They

/in /by

I’m thrilled by the news that Democrats intend to call Jack Goldsmith to testify on the domestic wiretap program.

Congressional Democrats plan to step up the heat in coming weeks,pressing for Justice memos and other documents. They also plan to calla potentially crucial witness: Jack L. Goldsmith, the former chief ofJustice’s Office of Legal Counsel. It was Goldsmith who wrote a keyopinion concluding the eavesdropping program was illegal.

But do you suppose that Mikey Isikoff might have bothered to follow those "who, what, why, when, where" rules of journalism and told us precisely who "they" are?

After all, "they" (SSCI) also had plans to call an equally critical witness, John Ashcroft, a while back. And that seems to have fizzled into extended negotiations with DOJ over his testimony. And "they" (HPSCI) actually did interview Ashcroft, to little fanfare, though the cryptic comments from Reyes and Holt don’t enlighten us at all on the program [update hat tip Staar]. Meanwhile, "they" (HJC) called the critical witness James Comey and plum forgot to ask him about the dispute over the domestic wiretap program. If "they" (SJC, preferably without giving the White House and DOJ an opportunity to say no, as seems to have happened Read more →

Have they done this sort of thing? Send an Amb to answer a question?, Part Two

/in /by

This is the second post in a series. In the prior post, I showed that, when Libby asked David Addington about paperwork relating to a CIA employee’s spouse traveling for the CIA, he was interested in identifying all backup documents to Wilson’s 2002 trip and/or the paperwork associated with Wilson’s 1999 trip to Niger relating to AQ Khan. In this post, I’ll show that, the two questions Libby asked Addington reflect the annotations Cheney wrote on Wilson’s op-ed.

As best as we can tell, on late July 6 or early July 7, 2003, DickCheney returned to DC from a long weekend in Jackson Hole. He broughtwith him his copy of Joe Wilson’s op-ed, folded vertically. In addition to a bunch of underlines Cheney had made, he had written at the top:

Have they done this sort of thing?

Send an Amb to answer a question?

Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?

Or did his wife send him on a junket?

I have shownthat Cheney clearly read (and presumably annotated) this op-ed beforeJuly 8.That’s because the talking points he dictates to Cathie Martinon July 8 refer explicitly to what Wilson says in his op-ed.

But the important point about these talking points is that Cheney references Wilson’s op-ed. Ashard as Libby tries, he cannot claim that Cheney only read Wilson’sop-ed after the Novak article. Cheney uses an attack–the ridiculousattack about Wilson going pro bono–that he wrote in his op-ed talkingpoints in the talking points he dictated to Martin on July 8.

If you’ve got a strong heart, Fitzgerald does a much (much!) weedier version of this in his closing argument,showing that many of Cheney’s underlines and notes show up in thesetalking points. Both Fitzgerald’s and my version make it crystal clear thatCheney’s changed his instructions to Cathie Martin–and OVP’s standard talking points addressing Joe Wilson–in response to reading Wilson’s op-ed.

But what about Libby? Did Cheney change his instructions for Libby after annotating Wilson’s op-ed? If we can prove he was, it adds one more piece ofevidence to the accumulating collection of evidence showing that Cheneyordered Libby to leak Plame’s identity.

Have they done this sort of thing? Send an Amb to answer a question?, Part One

/in /by

This is going to be a two part post. In this post, I’m going to show a key discrepancy between Libby’s testimony about the questions he asked Addington on July 8, and Addington’s. Addington’s testimony suggests that (contrary to Libby’s claims), Libby was looking for general details about the paperwork behind Wilson’s trip, which would have exposed Valerie’s role at the CIA, potentially her status, as well as prior trips Joe Wilson had made for the CIA. In a following post, I’ll show that this question was probably asked in response to a conversation with Cheney based on Cheney’s scribblings on Wilson’s op-ed.

The Discrepancies between Libby’s and Addington’s Testimony

There are three pieces of testimony regarding the conversation that Scooter Libby and David Addington had on July 8, 2003, about insta-declassification and paperwork on a CIA spouse’s travel to the CIA:

  • Libby’s notes recording both what he wanted to ask Addington and what Addington responded
  • Libby’s grand jury testimony
  • Addington’s trial testimony

However, there are significant discrepancies between Addington’s testimony and Libby’s–and Libby’s own notes only confuse the issue.

