Josh Micah Marshall on the leaker investigation

[Darwin2002]

well worth reading and I hope he is right
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Stevendsmith]

1. Marshall's TPM blog is required daily reading for me.

He's a beltway insider and he's on our team!

[lancdem]

2. Yes, I check out his site many times every day

His piece on Leakgate is excellent.

[jbfam4]

3. Ditto

I have Josh on my tool bar.........must click on him 10 times a day. Will print this out for my 85 year old Mother to read. She will love it. Thanks, Josh for all your good reporting.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. He has, in the past, referred to things...

That come in "Over the transom" from both sides of the aisle. It pays to pay attention to Josh. He speaks The Truer Dinkum than most, if not all of the punditry.

[KoKo]

5. Could someone take a stab at explaining his "Third Scenario?" I had

trouble understanding why the timing of release of the story was bold. Since Asscroft's Justice Department is NOT our friend, they would have had to approve releasing the story in more "prime day time" than burying it on a Friday. Why would Asscroft allow this? Why wouldn't he want the Special Prosecutor announcement to be buried?

My next problem is that Marshall seems to be saying that maybe the info came from the WH PNAC'ers and if that's the case what is he suggesting in his Third Scenario. Is he saying that there's such strong evidence that Fitzgerald is going to come out with a swift indictment?

I found Josh's theory very hard to understand and I read it three times.

Can someone flesh it out for me? :eyes:

[demgrrrll]

6. The last two parts of the theory break down into evidence and or

some immediate occurrence. The second theory leans toward an ever growing mound of evidence pointing in one direction, the third theory
is that one big thing has happened that makes it impossible for Ashcroft to continue in his current role. That's how I read the paragraphs.

[Beetwasher]

7. Josh Makes Some Good Points, However, I Think He Missed A Scenario

Ashcroft recused himself at this time, because he thinks he CAN. IOW, he thinks there's NO DANGER to the admin from an investigation. He's reviewed everything, all the evidence, spoke to those involved and feels he can bring in someone seemingly independent and is satisfied that THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD A CASE.

The implication being one of two things; 1. there was no wrongdoing and therefore there is no case, or 2. there is not sufficient incriminating evidence.

We can dismiss number 1 because there is NO DOUBT a federal, treasonous crime was committed, therefore there is a case to be made against someone. That leaves us w/ number 2.

The question then becomes, "why is there no evidence to build a case?" and there are two answers to this question. 1. The perps were very clever and left no evidence and 2. The evidence was CLEANED UP.

We can dismiss number 1, because it's impossible they didn't leave a trail because at the very least, there should be phone records somewhere to the reporters contacted, so that leaves number 2.

I think that if the ultimate conclusion of this investigation is that no one is indicted and held responsible, that in itself is evidence of cover up and obstruction of justice. We know a crime was definitely committed. We know there should be some evidence of that crime and there are definitely numerous people who absolutely know who the perps are. As far as who cleaned the evidence? Well, one can surmise that the best person for the job of cleaning up evidence so a prosecutor can't build a case, would be another prosecutor. Who was in the best position to do that? Someone w/ top level access and who would get to review all the evidence before anyone else. Do the initials JA ring a bell?

This scenario would also explain the timing of the announcement. JA finished his job. He made sure there was no case and they think they have nothing to fear from an unbiased investigation except possibly a case built on hearsay. One can only hope the CIA had some foresight and made sure some hard evidence was protected.

I disagree w/ Marshall about the fact that the day before New Years is not necessarily burying the story. I think it is effectively burying it as much as it can and I think it was calculated that way.

[Fovea]

8. My problem with the scenario

I call, "Go ahead and look while I stand here and fan the shredders to cool them off" is that there are several reporters that could, were they so inlined, blow any sort of coverup out of the water.

Indeed, I suspected that this is what threw the coverup out of statis.