On his website bushlies.com (and also on davidcorn.com), David Corn responds to my article yesterday about the CIA leak case:

[York] notes that the Newsweek story based on Hubris says that Armitage had “no apparent intention of harming anyone” and comments:
It’s an extraordinary admission coming from Isikoff’s co-author Corn, one of the leading conspiracy theorists of the CIA-leak case… Conspiracy theorist–moi? Where have I proposed a conspiracy theory?

Perhaps a first stop in a tour of Corn’s works would be “Rove Scandal: A Conspiracy Charge for the White House?” posted on bushlies.com and davidcorn.com on July 22, 2005. In that article, Corn wrote:

As I write, the news is zapping across the Internet that Bloomberg has reported that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have given testimony to the Plame/CIA leak grand jury that was contradicted by the accounts of others. Here’s the lead:
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…

Corn then recounted a conversation he had with a Democratic lawyer friend in Washington. What did the lawyer think was going on in the CIA leak case? Corn asked:

Obviously, he says, it would be easier for [Fitzgerald] to make a “false statements case” than to prosecute a case under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (Regular readers by now know why.) But, he goes on, there’s another way he could tackle this; check out Title 18, Section 371, of the US Code, he advises. It’s entitled “Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States”…
Under this law, if there was any conspiring among the leakers–say, one White House aide suggested to another that they use the classified information in hand to disclose Valerie Wilson’s connection to the CIA in order to undermine Wilson’s account of his trip to Niger–then the acts of each conspirator can essentially be charged to the other(s). If I understand this correctly–did I say I was no lawyer?–that means if one person violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (or lied to Fitzgerald or the grand jury) any one who conspired with them to make the leak happen (or concoct the false account) could be nailed. “From a prosecutor’s standpoint,” this former prosecutor says, “a conspiracy charge is how you get in each strand–all the strands–of what happened.”
Nabbing Karl Rove on a conspiracy? To some that might sound rather appropriate.

Corn will no doubt say that he wasn’t actually accusing anybody of conspiracy — after all, he put a question mark after the title, didn’t he?