« Pot, Kettle | Main | After Judge Taylor, DoJ shifts tactics »

September 06, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d83461eb7569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The NYT Demands Answers:

» Jane Hamsher Wants Your Money! from The Political Pit Bull
For AIDs in Africa? Nope. How about the victims of Hurricane Katrina? Sorry, afraid not. For Ned Lamont then? No, wrong again. Jane Hamsher is asking 650 people to contribute $100 each, a total of $65,000, to help her publish... [Read More]

Comments

The New Dork Times is castigating a prosecutor for following the law in doing his job, and the Times withholds publishing stories which arguably could have changed the outcome of a presidential election.

Chutzpah

And yes, it was a different editorial page editor, but the Times one had a much different level of patience for investigations. This piece ends with a reference to the idiotic Cisneros investigation, but manages to avoid mention of the big enchilada Ken Starr presided over -- presumably because the world knows the Times cheer-led it most of the way.

I've been a long time subscriber to the NYT. Clearly, they have the same agenda as FOX. I'm cancelling my subscription.

Excellent point, demtom.

EW, I hope you fire off a letter to the editor of the NYT on this one. It seems to me you have them by the short and hairy ones.

emptywheel,

you confuse the issue of the NYT's actions with Judy. They protected the right of a reporter to withhold their source. What matter who the source was? At the end of the day they "let her go" which indicated their displeasure with her.

Their decision to sit on a story falls under their purview. They don't have the obligation to rush to the presses until they feel they are ready.

To say they were "accomplices" is a real, real, really real stretch! [I edited that one because I don't know what the policy on the vernacular is here.]

jodi

The Times supports our warring presence in Iraq, and so do its readers. How could they possibly tolerate a full and transparent account of their role in this thing? They may be evil, but they aren't stupid or suicidal.

Jodi

It's not a matter of who the source is (except that they're now developing a pattern of protecting Dick Cheney's team). What matters is that, even according to their own description, Judy and the NYT managers had reason to believe Libby was coaching Judy on her testimony.

Ms. Miller authorized Mr. Abrams to talk to Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate. The question was whether Mr. Libby really wanted her to testify. Mr. Abrams passed the details of his conversation with Mr. Tate along to Ms. Miller and to Times executives and lawyers, people involved in the internal discussion said.

People present at the meetings said that what they heard about the preliminary negotiations was troubling.

Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate had said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify.

According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there.' "

Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion, Mr. Tate asked me for a recitation of what Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one."

This was the NYT's First Amendment lawyer, discovering this troubling information, and relaying it to Judy and the NYT's managers. After learning this troubling information (indeed, after being told Judy's testimony would contradict Libby's), the NYT paid a million dollars to fight Judy's subpoena. And all the while, they wrote editorial after editorial celebrating Judy as a martyr to the First Amendment. In doing so, they themselves added nine months to the length of the investigation--the timelieness of which they're now complaining about.

Now, if Judy had paid her own defense fees, and if the NYT hadn't celebrated Judy as a First Amendment martyr for behavior they knew was withholding incriminating evidence from the investigation, you'd have a point. But the NYT knowingly paid to fight the subpoena even after Libby tried to coach Judy's testimony.

Add the NYT editors to the list of people Fitz is driving batshit insane as he slowly, slowly tightens the screws while steadfastly refusing to leak a single thing. Damn his eyes!!

They just... can't... stand it.

EW - Your 12:42 comment was much sharper and more focused than your post. Glad that Jodi got that out of you. :-)
I second lemondlulu's suggestion that you write a LTE to NYT.

Both of the recent Armitage stories trumpeting Armitage's "primary" role leaker (on July 8th, 2003) ignored the obvious contradiction of Judy's own prior meeting with Libby (on June 23rd, 2003), in which Libby and Miller discussed Mrs. Wilson and her work at the CIA.

Do you think the New York Times' severance agreement with Miller limits it from reporting on her role? Or do they even have that excuse?

I do not disagree with the disgraceful behavior that EW has documented against the NYTimes. Indeed, the newspaper has aided and abetted this administration in countless ways, particularly in the matter of the so-called War on Terror and the debacle in Iraq. And today's editorial is replete with factual errors and key omissions.

With that said, I do not disagree with the gist of their complaint about Fitz. If he's only keeping the case "open" due to the single Libby trial, he should say so. I mean, if you look at both the posts and comments on this website, some folks are under the impression that another shoe is going to drop. If nothing more's ever going to happen (outside of something unexpected in the Libby trial itself) we should know now.

