1. Anonymous says:

    Now that I look at that list, I’m really struck by the â€another person in the OVP.†Fitz has made everyone else in this indictment identifiable, even Turd Blossom. But not this person. Presumably this piece of evidence either comes from seeing the distribution address, speaking to the other person who received this information, or speaking to someone in CIA about who they sent what. In other words, it’s not that they don’t know who this person is. It’s that they’re not telling us.

    Why not?

    Is it Dick, who received those documents? Is it Matalin, and she has been told she won’t be named here to stave off suspicion? Why not identify this person, but identify everyone else.

    Incidentally, this batch of information is interesting. The information described is almost certainly the CIA report on Wilson’s trip, which we know doesn’t identify him by name.

    And what of multiple people writing â€Joe Wilson†on these documents?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Why not identify this person, but identify everyone else?

    they know who they are better than we do. But maybe it’s to make them sweat over who flipped. Then again… well, we’ll have to wait whatever we think.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Interesting theory. I think it possible that there are at least a couple other indictments out there that are sealed, although Fitz really did seem to say yesterday that talking about Valerie Wilson within the named government circles isn’t illegal. The crime is in the unauthorized disclosure, and that is a tricky offense. That is what and who he wants to punish. So unless Cheney called Novak, I doubt Fitz is going for him.

    If there are remaining indictments, they will be against whoever told Novak. Maybe it was Libby and Karl is arguing he just confirmed, as para 21 suggests. It depends on what Novak testified to. Maybe it was Fleitz/Bolton/Wurmser/Hannah and he has gotten him to plead to an information, which means he doesn’t need a grand jury indictment, and is just waiting to wrap up the Rove thing. Anyway, I don’t think there will be a conspiracy indictment, or an indictment of Cheney. But I’ve been wrong before.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Excellent, EW.

    This has been my analysis and central thesis as well, as I’ve commented at FDL, but you add depth and detail to the analysis.

    Bravo.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Mimikatz

    I agree this doesn’t show he’s working on a conspiracy charge. What it means is that he’s hiding whether he’s working on it or not. Keeping that possibility completely protected. So he can return to it if he finds it useful to (or if he finalizes the evidence on it). He certainly can’t indict just one person with a conspiracy, though–so there’s no way he could indict on that yesterday. We need to wait to see whether Rove gets indicted, if he is, then conspiracy starts to become possible.

  6. Anonymous says:

    So unless Cheney called Novak, I doubt Fitz is going for him.

    I completely disagree. Whoever was in on *any* discussions about leaking the information is exposed to a conspiracy charge related to the underlying crime, which may be the IIPA or under the espionage statutes. So if Fitz gets comfortable that he can place Cheney in such a discussion, I think he’ll indict him.

    And I agree with the overall premise of this post, Fitz kept his cards very close to the vest here.