home

Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah Flipped Early

Jason Leopold breaks more news in the Valerie Plame investigation, confirming John Hannah cooperated early with Fitz and rolled on Libby and Rove. He also writes that Fitz is close to presenting an Indictment to the grand jury for Karl Rove.

As I've written many times, all roads lead back to the White House Iraq Group. Hannah was a member, as was Stephen Hadley and Libby. Rove attended most meetings. Props to Richard Sale of UPI who on February 5, 2004, identified Hannah as being in serious trouble and pressured to cooperate (Details here).

Jason writes Hannah was given a choice early on:

....either cooperate with the special counsel's probe or face criminal charges for his involvement in the leak, attorneys close to the case said. The senior official decided to cooperate with the investigation and told Fitzgerald that Libby and Rove spoke to reporters about Plame Wilson, the attorneys said.

The official has been identified by attorneys and four current and former White House officials as John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton.

Where is Hannah now? Cheney promoted him after Libby's resignation, to Assistant to the vice president for national security affairs. So, Hannah's cooperation must have been so great it earned him a complete pass.

Jason says Robert Novak's source is still unknown. But, as TalkLeft reported this weekend, recent Libby pleadings (here and here) say that Fitz recently disclosed (perhaps in discovery) that Fitz learned Novak's source in or around February, 2004, just two months after his initial appointment in December, 2003.

Based on Libby's pleadings, and the timing of Hannah's cooperation, which Jason puts at February, 2004, and UPI's Sale confirming that's when they put the screws to Hannah, I'm going to take a speculative leap forward and posit that Hannah gave up Stephen Hadley as Novak's undisclosed source (the other has been confirmed as Rove) at the same time he gave up Libby and Rove. Hadley and Novak then went in and confirmed with Fitzgerald. (It's been obvious to anyone following the case that Novak cooperated early on, which the Washington Post confirmed here.)

Also, I think this makes Stephen Hadley Woodward's source -- as Jason and Larissa at Raw Story have been telling us for months (details here) -- and that Hadley is the official who contacted Fitz to correct his prior testimony a week after Libby was indicted.

What about Armitage? He's probably off the hook and considered by Fitz to be an innocent person whose identity still is being protected. He just joined the board of ConocoPhillips, which surely he wouldn't have done if there was a cloud hanging over his head.

Other loose ends and remaining questions? Here are mine:

Is Hadley really Novak's second source or was it someone at the State Department or CIA? Who is Walter Pincus's source? Did Rove give up Libby and/or Hadley in the 11th hour to avoid getting indicted, knowing that Hannah had nailed him? Did Hadley get a pass or is he going to be indicted with Rove?

Who is Fitz using for corroborative witnesses to Hannah? Best bets: David Wurmser, Fred Fleitz and Marc Grossman.

I wonder, does Luskin have any more magic tricks in his hat for Karl Rove? If so, it sounds like he better pull them out now.

< Voice Stress Analyzers Criticized | TalkLeft Milestone: 400 Posts on Valerie Plame >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    Gosh, and everyone made such a good case for Armitage being Woodward's source. Had me on the line. Hope the next surprise is as good as it seems is will be....Let the indictments flow.

    First, my guess is that if the Leopold scoop on Hannah is right, that his scoop 24 hours later about Wurmser is also correct and that Wurmser would be the collaborative witness. My question is whether you've considered all the "forensic" research over at EmptyWheel's site where Armitage (and not Hadley) seems the perfect fit for the redacted names? And I sure hope old "Gold Bars" doesn't have any more tricks up his sleeve. Finally, let's say Rove & Hadley are indicted (soon ... please let it be soon). Is that not enough to go for the originally-hoped-for WHIQ conspiracy charge and indict the whole sorry bunch?

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 12:58:30 PM EST
    Where is Hannah now? Cheney promoted him after Libby's resignation, to Assistant to the vice president for national security affairs. So, Hannah's cooperation must have been so great it earned him a complete pass.
    Can the following really be true?
    No one in the White House was aware that Hannah was cooperating with the special counsel, the sources said, adding that information Hannah provided to Fitzgerald was instrumental in securing a perjury indictment against Libby.
    Must be true, as the standard for promotion in this WH is utter failure. Rats and whistleblowers are promptly excommunicated and worse.

    Obsessed, I did my own redaction fit and agreed with Empty Wheel that it was Armitage here. The problem though in using the redaction trick is that Fitz may have used a title before "Hadley" such as Mr. or something else that would take up the same space as "Armitage." Squeaky, Hannah's lawyer denied he was a target, see here.

    And once again the shadow of John Bolton crosses the trail. Just to note that fact...

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    And once again the shadow of John Bolton crosses the trail. Just to note that fact... Nothing would please me more than to pay for his unmitigated arrogance. then again ..... there is smirk and snarl....

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah (none / 0) (#7)
    by chew2 on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    Somebody enlighten me again. If Hadley was the leaker to Novak, why can't he be prosecuted for disclosing Plame's identity and CIA status?

    That GOT MILK? SING SING FOR YOUR SUPPER Ad campaign's got potential, too.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah (none / 0) (#9)
    by SeeEmDee on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 04:07:15 AM EST
    Noticably absent from the entire synopsis above is one word: AIPAC Hannah, Hadley, Feith, Franklin, etc. have been its' guiding lights, and the depth of their involvement in what may amount to treason by passing secrets to a foreign power may be what is taking so long to conclude this matter, due to its' extraordinarly sensitive nature. The potential US public outrage against Israel could boil over big time. As the Chinese say, we truly are living in 'interesting times'.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 06:16:24 AM EST
    WASHINGTON
    Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin today said that he was going to use the insanity defense in Rove's upcoming Valerie Plame trial:

    He has no basic sense of morality or compassion for his fellow human beings.

    And what person in his right mind would talk to Robert Novak about anything?
    ...
    After all, he was only being loyal to the president.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Close to Indicting Rove; Hannah (none / 0) (#12)
    by SeeEmDee on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    off topic comment deleted

    deleted