Archive for category: emptywheel

As I said earlier, the most interesting part of the Tatel opinion is the two-page section that remains redacted (thanks again to Jeralyn for making the opinion available), explaining why Fitzgerald suspects Rove perjured himself in his testimony about Novak and Cooper. I believe that section includes:

• An assertion that Rove lied when he testified that he responded to Novak’s story about Plame by saying, "you heard that too?"
• A description of some way that Rove’s testimony contradicts Novak’s description that Rove promised to declassify the CIA report on Wilson’s trip
• A description of Rove’s presumably changing testimony about Cooper–and possibly a description about the magically rediscovered Rove-Hadley email
• A description of one more piece of involvement on the part of Cheney

The passage comes after the long passage explaining the Miller subpoena. That Miller passage follows this logic:

• Describes the two Miller calls
• Asserts that, given the other reasons to distrust Libby’s testimony, he may have lied about the Miller conversations, too
• Describes the Russert/Libby discrepancies–including the quotes from both men’s grand jury testimony that lays out those discrepancies
• Describes proof Libby knew of Plame on July 8 using the Fleischer conversation
• Describes the potential discussion of Plame on Air Force Two and Cheney’s other involvement
• Shows that Miller may provide the final piece of evidence for a perjury charge

One important point here is that the quotes from Libby’s, Russert’s, Ari’s, and Cooper’s Libby grand jury testimony are all used to support Tatel’s argument that there is evidence of perjury. They’re very narrowly selected quotes that pertain directly to the case on perjury. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that the grand jury testimony that was unsealed today (including quotes from Novak, Armitage, and evidence pertaining to Cheney) also support an argument of evidence of perjury.

Which brings us to the passage on Rove that has just been unsealed. It starts by setting up that, according to both Armitage and Novak, Rove was involved in the Novak leak, all the while admitting that Armitage was also involved.

Although uncontradicted testimony indicates that Novak first learned Wilson’s wife’s place of employment during a meeting on July 8 with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 18), Novak said in grand jury testimony that he confirmed Plame’s employment with Rove (II-153-54), a longstanding source for his columns (II-121-22). According to Novak, when he “brought up” Wilson’s wife, “Mr. Rove said, oh, you know about that too” (II-154) and promised to seek declassification of portions of a CIA report regarding the Niger trip, which Rove said “wasn’t an impressive piece of work or a very definitive piece of work” (II-158). In an October 2003 column describing his sources, Novak identified Armitage’s comment as an “offhand revelation” from “a senior administration official” who was “no partisan gunslinger.” (II-20.) He referred to Rove simply as “another official” who said, “Oh, you know about it.” (II-20, 209-11.)

Upon reading Novak’s October column, Armitage recognized himself as Novak’s source and, as he told the grand jury, “went ballistic.” (II-859-60.) He contacted Secretary of State Colin Powell to offer his resignation (II-862-64) and spoke the next day with FBI and Justice Department officials investigating the leak (II-878-79). “I was very unhappy at myself,” Armitage testified, “because I had let the President down, I’d let the Secretary down, and frankly, I’d let Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson down. In my view inadvertently, but that’s for others to judge.” (II-860.) [my emphasis]

Now this passage does two things. It lays out all the details thus far presented to the grand jury by Armitage and Novak, though not Rove. And it provides some explanation for why Armitage was not charged with an IIPA violation, but it does not say as much. Alternately, it could lay the groundwork for an argument that Novak was lying when he said Armitage was his first source (which would explain why Tatel included so much detail about Novak’s sourcing)–but I’ll assume for now it doesn’t since the passage says that uncontradicted testimony says that Novak first learned of Plame from Armitage.

The following two pages are redacted, and the paragraph following the long redaction reads:

Nope, I still haven’t stopped obsessing over Clement’s opinion on the subpoenas.

As I pointed out yesterday, Clement makes one claim that I believe is false and probably disingenuous. He claims that Bush has a nondelegable power to appoint US Attorneys, inscribed in the Constitution.

These confidentiality interests are particularly strongwhere, as here, the communications may implicate a "quintessential andnondelegable Presidential power," such as the authority to nominate orto remove U.S. Attorneys.

[snip]

The Senate has the authority to approve or reject the appointment ofofficers whose appointment by law requires the advice and consent ofthe Senate (which has been the case for U.S. Attorneys since thefounding of the Republic), but it is for the President to decide whomto nominate to such positions and whether to remove such officers onceappointed. [my emphasis]

As I pointed out yesterday, the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to legislate how and who appoints inferior officers, including US Attorneys.

but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferiorofficers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courtsof law, or in the heads of departments.

But we don’t even have to go to the Constitution to prove that this is the case–after all, this whole scandal started after Brett Tolman snuck a provision into the PATRIOT Act that took the right to appoint US Attorneys away from judges and gave it to the Attorney Gonzales. This whole scandal started when Congress exercised its right to legislate how US Attorneys get appointed–even if Congress claims it didn’t know it was doing so at the time.

I’d like to use some details from the WaPo’s story on Booz Allen’s no-bid contract this morning to put some things in perspective. The article cites the SSCI with a price tag for each contract employee:

The average annual cost ofa contract employee is $250,000, almost twice that of a federalemployee, according to an estimate recently cited by the Senate SelectCommittee on Intelligence.

I’m guessing that, since so many federal employees are unionized, this is comparing mostly non-union contract employees with a union government employees. And the contract employee is making twice as much as the government union employee.

DHS is paying those obscene rates, they would argue, because those employees provide a crucial service at the front-line of protecting our nation.

So can someone explain to me why it is that Bush is promising to veto the bill finally implementing the changes recommended by the 9/11 Commission because he wants to prevent TSA’s workers from getting collective bargaining rights? Bush apparently thinks it is a bigger risk to our country to have airport screeners–our first line of defense against something like 9/11–earn one half of what we pay for contract employees, than to let airplane baggage compartments and shipping containers go uninspected.

The WaPo has a story today about how a $2 million DHS no-bid contract with Booz Allen awarded in May 2003 turned into $30 million by the end of 2004 and into a $48 million contract in June 2005 and into $73 million and finally $124 million. I’m going to return to the whole question of outsourcing after McCaffrey the MilleniaLab and I get back from our walk.

But I wanted to point out a few things.