Waxman Still after Fitz’s FBI Files

/in /by

Well, it turns out that Waxman has been no happier than we are about Bush obstructing justice pardoning commuting Libby’s sentence. Turns out he asked Fitzgerald for his FBI files (that is, testimony not before the Grand Jury and therefore not subject to secrecy laws) back in July, not long after the commutation. But Bush won’t let him have the files. So now Waxman has sent Mukasey a letter asking for some help getting the files.

I’ll update this shortly, once I make sure the new digs are working…

[Shew, they’re working]

So here’s the key detail from Waxman–defining what he wants, and what he has already gotten:

Transcripts, reports, notes, and other documents relating to any interviews outside the presence of the grand jury of any of the following individuals:

  • President George W. Bush
  • Vice President Dick Cheney
  • Andrew Card
  • Stephen Hadley
  • Karl Rove
  • Dan Bartlett
  • Scott McClellan

Since the Committee’s letter was sent on July 16, Mr. Fitzgerald and his staff have cooperated with the Committee’s investigation and have produced a number of responsive documents to the Committee. Among the documents that Mr. Fitzgerald has produced to the Committee are "FBI302 reports" of interviews with CIA and State Department officials and other individuals.

So, let’s see here. George Bush won’t let Waxman get the details of the (rumored to be contentious) interviews with Dick and Bush. Nor will he let us have evidence of Karl Rove’s first story–before it became his second story and then his third story. And Stephen Hadley, who was definitely in the middle of things the week of the leak (you know–he’s the guy who told Libby that Bush "was comfortable" with the response to Wilson after they had begun to leak Valerie Wilson’s identity)? Well, Bush doesn’t want Waxman to have that either.

But I’m just as interested that Fitz already has turned over the CIA and State files. That means Waxman–and surely Tom Davis, no stranger to leaking if it suits his political agenda–have already seen Richard Armitage’s first interview with the FBI. Haven’t heard any triumphant details of that interview leaking out, somehow.

Two names are notably absent from this list. Ari Fleischer, and David Addington. I think in both cases, there was no substantive interview until we got to the grand jury stage. In Ari’s case, it’s because he shut up until he knew he could incriminate Libby and probably others. In Addington’s case, I think it’s because no one realized he had substantive testimony about Bartlett telling him that Cheney was forcing Scottie McC to exonerate Libby publicly until much later in the process.

Two more points.

First, understand the scope of this. As Waxman explains, he’s only asking for details of interviews not conducted in front of the grand jury. Anything conducted in front of the grand jury is protected by grand jury secrecy; anything before that (like early FBI interviews) or not conducted before the grand jury (like Dick and Bush’s interviews in June 2004, after both had lawyered up) is "fair game." There’s a delicious irony in this last bit, since it means that the deference Fitz showed to Bush and Dick–by letting them avoid the stress of a grand jury appearance–is precisely what would make their interview transcripts accessible here.

Also, remember the logic to Waxman’s inquiry. He’s investigating how it was that Valeie Wilson’s identity was leaked, but none of things that are supposed to happen happened–like internal investigations and the removal of the security clearance from those who have not fulfilled the terms of their Non-Disclosure Agreements (Rove would qualify, as would Armitage). So his request is going to be somewhat more narrow than it might otherwise be, since he claims to be interested primarily in why BushCo just sat on its hands after Valerie Wilson’s cover was ruined.

image_print
    • TeakWoodKite says:

      I am reading “Anatomy of Deceit”
      and you site Walter Pincus and Mike Allen (p69 #123; October 4, 2003) Regarding Novack’s mention of Brewster and Jennings being confirmed to Pincus and Allen by “two anonymous administration officials”, who also had at thier fingertips, “copies of Valerie’s W2 form’s” …as confirmation of Novack’s story..
      Question 1: Who were the “two anonymous administration officials”? You do not say.
      Question 2: What the F$#@ where they doing with Valerie’s W2?
      Does that not show “intent”??
      Has this ever come out in court testimony?

    • emptywheel says:

      Well, I’m going to move here permanently. I’ll do a longer post over there explaining my decision–partly it was that I wanted a pretty place, partly that having my own place facilitates the process of asking for money, partly it’s that, with almost everyone over there front-paging at the Big Orange, the community side of it had disappeared. No ill-will at all, just time to move on and build a site of my own.

      • coral says:

        Great news about the move. I love the look of the site and the link with Firedoglake, one of my favorites.

        • Ann in AZ says:

          Funny thing, someone on FDL just mentioned this morning that they would prefer that the background was “less white” and viola, your site is a little easier on the eyesight because it’s not such a glaring white. Nice look for your new blog, EW. Good to see you here.

  5. Smgumby says:

    But is there any indication Mukasey will be helpful? I can’t imagine he would be the AG if Bushco thought there was any chance of that. Party before country people!

    • emptywheel says:

      Well, I think it depends on how persuasive Waxman’s argument to Mukasey is. IMO it’s pretty persuasive–he cites the number of Clinton WH people (including Clinton and Gore) whose files Janet Reno turned over. So if he doesn’t turn over the files, Mukasey will risk looking worse than Janet Reno right off the bat.

