Waxman’s Investigation
Unlike HJC, Oversight does not publicly release subpoenas when they serve them. So Mukasey’s cowardly letter begging Bush to invoke executive privilege so he doesn’t have to go to jail for shielding Dick Cheney’s role in outing Valerie Plame is one of the first hints of the scope of what Waxman was after. Here are some details I find particularly interesting.
The subpoenaed documents concern the Department’s investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. The documents include Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") reports of the Special Counsel’s interviews with the Vice President and senior White House staff, as well as handwritten notes taken by FBI agents during some of these interviews. The subpoena also seeks notes taken by the Deputy National Security Advisor during conversations with the Vice President and senior White House officials and other documents provided by the White House to the Special Counsel during the count of the investigation. Many of the subpoenaed materials reflect frank and candid deliberations among senior presidential advisers, including the Vice President, the White House Chief of Staff, the National Security Advisor, and the White House Press Secretary. The deliberations concern a number of sensitive issues, including the preparation of your January 2003 State of the Union Address, possible responses to public assertions challenging the accuracy of a statement in the address, and the decision to send Ms. Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger in 2002 to investigate Iraqi efforts to acquire yellowcake uranium. Some of the subpoenaed documents also contain information about communications between you and senior White House officials.
[snip]
Much of the content of the subpoenaed documents falls squarely within the presidential communications and deliberative process components of executive privilege. Several of the subpoenaed interview reports summarize conversations between you and your advisors, which are direct presidential communications. Other portions of the documents fall within the scope of the presidential communications component of the privilege because they summarize
deliberations among your most senior advisers in the course of preparing information or advice for presentation to you, including information related to the preparation of your 2003 State of the Union Address and possible responses to public assertions that the address contained an inaccurate statement. In addition, many of the documents summarize deliberations among senior White House officials about how to respond to media inquiries concerning the 2003 State of the Union Address and Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger.
First, as LS astutely points out, Mukasey mis-characterizes the entire investigation, claiming it was about "the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency." No, AG Mukasey, the investigation was into the disclosure of Valerie’s identity as a covert operative. Your guess why Mukasey does this is as good as mine, but some possibilities thrown out in this thread include:
- Mukasey knows Bush and Cheney insta-declassified her covert status so he wants to carefully maintain that she was not covert
- Mukasey’s primary source of news is Bob Novak’s column, so he genuinely believes that Novak used the word operative as one big mistake, meaning the key leak was Armitage’s
- Mukasey hasn’t read all the documents affirming that she was covert
- Mukasey’s trying to diminish this whole thing to absolve himself from thinking it’s okay that the Vice President outed a CIA operative
- Mukasey disagrees with the Special Counsel interpretation that CIA was taking affirmative actions to keep Valerie’s identity secret
From this mis-characterization, Mukasey launches into a list of things covered by the subpoena. I’m not really sure whether Mukasey lists them this way to establish the "claim" for privilege, or whether he’s trying to warn Bush what they contain. For example, why does Mukasey mention the "handwritten notes taken by FBI agents during some of these interviews" unless he wanted to warn Bush (and Cheney) that Agent Eckenrode had written, "this confirms that Cheney did order the Plame outing" or "Cheney doesn’t admit what Libby admitted–that they had compared stories"?
The request for "notes taken by the Deputy National Security Advisor during conversations with the Vice President and senior White House officials" makes me wonder whether Waxman requested Hadley’s side of the conversations he had with Cheney and Libby the week of the leak, particularly the conversation on July 10, in which Hadley passed on the news from Condi that "the President is comfortable," just after Libby’s own notes include empty space that he left to record what Hadley said, leaving us wondering what the President is comfortable with. Note, too, that Libby tried to declassify Hadley’s notes from this meeting through CIPA, to no avail.
Mukasey mentions "frank and candid deliberations" among senior advisors, listing Cheney, Card, Condi, and Scottie McC. Given the mention of Scottie McC, I’m guessing this reference might be a specific reference to the Libby-exoneration discussions from October 4, 2003. Which raises the question whether Condi was involved in that discussion? (We do know that she and Scottie McC may have discussed saying that Rove didn’t leak at all).
