any comments on "official A" is he a rat? did he already plead?

wtf?

Steve -

Your buddy is only half right. Powell was *in country* the day that Libby made the request for information. He left the next day, but reading the State Department logs indicates that Armitage was still there.

INR reports directly to the Sec.State's office.

More details here, see the 3rd update:

http://lookingforsomeonetolietome.blogspot.com/2005/10/ignore-under-secretary-of-state-behind.html

Powell was also in Washington 6/11 and 6/12, the days that the Under Secretary "orally advised" Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA according to the indictment. Still convinced nothing sinister was happening?

seriously, the "Undersecretary" is mentioned a number of times, and did a lot more than just fulfilling his bureaucratic function by forwarding a memo.

4. On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

and

6.
On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

I don't know anything about Grossman, but it does seem clear that he was passing on "office gossip" with regard to what "State Department personnel were saying" that really had little or no bearing on the question of Wilson's trip per se.

one possibility....

it was Grossman -- but the "state department personnel" who were gossiping about Wilson's wife were none other than Fleitz and Bolton...

That is a pretty thin explanation of why it was Grossman. I would withold judgement. I think some folks are going to start flipping. It has been reported that Rove has been in eleventh hour discussions with Fitzgerald and I find it hard to believe that Libby is willing to spend some Martha Stewart time to save Cheney and the whole host of other sleaze bags up to their ears in the Plame Name Game affair.

In the interest of simplicity the information below was gleaned from this site, ThinkProgress and the Washington Post - then sent to a friend. It would appear that the current thinking points to BOTH candidates mentioned in this posting. I don't have a personal favorite, but find the arguments for both pretty compelling.

There are 6 people who hold that title in the State Department. Here are the people who held the position of Under Secretary of State in June 2003:

John Robert Bolton - Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs

Marc Isaiah Grossman - Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs

Grant S. Green - Under Secretary of State for Management

Charlotte L. Beers - Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy

Paula J. Dobriansky - Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

Alan Phillip Larson - Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs

1. Who was the only one of this group to visit Miller in jail four times? (Can you say shuttle "get the story straight" negotiations?)

2. With Plame a CIA WMD (nuke arms) operative, which of this group would have first hand knowledge of her?

3. Who in this group was David Wurmser's boss at the time? (Wurmser*, who is alleged to be cooperating with Fitzgerald as we post.)

THE ANSWERS:
1. Bolton
2. Bolton
3. Bolton

That said, at least one argument exists that it could also be Marc Grossman.

From the Washington Post piece by Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus.

> Senior administration officials said there was a document circulated at the State Department -- before Libby talked to Miller -- that mentioned Plame. It was drafted in June as an administrative letter and addressed to then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who was acting secretary at the time since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage were out of the country.
>
> As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, Grossman wanted the letter as background for a meeting at the White House, where the discussion was focused on then growing criticism of Bush's inclusion in his January State of the Union speech of the allegation that Hussein had been seeking uranium from Niger.
>
> The letter to Grossman discussed the reasons the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) did not believe the intelligence, which originated from foreign sources, was accurate. It had a paragraph near the beginning, marked "(S)," meaning it was classified secret, describing a meeting at the CIA in February 2002, attended by another INR analyst, where Plame introduced her husband as the person who was to go to Niger.
>

“*Wurmser, Cheney’s Middle East advisor and an assistant to then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, likely cooperated because he faced criminal charges for his role in leaking Wilson’s name on the orders of higher-ups, the sources said.”

"I find it hard to believe that Libby is willing to spend some Martha Stewart time to save Cheney and the whole host of other sleaze bags up to their ears in the Plame Name Game affair."

If Libby believes that he will be pardoned, why would he divulge anything?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3170

Mr. Roston,

The New Republic confirms with Fitzgerald that Mr. Grossman is the Undersecretary in question.

Perhaps readers can take your blog more seriously if it was written in a serious manner, e.g. drop the expletives.

..... the key paragraph, however, isn't the one concerning Grossman doing his official duties. Its this one...

On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

basically, you have Grossman passing on "office scuttlebutt" about Wilson's wife. The people doing the gossipping are identified as "State Department personnel."

