Try the culprit for treason and execute the public square.

That or a looooong sentence in federal "pound-you-in-the-butt" prison.

why does everyone forget the most important part of this whole thing. who had access the names of covert agents in the first place. it is very unlikely anyone in the white house would every know the names. so the question is who had passed the information up to rove?

I will be appalled if Rove turns out to be the source of the Plame leak. How stupid can one be. Surely he could have delegated this task to a functionary who is expendable if caught. This would take much of the shine off his supposed brilliance.

Rove isn't that smart as you make him out to be. He readily admitting to phoning everyone he could to spill the beans once Plame's name was made public by "another source".

If he were "smart" he would have stayed away from it with a ten foot pole. Then again, by joining in on the feeding frenzy, it allows him an alibi to hide his involvement.

"Fitzgerald may learn more details from Cooper's notes. Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee." - Regardless, the original source has to have come from the inside. To spin it from that angle only convolutes the true objective of the investigation.

Wait a minute. "stayed away from it with a ten foot pole???"

Would it not be ironic if Miller is person who is in fact charged with a crime? Perhaps this is why the Times was so worried over Time turning over the notes.

I think the statement that the Source gave permission is a throw away. I also think Rove as well as Novak were so arrogantly self possesed they were oblivious to the consequenses of thier words. I witnessed Bob Novak the Traitor when he outed Mrs Plane and I was shocked at his smugness and bewildered at what he had just done.

It's interesting that there's no reporting going on about Time's decision to divulge the notes and the NY Times' decision not to. You'd think that there would be a few reporters around interested in the Times' silence.

I wonder why the source would free Cooper from his obligations, but not Miller?

One possibility is that Miller isn't going to jail to protect a source ... she's going to jail to keep from admitting her role in initiating or helping to spread the leak.

Over at tpm, Josh reminds us that he suggested a few days ago that Cooper and Miller may be on the hook for different reasons, and explicitly links that comment today to the Washington Post's report that "sources close to the investigation" -- presumably Fitzgerald's office, even though they have been very disciplined about leaks in general -- are saying that at least in some instances reporters may have told government officials, and not vice versa, that Wilson was married to Plame.  We know that right around the time of the publication of Wilson's op-ed there was contact (by phone, I think) between some government official (Rove?) and Miller.  Swopa raised the possibility that it was Miller who contacted the Bush administration (again, not vice versa) with the info, gained from her work in WMD-related-program-rumor reporting or whatever it was she was doing, that Plame was Wilson's wife and so on.  That's about as far as I can go before my head starts to hurt.  So here are a couple of questions and comments.
First, what, exactly, if this is true, would Miller really be in trouble for?  What would be the different reason, exactly, that she would be in a jam?  And if it is different from the reason Cooper was, would she be able to claim the same rationale -- protecting a confidential source -- as Cooper?  Wouldn't it be clear that she was in some other sort of trouble from the prosecutor's filings and from her own claims?
Second, Swopa also noted that the Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris recently (June 27th -- someone please explain to me how to do links!) asked for support in helping keep Cooper out of jail, but did not do so with regard to Judith Miller.  Is this just because Glastris and others at the Washington Monthly are friends with Cooper, or because there is some other reason to distinguish between Cooper and Miller, as Swopa suggests?  Surely Josh Marshall -- who's written with Glastris on the related matter of the forging of the Niger uranium documents -- knows the answer to this question.  As numerous people have expressed, one of the frustrations of this case is that it appears that lots of people in the Washington press have known a lot more about the case than they've been saying but have put their guild loyalty above truth and serving the public.  Let's not let the blogosphere do the same.  So speak up and tell us what you know.

I'm sorry if I seem a little dim, but there's little about this that makes sense to me.

Why has it taken two years (and counting) to investigate this? We're talking a single crime involving at most a few evil-doers. Prosecutors spend less time investigating complicated financial malfeasance.

Why is Novak immune from the prosecutorial demands placed on Cooper and Miller?

If Fitzgerald concludes that Rove is the guilty party, will he be criminally prosecuted?

Having decided to turn over source information to the prosecutor, wouldn't it be ethically more consistent to provide the public with that information?

Perhaps the answer to these questions are obvious if you've been keeping up with this affair, but I haven't so any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Either Novak the Traitor spilled his guts or he is being considered as part of the conspiracy or he is a target. If he did slither out he must have some serious dirt on somebody.

Drudge Report

I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions' for not testifying, TIME mag reporter Matthew Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received 'in somewhat dramatic fashion' a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret...

