Despite denials from the Department of Justice, ABC News is standing by its story that House Speaker Dennis Hastert is “in the mix” of the FBI investigation into congressional corruption. ABC quotes anonymous “law enforcement sources,” including a “senior official” who told ABC, “You guys wrote the story very carefully, but they are not reading it very carefully.”

Who is ABC’s source? This person is in law enforcement, but apparently not at the DoJ proper (in which case he would probably be referred to as a “Justice Department official”).

After the jump, some ruminations from us.

Here are some interesting observations: (1) John Miller, the FBI’s assistant director of public affairs, is a former correspondent and anchor for ABC News; (2) Miller has not given any on-the-record comments about Hastert and the FBI investigation; and (3) the FBI can’t be pleased by how Hastert has joined with the Democrats in criticism of its investigation.

We’re not sayin’, we’re just sayin’…

(Okay, guess this wasn’t much of a guessing game…)

Corruption Investigation: Hastert “In the Mix” [ABC News]
John Miller - Assistant Director of Public Affairs [FBI]

Yesterday we asked you for guesses as to the identity of the senior administration official who confirmed, by email to the New York Times, “that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq, in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.”

In the comments to the post, you offered a number of (mostly joking) answers. By email, we received a few more serious responses:

• Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser

Perhaps; he’s got to do something to earn his $160,000 (even if it’s only $40,000 more than the $120,000 pulled down by outgoing White House pastry chef Thaddeus DuBois).

• “Hmm, well, sorta leaves Scott McClellan with the old ball, doncha think? Except it was email. Not sure the Scotster knows about email yet. More likely it was Karl Rove, having been thumped on the back of the head by little george (“fix it, turd blossom”). The fact that whoever it was used email means (a) they were out of town somewhere, not at a knowable phone number, and (b) in full panic mode, as the entire Administration is these days…”

Certainly possible. But we find this submission the most persuasive:

• “Definitely Dan Bartlett. He’s the one charged with talking to major news organizations like the New York Times, and this is just the type of ‘information give’ that he would handle. And by the way, I wouldn’t call it a leak. It’s a pet peeve of mine when the term ‘leak’ is thrown around too loosely. Leaks are unauthorized, and if Bartlett was doing this, it surely was authorized — he would have checked with others in the White House (e.g., Bolten, Card, Miers) before talking to the Times.”

This sounds convincing to us. This does raise the question of who will pick up Bartlett’s “information-giving” portfolio if he leaves the White House soon, as has been rumored.

Of course, some of you may not care who talked to the Times, sharing this reader’s reaction: “I don’t even think it really matters who leaked. After reading that article, I think they’re just all equally as incompetent!”

Earlier: Senior Administration Official Guessing Game: The Case of the Meta-Leak

This “leak about a leak” is prime fodder for a Senior Administration Official Guessing Game:

A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to release the information to reporters.

The statement by the official came after the White House had declined to confirm, for three days, Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony that he had been told by Mr. Cheney that Mr. Bush had authorized the disclosure. The official declined to be named, because of an administration policy of not commenting on issues now in court.

Here’s an additional hint from the article: “The official responded briefly via e-mail on Sunday to questions from The New York Times.” This rules out old-school, techno-phobic officials like Donald Rumsfeld and Michael Chertoff, who don’t use email.

Any thoughts on who the Times source might be? Post your guesses in the comments to this post, or send them to us by email (subject line: “Guessing Game”).

Bush Ordered Declassification, Official Says [NYT]

• The latest indignity to be visited upon disgraced blogger Ben Domenech: a put-down from the Washingtonienne. Jessica Cutler to Ben: “Eat it.” (Careful, Jessica — he might take you up on that.) [Jessica Cutler Online]
• It’s confirmed: Justice Scalia used an obscene gesture, but not that obscene gesture. [E&P]
• First we got Dick Cheney’s rider, followed by John Kerry’s. Now: Donald Rumsfeld’s? [The Satirical Political Report]

In yesterday’s guessing game, we asked you for guesses on two blind items:

Which administration official told Maureen Dowd that “Rummy does not hold the same sway in meetings anymore, that he’s treated as an eccentric old uncle who pops off and is ignored.”

