Two more details.

First, Pincus makes it clear that his source could be male or female:

(In writing this story, I am using the masculine pronoun simply for convenience).

Second, remember unknown fact #3: someone used Wilson’s trip report on February 4, 2003, to justify the Niger claims. The most likely candidates are Libby, Hadley, or State. It’d be kind of gravy if we learned that this person was in fact Libby, huh? because it would expose him as a lying sack.

I think the Cheney knew story is a little more damaging. When you refer to â€Cheney knew†you’re actually referring to the content of the trip report from Wilson’s trip. That is, if you say, â€Cheney knew about Wilson’s report,†then you’re saying he knew (and didn’t dispute) Wilson’s results.

Recall that the Kristof and Pincus stories effectively said Wilson debunked the forgeries (the op-ed did not–and Wilson specifically said he hadn’t seen the forgeries). So â€Cheney knew†meant that â€Cheney knew the Niger allegation was based on forgeries but continued to use the allegation anyway.â€

But I think there’s another underlying issue, assuming either Hadley or Libby was the one who used Wilson’s trip report as support FOR the allegations. They knew they were full of it–it was basically a childish effort to sustain the Niger allegation after the larger claim–that Iraq had BOUGHT uranium–had been soundly debunked. So even though Wilson’s trip report didn’t mention forgeries, there was the embarrassing fact that Libby/Hadley got caught making a BS argument to the IAEA (the pointedly didn’t include Wilson’s report when they gave more â€evidence†to Senator Levin).

And there always is the possibility that Cheney DID know (even though Wilson didn’t report on it) that the Niger allegations were based on forgeries. eriposte at Left Coaster is going to have a post on this shortly, I think. But there is significant reason to believe that Hadley was warned about the forgeries on September 8, 2002. So it may be that–although Wilson never alleged directly that he had disproved the forgeries–THEY knew they were forgeries, so they had been caught by mistake.

Again, very satisfying discussion. With visions of treasonous traitors dancing in my head.

January 15 is Martin Luther King Monday.

I doubt it’d be that simple, kim. Remember, Libby’s lawyers are calling Cheney and he is presumably testifying as a friendly witness.

EW — have we ever made a hard identification of the person whom Novak accosted on the street on July 8th to whom he revealed elements of the campaign against Wilson (use his wife’s ID to get at and smear Joe Wilson) who then went to Wilson’s DC office and delivered Novak’s message? In turn, Wilson then moved to attempt to get CNN to prevent Novak moving forward with smear/disinformation campaign, and within a day Wilson personally confronts Novak on the matter? Wilson also apparently lets CIA know that Valerie may be being used in such a smear/disinformation effort in the same timeframe — on or about July 8th. Do we know in any reliable way who this person is? Do we know how it was that Novak picked this essential stranger out on the street to deliver this message? How did Novak know or predict that this individual would immediately tell his friend, Joe Wilson, what he had been told by Novak?

My guess has always been Marc Grossman, simply because in his book Joe goes out of his way to lay the predicate that they were friends and had worked together when Joe was Ambassador to NATO, and Marc was Ambassador to Turkey, and they had to deal with complications of using Turkish bases for the air campaign over N. Iraq. (Northern No-Fly Zone came under NATO command, Southern Zone under Central Command.) It was also when Valerie and Joe were just beginning to seriously date, and Grossman could well have known about this. In fact Grossman might even have known Valerie’s Covert Status as his position as Ambassador might have involved his knowing this? (who knows, we don’t really know what Valerie actually did.) What we do know is that Grossman and Wilson were brother FSO’s, had served together, and were of approximately the same rank and seniority, being professional Career Ambassadors during the first Clinton Administration, responsible for a small but significant part of the US Iraq policy execution. (protecting the Kurds.) So for whatever it is worth, I suspect Joe’s July 8th informant was Marc Grossman.