The reference to "deliberations concern a number of sensitive issues, including the preparation of your January 2003 State of the Union Address, possible responses to public assertions challenging the accuracy of a statement in the address, and the decision to send Ms. Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger in 2002 to investigate Iraqi efforts to acquire yellowcake uranium" leads me to believe that–at a minimum–the subpoenaed documents would make it very clear that everyone knew Alan Foley had told the White House not to use the uranium claim in the SOTU–and that they had to check with him before they finalized Tenet’s July 11, 2003 statement. The documents also probably include some record of George Tenet making it clear to Condi Rice that NSC, even more than CIA, owned most of the blame for the Niger claim appearing in the SOTU. Also, note the weird construction from Attorney General Orwell. Do the subpoenaed documents include "deliberations concern[ing] … the decision to send" Wilson to Niger? Or do they contain "deliberations concern[ing] … possible responses to … the decision to send" Wilson to Niger? Grammatically, it is the former. If so, is Mukasey referring to CIA deliberations? Or was there some White House deliberation about that trip we don’t know about?
When Mukasey refers to "information about communications between you and senior White House officials," it sure makes me wonder if this is a reference to communication between Bush and Libby–particularly the communication on June 9, 2003, that effectively sparked OVP to go into hyperdrive collecting oppo research on Joe Wilson?
Mostly, though, Mukasey seems intent on shielding not only Cheney’s FBI interview report, which would reveal how he answered when asked, "did you authorize the leak of Valerie Wilson’s name?" but also anything pertaining to the discussions between Hadley, Libby, and Cheney, which would not only reveal the lengths to which Cheney went to try to blame all this on CIA, but also might provide more details about "what the President knew and when did he know it?"
One more detail. I’m certain, from these descriptions, that Libby is among the "senior advisors" listed here. But you note that Mukasey never admits he’s trying to protect communications between the President and a convicted felon?
Update: As I review this, I realize that the White House Press Secretary named in the letter may actually be Ari Fleischer. According to Scottie McC’s book, there was a discussion in the White House–apparently not including Tenet–that led to the July 7 admission that the uranium claim should never have been in the SOTU. That conversation almost certainly included Card, Condi, and Ari; if it also included Dick, it might explain why he ordered the Code Red with Libby that set off the leak of Plame’s identity.
Why is accountability such a damn hard rock to get moving with this congress? I heard one repub actually accuse Harmon and Pelosi of approving torture, so maybe the dems are afraid the repubs will shove them under the bus. But THERE WERE REPUBS on that “gang of eight” so why are they not trembling with fear? (Or are they?)
Where is the court hearing on that their latest effort of civil contempt going?
My read of what Issa was doing yesterday is firing a serious warning shot over the Democrats’ bow. He was saying (rather bluntly) that “we’ll drag you down with us if you continue to hold hearings on this.”
I, for one, hope that the few who are driving this forward, such as Waxman and Wexler, do not shy away. I, for one, would be more than happy to see a few “bad” Democrats go down, too.
One last thought on that: what I fear is that Conyers (in particular) will be frightened off by the warning shots. Conyers, it seems, will do lousy things to protect Pelosi. I have no guess on how he feels about Harman, so maybe he won’t get in the way if it remains focused on Harman and leaves Pelosi out. That what happened yesterday when Issa (IIRC) got pointed in questioning.
‘One last thought on that: what I fear is that Conyers (in particular) will be frightened off by the warning shots.’
Sidenote, MRS Conyers has ‘legel problems of her own. Maybe its related?
Regarding the “bad” Democrats, see Glenn Greenwald yesterday, who essentially names Jello Jay, Pelosi, and Jane Harman:
Sounds to me like all three deserve to be thrown under the bus, if that’s what it takes to restore accountability for these high crimes and misdemeanors.
Bob in HI
Is the AG a member of cabinet? I remember one of the senators saying, “He’s not the secretary of the Department of Justice; he’s the attorney general.” (That was back in AGAG times, but I wondered at the distinction.)
Marcy, I am just staggered by the quality of your work.
Thank you
I like Mumbles Orwell. It’s sort of Huxleyish.
It seems to me like Mukasey is using phrases like “much of the documents” and “several of the documents” to cover the fact that not all of the documents would fit under even this blanket definition of EP.
Why bother? This Regime has made stonewalling a science, and seems to include the Congress in its culpability, thus no real oversight. Should any in Committee wish to go to Court, it’ll be the next millennium before any judgments and forth-coming documents not to mention criminal or civil cases.
There won’t be any documents after January 2009. How many weird arson’s will there be, and what will be done about the willful destruction of government property.
