1. Anonymous says:

    5 days or less. We can wait. Of interest is the Times story in further exploring how the GOP attack machine will respond.

    Howard Dean got the message out on This Week (without distraction): they’ll attaqck. That’s what they always do. But atacking Dean and attacking Fitz as per judy’s column are very different things. And note that Newsweek didn’t fall for it, but printed Judy’s comment. She’s damaged goods now. Everyone’s wary.

  2. Anonymous says:

    That is a great point about Novak using Flame in an article, pretty much destroys his Who’s Who Defense.

    Emptywheel, any opinions about Elliot Abrams involvment in this case? David Corn mentioned this early on.

  3. Anonymous says:

    kim

    Good question. I’ve been wondering when he would reappear. I certainly think it possible he is the â€third source†everyone is wondering about (Pincus’ source, among others). And they have used Abrams for this kind of work before, albeit on an area more closely related to his purported Latin American expertise.

    If he is the third source, then I suspect he’ll get a security violation charge and conspiracy. Just to be thorough, you understand. But I also think it possible he wasn’t involved at all.

  4. Anonymous says:

    A quick note on the Valerie â€Flame†name: it seems possible that it won’t lead to a single source. In other words, perhaps â€Flame†was a nickname within the conspiracy to discredit Wilson because they either felt burned by her, or because they were going to burn her cover.

    If they commonly referred to her internally as â€Flame†– and given this administration’s penchant for nicknames, there’s every reason to consider it – then reporters mixups with the name might be due to various sources inadvertently referring to her as â€Flame†out of habit from internal WH discussions.

  5. Anonymous says:

    emptywheel,

    I feel like a diabetic in a candy factory with all these articles of yours.

    You wrote:

    â€Well, it almost certainly means Fitzgerald has two witnesses (Novak and Cooper) to prove Rove leaked Plame’s CIA identity and it almost certainly means Fitzgerald has two witnesses (Novak and Judy) to prove Libby leaked Plame’s CIA identity. On top of that, Fitzgerald has a lot of evidence to show that Rove and Libby conspired to obstruct justice, that they perjured themselves, that they tampered with a witness.â€

    Based on the pattern of the leaks, â€obsessive Scooter,†â€burned out Scooter,†Rove/Luskin/WH are throwing Scooter â€under the bus.†Rove/Luskin/WH IMO would never have done this if they thought Fitz had two witnesses OTHER than Scooter against Karl. If you’re right, and it seems crystal clear to me that you are, not only did Rove/Luskin/WH not gain anything from sacrificing Scooter, they lost a ton, because they drove him closer to Fitz. Three witnesses against Karl leaking Plame’s identity is 33% more than two witnesses against Karl leaking Plame’s identity.

    Posted by John Casper

  6. Anonymous says:

    What’s significant here is not the information, vaguely sourced and nothing new, but the fact that this is the first time I recall seeing mention of Novak’s possible cooperation in the MSM.

    I’ll also guess that â€legal sources†is Novak’s lawyer and/or the lawyers of whoever ratted Plame out to Novak. Motive? Perhaps to soften the blow, since the indictments will likely make fairly clear who was saying what to whom.

    – Rick

  7. Anonymous says:

    Importantly, does anyone here think Robert Novak is loyal to anyone but Robert Novak?

    In other words, if Novak had to have a second visit to the GJ to â€clean up†testimony, do you really think he’d perjure himself to try to save Rove or Libby?

  8. Anonymous says:

    park

    No, I agree with you. It is fairly clear that Robert Novak tried to undo the damage he had done with his October column. And we don’t know what he said the first time he testified. But my point is that, if he got a come to Jesus talking to like Judy got, he’d get pretty damn forthcoming pretty quickly.

    John Casper

    I’m not sure the obsessive Scooter thing is a coordinated strategy. That is, I think Rove’s people are throwing some stuff out there, Libbys (Matalin especially) are throwing other stuff out there. It’s every criminal for himself at the WH, at least as far as leaks go.