No Longer Operative

/in /by

It looks like we’re approaching the point where some hack stands up and explains that the claim that any disagreements were not about the domestic wiretap program is no longer operative.

Documents indicate eight congressional leaderswere briefed about the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillanceprogram on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting swornSenate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

[snip]

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearingTuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was notabout the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the NationalSecurity Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States withoutreceiving court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

[snip]

"The dissent related to other intelligenceactivities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. "The dissent wasnot about the terrorist surveillance program."

I’m officially taking bets. Do you think Gonzales’ get-out-of-jail-card will come more quickly or more slowly than Libby’s did?

Did Harman Approve of the Illegal Domestic Wiretap Program?

/in /by

Well, that was quick work. Yesterday I suggested that the Gang of Eight who purportedly attended the March 10, 2004 meeting at which Alberto Gonzales claims to have developed consensus that they should ignore James Comey’s concerns and continue to tap American citizens anyway might have some enlightenment to offer about what went on at the meeting. So far, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, and Tom Daschle argue that Gonzales is full of shit. Jane Harman, however, engages in a little shiny-objecting.

Representative Jane Harman of California, who in 2004 was the topDemocrat on the House Intelligence Committee, insisted that there wasonly one N.S.A. program, making Mr. Gonzales’s assertions inaccurate.

“Theprogram had different parts, but there was only one program,” Ms.Harman said, adding that Mr. Gonzales was “selectively declassifyinginformation to defend his own conduct,” which she called improper.

Before I go on, let’s lay out the math. Speaker Pelosi reveals that a majority did agree the country should ignore little issues like legality and continue the program.

Speaker Nancy Pelosiof California, who attended the 2004 White House meeting as HouseDemocratic minority leader, said through a spokesman that she did notdispute that the majority of those present supported continuing theintelligence activity. But Ms. Pelosi said Read more →

Cunningham, CIFA, and Cheney, a New Chronology

/in /by

In light of the news that Alberto Gonzales granted Cheneypresidential powers to snoop into ongoing investigations in May 2006, I thoughtit was time to update my chronology of the CIFA side of the Cunningham scandal.

  • September 2002, then Deputy Secretary of Defense for Counter-Intelligence Burtt establishes CIFA to oversee counterintelligence units of the armed services; consulting on the new agency was James King, recently retired director of National Imagery and Mapping Agency and MZM vice president
  • Late 2002, Cunningham gets Mitchell Wade a data storage contract worth $6 million, of which $5.4 was profit
  • January 2004, Cunningham adds $16.5 million to defense authorization for a "collaboration     center" that appears to include business for Wade’s company
  • June 27, 2005, James King takes over MZM
  • August 2005 Veritas announces takeover of MZM–will become Athena
  • November 28, 2005, Cunningham pleads guilty to bribery
  • November 30, 2005, USNORTHCOM JPEN deletes all TALON reports
  • December 2005, Pincus reveals a CIFA database contains raw intelligence data on peace activists (and, presumably, Jesus’ General)
  • March 2006, prosecutors in the Cunningham case are reviewing CIFA contracts to MZM
  • March 2006, Stephen Cambone announces an investigation of CIFA’s contracting
  • Goss implicated in Cunningham scandal
  • May 4, 2006, Gonzales gives himself authority to "communicate directly … regarding any matter within the Read more →

Let the Sunshine In

/in /by

I’m with David Kurtz. In addition to offering good reason to begin impeachment procedures, Bush’s dangerous claims to executive and deliberative privilege really ought to invite us to reconsider the notion that Presidents need to hide their deliberations.

As long as we’re going to be discussing the parameters of executiveprivilege in the weeks and months ahead, can we start by revisiting thenow commonly accepted notion that the President can only get free andunfettered advice if those giving the advice know it will remainconfidential?

Every talking head starts the discussion of executive privilege witha solemn nod to this totem. Heck, even Kevin Drum conceded this pointin a post back in March: 

The president and his immediate staff really do have astrong interest in their ability to receive candid, provocative advice,and that interest is threatened if advisors are worried that the ideasthey toss around in private are likely to become public. This is animportant principle regardless of who occupies the White House.