Question for the lawyers (and then I’ll shut up): if an impeachment hearing were initiated for Cheney, would that increase the Democrats’ subpoena powers? In other words, would it either remove the Mukasey roadblock and/or fasttrack these issues to the SCOTUS?
Cheney has been perfecting the stonewall since he and Rummy worked for Tricky Dick, whom he always thought needed a prosthesis because he wasn’t hard enough in defending the “prerogatives” of the Presidency. He was perhaps the most hardline GOP’er in the House, from 1979-88, until Bush I made him SecDef, in part as a reward for defending Reagan’s Iran-Contra program for so many years, and indirectly, Bush I’s good friends at the CIA.
The White House Counsel would know what Waxman’s subpoena asked for. So Mukasey’s recitation is a signal about what to be concerned about? Or a laundry list telling Waxman he’ll be Speaker before he gets any of it?
IANAL, just an ex-scientist, so probably a lot of the inner heat in the considerations of legal points just goes right by me. However, my thoughts are more about *principles*, and I think of the outraged squires surrounding the King and presenting him with the Magna Carta. EP THAT!
Waxman knows exactly what he’s looking for and I suspect he already knows exactly what’s in those documents. But with Mukasey on board, they can easily stall until 1/20.
I wonder if the leadersheep will order Waxman to back off after Issa’s extortion yesterday. And if they do, will Waxman listen? If he doesn’t, you can be sure he’ll lose his chairmanship in the next congress.
Boxturtle (I hope everyone involved with this cluster***k goes down in flames, Dem or GOP)
Maybe Waxman reads Glenn Greenwald, too.
Bob in HI
I have no doubt that he is aware of the info in Greenwalds post, directly or indirectly. If for no other reason then I just emailed his office with a link to it.
Boxturtle (I just felt like pissing up a rope)
You know what’s deeply annoying? The reason that “they” could get away with removing Waxman next Congress is because we’re all going to roll over as Obama moves to the center. We’re not (I hope and assume) silly enough to vote for McCain and/or totally cut off Obama’s money, so his slide will go unpunished. And because of that, the “centrists” that are making this entire process so slow and painful (and useless) will be emboldened. Hence, Waxman loses his chair and Feingold continues to be a lone voice (with the occasional help from Dodd and Whitehouse) in the Senate. Arrgh.
Remember that Waxman has seniority, and he’s not in danger of losing his seat this fall.
Oh well, even though Congress can impeach the AG for obstruction of justice, as well as the Preznit, and VP, I’m sure we’re going to get some more hearings, and some more heated letters between Waxman and the AG or Waxman and the White House, or Waxman and to whom it may concern.
Dear Mr. Waxman and all other Dems who head committees and and have taken the time and taxpayer money to hold hearings on the endless number of Bush administration crimes against the people, please take a minute to look up the word “Punk” in the dictionary. When you come to the entry describing Punk as a sort of Prison Bith, take a good look in the mirror. I hope you realize this is why Congress has an even lower approval rating than the Boy-Blunder sitting in the White House. Because you all refuse to use the power the Constitution hands you in order to protect the people and the Constitituion itself, you all appear weak, you act like a collection of punks, and remember Americans respect winners not losers. Hence your approval rating is about the same as Satan himself — Dick Cheney.
EW wrote:
I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that Ari’s admission (that ‘African countries’ really meant just Niger and its (unsold) yellowcake) in the press conference on Monday July 7, 2003 was not an inadvertant mistake? Ari effectively agreed during that conference that Joe Wilson’s July 6 NYT op-ed was correct–there was no evidence of a sale of African yellowcake to Saddam Hussein. Why would Cheney be part of Ari’s original admission? Or are you saying Cheney disagreed with the group’s plan and set off on his own scorched earth plan?
No, after Ari made that admission, there was a discussion about what to do, and just as the plane left, Ari released a statement that basically said the claim shouldn’t have been in the SOTU.
okay! now I get it. Initially I thought you meant they got together for the Monday press conference (not after).
EW, you caught it!
“Many of the subpoenaed materials reflect frank and candid deliberations among senior Presidential advisors…”
and (next mention of “deliberations” in that letter…)
“The deliberations concern a number of sensitive issues including… the decision to send Ms. Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger in 2002“
So if deliberations on sending Wilson occurred, and they’re Privileged, just how broadly are we creating the protected class of “senior Presidential advisors?”
