Posts

Does Cheney’s CYA Document Include False Justifications for Torture?

/51 Comments/in /by

As MadDog noted, Judicial Watch has succeeded in getting two more copies of Cheney’s CYA document liberated. There now are three versions of this same document:

  • June 1, 2005 (the date suggests this is the version Cheney requested from the Archives)
  • June 3, 2005 (this was the document released in August’s document dump)
  • July 12, 2005 (this is the second Judicial Watch document)

Judicial Watch explains this as the one notable difference:

Notably, the June 1, 2005 report concludes that “Detainee reporting accounts for more than half of all HUMINT reporting on al-Qa’ida since the program began…” This fact is missing from the other two later reports.

That’s not entirely correct. Page 13 of the June 3 version has a graphic (also included in the June 1 version, but not the July 12 one) showing just that–that 3,800 of 6,600 reports came from detainees [all page references in this post are to PDF pages]. But there are other differences–differences which may suggest the June 1 version was targeted towards keeping the CIA torture program intact.

Other noticeable differences include:

  • The June 1 version is classified Top Secret; the others are Secret.
  • The June 1 version has three redacted paragraphs (page 3), and states, “Detainees typically are uncooperative early in their detention and often pass incomplete or intentionally misleading information” instead of “Detainees have been known to pass incomplete or intentionally misleading information.”
  • The June 1 version includes what appears to be a turf war comment (page 5) reading:

This paper focuses primarily on reporting from al-Qa’ida detainees held in CIA custody. [several lines redacted] we control the questions being asked and can pursue gaps and inconsistencies in reporting promptly.

  • The June 1 report either lacks–or entirely redacts–the passage on Ghailani that appears on page 10 of the June 3 report. (The June 3 report appears to have further redactions here, too.)
  • Read more →

Isikoff Doubles Down on His Anonymous Leak from Cheney’s Lawyer

/25 Comments/in , /by

Michael Isikoff’s coverage of Dick Cheney’s interview (h/t Leen) seems designed as much to defend his bad reporting on the CIA Leak case as to report the content of the interview itself. It’s not that I expected Isikoff to point out that Cheney refused to say things to Fitzgerald that Cheney’s own lawyer had been willing to say to Isikoff. Whatever the ethical and logical problems with reporting O’Donnell’s leak uncritically, Isikoff granted him anonymity and I fully expected Isikoff to continue to honor that pledge.

What’s pathetic about Isikoff’s coverage, however, is that he doubles down on the content of the leak O’Donnell gave to him!

Perhaps the most intriguing parts of the interview occurred toward the end, when Cheney was asked about President Bush’s decision in June 2003 to declassify portions of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraqi WMD.  The federal investigators wanted to know what he had told Libby about the president’s decision.  (The declassification led to Libby’s selective leaking to New York Times reporter Judy Miller about some portions of the NIE that appeared to bolster the White House position about Iraqi WMD.)

Isikoff here repeats the several details from O’Donnell’s leak that almost certainly were invented in 2006 to fix the obvious, glaring logical inconsistencies in Scooter Libby’s story (but which, regardless of what O’Donnell said to Isikoff anonymously, remain glaring inconsistencies): the claim that the declassification occurred, the claim that it occurred in June, and the claim that the declassification led to the leak to Judy Miller. Note, the FBI didn’t ask Cheney about the date at all! The only one who mentions the day is Michael Isikoff, based on what Cheney’s defense attorney told him. And in fact, some of Cheney’s comments during this interview actually undermine that story (though his comments about the NIE declassification are thoroughly incoherent, which ought to make a reporter think twice about the NIE story itself). In other words, Isikoff’s reporting on this is actually Isikoff glossing Cheney’s interview with comments Cheney’s own defense attorney made anonymously to Isikoff at a time when Cheney had the need to shore up the inconsistencies in that part of the story.

And besides≤, don’t you think Isikoff should have thought seriously about what it meant that Cheney’s NIE story in his interview was so incoherent, but that Cheney’s defense attorney gave Isikoff such a coherent story?

Interestingly, Isikoff also goes out of his way to establish his cred here. He notes that Cheney claimed he had a low opinion of Newsweek.

Asked if he had authorized Libby to provide information about the issue to NEWSWEEK as well as Time, Cheney said “he could not conceive” of doing so because “he does not have a very favorable view of NEWSWEEK.”