Is that really true though? Literally, Kevin is right. Presidents dohave a strong interest in this principle. But the President’s interest,in this instance, is not in line with the public interest. In fact,executive privilege offers the President and his advisers a perversedisincentive to Read more →

Dear Congress

/in /by

John Bates has issued a ruling I’ve been anticipating–dismissing the Wilson lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Armitage. If I’m reading correctly, Bates ruled that he has no jurisdiction to rule in this matter.

This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ tort claim for public disclosure of private facts.

He therefore did not deal with many of the arguments the Wilsons and the defendants raised in this case–including Cheney’s claim to absolute immunity. But he prefaces his detailed discussion with the following comment.

The merits of plaintiffs’ claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials.

All of which is a 40-page way of saying what Cheney and Libby and Rove and Armitage did was wrong. But a civil suit is not the appropriate venue to address that wrong. And with Bush’s self-serving commutation of Libby’s sentence, the criminal courts have been foreclosed as the means to address that wrong, too.

Which leaves Congress. There is abundant evidence already in the public record showing top members of the Administration–including Bush himself–abused their positions of power to rebut Joe Wilson. Some of those actions–including the commutation itself, since it removed Bush from criminal liability for his actions–fit Read more →

Propaganda Squared

/in /by

I’ve been referring to Brigadier Bergner as Baghdad Bergner since he first started giving press conferences. There was the press conference where he blamed Iran for the woes in Iraq, based on the interrogation of one Shiite. There’s this press conference where he blamed all the woes in Iraq on Al Qaeda in Iraq. The man clearly has no shame at telling the most transparent lies–from a podium not far from where his predecessor Baghdad Bob used to do the same.

But I gotta say, as someone whose credentials for analyzing all things postmodern are impeccable, this makes me dizzy.

In March, he was declared captured. In May, he was declared killed, andhis purported corpse was displayed on state-run TV. But on Wednesday,Abu Omar Baghdadi, the supposed leader of an Al Qaeda-affiliated groupin Iraq, was declared nonexistent by U.S. military officials, who saidhe was a fictional character created to give an Iraqi face to aforeign-run terrorist organization.

An Iraqi actor has been usedto read statements attributed to Baghdadi, who since October has beenidentified as the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq group, said U.S.Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner.

Bergner said the new information came from a man captured July 4,described as the highest-ranking Iraqi within the Islamic State of Iraq.

Hesaid the detainee, identified as Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud MahmoudMashadani, has served as a propaganda chief in the organization, aSunni Muslim insurgent group that swears allegiance to Osama binLaden’s Al Qaeda.

Here’s our shameless propaganda chief, claiming that their shameless propaganda chief invented a bogeyman that we could then say we had captured. Because it’s not like we’ve invented such bogeymans for our own use, nuh uh, not us. And conveniently, this little hall of mirrors ends up right back where BushCo would like to have us, with the claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq is Al Qaeda is the War on Terror is the never-ending war is the big bogeyman no one seems to care about anymore.

Now, to her credit, reporter Tina Susman provides two caveats presumably designed to suggest she can tell bullshit when she sees it:

AGAG Says “Good Job”–but about What?

/in /by

Al Kamen chronicles the latest joy-ridden interaction between Alberto Gonzales and Patrick Fitzgerald.

In the Justice Department‘s Great Hall (the very room where giant, blue drapes covered the underdressed statuary during John Ashcroft‘s tenure as attorney general), an array of prosecutors, securities regulators and FBI honchos gathered yesterday to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the President’s Corporate Fraud Task Force.

Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who famously prosecuted former vice presidential aide Scooter Libby, was chatting with a pair of reporters about his upcoming appearance on the National Public Radio program "Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!" when none other than Attorney General Alberto "Fredo" Gonzales appeared at his side.

"Good job," Gonzales said, extending his hand to Fitzgerald. Must havebeen thinking of Fitzgerald’s office’s successful prosecution last weekof media mogul Conrad Black for fraud, obstruction, etc. Fitzgerald, taken aback, didn’t say much in response, our colleague Carrie Johnson reports.

I suppose the context–an event on Corporate Fraud might support the explanation that AGAG was complimenting Fitzgerald on his successful prosecution of Conrad Black. But that’s not the only thing Fitzgerald has done in the last few weeks that might please Bush’s Fredo. After all, in an attempt to salvage some modicum Read more →