactly, were the helpful questions he was supposed to ask that were going to trigger Armitage to tell a different story about his Woodward conversation?

[Semanticleo]

Jeff;

'She who must be obeyed' (Clarice) indicates Maguire won't be back. Are you surprised?

[cboldt]

-- Is it your point that all the other CIA assets with any connection whatsoever to Brewster Jennings were also not covered by the IIPA? --

No. My ultimate conclusion is that I don't believe Plame herself is covert under the definition of the IIPA.

I disagree with the propositions that (even directly and purposely) outing Brewster Jennings somehow makes Plame covert, and with the proposition that the fact Plame was associated with Brewster Jennings somehow makes Plame covert, or creates a fact pattern that creates scienter on the part of Libby for outing "persons unknown to him."

The CIA did a crappy job of keeping Brewster Jennings a secret - and that's part of why Congress saw fit to include that "taking affirmative measure to conceal the agent's relationship with the CIA" language in the statute - so crappy secret keeping by the CIA wouldn't be used to manufacture criminal violations.

-- I would invite you to consider that you're discussing criminal actions which began before most of the US casualties in Iraq occurred. --

I don't subscribe to the "lied into war" theory, but even if I did, I'd see the "outing of Plame" as trivial compared with the substantive differences between what the intelligence services and politicians were peddling and whatever I decided I would call "objective reality."

Anyway, it was nice to meet you. I don't aim to change your mind. I'm content to say my piece and then shut up.

[emptywheel]

Hey windansea

You're suggesting Wilson saw the trip report ... when??

Because I'm fairly sure I saw it before Wilson did.

As I said, not Rove, not Libby, contests it was classified. Wilson's own account of the trip was not classified. Moreover, he didn't give the details that go to sources and methods (not least, Mayaki).

So you're equating Wilson's own TRIP, with the trip REPORT. Wilson never saw the latter. Rove did. Libby did. Both treated it as classified. And, apparently, Libby leaked it to at least two journalists before it was classified.

[emptywheel]

Sorry--before it was declassified.

Libby leaks it on July 8. Libby probably leaks it on July 9. It is declassified on July 10.

[Semanticleo]

"I don't subscribe to the "lied into war" theory,"

You don't need an annual subscription, but at least read one issue.

[Pete]

your argument assumes that Fitz would have gone big on journalist subpoenas, including all those he lists in his affy.

True. Including two obvious ones - Royce and Phelps who had interviewed Novak when there was no criminal case on the horizon. Fitzgerald threatened Royce and Phelps with a subpoena but never actually served them with one.

[Jeff]

My particular beef has been that, these affidavits notwithstanding, his "investigation" did not extend so far as to check Armitage's calendar for June, where he would have found Woodard on the 13th and maybe even asked some helpful questions.

Tom, here's another interesting angle on this. Guess when Fitzgerald subpoenaed Libby's calendars (and phone logs and Libby's handwritten notes) covering the period when he spoke with Judith Miller in June (i.e. June 23 2003).

October 7, 2005. (You can find that information in Government Exhibit 65, p. 30)

So you can argue that Fitzgerald ran a problematic investigation - though you might need to confront the guidelines and constraints he was operating under with regard to the issuance of subpoenas - but it seems hard to argue, if we assume that Fitzgerald did not issue a subpoena for Armitage's calendars from June 2003 by fall 2004, that Fitzgerald treated Armitage and Libby differently on this basis. So I take it the comparison you offer fails to make your point.

[Pete]

cboldt - Are you saying that Plame was not covert under IIPA because the CIA did not take affirmative efforts to protect her identity?

[Jodi]

Wow, another of the giants backed me up!!

I think I will go get a diet coke, and a few scoops of something outrageously chocolate, and cold, and rich to go into it.

: )
: )
: )
: )
: )
: )

[Jeff]

cboldt

Just to be clear then, when Fitzgerald asserts that "At the time of the leaks, Ms. Wilson in fact qualified as a 'covert agent' within the meaning of the IIPA," and that "it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press," your view is that that is just cheap talk on his part, since he knew he was never going to be prosecuting for an IIPA violation so he can say whatever he wants and just use the excuse that he didn't determine Libby's intention in disclosing information about Plame?

That is, your view is that Fitzgerald is essentially lying about whether, in his best judgment, Plame qualified as a covert agent under the IIPA statute?

And those folks who, he says in one or both of the affidavits, were involved in analyzing the relevant statutes? They went along with this? Or were not involved in that judgment?

[JEP]

"Well, my position in short, blunt terms is that I don't believe Plame was covert under the definition of IIPA - that the CIA didn't take affirmative measure to conceal the fact that Plame was associated with the CIA (e.g, Hadley gave her up to Novak), and that her trips overseas don't amount to "being assigned overseas."

Do you EVER consider that you are wrong about that?

I mean that, in all seriousness, snark aside. Has it even crossed your mind that you are wrong about that? And just what authority do you base that opinion on? Your personal reading of the IIPAC? Or someone else's opinion?

Repeating the same lie, as if by repeating, it will cease to be lie, is akin to insanity. Arrogant delusional, maybe.

If you really believe what you blogged, just once, for only a moment, consider you are wrong, and ponder the implications.