Which political reporter attends so-called ‘circuit parties’ while flying high on ecstasy?

Your guesses, after the jump. And thanks to a tipster for the post title, which we just had to lift. If Ben Domenech can do it, why can’t we?

Okay: clearly you people have filthy minds! We didn’t get much on the first item; you were far more interested in the second, more salacious one. (In addition to the guesses appearing below, please check out the comments to the original post.)

• My guess on the leaker is Andy Card, he’s a loyal Bush family soldier so anything negative that comes out on Rove and Rumsfeld i always think Card, as for the Tweaker — Shepard Smith, why, well because i think he’s been that closet so long he needs to cut loose.

• I’ve seen Andrew Sullivan at the Black Party in New York, and Anderson Cooper at the Pier Dance, during New York Pride. I can call witnesses. I guess neither is really a political reporter per se. I can’t say whether either of them was “sky high” on ecstasy.

Aww, we’re disappointed! We know that Andrew Sullivan can get kinky; but we didn’t expect the clean-cut Cooper to be the circuit party type.

• Datalounge sez this would be Andrew Kirtzman of WCBS.

• Please tell me it’s Jay DeDapper from NBC 4 in New York. He’s so dreamy. I’d love to be in an ecstasy-induced cuddle puddle with him!

• Oh, this is an easy one, guys. It’s The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol. It’s the only way anyone could have the balls to cross Brit Hume without nunchucks and/or a live dinosaur. And how else would you get through all those years writing speeches for Dan Quayle?

Makes sense to us!

Earlier: Senior Administration Official Guessing Game: MoDo’s Source

This afternoon’s Pentagon briefing brought Maureen Dowd’s latest column to our attention (because, truth be told, we don’t read her religiously). We came across the passage that Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about:

One administration official says that Rummy does not hold the same sway in meetings anymore, that he’s treated as an eccentric old uncle who pops off and is ignored. But why can’t W. just quit him? Instead, the president praised him for doing “a fine job” on two wars and transforming the military….

Does anyone have information on which Administration official is feeding the dirt to MoDo?

Any while we’re asking for your guesses on blind items, here’s one more, from yesterday’s Page Six (which several of you have already written to us about):

Which political reporter attends so-called ‘circuit parties’ while flying high on ecstasy?

Any guesses, for either or both items? Send ‘em our way, along with your suppporting reasoning. Thanks!

We asked for your guesses as to the identity of this anonymous Democratic governor (as mentioned in this article from the Post):

Governors privately scoff at the slogan [?Together, America Can Do Better?]. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. ?They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That’s all good,? said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. ?The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we’re against but what we’re for. That’s the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level.?

So, which Democrat was playing the familiar game of carping about fellow Democrats? Your thoughts on this question, after the jump.

Here is the full list of suspects. And now, on to your guesses. We’ll present them in a pretty random order — except we’ll save the overwhelming favorite for last.

• “Note the syntax to carefully avoid revealing gender of the commentor, perhaps because revealing the gender would reveal too much. Female Democratic governor of prominence basically leaves us with Granholm or Napolitano. Napolitano, as the governor of a Southwestern state that has always gone Republican, has been much sought after for her advice and comments by the party at large (the spring policy conference is in Phoenix). She is also a little less diplomatic in speech than Granholm — someone who reporters would track down and who would have no trouble speaking this frankly.”

• “The only governors worried about ‘developing a message at the national level’ are running for POTUS in ?08. Vilsack is already cited in the article as raising questions about the Reid/Pelosi dueling six-point plans. It sounds like an off the record response from Vilsack responding to a request for comment on the assertion that he asked Reid/Pelosi to clearly define the message ‘according to multiple sources in the room.’”

• “Tim Kaine”

• “Tom Vilsack”

• “Absolutely nothing to back this idle speculation up, but doesn’t it have to be someone who is serious about putting a run together in 2008 but doesn’t want to piss off the guys in the party holding the money bags? Maybe someone who’s name rhymes with ‘Bark Horner’ or ‘Mom Ballsack’?”