    JohnGabriel

    Yes, I agree, we may not get anywhere with the Flame reference. But by itself it discredits Novak’s Who’s Who claim. That’s all I think we can get out of it, unless Fitz has a memo that says, â€to cover up the leak, use these alterantive names.â€

    One more thought on Flame.

    I’ve been wondering if it appeared in Judy’s notes much later, perhaps in Fall. That is, did she go back and write in Flame to give Libby plausible deniability, to solidify the â€I didn’t give her name†defense?

  9. Anonymous says:

    JohnGabriel,

    I hadn’t associated Novak’s and Judy’s use of the â€Flame†name for Plame with the WH use of nicknames. Great pickup. That might be the origin of the nickname.

    The behavior of 3 people appears to indicate that the nickname was important. (See my speculative and more casually written post here for details.)

    The behaviors of Novak and Fitzgerald in particular are difficult for me to understand unless there is a document with the â€Flame†name used unambiguously to identify Valerie Plame.

    Note that Christopher Dickey is also puzzled in the first two paragraphs of page 2 here by Fitzgerald’s and Judy’s behavior in this matter. (I think this Christopher Dickey article has been too much ignored by Plameologists. He speculates along a completely different path than the norm and hence should be paid attention to.)

    Now, might this nickname with a WH origin appear in a document? Perhaps. I could see that it might appear in a casually written email and even a very important email if participants believed that the nickname reference never would be figured out.

    Again, great pickup.

    ================================
    emptywheel,

    It seems to me that the argument against Judy going back later and writing in the â€Flame†name is this: Fitzgerald’s behavior would appear to indicate the he thinks it’s important. Details on this at the link to my post above.

  10. Anonymous says:

    emptywheel,
    Couldn’t the â€Flame†thing be a spell check correction error? I know that Judy supposedly wrote her notes long-hand, and so this wouldn’t explain her transcription, but–but if I were to type â€Plame†in my emails or word processor, the automatic spell check would either correct it to â€Flame†or suggest that I do it by pressing a key, which I might do almost as an automatic reflex. I think the â€Flame†thing is important, because it was carried on, like in that party game where somebody messes up the story and soon it is written in stone (or email)or shouted into somebody’s ear; but I don’t buy the code nickname theory. Occum’s razor (or somthing like that) don’t you think?
    –Robespierre (waiting for the the other razor dropping…)

  11. Anonymous says:

    park –

    Novak strikes me as having an odd sort of integrity – he is an old-style reactionary, and wasn’t a fan of the Iraq war. He may have cooperated early and readily, and the fact that he lied in his column need not mean he lied to the GJ.

    In fact, here is a nutso theory for you: What if Novak flamed Plame so openly because he knew she was getting burned anyway, and decided to set up a little blowback? After all, one indisputable fact is that the Novak column triggered the investigation. Novak is not stupid, and the outcome was predictable from the moment he linked her to WH leakers.

    Yeah, I know, that’s crazy.

    – Rick

  12. Anonymous says:

    park –

    Novak strikes me as having an odd sort of integrity – he is an old-style reactionary, and wasn’t a fan of the Iraq war. He may have cooperated early and readily, and the fact that he lied in his column need not mean he lied to the GJ.

    In fact, here is a nutso theory for you: What if Novak flamed Plame so openly because he knew she was getting burned anyway, and decided to set up a little blowback? After all, one indisputable fact is that the Novak column triggered the investigation. Novak is not stupid, and the outcome was predictable from the moment he linked her to WH leakers.

    Yeah, I know, that’s crazy.

    – Rick

  13. Anonymous says:

    park –

    Novak strikes me as having an odd sort of integrity – he is an old-style reactionary, and wasn’t a fan of the Iraq war. He may have cooperated early and readily, and the fact that he lied in his column need not mean he lied to the GJ.