[Neil]

Novak and Armitage agree on several important facts, such as the time, date and place of the meeting during which the conversation took place, and the fact that Wilson’s wife and employment by the CIA was disclosed to Novak by Armitage in response to a question by novak as to why the CIA had sent Wilson on the trip.

Did Novak speak with someone else before Armitage who prompted Novak to ask Armitage "why the CIA had sent Wilson on the trip"?

Also, would you expect the answer to the question "why" include his wife's name unless someone was pushing that talking point? It seems to me the answer to "why" would be: to investigate whether the mass quantities of Uranium story was accurate.

Armitage was played by the leak conspirators. That is the only explanation I can imagine for why he was not charged.

[cboldt]

-- That is, your view is that Fitzgerald is essentially lying about whether, in his best judgment, Plame qualified as a covert agent under the IIPA statute? --

Not exactly lying, but he hasn't done any more than the CIA has, which is to assert the conclusion as true without producing any evidence to support the contention, and of course, without obtaining the independent agreement of a judge that the actions of the CIA meet the legal definition of "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agents intelligence relationship to the United States."

That parsing chore isn't trivial, as it covers a number of discrete elements. I think a number of those elements would be found lacking, if a "Plame was IIPA" case were to be litigated.

By the time Fitzgerald got around to making the assertion you quoted (I haven't checked your accuracy on the quote, but assume you've represented it accurately), the assertion is a freebie. He doesn't have to prove it.

And neither does the CIA. And my prediction -- that regardless of the outcome of the trial the "is covert" "is not" argument would persist indefinitely -- seems to be on track.

[cboldt]

-- Do you EVER consider that you are wrong about that? --

Yeah - I came at the case with an open mind. I looked at evidence in the public record, pondered the meaning of the statute, read the legislative history, etc., and made up my own mind using what I think is rational analysis. I accept others have done the same thing and reached the opposite conclusion. And I try to avoid repeating myself or otherwise being persistent in effort to convince others to reach the same conclusion I did. I've laid out my thought process (here and there) and am content with that.

The ramifications of me being wrong are negligible. So what if I am? All that would do is make me wrong, and that would be my personal problem - right or wrong, my point of view doesn't affect anybody else, materially or mentally.

[Jeff]

And my prediction -- that regardless of the outcome of the trial the "is covert" "is not" argument would persist indefinitely -- seems to be on track

That's not a very bold prediction since your standard seems to be proof in a court by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was very clear from very early on - just look at Fitzgerald's press conference from October 28, 2005 - that no proof was going to be offered at trial that Valerie Wilson was covert under the IIPA. (It did not become clear until considerably later that no proof would be offered one way or the other as to whether Valerie Wilson's status at the CIA was classified.)

I agree the chore of determining what all the parts of the statute mean is not trivial, and would have to be settled through litigation, since they haven't been litigated. So in some obvious sense, Fitzgerald's own assertions does not make it so. But it's unclear to me why anyone should take your counter-assertions any more seriously, especially since you seem to shortchange without justification Fitzgerald's assertions that his team has undertaken analysis of the relevant statutes, and the fact that he has made a judgment in light of access to her classified file.

My point is not, of course, that his judgment is right. Who knows. But you don't really seem to be doing it justice.

I will say that I consider it a permanent triumph over the likes of Toensing that Fitzgerald simply made the judgment that Plame was covert according to IIPA and that therefore a violation was possible - something that Toensing repeatedly and in print denied. That is, she denied that Fitzgerald made this judgment, and asserted that he had made the opposite judgment.

To pursue it a little further, in any case, are you hinging your claim that Plame was not covert under IIPA specifically on the "affirmative measures" part of the statute? and you're conceding on the thing people usually hinge their objection on, namely the overseas service part of the statute? Because there, evidence has been produced. May not satisfy you, but it's been produced.

[Neil]

Now if NPR claims that Armitage is "said to be a notorious gossip" that probably explains why I believed it without double-checking for better sources.
Posted by: JEP | July 17, 2007 at 16:23

JEP, the "publication" was not of NPR but of Corn and Isakoff in Hubis. I'm not sure they identify their source.

[Jeff]

By the time Fitzgerald got around to making the assertion you quoted (I haven't checked your accuracy on the quote, but assume you've represented it accurately), the assertion is a freebie. He doesn't have to prove it.

I want add on this note, that while in some sense this is of course true (particularly the second sentence), what you are leaving aside is that in fact one of the assertions makes clear that Plame's covertness under IIPA was determined early on in the investigation - surely you don't think Fitzgerald is lying about that. Again, I am of course in agreement with you that Fitzgerald's assertion that Plame was covert under IIPA was not subject to proof at trial. But you don't seem to be doing justice to what it is that Fitzgerald is asserting. The assertion that it had been determined early on in the investigation that PLame qualified as covert under IIPA is not a freebie - if it's not true, surely someone will come forward to contradict him and say, no, we determined that Plame was not covert under IIPA; or, no such determination was made.