• “Governor Ed Rendell of PA. He?s the only one with the brashness (once made prank phone calls to his Deputy Mayor regarding size down there while I was interning) and honesty to say something like that. I?m surprised he didn?t curse, though. Then again, he still wants to be Secretary of Transportation one day.”

• “my guess would be Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, that line was pretty close to his opening remark at a speech he gave at the Center for American Progess when the governors were in town last week.”

• “I was first going to say Tim Kaine, but the quote sounds too literate to come from him. Everything I’ve read or heard him say makes me believe that Jerry Kilgore lost because he’s more backwoods than Kaine. Then I thought it was Bill Richardson. But he’s not afraid to say anything on the record. That guy would talk to a high school reporter if she were cute enough. He learned plenty fron Bill. So I think it’s sly dog Evan Bayh of Iowa. He thinks he runs DC politics anyway. Got news for him buddy: You gotta win the nomination first, and that involves beating Hilary-zilla. And even if you do become president, you won’t run much anyway. You’re a Democrat!” [Ed. note: But Bayh couldn’t be the source; he’s a senator.]

Even though this reader discounted Richardson, many others tagged him as the source. These responses are representative:

• “I would like the quote to have come from Jennifer Granholm because she is hot and I like seeing her picture posted on Wonkette. My guess, sadly, is that it was from a Democrat governor who, 1. has Washington insider experience, and 2. does not wish to be seen pissing off either Democrats or Republicans right now by airing a bunch of dirty laundry in the press. That would argue for the much less visually pleasing Bill Richardson.

• “I’m thinking it’s Bill Richardson, strictly based on my gut reaction that the person in question sounds completely exasperated, which is Bill’s default setting. Also, I can totally hear him saying ‘that’s all good.’ He probably tries to impress the youngsters on his staff by using ‘hip’ lingo, like ‘it’s all good’ and ‘I’m down with that.’ And more practically, he’s going to try and run in 2008 as an outsider, against the Democratic party. Yeah, good luck with that.”

• It sounds like Bill Richardson of New Mexico to me. He is — or at least was the last time I checked — chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. He’s also a gabby ex-Clinton Administration cabinet member who’s still probably on the rolodex of a lot of reporters in this town… Note also the source’s line about communications at the “national level.” Until a few months back, Richardson was making the rounds in D.C., trying to build up support for a 2008 White House bid but revelations that he really, really exaggerated the bit in his bio about being a baseball player appear to have sunk that. So Richardson is exactly the type that a reporter would think to call for a story like this, and he’s probably also bitter and angry enough right now to be coaxed into dissing his own guys.”

• “your governor is Bill Richardson. that’s what he always says. and he’s the DGA chair… obviously one of the must-calls for a piece like that. no self-respecting reporter would do a story about that and not call him.”

These games never end with a definitive answer, since reporters protect the anonymity of their sources with the diligence of Judy Miller, and no prizes are awarded. But to the extent that there’s ever a correct response, it sounds like the answer to today’s quiz was “Bill Richardson.”

Here’s a quick guessing game item, based on this article from the Post about the Democratic Party’s disarray (sound familiar?):

Governors privately scoff at the slogan [“Together, America Can Do Better”]. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. “They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That’s all good,” said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. “The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we’re against but what we’re for. That’s the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level.”

It’s interesting that this governor wanted to comment on background, considering that the Democrats are usually all too happy to attack each other on the record. Anyway, if you have some thoughts on who this governor might be, please email us (subject line: “Guessing Game”).

(Yes, we know, the official in question isn’t an Administration official — that’s just the title we’ve given to this Wonkette recurring feature.)

Democrats Struggle To Seize Opportunity [WP]

Last week’s guessing game involved the anonymous sources quoted in Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article about Alberto J. Mora and the stand he took against torture. Earlier today, we shared some guesses with you about two of the three sources mentioned. This item remains outstanding:

“Another military official, who worked closely with [David] Brant and who has been denied permission to speak on the record, told me that the news [of how Mohammed al-Qahtani was interrogated] ‘rocked’ Mora. The official added that Mora ‘was visionary about this. He quickly grasped the fact that these techniques in the hands of people with this little training spelled disaster.’”

