Who’s Armando?

Cheney was my gut instinct, but you fleshed it out quite a bit. And I generally agree with your conclusions.

I forget the exact rule on the â€senior admin official†sourcing convention. It’s President, VP, Cabinet and Cabinet-level secretaries/directors, and deputy secretaries of Defense and State, right?

Who’s Armando? I want to know who this Trapper John character is.

John Costello, you’re absolutely right. But the burden for Espionage is pretty high (remember Fitzgerald’s comments on it during his press conference). It would be much harder to make a convincing case for espionage when the information was passed without treating it as confidential (particularly since Woodward claims this was just gossip). And this wouldn’t fit the IIPA restrictions either because it doesn’t OUT her as a NOC.

Orion. I thought of that. It’s possible, I think. But I’m not yet convinced Bush is involved in this that early. That is, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is eventually implicated in this. But I don’t imagine him being implicated until the time Rove is involved, which–at least as far as we know–mostly comes later, in July.

One other question I’m wondering about–is Woodward’s source the same as Pincus’ still unidenfied source? They were told exactly the same thing. And they describe it in very similar terms, someone not leaking classified information. Just random wondering, I guess.

SAO, I think, is cabinet level, people with secretary in their title (as in, Under Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation) and top aides or cabinet level. But don’t quote me on that, unless you attribute it to a former Hill staffer.

My only caveat with the KhomeiniCheney theory is that I’m not convinced that he would talk freely with Woodward. Has anyone read Woodward’s book on the lead up to war? I know that Bush was quite forthcoming with information for Woodward, but I don’t remember that Cheney was. I only read the excerpts in the WaPo, so this is more speculation on my part.

I think GeorgiePorgie told Woodward. Georgie wasn’t really leaking; he was gossipping. And he was lucky that he said it to Woodward, who wouldn’t run with the ball. (I’m trusting Pincus on his memory, I realize. Pincus was really on the story and Woodward was the big picture guy, so a little detail like outing a CIA agent wasn’t important to him.)

Maybe it isn’t about the case primarily, but just to throw up a lot of smoke and make things so confusing for the public that nobody will blink when bush pardons Libby?

Woodward’s source had to know that Woodward would go public about testifying. Heck, maybe that was even a condition of the release. And Woodward bent over backward, according to his own report, not to contradict his own notes and to lead Fitzgerald away from IIPA liability. So Woodward is mostly covering his source, whoever it is, while confusing the timelines.

This is echt Rove– create maximum confusion in the enemy ranks.

I guess I find the Bush story more compelling than the Rove one. After all, proving that he didn’t know this was classified in June does nothing to prove he didn’t know it was classified in July, when someone told Novak it was classified.

But I just don’t think this rose to the level of Bush’s attention yet. But maybe I’m underestimating his nastiness, which you should never do.

I think Ari is strong guess for the second person. Except that Woodward does give an attribution there, and he describes this person as a â€administration official.†Ari, I think, qualifies as SAO.

Woodward himself calls them all â€admin officials†without a â€senior†in his whole piece, I think.

As Laura Rozen says, Woodward’s constant reference to the original discussions of Plame as â€just gossip†(so hilariously detailed by Atrios) are clearly how he himself exopereinced them. He was right there in the middle of it. Laura suggests Hadley, and rererences Novak’s â€not a partisan gunslingerâ€.

But what if Novak is using misdirection, and it was the original partisan gunslinger, Rove?

I had been of the view that this was all Cheney and Libby, and that Rove got in only for the smear. Now I don’t know, since they all obviously knew about it from mid-June on, and gossiped about it.

But whoever FIRST got the name out of the CIA files, or their own memory, surely one of the â€three little piggiesâ€, or Bolton, he knew she was classified. But, especially if it was one of the piggies and not Bolton, he might not have realized what they would do with the info.

Does Woodward talk to little people? Or does he only pal around the WH with the bog fish? What a self-important, lying hack he turned out to be. As Laura Rozen says, his free rein beggars even Judy Miller’s.

I’m with John Costello, I have a hard time believing this exonerates Cheney from Espionage. It is possible, however, that he â€forgot†he’d spoken with Woodward when Fitz interviewed him, for whatever reason feared Fitz was getting close to Woodward and decided to head off a false statement charge by coming forth himself.

I don’t necessarily think Fleitz told him, I think it’s quite possible Woodward was going to do an article that Fleitz was a part of. Remember Len Downie said they first became aware of Woodward’s â€source†a month ago when Woodward alerted them he might be doing a story (probably the rumor that reached both Steve Clemons and the NYT’s ears). That Woodward would at that point be doing a story about Cheney’s involvement seems a stretch.

I think it’s quite likely that Bolton told Woodward, and of course Fleitz is an integral part of any Bolton scenario. Bolton does count as a SAO, and having never been interviewed by Fitz, would not have mentioned Woodward. I also think it’s likely that Rover coughed up Bolton as part of whatever last minute â€reprieve†he received from Fitz, which I don’t think is necessarily a deal — I think Rove just very much wanted Libby indicted first, by himself, and was willing to trade some info to sail for a while.

