George Bush Authorized the Leak of Valerie Wilson’s Identity
Scottie McC doesn’t know it yet. But that’s basically what he revealed this morning on the Today Show (h/t Rayne).
During the interview, Scottie revealed the two things that really pissed him off with the Bush Administration. First, being set up to lie by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And second, learning that Bush had–himself–authorized the selective leaking of the NIE.
Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.
Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?
Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that’s what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.
Now, for the most part, this is not new. We have known (since I first reported it here) that Scooter Libby testified that, after Libby told Dick Cheney he couldn’t leak the information Cheney had ordered him to leak to Judy Miller because it was classified, Cheney told Libby he had gotten the President to authorize the declassification of that information.
Thus far, though, we only had Dick Cheney’s word that he had actually asked Bush to declassify this information. We didn’t have Bush’s confirmation that he had actually declassified the information. In fact, we’ve had Dick Cheney’s claims that he–Dick–had insta-declassified via his super secret pixie dust declassification powers.
But now we’ve got George Bush, confirming that he, the President of the United States, authorized the leaks of "this information."
Now, though Scottie refers, obliquely, to "this information," he explicitly refers only to the NIE. But as I’ve described over and over again, it’s not just the NIE Bush authorized Dick to order Libby to leak.
As a review, here’s what Libby’s NIE lies are all about. This is all documented in this post, and here is the court transcript in which most of this is revealed.
- Scooter Libby has instructions in his notes to leak something to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003
- When questioned about the notation, Libby claimed the instructions related to the NIE
- Libby went further to make certain claims about the NIE leak–that the leak was authorized by Dick Cheney and George Bush, that such an authorization was totally unique in his career, and that Libby was so worried about leaking the NIE to Judy that he double checked to make sure he was authorized to do so
- Libby later made claims that directly contradicted these assertions–most importantly, even though Libby claims the Judy leak was totally unique in his career, he also leaked the NIE to three other people: Bob Woodward, a journalist [David Sanger] on July 2, and the WSJ
- Also, in spite of the fact that Libby says he was really worried about getting authorization to leak the NIE to Judy, he’s not really sure whether he was authorized to leak the NIE to Woodward; his concern about the leak to Judy only extended to whatever he leaked to Judy
In short, Libby is almost certainly lying about what he was authorized to leak to Judy on July 8, 2003, in a meeting where Judy Miller admits he talked about Valerie Plame, and where Libby tried to get her to falsely attribute the story.
At this point, Scottie McC is still accepting Scooter Libby’s lies, though I suspect he sees the dangerous frailty of them. With Bush’s clear admission to Scottie that he was in the loop, and the evidence that, subsequent to receiving an order from Cheney (authorized by Bush) to leak classified information to Judy Miller, Libby leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity, the circumstantial evidence shows the President was directly involved in the deliberate outing of a CIA spy. The only question now is whether Bush realized he authorized the leak of Valerie’s identity, in addition to a bunch of other classified documents.
Think of how much sense this makes. We have evidence that George Bush ordered Libby to respond to Joe Wilson on June 9, 2003. We now have Bush’s own confirmation that he authorized the leak Libby made to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003–which included the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity. We know on July 10, Condi told Stephen Hadley that Bush "was comfortable" with the response the White House was making towards Wilson. And we know that–when Cheney forced Scottie McC to exonerate Libby publicly that fall, he did so by reminding people that "The Pres[ident] [asked Libby] to stick his head in the meat-grinder." We know that Libby’s lawyers tried desperately to prevent a full discussion of the NIE lies to be presented at trial. And we know that–after those NIE lies did not come out, for the most part (though one juror told me that NIE story was obviously false, even with the limited information they received)–the President commuted Libby’s sentence on July 2, 2007.
I think Scottie knows exactly what he is doing. Just too bad it has taken him so long.
I’m not sure that’s what he said. It seems to me he said that Bush declassified the information, which isn’t the same as authorizing Libby to leak it.
Like you said, it’s kind of old news, because I seem to remember Bush declassifying the report after the fact, and there was some talk about whether Cheney had the right to declassify or not, and then Bush said that he did. There was a lot of this cover-their-asses bullshit going on, but basically it all came down to the same thing that Bush has been claiming all along: if the President did it, or approves of it, it’s legal. How else does the Libby pardon get justified?
No. McC used the phrases “selective leaking” and “authorized the leak.”
I guess you’re right, but as disingenuous as it is, it’s still a case of the President declassifying material, isn’t it?
Yes.
But that means it’s an entire framework of obstruction to protect the President.
You’ve got the missing emails. You’ve got more lies told by Libby and, almost certainly, Rove. I suspect you’ve got lies from Bartlett and Ari. And lies from Dick.
Marcy,
If Ari was given immunity and then lied under oath about some of this, I’d think Patrick Fitzgerald would be outside his door soonest with an indictment.
They all appear to have thrown out way too many lies to keep track of what they’ve told whom and it will (I hope and pray to doG) will come tumbling down around them like a house of cards.
If anyone moves forward on this, I doubt it’ll be Fitz–unless what Scottie says contradicts what Bush testified to. I don’t think it does, though–the big question is whether Bush testified to knowing WHAT he had declassified, and the best reporting on this (Murray’s) says Bush remained very vague.
Furthermore, Fitz would only have a really tenuous case to go against Bush. Bush’s authority to declassify things, after all, is unlimited. As is his ability to pardon.
Thus, it would have to be done in the political realm. But there’s more reason to do so now, or at least to reopen the efforts to revisit the commutation.
Right. Perhaps now we can see about actually requesting/subpoenaing Fitz’s files including the interviews of Bush and Cheney? You know, like he specifically invited Congress to do.
bmaz – since you had such a lovely insight into the motivation for telco immunity, can you give us your thinking on why the frack is congress apparently helping to cover up for bush?
This is pure speculation on my part:
Congress is helping cover for Bush for three basic reasons –
A combination of a few of each of these is enough to turn a substantial Dem majority and a mandate, into a bunch of spineless jellyfish.