After the jump, some above-average speculation about the identity of this anonymous source.

Here’s what one source — at the Pentagon, as it turns out — had to say:

Two names come to mind. First, Rear Admiral James E. McPherson is the head Navy JAG, and Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald is his top deputy. My guess is it is one of them. Vice Admiral Albert Church is also a possibility: he led the DoD investigation of practices in Gitmo, and would have worked closely with Brant when he did.

Another well-informed source suspects a different individual: Dr. Michael Gelles, chief psychologist of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service. This source directs our attention to this report by Human Rights Watch, which talks about how Sen. Carl Levin “outed” Mora and Brant over a year ago:

According to the classified sections of the Church report as described by U.S. Senator Carl Levin, Dr. Michael Gelles, the chief psychologist of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service, completed a study of Guantánamo interrogations in December 2002 (when the harsh Rumsfeld-approved techniques were in effect) that included extracts of interrogation logs. Gelles reported to the service director, David Brant, that interrogators were using ”abusive techniques and coercive psychological procedures.” According to Levin, Gelles’ report prompted Brant to argue that if those aggressive practices continued, the Navy would have to ”consider whether to remain” at Guantánamo.

Our tipster theorizes: “Mayer’s source is probably Gelles. As the HRW report explains, he’s the NCIS psychologist who discovered the abuse while reading Gitmo interrogation logs and took his concerns to Brant, who then went to Mora. One giveaway: Meyer mentions Gelles by name a few paragraphs earlier in her piece as the source of Brant’s information about the abuse, but never says whether or not she tried to talk with him.”

In addition, our correspondent points out that “In March 2005, Gelles gave an on-the-record interview about his opposition to coercive interrogation techniques like the ones used at Gitmo. After that, Gelles’s superiors apparently gagged him, because he’s not been heard from since.”

The Memo [The New Yorker]
Split Seen on Interrogation Techniques [Boston Globe]
Getting Away With Torture? [Human Rights Watch]

Last week, we asked for your guesses about the identities of the anonymous sources quoted in Jane Mayer’s intriguing New Yorker article about Alberto J. Mora, the former general counsel of the U.S. Navy who took a stand against what he viewed as torture of detainees. We received some interesting speculation — some of which appears after the jump.

First we asked you about this item:

“[Alberto Mora] agreed to confirm the authenticity and accuracy of the memo and to be interviewed. A senior Defense Department official, whom the Bush Administration made available as a spokesman, on the condition that his name not be used, did so as well.”

A source proffers this analysis:

Mr. Mora was the Navy’s GC, and officials who work for one of the Service Secretaries (e.g. Secretary of the Navy) would be described on background as a “Navy official” — not a “Defense official”. That is reserved for someone who works for SECDEF [Secretary of Defense]. “Senior” means the guy holds a job that requires Senate confirmation. Who would be in a position to confirm the memo? Could be the Department of Defense general counsel or deputy general counsel — but I bet the Department would shy away from having lawyers talk to the press. That is either going to be done by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, or the Assistant SECDEF for Public Affairs, Dorrance Smith. Mr. Mora worked for Mr. England for a long time while England was Secretary of the Navy, the two are close, and the quote and article in general are favorable to Mr. Mora. Sounds to me like the quote came from a Mora friend, so I will guess Mr. England is the source.

Then we inquired into this source’s identity:

“A former Administration official told me that [Donald] Rumsfeld was unconcerned [about the torture allegations]; he once more joked that he himself stood eight hours a day, and exclaimed, ‘Torture? That’s not torture!’ (‘His attitude was “What’s the big deal?”’ the former official said.)”

Hmm, we’re a bit at a loss — as is our source, who punts as follows:

“A former administration official”… This could be anyone who used to work in DoD. I will guess Paul Wolfowitz because I am a dedicated neo-con who likes seeing the blogosphere explode at the mention of his name.

Well, that’s as good a reason as any! We like seeing the blogosphere explode too.

