Former intelligence agents have told the New York Daily News that members of the White House Iraq Group funnelled information to Judith Miller and that she was a "charter member" of the group.

There were a number of occasions when White House officials or Vice President [Cheney's] staffers, or others, wanted to push the envelope on things," an ex-intelligence official said. "The agency would say, 'We just don't have the intelligence to substantiate that.'" When Wilson was sent by his wife to Africa to research the claims, he showed the documents claiming Saddam tried to buy the uranium were forgeries. "People in the Iraq group then got very frustrated. It was a side show," said a source familiar with WHIG.

TalkLeft's eminently qualified Washington Correspondent reports:

I don't ordinarily criticize newspaper coverage, but today's New York Times story on Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is not only wrong, but damaging. The thrust of the article is that although "[a] final report had long been considered an option for Mr. Fitzgerald if he decided not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing," Fitzgerald has indicated he is not going to issue a report. According to the Times, this indicates that Fitzgerald is more likely to seek indictments.

This is wrong on so many counts.

In response to Monday's New York Daily News article reporting that a high-level White House official had flipped, I speculated that it was Karl Rove, and that he had decided to throw Cheney and Libby under the bus. It turned out that the News article was not referring to Rove. But with today's Daily News article, I'm again drawn to this theory.

I have just written a piece outlining the theory. But, I'm stuck on whether Rove would also try to save Cheney, even though he blames him for this whole mess, as a means of protecting Bush's legacy -- or whether, Cheney can't be saved from being at least an unindicted co-conspirator because of the timeline of Wilson's allegations, so he didn't.

Before publishing it, and perhaps making a total fool of myself, I'd like a national MSM reporter who has been covering the story to read it. If any happen to read this and are interested, please e-mail me.

Update: I think I've found my answer. No need for anyone to read it. I'm refining it and will be publishing it soon, probably in bits and pieces.

Crooks and Liars finds this in today's Daily News:

The New York Times gave Judith Miller 3,454 words in Sunday's paper to defend her actions in the Valerie Plame affair. But we hear Miller didn't appreciate the scourging she got in an accompanying 5,805-word analysis of "The Miller Case." We're told that colleagues heard Miller and executive editor Bill Keller screaming at each other in the hours before the story went to bed. (A Times spokeswoman declined to comment on whether Miller and Keller had traded words.)

Miller is said to have implored Keller to tone down the piece's criticism of her. Nevertheless, it reported that she was "a divisive figure," and that in 2003 Keller told her she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues because her reporting about Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction was so far off the mark.

Jane at FireDogLake reacts. Arianna has more unanswered questions about the Times and Miller.

Raw Story scoops another exclusive -- David Wurmser is now cooperating with Fitzgerald.

...those close to the investigation say that a second Cheney aide,
David Wurmser, has agreed to provide the prosecution with evidence that the leak was a coordinated effort by Cheney's office to discredit the agent's husband. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war.

Raw Story also reports that sources advise that John Hannah is not getting immunity but taking a deal in exchange for cooperation. If this report of what Hannah and Wurmser have said is true, and I stress the "if," it is all Fitz would need.

The sources say that Hannah and Wurmser were given orders by senior officials in Cheney’s office in June 2003 to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson. The former ambassador had been a thorn in administration’s side since May 2003, when he began questioning claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in the Middle East. (emphasis supplied.)

They fall like flies, the closer it gets to Indictment time. One more word of caution. Treat this kind of testimony with extreme skepticism as to its veracity. It is testimony that has been purchased with promises of leniency. Freedom is a commodity far more precious than money. The incentives to lie and exaggerate are enormous.

Andrew Sullivan, who admits his sourcing is light, is talking about Colin Powell's possible cooperation with Fitzgerald with respect to the memo on Air Force One. I thought he did that a long time ago. But as I mentioned in one of my posts last week, I had no idea he might have given up Ari Fleischer.

Digby links to last Tuesday night's Hardball Transcript. I was reading it and noticed something I never quite caught before. Mitchell said it was Colin Powell who testified Ari Fleischer read the June 9 classified memo on Air Force One:

MITCHELL: We also know that, that paragraph, that document was circulated on Air Force One as the president was flying to Africa, that Ari Fletcher saw it, Colin Powell testified to that. And that could be one of the key facts in this.