  7. Petedownunder says:

    G’day Marcy –

    Nice new premises. Keep up the great work. I’d love to stay but work calls.

  9. LS says:

    Congratulations EW!!!

    The Waxman/Fitz news is great. So, d’ya think Mukasey will resign when the WH refuses to allow him to release what he legally should release??? /s

  10. IrishJIm says:

    Congrats on the new move. Thank you for all of your hard work around this. You have a great ability of taking very complicated and nuanced information and presenting in a manner that is easily understood. Kudos.

    BTW, did you happen to see yet another incident of this administration invoking Secrecy?

    This refrences Abramaoff visits to the WH. Is it just me or is this adminstration the most corrupt and obstructionist in modern day history?

    • Smgumby says:

      “Is it just me or is this adminstration the most corrupt and obstructionist in modern day history?”

      Well I don’t want to speak out of school… …but it ain you.

  11. emptywheel says:

    Irish Jim

    I’m working around to a post on that. The implications are mighty interesting, as it’s not just a simple secrecy invocation. Normally, when you invoke secrecy that way, you do so to protect ongoing investigations. So while I’m skeptical this is the case, you coudl argue (and I plan to, hopefully later today) that it may well mean the ABramoff investigation reaches into the WH.

    LS

    Nice thing about this is that Bush doesn’t OWN the files. I know that Judge Reggie (lifetime appointment and none too happy about the commutation) owns a lot of them. In any case, since possession is 9/10 of the law, if Mukasey supports their release (and it really does look like a valid request, by any standards) Bush might not be able to prevent the release of these.

    • looseheadprop says:

      The judge doesn’t “own” the investigations files. The Office of the SPecial Prosecutor does.

      It is the court who unseals them, but they are owned by Fitzgerald

        • looseheadprop says:

          The Prosutor’s case file belongs to the prosecutor. The FBI has it’s own case file, but pretty much everything in will also be copied to the prosecutor’s case file. The FBI file will have some other administrative stuff about agent assignments and disbursments and might have some 302’s of inteviews that didn’t turn up anything.

          But pretty much the whole FBI file will be duplicated inthe prosecution’s file, plus the GJ stuff, plus any other stuff (interviews, documents tured over voluntarily in response to a oral or writtin [letter] request, correspondence and pre-trial litigation materials) will be in the prosecutor’s file.

          If you are smart about how much you GJ paoers vs. getting info other ways, you can have a great deal of material that you can share if you choose.

  14. ReneND says:

    CH-CH-Changes. My favorites list is getting out of hand. This is a welcome surprise and I love that I didn’t have to register again. You’re the best.
    Carry on.

  15. KestrelBrighteyes says:

    Congratulations on the new place Marcy!

    Nice article. I’m curious to see Mukasey’s reactions too – not holding out much hope that he won’t tow the party line on this, but stranger things have happened.

  16. radiofreewill says:

    Now this is a step in the right direction!

    Excellent!

    The Lake might just turn out to be a DFH Cyber Multi-plex after all…

    Congrats Marcy and Jane, and all Firepups everywhere!

    This is progress!

  19. perris says:

    it means that the deference Fitz showed to Bush and Dick–by letting them avoid the stress of a grand jury appearance–is precisely what would make their interview transcripts accessible here.

    is it possible fitz was that intuitive to know they would loose their grand jury immunity by allowing them to avoid the grand jury?

    but what differance does it make marcy, since both cheney and bush are simply going to declare state secrets

    • FrankProbst says:

      it means that the deference Fitz showed to Bush and Dick–by letting them avoid the stress of a grand jury appearance–is precisely what would make their interview transcripts accessible here.

      is it possible fitz was that intuitive to know they would loose their grand jury immunity by allowing them to avoid the grand jury?

      but what differance does it make marcy, since both cheney and bush are simply going to declare state secrets

      I don’t think it worked that way. I think Fitz really was trying to be deferential and didn’t want to drag the President and the Veep in front of a grand jury. The rumor that’s been going around for a while is that the Cheney interview was fairly tense, which is pretty believable to me.

      • looseheadprop says:

        Frank the rumor going around is that the interview was so loud it could be heard all the way down the other end of the hallway. Or so says someone who down the other end of the hallway that day.

        • FrankProbst says:

          Frank the rumor going around is that the interview was so loud it could be heard all the way down the other end of the hallway. Or so says someone who down the other end of the hallway that day.

          Sounds like a pretty good rumor.

        • looseheadprop says:

          Which is why I have been drooling for the rest of the details ever since. It has literally kept me up some nights. I wonder who did the yelling (I assume Cheney, but was it only him?)

    • emptywheel says:

      It is possible. THough I suspect these things were a genuine balancing game for him.

      But I also think they’ll have a tougher time invoking state secrets on this. Congress has a legitimate right to know if the WH is breaking its own classification guidelines. And it’s not like any of this could be declared a secret for security reasons.