What the f--- does "knowingly" mean? Can someone say "Well, you know his wife is a CIA agent..." and not know it?

This sort of jiggery pokery smokescreen 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' crap makes me think of the remark by H.L.Mencken:

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,  hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Saintperle

There have been some questions as to how Ms Plame's name came to be known in order to be leaked. Wild rumor mongering I suppose, but I remember reviewing Mr Bolton's resume quite a while back and making a connection.  I think we'll being seeing his name in the papers again.
dc

Too bad about the timing. Judy could have been Martha Stewart's cell mate. Well, maybe she'll be L'il Kim's.

Based upon the various bits of information and clues that have emerged this past week, its appears that Miller was more of a co-conspirator than journalist in this affair, and that is why she is refusing to testify. It makes sense, given that she had a vested interest in the White House's WMD tripe not being discredited by the likes of Wilson. And when he wrote his opinion piece, she clearly realized the threat to her credibility. 

I suspect that Judith is hiding behind the 1st Amendment to avoid invoking the 5th. 

What are the odds that Miller source will be revealed as Ahmed Chalabi, or someone who cannot be pursued?

The question arises as to how many sources are there in this case, if Cooper was freed from his commitment to his source and Miller still refuses to testify, does that mean there is more than one Leaker in the White House?

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&amp
;id=1216

Cooper was given dramatic and specific waiver by his source. This may not be the case for Miller.

Rove has made a living over the last decade of making the mainstream press guffaw over this president and at the same time be "liberally biased" and incompetent. It's interesting that two members of the mainstream press would go to jail to protect the man that has defamed their professions--that's not to say that Miller hasn't contributed to her own incompetence. What would be the political ramifications if it appeared (from Cooper's notes) that Rove was the culprit, yet members of the press were willing to stand up on ethical grounds and go to jail for his (alleged) crimes.  How well would Rove be able to pound the liberal bias line after that?   

Maybe everyone ought to google Plame, and get back up to speed on this. Unless of course you just like to emulate Rush and the wingnut echo chamber. This one is serious, and the treason runs deep.

I still don't understand why Robert Novak is unscathed by this. I must have missed the explanations as to why he is not being called/forced to testify. Anyone enlighten? I'll get to setting up a proper account later.

Your fellow Californian Richard Nixon was pardoned by President Ford without being charged with anything.

What if Miller was told by someone from within the CIA that Plame was an agent?  That might be the ultimate source of the leak and the prosecutor wants to find out who was specifically responsible. The White House gleefully used the information, perhaps gleaned from Miller--but the White House (Rove et al.) was not necessarily the primary source of the leak. In any case this is getting curioser and curioser.

I guess you don't get around much.  Many of us on this side of the blogosphere do not regard Judy Miller as a hero, but rather as a villain for her role in fomenting the war in Iraq. 

Try this scenario on for size: -
 
* As Josh has documented, there are reports that it was a reporter telling White House staff who Wilson's wife was, rather than vice versa. 

* Assume, for a second, that this is true...and the reporter doing the telling was Judie Miller. She's certainly plugged into the Pentagon and CIA enough to know, and Plame's area of expertise - WMD - was Miller's beat.

*The statute in question focuses on punishing government leakers with access to classified info, not reporters, so Judie isn't going to be charged with a crime for leaking the info herself. 

***So one question remains: who told Judie?  Could it be that Judie is, in fact, concealing the identity of a source who revealed Plame's name to her at some point prior to the Rove conference call?  Who could that leaker be?  Given her closeness with the neocons during the Chalabi Tall Tales Era, a few names jump to mind....

Perhaps this has been mentioned elsewhere, but the reason why Mr. Glastris probably singled out Mr. Cooper is that Mr. Cooper spent an early part of his journalistic career writing for the Washington Monthly.

not quite, alyssa. the reason the investigation has been "stalled" is because cooper and miller have refused to testify, not because the investigation is "out of control." (it may well be out of control, and it may well be about to close the deal with indictments, and it may be somewhere in between, but none of this relates to the "stalled" issue that arises from miller and cooper.)

Jeff L - you ask what Miller would be in trouble for if she were one the providing Plame's identity to Rove.

The answer: nothing. But SOMEONE would be in trouble for telling Miller, right? And the prosecutor would want to know how Miller found out...right?  And Miller WOULD be in trouble for not divulging that person's identify to a grand jury, right?

Both Miller and Cooper are in hot water for contempt, but maybe it's for different reasons.

