Looks as if the source for the original Washington Post 2 x 6 story has talked to Fitzgerald.
Steve Clemons does some good reporting and makes what seems to me a sound analytic point:
If, in fact, neither Dana Priest nor Mike Allen was subpoenaed before the Plame grand jury, that creates a strong inference that the prosecutor already knew whatever they could have told him. In particular, the prosecutor must know the identity of their source for the 2 x 6 assertion (that two senior administration officials had told six reporters about Plame’s identity) and that source must have told the prosecutor substantially what he or she told Priest and Allen.
It seemed to me at the time that Priest and Allen’s original story strongly hinted that Rove was one of the two bad guys. As others have noted, the Libby indictment identifies Rove as “official A,” and in the history of Fitzgerald’s corruption cases “official A” usually gets indicted eventually.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman