Leak Case Prosecutor Raises Questions That Demand Answers

Who knew what when in the Bush administration’s effort to disclose the identity of a CIA official whose husband had become a principal critic of the Iraq war?

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, knows a great deal of the answer, judging by the indictment he unveiled Friday against I. Lewis “Scooter� Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff. But he isn’t telling much.

Fitzgerald presented the information he felt he needed to reach a legal judgment in the case. But he withheld much of the information the country needs to reach a political judgment about the administration’s actions.

Indeed, in his indictment, Fitzgerald repeatedly raises critical questions that he flatly refuses to answer. His cautious approach may be the appropriate strategy for a criminal prosecutor, but it leaves open important issues that are likely to be resolved only through congressional hearings, with the central figures testifying under oath.

The question most people wanted answered was who told syndicated columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. She is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who became a critic of the Iraq war after undertaking a mission for the CIA to determine whether Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger.

Fitzgerald knows the identity of one of Novak’s sources, but he’s not telling. In the indictment he describes Novak’s source only as “a senior official in the White House,� whom he designates, spy-novel style, as Official A.

Some news organizations reported over the weekend that the proverbial “sources close to the investigation� have identified Official A as Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff.

But the indictment, the sole official word in the case, states only that “on or about July 10 or July 11, 2003,� Libby spoke with Official A, who informed him of “a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip.�

Then the paragraph, deadpan, adds a blockbuster revelation: “Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.�

In other words, the same White House official who provided Novak with information about Plame told Libby not only about the conversation but also about the impending article.

That disclosure raises a series of questions. Did Official A tell anyone else in the White House that he had leaked the information? Did Libby? Did anyone else know that Novak planned to publish a story disclosing Plame’s name? Did anyone object?

Fitzgerald isn’t saying.

The indictment’s next paragraph raises even more troubling questions. The indictment reports that “on or about July 12, 2003,� Libby flew with “the vice president and others� to and from Norfolk, Va., on Air Force Two. “On his return trip, Libby discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper,� the indictment states.

On that very afternoon, the indictment continues, Libby spoke about Wilson by telephone with Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times.

When Cooper asked Libby whether he had heard that Wilson’s wife was involved in sending him on the trip, “Libby confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too.�

With Miller, Libby discussed “Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA.�

By recounting the events in that sequence, Fitzgerald implies that Libby’s conversations with the reporters followed a decision in that discussion on Air Force Two to disseminate the information about Plame. But Fitzgerald never says what happened in that discussion or even who the participants were.

Presumably Libby would not need approval from his subordinates to discuss Plame with reporters. Perhaps he was seeking their counsel during the discussion on the plane. But it’s also conceivable that Libby was seeking authorization from the one person in the office who was his superior: the vice president.

Again, Fitzgerald may know. But he’s not telling.

On both these issues -- the conversation on Air Force Two and the discussion between Libby and Official A -- the indictment strongly hints at a broader effort within the administration to disclose Plame’s identity, but does not level charges (such as conspiracy) to that effect. “You could not put [the information] in and not charge, or put it in and charge, but the puzzling thing is to put it in and not charge,� David Boies, one of the nation’s leading trial lawyers, said after reading the indictment.

Why would Fitzgerald disclose such suggestive information without fully explaining it? Boies, a Democratic partisan, defends the decision. Fitzgerald “is someone who wants to be very conservative and super-sure before he indicts anybody ... that he has an airtight case,� Boies said.

Fitzgerald might still be investigating. Others speculate that he included the information about the discussion on Air Force Two and the conversation with Official A as a warning to the White House and other Republicans that he could punch back with much more explosive charges if they attack him too harshly.

Fitzgerald may be correct that criminal prosecution isn’t the right venue to explain exactly what happened. And he has indicated that, so far, he does not believe further criminal charges are justified; more disclosure wouldn’t by itself change that. But even so, the information in his indictment demands further answers.

Those answers might come if Joseph Wilson files a civil suit against administration officials, as he has suggested he might, but private action isn’t the most appropriate way to satisfy the public interest in a full accounting.

That responsibility belongs to Congress. It may need to wait until after criminal proceedings are concluded. But with its power to subpoena documents and compel testimony, Congress owes America answers to the questions Fitzgerald has left hanging so suggestively.

Ronald Brownstein’s column appears every Monday. See current and past Brownstein columns on The Times’ website at latimes.com/brownstein.