1. Cooper - for refusing to disclose his conversations with Rove.

2. Miller - for refusing to disclose the identity of whoevever told her about Plame.

Let's assume Miller did tell Rove - and Rove told Cooper.  Then Rove broke the law.  But who told Miller?  THAT is who the prosecutor is looking for from Miller.  Her refusal to tell is why she's in trouble. 

If a reporter had to be jailed in this whole mess, it couldn't have happened to a "nicer" person than Judith Miller. (Novak is a close second.)  Miller's role as the Administration's chief pro-war disinformation agent in the MSM-- she shamefully relied on uncorroborated  sources like Ahmed Chalabi and Curveball -- was enough to earn her a place in the slammer.

Yes, that is a different matter from the issue of journalistic privilege, existing law and whether we should have a federal shield statute. But as concerns the effects of her imprisonment there is a silver lining. Granted, there will be a chilling effect on future whistle blowers, but this is a sword that cuts both ways- it could also  discourage future Miller-esque psy op disinformation campaigns, at least those that have a criminal element to them (such as bogus leaks that originate from within the Pentagon).

One need only review the fifty disinformation operations associated with the Iraq War that Col. Sam Gardiner's documents in his "Truth From These Podia" to understand the length that the Administration will go to sell a war, and then maintain public support for it.  Using the cover of journalistic privilege shouldn't be a tool available to the insidious propagandist.

Propagandee 

What do ya'll think?

Try again, brownshirt.

Could Ahmed Chalabi be Miller's source? Would that mean anything at all? Why would she protect him if he was?

What an elegant, simple explanation! Of course! Joe Wilson endangered the life and ruined the career of his gorgeous, intelligent wife in order to undermine his own credibility and destroy his argument against the President's justification for war! Wow. I'm gonna run out and change my party affiliation right now. Thanks for the post. Keep up the great work.

So you're surprised at the Bush adminstration's astonishing lack of loyalty to Judith Miller? What do you expect when you see how they are treating Katherine Harris, who certainly did more for George than Miller did beating his bellicose drum to the masses. As the old saying goes, there is no loyalty among thieves. Read more about it here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121746

Also, don't forget how shabbily the Bush family is treating Neil's ex-wife and their own grandchildren. After "Neilsy" was caught buying Asian prostitutes, his wife and children were hung out to dry by the Bush's.

there is a simple explanation for all this. ms. miller, the sometimes sole-sourced reporter at the nyt whose articles promoted the idea of saddam as an imminent threat, and esrtwhile member of PNAC, was, and probably is, an OSP operative. my guess is that is was SHE who leaked plame's identity to bob novak, after failing to get the info published at the nyt.

this has nothing to do with freedom of the press. whoever outed ms. plame was not uncovering a crime, they were committing one. ms. miller going to jail is just an elaborate shadow play, a cover for her shilling for the WH.

In Miller's case, her principled stand probably has to do with how the NYT will look once it is seen how proactively she was a part of pimping White House smears.

I'm not yet convinced that Miller's is a principled stand. 

The greatest irony of all: if Miller in fact told Rove, rather than vice versa, Rove may not be guilty even if he then told Cooper! The statute requires that the government official who leaked - in this case Rove - be "authorized" to view that information.  I'd hardly call Judie Miller an "authorized" channel.

Indeed, Rove can argue that he was merely passing on information about Plame that he was told by Miller and that he did not gain that information using "authorized" channels. He also didn't "knowingly" disclose an agent's identity, since he was only passing on a piece of gossip giving to him by Judie.  Rove can argue he was merely wearing his "political operative" hat here...and that he didn't even have authorized access to information regarding Plame's CIA role.

If all this is true, the person who will take the fall is not Rove, but the source who orginally told Miller (her failure to rat on this person is why she's in jail). Sadly, there's a good chance the person who told Miller about Plame never intended for the information to be used in a Karl Rove political hit job!  More likely, it was just one of those secrets that gets talked about between CIA sources and NY Times WMD reporters.  It probably isn't the source's fault that Judie turned around and told the biggest villain in American politics.

How bad a reporter is Judie?  Not only did she give Rove the ammo to attack Wilson, but she burned the hell out of the source who told her about Plame.  No wonder the prosecutor's memo was so disrespectful towards her.  I'm sure he wishes he could charge HER under the anti-leaking statute.  She'll rot in jail until she gives up the name of the person he CAN charge.

Part of my problem is I can't get too worked up over the threat that this may have a chilling affect on anonymous sources. It's not like the media has been investigating this White House with any kind of zeal, and even when they do, more often than not the confidentiality is used to protect "White House sources" from their disninformation and smear jobs in their defense. Right now I'd say confidentiality is more an enemy of the public good than a benefit, used to lie more often than inform, and to protect the guilty more often than the innocent.