    In fact, here is a nutso theory for you: What if Novak flamed Plame so openly because he knew she was getting burned anyway, and decided to set up a little blowback? After all, one indisputable fact is that the Novak column triggered the investigation. Novak is not stupid, and the outcome was predictable from the moment he linked her to WH leakers.

    Yeah, I know, that’s crazy.

    – Rick

  14. Anonymous says:

    Robespierre,

    Please excuse my immodesty in pushing my own post. But the best, admittedly speculative, argument (so far) against the â€spell checker†origin of the â€Flame†name for Plame is this:

    The behavior of 3 folks involved in the matter appears to show that it is important in some way. That argument is here.

    emptywheel,

    re: your point below where the â€it†is the â€Flame†name for Plame:

    â€That’s all I think we can get out of it, unless Fitz has a memo that says, ’to cover up the leak, use these alterantive names.’â€

    If there are documents of any kind associated with the leakers or those around them which use the name â€Flame†in clear reference to Valerie Plame then that, in itself, is significant evidence. It’s evidence that the document author was aware, at the very least, of the meaning of the name that found it’s way into Judy Miller’s notebook. Seems to me that that is not a trivial thing, IMO.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Having been out of touch for the last 36 or so hours, my summing up of the weekend news is that the dam has finally begun to break among the Repubs who are disgusted and becoming, frankly, more than a bit scared about the Bush II Administration.

    Steve Clemons quoted from The Nelson Report last week about people’s reaction to the Larry Wilkerson speech:

    â€But what they wanted to know was ’Is Wilkerson speaking directly for Powell and Armitage?’

    â€The answer: not exactly. On the one hand, there is no question from private remarks and public grimaces, some reaching back to early 2001, neither Powell nor Armitage had or has much trust or respect for Rice, and they share with other senior Republican wisemen the conviction that Rumsfeld is quite literally mad, and Cheney a dangerous, vindictive monomaniac.â€

    So I would go with the theory propounded by someone in a thread yesterday that GHWBush can’t talk to his son and realizes that the people he trusted to guide his second (third?) brightest son, namely Rummy and Cheney, turned out for whatever reason to be more evil, more incompetent and/or more crazy than he had realized. People like GHW and Scowcroft can’t possibly put loyalty to Georgie over loyalty to the GOP and conservatism as a whole–he just isn’t worth it, and if he takes the country down, he takes GHW’s legacy with him. They have to be worried about us bombing Syria or even Iran, suicidal as that would be, as well as an incompetent response to the next serious crisis.

    The Dems, who have proven themselves far better at governing than any of the clowns now in power, and that includes waging war and protecting our security, have to find their voices and start speaking truth to the American people about the difficult circumstances we are in and the hard choices that lie ahead, or the less crazy side of the GOP are likely to become the â€wise men†who lead us out of this crisis instead of the Dems. So I say to Dems who would be leaders, it’s starting to be now or never time. You get to lead by leading–at least if you aren’t of the lie, cheat and steal persuasion–there is no other way. You portray strength by being strong. Just do it, before it’s too late.

  16. Anonymous says:

    xposted at Kos.

    I’m sure this idea has been suggested by emptywheel or others before now, but I just had an Occam’s Razor epiphany about it last night: Fitzgerald has said that he wrapped up the Plame investigation â€for all practical purposes†in October 2004. I think he had already built his conspiracy case by then, but needed Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony on record to make sure it didn’t undermine the case in any way. IOW, Fitzgerald, being the completist he is, didn’t need their testimony in order to get new info, but rather to make sure it didn’t exonerate the conspirators (that he was further able to nab Rove and Libby in lies and obstruction through M & C’s testimony was just gravy to Fitz).

    That would explain the 8 redacted pages in the papers Fitz presented to the court, arguing for the jailing of M & C. Those pages discussed the conspiracy he had identified, perhaps in addition to the effects on national security of the outing of Valerie Plame, and that’s why they were so convincing to every judge who reviewed them. What say you guys?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Novak reverted in his October 1 column–the one prosecutors think he may have fibbed in–to the Valerie Flame usage, rather than the Valerie Plame he used in his first column. Given that he invented the Who’s Who story at about the same time, the Flame spelling is a huge problem for Novak’s pre-fabricated lie. You can’t, on one hand, claim you found Plame’s name from Who’s Who and, at the same time, use the name Valerie Flame.