Sara, Leopold apparently found ’the stranger’:

This is the first time the man who met Novak on the street has spoken out publicly about his interaction with Novak three years ago. He was interviewed by Truthout several times over the past two months and has requested anonymity for fear of retribution for disclosing his role in the leak investigation. Truthout has confirmed the man’s identity with former Ambassador Wilson. He is a former magazine publisher, and currently works as a consultant, mainly with private businesses helping local governments improve their infrastructure – such as building pipelines to improve water flow in one municipality. The man no longer lives in Washington, DC.

Marc Grossman is a crook- an absolute criminal- who has leaked information to Turkey for money.

All those people mentioned, except for Powell, had time. So, why would they be different?

lukery: You may not know this, but you do a disservice to TNH by citing Leopold as a credible source on Plame. He predicted a Rove indictment at the end of 2005, stated that he had a high-level whitehouse source who confirmed it… and then the indictment never materialized. He has been in verbal sparring matches here with various folks over this issue and did not comport himself professionally in those encounters. It is still unclear whether he was used as an unwitting mouthpiece or if instead he just made the whole thing up.

I’m not picking on you, just giving you the wink- you should probably read anything Leopold writes with a driveway-sized helping of salt. For all I know this claim of his is true and correct- but I’m reluctant to believe anything he writes without additional attribution, and I think you’ll find the same skepticism prevails here.

Compel discovery of CIA operations officers? Grossman and Wilson may be FSOs, but so was Joe Wilson’s dad in Spain where he grew up. He was probably an CIA operations officer and his Peace Corps service, meeting Plame, and follow through with an CIA operations officer is clearer. They are both legacies. He is FS(CIA) and she is AF, NSA(which is DOD).

Is it possible other intelligence agencies are attempting to compel discovery with Plame, Joe Wilson-his dad in Spain-to show that Plame’s identity was actually leaked by her in ’Vanity Fair’ with the intent of having actions taken by persons in Iraq and Spain?

The terror pattern is the same as an operations officer using informants and the response in Iraq and Spain would have been expected with the background of Plame as a CIA operations officer.

As far as potatoe heads and potatoe houses, if you met Plame there was a problem. Alot of those who did in Iraq are dead. Plame was the ’kiss of death’ and alot of people ran rather than be in speaking distance of her; Scooter was in trouble every time he met her.

smiley, looseheadprop, others,

I understand that what Libby told the FBI and grandjury was incorrect but his defense seems to be that his error was (take your pick) accidental, a mistake, a miscommunication, a lack of understanding, a lack of sleep, a really hectic schedule, his bad time of the month, or some such. i.e. not intentional

And then I see all the messed up murky/muddy/twisted/convoluted web of reporters/spokesman/leakers/people saying this and saying that, and not sure of time, what, who, where, contradictions, etc. that are being discussed by emptywheel and others in this very blog and others, and I see a real mess of facts/ideas going to the jury.

Sure Fitzs says it is a simple case that Libby said something that wasn’t true. Then Libby’s high powered team says But, ….. but, ….., but …….

I honestly don’t think that Libby deliberately leaked Plame, but yes what he said to the FBI and the GJ wasn’t true. So the question now seems to be one of intent.

i.e. If you say the King is in the counting house, but he really is out in the barn milking maids, you are wrong, but did you lie to the Queen, or were you misled/mistaken yourself. That is how I see this case.

John Casper: I am pleased to serve.

Neat theory about Cathie Martin — I think it’s wrong, but I admire the diligence that went into constructing it.

Cathie getting the spin wrong makes sense as an explanation for why she was removed as point person on July 12, but it doesn’t explain why she would have been giving that spin — unsolicited — to Pincus in the first place. Moreover, if Dick & Scooter knew Pincus had inadvertently been given damaging spin, a follow-up call would have been in order to correct the record.

IMO, Jeff’s discovery is a red herring, and the witness being fought over is Ari Fleischer (in part because it would explain calling Colin Powell as a defense witness). I also find Fitz’s reference to sending emails saying, â€I just spoke with Libby…†very suggestive; I assume that everyone he cited in the indictment as conversing with Libby (including particularly Fleischer and Russert) has a paper trail to back up their version of the conversation. Admittedly, though, I say this without having pored over all the transcripts as you & Jeff have.