Its also important to note how this is worded.... Grossman is not passing on official information gleaned from documents, but what people "were saying."

so for Steve to say that "Bolton is out of the woods" when we don't know who these "State Department Personnel" are, and we know that Bolton and Fleitz were in a position to know about Valerie Wilson Plame, is, well, something of an exaggeration at this point.

Larry Johnson thinks it's Bolton:

A Good Start
by
Larry C. Johnson

"...As the prosecutor said at today's press conference, this ain't over.

Some interesting tidbits that will need to be clarified:

On page 4 we read:

On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

If you're looking to guess who this is, your likely choices are Marc Grossman and John Bolton. My money is on Bolton..."

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/

If you are doing a chronology, and you know something happened on June 11, and something happened on June 12, and something else happened on June 11 OR 12, how do you list them?

Me, I list the one on June 11 first, the one with the date I'm not sure of next, and the June 12 one last..

But Fitzgerald didn't, and it may be significant.

Here is paragraph 6....

"6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department
personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip."

In the chronology, this is the first time Libby hears about Plame. But what is more important is that PRIOR to Libby finding out, "State Department Personnel" were disclosing Plame's CIA status to people --- specifically Marc Grossman.

Fitzgerald is investigating the leaking of classified information --- and here we have "State Department Personnel" literally GOSSIPPING about Plame with that gossip being passed on to Libby---and this gossip appears to have been going on before Libby was notified about Plames status.

I don't know why Libby went to State to find out about a former ambassador's trip?

When asked why would State give Libby any answer when in fact the CIA arranged the trip?

Why would Libby want anything on WMD or uranium from State since INR they had been not been going along with the prowar folks?

This all only makes sense if Grossman was using Bolton and his shop to answer the Libby questions and Libby knew that he was getting answers from folks he Libby trusted. And if this is true than Bolton/Fleitz likley were their direct access to CIA info and raw intelligence.

A bit out of context in this thread, but here are the:

President's Remarks on the Resignation of Scooter Libby
The South Lawn
10-28-05 3:51 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Today I accepted the resignation of Scooter Libby. Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country. He served the Vice President and me through extraordinary times in our nation's history.

Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation and ongoing legal proceedings are serious, and now the proceedings -- the process moves into a new phase. In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial.

While we're all saddened by today's news, we remain wholly focused on the many issues and opportunities facing this country. I got a job to do, and so do the people who work in the White House. We got a job to protect the American people, and that's what we'll continue working hard to do.

I look forward to working with Congress on policies to keep this economy moving. And pretty soon I'll be naming somebody to the Supreme Court.

Thank you all very much.

No, Mr. President, THANK YOU for...ah, forget it.

"Who was the only one of this group to visit Miller in jail four times? (Can you say shuttle "get the story straight" negotiations?)
"

Since when are prisoners allowed to have confidential, unmonitored discussions? Maybe with their lawyer, but I thought all jailhouse visits were at least able to be monitored? What's the story on whether or not these Bolton/Miller visits were taped?

If Scooter Libby or Karl Rove or George Bush or Bill Clinton or Martha Stewart lied under oath or to a prosecutor, in violation of a law, then they need to go to JAIL. Period. Did they? I don't know. But if they did they need to pay the price. - Robert Morrow

Larry King just said it was confirmed that Official A is Rove.

Source #4 is Catherine Martin, at the time she was the "Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs# referred to in the indictment on page 7, para,18.

I meant to say para.19!!!

Source #4 is Catherine Martin, at the time she was the "Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs# referred to in the indictment on page 7, para,19.

Hit by a car and still OBSESSED with Bolton.

United Nations = New World Odor

Military Fatalities: By Time Period News

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
4 575 12 17 604 2.22 272
3 579 25 27 631 2.92 216
2 718 27 58 803 1.89 424
1 140 33 0 173 4.02 43
Total 2012 97 102 2211 2.32 955

It seems murder is the more appropriate charge to pursue.

I don't know which insider opinion to place value on right now, but...

I think KurtM has a good point, above. A lot of threads in this whole thing seem to resonate or lead to Bolton.

On the other hand, taking down one of these guys is almost as good as getting another.