(There’s one outstanding item from the guessing game, which we’ll be getting back to you about a little later. We may have some more solid information about it than the typical random speculation that we serve up around here.)

This fascinating article, by Jane Mayer for the New Yorker, describes the efforts made by Alberto J. Mora, outgoing general counsel of the U.S. Navy, to ban the abuse and torture of detainees in U.S. custody. It got a fair amount of media attention earlier in the week; we just got around to reading it now. (Cut us some slack! It’s a long article, and we have lots of other things to read — like stupid headlines on CNN.com.)

The article is full of fodder for a Senior Administration Official Guessing Game. After the jump, a few items that caught our eye.

Here they are:

1. “[Alberto Mora] agreed to confirm the authenticity and accuracy of the memo and to be interviewed. A senior Defense Department official, whom the Bush Administration made available as a spokesman, on the condition that his name not be used, did so as well.”

2. “Another military official, who worked closely with [David] Brant and who has been denied permission to speak on the record, told me that the news [of how Mohammed al-Qahtani was interrogated] ‘rocked’ Mora. The official added that Mora ‘was visionary about this. He quickly grasped the fact that these techniques in the hands of people with this little training spelled disaster.’”

3. “A former Administration official told me that [Donald] Rumsfeld was unconcerned [about the torture allegations]; he once more joked that he himself stood eight hours a day, and exclaimed, ‘Torture? That’s not torture!’ (‘His attitude was “What’s the big deal?”’ the former official said.)”

Do you have any speculation — or, better yet, actual knowledge — as to the identities of these sources? If so, please email us.

Annals of the Pentagon: The Memo [The New Yorker]

In our latest guessing game, we asked for your input concerning which unidentified officials were referred to in Glenn Kessler’s interesting article about recent “chafing” at the State Department.

One tipster suggested that Stephen G. Rademaker was the “relatively junior foreign service officer” who was promoted to acting head of the office dealing with the International Atomic Energy Agency (but who looks upon the IAEA with disdain). But a source within the foreign service now tells us:

Take a closer look at Rademaker’s bio — he’s not a Foreign Service Officer. Therefore, he can’t be the “relatively junior Foreign Service Officer” described in the article.

We looked back at Rademaker’s bio, and it appears that our source within the foreign service is correct. According to Rademaker’s bio, he was brought into the Department as Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control (i.e., he was not promoted from within the service). Prior to that, he worked as a lawyer on the Hill. So Rademaker wouldn’t be considered a “foreign service officer.”

Do you have a more educated guess as to the identity of this official? (Our foreign service source declined to opine further.) If so, please email us.

Yesterday we solicited your guesses as to which unidentified officials were mentioned by Glenn Kesler in his recent Kremlinology of the State Department (from this article in the Washington Post).

Our faithful Wonkette operative at the Pentagon sent us this analysis:

Looking at a list of State Dept. bureaus, the likely office involved is John Bolton’s former job, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. The officials were not “senior,” but were involved in the reorganization. I’ll guess the quote on “insubordination” came from the Chief of Staff to Robert Joseph, the current Under Secretary, since that’s something CoS’s do. (Unfortunately, State’s website doesn’t give names and bio’s for CoS’s to the political appointees.)

And now, the good stuff, wherein our tipster names names:

The “relatively junior Foreign Service officer, who is outranked by several officials in the bureau but who is considered skeptical of the IAEA,” is likely Stephen G. Rademaker, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. He is an Acting Assistant Secretary who heads the office that would deal with IAEA.

Very impressive — thanks! If you can give us dirt like that, we will shower you with Wonkette comment invites.

For today’s episode, check out Glenn Kessler’s article in today’s Washington Post, a gossip-ridden discussion of some recent reshuffling at the State Department. Kessler writes:

A State Department reorganization of analysts involved in preventing the spread of deadly weapons has spawned internal turmoil, with more than half a dozen career employees alleging in interviews that political appointees sought to punish long-term employees whose views they considered suspect.

Senior State Department officials deny that and say an investigation has found that the proper personnel practices were followed. But three officials involved in the reorganization, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, acknowledge that a merger of two bureaus reduced the influence of employees who were viewed by some political appointees as disloyal to the administration’s policies.