Again, you have to wonder what went through Isikoff’s head when he wrote this. Such an unfavorable opinion of Newsweek that when they needed to plant a cover story about the NIE, they chose Isikoff? (Sort of like when OVP wanted to seed its “Libby was not the leaker” story in October 2003, they instructed Scott McClellan to go to Isikoff.) There are several ways to unpack this comment, but Isikoff revels in the claims Cheney made about Newsweek in an interview packed with lies, anyway, and in fact turns the story into “Cheney versus the press” rather than “Cheney using the press.”

Also, somewhat bizarrely, Isikoff appears to mis-attribute a comment Cheney made to the NYT. He said,

(Cheney appeared to have expressed similar views of The New York Times, although for reasons that are not clear, portions of the passage in which he discusses the newspaper are redacted.)

Read more →

Cheney’s Betrayal Made an IIPA Charge for Libby Possible

/102 Comments/in /by

HungOutToDry_EWYesterday, I showed the many ways that Dick Cheney hung his purportedly valued aide, Scooter Libby, out to dry in his interview with Patrick Fitzgerald.

But I didn’t do a very good job of explaining the consequences of that action from Cheney. Luckily, perris did that for me.

As a reminder, I’ve shown over the years that a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggests that Dick Cheney ordered Scooter Libby to leak a number of things to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003: The NIE (as Libby testified), but also the report from Joe Wilson’s trip and Valerie Wilson’s identity. From public reporting, it always looked like Cheney had constructed a firewall to defend against an IIPA violation. If Fitzgerald ever proved that Libby leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity to Judy Miller knowing she was covert, then Cheney could claim that he had insta-declassified her identity, thereby giving that leak a legal defense, however dubious. Cheney even went so far to imply to Tim Russert that he hypothetically could have declassified Valerie Wilson’s identity.

Q There was a story in the National Journal that Cheney authorized Libby to leak confidential information. Can you confirm or deny that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I have the authority as Vice President under an executive issued by the President to classify and declassify information. And everything I’ve done is consistent with those authorities.

Q Could you declassify Valerie Plame’s status as an operative?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’ve said all I’m going to say on the subject, Tim.

But Cheney’s denials of all knowledge of the Plame leak during his Fitzgerald interview would have made that defense impossible.

[Cheney] has no personal knowledge of anyone having provided [Mrs. Wilson’s employment] to Robert Novak, or any other reporter.

[snip]

he does not recall having a conversation with the President about the Wilsons. [note, Cheney goes on to contradict this claim]

[snip]

He does not recall discussing Valerie Wilson with Libby prior to her name appearing in Novak’s column on 7/14/03.

[snip]

His handwritten notes on the 7/6/03 editorial about Wilson’s trip and the involvement of Wilson’s wife in the CIAs selection of Wilson was triggered by his recollection of the prior telephone conversation he had with George Tenet, wherein Tenet identified Wilson’s wife as an employee of the agency. The Vice President also indicated that he never discussed the substance of his call with Tenet with anyone prior to the publication of Valerie Wilsons identity in Novak’s 7/14/03 newspaper column. [Note, earlier he had said he may have told Libby]

Read more →

Hung Out to Dry: One Former VP Chief of Staff

/85 Comments/in /by

HangingScooterOutToDryIf I were Scooter Libby right now, I’d be seething. I’d be utterly disgusted with the way Dick Cheney hung me out to dry, over and over and over, in his interview with Fitzgerald. Cheney denies any knowledge of issues he and Libby worked on together repeatedly and he denies that his own orders and instructions had anything to do with activities that ultimately (though Cheney of course didn’t admit this) ended up outing Valerie Wilson.

There are three general categories of information about which Cheney hangs Libby out to dry.

These are:

Oppo research conducted during week of June 9, 2003

While not asked directly, Cheney pretended to know nothing about Libby being tasked to collect information on the Wilsons starting the week June 9, 2003. Cheney claimed not to remember the document dump he received on June 9, 2003, compiled by John Hannah. (7) He went on to claim that he might not have seen Wilson’s trip report until after Wilson’s op-ed. (9) But not only did he receive a briefing on this material, but he was trying to get that information released even before the op-ed came out.

Cheney further claimed “he is unaware of anyone in the administration conducting any research or completing a research project on either Joe Wilson or his wife. He advised that he never directed anyone on his staff to conduct such a project and no one advised him they were working on one.” (13) Of course, Libby kept a Wilson folder during the leak period and into the investigative period. Cheney, I guess, claims he knew nothing about that.