[Katie Jensen]

Okay, that's all plausible but what about the possibility that she was covert as Fitz says she was. Is it not possible that when her status was divulged it was a significant enough breach of security that the government had "valid" reason to keep the information "secret" and therefore tied Fitz's hands behind his back. Is it not just as possible that the reason that her status has not been "proved" in a concrete way is to protect other potential assets? or fringe assets? Or even to protect the structure of the undercover work because it might tip other structures that exist out there?

Is it not possible that the only way Fitz could prove such a case might have legitimately been fought by the government so that he would not be able to prove his case...so instead the judge ruled in general that she was indeed "covert" and that is the extent to which it is safe to discuss??

Geez. If I had a spy network, I sure as hell would not want to divulge any of that information in any detail whatsoever. The fact that we even have spies that are covert is not something the government really likes to have discussed in any detail.

[Pete]

cboldt: "Well, my position in short, blunt terms is that I don't believe Plame was covert under the definition of IIPA - that the CIA didn't take affirmative measure to conceal the fact that Plame was associated with the CIA (e.g, Hadley gave her up to Novak), and that her trips overseas don't amount to "being assigned overseas."

Sorry I missed this one before.

I presume you mean Harlow and not Hadley. Much of what transpired between Harlow and Novak is disputed, so it means that you have already have a preconcieved notion of who was right. And the conversation between the two took place after Novak had already learned about Plame from two or more sources. It is hard to take action to conceal the fact from someone when a fact is already known to that person. Think about it.

And the statute says "served outside the US", not "assigned overseas". If Plame went on a CIA mission outside the US, she qualifies. And she did go.

[KM]

"I don't subscribe to the "lied into war" theory"

Then you don't know much about the subject, cboldt, or you haven't bothered to apply your proclaimed approach to Plame's covertness. It's not a "theory".

[Katie Jensen]

I think the fact that the government/Libby hasn't just "proved she wasn't" suggests more likely that she was and that she met criteria. If they could have proved otherwise they sure as hell would have. The only way you end up with Fitz/Judge saying she qualifies but with no concrete "proof" pretty much suggests that "proving" it would create plausible security concerns. So they settled on "grey mail" because that's what they had to do??

[cboldt]

-- in any case, are you hinging your claim that Plame was not covert under IIPA specifically on the "affirmative measures" part of the statute? and you're conceding on the thing people usually hinge their objection on, namely the overseas service part of the statute? --

"Affirmative measures" isn't what makes the person covert - failure to assert affirmative measures results in a self-inflicted inability to obtain a criminal conviction even if an otherwise criminal outing has taken place.

Taking stock of affirmative measures requires getting into the defendant's head - it isn't an objective test. The defendant has to know that the CIA is taking affirmative measures to preserve "the secret." The CIA has an affirmative duty to inform information recipients.

Even if she was "covert," the fact that Hadley gave her up to Novak is a clue that the CIA wasn't taking affirmative measures to conceal her "covert relationship to the United States." Likewise, her name appearing in print in documents circulated to people who didn't have a need to know.

On the specific point of "covert," I take "covert" to mean that the fact the person has ANY assigned duty with the CIA is classified information. This is different from saying "this person works at the CIA, but their specific assignment is classified information." That second arrangement does not create a covert agent under the IIPA - one can't both be an effective spy and be known to be associated with the CIA.

Service outside of the United States is another element necessary to be covert under the IIPA. A domestic spook can't be covert! I haven't carefully probed what "served outside the United States" comprises, but I think it requires at least a pretense of taking residence outside of the United States.

[cboldt]

-- if it's not true, surely someone will come forward to contradict him and say, no, we determined that Plame was not covert under IIPA; or, no such determination was made. --

Why? To do so would result in a loss of face for all involved - the entire apparatus, from the CIA, through the DoJ, Fitzgerald, the President, the courts ... quite a house of cards is built on at least the pretense that Plame was covert. Certainly enough of a pretense to justify dispatching the FBI, then OIC to conduct an investigation into whodunnit.

There is nothing to be gained by "coming clean" at this point. The CIA doesn't want to admit being a liar, and the other players don't want to admit being fooled.

Plame's status is compromised either way - that was lost with the leak, if it ever existed. There is no value, beyond curiosity, in airing "False alarm, we've concluded she wasn't covert." Too much ego and inertia invested -- best to leave the situation ambiguous.

[orionATL]

cbolt (20:19)

[Well, my position in short, blunt terms is that I don't believe Plame was covert under the definition of IIPA - that the CIA didn't take affirmative measure to conceal the fact that Plame was associated with the CIA (e.g, Hadley gave her up to Novak), and that her trips overseas don't amount to "being assigned overseas."]

cbolt,

this comment reveals your entire argument as bias masquerading as a legitimate argument.

the IIPA was a sham law; it was for show; a bouquet to the "law and communists" crowd.

if you want to use it for debate points, fine,

but fitzgerald, and comm made it clear that it was not a law that could be reasonably pursued.

nothing shows the demerits of your position more than your claim that plame was not covert under IIPA.

as toensing's testimony before congress made clear,

including her shamefaced comments under serious questioning,

saying plame was not covert under IIPA

is simply engaging in deceitful lawyerly wordplay -

what the more timid commenters refer to as "parsing".