“There are a number of disgruntled employees who feel they have been shoved aside for political purposes. That’s true,” said one of these officials. “But there was rank insubordination on the part of these officers.”

Later on in the article, the article quotes a different official — one who is disgruntled over the reorganization:

“The suspicion is we would undermine the policy,” said one of the officials who have felt sidelined. “That is what all of us find most offensive. We are here to serve any administration.”

Finally, the article refers to a relatively junior official who was promoted ahead of his time, apparently because the powers-that-be appreciated his skepticism of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

[A] relatively junior Foreign Service officer, who is outranked by several officials in the bureau but who is considered skeptical of the IAEA, was named acting head of the office. Last year, two months before ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the official sent an e-mail to his colleagues ridiculing the idea. The subject line read: “A Nobel for the IAEA? Please.”

You know the drill: send us your guesses as to the identities of these anonymous officials, by email (subject line: “Guessing Game”). (And consider it your good deed for the day: as suggested by another article in today’s Post, anonymous sources are overused in this town!)

Administration Critics Chafe at State Dept. Shuffle [WP]
Remember, You Didn’t Hear This From Me [WP]

Earlier this week, we asked you for your guesses as to which senior Administration official gave her party guests a glimpse of her thong (which, a reader advises us, is commonly referred to as “a whale tail” — see photo at right to understand why). You gave us some pretty interesting responses, which we’ll now share in these pages.

Before doing so, however, here’s a caveat from a reader who views this as much ado about nothing: “No woman wears ‘full-bottom’ panties anymore. Tell your tipster to get with it.”

After the jump, your uneducated guesses and wild speculation as to the identity of the thong-sporting official.

Here are some of the guesses we received:

• “Was it Ken Mehlman?”

Probably not. First, as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mehlman doesn’t count as an “Administration official.” Second, everyone knows Mehlman wears garter belts and stockings.

• “Harriet Miers, her 15 minutes aren’t over yet!”

Sorry, dunno what kind of underwear she likes — you’d have to ask Nathan Hecht.

• “Your reader’s story suggests this took place ‘[s]ome time ago.’ Therefore I’m submitting Madeleine Albright. Oh da horra, da horra!”

• “The key phrase is ‘Some time ago,’ meaning the thong wearer may not be a current administration official. My guess is Christie Whitman. She comes from New Jersey, not far from our fair City of Sinful Delights, Blue State, USA. Where else would a thong-wearer come from?”

• “it’s impressive. not only did you promise to keep the identity a secret, you also changed the gender of the pronouns. because, really, we all know it’s Chertoff after that earlier AP story line.”

• “Karen Hughes”

Hughes was actually the most popular guesss — but she’s a Texan, which makes her an unlikely candidate. In our original post, we floated the name of Secretary Margaret Spellings as a possibility. A reader indignantly responded: “You don’t honestly think it is Margaret Spellings, do you? She’s from Houston, and we all know that Texans don’t wear thongs. They go commando!”

Earlier: Senior Administration Official Guessing Game: The Thong

Past installments of our Senior Administration Official Guessing Game haven’t been huge hits around here. But you may feel differently about the latest edition.

Valentine’s Day makes people think of many different things: flowers, chocolate, candy hearts… and sexy underwear. A reader sent us this information:

Given your unseemly interest in women’s underwear, you are sure to enjoy this item. Some time ago, I was at a party at the home of [a senior Administration official]. At one point during the gathering, she had to reach for something on a low shelf. In doing so, she allowed me — and several other guests — to catch a glimpse of her underwear. And you’ll be thrilled to know that it wasn’t just an ordinary pair of panties. YUP: she was wearing a thong!

It wasn’t a particularly scandalous thong — just a simple, white cotton thong. But it was interesting that she was wearing it, since she wasn’t wearing a sheer dress or anything that might give rise to a “visible panty line” (VPL) problem. Maybe she just likes how it feels?

Very interesting… We promised this reader we wouldn’t reveal the identity of his friend, and we stand by our agreements with our sources.