I keep coming back to this BBC report from 07/09/03, in part:

But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 – and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.

*snip*

Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson’s findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.

That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false.

In response, a US Government official told the BBC that the White House received hundreds of intelligence reports every day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

Who do we think this â€CIA official†is?

You wouldn’t think that a warning about not drinking before posting comments would be necessary so early in the day.

Although Swopa is still wrong after all these years with his full-blown Theory of 1×2×6, I am more than happy to concede that my discovery may indeed be a red herring, and there may be hope still for the crumb of truth in his Theory that it was Fleischer-to-Pincus on July 12.

One thing in support of Swopa’s view I knew before and another has only occurred to me since the initial exchange. I knew already that in fact Fleischer has been the subject of a sealed declaration (which is the same thing as an affidavit?) from Libby’s defense. This is mentioned in Libby’s 4-12-06 filing, at 14n4. It explains further reasons why Fleischer documents are material to the defense. This may or may not be related to the February 2 letter from Fitzgerald to Libby’s defense, filed under seal with the court attached to Libby’s 3-17-06 discovery motion, which had additional, non-public info about Fleischer’s role in the case. (It’s noted at 25n6.) So he could very well be the person they’re talking about at the hearing.

The thing that just occurred to me is that it’s possible that they were talking about Fleischer in the hearing, but then Fitzgerald alluded to that part of the hearing in his subsequent pleading to refer to the principles there, of which Fleischer’s case was just an illustration. So it’s possible that the hearing had to do with Fleischer, while the pleading had to do with Martin.

I assume that everyone he cited in the indictment as conversing with Libby (including particularly Fleischer and Russert) has a paper trail to back up their version of the conversation.

Almost certainly not. Libby’s defense has suggested very few of them do; Fitzgerald has said that’s an overstatement, but it seems that several of the witnesses do not have a paper trail, including Russert for certain, and also, I think, Marc Grossman.

One more thing to support that, Jeff and Swopa, is Fitz’ reference also to Jeff’s favorite April 5 filing, to a page which has only procedural references.

What Jeff said at 15:18 about Swopa’s Iraq blogging. I’m not competent to say who is more accurate, Swopa or Juan Cole … , but what elevates Swopa, imho however, is how accessible his posts are.

Yes, EW. I remember every compliment I’ve ever received.

Oh, I should have know you to be a Diplomacy fan. I was forced to play, though it beat the hell out of the other war games I was forced to play. And rail games.

One of my accomplishments of this break was that I introduced a game to my aunt and uncle that got them into more trouble (actually, with their daughter, too), than a near-divorce at the hands of diplomacy many many years ago. You’d never think that Apples to Apples could be as contentious as Diplomacy, huh?

smiley
you’re an idiot. Leopold’s story says it was confirmed with Ambassador wilson. And John Casper is an even bigger idiot and a shoe licker. Leopold was not the only reporter who was told about Rove. Mainstream reporters were told too and if EW actually had any sources she knows damn well its true and that the grand jury did something. But she’s staying quiet even though Wilson confirmed what Leopold was told. A reporter for ABC News was about to break the story also.

So what if Leopold got into verbal sparring matches? Since when is a person not allowed to defend themselves especially from people who make baseless claims? You’re all pathetic. John Casper is gay

the only disservice that takes place here is the fact that you hang on EW’s every word even though she knows zero about federal law and pretends she does. Everything she says should be taken with a bigger grain of salt. She has no sources. she is simply a guesser.

for every comment you make about Leopold there are equally flawed reports by every goddamned mainstream reporter, including murray waas, yet you vilify one person

shame on all of you

John,
Empty Wheel is the best guesser I have ever seen. Can we get her to pick Lotto numbers for us?

