More Cryptic Clues in the Plame Case

In a previous post, I struggled to reconcile public reports of Libby's testimony with the reported content of Libby's notes. I offered five possible explanations. Of the five, the explanation I was the least serious about was this:

4) It's possible that Libby told Fitzgerald that his notes were misdated, e.g., that the conversation took place on July 12, not June 12.

That's why I was surprised when I heard this exchange on Hardball last night between Chris Matthews and the ultimate insider in this story, the Post's Walter Pincus (transcript here):

MATTHEWS: How does this not go back
directly to the vice president? If the vice
president got her identity, gave it to his chief
of staff, the chief of staff gave it to Judy Miller,
isn't the chain of custody complete?

PINCUS: Well, I think you have to know a
little bit about those notes and what their origin
was.

You're hypothesizing they were dated the 12th,
they were written the 12th; we don't know that.
So I think, again, people have to wait.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into an off-hand comment, but it seemed to me that Pincus was genuinely skeptical that the notes mean what they appear to mean. Remember that Pincus is in a unique position to evaluate these matters. He was in contact with Libby throughout this time period and cited him as an anonymous source on several occasions. Indeed, the notes are apparently dated June 12, the very same day that Pincus published his now famous story questioning the Niger uranium claim and citing Joe Wilson (albeit anonymously). Pincus likely had a number of conversations with Libby on background right around this time period. That would put him in a position to have some sense of how much Libby knew about Wilson and the circumstances surrounding his trip to Niger and when he knew it. Perhaps Pincus has reason to suspect that the reported date on the notes is incorrect, or that the notes were misdated. It's something to consider.

On a somewhat related note, later in the same episode of Hardball, Mike Allen of TIME Magazine admitted that the current press corps conventional wisdom is that Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, was the source for the New York Times story that broke the news about the Cheney/Libby conversation. And Allen added this:

We're told by Republicans who are familiar
with data in the case that that was a way to
show that Mr. Libby was protecting the vice
president. And that it wasn't for base
personal motives that he did whatever he
may be accused of...

It's hard to know how to interpret this. It's hard to believe that Cheney and Libby need to use the New York Times to communicate messages to each other; they could just talk to each other in the car ride to work every morning. So this was likely an attempt to affect public opinion somehow, most likely by insuring that the public didn't first learn of Cheney's involvement from reading Libby's indictment.

The waiting is killing. Hopefully by tomorrow we'll have some answers.