      We don’t want you to know how we out our spies because then Al Qaeda will know how we might out our spies in the future.

  20. FrankProbst says:

    I’m dying for the Cheney interview. I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut that he said, “I’m Dick Cheney. I can do whatever the fuck I want.”

  21. mkls says:

    Hooray for your new digs — especially that now you can ask for our support. Your analysis — and the analysis of others who comment — illuminate stories in a way that you just wouldn’t see in the press. And your ability to keep a story going — along with a timeline — I’m sure is feeding the media to come up with their own leads, tips and analysis. (Plus live-blogging of hearings and trials.) Thanksgiving is over — but you’re one of the people I give thanks for!

  22. mkls says:

    PS I get a “404″ when I try to “support this site” — hope it’s one of the next things you guys work out at FDL

  23. Jeff says:

    Congrats, this is awesome. Love the colors – so that’s what an empty wheel looks like! Who knew.

    My initial reaction to the news that the Committee already has 302s from CIA and State interviews was, “Great, we’re gonna get to see and learn a lot more eventually,” which presumably is true. But I wonder what kind of arrangement they came to on the question of publishing or not publishing information on innocent accused, or whatever they’re called, like Armitage and Rove and Cheney. Will Waxman be able to publicly disclose anything beyond the already existing public record on those people’s conduct?

    As for Addington, it’s true it seems he wasn’t questioned substantively until the grand jury stage, but he was interviewed by the FBI on February 12, 2004 and there was a 302 prepared and dated February 26. So either this was an oversight by Oversight, or it’s clear that for some reason his interview falls outside the scope of what Oversight is doing.

    Finally, note that it’s not just CIA and State people whose 302s Waxman has seen, it’s also “other individuals.”

    • emptywheel says:

      My guess as to who those “others” are:
      Novak?
      Joe’s friend
      Wolfowitz (remember the investigation moved to DOD on the same day it moved to State)

      I hope hope hope they also got Hohlt’s interview, and also the results of the search of his house if it was indeed his house they searched.

      Also, I wonder if they’re going to discover 302s from Bolton and Fleitz that Bolton claimed didn’t exist?

      • Jeff says:

        Makes sense, though I was assuming there were no other government agencies involved (e.g. Wolfowitz), since Waxman enumerates CIA and State alone. It also occurred to me that maybe the Wilsons’ interviews were involved. Where does the info about someone’s house, such as Hohlt’s, being searched come from?

        • emptywheel says:

          Hmm. I’ll have to look to find a cite. But there was a report that a private citizen’s house was searched in December 2003. There MIGHT be a reference to it being Hohlt. If not, then assume I’m just talking outtamyarse, figuring it’s probably either him or Matalin.

    • phred says:

      Maybe we can get freepatriot to upgrade to bottles from his unfortunate affection for leaky boxes, eh? We want to keep the new place tidy afterall

    • skdadl says:

      Did you get the sheets out of the dryer, WO?

      Congratulations, EW, on the new place. This is terrific. And you’ve started us off with our very most favourite story. Well done.

  25. SanderO says:

    Marcy this is all about these SOBs using legal maneuvers to avoid facing the law.

    The term lawyered up is pretty offensive even though it implies that the person lawyering up is about to engage in some of these legal maneuvers to avoid facing the law.

    I blame lawyers for making this so arcane and complex and essentially easy to game when you have deep pockets.

    • FrankProbst says:

      Marcy this is all about these SOBs using legal maneuvers to avoid facing the law.

      The term lawyered up is pretty offensive even though it implies that the person lawyering up is about to engage in some of these legal maneuvers to avoid facing the law.

      I blame lawyers for making this so arcane and complex and essentially easy to game when you have deep pockets.

      I’m going to disagree with you here. I think the law has worked fairly well in this case. And the system really wasn’t all that “easy to game”. Scooter Libby (the point man) was convicted of four felony counts and sentenced to 30 months in jail. Yes, the President abused his pardon power to commute Libby’s sentence, but that’s something that Congress could (if it had any backbone) address via impeachment. Most of the key information about a supposedly uncrackable case is now in the public record, and Waxman is going after the remaining secret documents. So this whole thing isn’t over yet.

    • burnspbesq says:

      Those “legal maneuvers” you are unhappy about are precisely the same maneuvers you would hope and expect your own counsel to undertake on your behalf if you were ever the subject of a criminal investigation.

  28. Loo Hoo. says:

    Marcy! Congratulations on being “in” the best network on the internets! What a wonderful surprise.

  33. FrankProbst says:

    One of the more fascinating things about this case is that, when he’s not ducking and bobbing, Rove continues to lie about his role in it. He continues to claim that all he did was say something along the lines of “I heard that, too.” That’s a flat-out lie. He was the first person to betray Plame’s identity to Matt Cooper. Now that the media is calling bullshit on his Tom-Daschle-made-Bush-attack-Iraq line, I don’t why they can’t hit him on this, too.

