The Resignation of CIFA’s Top Management

/in /by

I’m still reading the November 2005 affidavit on Cunningham’s bribery. It has a previously unknown level of detail on the CIFA-related pork Cunningham made possible. I think some of those details provide new insight into why the Director and Deputy Director of CIFA resigned (speaking of "trepidation") in August 2006, when the Cunningham investigation was focusing closely on CIFA.

The affidavit provides details of the involvement of the top management of CIFA in Cunningham’s deals for MZM. In particular, Deputy Director Hefferon intervened directly to make sure MZM still got its contracts.

A letter signed by Cunningham on or before February 24,2004, congratulates the Director of
CIFA regarding the Collaboration Center, stating in full as follows (emphasis added):I wish to take this opportunity to thank your staff for supporting the recent execution of the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) Collaboration Center Program. Additionally, I wish to endorse and support MZM, Idc.’s work, under your Statement of Work, DTD 20Feb04. As the Collaboration Center is completed, I hope to help you inaugurate the center as I did
at the inception of CIFA. According to Wade, MZM actually authored this letter on Cunningham’s congressional stationary.

[snip]

That same day, at approximately 12:26 p.m., Wiatrak objects: "Because we are being Read more →

MZM’s Republican AND DEMOCRATIC Congressmen

/in /by

I’m working my way through this November 2005 affidavit relating to the Cunningham scandal (hat tip Kentucky Jelly). But this paragraph and footnote jumped out at me, especially in light of Democratic refusal to declassify the complete report on Cunningham’s House Intelligence Committee contracting.

On a page entitled "Election Impact on Congressional Mandates," Wade listed a number of politicians, starting with Cunningham, all of whom won reelection in November 2002. Wade
commented at the bottom of the slide: "Election enhanced MZM, Inc. . . . Thus CIFA Position." On a page entitled ‘Benefits to CIFA from Congressional Mandates Initiative Support," Wade trumpeted as one item: ‘Delivery of over $6?.62M in the last three fiscal years over budget — no other entity within the CIFA family has accomplished this task."

[footnote] The Members of Congress listed by Wade are: Congressmen Randy Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert, Duncan Hunter, [Jerry] Lewis, Allan Mollohan, John Murtha, David Weldon and Bill Young, and Senators Robert Byrd, Larry Craig, Robert Dole; Orin Hatch, Daniel Inouye, Trent Lott, Jay Rockefeller and Richard Shelby.

This isn’t all that big a surprise. After all, both Murtha and Mollohan appear on lists of the most corrupt Congressmen. Byrd is the kind of pork. Read more →

Desperation at the DOJ

/in /by

The DOJ’s refusal to let John Tanner testify before the House Judiciary Committee reeks of desperation. After all, Brad Schlozman and Hans Von Spakovsky have already testified before Congress. Alberto Gonzales has testified repeatedly. What possible excuse can DOJ make not to allow Tanner to testify, ostensibly a career employee?

The absence of any good reason to refuse the request for his testimony suggests DOJ–and the Administration–is particularly worried about what he would say under oath. He would have to admit to:

There may be one more thing DOJ and the Bush Adminsitration are trying to prevent Tanner from admitting under oath. This ePluribusMedia article suggests that Tanner’s single-minded interest in becoming Vote Section chief seems to be stronger than his racism and Republican partisanship. Which raises the possibility he adopted such racist policies in exchange for the job he has wanted for over Read more →

Useful Details about Armitage Might Be In There

/in /by

As predicted, Tom Maguire links to the two affidavits I made available yesterday without pointing out what those affidavits say: that in Fall 2004, Fitzgerald was still actively investigating Armitage and Novak and Rove and Libby on the Novak leak–because their stories all contradicted what the others were saying. Let me help you out, Tom, by quoting the entire passage on Armitage and the Novak column:

A brief discussion is in order to place the Libby conversation with Miller–and the evidence of a broader effort to disseminate information discrediting Wilson–in context with the Novak column and to address the assertion by Miller that Miller’s interview may not be necessary "if the government has already interviewed or otherwise queried Mr. Novak."