Heh, even a deaf, dumb, blind squirrel stumbles on a nut every now a and then; doesn’t mean I can do it again. My guess is it is a combination of wanting to conceal their own role in it and sheer political calculation on their re-election and increasing their precious majorities. Basically every element except their sworn duty in their oath to office to protect the Constitution.
Some Democrats supported Bush and enabled his actions.
Some because they believed, others because they were scared.
Many more were complicit by their silence and inaction.
For almost all, even as a de facto coup was taking place before their eyes and after disaster after disaster and excess after excess unfolded before them, they still saw it all as nothing out of the ordinary, just business as usual.
The problem too is that which I describe above does not define discrete groups. At various times, Democratic politicians in Congress belonged to several of these groups.
Henry Waxman has already done that. Two or three times. It looks like the docs were due January 8th. I can find no further information on the committee’s site.
http://oversight.house.gov/doc…..pdf”>
Absolutely. And Jane Hamsher called Sanborne in April–that office is not closed and afik there is nothing to keep Fitz himself from reving up an investigation and indicting Rove–I still have no idea what kept him from doing so, forcing Scootsie, Addington, and Cheney from testifying and indicting Bush, Rove, and Cheney after January 20, 2009 when no commutations and pardons will be available to them.
There is nothing to keep Scooter from being indicted and convicted on different charges either.
And I should have added, if Fitz is unwilling to take up the mantle, we have a new AG being confirmed in February 2009, and nothing stops her or him from appointing a special counsel to go after Cheney, Bush, Rove, Addington, Bartlett, Fleisher, Perrino and a cast of many on different charges–I have Fredo and many former DOJ employees on my list as well.
I also want the laptops and automatic weapons FBI employees and DOJ AUSAs stole numbering in the thousands.
I’d like to see some prosecutions in the hijacking of DOJ for use by the West Wing in targetd proseuctions of prominent Democrats or Democratic office holders.
Bush wasn’t under oath when he testified, was he?
I’d expect him to go for ‘I don’t recall’ even if he was – it’s a cheap nad easy way out (just his style), and puts the burden of proof that he’s lying on the prosecution, which is handicapped by his (and Darth’s)
love ofobsession with secrecy.He can”t recall whether he ever snorted coke, LOL!
Right.
I like Attaturk’s comment on this: If he can’t remember he snorted coke, then he probably snorted too much.
It doesn’t affect long-term memory. Trust me.
I recall it being pointed out over and over on the Plame threads – that it didn’t matter whether he was under oath or not – lying to prosecutors was lying to prosecutors –
under oath = perjury
not under oath = false statements (Martha Stewart/Marion Jones)
Ditto re lying to Congress whether or not under oath. It’s a felony separate and apart from perjury.
But who holds the card to the new investigation that will need to take place? I think Pelosi. Mukasey will never appoint another special prosecutor. Someone has to start an investigation to knit up all these loose lies into a long, narrow cognitive scarf that can hang the president.
exactly. and every day she refuses to do so, her complicity in bushco’s crimes grows.
Indictment for what, presumably perjury? It would be nice to see the shadow over the VP extend to Ari and take him out of public life while pending trial not only for past misdeeds but for the ones we can expect from his Freedom Watch outfit.
If you want to distrust the guy more than you already do, here are 10 reasons:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..%27s_Watch
John Dean has addressed this a while back. The impeachment of lower level officials so that they can not recycle themselves back into future administrations..the way Cheney, Fleisher, etc have.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html
Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President:
Why Not Have A Realistic Debate, with Charges that Could Actually Result in Convictions?
By JOHN W. DEAN
—-
Friday, Dec. 15, 2006
You say:
I have to ask: protect the President from what?
I mean, this is an administration which has, pretty uniformly since Day One:
(a) decided, by signing statements, to selectively decide which parts of laws really are laws,
(b) lived by the dictum that “if the President does it, it is not a crime”,
(c) decided that whole parts of the Constitution (like, e.g., Congress enumerated power to create uniform regulations for the Army and Navy) must give way to the superior, unemumerated and unlimited power of the Executive,
(d) and many, many more.
So, is this merely a case of, as the one pundit (I forget who) said the other day, that Bush’s intransigence, unwillingness to admit failure/defeat/error, and unwillingness to change are indicative of an executive who has no confidence in his own positions and/or competence for the job?
Or are there literal bodies buried out there (I’m thinking, today, in particular about the two missing children of KSM.) that will pop to the surface?
Many years ago, I worked in construction, doing soils engineering. One of the things one learns after looking at enough sites and dirt is that sooner or later everything which gets buried will work it’s way to the surface, no matter how deeply it’s buried. Had a truck tire pop its way to the surface through 8 or 9 feet of clean sand, once. But one could tell it was there several feet before it actually got to the surface. That, I think, is where we are now.
Nice analogy.
I think it’s similar to the torture revelation, in that we’ve known it’s true, but we’ve got to find a way to leverage the fact that Bush has been breaking the law to hide his own shameful behavior.
It’d help if Congress got more attentive though.
I think Nancy and Harry are bought and paid for. I like some others find it unlikely they will do anything.
The potential for criminal liability remains. In 2004, it was unclear what might follow revelations of executive misconduct, though the administration has worked non-stop to ensure that nothing followed it. But that success was not certain. You and EW are both right. The pattern of conduct has been both to subvert the government and law, and to protect itself from others who would undo that.
As Chou En-Lai remarked a few decades ago about the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell whether the Bush team’s gambits will work. Practically, that’s up to the next President and Congress. Lots of money, spin, threats and political obstruction will be thrown around in a real life version of Mortal Kombat.
Precisely. There would have been no point to de-classifying the NIE in this manner had they not intended to use it in some form of political payback in defense of their actions. This was early in an election year; the war and national defense were the chief planks of the campaign.
Wilson’s OpEd (and other OpEds and reporting that might follow it), and the Bush team’s inability, the lack of interest even, in occupying Iraq as effectively as they prosecuted the initial invasion, threatened to expose their flank. They wanted that threat done away with. This is not a team that rationally uses facts in open debate. They misuse them in gutting their opponents.