    Just to be thorough, what if Novak’s use of â€Flame†in the October article was intentional, and part of a plan which we haven’t yet considered?

  18. Anonymous says:

    orchid314: In support of your argument, there’s a point in the 83 page ruling where one of the judges says â€the plot against Wilsonâ€. Here’s the passage:

    In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.

    Granted, the term is used in making a hypothetical argument, but it’s not used in the sense that â€the plot against Wilson†is hypothetical. The hypothetical element in the judge’s argument is the whistleblower.

  19. Anonymous says:

    obsessed

    What do you mean? I think it likely they might have introduced Flame at a time they were going technical–that is, it bolsters their claim Rove and Libby didn’t release her NAME. Or were you thinking something more nefarious.

    orchid

    It’s a good question, one I’ve though of myself. It certainly gives lie to the GOP spin that Fitz has JUST moved onto conspiracy and perjury.

    My guess is Fitz got to the point where he needed the imminent pressure of indictment to get to the next gatekeepers (in ascending order, Hannah, Wurmser, Libby and Rove). But that he needed Cooper and Miller in order to get the latter two. I also suspect (based only on Fitz’ solo visit to Judge Hogan a few weeks back) that he may have already reimpaneled the grand jury, to investigate the larger (Niger) conspiracy. But that he will issue the Plame-specific indictments this week, and use those to crack open Niger.

  20. Anonymous says:

    emptywheel: I’m trying to reconcile two possible theories:

    1) Novak’s use of â€Flame†in 10/03 was a blunder, as argued by your original post above:

    Given that he invented the Who’s Who story at about the same time, the Flame spelling is a huge problem for Novak’s pre-fabricated lie. You can’t, on one hand, claim you found Plame’s name from Who’s Who and, at the same time, use the name Valerie Flame.

    2) Novak’s use of â€Flame†in 10/03, (and possibly Judy’s in her notes), was intentional — to provide some sort of deniability to the leakers.

    And I fervently hope you’re right about Fitzgerald’s meeting with Hogan!

  21. Anonymous says:

    Oh, I think it was a blunder only insofar as no one had made sure their story was internally consistent. I think he did mean to use Flame. But I think he (I mean Rove) didn’t think through how using Flame would undermine the Who’s Who excuse.

  22. Anonymous says:

    emptywheel and obsessed,

    I agree that if the â€Flame†name has significance, we might conclude that Novak’s use of it in the 10/3 article was a blunder.

    However, by the time of the Carville/Novak/Who’s Who volume on the desk incident at CNN we can surmise that, at least Novak, had realized the problem. The problem was so big, in Novak’s mind, that he was willing to behave in a way that cost him his CNN gig.

    He didn’t know why the Who’s Who volume was on the interviewer’s desk and he had to assume that Carville was behind putting it there. Neither the CNN producer nor the interviewer would have thought to place it there on their own.

    And Novak had no idea where James â€Hand-’em-an-anchor†Carville might be inteding to take the discussion. I’ll bet Jimmy was just intending to play with him a bit and let him know that he knew.

    Admittedly speculative, all of it.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Which is why, continuing the speculation, it may be part of the way Fitz got Novak to see Jesus. If Novak knew the gaping hole in the Who’s Who claim, and found it so damaging it was worth more than his day job, there’s a decent chance Novak suspected the Who’s Who could expose his complicity (and possible capitulation to Fitz) all by itself.

  24. Anonymous says:

    OK. I confess. I like writing it, I like reading it, and I like saying it.