  34. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Would this be a good time for me to copy a little item that I’ve been keeping for awhile…

    Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the
    importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson.

    Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 20 of 39

    Time for a little ‘institutional hygiene’ and Waxman seems like a great person to take it on. Now, let’s just hope the other Dems on the committee put in the time required to show up prepared to those committee meetings and hearings.

    My favorite line in the passage above: getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval

    Mwahahahahahah….

  35. BayStateLibrul says:

    To put all this in perspective: It is a criminal conspiracy to obstruct
    justice, it just hasn’t happened it… (the criminal conspiracy indictment)
    I’m having a Watergate flashback

  36. FrankProbst says:

    Just finished Waxman’s letter. The gist of it is that Fitz thinks that the material is appropriate to turn over, and the White House is blocking him. I can’t see how the White House has the authority to do this (and neither can Waxman, it seems), but I suppose that when the White House is telling you to do something, it’s wise to be cautious. Which is what Fitz is doing.

    • looseheadprop says:

      It’s not Pat’s job to make the WH comply. It’s Waxman’s.

      Remeber Pat’s letter replying to Waxman’s first request for both documents ad PAt’s own interview. Pat’s letter makes it very clear he got some unsolicited “advice” elling him he could not be interviewed, which is why I always thought Waxman should have supeonaed him

      • FrankProbst says:

        It’s not Pat’s job to make the WH comply. It’s Waxman’s.

        Remeber Pat’s letter replying to Waxman’s first request for both documents ad PAt’s own interview. Pat’s letter makes it very clear he got some unsolicited “advice” elling him he could not be interviewed, which is why I always thought Waxman should have supeonaed him

        But Pat’s the one who’s not complying (sp?). He clearly thinks the material should be released, and the White House is telling him not to do it. Waxman won’t subpoena him unless he absolutely has to, and I think Fitz will resign rather than defy the White House by releasing records they told him not to.

        • looseheadprop says:

          If Waxman issues a subpeona, as an officer of the court, unless there is a motion to quash availbale to him (and I could see him bringing one on the basis that the WH told him not to release), Pat would have to obey legal process or else face sacntion and possible loss of his license.

          I get your resignation idea, but it is my belief that he would rather gnaw off his own arm than quit being a federal prosecutor.Additionaly, I don’t see him taking a weasle way out like that, nor do I think it would conclusively bulletproof(though one would feel hard pressed to vote to discipline him under such circumstances)him from professional discipline.

          It is a bad precident to set that a personcan avoid supoena compliance simply by resigning from a job that enables that compliance. Very bad.

      • Jeff says:

        I’m not sure it was unsolicited advice, since it was, Fitzgerald tells us in his March 14, 2007 letter, based on consultation with the Department of Justice. But that raises for me the question of what changed such that DoJ in summer 2007 agreed apparently to let Fitzgerald provide fairly substantial information – was it that Libby’s commutation effectively meant that his case no longer counted as a “pending law enforcement matter”?

        In any case, though, looking over the correspondence, one thing that is striking is that Waxman indicates that his July 16, 2007 request came in the wake of negotiating with Fitzgerald’s staff and DoJ staff, appearing to imply that all the parties considered all seven of Waxman’s request to be requests Fitzgerald could comply with. I take it a lot of the requests are going to be significant precisely because of the scarcity, or even non-existence, of documents responsive to them. But some of them – perhaps particularly request 2, which would seem to get all info relating to Wilson’s CIA employment status (which I take it would relate to all transmission of the fact that she worked at the CIA, since it would all have something or other, or nothing, on her status) as a subject of communication basically within the administration and the CIA. Also request 3 – “Documents relating to whether the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity was inadvertent, deliberate, the result of an [sic] systematic in the White House security procedures or practices, or part of a concerted effort or comon understanding among one or more individuals to disclose Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status to the media” – would get at some interest documents, including ones generated by the investigation.

        Point being, this all seems to be stuff that Fitzgerald and DoJ agreed would be appropriate to turn over to Waxman; it’s not just the 302s from those officials.

  37. jayackroyd says:

    I don’t understand this sentence:

    In Ari’s case, it’s because he shut up until he knew he could incriminate Libby and probably others.

    I tried substituting “because” for “until” but that didn’t make sense either.

    Can someone explain?

    • emptywheel says:

      Meaning simply that Ari refused to testify until he was given immunity–so there isn’t any interview with Ari from Fall 2003 beyond a “on the advice of my highly-paid counsel I choose to invoke the Fifth Amendment.”

      He got immunity and then revealed that Libby had mentioned Plame’s ID to him. But I strongly suspect the most interesting bits of Ari’s testimony related to someone else, given some things Fitz said during the trial.

      • FrankProbst says:

        He got immunity and then revealed that Libby had mentioned Plame’s ID to him. But I strongly suspect the most interesting bits of Ari’s testimony related to someone else, given some things Fitz said during the trial.

        What things?