What did Bush think he was doing when he okayed the NIE leak? – silencing critics.
I doubt anyone bothered to tell Bush the particulars that they were going to “out” Valerie Plame, in particular.
But, that doesn’t really matter. Legally, when a Mafia Don orders his underlings to “take care of a problem”, and someone gets whacked, the Don still takes the fall under the standard interpretation of the criminal laws of conspiracy.
Bush can’t pardon himself. I still expect he’ll resign later this year, so Cheney can do that.
– Mark
I believe you are incorrect, I believe bush can do anything he wants, it will be up to us to say it stands or it does not stand
the supreme court will allow him to pardon himself, I am pretty certain of that
for instance if the president writes his own “exectutive order”, which says “in the interest of national interest I can issue myself a pardon but nobody else can”
No no. The way to work Pixie Dust is to take an executive order that says “White House trash must be picked up on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and after Pizza Parties” and reinterpret it to mean–without telling anyone–that it now means “The President can pardon himself.”
You gotta be creative when you’re throwing pixie dust.
aha, I was wondering how to get that pixie dust activated so nobody could see it
now I get it
Out of all of Valerie’s appearances about her book this is one of my favorites. Plame/Wilson with Bill Maher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vlE0s83_s
From Wexler’s website:
This is interesting.
I find it hard to believe that on the strength of being told this, Scooter would follow Cheney’s order. He would’ve needed something more substantial than Cheney’s word in a matter of such importance to the integrity of an operation concerned with the proliferation of WMD, putatively, the abiding preoccupation of the Junta.
Don’t you get it? They are all lying weasels who stop at nothing to keep their power…
Scooter would follow cheney into a flaming house made of dogshit if he was asked by the “Magic Man”.
HI MARCY! Thanks for everything you do.
Nice catch, EW … Wexler wants Scottie to appear before a hearing … could this be the one that sets Nancy’s table ?
I saw Meredith’s hatchet job on Scottie as payback for him ripping the MSM … can’t wait for him to appear on KO today.
Pelosi won’t do squat.
I agree but it would appear that Wexler has the bit ‘tween his teeth …
By all means:
Both she and Harry are busy setting the stage for the revival of the Republic brand.
If Bush is clearly thr source of the leak then the Libby pardon was a coverup , and as Kagro points out in email, impeachable as contemplated and written by James Madison.
Some things have been beyond obvious for a long time, like [1] the Bu’ush overt coverup here, and [2] the utter lack of stones of either Reid or Pelosi to act up on evidence of it.
Man your fingers are fast … my two points exactly …
Indeed. But there have been many documented transgressions prior to this — how is this sufficiently different to motivate Pelosi to restore the Constitution? I don’t see her acting in the public interest now or ever.
With all due respect to Kagro, tt always was; the thing lacking is the will to impeach, not the basis.
And remember, impeachment is a political, not legal, act. And politics being more about perception than action kept Nancy in 2006 from putting impeachment on the table.
The question now is does Mc’s book change the perception? Judging from the WH’s furious reaction, I think this is what it most fears-that the Rs in Congress and the corporate media will decide they’ve had enough of covering for Bush and a sacrificial head will have to be offered up.
Three guesses? Well, it won’t be Rove or Cheney. (Which, for some reason, reminds me of the Jim Baker quote to Bush, “Sit down and shut up. Everybody hates you!”)
IANAL, just one of “the People”, but that does seem to be a valid argument. Is it really this clear cut?
Oh, for a Congress able and willing to live up to its oath of office!
Congress, Congress, wherefore art thou?
Bob in HI
The narrative is still too complicated for ordinary people who have to worry about keeping their house and filling their tank to follow. The way it will play out is — so the President declassified the information. He’s president. He has a right to do that. We don’t know that he authorized leaking it. End of story. We know different, but it won’t matter. He’s going scot free.
Yep. Sadly.
I’d love to be proved wrong, but not optimistic.
Banish this bad habit of blaming the public for the media’s censorship. A jury followed the relatively unabridged version of this narrative. The public will have no trouble discerning the crimes and coverup here.
Adding to your points, I think Obama’s peeps will push for hearings on all of BushCo’s misdeeds this fall … would do wonders for the Dems in the GE …
That would probably drive far more people to the McCain camp than all current worst case scenarios would’ve predicted.
Um … huh ?
If by “people” you mean the press and other co-conspirators, you’re right.
Actually, I was thinking of the “of the people” people whose immediate concerns are not the disposition of the crooks currently in power.
I’m convinced that Obama will not attend to such minutiae during the general election, focussing instead on fundamental issues at a much higher level.
Republicans would portray Democrats as opportunists who are playing politics with mischaracterized past events and who are not addressing important issues of the moment. Democratic elected and party leadership are much too afraid of that line of criticism, but afraid they are, so formal proceedings of more than one kind have suffered or have never been commenced.
Jacqrat, In making my observation I was trying to imagine myself a high-powered lawyer in Libby’s situation.
I hate to be a party pooper. I’d like to see this come home to roost as much as anyone–the day Scooter got a pass from the Commuter In Chief I put another IMPEACH bumper sticker on my car, and it’s still there). But…
We don’t have Bush’s own confirmation, we have a second hand report, not under oath, not (to my knowledge) substantiated by any contemporaneous records, that he said the words “yeah, I did” in a context which might arguably make them a confirmation of complicity. That’s not a confession.
– MarkusQ
P.S. Even sadder, I sometimes suspect that he could come out and admit everything up to and even including ordering 9/11 on national TV and it would be a three day wonder, forgotten as soon as the next young blond girl, American Idle peon or flag pin goes missing.
The case grows stronger but we need a few more McClennans to come forth … don’t surrender now …
So, is Fitz able to take this matter up again or is it absolutely shut down? I’m unclear on that. Also, what do you think Fitz is thinking…let congress handle it first and then wait until after 1/20/09 or just foggetaboutit?
I wish there were evidence for that. I don’t think that’s the way things work in this country.