[tnhblog]

Woodward's interview with Armitage was on june 23. That very day Duberstein calls Novak and sets up the interview. You don't think there is something suspicious about this and that Armitage was not in on it? Also Robert Parry at consortiumnews has reported that Rove and Armitage had close ties and a Republican source has disclosed that Armitage is no gossip but a leaker. Armitage is a knowing co-conspirator.

[Tom Maguire]

From EW:

As to espionage--have you figured out whether it was Rove or Libby who leaked the contents of the Wilson trip report to Novak? We know Libby leaked it to Judy. Whoever it was, there is no contest that that was classified...

LOL. Have you figured out whether Fitzgerald would be able to win a conviction for Rove or Libby leaking early in the week what Wilson had already published and Tenet announced later in the week? Or would that be better suited to a SNL skit?

And while we are figuring, have you figured out how Fitzgerald would get past the first sentence of the Espionage Act:

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense **with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States**...

Oustside of a few moonbat fantasists, no one believes that these leaks (especially the info about the Wilson trip, publicized by Wilson and Tenet) were meant to harm the US and that Fitzgerald could prove that.

But please - feel free to take a moment and tell us how you see an Espionage Act charge clearing that hurdle. The thread sort of died the last time I brought this up, but second time lucky. Maybe.

And finally, why did Libby balk at Cheney's order to leak Plame's ID, if he didn't know it was classified?

Because he was not sure that the silenced gun that Dick hid in the men's room at the St Regis could really be traced back to Vince Foster?

He didn't need presidential authorization to leak the NIE--he leaked to Woodward and Sanger without. So it's pretty clear he knew that what he was leaking to Judy--whatever it was--was classified.

I think Woodward operated on a special exemption, but in any case - without knowing the level of detail with which he discussed this with Sanger and Woodward, it is impossible to know whether he thought he was entering new territory with Judy.

So, we don't know whther his leak to Judy went beyond what he told Sanger; we don't know Dick ordered him to out Plame; and we don't know whether Libby balked because he *knew* she was classified, or balked because he *didn't* know her status and wondered whether he ought to double-check (Addington's message amounted to, it's declassified now if the President says so, regardless of whether it was classified before.)

Other than that, your theory is watertight.

Are you asserting that Fitzgerald should have subpoenaed all the journalists he listed in his affy? I know you'd support a Mitchell subpoena (me too, probably). Matthews? Calabresi? Mike ALlen? Should Fitzgerald have subpoenaed all those reporters?

Why? After Fleischer whiffed on Pincus I personally think Fitzgerald had a duty to call Dickerson and Gregory; there was certainly reason to think Fleischer's hectic last week had muddled him a bit.

Of course, finding out Fleischer was wrong there as well would have imperiled Fleischer's cred on his key lunch with Libby (possibly a fabrication to protect Bartlett) *and/or* Russert's virginal mind, so I can see why he took a pass.

As to Ms. Mitchell - the specific idea that Libby leaked to Mitchell, who told Russert, who then closed the loop by leaking to Libby is not a scenario that fully exonerates Libby, so I can see why Fitzgerald didn't push hard in that specific direction.

However! The affidavit does include yet more evidence of the slack investigation when Fitzgerald tells us there was very little evidence that Mitchell knew. Uhh, how about her own Oct 3, 2003 statement, Patrick?

Surely that was at least as indicative as the Pincus revelation on Oct 12, but Fitzgerald missed it. Hands up if you think he looked hard. I don't see any hands...

And suspicious minds might wonder why Russert was all chatty Cathy with the FBI yet Mitchell wouldn't talk to anyone at all. One might almost suspect she was hiding something. Well, unless one were a special counsel targeting Libby but not the media.

And depending on how the Dickerson testimony went I might very well call in Calabresi of TIME - Cooper said he had another reporter as a source, OK, who was it? Is that really an unreasonable question?

Yet Fitzgerald never pinned it down. Per the affidavit, Fitzgerald said it "appears likely" it was Dickerson. "Appears likely"? That was good enough? Hey, dude, where's my leak investigation?

Let me toss in an Armitage-related tidbit:

"I would trust him with my life, my children, my reputation, everything I have".

That is Powell speaking of Armitage from "Bush At War" (a predecessor to "Bush At Sea") by Bob Woodward.

Any chance at all, however slim, that (a) Armitage was attacking Wilson to protect Powell and (b) lying about it? No chance? LOL. Yet the diligent investigators never even asked for his June calendar.

[Tom Maguire]

From cboldt:

Outside of commenting on the TNH post that "unveiled" the affidavits, the only mention I've made to the newly redacted affidavits is at this index to filings page, and I tried to credit TNH as my source (click on the link and judge for yourself).

I did not mean to imply that cboldt was hogging the glory, and it was obvious from the URL that it came from this site.

Still, that was where Google took me; I may be able to figure out why if the search has been saved.

[Neil]

EW: And finally, why did Libby balk at Cheney's order to leak Plame's ID, if he didn't know it was classified?

TM: Because he was not sure that the silenced gun that Dick hid in the men's room at the St Regis could really be traced back to Vince Foster?

All snark and no substance in this answer.

[cboldt]

I didn't mean to insinuate that I was being credited where credit wasn't due -- google does what it does, and that index page certainly shows up in the search engines. My point was to the quoted part, the notion that other people saw the stuff "weeks ago" via similar search engine efforts. The only page where I provide the links also says those links were added on July 16th - making it impossible for people to have obtained them weeks ago, from me.