If it was the CIA that did the protected deliberating, are we protecting Tenet’s deliberations as a “senior Presidential advisor?” Or was it Pavitt? Coud Pavitt possibly be considered a “senior Presidential advisor?” Can we go any lower in the CIA and still have a “senior Presidential advisor” deliberating.
Or is it case B, as EW points out? Is there some here-to-forth undisclosed deliberating by a “senior Presidential advisor” that happened within the White House that resulted in Joe Wilson being sent? Were there “senior Presidential advisors” arguing that Wilson should not be sent.
Are we just now learning about a huge new class of “senior Presidential advisors” who have privileged deliberations, or did Mukasey just admit a new fact in the case by saying the WH deliberated on whether or not to send Wilson?
They’re actually deliberations on the “sensitive issue” of the decision to send Wilson, which sounds like it could encompass a lot of things, especially from goons trying to apply privilege to everything.
Wow that is broad! In keeping with say, “sensitive issues” like “pretzel digestion” as another (unlisted) example?
“Deliberations” on the “sensitive issue” of the decision to send him could encompass discussions on how to respond to Wilson.
Point of interest: the calendar days for July 2008 fall on the identical days of the week as in July 2003.
i.e., July 4 is a Friday in 2003 and 2008.
July 7 is a Monday in 2003 and 2008.
Looking at Libby exhibit above, thought I’d try out the
“NIE” is the White House’s code name for “Valerie Plame” trick:
Wish I could read and remember the abbreviations before that line above
Here’s the tack I think Waxman should take, fwiw. And disclaimer up front – I do not mean this is in LIEU of going after Cheney’s role in the outing of Plame (I think he probably did play that role and someone needs to dig into it).
Instead, this is what I think is Waxman’s strongest toehold and one that Mukasey may have a harder time addressing (not that it matters, bc he’ll still shuffle and jive and things will go nowhere even under this approach, but fwiw)
The National Security Act provides in Title V for “Accountability For Intelligence Activities”
http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml
Under section 503(f) there is a prohibition against covert action by the Executive Branch “which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”
Waxman can go and pull Fitzgerald’s pleadings on the Decider and Cheney’s decision to covertly plant cherrypicked NIE information with Judy Miller and quote them from the public record as making a prima facie case of violation of 503(f) and can claim that Congress is seeking those transcripts as evidence needed for Congressional examination of a possible violation of 503(f).
Then you do have a crime stated on its face (the leaking of Plame is a crime stated on its face, but nothing in any public record Fitzgerald has made available specifically says flat out that Cheney and Bush authorized that leak – otoh, Fitzgerald has said flat out that they authorized the NIE cherrypicks plant with Miller and he even spells out that they did it for political reasons – i.e., to counter adverse public reactions to the information that was coming out about the war).
Now Mukasey has a little different scenario to address than to just say “oh golly, DOJ wants you to invoke privilege so people will talk freely” Instead he has to insert DOJ into a determination that Congress can’t investigate an “on its face” vioaltion of the National Security Act revealed by DOJ and placed in the public record.
And one where EP was waived to put that in the record (granted, they thought they were blowing a smokescreen for Libby’s Plame leak, but sometimes smoke blows back and gets in your own eyes)
Let’s go back a couple of years to this exchange:
emph added
I don’t know how Waxman can make a better oversight and criminal case out of only the known and disclosed facts to date than to base it on the violation of the NSAct spelled out in Fitzgerald’s filings. Bush and Cheney covertly planted domestic propaganda with Judy Miller to influence the public and that is in the record of the Libby case. Fitzgerald has said he didn’t have the mandate to examine claims such as that one – only the Plame leak and obstruction etc. relating to it, and DOJ has not otherwise chosen to pursue the violation – so it falls to Congress to investigate that.
And it pretty much looks like Gonzales knew they had done it, doesn’t it? And Feinstein knew he knew, but hasn’t done anything all this time.
I think Mukasey would have an easy time answering this difficult question.
Very interesting, Mary. I think you’ve got this exactly right in that there’s almost zero public pressure on the administration to cave on any of these points because the press ain’t interested. The only way to change the dynamics of the situation is to ratchet the pressure way up. Screaming about obvious 503 propaganda crimes is certainly one way to do it. Another would be to cite Mukasey for contempt, then send have him seized and tossed into the cellar at the Capitol while they begin impeachment proceedings. That oughta get Dick’s attention.