Scotty has left a flaming bag of sh*t at Bushco’s door step. We knew all this stuff, but the MSM has ensured than the average citizen does not. McCain’s support of a war that the US was most surely lied into engaging should damage McCain. Bad memes like the selling of the war are gaining traction now b/c of Scotty’s book.
We sure did know all of this stuff due to the reporting/writings of Marcy, Murray, Larissa,, Knight Ridder.
Marcy – your story – this story – is right now the top of the page story at HuffPo.
Part of the problem is that the public does not want to believe that a President and his administration could possibly be this bad. Yeah, they’ll watch shows on TV about this, but in real life it can’t happen.
Wow, great to see you connecting the dots again on all things plame EW. Don’t see much of Jodi in these parts anymore. Who scared her off? Was it finally freepat or did she just come to the pathetic conclusion of her insignificance?
No, after much struggle with my Beamish conscience, I banned her.
I wonder what loophole the OLC/Addington/Ashcroft/Yoo wrote for everybody on this
I don’t remember if McClellan was a witness of if he had any part in the Libby trial or Grand Jury testimony prior. Marcy, what do you have on this?
A few things are making more sense. For starters, Bush is not stupid. He is deeply ignorant, incurious, lazy, crude and boorish. But not stupid. He cares about very little, mostly protecting inherited and corporate wealth from the jihad of the Tax Man and The Regulator, and getting even in biblical excess for the smallest slights.
If a government lawyer or Cheney told him he could de-classify something at will, and that doing so would get back at his enemies, protect his self-image over his rationales for war and his success in Iraq, and would enhance his odds of winning “re-election” in 2004, he would not have hesitated for a moment. If so, it would further explain the concerted ReichWing attacks on Lil’ Scotty, because a helluva lot more than tittle tattling is going on.
The whisperer controlling Bush’s decisions, then and now, is Dick Cheney. Cheney hates the bureaucracy. He hates its merit-based aspirations and the myriad ways it subverts those to protect its favorites. He hates that its professionals sometimes refuse to tell him what he wants to hear the way sycophants do in a private company. He despises its potential to obstruct him. Personally, he would have destroyed Plame’s and Wilson’s careers in a heart beat. Substantively, he rarely agreed with the CIA’s analysis or conclusions, preferring Doug Feith’s “Team B” approach, regardless of how consistently wrong that advice has been. But Cheney is smart and he knew to put the President on the line instead of himself.
Bush may or may not have followed the logic of his own acts. He may not have seen beyond the goals of destroying Valerie Plame’s career and her husband’s credibility. (That, after all, was just payback, they were both in play.) He may not have seen that he was also undermining national security by jeopardizing Plame’s work and that of her network – and threatening the model used by the CIA for other covert ops. But I don’t think he cared. His priority is to win, and he’s never done it without bribing the ref or moving the goal posts, while making others bear the cost. And thinking ahead, except when planning payback, is not his strong suit.
As for McClellan, his self-image is as flawed as Bush’s. He didn’t become press secretary as a neophyte. He’d worked for Bush in and out of the White House. He’d seen Ari Fleischer work for years. He knew about the White House players’ professional lying and so knew he was doing the same thing every time he stepped on that podium.
Ignoring that, perhaps, is the price of shaving every day without smashing the mirror or misusing the razor. A good guy done wrong is also the staple of political and Hollywood career comebacks. We’re likely to hear it repeatedly as the Bush cohort tells us why it’s the Democrats who created all the problems the next administration will expose and try to fix. But this is a big one.
Nice post.
I have long referred to that vile prick Cheney as “the Bu’ush Whisperer.”
There’s a fascinating anecdote in The One Percent Doctrine – click here for the excerpt in question. Despite what the media portrait is of him, I think that Dubya is a nasty Class A asshole; I always find it fascinating that when these “tell all” books about Bushco come out they always have the writer stating what great respect they have for Bush as a person – keep this anecdote in mind when you hear that the next time.
Oh, Lil’ George is, indeed, a grade A dirt bag. There’s the famous scene at a public restaurant where he reamed out a colleague in front of his wife and young daughter, expletives definitely not deleted, over a petty slight to Shrub senior. The “excuse” was that he was still drinking, which ignores that alcohol doesn’t create the man, it releases his inhibitions (something he and McCain have learned to do with or without alcohol).
When it comes to self-protection, Shrub is all Old Testament: no grace, no pardon, no forgiveness, just fire and brimstone no matter how petty the perceived act of disloyalty or insubordination.
Lil’ Scotty had better look under the hood before he starts his car, have his lawyer’s card in his pants pocket and his tax filings all up to date. He’s on the list. Time doesn’t matter. Shrub waited seven years to get back at candidate Al Gore’s Florida elections lawyer (now being prosecuted by the local USA under a bizarre interpretation of a money laundering statute).
For the sake of completing the record, that journalist was Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, journaled, among other places here from 1999.
The drunken episode actually highlights another issue, i.e. whether he actually quit when he said he did (supposedly because he found Jesus when he turned 40).
Finally, it’s amazing to me that all of this information, that a lot of people bought into, was readily available to anyone who really wanted to look. A large minority of the American people just chose to ignore it.
The GWBush code of conduct looks like the motto “no better friend, no worse enemy” transmogrified to the minute personal level.
Bush is the quintessential ’schoolyard bully’ – he gets away/got away with what he does because he has not met up with someone who is as nasty as he is or as capable of the same tactics. I worked with two guys like this in my last job and one of them terrorized all the female staff members. He tried to get me fired in a staff meeting and was not disciplined by the boss. After the meeting, I stayed and tried to discuss it with the boss, who told me that I was making too much of it, to ‘kiss and make up’. I used the ‘f’ word with him(the door was shut) and told him that if this happened again, I was going to HR and lodging an official complaint. The boss laughed his head off – bullies recognize bullies – the only way to deal with a bully is to push back, as hard and as often as it happens. Otherwise, they just keep trying to beat you up to get you to knuckle under.
EOH, of all the comments that I’ve ever read, this is among the most insightful and I think you’ve nailed a spectrum of items. Especially the fact that –although easily distractible, GWB is probably not actually stupid. But his type of ‘boredom’ is a warning sign of serious problem.