6:04 AM: CNN's "crawler" reports that "sources close to the investigation" says that "official A" is ROVE.

Am i reading this right? Bloomberg said yesterday Libby got Plame's name from Grossman and then confirmed it with a CIA official:

"Libby sought the identity of the former ambassador from then- Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, who informed him the diplomat was Joseph Wilson. Grossman told Libby on June 11 or June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and she was involved in planning the trip, according to the indictment. Libby confirmed this information with a CIA official."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a726D9v9Zf38&refer=top_world_news

God, it's killing you folks that Scooter Libby is the highest guy to get indicted, isn't it.

As far as anyone else getting indicted, probably not, read Fitzgerald's whole answer to the question on "is the investigation over".

"Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But … very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."

In other words, he's got some paperwork left to do, and has to keep folks around for Scooters trial, but that's about it.

And, KARL ROVE IS STILL ON THE LOOSE!

Re pardon and Libby.
I am sure that that possibility will be heldout in front of him but that admits guilt.
I am counting on the fact that about to be indicted and actually indicted are two very different states of mind. Now Libby's entire focus of his day and nights willbe his hide and his reputation.

Let the mind games begin!

I have to say that if I were facing 30 years in prison
and I heard my " friend" Carl Rove say to reporters
" I am going to have a great Friday and a fantastic week-end" on the day I am indicted,
I would start singing like a bird. I don't think this is the "end" but rather
the beginning of something very big.

It's a fair theory ... but just on the sniff test, this wreaks of Bolton. Whoever it is, let's hope that a) Fitzgerald gets to the bottom of it and b) Dubya doesn't pardon everyone. I'm kind of optomistic on the first. The second, totally pessimistic.

Well, my money is still on Bolton because of his role in creating and promulgating the State Department Memo relied upon to use those infamous 16 words.

I think a close look at ALL the NSA intercepts that Bolton requested would contain Valerie Plame's name.

PS. to Jo Jo, What do mean, "Perhaps people will take this site more seriously if you drop the expletives"? You apparently are not a regular reader of TWN and are projecting your neocon tactics onto those who do comment here. I've never seen an expletive on this site. It is thoughtful, accurate and really informative. Perhaps you stumbled upon TWN when you heard it mentioned on major networks, which I'd say indicates that the MSM is taking TWN VERY seriously. Does that make you uncomfortable, JoJo?Afraid people are taking TWN too seriously, so you have to make up some little derrogatory accusation? You sound like an Ann Coulter wannabee.

"The larger story on Friday was that Fitzgerald indicted no one else. The wrongdoing leads in no way beyond this one individual and what he allegedly said to FBI investigators and the grand jury. There was no conspiracy, high level or otherwise, at the White House, or involving the Defense Department or the State Department--all scenarios that enemies of the administration had been fantasizing about for months. "

from: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/275xeums.asp

But the way, what happened to your "uber-insider source "? what a dissapointment?

I feel a pause in the Force. No one knows what's happening. All is still to play for.

Weekly Standard readers take note:

washingtonpost.com
Moment of Weakness

Friday, October 28, 2005; 12:03 PM

"...A Vulnerable Presidency

Badly wounded and weakened, Bush heads for the hills tonight -- to spend the weekend at Camp David. His traditional opponents -- those on his left -- now see him as vulnerable, an emperor with no clothes. Longtime allies on the right suddenly feel like they can push him around.

With fire coming from both sides, the end result could be a loss of his ability to govern.

Todd S. Purdum writes in the New York Times: "George W. Bush has been in the White House for 248 weeks, through a terrorist attack, two wars and a bruising re-election. But it seems safe to say that he has never had a worse political week than this one - and it is not over yet. . . .

"The biggest question for Mr. Bush now is what he can make of the 39 months remaining in his presidency. For this horrible week has been months - even years - in the making. The 2,000th American fatality in Iraq was just the latest daunting milestone in a war that will soon be three years old. The C.I.A. leak investigation that threatens to indict a top White House aide or two on Friday grew out of the fierce debates over the flawed intelligence that led to that war.