Here’s what’s they say today:
Except that Fitz has made a record that the NIE cherrypick was not covert, and it was not made to Judy Miller.
And as to the illegal propaganda, any reason you believe it pertains to the NIE and not the Rendon Group, which has done entire propaganda campaigns directed at the US?
I get the same feeling reading this blog and FDL that I had when watching the Senate Watergate Hearings 30-some years ago: the thrill of responsible investigations on issues of over-riding importance to our country. Unfortunately, the Watergate Hearings had a more public audience, and we had the video. As you all know from Al Gore’s book, if not from elsewhere, a video is worth thousands of words to capture the public eye.
We need the public hearings by Waxman’s committee, and others, but here and next door we see the real work laying out the evidence as it should be laid out by our Congressional committees.
Thank you EW, Mary, and many others for all your digging, weeding, and explaining about these things!
Bob in HI
Of course Congress can pass a bill into law which is later found to be unconstitutional.
But, he isn’t answering Feinstein’s question.
Most obviously he’s overlooking Article II. Section 3 where it says “he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, …”
If he wishes to say there are Laws which conflict or where one must take precedence, then he should specify what might take precedence over upholding the National Security Act.
In fact, this seems to be a linchpin argument of this administration — that while at war the President can do anything to protect the country and win the war — and it needs to be met in court and struck down as nonsense.
Mary can Fitz get a mandate to investigate “Bush and Cheney covertly planted domestic propaganda with Judy Miller”
With what Feinstein knows she went ahead and voted for Mukasey. disgusting
FRom House Oversight, just up:
Report on Resolution Recommending the House Find Attorney General Mukasey in Contempt of Congress
Appendix to Report on Resolution
Thanks Matt–I saw they rescheduled their business meeting. Nice quick timing.
AZMatt,
Thanks for the link. I’ve been going through it for the last few hours. Some of it reads as though it was penned by Dennis Kucinich.
EW, the first thing I read and followed this AM was Waxman’s overview to the HJC in response to Mukasey. You’ve been on this all day. Thank you for the cogent analysis. Thank you for digging between the lines of the text and putting subtleties in context.
As for the Oversight report for contempt…Many questions are coming to my mind as I read…I’ll try to post a few here soon.
Some good snark in this:
‘the decision to send Ms. Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson’
This interests me..
Who! really ’sent/suggested’ Joe Wilson for Niger?
If it came quietly* from the WH or OVP office? Well that opens up all sorts of stuff. Hmmm….:)
Ms. Wilson said, on FDL I think, that the issue of who should be sent was being discussed by her and someone else at her office and another colleague popped in and suggested her husband. She then suggested that on up the ladder and her superiors decided (finally) to send him.
Question I have is whether the issue came to her because someone at the White House wanted her and her husband bound up in this.
The Bushies have several times claimed the CIA crowd were working against their agenda and so, getting Valerie out of the way would’ve pleased them. Or, as Richard Armitage said about having both Wilsons involved, “It’s perfect.” when he talked about this with Bob Woodward.
Still catching up on threads late in the day, and have not yet read the Joe Wilson thread — but am I the only person absolutely disgusted by the non-stop “Ms Plame’s husband” butt-covering weenie bullshit from the WH and OVP?
Jeebuz.
Wilson: career diplomat, multi-lingual, served in (ahem) Baghdad…
Well, jumpin’ Jehosaphat!
I guess it really wouldn’t sound too smart of Bu$hCo to reference, ‘The former Amb to Iraq under Bush I, the French-speaking career servant…’
So, yeah. The only way that The Former Hill Staffer, the Barnacle, and the rest of the asshats will ever refer to Joe Wilson is as “Valerie Plame’s husband”. He is allowed no other identity, expertise, or history.
I can only assume that these clowns don’t grasp how incredibly mean-spirited it makes them look every time they continue to reference Joe Wilson as “the husband”. It might be funny if it weren’t so sad and pathetic.
The whole point is to emasculate Joe Wilson – as they do at the country club by mentioning that so-and-so got his job thru his mother’s connections, or his wife’s family – the Frat Boy ethos writ large.
And the whole point of emasculating Joe Wilson – he of the rope necktie in Baghdad during Gulf War I – is so that people won’t realize that Joe’s is bigger than Dick’s.