They've undermined my interests too long to get me to shed any tears. 

Some of these theories to explain the meaning of the bit about reporters telling government officials that Plame was a CIA agent and married to Wilson are absurd.  Did it ever occur to you all that this is just another way of saying that reporters called officials to confirm the story?

I can envision Rove having a minion call a bunch of reporters to leak the news.  These reporters then called Rove to confirm that Wilson's wife is indeed a CIA operative and Rove could have said "yes".  Such a scenario seems to fit not only what Rove's lawyer said but what the Washington Post blurb said as well.

We're all -- or almost all of us (I except Josh) are just spinning our wheels here. One of the most frustrating aspects of this frustrating story is that at least a few and possibly quite more than that know who leaked to whom and just what was said.  Yet from the first, the NYT has stood high on the horse of the freedom of the press and, as Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has just put it "the greater good of our democracy" and "conscience."  We are asked to take it on faith that Judith Miller is protecting a source and thereby democracy itself.  But does that mean that no one else at the NYT (or anywhere else in the print media and broadcast media, for that matter) is not allowed to investigate and get to the bottom of this story?  Instead, it's left to the bloggers and those of us who read them to try to piece the shards of evidence together.

Judith should be incarcerated, moved around and treated the same as Susan McDoudal.

Could it be that Rove didn't start this after all?

Judith Miller has long-term and close relationships with a number of, shall we say, interesting people.  She co-authored a book with well-known fanatic Laurie Mylroy and was close to Daniel Pipes (she had a formal relationship with Pipes' "Middle East Forum"), and of course she was a strong promoter of Ahmad Chalabi.  It seems that these go beyond the normal journalist-source relationship; Ms. Miller is an advocate, not just a journalist.  Pipes has been pushing strongly for military action against Syria.

There's also the issue of her conduct in Iraq.  Journalists observe and report; they don't normally try to give orders to troops or call their general friends to push soldiers around (you may remember Howard Kurtz's story on that matter).

So what if Judith Miller and her true-believer friends took it into their heads to discredit Joe Wilson?  What if Rove's defenders are right and he heard it from a reporter (Miller) and not vice versa?  If so, this does not mean that a crime was not committed; it might mean that Rove is innocent and one of Miller's neocon contacts is guity (for telling Miller, an unauthorized person, about Valerie Plame).

Ms. Miller is at the center of this matter and she must testify, and those journalists who want to defend her conduct as "freedom of the press" are mistaken.  She was not gathering material for an article as she did not write one; she was not defending the "public right to know" because this was the exact opposite of her evident purpose, which was right out of the Hearst playbook: drum up a war and use that war for personal advancement.

Okay, why are all the sources suddenly releasing the reporters from their anonymity agreements? Wouldn't that mean that these sources have been assured that they won't be prosecuted? And doesn't that mean that these sources are either innocent or have been granted immunity from prosecution? And wouldn't that mean that Fitzgerald is actually investigating something bigger than this little leak? I don't mean to be tinfoilhatty here, but I just don't understand what the motive would be otherwise.

Miller was certainly focused on the bio weapons thing, and had actual footage of terrorists' home chemistry experiments in this area. There was a Frontline show on it. So some information in her reporting may have a bit to the phony buildup, but not in amplifying the whole enterprise as weapons of MASS destruction. That's all to be credited to Bush & co.

I'm sure Rove would love for us all to get lost in the details.  Let's not forget the big picture.  Somehow or another Rove gained access to secret information that he used to take revenge on those willing to tell the truth about the lack of evidence for WMD's in Iraq.  Whatever else Rove may or may not have "knowingly" done, he certainly "knowingly" tried to distort the case for war by pushing a story that would punish one truth teller and intimidate others.

The only reason I grudgingly supported the war in Iraq was because President Bush communicated that he had secret information that proved we were in imminent danger from WMD's in Iraq.  As much as I disagreed with him on many issues where I knew all the facts, I had to trust that when the security of the nation was at stake he would not lie to us.

Well, it is becoming more and more clear that at the very least he lied about the strength of his evidence and both ignored and tried to suppress contrary evidence.  As he was the commander-in-chief, it was his responsibility to make sure the evidence was air tight before he both told us it was and used it to justify a war.  As far as I am concerned the fact that Rove was pushing the Plame story to reporters proves that the White House knowingly distorted the case for war. 