        As for Ari’s immunity, I’ve always thought that his highly-paid counsel told him, “Dude, you betrayed the identity of an undercover CIA operative during wartime. A good prosecutor could probably charge you with treason. Who’s the prosecutor again? Whoa! You need to plead the fifth and hope like hell that you’re the first one to get an immunity deal.”

  38. bellesouth says:

    “Mr. Fitzgerald has apparently determined that these documents can be produced to the Committee without infringing on his prosecutorial independence or violating the rules of grand jury secrecy,” Waxman wrote. “As records of statements made by White House officials to federal investigators, outside the framework of presidential decision-making, the documents could not be subject to a valid claim of executive privilege.”

    So, why doesn’t Fitz just give him the records?

    • FrankProbst says:

      So, why doesn’t Fitz just give him the records?

      It’s not his style. Fitz always dots his “i”s and crosses his “t”s. As a prosecutor, he’s part of the executive branch, which is headed by the White House. Fitz knows that the White House is full of shit here, but they’re telling him that he can’t release the records, and they’re higher in the chain of command. The proper response is exactly what he did–tell Waxman that the White House has told him not to release the records.

    • burnspbesq says:

      So, why doesn’t Fitz just give him the records?

      Because he’s been ordered not to by someone who has the authority to issue such an order. One assumes that Waxman understands that he has been invited by Fitzgerald to issue a subpoena, and that said subpoena will be forthcoming. After that, it gets really interesting.

      I don’t mean to suggest that this is what’s actually happening, but this would be the best possible exit strategy for Fitzgerald. He allows himself to be backed into a corner where he’s being ordered to be in contempt, he resigns because he won’t do that, he’s a national hero, and every national law firm with a white collar practice will be lined up outside his door carrying Kobe Bryant-sized bags of money. Not to mention the publishers who will be lined up outside his door carrying A-Rod sized bags of money.

      • looseheadprop says:

        Burnspeakk

        All the law firms and publishers have been lined up for many many months.

        PAt could write his own ticket, Oh and the law schools too.

        • FrankProbst says:

          n response to burnspbesq @ 61
          Burnspeakk

          All the law firms and publishers have been lined up for many many months.

          PAt could write his own ticket, Oh and the law schools too.

          I don’t see him taking a book deal. It just doesn’t seem like his style.

  40. emptywheel says:

    Frank

    When Libby’s lawyers were trying to insinuate that Ari had given Fitz a proffer of some sort, he said something to the effect of, “no, and it definitely didn’t relate to Libby.”

    In other words, Fitz at least THOUGHT Ari had the goods on someone else, maybe Bartlett, or Condi, or Rove.

    Come to think of it, I’m surprised there’s no request for COndi’s interviews.

    • FrankProbst says:

      When Libby’s lawyers were trying to insinuate that Ari had given Fitz a proffer of some sort, he said something to the effect of, “no, and it definitely didn’t relate to Libby.”

      In other words, Fitz at least THOUGHT Ari had the goods on someone else, maybe Bartlett, or Condi, or Rove.

      Hmmm. I totally missed that. All I remember about Ari’s testimony was that he really buried Libby on direct, and that Libby’s lawyers really seemed to be trying to get something out of him on cross that they completely failed to elicit.

      Speaking of which, what’s the best trial transcript? Should I buy Murray Waas’ book?

      • emptywheel says:

        Well, much (most) of the commentary in “Murray Waas’ book” actually comes from our own Jeff Lomonaco. It’s got the important bits and some direction nad lots of important exhibits so, yeah, I recommend it.

    • bmaz says:

      “In other words, Fitz at least THOUGHT Ari had the goods on someone else, maybe Bartlett, or Condi, or Rove.”

      Interesting. I had always taken that to reference Cheney and Rove. Also, as we have discussed before (long ago and further away as of today), I think Fitz was being just a tad slippery when he said there was “no proffer”. I have always taken that to mean no formal written proffer; I simply cannot believe that there were not informal “discussions” with Fleischer’s attorney as to the “parameters” of what Fleischer could provide.

  41. TexasEllen says:

    Love the new digs! Go Waxman! Fitz is just too delightful to leave out of the narrative, so glad Waxman is testing the new AG with the material Fitz didn’t give the Grand Jury.

  44. rxbusa says:

    Love the new site! Reading you at TNH and all of FDL have been my two favorites for a long time, so it’s nice to see you together. Can’t wait to play with the toolbox.

  46. JohnLopresti says:

    The HWaxman request reminds of a question I hope someone asks Ashcroft in one of his stumps, ‘Why did you recuse?’; the antediluvian time when the cleanup crew still thought all the instructions to keep sequestering the political instaDeclassification under the carpet would be efficacious until the end of the president’s term in office. Adroitly the Waxmn request appears to keep pressure on Rove during the primary season while Ashcroft evaluates what both of them can do for their political party; to divulge or to obfuscate; because it goes to the center of the question of the denial of underlying crime, as other commenters allude here in this thread.

    I agree with the commenter who depicts the passive art which Fitzgerald’s regimented reply portrays; at least that is one way to exercise that office.

