Leaks on "the" leak....[UPDATED x2]

dr. elsewhere here

(The update is posted at the end; click "Permalink")

Most of you have likely seen the Newsweek previews of Michael Isikoff and David Corn's new book, Hubris, particularly as they pertain to claims that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak of CIA operative, Valerie Plame.

Much is made all around about this claim, but CHS at FDL emphasizes that something is missing.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)


Do read her post, and do visit all associated links, according to your interest in this story, as there is just a huge volume of fascinating takes on it, including reminders of announcements and filings and such.

But I agree; something is missing from this latest revelation, which reads in large part as if the ultimate source of the leak was Armitage, even floating somewhere in the subtext is the question of why the investigation happened at all if Armitage not only shared this information with both Novak and Woodward, but then immediately upon realizing Novak was referring to him as his source, told Powell, his boss, and his attorney. This attorney then contacted Gonzalez (then WH counsel) to tell him that State had passed some information about the case on to DOJ, without mentioning details that would feed into the palpable WH war with Powell and State officials. Gonzalez declined an offer to know more details, true to a good lawyer, and it rested there almost three years now.

But note that this means the WH knew from that point in October 2003 where they could find the source of the leak. And yet they declined to pursue it, or even invite the press or the federal investigators to do so.

Sure enough, something is missing and it's even more tangible than just the semblence of ethical integrity we all know and miss. And as CHS points out, it's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's Bushy face: Armitage has been cleared of leaking Plame's undercover CIA status because he actually did not know it at the time he spoke with Novak and Woodward. And it is this information about her sensitive status that is essential to the crime. We know Armitage did not know it, so he is not that source. And we know the investigation is still ongoing, so the criminal remains a mystery, at least to us, despite all these individuals supposedly being ruled out.

So something is missing, and we don't know what it is, do we, Mr. Rove?

My brief review of available analyses of these latest data suggests to me that everyone has fallen into the Rove rabbit hole, swallowed the drink me bottle, hook line and sinker, and now speaks the prescribed jabberwocky. Everyone seems to be completely ruling Rove out as the source of the damaging information. Many consider Fleischer, and Emptywheel even suggests Scottie. But my oh my; such small fry.

There is no logic to these notions, if you think about it. Neither Ari nor Scottie ever in any position to have access to such information for any reason, except from to have received it from someone quite superior to them on the food chain, and except for the express purpose of doing the dirty work for which the leak was intended. And if someone else in authority gave them the information, there is the crime.

Here is the actual wording of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the US is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the US shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Therefore, the crime is not giving the information to the public, but giving the information to anyone who is not so authorized. My bet is that press secretaries are not. And I also bet that any claims by the OVP or EOP that their giving anyone that information automatically renders them "authorized" will not fly very far with Fitz.

The question remains, then, who might have that level of authorization, and who might actually go so far as to give such information to underlings (such as Rove, and even Ari).

In my previous post on these matters, I reviewed Jason Leopold's most recent offerings on the story. And he, astutely I feel, points out that (1) there has been absolutely no official announcement on Karl Rove's status with regard to this case, only what his attorney has shared, which is of course suspect, as is Novakula's feeble confessional; and (2) the Sealed v. Sealed complaint remains in place, which is considered highly unusual for this length of time.

So, admittedly without close scrutiny to the calendar and reviews of the filings and so on, I find myself still convinced that Rove is not at all off the hook, that in fact he is very much on it and holding on merely by the very thin thread of his cooperation. That cooperation being specifically the exposure of involvement of Cheney and his office. Spend a little time with the CHS links to Swopa's comments, and then those embedded links, to see intriguing excerpts from filings, etc.

I still think the best explanation for the data as we see them is that Rove is a precariously perched stoolpigeon, and the role of at least Cheney is being aggressively investigated. I reiterate: We have absolutely NO reason to trust ANYthing that issues forth from the mouths of Rove's attorney, Lufkin, or Rove's buddy, Novak, and that's all we have that's new since Libby's indictment, except the fascinating filings. We therefore have absolutely NO reason to believe that Rove is off the hook, and ample reasons to believe he is cooperating to betray the OVP.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, loyalty only goes so far with these creeps, as far as their own skins and asses.

[UPDATE]

As per David Corn, co-author of these newest revelations, we can now view Mr. Armitage's comments to Novak and Woodward within a time frame.

As most already know, the OVP was already in a snit over Wilson's oblique comments about the Niger uranium (eliminating his own role) by spring of 2003. Armitage shared Plame's role in that trip with Woodward in mid-June, apparently the 13th. It appears this detail may have seemed a highly peripheral piece of information to him, trivial at best, from the dismissive way he has framed this case in public since; he didn't even share it with his editor. .

Nevertheless, Joe Wilson's op-ed came out on July 6, and one assumes that Cheney scribbled his evil hand all over his copy rather immediately.

Armitage did not speak to Novak until the 8th.