And the whole point of Dick telling Pat Leahy to “Go F yourself” is because Dick can’t actually F Pat; old Dick is too tired and can only talk about it. Apparently one side effect of having your heart surgically removed is that one can’t generate sufficient blood pressure to perform the manly act.
And consequently, our congress-critters don’t realize that if they would just stand up something stronger than a letter or two, Dick would just wilt. But we’ll never know.
Oh, I agree completely.
It’s just that — as you point out — their efforts actually simply make those of us watching kind of shrug and wonder if their Viagra needs a higher dosage.
They definitely Have Some Issues.
So why they air them via Joe Wilson seems totally bizarre.
There’s a lot of little nuggets written in this response from Mukasey. Mukasey is, at heart, a policeman, we/someone who knows what they are doing, just need to ask the right questions. There is a LOT of extra words/information/names etc in his response..just my pennies worth…:)
looseheadprop has some action going over next door – Executive Privilege? My Eye!
Not quite OT, noted Plameologist Cliff May has been appointed to the Broadcasting Board of Governors. I am sure Bush picked him for his past excellence in meeting the organizational mission:
For those who don’t remember, Cliff May claimed in an NRO column on September 29, 2003 that he knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA before Novak’s column was published. For that transparent lie, and many others, he’s being rewarded with this little plum.
37 – “Except that Fitz has made a record that the NIE cherrypick was not covert, and it was not made to Judy Miller.”
How so? As I recall the record made is that Libby met with Miller and gave her cherrypicked NIE info (and leaked Plame’s identity) for domestic publication without attribution to the government entity involved (only to a “former Hill staffer” or whatever they clothed Libby in) The lack of govt attribution on the planted story made it covert and Miller got the info and published it, so it was put in the domestic press, and the description Fitzgerald gave, IIRC, of the Cheney/Bush conversation is that they wanted to put that info out (without attribution) specificially to influence domestic opinion that was turning against them. So I don’t follow. I do understand that you believe the NIE leak story was cover for the Plame leak (and I buy that) but even as a cover story, she did get access covertly (without govt attribution) to the info and published it and Bush/Cheney per Fitzgerald’s pleadings said they planted it with her as a public response counter.
39 – Could be the Rendon group situation too. I lean the other way for these reasons: 1) Feinstein specifically mentions a direct role by Bush, not a Pentagon/Rumsfeld cutout but a direct Bush role; 2) while Rendon’s stories were often targeted for US audiences, they did not often include classified/instadeclassified info provided to the by the US gov for direct insertion onto the front page of the NYT and instead they used a lot of filter through approaches. But I’m not saying it couldn’t be Rendon on her mind. But whichever, the NIE leak gives Waxman a good toehold to dig in and when he does, whatever else he gets is fairplay.
First of all, because Libby had leaked it to BOTH Woodward and Sanger first, without any funky attribution, and in the case of Sanger, with a witness (Martin). And Condi had leaked chunks earlier in June.
As to the rest:
Miller’s trial testimony specifically ties the Hill Staffer attribution to the Plame identity and NOT to the NIE.
Judy never published it.
Also wrong about Rendon.
Rendon got the Haideri interrogation to Miller.
Rendon was (I’ve been told, though I can’t prove it) behind the Mahdi Obeidi disinformation, also purportedly based on interrogation.
The leaker in chief pleading filed by Fitzgerald:
I know that there’s a very good argument that all the NIE leak was a cover for the Plame leak, but whether it was being floated as cover or not, to have the Executive authorize planting a story in domestic press without attribution other than to a “former Hill staffer” and for the stated purpose of discrediting a domestic critic, Wilson, pretty much seems to be what 503 is all about. That doesn’t mean it should be a stop point on the investigation into the leak, but it does mean the cover story, free standing, opens a signficant Congressional oversight door and poses a possible signficant violation of existing statute on its face (covert in context of NSAct sec 503 having a different meanign from covert in context of IIPA).
This document, too, is where Fitzgerald pretty much has to make his pitch on alignment of the interests bc of an earlier ruling by Walton and the possible significant impact it could have had on Fitzgerald moving forward (and bmaz I think it is probably where you got the view that the Bush and CHeney conversations were in response to subpoenas. Fitzgerald says: “To the extent there was a steady flow of documents produced, that flow of documents was in response to a steadyflow of subpoenas.”