I’ve finally gotten around to laying out some thoughts on the Woodward news — and I think that whoever the SAO was, there’s a strong circumstantial case that he/she was revealed to Fitz by Rove’s last-minute information to avoid indictment.

umzuzu

Pincus is a credible reporter who has done real work over decades. Most of the rest of the reporters on this story are self-promoting lightweights. I just don’t imagine Pincus leaking to these people.

And more importantly, Pincus’ sources are largely CIA. Which means if he had an institutional loyalty here, it was definitely CIA. If a journalist spread the Plame story, it was almost certainly a journalist who either feared and worshipped the WH or who was institutionally aligned with it.

I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best â€New York Times†reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.

I also spoke to someone who might be described as â€the best NYT reporter†that night and they were trying to track down the Fleitz rumor too, and Woodward put a pin in it with his Larry King appearance.

Ah, I’m beginning to better understand your Fleitz argument, Jane. I’m a little slow today.

But why would Bolton count as a bombshell? Maybe I’ve been a member of Plamania clubs too long, but it seems like Bolton would be no surprise to those who watched his UN nomination at all.

FWIW, I still firmly believe Bolton has at least been interviewed. I realize Shuster had to back off his claim to that effect. But it was only after some serious State arm-twisting. And there were other articles during the summer (sourced to a Powell ally at state) that said â€Under Secretaries†had been interviewed wrt the memo. Which almost certainly has to be Grossman and Bolton.

One more reason why Bush could be Woodward’s source:

Recall that Grossman did more than brief Libby on the contents of the June 10 memo. He reportedly had to go report on it to the White House. So it is possible that Bush got a Grossman briefing on the contents of the memo. And after that he blabbed his mouth to Woodward. I find that scenario more convincing–because it means Bush’s discovery of this fact is incidental. And it doesn’t necessarily mean Bush knew Plame was covert (the memo suggests she’s not).

Rawstory says Hadley told Woodward about Plame.

Raw Story has not been very reliable on this. But assuming they’re right on this (they’re going out further on a limb than they have before), Hadley is interesting. Is it Hadley who made a deal right before Libby got indicted, and not (or in addition to) Rove?

But again, this doesn’t do much for or against Libby’s indictment. Hadley may have learned from the June 11 or 12 meeting at the WH where Marc Grossman reported the contents of the INR memo–that’s all that Hadley revealed to Woodward. And I can believe that Hadley is Pincus’ source and perhaps even Novak’s first source.

But if all he told people is that Plame worked in WMD at the CIA (and he didn’t tell them she was covert), then it’s not a crime yet. Unless, of course, Dick or Libby shared the DO info with Hadley.

Hadley has been the Admin point man lately on the whole Wargate story, trying to push back on the war lies. And then there are the emabrrassing revelations about Pollari and SISMI and when, exactly, Hadley knew the Niger story was a crock.

And if Hadley knew, Condi must have as well, from the beginning.

I’m not a lawyer so I’m easily confused here…but why does saying she’s covert matter? Saying she works at the CIA on WMD…when her contacts believe she works someplace else…wasn’t that what did the damage? Nobody had to say she was covert. Nobody was supposed to say ANYTHING AT ALL. I thought.

Untangle me?

Emptywheel, I have a question about Jeffress. He’s Matalin’s lawyer as well as Libby’s now.

Can a lawyer in that situation use his experience with one client’s testimony to shape another’s defense?

An interesting circumstance to be in as Matalin and Libby were both WHIG members and connected with the press.

How informative was this Julian Borger paragraph, printed in a July 17, 2003 article in the Guardian (four days after Novak’s column)?

â€The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a â€productâ€, a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House. The primary customers were Mr Cheney, Mr Libby and their closest ideological ally on the national security council, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice’s deputy. In turn, they leaked some of the claims to the press, and used others as a stick with which to beat the CIA and the state department analysts, demanding they investigate the OSP leads.â€

â€Washington lawyer William Jeffress was also present as part of the Libby defense team. Likewise, he is well known for white-collar criminal defense work.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald acknowledged during the session that Jeffress had represented another client during the grand jury phase of his investigation.

That client, Mary Matalin, a former adviser to Vice President Cheney — whose name was not mentioned in court — had told Jeffress that she had consented to his representation of another client. Fitzgerald said he did not object.â€

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9910593/

I guess Fitzgerald’s aware of all this anyway, I’ll try asking ReddHedd.

Health promotion
You have an interesting blog.If you want to find out some information about Health promotion and Psychology- you are welcome to mine.

Emptywheel, I have a question about Jeffress. He’s Matalin’s lawyer as well as Libby’s now.
avandia
Can a lawyer in that situation use his experience with one client’s testimony to shape another’s defense?

An interesting circumstance to be in as Matalin and Libby were both WHIG members and connected with the press.