No biggie - I overlook obvious things all the time, have even been known to find my "lost" car keys being held in my right hand.

[radiofreewill]

Everything we know says Valerie's name, position and employment at the CIA was classified - as are likely 95% of the operatives in CPD.

Starting July 8th, Libby and Rove began leaking a new line of classified information - the trip report/summary - to Miller and Novak.

Coincidentally, they also leak Valerie's identity with the same double-super-secret/QT nonchalance that they had been using to spew the then-still-classified NIE.

And, they tie it all together with a 'boondoggle' bow talking point.

Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove - while playing dirty with national secrets - 'outed' more than an 'analyst' wife at the Bureau - they 'outed' a real live National Security Asset, Covert Operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

First, playing politics with classified information is Wrong. Classified information is off-limits to partisan political hackery.

Second, recklessness with National Security information can't be excused with 'I didn't know.' Libby signed an SF312 - he knew that the term for disseminating classified information outside security protocols is called 'espionage.'

Third, Fitz knew from the beginning that the effort to 'Get the Wilsons' was organized and coordinated. Looked at this way, Armitage comes off as simply a useful idiot to launder information and not a co-conspirator.

Bush authorised, Cheney ordered/organized/coordinated the smearing of the Wilson's through the reckless mishandling of classified information by Libby and Rove for political purposes, and in the process 'outed' our own spy.

[Tom Maguire]

From Jeff:

Tom, I've always wondered two things about this. First, how do we know that Fitzgerald did not check Armitage's calendar?

Well, we know it at least as surely as we know Dick ordered Libby to out Plame.

But we have two more points, one old and one new (borrowed and blue are on the way):

Old: As of March 2004 when he talked to Libby, Fitzgerald had not yet discovered his June 23 appointment with Miller, which was eventually entered as trial evidence. Oh, I had fun with that at Christy's expense. So he had not even checked Libby's calendar as of March.

[Hmm, I see you have noted that in a subsequent comment about Oct 2005. Point settled then? Maybe not.]

Something new: Per the affidavit they got a specific denial from Armitage on one reporter and a general denial about no other reporters. *IF* they had specifically asked about Woodward they *might* have said so right there. Or not - I can see that being written either way.

But turn it around a bit - if they had specifically shown Armitage his calendar for June, said "tell us about the Woodward meeting", and he denied it, would a perjury charge not have been forthcoming?

Well - if they did that and still did not charge him, this investigation was even more of a joke than I think.

Instead, I just don't see any indication at all that Armitage's June activity was covered. E.g., news reports were of subpoenas of White House phone records, not State; State emails disappear after 90 days.

Of course, we have redactions to confound us.

So what, exactly, were the helpful questions he was supposed to ask that were going to trigger Armitage to tell a different story about his Woodward conversation?

Hmm - "Here is a meeting with Woodward on June 13 - try to recall what you discussed. Ask Woodward if you need to".

Might have worked. He seemed to remember as soon as Libby was indicted and he allowed Woodward to speak to him.

Hmm - from Jeff:

it seems hard to argue, if we assume that Fitzgerald did not issue a subpoena for Armitage's calendars from June 2003 by fall 2004, that Fitzgerald treated Armitage and Libby differently on this basis. So I take it the comparison you offer fails to make your point.

Uhh, Fitzgerald had plenty on Libby without the June 23 meeting, and put his other activities from June under a microscope. Do you really think Fitzgerald tracked every meeting in which Amritage discussed Plame in June? Why would he? He had no reason to think Armitage was lying about how he learned about Ms. Plame (but I would love to know if Armitage copped to the June 10 INR memo or the July 7 recirculation.)

On covertitude:

it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson...

It is clear that some folks are untroubled by the passive voice and timelessness of "early on", which may well precede Fitzgerald's arrival on the case.

Others are troubled.

Funniest thing I have read tonight on covertitude and certitude:

Do you EVER consider that you are wrong about that?

I mean that, in all seriousness, snark aside. Has it even crossed your mind that you are wrong about that?

I am confident that JEP is fully conversant with both sides of the argument and is wracked by doubt daily.

I will say that I consider it a permanent triumph over the likes of Toensing that Fitzgerald simply made the judgment that Plame was covert according to IIPA and that therefore a violation was possible - something that Toensing repeatedly and in print denied. That is, she denied that Fitzgerald made this judgment, and asserted that he had made the opposite judgment.

Interesting - wasn't the Fitzgerald affidavit or sentencing memo making those points well after the fact?

And the CIA employment summary was also produced well into the case, not at the outset.

But I may be wrong, so feel free to produce any contemporaneous analysis as to M. Plame's covertiness. Something, for example, from these two affidavits - oops, the IIPA is not mentioned at all in the Cooper affy, and only in an ambiguous footnote in the Miller case.

But maybe somewhere else.

And while on that topic, no one has yet riddled me this - why didn't Fitzgerald simply tell us, straight out of her classified personnel file, the last date (or even year, if security is a problem) for which Ms. Plame received credit for service abroad on her pension?