"And Harriet E. Miers's withdrawal of her nomination to the Supreme Court is the bitter fruit of Mr. Bush's own frailty in the wake of all those storms - and Hurricane Katrina - and of his miscalculations about how her appointment would be received.

"His effort to avoid a fight by choosing a nominee with a scant public record (whose conservative fidelity only he could vouch for) instead prompted a ferocious backlash from the conservative activists he has courted for years. . . .

"Some scholars and Republican elders say it is now time for Mr. Bush to do what Ronald Reagan did when the Iran-contra scandal threatened to derail his second term: shake up the White House staff, retool his domestic and foreign policy agenda and move on. But most say they see few signs that Mr. Bush intends to do so."

Ronald Brownstein writes in the Los Angeles Times: "George W. Bush's first term was a tutorial on how a determined and aggressive president can multiply his strength and drive sweeping change from a narrow electoral base.

"His second term increasingly looks like the opposite: a bitter lesson in how swiftly a president's influence can erode and how quickly presidential weakness can breed division in his party. . . .

"Republican defection is especially difficult for Bush because, after five years of bruising partisan combat, he attracts few votes from Democratic lawmakers for his priorities. That means resistance from relatively few Republican legislators can deny him majorities."

Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: "President Bush has reached a deep valley of his presidency, a place where even some of the ideological voices of his own party have abandoned him and his harshest critics are openly declaring a failed administration.

"He has spent much of his tenure waging war with Democrats, relying on Republican-only majorities for victory. Now, with the withdrawal of the nomination of his longtime lawyer and ally, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court, Bush has lost a battle from within.

"For a president known for his strength and unshaken resolve, the loss marks an uncharacteristic moment of weakness and surrender."

Paul West writes in the Baltimore Sun: "It was hard to ignore the comparison as President Bush toured hurricane-devastated South Florida yesterday, where millions were still without power.

"Bush's administration has become, in some ways, its own crisis zone, with the president's power to influence events in Washington increasingly in doubt. His failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, a close and devoted friend from Dallas, was only the latest blow."

Thomas M. DeFrank writes in the New York Daily News: "The Bush presidency already resembled Fiasco Central well before Harriet Miers' bungled nomination reached its point of incineration. . . .

"'He's not a lame duck,' one of his closest political counselors said yesterday. 'He's a clumsy duck. This can still be fixed.'

"Yet some of Bush's most trusted advisers believe his political viability is dangerously near a tipping point.

" 'He is right back to where he was on Sept. 10, 2001,' a former White House official said in amazement at Bush's decline..."

Grossman told Libby on June 11 or June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and she was involved in planning the trip, according to the indictment.

more important may be where Grossman got this information. According to the indictment, Grossman told Libby that "State Department Personnel" were talking about the Wilson-Plame-CIA connection. (i.e. Grossman was repeating State Dept. gossip, not providing Libby with official information.)

The wording of this section is also interesting. Its the report of a conversation which "in sum and substance" resulted in Libby finding out about the whole Wilson's wife thing --- and based on the chronological ordering, this would have been the first time that Libby heard about Plame.

The deeper you get into the indictment, the easier it is to think that the Libby indictments are really just an appetizer. Certain key facts are included that strongly suggest that Fitzgerald was, in fact, considering charging Libby with knowingly outing Valerie Plame.

Personally, what I think Luskin brought to the table was "tactical" advice --- the fact that the evidence against Libby for perjury/obstruction was a slam-dunk, and that the evidence against Rove was more ambiguous. If Fitzgerald had indicted both Rove and Libby at the same time, the main focus would have been on Rove (and the potential holes in the prosecutor's case) --- Libby would have been considered a secondary player in the public's mind.

Looks like The Corner's Byron York understands the seriousness of the charges against Libby.
http://tinyurl.com/czqeb

THE WORD ON LIBBY -- AND THE BIG PICTURE [Byron York]

"A number of observations tonight from people who know and follow the CIA leak case:
The first is that they view the indictment against Lewis Libby as very strong. One source called it "as clear-cut an indictment" as one would ever see, and the consensus is that Libby is in serious trouble. If Libby lied as much as Fitzgerald accuses him of lying, the sources say, then Libby acted in an astonishingly reckless way..."