Let me interject two points. First, Miller’s complaint might as well stand in for the Libby Lobby, since the complaint is the same, that Fitzgerald shouldn’t have to proceed beyond Novak. And second: note that Fitzgerald references "evidence of a broader effort" to smear Wilson. That means Fitzgerald saw the Novak leak–with or without Richard Armitage’s role–to be part of a larger effort. Now back to Fitzgerald:

The investigation to date has conclusively established that columnist Robert Novak spoke to Deputy Secretary of Read more →

Where is Mary McCarthy Now?

/in /by

Reuters reports that the EU report on secret prisons got much of its information from anonymous US intelligence officers.

Dissident U.S. intelligence officers angry at former DefenseSecretary Donald Rumsfeld helped a European probe uncover details ofsecret CIA prisons in Europe, the top investigator said on Tuesday.  

SwissSenator Dick Marty, author of a Council of Europe report on the jails,said senior CIA officials disapproved of Rumsfeld’s methods in huntingdown terrorist suspects, and had agreed to talk to him on condition ofanonymity.

 

"There were huge conflicts between the CIA andRumsfeld. Many leading figures in the CIA did not accept these methodsat all," Marty told European Parliament committees, defending his workagainst complaints it was based on unnamed sources.

Which makes me wonder where Mary McCarthy is now. You remember–she was the CIA’s Deputy Inspector General fired last year for allegedly leaking classified information, including details on the secret prisons in Poland and Romania.

But another CIA officer — the agency’s deputy inspector general,who for the previous year had been probing allegations of criminalmistreatment by the CIA and its contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan –was startled to hear what she considered an outright falsehood,according to people familiar with her account. It came during thediscussion of legislation Read more →

The DOD/State Talking Point, Two

/in /by

This is a follow-up to my post speculating that Cheney got his talking point about DOD and State being interested in the Iraq intell from the documents Valerie Wilson wrote before Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger. This post will do something very simple: show where that talking point shows up, and where it doesn’t. This post raises more questions than answers–about the real function of Libby’s note, about Cathie Martin’s role, and about Libby’s conversation with Novak. But I happen to think they’re really fascinating questions.

As I’ve stated before, the DOD/State talking point doesn’t show up in the article it was purportedly intended for. Here’s what Pincus’ article says about the genesis of the trip:

The CIA’s decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered byquestions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agencybriefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi effortsto acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney’sstaff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetusfor a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.

The simplest explanation for why the talking point doesn’t appear in the article is that CIA got involved–around 5:30 PM on Thursday, June 11–too late to get it to Pincus in time for a Friday morning article. It’s also possible that CIA refused to confirm the talking point on the record.

The talking point also doesn’t appear in the Judis-Ackerman article that appeared later in June.

One year earlier, Cheney’s office had received from the British, viathe Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq’s purchase of uraniumfrom Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turnasked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to threeAfrican countries, to investigate.

That’s not a surprise either–there’s no indication this article includes any input from OVP–though the absence of the talking point does suggest Ackerman and Judis’ sources, which may or may not have CIA ties, are in no mood or position to describe State and DOD’s interest.

What Fitzgerald Didn’t Know Yet

/in /by

In an effort to make these affidavits available as soon as possible so the wingnuts can start admitting they were wrong about Fitzgerald being a runaway prosecutor, I thought I’d catalog some of the things Fitzgerald didn’t appear to know by August 27, 2004 and September 27, 2004.