    Footnote on the e-nvirons, the synergy should improve, as some of the best commenters on the web occasionally wrote in the firedog cluster, but, for me, like the Orange site, was too time consuming to address; and I missed some of the tnh writers who opted for the plunge into the Orange free for all for their multifarious reasons. Good luck with the new effort. Hope it accelerates the work cycle.

  48. BooRadley says:

    FWIW, and OfT this is a pow wow comment “at the old place,” tnh. If anyone can get Waxman on the phone, pow wow thought he could get the actual gj testimony in via the Rule 6(e) exception. I guess Waxman’s people thought that was a tougher road to hoe.

    “My crystallizing focus for a way forward if our Legislative Branch (or at least the House of Representatives) would only roust itself, and its (our) inherent powers, to life:
    I thought Bush and Rove had successfully insulated themselves from any (further) Libby fall-out, last June. I figured they’d let Cheney’s guy go down, and Cheney with him, if need be. I’m now convinced by Bush’s panic to commute Libby’s prison time before he served a day that Rove and/or Bush are still very much exposed to criminal/political jeopardy from the information they know Libby harbors about their involvement in the outing of a covert CIA officer and its subsequent cover-up. [EW’s point about and analysis of the June 9th evidence (that came out of the trial) of a Bush-initiated string of events, as well as the mysterious vanishing Libby defense that was previewed in opening arguments and then promptly retired, undergird the impression that Bush gave yesterday with his hasty, otherwise-illogical action.]
    We finally have a point of the spear with which to open impeachment hearings – a subject of inquiry, out of all the possible subjects to choose from, that particularly targets the men of bad faith at the very top of the Executive Branch, who have been operating our government in an isolated, secretive fashion, and can therefore be isolated and targeted for intense Congressional investigation with regard to a matter of national security [which was either a literal crime or at best ‘recklessness’ and abuse of office with regard to a matter of grave import that has dismantled at least one of our rare and valuable national security spy assets]. A subject that is also intimately connected to the war crimes of this administration in Iraq and the sales job that they used to lead us there. In other words, the outing of Valerie Wilson and the Bush/Cheney involvement in the Niger-Uranium Fraud should be the opening salvo for impeachment hearings by the House Judiciary Committee. Why?
    Because:
    An impeachment proceeding can access years of grand jury testimony and evidence already compiled by the Special Counsel’s team (thus end-running Pelosi’s lame ‘there’s not enough time’ argument). Coordination with the Special Counsel and the Wilsons to safeguard the Wilson civil suit if Judge Bates lets it proceed, and the Special Counsel’s ongoing defense of the Libby conviction would need to be undertaken by Congress if they pursue access to this evidence. While remembering, and accounting for the fact (if possible), that there are corrupt Republican moles spying for the Executive Branch (including the civil suit defendants) on all these Congressional committees (and I don’t just mean staffers). Very strict, enforcable rules of non-disclosure as appropriate would need to be formulated by those running the investigation.
    Henry Waxman and his Oversight Committee have apparently already made great progress on the Niger-Uranium Fraud, largely behind closed doors. His evidence could be rolled into the evidence about the outing of CIA Officer Wilson to kick-start the process.
    Gonzales should probably be ignored for now. He’s a known liar, subservient to his bosses, his crimes are ultimately Bush’s crimes, and Gonzales will eventually slink away when his role as a firewall no longer works. We need to target the bosses: namely Bush, Cheney, and Rove. Perhaps starting with Addington and Novak and a request for their testimony to Congress about their involvement in the outing of Valerie Wilson. When one or both refuses, if this is an impeachment hearing, we go to court to enforce compliance [without concern for whether a legislative remedy will be the result of the hearing, as would be true for non-impeachment, regular oversight hearings]. If everyone pleads the Fifth – we select our immunity target(s) with an eye to impeaching Bush and Cheney and letting the others walk (which at this point they seem to be doing anyway).
    Other than possible complications to Fitzgerald’s ongoing work (if any, besides Libby’s appeal), or the Wilson civil suit if allowed to proceed (which we should soon know), what are the drawbacks to this scenario? [Assuming a very, very limited, targeted amount of any Congressional immunity is given.] We have pre-investigated potential crimes which were unable to be prosecuted or proven under criminal statutes, but which Congress can easily determine to be abuse of power, misuse of office, dereliction of duty, and similar “high crimes and misdemeanors” sufficient to impeach those involved but still holding offices of public trust in our Executive Branch of government.
    Two lower court decisions of note have upheld congressional access to grand jury materials in aid of that branch’s constitutional power of impeachment. In Grand Jury Proceedings of Grand Jury No. 81-1, 669 F. Supp. 1072, 1074-75 (S.D. Fla.), aff’d, 833 F.2d 1438 (11th Cir. 1987), the court held that the House Judiciary Committee was entitled to receive the record of grand jury proceedings in furtherance of its impeachment investigation of Judge Alcee Hastings. Although the committee’s access to the materials was separately justified on the basis of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(C)(i), the court held that the disclosure was also justified on the basis of, inter alia, the Impeachment Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2. See also In re Report and Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F. Supp. 1219 (D.D.C.), mandamus denied sub nom. Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (district court’s decision granting the Watergate grand jury’s request that its report on the matters it investigated be submitted to the House Judiciary Committee, upheld by court of appeals in denying mandamus relief).
    These decisions should be read with some caution because the disclosures of the grand jury materials at issue were directly related to impeachment proceedings — which have been viewed as within the coverage of the Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) exception — and were undertaken only after obtaining prior judicial approval. Nonetheless, they demonstrate the courts’ willingness to recognize an independent constitutional basis for disclosures of grand jury information outside the provisions of Rule 6(e). Thus, if congressional access to grand jury materials may be independently justified on the basis of its Article I power, it would be anomalous to contend that Presidential access to such materials could not be justified on the basis of the President’s Article II powers.
    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/gjag.htm
    Happy Independence Day, America.
    Posted by: pow wow | July 04, 2007 at 00:01″

