There are a few details I noticed while I was writing this.

First, one of the things Fitz got out of Rove when he testified in October 2005 (when I suspect he may have started Big-C cooperating) is that Libby may have been his source. Now, Fitz didn’t request that testimony until after Judy’s first testimony (at least not that we know of). I don’t know whether Fitz already knew of the July 11 meeting, at which they discussed (supposedly) Russert and Novak. But Fitz would have been able to ask whether Libby mentioned his conversation with Judy (and by the time ROve testified, Judy had testified a second time). That is, Fitz would have been able to sniff out whether accounts of that meeting were sheer cover-up or not.

It’s also really clear that the Armitage spin came out of Rove’s camp–they were pushing it hard the week of the indictment. Which means a lot of the spin about Armitage might just be Luskin’s spin on it. Interestingly, I have a gut feel that they knew about the Woodward leak. But they couldn’t mention it to Fitz without revealing they knew more about the leak than they could admit. Was Rove the one who tipped Woodward that Armitage was Novak’s first source?

Fitzgerald is not a counter intelligence prosecutor. He is criminal conspiracy prosecutor, traditionally how bad CIA agents are handled. Notice the CIA backs off after he is appionted.

’I don’t think there’s any evidence of criminal conspiracy on the part of these journalists’ and Valerie Plame.†See what happened in Iraq the day she admitted being a CIA Operations Officer, paramilitarily trained. See what happened to Spain, Wilson’s father’s diplomatic assignment. This may be where a prosecutor sees a criminal conspiracy. Plame’s work was important, but the minute she admitted who she was, she was, in effect, making requests of persons she knew of and putting in profound danger the other operations officers in the community who she worked with in Iraq.

I continue to find the most intriguing aspect of this story to be Woodward — who claims he finally disclosed his involvement to Downie on 10/24 because he had a big story — then denies he has any kind of story on TV on 10/27.

So what happened to the big story?

Then there is Woodwards bogus disclosure to Downie that Pincus knew from Woodward about â€Wilson’s wifeâ€. A shitstorm erupts when Woodward makes this public…. with Pincus publicly denying it, and Woodward subsequently backing off that claim. Why would Downie not have checked with Pincus, and allowed Woodward to publish his false accusation without resolving the discrepancies between the stories his two reporters were telling?

Finally, why would Woodward subsequently go to his source based on a detail (Libby was the â€first known†discloser of Plame’s identity) that was irrelevant to the case against Libby, and once again try and get him to tell the story to the prosecutor? And why would Woodward’s source — who had previously rejected such suggestions in the past, suddenly change his mind?

As I’ve posited before, the only explanation that I can come up with is that the Post went to Fitzgerald immediately upon being told of Woodward’s story about Pincus because of the Post’s legal exposure in arranging for Pincus’ testimony.

Fitzgerald would tell the Post not to put Pincus in the loop — he didn’t have time to investigate Woodward’s claim with only days before the grand jury expired, and he didn’t want Pincus and Woodward co-ordinating their stories. Woodward does, however, tell his source that the cat is out of the bag, and that he’d better high-tail it to Fitzgerald’s office….

Marci…

how would Rove know about a (theoretical) leak from Armitage to Woodward? (If Armitage wasn’t willing to fess up to Fitzgerald, I don’t see him telling a lot of other people about it.)

My personal opinion is that Woodward’s â€big story†was Viveca Novak. When the Vivak/Luskin story was eventually leaked elsewhere, it was presented in a way meant to shield Rove from the accusation that he deliberately withheld info about his conversation with Cooper. (Thanx to your brilliance and perseverence, its obvious that it does not shield Rove).

Just one question, though. Why pick Woodward to receive the leak?

because it guarantees front page, above the fold, coverage in the Washington Post — and there are lots of people in America who don’t realize the extent to which Woodward has sold out, and would consider his reporting authoritative…silly!

If you can get him to publish it. But that’s no sure thing, as events would bear out.

Under ordinary circumstances, the only impediment to Woodward publishing a story is whether he wants to save it for his book or not. In this case, his disclosure to Downie occurred because he wanted to publish a story in the Post about what he had found out….

Woodward decided to bigfoot the story a couple of weeks before the grand jury expired — he wasn’t assigned to the story by Downie, he assigned himself with Downie’s acquiescence. (BTW, this is another reason why I suspect that the rumors of a 22 count indictment were true at the time — why would Woodward suddenly become interested in covering a â€non-story?†Woodward had more than sufficient White House access to know that something big was coming down the pike.)

According to Woodward, the Monday before the grand jury expires, Woodward goes to Downie and says he has a scoop he wants to publish….and discloses that he was a leak recipient to Downie and claims that he told Pincus about Wilson’s wife. Three days later, he is publicly denying that he has a scoop.

Something happened that prevented Woodward from publishing the story — and given Woodward’s standing at the Post, that something had to be pretty damned extraordinary.

To me, the best explanation is that Woodward’s â€disclosure†about Pincus forced the Post to notify Fitzgerald…

and instead of a 22 count indictment that involved a number of administration officials in which Pincus’ testimony played a key role, we got a five count indictment against Libby that treats Pincus’ testimony as if it didn’t exist.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!

I can understand why you’d drop the PIncus-related charge if he could be easily impeached. But you still need to understand why Fitz dropped the Kessler-related fs/perjury charge. I mean, Fitz included the ones related to Cooper, even though they’re the weakest part of the Libby case, when the lie served to protect Rove, even though he didn’t pursue the Rove charges. Why not keep the Kessler charges?

re: Kessler… charges related to Kessler would be a matter of â€he said/she saidâ€, and insofar as no conspiracy charges were filed (and assuming your theory that the Kessler lie was part conspiracy) it detracted from the larger case which centers around Libby’s obstruction of the investigation as an individual. A charge related to the Kessler testimony, in other words, only makes sense within the context of a â€22 count indictment†that included conspiracy charges.

(its also possible that Kessler based charges were not included because, in an abundance of caution, Fitz decided not to use anything from Post reporters as the basis of a charge until he got the â€Woodward disclosure†sorted out.)

There is a key difference between Kessler and Coopers testimony — Cooper’s testimony is (I assume) backed up by notes. IIRC, Kessler wouldn’t have notes because he claims the conversation never occurred. Coopers testimony is thus the basis of a charge because his testimony is backed by contemporaneous notes.

I’m sure that â€lots of other stuff happened†that influenced the nature of the indictment that was handed down on October 28. I’m not nearly as informed about the case as you are, so my speculation on other possibilities is pretty worthless. All I know is that Woodward’s story doesn’t add up, and the additional circumstances related to Woodward’s story all point to a conclusion that the Post notified Fitz about what Woodward had told them, and it threw a wrench into Fitz’s overall plans for more extensive indictments.