I was a big fan of Diplomacy back in my nerdy teen years. Fine, I’m hinting that I’d be up for a game any time. And wheel, I once instigated a now legendary family fight in a friendly game of Apples to Apples when I accused my eight year-old stepdaughter of being an excellent player but an unjust judge. Fine, it was two weeks ago.

Jeff, How about that Waas reported that Novak and Rove coordinated their testimony to the grand jury and fitzgerald, which both of them denied publicly. Surely, if this were true there would be an obstruction charge. But it has never been proven. And waas has unnamed sources. Is this not a BIG STORY if it were true?

Jeff, How about that Waas reported that Novak and Rove coordinated their testimony to the grand jury and fitzgerald, which both of them denied publicly.

See, john, precision matters. That’s not what Waas reported. Go back and look at the reporting. What he reported is that in fall 2003 investigators initially and immediately suspected that Novak and Rove coordinated their testimony. Among other things, this was significant because it had to implications for AG Ashcroft’s role in the case, given his association with Rove, as well as being significant because it cast suspicion on Rove and Novak.

Now Novak went on TV and called Waas a liar, but that seemed to be based on the same imprecise read on it as yours, since Novak offered no evidence or even argument that he and Rove were not, in fact, suspected of having coordinated their stories by investigators in fall 2003.

As for this:

waas also reported Rove was in hot water

I’m not sure what that refers to and what it means.

john

Like I said, precision matters. If you look at that article, it makes a distinction between the description of Rove and Novak having a conversation on September 29, 2003 in which Novak said he would protect Rove and the further claim that this amounted to a cover-up. What you cited is not contested by either Rove or Novak – or at least, you might note that that description in the opening paragraph is substantiated further down by a more specific description of the conversation drawn from Rove’s grand jury testimony, and that has not been contested by Rove or by Novak. Rather, what has been contested is that there was anything nefarious about that conversation. And in fact, the article goes on to say in the very next paragraph:

Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.

See that? The facts of the conversation come from Rove’s grand jury testimony. What is distinct, and was up for debate at the time, was whether there was a cover story being devised. See what I mean?

Though Novak would undoubtedly quibble with Waas’ description, I take it Rove at least claimed that Novak said he would make sure Rove was not harmed – the point is, they can both say that is because what happened between them in July 2003 was perfectly innocent, therefore by testifying honestly, Novak would be protecting Rove. The belief on the part of investigators that Rove and Novak had devised a cover story is a conceptually distinct matter.

So Waas reported that Rove and Novak had this conversation, and he reported some of what Rove testified about it. No problem there. Waas also reported that investigators suspected a cover-up. No problem there.

So try again.

again, jeff, waas reported things in many of his articles that the officials he wrote about denies. What do you say about that? We haven’t seen any documented evidence to support his story. Just unnamed sources. so why do all of you doubt one reporter? Personally, I don’t believe any reporter until I see hard proof but I am not going to believe one over the other just because he or she is more popular.

Why won’t the people who know what took place with this grand jury and rove speak up?

â€jeff, my point is that waas reported that novak and rove had this conversation and novak and rove deny it. their lawyers and mouthpieces deny it.â€

Jason Leopold, aka â€John†on this thread, please do not respond to my comment until you have responded to Jeff at 7:34.