On the other hand, if he still has a real investigation going, and is still pursuing leads, he should not only give some indication that this is the case, he should be trying to bring it to a close ASAP. While EW is correct in noting that the NY Times itself is largely to blame for the length of the investigation, it is also true that Fitz, even with those delays, has had more than enough time to shit or get off the pot. At a certain point, if he's got anyone else in the crosshairs, he ought to charge them soon, or not charge them at all -- and then give us a heads-up about the status of the investigation.

Finally, I agree that Fitz should be encouraged to give a public accounting. As it stands, we've got gloating from administration defenders merely because it appears that Fitz doesn't think he has enough evidence to merit a criminal conviction. Talk about the bigotry of low expectations! Since felonious conviction is such a pathetic standard, we should at least be privvy to what our government is doing in our name, even if Fitz *only* has what appears to be a preponderance of evidence.

Yes, I know I come off as impatient in this post. But it would be the height of ridiculousness if Fitz were to wait until 2009 to charge someone else. (Then again, if the Dems win teh White House, the indicted could say bye-bye to a pardon, which would be mildly cool.) I happen to think his investigation is for all intents and purposes over, and I think it would do everyone some good were he to say so publicly. Because in the meantime, I don't think anyone can deny that he's getting his ass kicked in the PR department, which does him no favors as he heads into the Libby trial.

Jim E

The one problem with that is that may close off prosecutorial approaches. Libby is indicted for lying, almost certainly to protect Cheney. As I point out here, probably the most incendiary lie is one that was not charge in the indictment (I've always assumed because it's a lot harder to prove). But even in the pre-trial period, Libby's lawyers have been forced into a corner on this NIE stuff. In other words, strictly the process of going to trial is getting Libby (and his representatives) to go on the record with claims that will undermine the BIG LIE.

If he had had to say, in the Ryan case, that his investigation was over as he pulled together info for the first trial, he would never have gotten Ryan. I personally expect he realizes he can't flip most of these people (though the possibility that he added Grenier in 2005 is tantalizing). But he can get them to dismantle their own lies, as they try to avoid prosecution on the small lies.

ah, now this was a pleasure to read, e'wheel.

direct, documented, and holding the nytimes to standards it holds every one but itself to - full disclosure.

of course, the times' writings, whether news or editorial, are all corporate communications

and thus are bound to uphold the guiding principle of all corporate communications - "first do no harm (to the corporation)".

p.s.

if fitzgerald had other charges to bring, and he brought them now, he would immediately be charged with acting politically (I assume any charges would reflect badly on bush administrating officials).


plus, fitzgerald is up for renewal.

the slightest "political" act on his part would serve as fuel for his dismissal, i.e., non-reappointment. and he is frying a lot of other fish right now, e.g., lord black.

since fitzgerald has not said he is finished, i believe he has more to say

but i doubt he would even consider making any moves in the plame matter until after the november elections.

I wonder if the Times knew this was coming today.

Independent Counsel Law (finally) Sunsets

Press release:

OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL DAVID M. BARRETT 1990 K St., N.W., Suite 420 Washington, D.C. 20006 http://barrett.oic.gov
TELEPHONE: (202) 974-5440 FACSIMILE: (202) 974-5459
January 19, 2006

PRESS RELEASE

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the District for Columbia Circuit, Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels, approved the release of the Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: Henry G. Cisneros. The Report can be found on the Office’s website at http://barrett.oic.gov.

This has been a long and difficult investigation. It is my hope that people will read the entire Report and draw their own conclusions. An accurate title for the Report could be, “WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING.”
After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other coverups, this one succeeded.

I recommend that people begin by reading the memorandum of Mr. John Filan, Chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division in the South Texas District (Appendix no. 16).

orionatl wrote: "but i doubt he would even consider making any moves in the plame matter until after the november elections"

But for him to act in such a way would be political.

I actually suspect Fitz has thought hard about the lessons of Lawrence Walsh. With Iran-Contra, because Walsh didn't get to the guts of the indictments before the election, Bush was able to pre-pardon Cap, before he said anything that would incriminate Poppy.

In other words, if Fitz wants to be able to try Libby at all, and not have Bush pardon him to prevent the damage from spreading to Dick or even himself, he's going to have to reveal SOMETHING before the election, to make a pardon politically difficult for the Republican Party.

Dude, you're publishing a book? Wow!!

(That's a genderless "dude," Marcy.)

Now all the smart things you have said will actually get filtered into the narrative, Jim E.

It wouldn't be possible without the smart commentors we've got here.

