Monday's ABC Note on the Plame Scandal

Some interesting stuff from ABCNEWS.com's "The Note" about the Plame Scandal, including a look at what journalists are thinking.

It might not be fair and it might not be right, but 480 members out of the Gang of 500 have the same theory about what happened, and The Note's strong belief in the First Amendment makes us duty bound to tell you about this operating premise.

Based on the original Novak story; on the language in yesterday's Washington Post story; on the "kind" of people Novak talks to; on the prophetic warnings of Wayne Slater; and on the fact that CIA agents have memories and the capacity to hold grudges nearly as long as the Bush family — based on all that, here's what people are thinking:

Two White House officials lashed out at Wilson, hoping to smear him in the minds of enough elite reporters to discredit him before his platform grew. They didn't want his wife's name out there in the public domain, so much as they wanted it in the brains of gatekeeping reporters.

Again, it might not be right or fair, but we dare you to find a member of the Gang who doesn't think the Post 's source was someone familiar with George Tenet's thinking.

[...] Since several of you have asked: the THEORETICAL reason the White House would have had to try to nip Wilson stories in the bud by putting out the fact that his wife is a CIA operative would be to try to discredit Wilson by saying he only got the assignment because of his wife, and that he would have been too captive to the CIA mindset on (read: against) the war.

• Wilson on Good Morning America admitted that he got a bit carried away in his froggy speech in naming Rove.



• One veteran of the Clinton legal controversies asks all these questions, some of which were addressed at the gaggle:
  
  
  • Has President Bush made clear to the White House staff that only total cooperation with the investigation will be tolerated? If not, why not?
  
  
  
  • Has he insisted that every senior staff member sign a statement with legal authority that they are not the leaker and that they will identify to the White House legal counsel who is?
  
  
  
  • Has Bush required that all sign a letter relinquishing journalists from protecting those two sources? Has Bush said that those involved in this crime will be immediately fired? If not, why not?
  
  
  
  • Has Albert Gonzalez distributed a letter to White House employees telling them to preserve documents, logs, records? If not, why not?
  
  
  
  • Has Andy Card named someone on his staff to organize compliance? If not, why not?
  
  
  
• White House officials who might have legal or political exposure on this are going to have to decide whether to hire lawyers or not, and the White House counsel's office is going to have to decide what legal help they can and should provide to officials if and when the DOJ wants to talk to them.
  
  That means that the '90s practice of every Washington bureau of calling members of the bar to see who has hired whom is about to heat back up. The first one to report someone hiring a criminal lawyer wins a prize, as does the first person who develops that lawyer as a source on all this.

A reminder that students of recusal politics will have to consider the Rove-Ashcroft history: LINK

All of today's stories, eating the dust of the Post 's Sunday story:

• New York Times : Carl Hulse and David Sanger LINK



• Washington Post 's Mike Allen, taking a second-day victory lap with a phony lead. LINK



• Howie Kurtz on the media angle. LINK



• The Wall Street Journal 's Cloud, Hamburger and Fields have a very balanced story. [No link provided]



• The Los Angeles Times' Richard Schmitt doesn't advance the story any, but he brings his Los Angeles Times readers up to date. LINK



• USA Today : Barbara Slavin LINK



• Boston Globe : Mary Leonard and Bryan Bender LINK



• Dictionary.com: frog march. LINK