This allows Cheney to disconnect his own research at CIA (and elsewhere, probably) into Wilson’s trip from Libby’s activities. While Cheney admitted to having learned of Plame from Tenet (note, I have reasons to doubt this was his only source), he denied discussing Plame with Libby. (13) Yet, Libby reminded Cheney–in October 2003–that there was a note reflecting Cheney informing Libby of Plame’s identity, so not only should Cheney have remembered the event itself, but he should have remembered the reminder.

And Cheney downplayed his involvement in responding to Walter Pincus’ questions about Wilson the week of June 9. “[A]ny press inquiries about the trip that may have been made by Walter Pincus in preparation for his June 2003 article … would have gone to either Libby or Cathie Martin.” (4) However, Cheney and Libby and Martin met on June 11, 2003 at 1:05PM about Pincus’ requests, and from that meeting called Robert Grenier, ostensibly for a first explanation about how the trip had been generated (though at that point both Libby and Cheney almost surely knew of Plame’s identity). Cheney went on to claim he could not remember discussing Plame with Cathie Martin, nor remember Martin telling him that she had learned of Plame’s identity. (11)

Now, frankly, Libby himself never admitted how goal-oriented his actions were during this week. He downplayed the importance of a note, from first thing that Monday morning and just hours after Condi got beat up on ABC News, reflecting learning of Bush’s concern about Wilson’s allegations. Libby himself claimed to have forgotten being told three times that week of Plame’s identity. And Libby also didn’t explain that he and Cheney–at a time when they almost certainly knew of Plame’s identity–called CIA to re-learn it for Cathie Martin’s benefit. So to some extent, Cheney’s denials may help Libby here. And Cheney may be feigning ignorance to protect his sources of Plame’s identity–who are likely not limited (as Cheney claims) to George Tenet. And, if Bush did order Libby to take the lead on this, then Cheney’s forgetfulness may protect Bush here.

Read more →

Bush’s July 7, 2003 Discussion about Wilson

/32 Comments/in /by

One thing DOJ redacted in this document–the most highly protected part of the document–was Cheney relaying what was said about Joe Wilson at a meeting with Bush, probably on July 7, 2003.

When Fitzgerald asked Cheney whether he ever spoke about Wilson with Condi Rice, Andy Card, and Karl Rove, Cheney answered this way:

The Vice President advised that it was probable that he discussed Joe Wilson at some point with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, but he had no recollection of discussing Valerie Wilson at all with her. He advised his thoughts were the same regarding Presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card–he probably would have discussed Joe Wilson with Card, but not Valerie Wilson. He said the same held true for Presidential Advisor Karl Rove–he probably discussed Joe Wilson with Rove, but would not have discussed Valerie Wilson with him.

The Vice President went on to explain his reason for believing he possibly discussed Joe Wilson with the latter three individuals. The Vice President stated that after he receives his 7:00 a.m. briefing at his residence from the CIA briefer, he travels to the White House where he joins the President for a daily CIA briefing which the President receives from either DCI Tenet or DDCI McLaughlin. Chief of Staff Card and Dr. Rice are also present for these briefings, along with a Presidential briefer from the CIA. Normally, when the CIA’s briefing is completed, the four, who are sometimes joined after the briefing by Mr. Rove, will discuss a wide range of topics. At some point in time, after the Wilson issue had become public, the Vice President recalls [two lines redacted].

The Vice President said he could not recall exactly when he had this discussion and who was present for it, but it may have been at one of the morning meetings. He said that it was possible he had the discussion with the President prior to the publication of Wilson’s editorial on 7/6/03, but it probably occurred afterwards. It may have occurred early on Monday, 7/7/03 although he stated that he would not have discussed it with the President on Sunday, 7/6/03, the day when he returned to Washington from Wyoming. Additionally, the Vice President had no recollection of discussing Wilsons wife at any time with the President.

DOJ has exempted the redaction claiming Presidential Communication. In their filing on the interview, they wrote,

The presidential communications privilege protects certain confidential communications with the President pertaining to his conduct of his Office. In this case, the privilege protects portions of the FBI report, see page 12, lines 9-11, … because they summarize a confidential conversation between the Vice President and the President.

So to review, Cheney admitted to talking to Condi, Card, and Rove about Wilson, by rather circuitously (!?!?) admitting that something was said about Wilson while they all met, possibly on the morning of July 7, 2003.

Now, I’ll come back to this admission–probably many many times.