Seems like a very straightforward exercise, and less cumbersome than citing all those trips abroad. Complies nicely with CIA regs for service abroad, too - very tidy. But he didn't tell us - I still wonder about that, and I know JEP does too.

And in the Bonus Round - when will the CIA Counsel respond to Rep. Hoekstra, as reported by Novak this spring?

On March 21, Hoekstra again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

Hmm, this is now a too-long comment.

[Robert Parry]

Novak's Limited Plame-gate Hang-Out

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/070907.html

Right-wing columnist Robert Novak has played a complex game in advancing the Bush administration’s “Plame-gate” cover-up. Novak was the one who first published the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame; he then answered a few questions before going silent; now, he is making a series of misleading arguments via his columns.

[Tom Maguire]

Geez, where is semanticlown now?

With his/her permission, I will be toddling off for now. Open issues include:

1. Sustainability of an Espionage Act charge given the "intent to harm US" requirement;

2. Fitzgerald's ducking of Ms. Plame's pension service abroad dates;

3. Everyone's ducking of Novak's report that CIA Counsel still has not opined on Ms. Plame's status;

4. An absence of any contemporaneous evidence that the applicability of the IIPA was analyzed (rather than asserted). And do feel free to square that with Fitzgerald's Oct 2005 press conference explaining that investigators investigate facts, not statutes - I am not sure why, based on that logic, they would have spent a lot of time studying the applicability of the IIPA.

I think they went with, the shoe might fit, walk around in it, and he rationalized that at his presser. Just a guess, and I am keen to see evidence to the contrary. But not evidence prepared in 2006 or 2007.

5. Dick ordered Libby to out Plame and Libby knew she was classified. Is there actually any new "evidence" for this?

That's just my list, of course.

[Jodi]

Gentlemen Giants: Mr Tom Maguire and Mr cboldt,

I stand in awe at the breath of your knowlege and the power of your arguments..

My arguments, though you did back them up, were only feeble and intuitive, lacking the force that you have now brought to this discussion.

Still, I fear (as you said) the questions will remain in folklore forever, much as 'how many people were on that grassy knoll', and whether 'Elvis lives', and 'Area 51'.

[KevinNYC]

Um, regarding the Plame covert status.
In 2003, the CIA asserted she was.
The Justice Department must have looked into this and agreed an investigation should occur.
The charge was so serious the Attorney General had to step aside.
The FBI looked into this.
Libby lied to the FBI.
Plame testified before Congress she was covert. Waxman read into the record the statement from the current head of the CIA that she was covert.
Filings from the Plame case affirm she was covert.

Do you really think all that would have happened if she wasn't really covert? Even under the statue. Seriously? You don't think Cheney's and Libby's allies wouldn't have leaked definitive evidence that she was just "a desk jockey?" For real. The CIA is not a monolith and plenty of folks who are Republicans work there.

cboldt, she may have been "domestic" but the statue covers the previous five years. She was a WMD analyst, she almost certainly was studing Iraq and Al Qaeda from 2001-2003. Trips made under NOC count as to having served overseas, she didn't need a foreign residence.

Seriously, do you think the Justice Department collaborated on a CIA frameup? Do you someone who saw the real documents wouldn't have come foward if they showed SHE WAS NOT CONVERT?. Seriously? for real?

[KevinNYC]

Here's what the head of the CIA agreed to reveal in public. Do you believe this is artfully worded lies? Do believe it was deception?

General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under executive order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly- secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA. Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson has faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country. Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice. As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks the CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.

Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point. Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably and we are confident she will uphold it again today.

[tnhblog]

TM, cut thesnide BS. It is incumbent upon you to prove all your baseless assertions. We have the evidence we need. You sound like a damned conspiracy theorist.

[Jodi]

I told you so, but you said it too.

Especially from tnhblog "We have the evidence we need"

I just wonder why tnhblog didn't prosecute the case himself if he is so smart.

[boris]

Based on trial testimony Harlow "gave her up" to three people.

Cathie Martin, Robert Grenier, Bob Novak.

Without indication that her CIA affiliation was classified.

When Harlow called Novak back to request not publishing her name, he could have said "because her CIA affiliation is classified" and Novak would have pulled the detail. Even after checking he didn't. What he claimed (later) IIRC was he couldn't give Novak the reason CIA wanted to keep her out of the story because THAT REASON was classified (not her affiliation with the CIA apparently). As a former covert agent there would be many things about her CIA career that remain classified and conceivably THE REASON would be among them. Such as, some operation more than 5 years old that the CIA would like to keep under wrap regardless of whether IIPA applies.

Now of course all that is jumbled together as one big entanglement (classified REASON, classified STATUS, classified AFFILIATION, covert agent).

[Martin]

I fail to see how Maguire believes he's earned the right to play the supercilious ass when every prediction he proffered (right up to the Appeals Court would keep Libby out of jail on a "close question") was so wrong.

[boris]

But right about Armi-gate.

[Boo Radley]

Tom,

Reading your comments, I've lost a lot of respect for your intellectual honesty. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility.

You wrote:

"And while we are figuring, have you figured out how Fitzgerald would get past the first sentence of the Espionage Act:

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense **with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States**

[...]

