I would have expected a little more from David Corn. He is turning out to be a MSM whore like Isikoff. Corn’s credibility was shattered after he defended Vivica Novak based on her husband’s basketball playing. Writing this book with access whore Isikoff is just another attempt to cash in. The Nation should fire him.

I have wondered about Corn’s liberal cred for awhile. He is unwilling to aggressively take on Charles Krauthammer when they appear together on the local (and syndicated) DC program “Inside Washington with Gordon Peterson”. His articles on the Nation’s website are always more direct and confrontational than the views he expresses in TV appearances. Quit pulling your punches Mr. Corn and call out the bastards for who they are all the time. You are one of the few liberal voices allowed to get any airtime by the MSM gatekeepers, please use it more effectively.

emptywheel @ 105

One more point. It appears that Pincus’ source didn’t immediately reveal the contents of the conversation with Pincus (or else Fitz wouldn’t have interviewed Kessler).

Huh? You lost me here. Kessler was subpoenaed over a conversation with Libby, not anyone else as far as I know.

Right. Kessler was subpoenaed because he was one of the two people who might have gotten the WaPo leak, based on phone records. Fitz claims Kessler’s testimony differs from Libby’s (I suspect, but am just guessing, that as with the Cooper conversation, Libby claimed to have told Kessler, thereby hiding a different conversation). But if Pincus’ source had testified from the start that he told Pincus, then Fitzgerald wouldn’t have had to go after both Kessler and Pincus. He could have skipped the Kessler stage altogether.

So it is likely that Pincus’ source is not a central witness to Fitz’ prosecution (because it’d be pretty damned incriminating if he were–you’d have the Armitage problem all over again). Which again, suggests against Ari.

I’m not sure I follow you here, either. Why can’t Pincus’s source be a key witness against Libby (aside from Fitz not wanting to tip his hand on the conspiracy front)?

Because the witness would have no credibility (as Armitage now doesn’t) if he had forgotten to tell Fitz that he had leaked to Pincus. It would make it insanely easy for Libby to say the witness was testifying to cast guilt away from himself. It would utterly ruin the witnesses credibility. And as I’ve pointed out, Ari is probably the most important witness in the Libby trial. If Ari had really leaked–and not told about it–then Fitz wouldn’t have a case against Libby. It’d be bad enough if Ari leaked and admitted it, but the Pincus subpoena process seems to rule against it. Furthermore, Libby would be trying harder to get Pincus on the stand, which for some reason he hasn’t done. Or put it this way. For some reason Libby doesn’t seem interested in going after Pincus’ source, based on his list of intended witnesses, as distinct from the way he’s going after Armitage. That means either he doesn’t know who Pincus’ source is, or that person’s testimony doesn’t hurt Libby’s own case.

I think you’re piling too many assumptions on top of one another. Pincus said he testified about the July 12 leak to clear his source’s name (i.e., to confirm that he wasn’t told Wilson’s wife was covert). I don’t see how Kessler relates to that.

The difference between Armitage and Fleischer is that Libby isn’t in the chain of information to Armitage — thus, promoting Armitage as a leaker helps to clear Libby.

Promoting Fleischer as a leaker simply causes Ari to point the finger back at Libby as (1) the person who told him about Wilson’s wife and (2) the person who authorized the leaks. Thus Libby has adopted an “Ari who?” approach.

Let me start over again, because these are very simple assumptions, based on a fair amount of data. Independently, any of the three would rule against Ari. Together, they really do.

I’m basing my argument on the notion that Fitz would not indict someone if he couldn’t make his case. That’s probably what happened with Rove–once Armitage’s credibility was shot because he didn’t reveal the Woodward leak, Fitz didn’t have a strong enough case.

In Libby’s trial, Ari is the most important witness. Therefore, we can assume Fitz has reason to believe Ari will be a reasonably credible witness.

If Ari lied about leaking to someone, then he wouldn’t be a credible witness (as Armitage isn’t). Therefore, Ari almost certainly didn’t lie about leaking to someone (though I believe he came clean on his hints to Dickerson).

There are three pieces of evidence (in addition to the fact that Fitz took the case at all, relying as it does on Ari) that say Ari isn’t Pincus’ source.

First, Fitz by DOJ guidelines couldn’t go after Pincus and Kessler both if he knew who had recieved the leak. Therefore, he didn’t know, from the first round of testimony, who had received the leak (and by association, who the leaker was). Therefore, Pincus’ leaker didn’t come clean when he first testified. (This is backed up by the August 2004 affy, which names Pincus based on Kessler’s testimony. though you’ve got to do some un-redactions to find this.) From this we can assume that whoever leaked would be about as credible a witness right now as Richard Armitage, which is not credible enough to stake an indictment on. This has nothing to do with chain of command–it’s all about making sure you have credible witnesses before you charge the Chief of Staff to the VP.