But just to fill out the chronology a little, here’s an exchange Fitzgerald had with Libby about events of that morning during Libby’s March 5, 2004 grand jury appearance.

Q. And on July 7th, do you recall if at the 6:45 briefing in the morning you and the Vice President asking Craig Schmall about Mr. Wilson and the circumstances of his trip?

Read more →

The Taxpayers Paid Dick Cheney’s Personal Defense Attorney to Obstruct Any Inquiries Into His Crimes

/95 Comments/in /by

Okay, prepare for the onslaught of weeds. Here’s one that made me vomit, from the very beginning of the Cheney interview report.

Vice President Cheney was represented by Terrence O’Donnell and Emmet T. Flood of the law firm of Williams and Connolly…

Cheney was formally represented not only by Terry O’Donnell but also by Emmet Flood. Who, after Pat Fitzgerald noted the cloud over Cheney’s head and just three days after Libby was sentenced to 30 months in jail, got hired by the White House. [updated, h/t MadDog] Who, for the last two years of the Bush Administration, took the lead in preventing Congress or anyone else from getting documents that would implicate Rove or–you guessed it–Dick Cheney.

And Emmet Flood is almost certainly the Deputy who attended the meeting between long-time Cheney colleague Fred Fielding and Scooter Libby, at which Libby made one more bid for a pardon.

[Around January 17 of this year], Libby, who hadn’t previously lobbied on his own behalf, telephoned Bolten’s office. He wanted an audience with Bush to argue his case in person. To Libby, a presidential pardon was a practical as well as symbolic prize: among other things, it would allow him to practice law again. Bolten once more kicked the matter to the lawyers, agreeing to arrange a meeting with Fielding. On Saturday, Jan. 17, with less than 72 hours left in the Bush presidency, Libby and Fielding and a deputy met for lunch at a seafood restaurant three blocks from the White House. Again Libby insisted on his innocence. No one’s memory is perfect, he argued; to convict me for not remembering something precisely was unfair. Fielding kept listening for signs of remorse. But none came. Fielding reported the conversation to Bush.

The day after this interview, Bush had his own personal defense attorney over to the White House to ask whether he should pardon Libby. Libby didn’t get the pardon.

Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that Dick Cheney was the ultimate target of the CIA Leak Case. And Dick Cheney did the obvious thing any bureaucratic master would do. He put his own personal defense lawyer on the payroll to help obstruct any efforts to expose his role in outing Valerie Plame.

Cheney Refused to Release the Journalists

/30 Comments/in /by

There is a lot in Cheney’s interview report–we’ll have a busy weekend. But for the moment, let’s start with this bit:

After the Vice President again mentioned that he was pressed for time, two separate requests were made to Vice President Cheney in an effort to assist the DOJ/FBI investigation into this matter. First, an FBI waiver form was presented to the Vice President and copies were given to his attorneys. It was explained to Vice President Cheney that his signature was being sought on the waiver form in order to release any reporters with whom the Vice President may have had conversations about the subject matter of this investigation, from promises of confidentiality arising from any such conversations. Vice President Cheney acknowledged receipt of the FBIs waiver form but declined to sign until his attorneys have had sufficient time to review it.

Cheney refused to release the reporters he spoke with of confidentiality.

Now, over the course of his interview, Cheney was asked and he denied speaking with Novak and Cooper (and claimed to have no knowledge of discussions with Judy). The sole key journalist in question he didn’t deny any knowledge about was Woodward (and, though less important, Andrea Mitchell). But he basically denied speaking to any journalist.

And then he refused to sign a waiver of confidentiality over his conversations with journalists.

Couple that with a few more data points.

  1. When Libby was first asked to sign such a waiver, he too refused to sign it.
  2. When Novak was first asked to testify, he refused to testify until he could limit his testimony to those who had signed such waivers (and he originally limited it to Armitage, Rove, and Harlow).
  3. The only question Judy Miller refused to provide some answer to when I posed a bunch of questions about her involvement was about seeing Cheney in Jackson when she saw Scooter (the Aspen comment).
  4. After Novak was interviewed in September 2004, someone–presumably Fitzgerald–searched for records of contacts between Novak and the White House on a bunch of days, including July 7, 2003, the day before Novak spoke with Armitage.
  5. Judy refused to testify about her conversations on this subject until she could limit her conversations to Libby.

If Cheney spoke to both Novak and Judy–and there’s reason to believe he might have–he refused to expose those conversations to the scrutiny of Fitzgerald.