And while on that topic, no one has yet riddled me this - why didn't Fitzgerald simply tell us, straight out of her classified personnel file, the last date (or even year, if security is a problem) for which Ms. Plame received credit for service abroad on her pension?"

Why are you not asking these questions of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby? Where is their due diligence to determine if there would be "injury" to the US from THEIR leaking? When did Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Libby ever try to determine if Plame was covert?

If you were holding them to the same high standard that you hold Fitzgerald, I would be more inclined to read your stuff.

"And in the Bonus Round"

I'd invite you to consider dropping the snark. This isn't Jack Abramoff and K Street where for the most part, only money was stolen. Your snark implies a separation from the lethal consequences of Bush's vanity war that does not exist. US soldiers have died unnecessarily in Iraq along with a lot of Iraqis. The occupation has destabilized the entire Middle East. Do you understand how narrow and how shallow the Straits of Hormuz are? All our ongoing occupation does is make Russia and Iran more dominant in the region. Why do you hate America?

[Ernie]

As far as Val's covert status all I notice is that everyone who wants to argue she was keeps making statements that she was without noting one salient fact. She was working at CIA headquarters. Whatever her status was supposed to be, regardless of her association with Brewster Jennings or her overseas service how can anyone argue with a straight face that the government is taking affirmitive steps to conceal her relationship with the government when she is working at Langley? Wether she was supposed to be covert or not, she clearly wasn't if she was driving into CIA headquarters to work. If anyone screwed up and blew her cover it was the CIA.

Someone, anyone, explain to me how working at CIA headquarters helps to conceal one's relationship with the CIA or the government. Please, this is driving me nuts how people simply ignore the most basic fact in this entire argument.

I see two choices. One, she wasn't covert. Two, the CIA is incompetent. If there is another please explain it to me.

[Jeff]

1. Sustainability of an Espionage Act charge given the "intent to harm US" requirement;

You've misrepresented the statute, haven't you? There need not be intent. There only need be "reason to believe." Fitzgerald was prepared to argue that the identity of a covert intelligence agent, particularly where the agent's area of responsibility involves WMD, by its very nature may constitute national defense information the disclosure of which could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of a foreign nation, as the term is use in the Espionage Act. So all you need for the further step is that Libby would be aware of that. There need be no specific intent on Libby's part to harm the United States. This is another instance of Fitzgerald doing what he does so well - being an aggressive federal prosecutor. If you don't like it, take it up with the federal criminal justice system.

2. Fitzgerald's ducking of Ms. Plame's pension service abroad dates;

I still can't believe you take this as seriously as you seem to. But let's just assume he was "ducking" it because her pension didn't include her most covert work abroad. Fitzgerald still managed to determine, after examining her classified file, that she was covert under IIPA. See below, answer to 3 for more.

3. Everyone's ducking of Novak's report that CIA Counsel still has not opined on Ms. Plame's status;

(Ooh, ducking something from Novak. Remind me not to find that laughable.) Let's just assume for the sake of argument that CIA did not determine that Plame was covert one way or the other, and referred a plain vanilla potential improper disclosure of classified information to DoJ. Fine. DoJ investigators and Fitzgerald arrived at the distinct position that a violation of the IIPA was possible because Plame did indeed qualify as covert, and they and not CIA are the ones who make the determination. Given how goofy the definition of covertness is in IIPA - that marvelous statute written by the estimable Victoria Toensing, by her own account anyway - and how at variance it is with the real-world, CIA determination of covertness for its undercover officers, and given that the issue has not been litigated, is it any surprise that CIA would seek to dodge this issue and leave it to the, you know, people who are actually going to have to make prosecutive decisions and litigate the meaning of the statute?

4. An absence of any contemporaneous evidence that the applicability of the IIPA was analyzed (rather than asserted). And do feel free to square that with Fitzgerald's Oct 2005 press conference explaining that investigators investigate facts, not statutes - I am not sure why, based on that logic, they would have spent a lot of time studying the applicability of the IIPA.

I think they went with, the shoe might fit, walk around in it, and he rationalized that at his presser. Just a guess, and I am keen to see evidence to the contrary. But not evidence prepared in 2006 or 2007.

You have long misunderstood and misrepresented the point of what Fitzgerald said in the press conference in that regard. Among many other things, you do need to understand the range of statutes that might have been violated by the conduct you are invesitgating. The point of Fitzgerald's remarks was that investigators were not simply investigating possible violations of one statute in particular (and in particular, I think, IIPA). Fitzgerald echoed those remarks in his argument on 6-14-07, when he explained that Comey's letter of clarification to him clarified that he could investigate any statute possibly violated by the conduct he was investigating, as there had been a lot of confusion that there was just one statute whose possible violation the investigation was investigating.

But leave that aside. Here is some direct evidence, not prepared in 2006 or 2007 or even 2007. In his 8-27-04 and 9-27-04 affidavits, Fitzgerald explained the efforts expended to date by investigators, and included this:

From the United States Attorney's Office in illinois, a number of senior attorneys have participated. Besides my own participation in the factual investigation, the First Assistant United States Attorney, the Chief of the CRiminal Division, the Chief of Appeals and the Chief of Public Corruption haved participated to varying degrees in the discussion of legal issues, including analyzing the relevant statutes, analyzing the First Amendment issues and determining the available means to obtain electronic evidence. An additional attorney from the appellate seection has spent substantial time on legal research and briefing in recent months.