Second, Fitz would need a really good reason to trade immunity on a higher charge to get a witness against a lesser one. You’re suggesting a Federal prosecutor would trade an IIPA violation (or espionage) for a perjury violation, knowing that his espionage person would be facing harsher consequences than his perjury person. That’s not going to happen, because it would be simple to for the perjury indictee (Libby) to impeach the witness.

And finally, there are Libby’s actions. As I (and Fitz) have said, Ari is the key witness here. Therefore, we have to assume Libby will avail himself of any means to impeach Ari as a witness. Yet all Libby’s using to impeach Ari (based on court documents) is the suggestion he was leaker from last summer’s INR memo fest. He’s not subpoenaing Pincus. If Libby had any suspicion Ari was Pincus’ source, his lawyers would be remiss for not calling Pincus, because it’d be a sure way of ruining the most important witness against him. Remember, it was legal for Libby to share Plame’s covert status with Ari–if Ari then leaked that to a journalist, though, that’d be a crime. It’s clear that Libby doesn’t suspect Ari as Pincus’ source, or he’d subpoena him.

And then, finally, there’s the question of evidence. Sure, Ari is remotely possible (though highly unlikely given Libby’s pre-trial motions) to be Pincus’ source. But why is he a better candidate than Hadley? Or Rove? Or Cathie Martin?

One more point. It appears that Pincus’ source didn’t immediately reveal the contents of the conversation with Pincus (or else Fitz wouldn’t have interviewed Kessler).

Huh? You lost me here. Kessler was subpoenaed over a conversation with Libby, not anyone else as far as I know.

Right. Kessler was subpoenaed because he was one of the two people who might have gotten the WaPo leak, based on phone records. Fitz claims Kessler’s testimony differs from Libby’s (I suspect, but am just guessing, that as with the Cooper conversation, Libby claimed to have told Kessler, thereby hiding a different conversation). But if Pincus’ source had testified from the start that he told Pincus, then Fitzgerald wouldn’t have had to go after both Kessler and Pincus. He could have skipped the Kessler stage altogether.

So it is likely that Pincus’ source is not a central witness to Fitz’ prosecution (because it’d be pretty damned incriminating if he were–you’d have the Armitage problem all over again). Which again, suggests against Ari.

I’m not sure I follow you here, either. Why can’t Pincus’s source be a key witness against Libby (aside from Fitz not wanting to tip his hand on the conspiracy front)?

Because the witness would have no credibility (as Armitage now doesn’t) if he had forgotten to tell Fitz that he had leaked to Pincus. It would make it insanely easy for Libby to say the witness was testifying to cast guilt away from himself. It would utterly ruin the witnesses credibility. And as I’ve pointed out, Ari is probably the most important witness in the Libby trial. If Ari had really leaked–and not told about it–then Fitz wouldn’t have a case against Libby. It’d be bad enough if Ari leaked and admitted it, but the Pincus subpoena process seems to rule against it. Furthermore, Libby would be trying harder to get Pincus on the stand, which for some reason he hasn’t done. Or put it this way. For some reason Libby doesn’t seem interested in going after Pincus’ source, based on his list of intended witnesses, as distinct from the way he’s going after Armitage. That means either he doesn’t know who Pincus’ source is, or that person’s testimony doesn’t hurt Libby’s own case.

I think you’re piling too many assumptions on top of one another. Pincus said he testified about the July 12 leak to clear his source’s name (i.e., to confirm that he wasn’t told Wilson’s wife was covert). I don’t see how Kessler relates to that.

The difference between Armitage and Fleischer is that Libby isn’t in the chain of information to Armitage — thus, promoting Armitage as a leaker helps to clear Libby.

Promoting Fleischer as a leaker simply causes Ari to point the finger back at Libby as (1) the person who told him about Wilson’s wife and (2) the person who authorized the leaks. Thus Libby has adopted an “Ari who?” approach.

Meanwhile, there’s the whole difficulty of logistics (getting Ari to leak after the AF2 trip), which makes Ari less likely.

Would this have been any more difficult than a brief phone call from Libby to Fleischer?

I’m thinking of time differences and whatnot. Not a fatal problem with the Ari theory, but one that would make things more difficult.

And frankly, since Ari was almost certainly following talking points (not least because Bartlett was on the same page as he), if Ari were Pincus’ source, you could expect some noise about whoever the talking points person was.

IMO, Fitzgerald has tried to wall off the 1×2×6 leaks from the Libby perjury case because they’re part of whatever conspiracy case he might build. But he did point out the Libby-Fleischer lunch where Scooter gave Ari the information about Wilson’s wife.