Not that much of this matters one way or the other bc Congress won’t do anything, but while the real crime was the outing of the CIA agent and while there are lots of pieces of evidence pointing to Cheney and Bush, the actual violation of statute that is a statute intended for Congressional oversight and where the elements of violation were spelled out in public pleadings (as made under GJ oath by Libby btw – which should open a door to the GJ info for investigation of that “other” crime) is the NIE leak.
And there is nothing about pushing for info relating to the players bc of the NSAct violation spelled out by Libby in his under oath testimony that prevents in any way using that info, or that toehold to get info, to also go to the heart of the real crime – the Plame leak.
First of all, your except proves my point–”Hill staffer” is tied to Plame, not NIE (though I can pull the trial citation if you want me to).
Second of all, how does this change the fact that Libby shared this with Sanger in a manner not at all unusual for DC, with a written record and the invitation for true attribution, before he shared it with Judy? I mean, that’s what the EVIDENCE in this case shows.
I mean, it’s a nice argument. But simple as anything to rebut. Why make an argument for which there is abundant counter-evidence (and, since your point about Hill staffer doesn’t work) fundamentally comes down to Libby cherry picking evidence and sharing it–ostensibly after it had been declassified–with the press?
Two other things of interest:
1) Remember that Scotty McClellan said in his recent book that Bush admitted publicly that he’d revealed NIE information before (I think) it was declassified. McClellan said he was stunned by that revelation.
2) How is it possible that Congress could pass a law, overriding the President’s veto if necessary), which requires the president (preemptively attack) to overthrow Saddam Hussein by warfare and this isn’t unconstitutional?
Are there no restraints on the President OR Congress in certain situations?
For the sake of justice, I urge Fitzy to resign and go public.
As I’ve stated before, the only way we can settle this mess is
for a credible Whistleblower to blow the horn. Fitz can be the “Butterfield
Tape” in person.
Pat, you’ve got the floor….
47 – but neither Woodward nor Sanger were authorized to give govt attribution either IIRC. ANd whether Miller published or not is kind of like the question of actual publication for a espionage act case. If they gave the info to the domestic press for the purpose of trying to counter domestic critics and only authorized its use without gov attribution, then they were covertly planting the story. Actual publication isn’t an element of the violation – the effot to get it published by planting it is enough.
48 “Also wrong about Rendon.” It would be the first that I’ve heard that Bush directly authorized Rendon to plant info with Miller.
And on Haideri, are you talking about the interview Miller did with him herself, or about a classified interrogation interview report given to her by Rendon? I do think Rendon had some direct press ties but the INC (Iraqi Naitonal Congress) was who I thought was more directly online for setting up Miller with Haideri and they also set up Moran (who works for Rendon) with him too. Or are you talking about a leak to Miller of the polygraph by CIA? In any event, while Libby under oath is saying that he leaked to Miller as a govt employee but without govt attribution, I’m not familiar with that kind of under oath record on Rendon.
The Sanger interview was off the record with the option for him to clear background quotes (I’m taking that from Cathie Martin’s notes on the top of the interview notes).
In other words, the standard kind of interview in DC. But you’re going to establish a propaganda case because the Administration leaked an actual document (albeit cherry picked) in the course of a standard interview.
50 – I don’t even see the Plame leak referenced in the preceding paragraphs to the Hill staffer attribution, so ?
On Sanger, I did not know that Libby offered the NIE key judgements that had yet to be formally declassified (Hadley was still working on that) for Sanger to publish with govt attribution. I thought I had paid attention and I know that Martin was there, but it passed right by me that he was being encouraged to publish the NIE key judgements with WH attribution.
It WASN’T the key judgments (Fitz had to retract that). In Libby’s GJ appearance, Fitz asked, specifically, whether the just of what Libby had leaked to Miller was “vigorously trying to pursue.” He said yes. We know that is precisely what Woodward got.
Sanger, we don’t know exactly, bc that part of the interview notes is redacted. But the implication (since, at the time Fitz asked the questions he didn’t know about Woodward and he was incredulous when Libby asserted it was “vigorously,” and he asked him if that was the only time he used vigorously) is that he used the same phrase with Sanger.
Are you sure that Fitz did not know about Woodward at the time?