Sorry, I am just jumping in (I'll read the thread later), but this grabbed me:

[Libby's] not really sure whether he was authorized to leak the NIE to Woodward

I think, Libby's BSing notwithstanding, that Woodward operated under special rules and that everyone was under standing instructions to just spill everything to the guy. Scary, but there it is. And Fitzgerald had no intenrion of being the Special Counsel who busted Bob Woodward for learning too many secrets.

Tom:

So do you think Sy Hersh's source was speaking the truth when he said that the Niger forgeries were concocted by ex-CIA people working to "put the bite" on Cheney and the Gang?

This piece ends with a reference to the idiotic Cisneros investigation, but manages to avoid mention of the big enchilada Ken Starr presided over...

Groan - I am not even going to look it up but IIRC there were like, thirteen Whitewater-related, Starr-led convictions or plea deals, including the AR governor. But I am *not* going to look it up. N-O-T. Recovering Starr-aholics take it one day at a time.

On the Times: I broadly agree that the NY Times is compromised here - they were deliberately misleading about just what Judy (and they) were protecting, for example. Here is a snippet from July 6, 2005, with Keller lying through his teeth:

TERENCE SMITH: Now, the prosecutor made the point in court that not only does he know the identity of Judy Miller's source, that he -- that the source has signed a waiver of confidentiality, in which case, what is Judy Miller defending?

BILL KELLER: I don't know whether the special prosecutor knows the identity of her source. I do know this: that Judy Miller made an absolute pledge to her source that she would not reveal his name or the substance of their conversation, and to this point, she has received no waiver or release that she regards as freely given anyway from that source.

He didn't know the name on Judy's subpoena, or even that there *was* a name? Please.

Yes, I know I come off as impatient in this post. But it would be the height of ridiculousness if Fitz were to wait until 2009 to charge someone else.

I second those who point out that it is too late - he can't wait until Labor Day and election season and then hand one party a present.

Which prompts another question - is the Times kidding? An announcement from Fitzgerald over the summer *might* have been appropriate (and it is not like the Armitage "news" drove this), but we are too close to an election for him to have any kind of "accounting".

...he's going to have to reveal SOMETHING before the election, to make a pardon politically difficult for the Republican Party.

Well, the pardon won't come until after the election; therefore the pre-emptive Big News can come after the election, as long as it precedes the pardon. Of course, Big News after the pardon still causes political heat, and strings out the story (as soon as there is a pardon, reporters will be dying for the "what was being concealed" angle, so Fitzgerald can feed into that.)

Cinversely, about the only thing Fitzgerald could do before the election is indict someone - anything else that casts suspicion without an indictment, at this late date, will prompt howls (IMHO, legitimate ones.)

Can anyone help me with this, from the Times:

Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. Novak’s column,

They are talking about Rove, yes? In what sense is Armitage "known" but Rove "unknown"? Seeing as how Rove's role has been noted in court filings (while Armitage seems to need anonymity to preserve his rep), I would have said that Rove is "known" and Armitage is merely "reported".

Or are they actually saying something meaningful here that I am missing?

You didn't answer my question Tom [Groan]. Do you think Sy Hersh's source was speaking the truth when he said that the Niger forgeries were concocted by ex-CIA people working to "put the bite" on Cheney and the Gang?

Or maybe you're "not authorized to release information on that subject at this time." Whataya say, Tom?

The NYT has bailed out Dick Cheney for his criminal behavior twice in the past. Are they trying to do so again? - ew

Good question. The Miller true believers have obviously not all departed the New York Times. Talk about people in glass houses throwing stones...

If the New York Times is so desperate for answers, why don't they ask the Associated Press to show them Richard Armitage's state department appointment calendars for the week of July 7, 2003? Or better yet, attempt to obtain them for themselves? The AP's FOIA request for Armitage's now-published June 13th calendar went out in mid-to-late 2005, and somehow I'm absolutely sure a request for the week of July 7th went out at the same time. So the calendars (and therefore who Armitage was scheduled to meet with that week) are either already available to the media, or the fact that they are not yet cleared for release by the state department, close to a year later, is news. [Just my Pet Peeve #1 at the moment...]

Here's one of the key reasons why I feel quite confident that Karl Rove did not walk away from Mr. Fitzgerald scot-free:

"Hubris reveals the email was printed out Nov. 25, 2003 and given to Rove's lawyer by Rove assistant BJ Goergen.

Luskin would later say he overlooked the email, not discovering it until Cooper was held in contempt of court for a second time in October 2004 after refusing to testify about his conversation with Rove.