Also agree that GWBush has repeatedly shown himself so obsessed at dealing out ‘payback’ that he may not have thought enough steps ahead to recognize the treachery of his actions for national security. Cheney, however, almost certainly did recognized the consequences, which is part of why its so interesting that he is/was willing to hang GWBush out to dry.
But this:
Best. Summary. Ever.
As for McClellan, he looks more animated, less robotic, and more cogent than he ever did when he worked for the WH. It’s a bit eerie, but watching him I have the sense that we’re seeing a profound personal transformation — a man trying hard to learn to claim his own soul. On that ground alone, I wish him godspeed — but that aspect of his interview(s) must also be incredibly threatening to those who can’t figure out how to create a life for themselves outside the veil of lies they’ve created.
On a purely personal level, it’s always encouraging to see another human being try to save his own soul. No question the BushBots will be driven wild with panic by the spectre.
It suggests that Scotty feels free to admit that not getting caught in a lie isn’t the same as telling the truth, something BushCheneyRove would never concede. As a good Gooper, however, doing so now pads his pocketbook. Whether his partial candor will ultimately be rewarding will depend on how Team Bush strikes back. They have an old-style Japanese sense of retribution: they don’t need to get back at Scotty today; getting back at his children or grandchildren tomorrow is even sweeter.
The fact that Team Bush went so instantly ballistic is telling.
Scotty scored several direct hits.
But his pocketbook is no affair of mine; if doing the right thing ends up making him money, I personally couldn’t care less, and I may even buy a copy. People make money in far worse ways.
Totally agree that for the BushBots, the cycle of retribution never ends.
Scotty knows, too bad it took him so long to demonstrate that he has a conscience. Is it the $$$$?
Been reading through everyones comments (all of those who know so much about the law). But from a peasants perspective it is so pitiful that a
congress investigated and impeached a President for lying under oath about a bj and yet a formerly Republican controlled Congress did not find it important enough to hold a President, Vice President, Libby, Rove, Fleisher for outing Plame. The Bush administration undermined U.S. National Security in ways that the public will never know about (well unless the next President de-classifies the Plame outing damage report).
How in the hell can Bush/Cheney get away with declassifying Plames identity? Hello Pelosi and Reid we are watching,calling, e-mailing and praying.
Lying under oath about a bj=Impeachment.
Lying about WMD intelligence 4000 Americans dying, over a million Iraqi’s dying, 4 million refugees ,purposely outing a NOC/Plame and undermining National Security =no problem.
What twisted, perverted and dangerous priorities many in congress continue to have. We know the Bush administration is beyond perverted and dangerous!
Delaying this news is why Bush pardoned Scooter.
Bush knew who the leaker was, because he authorized the leak.
Then he covered it up.
This kind of revelation could (SHOULD!) generate a Watergate syle firestorm, although given how lazy and intimated the press is, I doubt it.
Do you think the Democratic controlled Congress can be roused from their slumber to uphold their constitutional responsibilities? Highly unlikely with this group of posers.
It is late in the day to try for impeachment(and in the context of a political campaign, too distracting).
Fitz bringing new charges, though….I would LOVE that!
Distracting? You call holding the Republican’s feet to the fire with an election coming up distracting? I call it gold in them thar hills.
Bob in HI
Toobz clogged. Pls snd plmmr.
EW, this has probably been asked before, but what would be the mechanism to mount a legal challenge to the pixie dust theory? I realize one route is through a new AG undertaking a thorough weeding of OLC opinions, but is there some way to start getting the bad opinions tossed earlier than that? How exposed would Bush and his minions be if it can be shown that they actively demanded OLC opinions to cover them for known past and future intended illegal acts?
Simply put, when Bush said “If there’s a leak in my adminstration, I’d like to know who did it.” It was the very beginning of HIS cover-up. His minions, mooks and monkeys then did whatever was needed to protect him.
-G
You can’t
make me confesshandle the truth !Reading the comments on the Politico web site is trully demoralizing. So many bloggers attacking any criticism of Bush and the Administration. The 28 percenters are sure a busy lot.
Prolly all those Pentagon Generals or their minions …
They are only stoking the fires of contempt against themselves. The public is in no mood to seek rationalisations and excuses for Bush’s misdeeds.
The lead lemming is in mid air and the legions are rushing towards the cliff chirping “bring it on”.
-G
It’s hard to see anything shaking Bush’s “vindication of history” delusion. Hopefully, the Republics pay for years for having foisted him on this nation.
emptywheel, you are George W. Bush’s worst nightmare, and his com(anti)patriots too.
That’s why I think reading Marcy and FDL is how Karl Rove knows what “lefty bloggers” sound like. Surely he is a regular lurking reader here.
With all the prosecutions being lined up here, Scotty should be included as admitted aider and abetter, I expect.
Is there anything Bush hasn’t lied about?
He can’t remember.
Um … the twins ? *g*
yes
I forget the exact phrase but something like
“our enemies are always looking for ways to harm america and so are we”
that wasn’t a lie
lol, how could i forget that one *rolls eyes*
(((Quaker gilr)))
I meant (Quaker girl)
(((QuakerGirl)))
Nice work!
((((( Quaker Girl )))))
Jane’s upstairs.
But Bush wants the truth and thinks that it is helpful that Scotty came forward.
Thanks EW for this post. I have a question about McClellan’s book. Did he have to get permission from the President to publish it? I can’t help wondering about the timing of this book coming out. I keep getting the feeling that someone is pulling a fast one on all of us. Or perhaps it is just a fatigue from so much lying this bunch have done.
I like Vincent Bugliosi’s take on GWB. Charge him with murder. His arguments are compelling and he has contacted prosecutors across the country hoping one has the courage to look at the evidence and charge him accordingly. Add treason to the list of charges.
It’s a PR stunt by Bugliosi, an man famous for PR stunts; his argument is full of shit.
Do you have a link for that?