Well, here are some interesting things that seem to be connected. Mukasey wrote:
EW wrote:
Wondering about who the “WH officials” might be, I hit Wikipedia, which led to the entry for “Marc Grossman” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Grossman
This part’s worth noting on this thread:
This establishes Marc Grossman in WH meetings, which means that he should be included in Waxman’s requested info, particularly around June 10, 200. (I tried to click on EW’s ‘Ghorbanifar Timeline’ link to see whether Larry Franklin or Harold Rhodes did anything spectacularly odd in that timeframe, but that timeline link is still not working 8((
FWIW, I’d kind of forgotten that it was Grossman who probably tipped off Hadley to Plame’s identity. I’d not thought of Grossman as someone who’d be in meetings at the WH, but it does put him in the range of Waxman’s requests. (Well, Grossman and probably hundreds of others, but I digress…)
EW @50 points out a very odd dichotomy:
Why would Libby leak the NIE in the usual, run-of-the-mill Beltway fashion, yet try to hide and cloak himself about anything related to Plame?
That sure makes it appear that the NIE was the collateral damage.
Plame would have been the real target, following EW’s point at 50. And if Plame were the real target, that could lead right back to the Wikipedia entry on “Grossman”.
At the bottom of the Grossman Wikipedia page, it mentions that Grossman has been accused of being involved in selling secrets about nukes. And that he’s a former Amb. to Turkey. And has served in Pakistan (1976 – 83). And NATO 83, 86.
After reading EW’s comment at 50, and considering that Plame (not the NIE) was the real target, that sure raises more questions about Marc Grossman, and his activities following his discovery of Plame’s identity on June 10th.
After that date, all hell broke loose; Cheney and Libby seem to have gone into hyperdrive trying to ‘out’ Plame.
If it didn’t sound bizarre and nutso, I’d say that as I read this thread, it was a bit spooky to think that Sibyl Edmonds seems to look more credible when you start looking at:
– the dates
– Grossman’s likely ability to circumvent Powell, connect to Hadley (and the Pentagon neocons via Hadley and OVP), while remaining publicly invisible
– the intense focus on destroying a US intel agent (and her group) who were tracking nukes (including, one presumes, black market nukes)
–the idea that Plame and her group were regarded (by Grossman, Hadley, Libby, Cheney, and who else…?!) as a bigger threat than the NIE (!)
–the fact that Grossman has served in Turkey, as well as Pakistan (both implicated in black market nukes, and both targets of Israel, and both areas in which Plame also worked)
– the note at the bottom of the Grossman Wikipedia page mentioning that he’s been accused of involvement with selling black market nukes***
the kinds of euphenisms that Grossman could have used.
On the other hand, Grossman and Joe Wilson’s paths must have crossed many times. Which makes it seem quite odd if Grossman didn’t know about Plame and her activities. So maybe Sibyl Edmonds is full of nonsense…?
No answers. But more questions — esp. after the likelihood that Mukasey is signaling someone(s), and also after EW’s comment @50.
*** It’s an accusation, not a verified fact. Also, for all I know the guy is a double-secret-super-duper agent. But for the US? Or for Israel? Or for a black market entity…? I got no answers.
2 lillysmom – EW’s work is indeed “staggering”. Others as well. Thank you.
### So if Waxman reduces his request for documents does Mukasey’s argument fall apart?
Yesterday
“WilliamOckham July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
13
I almost agree with Mukasey. Here’s the crux of his argument:
The only subpoenaed document that the Committee addresses with any particularity is the Vice President’s interview report, which the Department has not made available for review because of heightened separation of powers concerns. Despite repeatedly referencing the report, however, the Committee never articulates any legitimate legislative interest in the document that might outweigh an executive privilege claim. Instead, the Comminee simply reiterates its general interest in White House procedures for handling classified information, July 8 Committee Letter at 6, and broadly asserts that “this Committee and the American people are entitled to know” about the Vice President’s conduct in the Plame matter, id. at 2.
These general assertions fall well short of the “demonstrably critical” particularized need required to overcome an executive privilege claim.
By not using impeachment as the lever, the Congress has weakened its case for getting these documents.”
## I still don’t get how you can push for impeachment hearings if you do not remove the “clouds” first?
## Why did Ari Fleisher get immunity?
## Is this possible?
“AlbertFall July 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am
22
Subpoena Fitz for a full week discussion session on camera on everything he knows about Plame, including any details he can recall on the Cheney interview.
If Cheney wants to refute the testimony, he can turn over the interview.”
DOES FITZ HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION YET? HE SAID THAT HE COULD RE-OPEN THE INVESTIGATION BASED ON “NEW INFORMATION”