That White-Mustachioed Anger-Management Dude

Emptywheel at TNH had this interesting tidbit this morning:

It seems more and more people are coming around to my and Jane Hamsher's Dust Bunny theory--that Judy Miller was caught being unforthcoming in her first grand jury testimony and--once Fitzgerald pointed that out to her--she discovered some notes she had been hiding in her desk had forgotten about. But there are lingering questions about why Fitzgerald had to set a perjury trap (if he did) and why he didn't just include June in Judy's original subpoena. And I'd like to offer my take. I think there are several reasons why Fitzgerald proceded in the way he appears to have. First, case law is clear; a prosecutor can only subpoena journalists for materials he can't get via another source. I think it very likely that Fitzgerald knew--as early as August of 2004--about the June conversation with Libby. Not only did he know about the conversation, but he had enough evidence about it already, through non-journalist channels, that he couldn't include that in Judy's subpoena. Which says Fitzgerald had already established the chain of the leak from the person with the need to know to the people who told Novak. Yes, he needed the substance of Judy's conversation with Libby to show precisely how the information got from, say, John Bolton to Scooter Libby. But he already had evidence of the first leak, the IIPA violation (which I suspect is Bolton to Judy) and plenty of evidence of the second leak, Rove's and Libby's violation of their security clearance. What Judy's testimony allowed him to prove was the conspiracy involved, the direct and deliberate chain from the IIPA leak to Rove and Libby's leak.

So does this mean that an indictment is in the works for Bolton too?