This post is a response to David Johnston's
shillicious article today, taking seriously the wingnut claims that Fitzgerald is out of control.
I'll show that it was Bush cronies, not Patrick Fitzgerald, who first pursued the investigation beyond Armitage and Novak. And that, by the time Fitzgerald took over the investigation, the FBI had already uncovered clear evidence that Libby was lying in order to protect Cheney, and that Rove may have coordinated stories with Novak.
Who Prolonged the Investigation
First, I'll repeat a point I made yesterday. It's not that Armitage revealed his role in this on the day Fitzgerald was appointed, December 30, 2003, and then Fitzgerald pursued the case anyway.
Richard Armitage revealed his role on October 1, 2003. He was interviewed on October 2, 2003. Robert Novak was interviewed on October 7, 2003.
Now at this point, if the Armitage to Novak leak really explained everything the CIA had reported in their complaint, you'd think they would have gone no further, right? You'd think they would have either thrown Armitage into jail, or they'd have made an announcement, "um, sorry, nothing to see here folks. It was all a misunderstanding."
Particularly since a bunch of Bush cronies and RNC hacks were overseeing the investigation.
John Ashcroft, then Attorney General, had paid Rove over $700,000 to help him win three different elections. Robert McCallum, Associate Attorney General and then-acting Deputy Attorney General, knew Bush from their days in Skull and Bones at Yale. David Israelite, Deputy Chief of Staff to Ashcroft, had served as the RNC's political director. Barbara Comstock, then Ashcroft's Director of Public Affairs, had run the RNC's opposition research. Mark Corallo, transitioning into Comstock's role, had also worked for the RNC.
Yet in spite of the fact that the folks at the top of this investigation must have been more interested in helping Dick Cheney and George Bush avoid embarrassment than Patrick Fitzgerald later was, they continued to pursue the investigation, even after they had spoken to Armitage and Novak. Either something in the CIA referral, something reported in the popular press, or something they learned in the very first days of the investigation convinced them to continue pursuing the case. And by the time Fitzgerald was appointed at the end of December, FBI investigators already had reason to believe Libby and Rove were lying to them.
The Timing of the Investigation
Which ought to convince journalists like Johnston to look at the evidence, rather than simply parroting the spin of the Administration. Here's what we know about this early phase of the investigation.
The CIA first informed the Counterespionage Section of DOJ they were investigating the leak on July 24. CIA filed formal notice of a potential crime on July 30. That makes sense--we know a CIA officer spoke with Libby and someone else in OVP in the days after Novak's column about the exposure such a leak may have caused, so it's clear the CIA was aware of the danger of the leak. The CIA had to fax its report, again, on September 5. On September 16, the CIA recommended the DOJ undertake a full investigation, apparently already having satisfied themselves internally that the leak may have broken a law. The CIA almost certainly provided their version of the leak, including a description of how closely Plame's status was guarded. They may have also provided more details about Wilson's trip and later inquiries surround the trip. In other words--they may have revealed requests from OVP about Wilson's trip.
Meanwhile, on August 21, Joe Wilson made his "frog-march" comments about Karl Rove. When questioned about the comment in mid-September, Wilson explained the "frog-march" comment by alluding to Rove's incitment to Tweety, that Plame "was fair game," though without yet mentioning Tweety's name. In other words, based on Rove's post-Novak column leaking, Wilson pushed the likelihood that Rove was involved in the leak.
But there were further reasons the FBI continued its investigation. In its document request from September 30, 2003 (that is, the night before Armitage publicly revealed his role), the DOJ requested items related not just to Novak's column, but also the Phelps and Royce column. In other words, assuming Armitage had nothing to do with the Phelps and Royce confirmation of Plame's covert status (which he couldn't have, since he didn't know of her status), the FBI had one remaining leak to investigate.
Now that may have been enough to convince the FBI to continue investigating beyond Novak and Armitage. But the real impulse probably came from the 1X2X6 article. Several days before Armitage revealed his role in this, an SAO revealed that,
Yesterday, 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.