    – The â€Flame†name for Plame

    – The Plame â€Flame†name

    – The Plame name â€Flame†game

  25. Anonymous says:

    emptywheel & aspTrader: Thanks for bearing with me here. I understand how the following defeats Novak’s lie that he got â€Plame†from Who’s Who:

    Oh, I think it was a blunder only insofar as no one had made sure their story was internally consistent. I think he did mean to use Flame. But I think he (I mean Rove) didn’t think through how using Flame would undermine the Who’s Who excuse.

    Now, just get it perfectly clear in my feeble mind once and for all, how exactly might the â€Flame†ruse have translated into an alibi for Rove (or others)? In other words, if â€Flame†was an agreed-upon fabrication by Novak & Rove (and apparently Miller), what was their plan, specifically?

    Rove: â€All right, Bob, here’s what we do …â€

  26. Anonymous says:

    Josh Marshall is asking a question that I’d dearly love to have answered:
    WTF is up with Bush nominating McNulty (Larry Franklin/AIPAC prosecutor) as Deputy
    Atty. General??

  27. Anonymous says:

    Rove: â€Well, Bob, start using the word Flame. Pretend that’s what you heard. It’ll suggest whoever leaked it to you didn’t leak her name, was just going on hearsay.â€

    Lame, I admit. But these guys seem to be just this lame.

    Also, wrt McNulty, I doubt there’s a question. You put someone who is ALMOST as pliant as the last hack they nominated to oversee and interrupt the Plame investigation. He had already proven his willingness to interrupt justice for a good partisan cause.

  28. Anonymous says:

    obsessed,

    Billmon also wondering about that.

    Someone with a clear understanding of the Independent Counsel Act would have to chime in about what NcNulty could do.

  29. Anonymous says:

    John Casper:

    â€Three witnesses against Karl leaking Plame’s identity is 33% more than two witnesses against Karl leaking Plame’s identityâ€.

    Actually, that should have been â€50% more†— 3 is 50% more than 2, just as 150 is 50% more than 100. With all the talk about spell checking, I guess nobody cares about math checking

    Apart from this, love the site!

  30. Anonymous says:

    Hardball is good tonight. Did Andrea Mitchell just suggest Tom Defrank’s source is Dick Cheney?

  31. Anonymous says:

    Did Andrea Mitchell just suggest Tom Defrank’s source is Dick Cheney?

    for those of us in the PST zone, can you elaborate?

  32. Anonymous says:

    Andrea Mitchell was emphasizing DeFrank’s connections with Cheney going back to when DeFrank covered the White House during the Ford years. It was all done in the context of vouching for what an experienced reporter DeFrank is, but there was an undertone, I thought. Also, the way DeFrank talked about his source wasn’t inconsistent with Cheney being the one bitching about Bush blaming him.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Quick comment on Plame/Flame… it’s possible Judy Miller (or a source) learned about Plame from a document — or from a non-English speaker — for whom the F/P sounds were easily transposed.

    One example should explain this phenomenon – many native speakers of Japanese have difficulty with the American â€L†so that if they say â€lice†it ends up sounding like â€rice.†Obviously, these are quite different sounds to the ears of native English speakers — â€L†made in the back of the throat; â€R†made with the tongue up at the top of the mouth… yet for many Japanese speakers learning English, these two quite different consonants are often interchanged.

    I grew up around Native Americans who pronounce â€the†as â€deâ€, mixing up D / TH sounds. For speakers of â€white middle-class English,†the sound â€D†is created by pushing the tongue up against the roof of the mouth, whereas â€THâ€pushes the tongue against the front teeth. White, middle-class speakers never get these two sounds mixed up; others have trouble hearing the difference between â€TH†and â€D.â€

    It’s not unheard of for quite different consonants to be ’mis-used’, or ’mixed up’ by non-native speakers of English.

    I don’t know which language groups might substitute â€F†for â€P†(or vice-versa) — either in speaking **or in writing.** If I were on Fitz’s team, I’d want more info about the languages (or foreign speakers) most likely to make this sort of error.

    I doubt that Mr. FitzP has a linguist on his staff, but hope he has consulted one.