Furthermore, I have long argued that you can see the fruits of that analysis in Fitzgerald's famous footnote 15 in the 8-27-094 affidavit, and his determination that Plame qualified as covert under IIPA is embodied in that footnote. One can disagree all you want with how Fitzgerald interpreted the statute; but he did. Furthermore, Tatel read this footnote as indicating that Fitzgerald was claiming that Plame was covert; we now know that Fitzgerald did indeed believe that; he also did not correct Tatel; and I think you can see clearly now that Fitzgerald was implying in this footnote that Plame was covert, as far as he was concerned (since if Libby believed she was covert, but she was not, he could not be prosecuted, according to the statute).

5. Dick ordered Libby to out Plame and Libby knew she was classified. Is there actually any new "evidence" for this?

I asked you about this in the last thread I commented in, but I think it went dead. Put aside for a moment whether or not it would have been a crime - what do you think the probability is that Cheney directed Libby to disclose Plame's CIA employment to Judith Miller on July 8? From what we know now, I would rate it as a pretty high probability. Obviously, the question of whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA officer is a distinct one and would decide whether in disclosing Plame's CIA identity to Miller, Libby/Cheney were negligent/reckless or deliberately criminal in violation of Espiponage Act or IIPA.

As for new evidence, there is an interetingly new (to us) description of the Libby-Edelman interactions in one of the newly unredacted affidavits (8-27-04, p. 12). Edelman testified that either Libby or Libby’s briefer told him that Wilson's wife played a role in having Wilson sent to Niger. So when Edelman asked whether information about how Wilson's trip came about shared with the press, what do you think he was asking? And when Libby indicated there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, what do you think he was talking about?

And more generally, Tom, what’s your explanation for the fact that Libby and Cheney sure treated the information like close-hold information? Are you sticking with the defense’s theory that Plame simply was not part of the story for them, so that when Cheney said he wanted to get all the facts out, he didn’t have in mind Plame’s involvement in her husband’s trip? Or do you rather think – understandably enough – that Cheney and Libby were really angered by Wilson, especially once they learned that he was, in your felicitous turn of phrase, literally sleeping with the enemy CIA, and she had evidently sent him on the trip, and so – understandably enough – they saw Plame’s role as relevant information that spoke to Wilson’s credibility, and so they thought it was part of the story that should be gotten out?

To be more orderly about it: what is the probability that between July 6 and July 8 Libby and Cheney did not know that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and apparently had a role in sending him on his mission to Niger? What is the probability that they considered that a relevant part of the story? What is the probability that, considering it a relevant part of the story, they wanted that part of the story out? What is the explanation for why, considering it a relevant part of the story that they wanted out, they wouldn’t just tell everyone in OVP to tell the press? Given that Libby did disclose Plame’s CIA employment to Miller on July 8, and given that Cheney was writing notes about her sending Wilson on a junket and so on and so forth, what is the probability that Cheney and Libby did not discuss Plame while deliberating together on what Libby would tell Miller on July 8? If Cheney’s refrain that week was that he wanted to get all the information out, what is the probability that in discussing what Libby was going to say to Miller on July 8 with Libby, that he did not communicate to Libby that he wanted the information about Plame out?

[Jeff]

cboldt

The "affirmative measures" part of the statute again would have to be litigated. I'm not going to vouch for the CIA's measures. But the statute doesn't say that the affirmative measures have to be this good and effective and not less and so on and so forth. This, in my view, is the weakest part of the argument currently of those who think an IIPA violation was not even possible.

one can't both be an effective spy and be known to be associated with the CIA.

And Plame was not so known. She was not undercover only when she was working abroad.

Service outside of the United States is another element necessary to be covert under the IIPA. A domestic spook can't be covert! I haven't carefully probed what "served outside the United States" comprises, but I think it requires at least a pretense of taking residence outside of the United States.

Obviously, Fitzgerald arrived at a different understanding of that requirement of IIPA - covert work abroad within the past five years, on his argument, consstituted service abroad. Maybe the courts would decide against him. But that was his determination, and there's no reason to think it was made in anything other than good faith.

[semiot]

Wow KevinNYC! Hayden sure did throw Valerie under the bus there. And he still has a job?

As to Armitage (I know this is way past EPU, but I had to leave yesterday just as things were getting fired up on this thread): At best, Dick Armitage is guilty of malfeasance. For someone in his position, with his experience at high levels of government, to go blabbing to reporters about CIA personnel, without knowledge of the possible consequences of such action - that, my friends, is either unbelievable or not in keeping with the responsibilities entrusted to him.

But then no - combat Marines (Ollie North, cough, cough) would never, ever do anything against the CIA or other important government agencies.

[Brendan]

Jodi: Gentlemen Giants: Mr Tom Maguire and Mr cboldt,

I stand in awe at the breath of your knowlege and the power of your arguments..

Ooh, Messrs. Tom Maguire and cboldt, you have won the fawning admiration of the local troll.

A feather in your respective caps, to be sure.