Jon Tester at FDL now
Waxman requested information by letter, but I don’t recall him issuing a subpeona. You link didn’t work for me, so I’m clueless about what you are referring to.
patFitz could not legally turn over GJ docs on his own just to repsond to a letter.
If he was served with a subpeona, PatFitz could go to court and make a motion to have the docs tured over to resond to the subpeona.
A mere request ain’t gonna cut it.
This link?
http://oversight.house.gov/doc…..104132.pdf
Thanks tw3K. I’m having major toobz problems today. That is what I tried to link to at 57.
LHP – I believe that Henry believes that he can have the Bush and Cheney interviews specifically because they were not GJ testimony and therefore not subject to the same rules.
Its nt as clear cut as that. If the “voluntary” interview was in repsonse to a GJ subpeona and the transcript was later presnted to the GJ and never disclosed elsewhere, it might still need a court order.
If it were me, I would err on the side of court order, especailly since Waxman’s gonna need one for hte rest of the stuff anyway.
Yes thank you. See it’s a letter following up on another letter.
Big Hank needs to send an actual subpeona.
Ya think? Because i sure do.
Given BushCo’s inclination to ignore subpoenas, would they be able to prevent the release of the transcripts if they are subpoenaed or does Fitz retain control himself in such a way that he could release them under a subpoena?
As long as his office is open, and I believe it nominally still is, he should retain his own full set of files I would think.
And he would be free to turn them over then?
If properly subpoenaed, yes I think so.
Well then, time to give Mr. Waxman a phone call…
Thanks bmaz, that is mighty encouraging news!
Hi Phred. Football season is over can we be friends again (snark, obviously).
We are all still friends; the Green Bay Favres would have whupped the pretty boy cheaters too!
Omigosh… hitting below the jock strap
That was snarky. I retract even though said in total trash talk jest.
I knew it was snark….
I should have put a grin to my comment…
Actually, it was pretty funny…
The Pats do deserve a quick kick…
I wish KO had asked Scotty what he thought of Bush’s commuting Libby’s sentence…
Hiya BSRH — where you been??? Nice to see you around these parts, and I promise I’ll be nice even during the football season (to you anyway, not necessarily the Patsies ; )
Hey, looks like maybe us ‘lefty bloggers’ aren’t the only ones with raised eyebrows. I’m not familiar with whether it’s unusual for MSNBC to have on an interview with Matt Cooper at midday, but they have an interview with Cooper re: the Plame Case, and the date of this interview is today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..9#24879213
Enjoy.
I have a serious problem with the president being able to at will declassify anything
as far as I am concerned he can declassify only info he himself classified in the first place
Try this one on for size.
Jeff Gannon reappeared on the scene. Today on JeffGannon.com:
Really, Jeff?
Are you lying?
Are you suggesting a gay affair?
Or are you suggesting you are a plant?
The first two I’ll let slide, but the third, well, back to 2005 Vanity Fair…
Remember, this is 2005. This is before the public knew of the DOD-propaganda military bloggers program which was recently uncovered. Was Gannon a prong of that program? Is that why McClellan would know him so well?
If Gannon is talking about the Pentagon propaganda program, then it was started “sometime near the beginning of 2001.”
On February 27, 2001 Qwest was asked to participate in the NSA call database.
OT, but an interesting question. The NYT David Kirkpatrick — in an adulatory front-page story that could have been written by one of McCain’s lobbyists — reports that St. John the Divine turned down an admiral’s star in 1981, because he wanted to go into politics.
Several earlier discussions here revolved around McCain not getting his star, raising questions about his judgment and capacity to lead, as a reason for leaving the Navy. Anyone have the scoop?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05…..ref=slogin
Earl, I don’t know that it was that simple, but I think that is probably effectively correct. He was a returned hero, and had been working on the East Coast/ Washington as some sort of liaison. The next step up, which likely would have occurred sooner or later, was to a one star. I don’t know that it was on the table at that moment; it is possible….
We’ve had several discussions on the topic. I was surprised at the Kirkpatrick article’s assertions, which clearly responded to the widespread belief that McCain was not in line for his star. His lead sentence makes the claim that then Navy Sec. Lehman promised McCain his star, but St. John turned him down. He mentions other unnamed top Navy officers as supporting the claim, so it must be a question even Villagers are pondering.
Kirkpatrick’s article is unreservedly pro-McCain. He quotes criticisms of him by named Navy officers – as a senate liaison for the Navy, McCain was good at keeping senators supplied with booze in Arab countries and knew where they’d parked their cars in the DC (implying that having imbibed too much alcohol, they wouldn’t remember themselves) – as if they were strong recommendations of McCain’s character.
He quotes a Navy psychiatrist’s concern over McCain’s self-confidence, wondering whether he could live up to his father’s (and grandfather’s) superlative Navy careers. He then claims that McCain’s hero’s welcome on being released from POW camp “resolved” all that. Kirkpatrick doesn’t seem to have inquired, and doesn’t mention, whether those five and a half years of torture as a POW scarred him mentally.
Kirkpatrick also describes as a positive attribute McCain’s early lobbyist behavior. McCain went behind the back of the President and his Navy Secretary to lobby Congress successfully for building another carrier. Congress overrode Carter’s veto of the carrier deal. As a Navy captain and senate liaison, McCain’s behavior was insubordinate and unethical at best. He should have been cashiered. Instead, he was purportedly offered a star, but only after Reagan had won the White House. Kirkpatrick uses the story to tell us St. John knows how to get things done in Washington.
Something tells me McCain has long known the power of lobbying and is in love with every inch of it, democracy and legal authority be damned. That’s why his campaign and senate staff are choked with lobbyists. Why would his White House be different?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05…..=1&hp
What I found quite interesting at the NYT was the way they described WH reaction to Scotty McK’s book:
[italics mine]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05…..ttcnd.html
One would almost get the sense that the NYT and it’s reporters are fed up with the WH spin, spin, spin looking at the fact that they point out efforts by the WH to frame Scotty as ‘unhinged’ and ‘crazy’, and that they’re all — surprise!! — saying the same damn thing, even down to the same words.