Think Progress has compiled a handy list of right-wing myths about the Valerie Plame Leaks investigation - and the facts that show they are myths.

The National Journal's Hotline has a list of everyone who has testified in Plamegate or been interviewed by Fitzgerald.

We're in another holding pattern. Blogometer and Memorandum are the places to catch what you may have missed yesterday.

Update: Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post has an terrific compilation of yesterday's and this morning's MSM and blog coverage. I also like Talent Show's post on Rove and Bush; Jeff Greenfield of CNN on The New York Times and Miller; and everything Laura Rozen at War and Piece is writing.

Tom Maguire has a new, long post up about Miller and Libby.

A jury has ruled against Roderick Johnson in his lawsuit against 6 Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials for not intervening to protect him after repeated rapes in a Texas prison. Background on the case is here.

A gay, black man, Johnson reportedly was raped by more than one hundred men--nearly every day for 18 months.

It was a legal struggle for Johnson to even get his case to Court. Ultimately, the ACLU was able to persuade the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that he had a right to bring it. The court ruled:

Welcome to TalkLeft, the on-line source for liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news.

TalkLeft was created by Denver-based criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt in 2000 as a companion site to CrimeLynx, the criminal defense practitioner's Guide to the Internet. In June, 2002, TalkLeft was converted into a weblog. Since then, it has received more than 10 million visitors.

TalkLeft is not a neutral site. Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues, candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of crime.

Talkleft is intended for the public, journalists covering crime-based news and politics, policy makers and of course, the criminal defense community.

TalkLeft was a unique voice in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, as it will be in 2006, concentrating on exposing injustices in the criminal justice system and, in particular, those of the current administration.

TalkLeft is written by Jeralyn Merritt, with frequent contributions by T. Christopher Kelly of Madison, WI and occasional contributions by John Wesley Hall, Jr. of Little Rock, AR, who also writes daily at Fourth Amendment.com.

Your suggestions and comments are always welcome.

Murray Waas, one of the most reliable Plamegate reporters since the beginning of this sordid story, has a long and juicy column today at the National Journal. The first part of the article relates to possible perjury charges against Lewis "Scooter" Libby as a result of discrepancies between his and Judith Miller's grand jury testimony, particularly with respect to their July 8 meeting and June 23 conversation.

Far more interesting and significant are the many details Murray so cogently puts together on whether Libby tried either to discourage Miller from testifying or to influence her testimony so it would match what he told the grand jury.

If grand jurors believe that Libby tried to influence Miller's testimony, not only could it result in an obstruction of justice or witness tampering charge, it could make them distrustful of everything Libby told them. Put another way, in instances in which the grand jury has to weigh Libby's version against that of other witnesses, the grand jury might decide that someone who tried to discourage another witness from testifying probably did so because he had done something wrong-- like lie -- rather than because he forgot about a conversation or its details.

This week and next are going to be traffic-busters on liberal weblogs. I can't think of a better time to have your message or product get across to the largest number of blog readers ever.

Here's the link to Advertising Liberally, where you can select the blogs on which to advertise in one fell swoop. If it's law blogs you're looking for, check out the non-partisan Law Blog Ad Network (not to be confused with Progressive Law Blogs which does not have advertising.)

And a note to blog readers: Many of us bloggers are not getting much work done this week with PlameGate. Blogging may become full-time over the next several days. I'm sure your favorite bloggers who accept donations would all appreciate a little help this week.

Here is TalkLeft's donation page:

You don't need a paypal account. Even small contributions are most welcome.

NBC Reporter David Schuster just said on Hardball that the grand jury will be meeting two more days this week and maybe into next week. Since any indictments won't be public until they are done, it doesn't look like tomorrow is the day.

If there are last minute plea deals, the details will be contained in written plea agreements. For any deals that involve reduced charges from those the grand jury might otherwise indict on, Fitzgerald will want the deals iron-clad and signed before releasing this grand jury. If a deal falls through, he'll need to have the grand jury still in session to issue a last minute indictment.

Also, the grand jury could still be hearing evidence from officials who are making last minute deals.