[snip]
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
This was the article, after all, that Novak's column responded to. And once this allegation was made, the FBI would have to at least try to investigate it. Armitage didn't appear to be leaking Plame's identity out of revenge. He hadn't admitted to leaking it to more than Novak (yet). He didn't reveal either her identity or her classified status (though "occupation" may mean no more than a CIA affiliation). In other words, Armitage's admission didn't answer the range of questions we know to be placed before the FBI, to say nothing of the evidence included in the CIA's referral.
Moreover, at least according to his own reporting, Novak and Armitage together wouldn't have explained Novak's leak. Look at what Novak admits to revealing at that FBI meeting:
I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources. [my emphasis]
Novak claims to have discussed how Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip was reported. He says nothing about how he learned of Plame's name or classified status. In other words, he claims to have answered only the questions pertaining to Armitage's role in the leak, not the unknown source of his other revelations, Plame's name and her covert status (to say nothing of the source of Novak's certitude that Wilson "never worked for the CIA"--how did he know that, which is how he first raised the question to Armitage that led Armitage to reveal Plame's role in Wilson's trip).
Libby and Rove Dig Deep Holes
So the FBI had reason enough to continue their investigation beyond Armitage and Novak--they had not yet answered some of the most pressing questions related to the investigation. But within the first few weeks of the investigation, Libby and Rove gave them reason enough to investigate further. And, we can assume, for James Comey, named Deputy AG in December, to press Ashcroft to recuse himself and appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Much of what we know from this period comes from Murray Waas' reporting. But from that, we learn at least two items that would raise suspicions. First, the day after the 1X2X6 article, Novak called Rove to tell him he would protect him from the investigation. And, (presumably) after Libby first testified on October 14 that he had learned of Plame's identity from reporters, DOJ received his notes which revealed he had learned of Plame's identity from Dick Cheney. In addition, sometime in this early investigative phase, the FBI learned of incriminating conversations between Libby and other administration officials.
In October 2003, agents interviewed several administration officials, who described conversations they had with Libby about Plame in June and early July of 2003.
[snip]
Even early in the investigation, two key people were publicly known at the time to have been interviewed by the FBI: Ari Fleischer, then-White House press secretary, and Catherine Martin, a Cheney press aide.
If Ari and Martin revealed what we see in the indictment, we can assume the FBI knew Libby revealed Plame's status was sensitive to Ari before Armitage ever leaked to Novak. And we can assume the FBI knew that Dick and Libby were personally involved in strategizing conversations with reporters--including Matt Cooper--during leak week.
In other words, before Fitzgerald even got named as Special Prosecutor, the FBI had established that:
- Rove had a suspicious conversation with Novak before he finalized his story for his October, 2003 column
- Libby had apparently lied when he told the FBI he learned of Plame's identity from journalists
- Libby apparently knew Plame's identity was sensitive before Novak received a leak
- Libby might be protecting Dick Cheney with his apparent lies about his knowledge of Plame
Even with all this pre-Fitzgerald evidence of further involvement, geniuses like David Johnston presents the following faux-balanced paragraph:
But Mr. Fitzgerald's defenders point out that the revelation about Mr. Armitage did not rule out a White House effort because officials like Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, the senior white House adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with other journalists. Even so, the Fitzgerald critics say, the prosecutor behaved much as did the independent counsels of the 1980's and 1990's who often failed to bring down their quarry on official misconduct charges but pursued highly nuanced accusations of a cover-up.
Um, no, David. It's not a question of "ruling out" a White House effort. Even Bush cronies like Ashcroft and McCallum and Israelite apparently found there to be enough evidence supporting further crimes that they couldn't squelch the investigation. By the time Fitzgerald was appointed, the FBI had already uncovered clear evidence that Libby and Cheney were directly involved in this smear, that Libby had lied to protect Cheney, and that Rove may have coordinated with Novak to cover up his own role. Yet Johnston considers this clear evidence nothing but "nuance"?