Score 1 point for the NYT.
Always good to see the media show a little disgust at Bu$hCo efforts to play them like a kazoo.
There is no way with the current Dem power players that impeachment or any other form of holding Bushco accountable will happen. They are complicit and did not object to anything said or done by Bush as has been pointed out by many others.
But add to that the certainty that bushco controls all the various leaders. Dems, Rethugs, Judges, and especially Media. The TSP/TIA was never about foreign threats it was always about bushco threats. The want control of votes more than they want specific ideology in place. They want message control. They want every little legal issue assigned to Judge Bates because he is one of them or is controlled by Blackmail. Its all raw power with these people
According to Arianna, the Secret Service code name McClennan was Matrix. And they say that the Secret Service doesn’t has a sense of humor.
McClellan=Matrix
I don’t get the joke. Explain to me please.
I hope KO has John Dean on, after Scotty.
BSL, did you know that John Dean spoke at the ACLU dinner in Boston last night? I can’t help wondering whether McClellan is following in his footsteps…
Thanks. I wasn’t aware of his appearance.
On McClellan morphing Dean:
“There’s hope in’t yet.”
Anthony and Cleopatra, III.xiii
It was regrettably brief, I wish he had much more time than the 15 minutes he was allotted. I bet he would be a fascinating guy to chew over politics for a few hours with a pint or two in hand.
Thanks for the great quote. As my mother would say… hope springs eternal…
Matt Cooper, formerly of Time and current husband of Mandy Gruenwald shaper of the Clinton campaign message, says he emailed Assistant US Attorney Randall Samborn Public Information Officer
for all things Fitzie asking them if Scottie Mc Come VEry Damn Lately’s statements or book would prompt them to finish the investigation that they left unfinished, and they received an AUSA’s favorite comment which was “No Comment.”
Fitzie’s watching that Rezko jury get hung.
Man did I pick the wrong day to catch up on sleep. Sorry of any of this is redundant as I haven’t fully caught up on the comments thread yet, but:
(1) In addition to going ad hominem on Mr. McClellan (always a sign the other side’s winning, right?), news story suppression is something else we might start to see. For example, and downright weirdly, the CNN.com home page at the moment shows zero stories on McClellan. There are 2 blurbs for upcoming appearances on CNN (tomorrow), but no actual reporting. W.T.F.??!! Freak chance, or start of a trend?
(2) Also: Good gawd, I’ve been fervently hoping some Admin insider would find their inner conscience, but I never ever thought little Scotty McClellan would be 2008 for John Dean.
(3) Poor John Dean, to have little Scotty McClellan’s name forever after tied to his…
Oh, and very importantly:
(4) Let us not forget the basics: Impeach Cheney first! With Iran in play, at least potentially, we do not want President Cheney unchecked by the Establishment R’s that hover around Team W.
That freeze-out of McClellan is yet another sign of the media going nuclear winter on itself.
Finally, one of them figured it out, that if everybody chased the same 49% marketshare, there was 52% left for somebody else to take on their own. NBC finally went after the 52%, which may be growing quickly.
However, this might also be GE prepping NBC for sale…boost its performance to push up the price, yes?
From a blog post I made a while ago:
WHEN, SCOTTIE?
On July 18, 2003, Scott McClellan said this to the WH press reporters:
MR. McCLELLAN: No, well, we always want to share facts with the American people. And this information was just, as of today, officially declassified, and it was an opportunity to share with them some information that showed the clear and compelling case that we had for confronting the threat that Saddam Hussein posed.
The information referred to is the newly unclassified portions of the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. Not only did Libby learn of this new information 10 days before, BooMan makes it crystal clear that Judith Miller was told way back in Sept. 2002. (See also here)
Marcy, did you know your post got picked up in the headlines @ Raw Story?
Read the post but haven’t read all the comments, so please forgive if this was already brought up.
Here is an article about the SC construct as it was designed in 1999 by NKatyal, though the Ashcroft then Comey then Fitzgerald way of creating Fitzgerald’s mandate differed, evidently substantially.
I don’t agree with your logic here. The Shooter could have just told the Convict, “Leak the NIE and betray Plame.” The Convict could have said, “Betray Plame? But…that’s treason!” And then the Shooter could have said, “Let me clear it with the ‘President’”. He then could have asked Bush, “Can I leak a bunch of classified information to the press?” And Bush could have said, “Whatever. Now watch this drive!” And then Scottie could’ve had the exchange that he had with Bush. And frankly, I think this scenario is much more likely than Bush paying any attention to the details of the Plame betrayal.
You did see this, didn’t you?
I there’s a number of reasons to believe Bush did know–the meat grinder note and the he’s “Comfortable” note. But I do leave his not knowing what–specifically–Cheney leaked as a possibility.
That’s entirely possible, but I also think that Bush may not have have even realized that he was declassifying ANYTHING in his conversation with Cheney. Or that Cheney never asked Bush about it at all, and just “reminded” Bush later on that he (Bush) had signed off on the whole scheme.
Fair enough. You’re saying that when Bush said, “yeah I did,” it was a throwaway, or something he said to protect Dick?
It’ll still take an investigation to get to the bottom of it, and Scotty’s Tale sure seems like enough of a lead to get one started.
He knew
http://blog.washingtonpost.com…..pened.html
So when did the “declassify” come in. I remember hearing on NPR when they announced Cheney’s ability to declassify. But not exactly when or why.
FWIW, pow wow’s super post about the Rule 6(e) exception.
And that is exactly what we have been saying here for a very long time
Well, this is the validation we have been waiting for. I think we have all suspected that it went all the way to the top for a long time. For me, it was when Bush hired the criminal lawyer right as the story broke. I figured as facts were coming out so planned and obviously orchestrated that Bushco was in full cover up mode from that point forward. I wonder, if Bush told Fitz this in his interview???
Is it settled yet? Can he or can’t he.
I nominate Marcy for a Pulitzer Prize for invesigative reporting.
Thanks…
EW,bmaz,probst,
Can Nancy by law be forced to bring proceedings againt Bush/Chney,Libby?