And there was a memo.

Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip.

Corn does not mention the timing of this memo, but it seems reasonable to assume Armitage saw it prior to his conversation with Woodward.

Although many continue to attempt framing this latest as closing the case, and finding Armitage the culprit, there remain the lies, the obstruction of justice, and the fact that Plame's role in the Niger trip was pushed by several in the administration, acknowledged by them, without discovering the extent of her role at the Agency. Such cavalier negligence may not qualify for criminal action under the IIPA, but it sure exposes a ruthlessness that the perpetrators have clearly attempted to deny and cover up. As for Armitage, his role leaves him wide open for the Wilsons' lawsuit.

Corn claims the book also reveals the flimsy argument that got Rove off the hook, though I remain convinced that he is not off the hook, but cooperating.

Meanwhile, Fitz continues to piece together the testimonies of all these players, which have apparently exposed a large number of contradictions.

We can now only continue to stay tuned.

[UPDATE 2]

That was quick.

It's pretty amazing how much speculation can be generated by just the slightest ripple in this case.

First, emptywheel offers her usual thorough and provocative hypotheses. Going back to the earliest evidence of a "senior official" (not "top official" or "senior aide") voicing concerns about the fact that two WH officials had pushed the story to six reporters (hence the 1x2x6 nomer), she ponders who that official might have been. She seems to rule out Powell, based on a guess that - since this 1x2x6 person did not deflect away from Armitage - he would not have wanted to maintain a jeopardizing situation for his deputy. (I know; this is getting so damn convoluted, I find the biggest leak these days seems to be my own cortex from my own eyes.)

But this logic does not convince me, and the other reasons one would think it's Powell continue to point to him and no one else who is a "senior official" in this administration, namely that 1x2x6 is clearly someone of some integrity who would be disgusted by such crass behavior. Who else in that "senior official" position in this administration fits that description? I know; it really pains the temples to try and think of just one.

It actually seems to me that Powell may have gambled a bit to try and arrest the madness, or to get back at them for putting him in such a humiliating circumstance as his UN speech, assuming he knew Armitage was unaware of Plame's sensitive status. Powell may have gained good legal advice from Taft, the State counsel, who explained Armitage was safe as long as he attempted to alert authorities as to his role, and as long as he did not know Plame was covert.

Ok; enough speculation on that conundrum. Another fascinating addition to this mix is Jason Leopold's latest offering, which includes exclusive discussions with an individual who had a conversation with Novak right before he wrote his column. And purely by happenstance, mind you; one of those really bizarre serendipities. As a perfect stranger, he just happened to walk up to Novak on the streets of DC in the thick of all the germinations of this little WH imbroglio.

And he just so happened to know Joe Wilson.

So when he asked Novak about the "16 words," Novak said they shouldn't have happened. Then when he asked about Wilson's claims, Novak was abruptly and aggressively rude and spewed the "truth" of Wilson's wife's role in the Niger trip. And her employment at the CIA.

This stranger then immediately contacted Wilson, who confronted Novak, as described in Wilson's book. But Novak went on to print the information in his column, after which Wilson confronted him again. At that point, he shifted facts he had previously shared with Wilson, a pattern we have seen with Novak in this case repeatedly since his first column appeared. Given his notorious and long relationship with Rove, it is extremely difficult to believe anything the man breathes, or even that he actually breathes.

The "stranger" from this happenstance encounter did testify before the Grand Jury.

Unless something earth-shattering occurs regarding this case anytime soon, I'll likely not post on it again for a while; so many important matters out there, so little time. For now, this is my take: The WH has not pushed the role Armitage played in this whole story at any point along the way, and now that his role is very public, they are not attempting to claim that it closes the story down. The case is still wide open, from our perspective, and it's still officially open from Fitz's perspective. Cheney is not off the hook, and in my opinion, neither is Rove. I have said before that we will eventually know if Rove was indicted in that Sealed v. Sealed complaint by how the events unfold. The complaint is still oddly alive. If Cheney is implicated or indicted, and Rove is not, and the complaint vanishes, we can make a fairly strong guess about the nature of Rove's deal. If Cheney is not implicated, and especially if Rove does not testify against Cheney in Libby's trial, then there is good reason to suspect the complaint will fall square on his pointy little head. If it does, we get to watch.

Team Libby will have to decide whether or not it's worth the risk to put Rove on the stand, as Fitz has not listed him as a witness for the prosecution. But the trial is still months away. So much can happen, like another invasion, another attack to justify an invasion, a shift in Congressional elections....

And we should not be making big plans for a Democratic House to push for investigative committee hearings into these matters, and in fact, should not even hope for them. The big risk of such hearings is that testimonies often only come with grants of immunity from prosecution. We might get the truth in those hearings, or some form of it, but without the chance of really pursuing a case. And given that the case is ongoing, Congressional hearings could completely trash the case Fitz is building.

So, again, folks: patience. Patience.