Is there some information to indicate that this is the case? Everything I have read up to now implies that Fitzgerald has shut down the investigation and is just cleaning up the Libby situation.

I fear that the abhorrance that many here have for Richard Cheney and his (self-professed) secret cabalis leading people to see white knights (and further prosecutions) where there are none.

Cranky

Thanks Swopa. There was also some discussion that the 1 source had backtracked later on. Did he backtrack later, and if so was that because of Armitage?

I addressed that just before YearlyKos last June:

The bloggers who have done the most to keep the Plame fires burning now seem to never mention the so-called “1×2×6″ story (”a senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife”). One who did was Steve Clemons, who cast some doubt on the story’s accuracy:

I spoke to a well-informed and connected Washington Post reporter recently with some familiarity with these national security topics, and this source — who did not state that he/she was familiar with the Priest/Allen source — did suggest that sources can get wobbly. In this particular case, according to the person to whom I was speaking, a source might have become “confused” as to what occurred before the Novak article and what after.

In fact, as I documented at the time, this was a possibility floated by Newsweek right after the original 1×2×6 article. It also seemed to be immediately refuted by a follow-up Post article … but could it have been right after all?

Looking back, I think I know exactly what happened. The famous 1×2×6 article contains this problematic passage:

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson’s credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, “The real issue is Wilson and his wife.”

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson’s wife as “fair game.”

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists.

In these sentences, the 1×2×6 story veers from talking about the calls heard by the anonymous official to others we now know were made after the Novak column that outed Plame, then back again … could it be that all the calls, then, were made after the column was printed?

The crucial clue comes when you ask how we know that the “real issue” and “fair game” calls came after the Novak column. One reason is that the follow-up Post story says so:

After Novak’s column appeared, several high-profile reporters told Wilson that they had received calls from White House officials drawing attention to his wife’s role. Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said she received one of those calls.

Wilson said another reporter called him on July 21 and said he had just hung up with Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove. The reporter quoted Rove as describing Wilson’s wife as “fair game,” Wilson said.

Notice how this is clearly an unacknowledged correction of the previous article? The anonymous administration official makes a return appearance as well, but his recollections are placed squarely between July 7 and July 12 in the follow-up story’s chronological retelling of the Plame leak saga.

In short, the WaPo did exactly what a responsible news organization should when its reporting was challenged: It went back to its sources to double-check, and wrote a new story that clarified what happened when. And, in fact, a source did “go wobbly” — but it was Joe Wilson, not the senior administration official.

I didn’t want this comment to get stuck in moderation, so I didn’t copy over the links — see the original post linked above if you want to click through to the various sources.

> Fitz is first clearing the view, then
> he will prosecute the big crimes of
> Obstruction by higher-ups,

I’ll be the cold water guy :-(. This is inconsistent with Fitzgerald’s behavior in September(?) of 2004. Libby will be the one and only indictment; there will be nothing past the obstruction charges.

Cranky

“nothing past the obstruction charges” In this trial. The information he’s getting from testimony in this trial and the fact that the larger investigation is still ongoing, may prove otherwise.

Lastly, does anyone else think that Fitz plans to show that he can positively prove a criminal case against Cheney in this Libby trial so that politics, not law, will “take care of” Cheney (with the threat of indictment so clear as to force him out, like Nixon). I think that’s the strategy–knock wood!

I sure hope not – after Rover, Cheney is who I most want behind bars. Loss of job is far too little a price to pay . . .

One good thing – this is all proceeding so slowly that by the time Rove and Cheney go to trial, the shrub may already be out of office with no access to a pardon pen.

Curious in Central Texas @ 102

EW prepared the best witness list I’ve seen:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..tion_5.pdf

actually, Marcy didn’t prepare that list…it appears to be the list prepared for potential jurors — a list of names of people connected to the trial who might testify or be mentioned. The court would want to know what the relationship was between a potential juror and someone on the list before voir dire began.

**********

and re: that list, and Lisa’s theory re: Bolton/Fleitz — I WISH it were true, but neither name appears on the list. Because Cheney is expected to testify, and will doubtless be asked from whom he found out that Plame was CPD, if it were Bolton or Fleitz their names would probably be on the list….

Fitz wouldn’t need to call Bolton as a witness in this trial, would he? Who told Dick about Plame’s status in Counterproliferation is not relevant to the particular charges against Libby (false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice). Bolton could however, be on the witness list in a conspiracy trial against Cheney, Libby, and Rove.

I’ll be the cold water guy :-(. This is inconsistent with Fitzgerald’s behavior in September(?) of 2004. Libby will be the one and only indictment; there will be nothing past the obstruction charges.

Cranky

But best be on look out for a Friday news dump…

Over time, you’d think all the media types with weekend plans would take Monday morning off instead.