The fact that scum such as Luskin and Rove deny Waas’ anonymous soucres does not begin to put you in the same Journalistic universe. Comparing yourself to Waas is like Benedict Arnold comparing himself to George Washington. For starters, Waas doesn’t steal insights from emptywheel and the other supremely talented plameologists she attracts. Waas doesn’t then publish plagiarized material them at FAKEOUT as scoops based ONLY on anonymous sources that Jason Leopold INVENTED to hide the fact that he plagiarizes. Jason, your sources are anything but anonymous, they are plameologists such as emptywheel, Jeff, pollyUSA, ….. The only reason they are â€anonymous†in your stories is because you refuse to name them. You’re still trying to hide from the few that don’t know, that you’re a serial plagiarist. When you publish your plagiarism, you race over to places such as firedoglake and tnh, always under aliases, to ask innocently if anyone has seen Jason Leopold’s â€scoop†at FAKEOUT. When was the last time you published something that wasn’t based on â€anonymous sources?†Your’s is a naked attempt to drive traffic away from the people who earned it, to you to increase your compensation. Another difference between you and Waas is that Murray doesn’t comment at tnh under numerous aliases such as â€John,†and â€Harry Shed,†and threaten to physically assault tnh posters. As you know Jason, I’ve posted these identical FACTS numerous times here in response to your pathetic defenses of yourself under an alias. I comment this on the off chance that some newbie here might not understand that you are nothing except a very common plagiarist/thief. IIRC, you ran a similar scam over John Paul II’s death. Everyone knew he was circling the drain, but you wanted to be â€first,†so you kept saying that you had anonymous sources he was dead. Fortunately, he hung on long enough to completely discredit you. Please, couldn’t you blog for Red State and leave the reality based communities alone?

there goes John Casper blaming everything again on Jason Leopold and now he assumes I am Jason Leopold. Casper, here’s a direct challenge to you. Prove it. Prove I am Jason Leopold. While you are at it. Prove Leopold has â€stolen†posts from this blog and others and then used it as the basis for his stories. Go ahead big talker. I want you to do a line by line comparison of his stories, the dates it appeared and the things that were plagiarized. You’re a joke Casper. A boot licker. So, Casper, do you accept the challenge or will you continue to make up stories? Don’t forget to provide your proof that I am impersonating Jason Leopold. You’re a big talker Casper but you have never provided a shred of proof to back up the many claims you make about the various people you criticize. I imagine you are one very repressed gay man.

hey Jeff, do you have evidence that says Grossman isn’t the man? If so can you please post it? Because as far as I can tell no one knows one way or another. So again, unless you can refute it you’ve got nothing. And if you’re trying to insinuate that I too am impersonating Jason Leopold you’re dead wrong. When did I ever say I was a reporter? I happen to be a researcher for Palm Pictures.

John Casper, judging from the type of accusatory person you are and the wild accusations you make it’s no wonder someone would threaten to do you physical harm.

Like I said, prove it. I am not Jason Leopold and just because I posted comments here does not mean I defend him. I will not be accused of impersonating someone simply because I have raised an issue about all of this idle speculation involving plame doo doo. I would suspect that people who call themselves â€ologists†would be working off of cold hard facts, none of which seems to exist in this so called reality based community.

people who call themselves â€ologistsâ€

Dude, this is the merest denial coupled with a bit of the old tongue in cheek. Deep down we all know we’re nothing more than Plamaniacs.

john

Yes, you’re right that the Post could have simply lied publicly about their source in that article. It’s certainly possible. I was ruling it out, but I should have qualified my claim with that caveat: so if the Post was not deliberately misleading its readers in identifying its 1×2×6 source, then that is very strong evidence that 1×2×6 was not Grossman.

And that is what I am inclined to believe, that the Post was not lying to its readers.

Also, why would libby put Leopold’s name and a copy of his story in their filing to the court about Grossman?

That’s an easy one. Libby’s defense lawyers are his advocates. They want to get Grossman on the stand, and so they want to make as persuasive an argument for doing so as possible. So they cite the article. It served their purposes.

There’s no indication whatsoever that they have any independent reason for thinking that Grossman was 1×2×6.

woah, guess I missed a bunch while battling airlines the last 2 days. I never thought I’d see the day- insulted by a troll, in the same paragraph as John Casper! Maybe, one day, I can be a real boy too

See you guys upstairs.

jeff, JOM makes a good case of why Grossman is the person. Clarice who posts there often made a good case. So did some of the others. But if all you have to go on is the fact that the identification of the person is a â€senior white house official†and therefore that it’s not grossman your argument is full of holes. Senior white house official can be anyone in the administration. Armitage would be a senior white house official. hadley too. so you need btetter evidence to support your argument than the obscure identification of someone by a reporter.