It is time for Congress to hold hearings on the political pressures the White House used to manipulate us into war.  This kind of gross manipulation is treasonous, as far as I am concerned because it so undermines our democracy.  Because the Republicans in Congress care more about their party than about our country, they wont investigate themselves.  This need for real investigations should be a rallying cry used by Democrats to help them win back Congress in the next election cycle.

I gather that Rove told reporters Plame was "fair game."  I think it is well past time that Rove learned that our national security is not a "game" and that risking it for political points is treason.

Speculation over the Plame affair gives me a headache. We enter Rumsfeld's junior high version of analytic epistemology of known unknowns and unknown unknowns.   
Matt Cooper knows a lot. There's no better definition of a reporter than someone who tells what he/she knows. If he can tell it to the grand jury, he can tell it to us. Somebody who can get through should place a call to Pearlstine and ask him if he plans to run a Cooper piece and if not, why not? 
  And let's not forget, Joe Wilson was sent to Niger because he was uniquely qualified: he recently had held high-level embassy jobs in both Niger and Iraq. Why Democrats didn't press this point --easy to understand and concise enough to fit a tabloid newshole -- from the day Novak's column appeared is a complete mystery. The political pushback on this has been pathetic.

If Bush were an ethical man uninvolved in the leak, when the leak occurred, he would have called his staff into the Oval Office, demanded that the leaker fess up, fired him/her on the spot and cooperated fully in a criminal prosecution.  Then, the guilty person would go to jail.  Instead, the President has participated in a cover up, pretending to cooperate while in fact everyone in the Administration lawyers up and takes advantage of every delaying maneuver imagineable.  That the Bush Gang was able to delay the forthcoming disclosures for an additional year (allowing more than enough time for the President to be re-elected) is deplorable.

Let's hope Judith Miller is not the only person who goes to jail over this affair.

OK...let me get this right.  Judith Miller has a source in the administration who was either involved in or has knowledge of the efforts to out Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, right?  This is probably a person who was involved in, or knew of the people, trying to destroy Joe Wilson's credibility in showing that the war in Iraq is built on lies by the Bush administration, am I correct?

If so I have no idea why we aren't screaming about Miller's refusal to give up her source.  It is either she is protecting her reputation, out of professional vanity, on a story she screwed up.  Or she is complicit in the attack on Joe Wilson and his family for telling the truth on the Yellowcake uranium story.  So out of selfishness or complicity she is aiding and abetting the people who want to cover-up the fact that we went to war on lies. 

Did the President fall off his bike before or after he heard the news about Cooper?

ok, just kidding.

This is a criminal story with some espionage on the side.  Everyone involved with Judy, Chalabi, and WHouse leakers make it easy to imagine a maze of deceit from everyone.  With the Queen of Iraq safely in jail, they will probably all get off.   The only puzzlement is Novak.   Perhaps Fitzgerald has something and will use it, while  we wait for the next installment.   Media whoring has become an honorable profession in this administration, but hopefully prosecutor Fitzgerald is on the level.

You obviously haven't spent time in a DC jail.  That is an experience I seriously wouldn't wish on my worse enemy.

"Knowingly" as in knowing that Plame was under cover, and that the CIA was taking active steps to keep her identity secret.  Plenty of people work for the CIA who are not under cover.  Rove (or whoever the original leaker was) could claim that he/she thought Plame was an analyst, not an undercover agent.  Not that I would believe that; Novak specifically identified Plame as an "operative," a term he has always heretofore reserved to indicate someone working under cover, indicating that whoever leaked to him had told him her true status.  But what I believe, or even what Fitzgerald believes, isn't the issue: the issue is what Fitzgerald can prove.  And proving what someone actually knew is not so easy--that's why Scrushy was acquitted in the HealthSouth case.  Perjury is still a possibility, though, and I'd be satisfied to see Rove frog-marched for that.

Miller already has a waiver from her source

Well, yes, but so did Cooper: the waiver that all White House employees were asked (i.e. required) to sign.  The position that Cooper and Time took was that that waiver wasn't good enough, because it was implictly coerced.  Cooper only agreed to answer questions about his conversations with Scotter Libby after Libby specifically released him from his promise of confidentiality.  He was prepared to go to jail until he got a similar last-minute release from whatever other source (Rove?) the prosecutor was interested in.

My assumption is that Miller and the NY Times are taking the same position, and that it's either a different source in question in her case, or the source did not release her even though he/she released Cooper.

No, the worst case would be that nothing can be proven on anyone, and Fitzgerald folds the tent with no indictments, meaning that he's also under no obligation to make public anything that his investigation uncovered.  All the perps walk, and Bush claims vindication.

