It looks John Bolton is now a suspected source for the leak, which sounds too good to be true, but makes perfect sense when you think about it. The secret memo that revealed Plame's identity and made clear it was covert
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html
was by the State Department's intelligence agency, the INR. It is often forgotten (because he was so ludicrously counterproductive at it) that Bolton's official position at State was not "neoconservative weight around Powell's neck" but rather Undersecretary for WMD and Anti-proliferation affairs. So this would be his baliwick. And in fact many people have said in the past that Bolton was the person most assiduously pushing the Niger allegations and most infuriated by the State Department and CIA refusal to take them seriously, and most actively engaged in trying to get it in anyway. And to put icing on the cake, his chief of staff, Fred Fleitz, was CIA as well as State.
At any rate, it looks like Bolton was definately interviewed by the prosecutor, according to a report on Hardball:
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8666472/
Here's the original speculation that might have led the prosecutor to take this up:
URL: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000569.html
In further news, the idea that both Libby and Rove may be facing real perjury charges is beginning to look more plausible. Libby said he learned about Plame from Tim Russert. Russert has flatly denied it.
Rove, meanwhile, seems to have convinced the prosecutor during his first testimony that he had never discussed Plame with anyone. The prosecutor actually thought Libby was Cooper's source. Cooper agreed to testify when Libby gave him a clearance. The prosecutor was then surprised when Cooper said point blank that Libby wasn't his source, that he had simply confirimed the story by saying "Oh yeah, I heard that too." When the prosecutor asked Cooper who the source was, he refused to say, saying it didn't have to do with Libby. That's what led to the suits that finally compelled Cooper to say it was Rove.
Rove probably said things that were technically, jesuitically, the truth. But if the prosecutor is convinced that he deserves a perjury charge because he lied to him in substance about the main thing in the case and played him for a fool, he may be quite assiduous in trying to nail him on something. And generally, with a federal prosecutor, where there's a will, there's a way.
Oh, and one last thing: Karen Hughes testified. People found out because she has to get confirmed for her new position as head of the new overseas propaganda department, and the form she fills out requires her to note her involvement in any ongoing investigation.
But according to today's NYT, Bolton never mentioned his involvement on his disclosure form:
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/politics/22leak.html
I wonder if this might all be enough to finally kill the possibility of Bolton's being installed in a recess appointment? Now that would be sweet.
Michael