As of August 2004, Fitzgerald did not yet know that:

  • Rove may have talked to Novak on July 8, not July 9
  • There was a second phone call between Libby and Judy on July 12 (Fitzgerald notes just one phone call, a 3 minute phone call at 4:03 pm)
  • The source of the information in Novak’s column that Plame worked in CPD
  • The source of Plame’s name in Novak’s column
  • Pincus’ source (he considered Ari, Libby, and two other people likely candidates–note the discussion on page 21 of a Senior Administration Official calling from Africa to Pincus on July 9)
  • Whether Chris Matthews’ or Rove’s account of their "Wilson’s wife is fair game" conversation was correct (note Fitzgerald calls that conversation a "heated exchange" on page 32)

The DOD/State Talking Point

/in /by

This is the post I’ve been promising for weeks, in which I will speculate wildly as to the source of Cheney’s knowledge about Plame’s role at CPD and in her husband’s trip. Here’s the argument, in brief:

  • Cheney learns during the week of June 9 that "Defense and State expressed a strong interestin the Niger intelligence"
  • At a time when Cheney presumably already knew that information, he tried to get CIA to repeat it in such a way that it could be published
  • This suggests he could not use his original source for that information (either because the source refused to publish that information or because he wanted to hide the source itself)
  • One possible explanation (this is speculation, mind you) is that Cheney saw Valerie Wilson’s emails leading up to Wilson’s trip to Niger–which would have informed him of key information–and would have made it clear that Valerie’s identity was protected

House Intelligence Committee Stonewalling

/in /by

During the book salon chat on The Wrong Stuff yesterday, we discussed the House Intelligence Committee report on how Duke Cunningham managed to scam so much money for his friends. Lo and behold, the LAT has a long article on it today (hat tip Kentucky Jelly). The report, though, is pretty disappointing. If Congressional Intelligence Committees are good at one thing, after all, it is scoping investigations to hide the dirt.

The report’s principal author said in an interview that the terms underwhich he was hired to conduct the investigation prevented him fromexamining lawmakers’ roles.

"There was an agreement as to what they wanted to look at, and that wasnot anything that could be looked at under the sun," said MichaelStern, a former attorney in the House counsel’s office who was hired bythe committee to lead the internal probe. "The language did not includethe culpability or potential involvement of other members."

Stern said that the full, 59-page report he prepared a year ago wasclassified, but that he also provided the committee a 23-page versionthat had been scrubbed of classified material. The Times obtained thedeclassified version.

Nevertheless, Pete Hoekstra throws a fit every time we get close to declassifying the complete report.

Congressional sources said Reyes and other Democrats had initiallyvoted to let other members of Congress see the document, but reversedcourse after a fierce protest by the panel’s ranking GOP member, PeterHoekstra of Michigan.

Who uses lizard logic to claim the report shows nothing of interest:

Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Hoekstra, stressed that the investigationfound no wrongdoing by staffers or other members, and said the findingswere never intended to be released.

After all, if the report was scoped to exclude any inquiry into members roles, then it’s not surprising that the report found no wrongdoing by staffers or other members, right?

Of all lawmakers, though, it seems clear the report stayed furthest away from Peter Goss’ role.

No Oversight

/in /by

Remember when I pointed out that the real story of those civil liberties violations that Gonzales didn’t admit to was the role of the Intelligence Oversight Board? Well, I was right:

An independent oversight board created to identify intelligence abuses after the CIAscandals of the 1970s did not send any reports to the attorney generalof legal violations during the first 5 1/2 years of the Bushadministration’s counterterrorism effort, the Justice Department has told Congress.

Although the FBItold the board of a few hundred legal or rules violations by its ownagents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the board did not identifywhich of them were indeed legal violations. This spring, it forwardedreports of violations in 2006, officials said.

The President’s Intelligence Oversight Board — the principal civilianwatchdog of the intelligence community — is obligated under a26-year-old executive order to tell the attorney general and thepresident about any intelligence activities it believes "may beunlawful." The board was vacant for the first two years of the Bushadministration. [my emphasis]

Basically, this article reveals that Bush didn’t have an Intelligence Oversight Board for the first two years of his Administration. Afterwards, it simply didn’t report violations to the Attorney General, though the FBI admits there were violations. And I presume, since the article makes clear (as I suggested) that Bush’s IOB a part of his PFIAB, then IOB stopped meeting classification guidelines in the year that IOB started doing it’s job, kind of. Which is another way of saying that, either Bush didn’t have a functional IOB, or if he did, he permitted it to play the same classification games he permitted Dick Cheney.