Only a Bush supporter would come up with an amoral plot that has no logic inherent in it whatsoever.  Wilson hurting his wife seems a better idea for a Bushie than the truth.........that these devious immoral SOB's will stoop to anything in their cesspool of political hell.  You know...the end justifies the means.  None of your neocon meanderings makes the slightest bit of sense.

Has the missing White House briefing transcript from right after Wilson's article in July 2003, and which Fitzgerald requested, ever turned up?  Why would someone want to hide this?

I also agree that the press is fogging the issues: the Administration is under investigation here, not imposing its power on press freedoms, and damage has been done to the function of the CIA and to the Wilson's personally.  I'd like to see the press support this sort of oversight on political excesses by government.

Josh, you may have hit the nail on the head. We need to remember that this is the Nixon White House, in moral tone if not in name. And what would Nixon do? 

The likelihood is that much of what we are being fed is pap to support a "limited hangout" scenario. Mistakes were made, but crimes were not committed; well, maybe small crimes but not big ones, well maybe big crimes but so what. The point of limited hangout is to grind down the opponent, spin out the clock.

There is absolutely no reason to give the slightest credit to what is published in The New York Times or The WaPo. Both papers have proven that they do not care what the truth is. Yes, there are decent reporters in each establishment. Management, however, is behaving as if the papers were an organ of the state, unflinchingly putting out the Party Line.

Assuming everyone is lying, distorting, posturing, positioning. It saves time and aggravation.

--js

Ted Rall observes some circumstantial dates that are among the more curiouser, if not yet directly relevant:

- - -

Rove, whose gaping maw recently vomited forth that Democrats didn't care about 9/11, is atypically silent. He did talk to the Time reporter but "never knowingly disclosed classified information," claims his attorney. But there's circumstantial evidence to go along with Time's leaked notes.

Ari Fleischer abruptly resigned as Bush's press secretary on May 16, 2003, about the same time the White House became aware of Ambassador Wilson's plans to go public. (Wilson's article appeared July 6.) Did Fleischer quit because he didn't want to act as spokesman for Rove's plan to betray CIA agent Plame? Another interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14, Fleischer's last day on the job.

- - -

Exactly.  They're not using confidentiality to protect some lowly, vulnerable whistle-blower; they're using it to protect some high-ranking slime-thrower, to whom they're usually sucking up for scoops.

KC Connor     I just wanted to try your ideas.

Wow, such nonsense I've never seen.  This is not all that tough to figure out.  Here's the answer:  Someone at the White House (Rove is my guess, but it doesn't matter who), outs Wilson's wife in retaliation for telling the truth about the administration's lies.  This WH source tell Novak, Cooper, and Miller, among possibly others.  Novak publishes it; Miller/Cooper do not.  Crime committed by WH source.  Look under federal sentencing guidelines folks -- it's quite serious -- depending on upward departures, at least 120 months in federal prison.  Basically, it's like treason.  Justice department investigates.  They ask Novak who his source is.  Novak refuses to speak, not because of any reporter's privilege, but based on 5th Amendment grounds -- ie., he may also have committed or aided a federal crime. He clams up.  Federal prosecutors go to Miller and Cooper.  They can't assert 5th (they didn't publish), so they assert the confidential source privilege.  They fight it, lose, and face jail time.   Cooper's employer (giant corporate conglomerate) doesn't have the stomach for it.  They reveal notes, cross their fingers that that's enough.  Nope.  Cooper's arm twisted, he agrees to testify.  Miller in different situation.  She works for NY Times, and no way could they reveal source.  They stand behind her. 

based on what we now know, this article identifies Karl Rove as one of the leakers....assuming Priest and Allen's source is correct:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&con
tentId=A11208-2003Sep27&notFound=true/

"A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."


This is word for word the phrase used by Karl to Chris Matthews.

Damn. You know, I wasn't sure this whole thing was going to turn out the way we hoped, but it certainly seems like the gnomes in the basement of the RNC have been activated.

We're on the scent, boys and girls. Let's go get em! 

You know, when you put together a theory of a case like this, you at least have to lay out all the established facts, and make certain you test your theory against them. 

Joe Wilson's book contains a wealth of facts and partial analysis of these (it was published in early 2004) that indeed need to be accomodated.

Of some importance -- he began to publicly question Bush's policy leading toward the invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2004 with a San Jose Mercury News op-ed.  Shortly after that, he later learned, someone in the White House ordered up a complete "workup" on Joe Wilson.  That was late 2002, early 2003.  Now since Wilson had a highly distinguished twenty year plus record as a Foreign Service officer in State, one place the "workupers" might have looked was his personnel record.  From that virtually everything Wilson did or knew for over 20 years would have been available to someone who could pull his record at State.  And yes, the fact that he was married to Plame -- and probably even departmental memo on someone from State marrying someone from CIA would have all been there. 

