Deconstructing today's New York Times article
For days, Scott McClellan has been a one-note Johnny in refusing to comment on any question about Karl Rove's outing of Valerie Plame - no matter how oblique. Like a pull-string toy he regurgitates that he will not answer questions pertaining to "an ongoing investigation."
Today, the New York Times has an extended article quoting a source: "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter".
First off: how can the New York Times claim to have any credibility when it comes to this matter considering they are no longer a neutral party with their own Judith Miller in jail.
And excuse me, but if the White House is not talking about Rove and this investigation, how could someone be "officially" briefed?
Who "officially" briefed this source? Why would someone be "officially briefed?" During an investigation, there is testimony - and certainly Mr. Fitzgerald is not saying anything, nor can I believe there would be any reason to "officially brief" anyone about the case.
So this would seem to leave the White House as the "source."
Is this Scott McClellan? I suspect this is a direct line from Karl Rove himself - or at least his lawyer.
It gets even better: this "officially briefed" person declined to be identified because "citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case.
Notice the quotes from the New York Times and how well they're tailored to match what is being said by Rove's lawyer right now:
Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON July 15, 2005 NY Times
WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."
The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.
...
The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity.
...
That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard parts of the story from other journalists but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.
...
The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer.
Maybe Fitzgerald will jail the New York Times reporters unless they reveal who the source is who is leaking confidential information about the investigation?
Even better: maybe he'll find out who leaked the leak information to the "officially briefed" person. And maybe it will be Rove, yet again.
Maybe all roads lead to Rove.