  49. Jodi says:

    New Blog is Nice but I am oh so bored with Fitzgerald. You will never get what you are after on this one. Never much there in the first place. Trying to move on 2008. McCain-Hucakabee so far looks good for Republicans.
    You’ll have to wait for my Dem prognosis. Too busy at work now for further analysis! (stay tuned)

    • burnspbesq says:

      Never much there in the first place

      Mmmmmmkay. A conspiracy that reaches into the Oval Office to violate the IIPA as political payback. Yeah, that’s not much.

      And before you respond by saying that it’s unclear whether IIPA was in fact violated by the outing of Ms. Plame, recall that it is hornbook law that the object of a conspiracy doesn’t have to be achieved in order for the conspiracy to be a completed criminal act.

        • phred says:

          Hmmm, what have we here? You sound like Jodi — I’m so bored with Fitz and all that, but JodiDog is excessively using bold highlighting in the thread below and complained she had to change her name to register.

          freepatriot, what do you think, have we bagged two incarnations of Jodi? Or is one of these the imposter EW mentioned over at TNH?

          I just like to keep my trolls straight.

        • BooRadley says:

          A bunch of wingnuts use her handle. They also don’t bother to check their stories. IMVHO, the original Jodi really had a brother relative(s) serving in Iraq, a grandma, and a “hero” who she was going to engage in premarital sex with frolic on the beach with during vacation. IIRC, freepatriot first called her Tokyo Jodi, then sh*t-stain. As the different people using her handle became more apparent, someone started calling her Jodi bot. Most at tnh simply ignore her/them, which is what I should be doing.

  50. emptywheel says:

    bmaz

    Yeah, I think he had an idea of what he was getting. I think Rove is most likely. After all, Rove is sufficiently senior and implicated. But Rove also was presumably working directly with Ari that week. That’s almost certainly not true of Dick.

  51. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Since Mr. Bush was not seeking “advice or counsel” from his staff, or they from each other, but was responding to questions from a prosecutor during a federal criminal investigation, one ordered at his behest, since the leak involved his senior White House staff, how can he credibly claim that “executive privilege” bars disclosure of this material? Unless the discussions disclose advice to the President about what story to tell Fitz, which would, of course, be obstruction of justice.

    This repeated attempt to keep all things Cheney, er Bush, from the public reminds me that Cheney wouldn’t even let Bush talk to Fitz without Big Dick also being present. Can’t walk the dog without a leash.

    (Now, is that a “homegrown radical” comment that runs afoul of Jane Harmon’s Alien and Sedition Act, S. 1959, which might send this anonymous contributor into her Never Land?)

    • burnspbesq says:

      Since Mr. Bush was not seeking “advice or counsel” from his staff, or they from each other, but was responding to questions from a prosecutor during a federal criminal investigation, one ordered at his behest, since the leak involved his senior White House staff, how can he credibly claim that “executive privilege” bars disclosure of this material? Unless the discussions disclose advice to the President about what story to tell Fitz, which would, of course, be obstruction of justice.

      Not so fast. Not all witness preparation constitutes obstruction of justice. Making sure that you have your facts straight, and preparing to testify truthfully in a way that advances your interests, is perfectly legitimate. Making up a story and enforcing message discipline around that story isn’t. We can certainly surmise about what took place, but we don’t yet know (and may never know).

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        A client discussing matters with his or her counsel that relate to an upcoming interview with a federal prosecutor is routine and protected behavior, but it’s not executive privilege. Principals meeting among themselves to tacitly or expressly agree on one version of events is potentially obstruction, rather like Alberto Gonzales “counseling” Monica Goodling because she was having a long day.

    • MadDog says:

      Very simply, assume the WH motivation is fear and you then understand that they will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent Fitz from providing Waxman all he’s asked for.

      The WH definitely understands that the political costs of Junya and Deadeye’s testimony before Fitz is likely to burn the WH very badly, and very publicly.