In addition, when Joe Wilson married Valerie in 1998 -- he received a nice note from GHW Bush.  They were somewhat close as Wilson (as so many seem to have forgotten) was the "Stand up to Saddam" guy in the 6 months before the 91 Gulf War -- and when he arrived back in the US, he got long meetings with Bush, hugs from Barbara, and a new appointment as ambassador.  Wilson is close to Eagleberg, to Jim Baker, and to Brent Scowcroft. 

But he was also very close to Bill Clinton, Al Gore (he once worked in Gore's Senate Office) and he also had worked for Tom Foley.  And to make matters even more interesting, just before Clinton put him in the NSC during his second term, Wilson had the top diplomatic job with NATO working out of Germany.  He knows as many 4 Star Generals as anyone -- did the diplomatic stuff for Bosnia in NATO --

In otherwords, Joe Wilson has a whole lot of friends in State, in the Military, and in both political parties.  He also has lots of Journalist friends, particularly those who covered Iraq or Africa.  In the lead up to Desert Storm, he had Rather, Koppel and all the rest of them living in "his" embassy in Baghdad.  The only folk he does not seem to like much -- and where he has no friends, is within the ranks of the neo-cons.  He has nothing but distain for that crowd.  It is highly useful to understand what kind of person the White House decided to smear and destroy in 2003.  It helps in putting together a theory of the case.

As to Miller -- her long interest has been bioterrorism.  She conducted a long interview with Bill Clinton about this, his first, shortly after his impeachment was rejected in Feb. 1998, she did a frontline program through WGBH on it, and wrote a book.  When her book came out shortly after 911, she got a fake Anthrax attack that cleaned out the NYTimes offices for a day or so.  This led to her being featured on TV quite a bit on the issue.  There is much to explain about her reporting -- but I don't think you get close to figuring out this thing by calling her a lot of names.  Yep, I agree, she got far too close to the Iraqi Exile groups, and perhaps they deceived her as much as they did others.  I don't think the CIA was ever fooled -- but people in Bush's circle and the Pentagon certainly were.  What seems critical to understand is the sources of her midjudgement. 

I've started re-reading her Holocaust book (1990) where she explores how "memory" was assimilated in various European Countries.  I remember not thinking too highly of it when I first read it -- but perhaps it holds some keys to how she approaches construction of various kinds of reality.  (Book is "One By One By One"  Simon and Schuster.)  Anyhow -- she started working for the Times in 1977 -- and spent about 15 years in the Middle East, at one time as Bureau Chief of the Cairo Bureau. 

First, in what manner is Karl Rove to be considered a whistleblower?  The implication of the information provided about Wilson being sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion, while false, is that something akin to nepotism occurred so that the spouse of a government employee could get a free trip to a foreign country.  For this, Rove would have needed anonymity to protect himself from retribution for being a whistleblower?

If the whole argument about "protecting sources" and the subsequent defense of Miller and Cooper for standing on principle and protecting their sources (at least until their sources give them a King's X) is based on protecting a putative whistleblower who is one of the most powerful men in the country and who in fact blew a false whistle (never mind the national security issues) regarding something that might be strongly questioned as an offense in the first place, then all those editorial writers have wasted a lot of ink and much of our time.  If they want to protect whistleblowers (a good thing), I'd suggest they go find a real one (an even better thing).

Second, although the specific statute under which administration officials are liable for prosecution when "knowingly" revealing the covert status of an intelligence agent may not apply to civilians such as Ms. Miller or Mr. (I choke on the honorific) Novak, I find it hard to believe that she, for crimes we now suspect, and he, for crimes any fool would be able to identify as treason, are not somehow subject to indictment under some statute.  Surely it would not be possible for me, an ordinary blogger, to go to Langley, cuddle up to someone in the know, receive information about covert operatives one way or another, and then go blab the information on my blog--or my local corporate media outlet--without being subject to some criminal penalty.

If neither I nor the two "reporters" under discussion are liable for any sort of penalty in those circumstances, I would think that Congress might want to do a little tinkering with the Patriot Act or something.  After all, if it's suspicious to pay cash for a plane ticket, it's surely suspicious to publish the NOC list.