But we didn’t say we wouldn’t allow our readers to speculate! So if you have any guesses, or hopes, as to the identity of this senior Administration official — Gale Norton? Elaine Chao? Condoleezza Rice? — please email us, with the word “thong” in the subject of your message. If we receive enough interesting or amusing responses, we may share them in these pages.

(Don’t worry, messages with “thong” in the subject make it past our spam filter. Trust us — we checked.)

Earlier: BREAKING (Despite the Elastic): Stormie Janzen’s Thong
Not to Start a Turf War Here, But Domestic Ladies’ Undergarments Are Clearly the FBI’s Domain

We didn’t have too many takers for our guessing game item asking which “senior Justice Department official,” as quoted in Eric Lichtblau’s NYT article, told the Senate Judiciary Committee to take a hike with respect to the NSA eavesdropping-related documents.

Once again, the best guess we received came from a Wonkette source at the Pentagon:

1. Source is a “senior Justice Department official” — that means someone at the Assistant AG level or above.

2. Take a quick look at the DoJ Org chart here.

3. Who would have seen the classified opinions? The AG, Dep AG, and the Assistant AGs in Legal Policy, Legal Counsel, for sure, and maybe Assistant AG’s for Legislative Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations.

The Assistant AG in the Criminal Division might have also seen the classified report, since they would be responsible for any prosecutions resulting from the information gained. And since Alice Fisher is an attractive woman, she is prime material for a Wonkette post.

4. Since Rachel Brand is hot, and she is a possible source (as AAG for the Office of Legal Policy), it is tempting to pick her.

5. However, I will use my bureaucrat instincts and say this sounds like something a Deputy Cabinet member would say on background to the press so that the AG would not have to. Therefore I am going go with the Deputy AG, Paul McNulty. My second guess is William E. Moschella, the Assistant AG for Leg Affairs.

Wow, thanks for that great analysis! We should buy this tipster a drink. But then again, this person works at the Pentagon — where you actually need to be sober to do your job…

Earlier: Senior Administration Official Guessing Game: DoJ Disses Senate Judiciary

Today’s item involves “a senior Justice Department official,” quoted in Eric Lichtblau’s New York Times article, Senate Panel Rebuffed on Documents on U.S. Spying. Lichtblau writes:

Several Democrats and at least one Republican have pressed the Justice Department in recent days to give them access, even in a closed setting, to the internal documents that formed the legal foundation of the surveillance program. But when asked whether the classified legal opinions would be made available to Congress, a senior Justice Department official said Wednesday, “I don’t think they’re coming out.”

The official said the administration’s legal arguments had already been aired, most prominently in a 42-page “white paper” issued last month. “Everything that’s in those memos was in the white paper,” said the official, who, like other administration and Congressional officials, was granted anonymity because classified material was involved.

Okay, these quotes aren’t particularly controversial; this is not the stuff Deep Throats are made of. But we don’t have anything better to do with our time — and neither do you, since you’re reading this. So send us your guesses by email.

Also, for the record — because accuracy is our middle name here at Wonkette — please see this correction to the results from our last installment of the Guessing Game, concerning the affiliation of Elisebeth Collins Cook.

Finally, one of you was kind enough to give us a guess on the second item from our last Guessing Game:

About the line from ‘a staff member for another Democratic senator,’ my money is on Danny O’Brien, Joe Biden’s COS. Why? There is just something about the statement that smacks of the sort of begrudgingly applied political pragmatism that staffers to presidential hopefuls slather themselves with. QED.

Earlier: Senior Administration Official Guessing Game: The Alito Nomination Players
Senior Administration Official Guessing Game Results

Here is the first wave of responses to the inaugural installment of the Senior Administration Official Guessing Game. We wanted to know: Who was the administration official who tattled to the Times about the White House’s successful “pitch Alito as boring but levelheaded” strategy?

One of you immediately guessed, “Karl Rove!” But, contrary to general belief, Rove is not behind everything that happens in this town.

More guesses — including what appears to be a very informed one — after the jump.