Take a look at newspapers around the country to see how the Treasongate indictment is playing in papers across the country....Cheney's name is everywhere in the headlines...There is no way this is a good thing for the administration anyway it is spun....Though I am wondering if Rove played games until the end to ensure this coverage would appear on a Saturday....

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages

-

The more I read, the more I realize there is nothing really to this story. No one is charged with a crime ...as I liberal, I think we are fooling ourselves thinking this is the end to Bush's administration. We better find something else soon. Average Americans are not paying attention. Forget about the blogs, ask your neighbors and store clerks or even your doctor, are they following this story? I asked and no one really cared... so lets find something else to write about...

Lori, is your last name Rumplestiltskin, by any chance?

From Lori:

"...as I liberal..."

See, you couldn't even write it. Troll, me thinks.

I'm confused about this INR memo about Wilson that was sent by Grossman to Libby. Is this the same memo that was taken aboard Air Force 1 by Powell and possibly read by several on the plane on the flight to Africa?

A MUST READ;

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102905A.shtml

Will the Republican Party ever survive George W Bush?
I think deep down Bush hates the right wing. I think he couldn't care
less about abortion and I also think he hates hard work.
Unintelligent, unqualified, incompetent...and he is surrounded by the creepiest
people on the face of the planet.
I have asked my neighbors, doctors and acquaintances what they think
of this " scandal" and most are not following it.
All they say is " God we have to get Bush out of there and get our troops
out of Iraq" Now that they are following.

I'm confused about this INR memo about Wilson that was sent by Grossman to Libby. Is this the same memo that was taken aboard Air Force 1 by Powell and possibly read by several on the plane on the flight to Africa?

yes and no. Its contents were (reportedly) virtually identical, but it was not a xerox of the original memo. Speculation is that "certain people" did not want Powell to see that he was excluded from the distribution of the original memo, so they created a new, recently dated one for him.

Thanks, p.lukasiak, very interesting information.

p.lukasiak - That conspiracy theory won't fly. There's no way that the bureaucracy (specifically INR) would write a second memo for Powell after writing one for Grossman. Why would INR do that? Regardless, Powell/Armitage/Grossman all have the ability to read each other's memos since they're processed through the same mechanism. Thus Powell wasn't "excluded," in fact, he can't be excluded.

"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?

That's what I asked myself when the Bush team took us into Iraq.: Compulsively overheated" to put it mildly has gotten a lot of good people killed.

BROOKS: WHY ARE DEMS SO OVERHEATED?
Sat Oct 29 2005 17:15:12 ET

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove," writes David Brooks in Sunday's NY TIMES.

"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."

"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?

Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.

"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

Brooks summarizes: "So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy."

p.lukasiak - That conspiracy theory won't fly. There's no way that the bureaucracy (specifically INR) would write a second memo for Powell after writing one for Grossman. Why would INR do that? Regardless, Powell/Armitage/Grossman all have the ability to read each other's memos since they're processed through the same mechanism. Thus Powell wasn't "excluded," in fact, he can't be excluded.

Bob....the memo created in response to Powell's request for information was dated in July --- and it was based on the memo created by Grossman (note, not for Grossman) in June in response to Libby's request for info.

Unless I'm reading this wrong...

Not only did both Joe Wilson and Marc Grossman attend UC Santa Barbara as undergrads, but they both graduated in 1972.

p.lukasiak - I just don't buy that (link?). You're saying that an Under Secretary wrote a memo to Libby, and then low-level State staff wrote a memo to the Secretary based on the Under Secretary's memo? That's just not logical. Far more likely is that the Under Secretary asked his staff (INR) to draft a memo in his name to Libby, and the Secretary (as he'd want to see any memo that went from his Dept. to the WH) got a copy.

Under Secretaries don't right "in the weeds" memos, they're too busy setting foreign policy and fighting turf/policy battles with other Under Secretaries (remember that Armitage/Grossman's counterparts were Wolfy/Feith; think they had time for memo writing?!). That's what they have staff for. Could you imagine the #3 at the State Dept. culling through intel. reporting for this when he has a team of experts several levels below him who did nothing but work on Iraq WMD issues every day for years?