Think Progress has Bloomberg piece by Richard Keil (not available as of 5:00 AM Central) which states that both Lewis Libby and Karl Rove’s claims to have been informed of Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee from reporters is at odds with the testimony given by the journalists in question before the grand jury.

Rove claims to have first heard of Wilson’s agency job from Bob Novak. Libby is reported to have testified that he heard the story first from NBC’s Tim Russert. According to the Bloomberg piece, both reporters tell a different story:

Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter’’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.

These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.

We already know of this “different version” given by Novak. Where Rove testfified that “I heard that too” when Novak told him of Mr.s Wilson’s employment at CIA Novak reportedly testified that Rove said something slightly different, but a similar gist.

Kos says:

What will the children think? It’s not the blowjob endangering national security by outing an undercover CIA agent, but the lies about it!

Actually, it is the national security thing. The lies are just the icinig on the cake.

Not so fast my boorish lickspittle. Before you hyperventilate yourself into a paroxysm of orgasmic ecstacy, perhaps you should have a look at Tom Maguire today:

Decison ‘08 sends me to this Bloomberg account of a discrepancy in Tim Russert’s story:

None of this came up when Russert chatted with Matt Cooper on his “Meet The Pravda” show last weekend.

Mr. Maguire is “steaming” over what he sees as a cover-up by the press. Perhaps not so much a coverup as a “CYA” exercise. It would appear that Mr. Fitzgerald is casting a wide net and, as demonstrated inumerable times in the past, special prosecutors feel duty bound to charge someone with something for all the time and money spent. No one wants to get caught up in the dragnet and that includes many members of the press who may or may not have known that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA.

It’s pretty clear that the Bloomberg article covers precious little new ground. But since notorious leftist Al Hunt took over as editor, Bloomberg has been agressively liberal in it’s slant of the news. A careful reading of Mr. Keil’s piece would seem to place it in the category of wishful thinking rather than good reporting. And as Mr. Keil reminds us at the end of his article:

Some Bush allies were hopeful that the Fitzgerald investigation, which dominated the news in Washington for the first part of July, would subside as the focus now is on Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts to fill the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in 11 years.

Yet special prosecutor Fitzgerald, not media coverage, will determine the outcome of this investigation.

Thankfully, that observation cuts both ways.

UPDATE

The Keil article is now up on Bloomberg’s website and differs slightly from the advance copy that Think Progress received.

One discrepancy I hadn’t noticed in the article was this ommission regarding Time Magazine’s Matt Cooper’s reported testimony before the grandy jury:

There also is a discrepancy between accounts given by Rove and Time magazine reporter Mat Cooper. The White House aide mentioned Wilson’s wife—though not by name—in a July 11, 2003, conversation with Cooper, the reporter said. Rove, 55, says that Cooper called him to talk about welfare reform and the Wilson connection was mentioned later, in passing.

Cooper wrote in Time magazine last week that he told the grand jury he never discussed welfare reform with Rove in that call

That’s true…up to a point. Cooper also wrote (and testified) that he originally called Rove to discuss welfare reform and left a message with Rove to that effect. When Rove returned the call, Cooper started by asking Rove about Wilson.

Gee…you don’t think the reason Mr. Keil left that little tidbit out of the story was because he’s like, ya know, biased or anything now, do you?

Kevin Alyward cuts to the heart of the matter:

If either Libby or Rove can be tied to the memo it’s game over for them. I’m still wholly underwhelmed by the story, but given the details that have emerged (and are likely to emerge), it’s just about time that both Rove and Libby take one for the team and step down.

I’ve been saying that for two weeks.