      I suspect that Fred Fielding would recommend that the WH fight this as a long, drawn-out battle in Court as being preferable to a voluntary release to Waxman.

      After all, what is there for the WH to lose in such a battle?

      And Fred probably thinks that he’s got decent odds in Court. Not because of any previous legal ruling, but instead because Junya and crew have packed the Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) with their acolytes.

      I think the WH has looked at the situation and has determined to go down fighting rather than walking to the gallows voluntarily.

  52. lift says:

    THE HOT E-MAILS ARE THE ONES BETWEEN JOSHUA BOLTEN AND RAHM EMANUEL , THEY WORK TOGETHER, when is the Democratic Party going to tell it like it is ? also the talks between Schumer,Feinstein,Chertoff,Mukasey and Libby,Berman and Abrams,they still are doing the Oil Deals with the Kurds and wrecking the US Military and Iraqi Government Policies of Stability,they need chaos to make more Deals,more no-bid Contracts and steal more USA Taxpayers money.

  53. bmaz says:

    Perhaps the initial request was framed this way, and I am either not recollecting or not seeing it here, but why wouldn’t Waxman simply ask for production of Fitzgerald’s entire file, absent any protected GJ material; along with a list of any items not produced for any reason and a statement of those reasons?

  54. Jodi says:

    I’ll have to get back to you on this and look further into it. Work is too busy now, still trying to catch up since vacation. However I will get up to date on what I’ve missed here on this site.

    • MadDog says:

      One major benefit of the new site is the registration which requires a valid email address for activation.

      That same registration also allows an easier facility for “banning” of trolls. “Locking out” via the Logon is gonna help the mods do it easier.

      And if one can’t Logon, one can’t post.

  56. emptywheel says:

    I will sort through the jodi trolls–it was becoming really bad in the last week, but I figured I’d clean up over here, once we decide which jodi we like best. Perhaps I should put up a thread to take votes?

    • phred says:

      I think we just found the right thread for Neil’s housewarming party. bmaz is bringing the Beamish, I’ll bring the popcorn…

  58. Neil says:

    Oh good! We get to choose.

    There’s nothing like authentication to keep Jodi’s from proliferating like triehilemmal cysts.

  59. Dismayed says:

    Nice to see you familiars over here. x-cept jodi. I was kinda hoping she’d get lost on the way. I’ve been quiet lately, busy, busy, but still read every day.

    As for Waxman, I had kinda lost belief in his genuine interest in doing his job, but this last move sort of gives me hope that he’s been laying in wait and that he still plans on cracking some heads when the time is right.

    Nice site EW – it was time, as much as I liked THN in it’s hey day.

    • bmaz says:

      You’re doing well sister. Lot accomplished for one day. Take a load off and pour a Beamish. I haven’t gone to the store yet, so all I got is Corona. Will be hoisting one momentarily in your direction.

    • Neil says:

      Mmmmmbeamish and the Pats. I can’t imagine two things I’d enjoy more… well they’re both in the top ten.

      I salute you EW. You’re making it happen.

      When the rest of America discovers you I’ll proudly say I knew EW when she just a dirty fucking hippy and proud of it.

      Just one thing, I’m really hoping you’re wrong about the fallability of the Pats due to Rodney’s Harrison tragic and deliciously ironic failure due to steroid withdrawal syndrome.

  61. JohnForde says:

    The new digs look great, Marcy! And you kicked it off with a barn burner.

    I don’t know what to do with Jodi. Part of me says roast her, but my more generous side says let’s simly baste her in the truth.

    IT”S GOOD FOR ALL OF US.

  62. brownandserve says:

    Nice site Marcy. And I see my Firedoglake login works here too. I am rather curious as to why the list didn’t include Ari Fleischer but maybe he only appeared before the grand jury.

  63. bmaz says:

    Brownandserve – Fleischer refused to talk without immunity; it is not clear that there is any producible material on Ari. His testimony came in front of the grand jury, and GJ material is not disclosable.

  65. PeteG60 says:

    Congratulations Marcy.

    Could any of these documents be obtained at some time by FOIA requests?

    In any case it is good to know that Waxman is pursuing this.

    In other news we learn today that even after our intelligence told Bush that Iran scrapped its nuclear program, Bush continued to hype the nuclear threat from Iran. Is there any clearer proof of the lies that Bush continues to spout.

  66. Leen says:

    Marcy thanks for all of your work on this one. Hey folks I have lobbied the Diane Rehm show to have Marcy on as a guest and have had some very positive experiences with being able to persuade the Rehm crew to do particular shows with particular guest. If you please give the show a phone call or send and e-mail…would really like to hear Marcy on that program

  67. benbrung says:

    As much as I love Waxman and his work, I’ve finally reached the point of total cynicism. There is already plenty of information out there to impeach, prosecute and hold in contempt a whole gaggle of these chumps. However, you won’t see our trusty Dem leadership getting in line for any of that. As a result, this will just be another travesty that we are too spineless to act on.

    Wow, I didn’t realize the cynicism had gotten this bad . . . but there it is.