Slate's Eric Umansky:

...Citing "lawyers familiar with the case and government officials," the Post's off-lead says the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case investigation has "zeroed in" on Vice President Cheney's office and that the tension between that office and the CIA "contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame." It sounds saucy, but the speculation isn't particularly new. Still, there might be an important puzzle piece buried at the end of the Post's story, namely a hint about how the White House might have seen a State Department memo that identified Plame. In any case, the special prosecutor's office hinted about the possibility of an announcement soon. In a rare public statement, the office said an announcement on the case will happen in D.C. rather than Chicago, where the prosecutor is based.

While we're on the Plame case, it's worth noting that while it's obvious Judith Miller left questions unanswered, it's unclear whether the NYT's leaders plan on trying to do anything about it. To take just one example, according to the NYT's big takeout, Miller would not "allow reporters to review her notes." Those are the same notes that ID'd Plame—or "Flame"—and that Miller shared with the prosecutor. Doesn't the NYT's publisher think Miller needs to also give her colleagues a peek? What's Bill Keller's position? There is of course another option: By staying silent, the Times' leaders can implicitly condone Miller stonewalling her own paper.

More on that puzzle piece in a moment.

OK, on the puzzle piece Eric Umansky highlights above. We know that a State Department memo identified Joseph Wilson's wife (as Valerie Wilson) in a paragraph marked Secret as having a role in getting Wilson the trip to Niger. But lawyers for White House officials identified as telling reporters about Wilson's wife have always claimed that their clients didn't learn of Plame from any sort of classified memo, but that they heard about it just "around" perhaps even from a reporter. But what Swopa suggests, is that there is evidence now that the White House did learn about this memo early on in June. And that claims of faulty memories and they heard it from a reporter are -- well -- diversion.

Here's the Swopa post from last night whose signficance Eric Umansky caught:

Tonight, toward the end of an article whose primary focus is VP Dick Cheney, the Washington Post narrates the coup de grace:

Senior administration officials said there was a document circulated at the State Department -- before Libby talked to Miller -- that mentioned Plame. It was drafted in June as an administrative letter and addressed to then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who was acting secretary at the time since both Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage were out of the country.

As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, Grossman wanted the letter as background for a meeting at the White House where the discussion was focused on then growing criticism of Bush's inclusion in his January State of the Union speech of the allegation that Hussein had been seeking uranium from Niger.

See why that is enormously interesting? Grossman as acting Sec State brushed up on the Secret memo identifying Wilson's wife before going to the White House for a strategy session to deal with the collapsing Iraq-sought-yellowcake-in-Niger claims Bush made in his State of the Union. This would seem to give credence to the probability the WH learned of what was in the memo from internal gov't sources, not external. This meeting occurred a couple weeks, for instance, before Miller met with Libby, and almost a month before Wilson went public.

More on that memo, its mistakes, and purpose, in the last few graphs of the Post piece.

(Eric and Swopa (and the Post) get all credit for the legwork. This post has been updated).

Posted by Laura at October 18, 2005 10:27 AM