Spelling Chaney
No
I think the best we can hope for is for Pelosi to *silently* remove her block on impeachment proceedings by the HJC, privately telling Conyers he can open proceedings in his House Judiciary Committee, but she will not necessarily allow a vote on the floor of the House on whatever the HJC decides to send to the floor. Right now, what we need most, is a good HJC airing of impeachment issues, and a public record, including public hearings, on all the perversions of the Constitution perpetuated by the Bush-Cheney Gang, to establish the facts. Of course, they’re not really legal facts, IMHO, until the House as a whole sez they are.
My understanding is that impeachment differs from a Grand Jury indictment in that a conventional indictment alleges violations, which become facts only when the jury returns its verdict. On the other hand, my understanding of impeachment is that the House determines what the facts are, and then the Senate’s job is whether the facts merit removal from office.
Is this correct?
Bob in HI
First off, the key to everything else is the opening of an official impeachment investigation. If Pelosi permits that, that is almost half the battle, because that triggers a different and heightened level of investigatory abilities, and removes certain protections, defenses and privileges that could otherwise block such an inquiry. Beyond that, it is analogous to a criminal investigation in that one yields an indictment, the other yields articles of impeachment; but they are both charging documents evincing the known facts, allegations and offenses charged as a result. There is then a trial; in one case in court, in the other in the Senate. A conviction on either establishes guilt.
bmaz,
Thanks for the reply. I’m still wondering, however, at what point a “count” in an indictment, or an “article” of impeachment, legally becomes a “fact.”
It is my understanding that a count of an indictment does not legally become a fact until the jury says so. Of course, if a jury decides the defendent is “not guilty” of a count, that doesn’t mean the count wasn’t true, but only that the evidence is insufficient (e.g., OJ’s trial).
In impeachment, however, each “article” of impeachment has to be voted on first by the authorized committee (e.g., the HJC), and then by the House as a whole. We can equate the HJC (or a select committee appointed for the purpose) with a Grand Jury, but does a Congressperson carry more weight than a citizen on a GJ?
Second, if the entire House approves an article of impeachment, is this not a far higher level of evaluation than a GJ indictment? That’s why I’m wondering if, legally speaking, an article of impeachment approved by the House as a whole is regarded as more “factual” than a count of indictment by a GJ.
Inquiring minds want to know, but IANAL.
Bob in HI
I think it was a throwaway, and I think he said it because his ego will never let him admit–even in private–that Cheney has been running the show for the last 8 years.
1) There is a difference between a fact and a count in an indictment (or impeachment article for that matter). A crime, or charge, is something that either statutorily, or legislatively in the case of impeachment, is considered for the purposes intended to comprise an offense against the public. There will for any given crime or charge be requisite elements that comprise the same and are necessary to be established beyond the burden of proof in order for a finding of guilty to be made. Facts are adduced in the form of evidence to so establish those elements. But, overall, a finding of guilty establishes only that the person is indeed guilty for that crime charged. After such a finding sometimes the facts associated with particular elements of the specific charge may be argued as having been conclusively established by the finding of guilt; say for instance if the murder was in the library, you could say it has been established as a fact the defendant was in the library, because conviction of that crime means he had to have been in the library. The collateral use of “facts” established by convictions can be tricky though. Bottom line; they are two different concepts.
I think a congressperson voting on whether to issue articles of impeachment is directly analogous to a grand juror voting on an indictment; there are just a lot more of them. To the best of my knowledge, articles of impeachment are not more powerful than an indictment; they are both charging documents. Different types of charging documents, but charging documents nevertheless.
Huh. I wonder whether anyone will be able to dig up a video clip of the reporter — wonder who it was? — yelling the question to Scotty.
For that matter, I wonder whether Air Force 1 has a recording system on board and whether the tapes from that date can be subpoenaed. …Nixon time loop!
Wooo, look at those Diggs pile up —15 since I started reading!
I think EW’s got him: he did it, alright. It’s almost one of those things where he really wants us to know, like the Jessup character, but too many nervous folks’ fortunes are attached to his, so we see and hear a lot of scrambling about in the background.
As for Scotty, I too found myself thinking of John Dean this morning. Actually what I was thinking was that so far McClellan’s situation legally is not nearly so difficult, though in other respects it might be as bad or worse; the crowd he’s dealing with have less compunction than a lot of folks. But he sounded more genuine than he ever did at the WH, so maybe he’s really trying his best. And if so, then maybe that feeling of relief will get addictive.
It’s going to be an interesting summer, that will make (sort of) or finish breaking this Congress.
I think Scotty is trying to face his mistakes and should be given the benefit of the doubt..
Sometime standing up takes time, but he is standing up against the ‘White House Gang’. He knows these people personally, they are Not nice guys. That took courage, so good on you Scotty ..
Strayhorn says son Scott McClellan tried to quit White House job earlier
http://www.dallasnews.com/shar…..37509.html
EW, from your March 30th, 2006 Next Hurrah post: Bush Knew:
So, aside from the leaking of Plames identity, which I cannot recall if she was listed as introducing the meeting members in a CIA doc, or was that also included in the NIE? anyway, aside from that, the fact remains, and I guess this is what SM is trying to get out there, perhaps to forstall a new move from this Administration to go into Iran, is that Bush KNEW, and lied to the American people.
did we, or SSCI ever see a copy of the NIE Summary?
Because it would be a way to distribute in short form to the public what Bush knew.
I don’t believe anyone ever got it. THe big thing on that summary was the objections on the aluminum tube story. Remember, at that point, the tubes, and not the uranium, were the basis of the uranium claim.
i have been away for far too long,
and i appear here, far too late — way
way down in EPU-topia — but i’ve
decided to help us all to remember
what george bush sr. — bush 41 — had
to say to us (not long after his own
son pardoned scooter libby, for some
of the above crimes) about people like. . .
his son, and dick cheney, apparently.
take a look — a one minute video clip,
from my own july 2007 archives. . .
and, keep on keepin’ on!
way to go, EW!
700-plus diggs!