Fair point, about walling off the conspiracy. But he raised the Libby-Fleischer lunch because it is the most important part of his case against Libby, as he indicated in his press conference. Ari is proof that Libby knew–and was sharing info–that Plame was covert before he leaked to Judy, and before he spoke to Russert. Libby might have gotten away with “forgetting” Dick had told him, but not with Ari testifying Libby told him two days before.

One more point. It appears that Pincus’ source didn’t immediately reveal the contents of the conversation with Pincus (or else Fitz wouldn’t have interviewed Kessler).

Huh? You lost me here. Kessler was subpoenaed over a conversation with Libby, not anyone else as far as I know.

Right. Kessler was subpoenaed because he was one of the two people who might have gotten the WaPo leak, based on phone records. Fitz claims Kessler’s testimony differs from Libby’s (I suspect, but am just guessing, that as with the Cooper conversation, Libby claimed to have told Kessler, thereby hiding a different conversation). But if Pincus’ source had testified from the start that he told Pincus, then Fitzgerald wouldn’t have had to go after both Kessler and Pincus. He could have skipped the Kessler stage altogether.

So it is likely that Pincus’ source is not a central witness to Fitz’ prosecution (because it’d be pretty damned incriminating if he were–you’d have the Armitage problem all over again). Which again, suggests against Ari.

I’m not sure I follow you here, either. Why can’t Pincus’s source be a key witness against Libby (aside from Fitz not wanting to tip his hand on the conspiracy front)?

Because the witness would have no credibility (as Armitage now doesn’t) if he had forgotten to tell Fitz that he had leaked to Pincus. It would make it insanely easy for Libby to say the witness was testifying to cast guilt away from himself. It would utterly ruin the witnesses credibility. And as I’ve pointed out, Ari is probably the most important witness in the Libby trial. If Ari had really leaked–and not told about it–then Fitz wouldn’t have a case against Libby. It’d be bad enough if Ari leaked and admitted it, but the Pincus subpoena process seems to rule against it. Furthermore, Libby would be trying harder to get Pincus on the stand, which for some reason he hasn’t done. Or put it this way. For some reason Libby doesn’t seem interested in going after Pincus’ source, based on his list of intended witnesses, as distinct from the way he’s going after Armitage. That means either he doesn’t know who Pincus’ source is, or that person’s testimony doesn’t hurt Libby’s own case.

Is this idea fleshed out [or maybe fleshed down] somewhere?

See the links in the last paragraph of the post.

That’s right, Allen is at Time Magazine now. I R learning.

That’s right — it slipped my mind, too. But even if there’s no institutional issue about protecting a WaPo coworker, it’s still not clear to me why he would want anyone sniffing around his story.

emptywheel @ 97

Swopa

I’m with Polly–I think Rove is still in the running, as is Hadley.

I’ll have to look into the Rove angle this evening. As I said, I think there’s a definitive statement somewhere.

But we know that Ari had an opportunity to leak Plame’s ID on July 12, and didn’t.

Dickerson says in this article that his talk with Ari (not identified by name) was on the morning of Friday, July 11 — before Rove had talked to Matt Cooper.

Meanwhile, there’s the whole difficulty of logistics (getting Ari to leak after the AF2 trip), which makes Ari less likely.

Would this have been any more difficult than a brief phone call from Libby to Fleischer?

And frankly, since Ari was almost certainly following talking points (not least because Bartlett was on the same page as he), if Ari were Pincus’ source, you could expect some noise about whoever the talking points person was.

IMO, Fitzgerald has tried to wall off the 1×2×6 leaks from the Libby perjury case because they’re part of whatever conspiracy case he might build. But he did point out the Libby-Fleischer lunch where Scooter gave Ari the information about Wilson’s wife.

One more point. It appears that Pincus’ source didn’t immediately reveal the contents of the conversation with Pincus (or else Fitz wouldn’t have interviewed Kessler).

Huh? You lost me here. Kessler was subpoenaed over a conversation with Libby, not anyone else as far as I know.

So it is likely that Pincus’ source is not a central witness to Fitz’ prosecution (because it’d be pretty damned incriminating if he were–you’d have the Armitage problem all over again). Which again, suggests against Ari.

I’m not sure I follow you here, either. Why can’t Pincus’s source be a key witness against Libby (aside from Fitz not wanting to tip his hand on the conspiracy front)?

Please make it simple — I ain’t too bright.

I think this is a great insight. I say “think” because you Plamologists are so into the details that it’s hard for mortals like me to get the subtilties. Is this idea fleshed out [or maybe fleshed down] somewhere?