Plamegate: Something Doesn't Make Sense Here

In a previous post discussing the New York Times bombshell about Libby's notes from his June 12 conversation with Cheney, I commented that, given what we know of Libby's testimony, "we have to assume that the notes at issue only recently found their way into Fitzgerald's hands." I then observed that if that was true, it led to a number of very damaging inferences regarding the conduct of both Libby and Cheney.

Tom Maguire, on the other hand, speculated yesterday that Fitzgerald may have had these notes all along, and that Libby and Cheney may have testified in a way that is consistent with them. He suggested that the apparent inconsistency between Libby's testimony and the notes may be due to the selective (possibly inaccurate) leaking of Libby's testimony. In other words, some of these anonymous sources may have been jerking us around all along.

Today's Washington Post reports the following:

Two lawyers involved in the case said that,
based on Fitzgerald's earlier questions, the
prosecutor has been aware of Libby's June 12
conversation with Cheney since the early days
of his investigation. The lawyers said Libby
recorded in his notes that Cheney relayed to
him that Wilson's wife may have had a role in
Wilson taking the CIA-sponsored mission to
Niger. According to a source familiar with
Libby's testimony, Libby told the grand jury
he believed he heard of Wilson's wife first
from reporters.

This is a very strange paragraph. The first part of it strongly supports Maguire's theory. It suggests that Fitzgerald had these notes all along. But the second half of the paragraph repeats the standard line that Libby testified to having first heard about Wilson's wife from journalists, a fact which, if true, seems hard to reconcile with Libby having turned over the relevant notes to Fitzgerald early on in the investigation.

What's going on here? Well, first of all, notice how the first and second parts of the paragraph are sourced differently. The first line is attributed to the "two lawyers involved in the case," the same attribution the Times used in its story about the notes yesterday. The second half is attributed to "a source familiar with Libby's testimony." My guess is that the second source is Tate, Libby's attorney.

So how can these facts be reconciled. I can think of five possibilities:

1) It's possible that the "source familiar with Libby's testimony" has been misleading us all along, and is continuing to do so. What would his motive be for doing so? Maguire suggests that it was to keep Cheney's name out of the headlines. If the administration thought there was a real chance that the case would never go anywhere and that no report would ever be issued, this motivation makes some sense.

2) It's possible that the "two lawyers involved in the case" are either mistaken or are misleading us. If the former, I'm surprised we haven't seen any pushback on the claim from those involved. If the latter, I can't even guess what their motive would be for doing so.

3) It's possible that Libby testified that he heard about Wilson's wife from journalists BEFORE his June 12 conversation with Cheney. This seems unlikely to me, but it would at least be consistent.

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

5) It's possible Fitzgerald "knew" about the June 12 conversation from other sources, i.e., not the notes. Notice that the story does not actually say that Fitzgerald had the notes in his possession early in the investigation, but merely that he "knew" about the conversation. Perhaps another witness told him about it.

I'm not sure which of these possibilities is more plausible. They all seem pretty implausible to me, but then again, unless I'm missing something, one of them has to be the truth.