Third (and last for now), I think we ought to make a distinction between Valerie Plame and the intelligence network that she was associated with.  There is some question--whether valid or not--that she was still active as a covert operative at the time her identity was revealed.  Similarly, there is some question--whether valid or not--regarding how much her identity may have been an open secret in some circles.  The questions seem to be used to diminish the potential for ill effect from revealing her identity.  We can argue that, I suppose, but our focus seems too narrow if we consider Valerie Plame to be the only one harmed by the actions of those who decided to reveal her identity.  Ongoing activities and networks were compromised when her name was used to show the link between them and the CIA.  This is not about one woman--and certainly not about Joe Wilson and his wife--it's about the network.

My latest theory is that Miller told Matalin.  Matalin spread the Plame name to other reporters she knows, perhaps at the party the prosecutor wanted info about.  Then the reporters contact Libby prior to Novak's column, see this link: 

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/judy_miller_pro.htm
l

Perhaps Miller knows Matalin did this and wants to protect her, and her family.  Matalin was one of the first people questioned by the grand jury, perhaps she perjured herself - she's not commenting, like Novak. 

Cooper did publish, your analysis is flawed.

Jan is right: None of us has a real clue as what really is taking place. But why is it that only the blogosphere is working this story? Some years ago there would have numerous papers (and networks) trying to find out the real truth here. Sad, sad state of affairs!! We musn't give up,though!

Cooper didn't "reveal" under the law.  Novak did.  Analysis is fine.  You'll see. 

Fitzgerald said that his investigation was finished months ago, except for the testimony of Cooper and Miller. He now has Cooper's testimony, and is going after Miller hard. So, she has the key bit of testimony, which is probably the verification that Rove did indeed know that Plame was a CIA undercover operative.

Rove's attorney has said that Rove did not "knowingly" out Plame, and that Rove did not "identify" her to any reporter. That seems to be the point in question, and Fitzgerald thinks Miller has the knowledge, one way or the other, to let him wrap up his investigation.

My guess is that Rove will get indicted for perjury based on Cooper's testimony and possibly for outing Plame with intent to hurt her future job prospects (and that is indirectly the same as intent to hurt the intelligence capability of the US), the latter depending on Miller's testimony if she testifies.

The efforts of T Carlson et al suggest that the Right is clearly  trying to give cover to some people (because there actually is a crime. perhaps many!), thus Conservatives say "there is no crime."

Why would they do this?  Because it is remains a potent issue.

Rightist talking heads have similarly rushed to suggest that "no crime was committed" (first seen by me with McGlaughlin last week).  Why the unanimity?  Because there is an important crime awaiting....

Suppose there is clear evidence that the White House did what what was originally alleged... to revengefully identify a secret agent?  And that there is a conspiracy to hide this? 

A few things to remember:

1.  Novak ratted out Miller.

2.  Fitzgerald previously confirmed that Rove/Libby previously waived confidentiality and permitted reports to reveal their identity. it is unlikely either  of them called Cooper this a.m.

3.  Rove probably told grand jury that he got the story from the media and only repeated what he heard.

4.  Luskin said that Rove talked to Cooper after Plame's identity was known to Cooper. 

5.  Cooper receives a supririse phone call from his source that gave him permission to speak.  IMO, Cooper's source, and the person who unexpectedly called him this a.m. was none other than J. Miller.

Miller's silence has less to do with her sacred privilege and more to do with avoiding self incrimination.  She is a co-conspirator with Rove in the leak and cover up.  Rove committed perjury by telling grand jury that he got story from media when it can proven otherwise.

hat tip and acknowledgement  to commenter anothergreenbus in open thread at eschaton for the work.

Miller told Novak and Cooper.  Miller called Cooper this a.m. and let him talk.

Just to make the mix interesting:  I recall hearing over a year ago that not only was Plame's cover blown, but also that of the business she was "employed" by -- which may have been a CIA proprietary.

A commericial cover is fairly standard for an individual operative -- all it takes is a letterhead and a backstopped telephone number or email address.  But creating what appears to be a legitimate  business front for intelligence activity takes years; you actually have to <B>do business</B>.  When Plame was outed, so was the proprietary, to any intelligence officer with half a brain.

I think that John Dean wrote that Rove would still be trouble even if the information was already made public but was still classified by the government.  I don't know how to do links but there were a couple of very good articles by John Dean on Findlaw about this issue.

I think Nixon was Pre-pardoned by Ford.

"And wouldn't that mean that Fitzgerald is actually investigating something bigger than this little leak?"
Absolutely. And a federal judge (Hogan) would not be taking this as far as it's gone (jail time) just for outing a undercover operative.
Fitzgerald is looking to charge someone with perjury.