Samuel Alito himself — okay, not the newly confirmed justice, but just the author of the Samuel Alito Blog — wrote in to say:

Dear Wonkette,

The administration official who spoke to David Kirkpatrick was Rachel Brand (see right). I have two reasons to support this:

(1) She was the only one who laughed at my lame joke. Not that she thought it was funny; she knew I was winning.

(2) She is attractive and you can speculate about her sex life. Perfect for Wonkette.

—Sam

Okay, we’re getting warmer. But it probably wasn’t the lovely and high-powered Ms. Brand, for reasons set forth below. A Pentagon-based Wonkette reader offers this very impressive response:

1. Source was DoJ, not White House. Anyone working for the Exec Office of the Pres would be referred to as a “White House Official,” not an “administration official.”

2. The quote was not from a “senior administration official,” but merely an “administration official,” so I’ll assume the source holds a position which does not require Senate confirmation. This takes out of running the very attractive Rachel Brand, who, as an Assistant AG, would be a “senior administration official”

3. The source has to be in a position with access to WH and DoJ political strategists, so it would not be any of the lawyers from the Legal Policy or Civil Rights, who would be more focused on the substance of testimony prep and not the images and style.

4. This leaves four likely candidates: Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Raul Yanes, senior counsel to the attorney general; Jamie Brown, Office of Professional Responsibility, former special assistant to President Bush, Legislative Affairs; and Elisebeth Cook, Office of the Attorney General.

Now I just have to guess — so I’ll pick Elisebeth Cook, who since she was not ID’ed in the National Law Journal with a portfolio at DoJ, could well be the AG’s media/press special assistant.

Not bad! This sounds pretty good to us. But if you have contrary intelligence, please drop us a line.

Correction: Elisebeth Collins Cook is actually an attorney with the Office of Legal Policy, as opposed to the Office of the Attorney General. Thus, under the reasoning set forth above, she probably was not Kirkpatrick’s source; we are left to guess between Sampson, Yanes, and Brown.

Also, we didn’t receive any guesses for the second item in our guessing game: the Democratic staffer who — quite presciently, as it turns out — told James Flug that the Vanguard issue was a non-starter. C’mon, people, you can do better!

Over at Gawker, our celeb-obsessed, Gotham-based sibling, they do blind item guessing games. Here at Wonkette, we offer more sophisticated, highbrow fun. Welcome to Senior Administration Official Guessing Game!

Here’s how it works: We offer up some quotes from unidentified officials. You send us your guesses as to the identities of those officials, along with supporting reasoning (if any), by email. We’ll share the results with you later in the day.

With a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito scheduled to take place later this morning, today’s items will focus on players in the Alito nomination drama. They come from this delightfully gossipy article, Two Nominee Strategies — One Worked, by David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times (best known for his sinister-sounding exposés of the vast right-wing conspiracy, like this piece).

Without further ado, here’s the first item up for bids:

The week before his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. e-mailed the text of his opening statement to the White House. It included very little about his legal thinking, dwelled at length on his family and opened with a tired and rambling joke about courtroom banter between a lawyer and a judge.

The response from the White House: “Perfect, don’t change a word,” according to an administration official who was granted anonymity because Judge Alito’s preparation sessions were confidential.

“Any time they are yelling, preaching, lecturing, and you are cool and calm and breathing deep, you are winning,” the administration official said the White House team told Judge Alito. “What that means on television sets where the American people are watching this is, you look good and they look bad. It was the central operating premise.”

To narrow down your list of suspects, check out the catalog of Alito “murder board” participants at the end of this article from the National Law Journal.

Additional items after the jump.

Here’s the next item for your consideration:

[Kennedy staffer James] Flug drove the investigation into Judge Alito’s failure to recuse himself, as he had pledged to do during his court of appeals confirmation hearing, from cases involving his mutual fund company, Vanguard. But Mr. Flug met with polite skepticism from many of his colleagues.

“You are going to ask more questions about that oversight where Alito made no money?” a staff member for another Democratic senator said he asked Mr. Flug.

“It became clear to us early on,” the staff member added, “that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes, but we think the guy is a man of honor.”

Two Nominee Strategies — One Worked [New York Times]