I’m not too clear on this. Is The Guardian saying Fitzpatrick is investigating this, or are they referring to a totally separate investigation by someone else? In either case, real news:
Leaking the identity of an undercover agent is a serious crime under US law, but prosecutors would have to prove that the leaker was aware of the agent’s covert status. However, the investigation, led by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, is reported also to be investigating possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Meanwhile, a parallel investigation is under way into who forged the Niger documents. They are known to have been passed to an Italian journalist by a former Italian defence intelligence officer, Rocco Martino, in October 2002, but their origins have remained a mystery. Mr Martino has insisted to the Italian press that he was “a tool used by someone for games much bigger than me”, but has not specified who that might be.
A source familiar with the inquiry said investigators were examining whether former US intelligence agents may have been involved in possible collaboration with Iraqi exiles determined to prove that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear programme.
I’d guess it falls under the same umbrella, like Whitewater led to Monica. When you start digging, you unearth many, many things; some expected, some not.
But someone who is familiar with Fitzpatrick’s M.O. recently said he’ll work diligantly to prosecute his case, and if he can’t get you on what he originally was to investigate, he’ll figure out what you did do, and get you on that.
Susie,
The reporters with the best sources have, at various times, juxtaposed the two investigations like that. here’s an example of a very early Mike Allen (who, with Pincus, has been all over this story) that does the same. Curiously, WaPo has just taken the original of that story off the web in the last few days.
Now consider the way Bolton would be involved in this. We’ve all been harping on that memo. The subject of that memo was the Niger documents, and Bolton was almost certainly involved in vetting it (or bullying the people writing it) so he could hide his own involvement in the ONE biggest thing State did to advance the Niger story, issue a fact sheet–over the objections of State’s own analyst–that relied on the Niger stuff.
But there’s at least one more important Bolton connection here. Know how the Niger documents got to the US? Well, the Italian journalist brought them to the US Embassy in Rome to verification. Both the CIA and the Embassy had the documents. But for some reason, apparently the CIA let the Embassy pass them along, rather than passing them on themselves. Well, guess what department in State they sent them to? You guessed it, Bolton’s. An INR analyst discredited those documents IN OCTOBER, but CIA didn’t even start looking at them until January-February.
And one more point. This article, which seems to be the IAEA and CIA’s attempt at CYA in the first days of the war, says Italy sent a document with the Niger documents, apparently saying they sucked.
But if you look in the SSCI report, that summary doesn’t appear at all. Or if it does, it is totally redacted. Is it possible that summary was sent to Bolton, where he buried it?
So I guess I’m arguing that 1) Bolton was responsible for getting Plame’s identity from WINPAC via Fleitz to Rove and Libby and 2) while investigating that, Fitzgerald has discovered Bolton’s willful role in making sure no one who could discredit the documents was allowed to do so. Which would certainly suggest the Niger document investigation and the Plame investigation are related, huh?
Who forged the fake Niger documents?
Suburban Guerilla catches an interesting angle in a Guardian article:Leaking the identity of an undercover agent is a serious crime under US law, but prosecutors would have to prove that the leaker was aware of the agent’s covert status. However, th…