Cheney Interview Materials

/45 Comments/in /by

I guess there ARE limits to which Obama won’t stoop to protect Dick Cheney. As I predicted, DOJ released his interview materials. Here they are:

Seeing as how I just walked in the door, I’ll be reading them along with you. I’ll update with my thoughts.

Interesting: Cheney was consulting with Addington, not O’Donnell during this interview.

He claims, incorrectly, that he first became aware of the Niger allegations from the CIA. That may not be correct–there are other indications he first learned in a DIA briefing, and then brought it up to the CIA.

They cite a meeting between Cheney, Tenet, and the CPD head on June 10, 2003. That may be how Jon Kiriakou got an order to look into this trip, reflected in an email written on the same date.

Most important: This confirms (page 6) that Cheney ascribed his knowledge of Plame’s ID to Tenet, presumably in the secure line conversation he had with Tenet.

Interesting. They were asking him his about his notations about Mayaki–which is the content of Bob Novak’s column that remains unexplained.

Cheney was spouting his own talking points back to Fitz.

Interesting. He was asked about cables relating to the trip. This is how I have speculated he found out about Plame, and he was repeating talking points from it (the talking points showed up in Novak’s column and Judy’s notes).

Cheney’s pretending he didn’t set it up so that Cathie Martin would learn about Plame. That’s a lie.

WOW. Libby reminded Cheney he first learned of Plame from him. They worked out a cover story together. But when asked about it, Cheney claimed he had never spoken about Plame until after Novak’s column. That is an amazing lie.

If I were Scooter Libby and saw how Dick sold him out, I’d start talking right now.

Cheney refused to sign a waiver of journalists he had spoken with!!!

More Proposed Oversight from John Conyers

/27 Comments/in , , /by

John Conyers has been busy. In addition to drafting bills to improve FISA and PATRIOT (more on that later), he has introduced three more bills that would improve Congressional Oversight of the Executive.

The Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009

This Act will authorize the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate attorney misconduct within the Department of Justice. Under current law, all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice attorneys are required to be investigated by the by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, rather than the Inspector General. In contrast with the statutorily independent Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney General.

This limitation on authority does not exist for any other agency Inspector General. The Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009 will make the authority of the Department of Justice Inspector General consistent with that of all other agencies and will prevent future abuses and politicization within the Department.

DOJ’s Inspector General, Glenn Fine, has been pushing for this authority for some time (and not just because it would give him more authority). It fixes two problems that exist right now–one, that lawyers in DOJ are not held legally responsible in the same way as others might be, because they escape IG oversight (and often benefit from quiet settlements on complaints handled by OPR). And, more importantly, the current situation (in which OPR–which reports to the Attorney General–conducts investigations of lawyers) makes it almost impossible to investigate the actions of the Attorney General or his close allies. Alberto Gonzales was able to put off investigations into the US Attorney scandal for some time this way.

The Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009

This Act will provide the Inspectors General of the various agencies the authority to issue subpoenas for the testimony of former employees or contractors as part of certain investigations. Under current law, a critical witness can avoid being interviewed by an Inspector General, and thus seriously impede an investigation, by simply resigning from the agency.

The bill contains important limitations on an Inspector General’s subpoena power in order to prevent abuse or damage to ongoing investigations.  Most prominently, an Inspector General cannot issue a subpoena if the Department of Justice concludes in a particular case that the taking of a deposition would interfere with civil or criminal litigation.

Read more →

From the Department of Ironic Reorganization

/25 Comments/in /by

It seems Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer wants to do a more effective job of hunting down human rights abusers.

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has proposed combining the Criminal Division’s Domestic Security Section and the Office of Special Investigation. If approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the merger would represent the first major structural change in the division since Breuer took office.

The mandates of the sections have grown closer in recent years. OSI, created in 1979, has reshaped its mission from ferreting out Nazis living on American soil to hunting human rights violators who fled all corners of the world, from Rwanda to the former Yugoslavia.

DSS, established early in the Bush administration, targets human smuggling rings, immigration fraud, certain violent crimes and gun offenses, and international human rights violations. The section also has jurisdiction over crimes committed oversees by “individuals employed by or accompanying” the U.S. military.

The new entity would be called the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section. Meshing the resources of DSS and OSI could give the Criminal Division a competitive edge over U.S. Attorneys’ offices and other agencies vying to prosecute major human rights cases.

Rather than rearranging the deck chairs, maybe Breuer should just head to Alexandria and Mclean, VA to pick up Addington and Cheney.