Luskin turned over the email the day after Cooper was held in contempt. At the time, he said it was missed because the right "search words" weren't used -- an explanation that seems to lose water amidst the new revelations."

That excerpt is from RawStory:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rove_withheld_crucial_CIA_leak_email_0906.html

This e-mail (if the book is correct) was not turned over until after Karl Rove knew he was in jeopardy of being found out by Matthew Cooper's testimony being forced into being by court order (and Fitzgerald negotiation), which was basically how Cooper had already ended up testifying about his Libby conversation, as Rove knew all too well. On October 7, 2004, the DC District Court refused to quash Cooper's subpoena to testify about his original source (the same day that it held Miller in contempt) and on October 13, 2004, the court also held Cooper in contempt with regard to this subpoena, as they had on Cooper's first subpoena regarding his conversation with Libby. Yet the book claims that it was not until the next day - on October 14, 2004 - that the hidden Cooper e-mail got produced to Fitzgerald by Luskin. That timing has obstruction/perjury written all over it, seems to me. Karl Rove then immediately proceeded to testify again in front of the grand jury the day after producing the hidden Cooper e-mail, for the third time and in an attempt to recant his previous grand jury testimony, on October 15, 2004.

"(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed."

And I'm quite sure that Rove was still hedging his bets in that 10/15/04 recantation testimony, hoping against hope that the full story would never be forced out because Cooper would prevail in any appeal he might make of the DC District Court ruling. But, eventually, April, 2006 and its three more hours of Rove grand jury testimony rolled around, and by that time Rove's safety net had been pretty well shredded.

Tom:

(Forgive me E'wheel) The Next Hurrah demands answers!

Tom

I agree. Even as someone who believes there may be another Novak source (besides the ubiquitous Who's Who, I mean) believes that Rove is clearly the "unknown" source. But maybe the NYT editorial page folks haven't even read THAT much of their own reporting.

Semiot, chill out please - your first request had not even hit the screen when I started typing my magnum opus.

However, if you are really that curious, you could try a Google search on my site - I stand by my original coverage of that Sy Hersh piece.

Now, let ne get this raw Story excerpt straight - LUSKIN had the email as of Nov 2003 but *he* failed to turn it over? An officer of the court, Rove's private attorney, not an obvious member of the grand conspiracy,etc.?

Is the working theory that Rove ordered Luskin to conceal it, so Luskin did so, then later invented a story for Fitzgerald?

Or did Luskn just become a neocon believer and do this on his own initiative late in life?

Is there other evidence that Luskin is insane, or routinely provides a level of client service that ought to result in disbarment and jail? (Hmm, what about those gold bars...)

Fitzgerald must have been shaking his head over that one.

OK, I am over my peeve at Semiot - these were my original thoughts on Hersh; I suggested a couple of interpretations, and suggested this:

I know, one theory is crazy, and the other is insane, but which one is mine?

If Hersh himself had believed his report, it would not have been buried in the umpteenth paragraph - it was BS.

(I have a sneaking feeling that Semiot will be disappointed...)

Is there other evidence that Luskin is insane, or routinely provides a level of client service that ought to result in disbarment and jail?

But upon further reflection - maybe this is the 21st century Purloined Letter or "Hide in Plain Sight" form of obstruction:

1. Karl's minions deliver 20 boxes of hard copy emails, secure in the knowledge that Luskin will never read them; this achieves a sort of compliance with the subpoena, since they have delivered the docs to an officer of the court.

2. The minions than spoof the electronic catalog so that key emails never appear in a search, thereby leaving them to gather physical and e-dust. This preserves the cover-up, which can be unraveled as necessary.

I don't believe it myself, and I have no idea how step (2) could be done, but my ignorance should not be anybody's proof when the subject is techno-glitches.

Thanks for coughing up, Tom. I read your link on this. For the life of me, I can't make heads or tails of it. Was that what you intended?

Tom

My initial reaction to the new information about the Rove-Hadley email was of the gold bars variety. And truly, if Team Rove had that email in their possession for nearly eleven months and then they give it up roughly the day after Cooper is held in contempt and the day before or the day of Rove's grand jury appearance (and when was that scheduled anyway?), I just don't see how Rove got off, when you add in all the other suspicious bits - or let's add what must have been a fascinating, previoulsy unknown dimension to Fitzgerald's under-oath questioning of Luskin.

But here's the problem with the gold bars hypothesis, your Purloined Letter hypothesis, and virtually any other hypothesis: What about Hadley? Mustn't the only two viable options be: 1) Hadley turned over the email, Fitzgerald and his team knew about it all along, and feigned surprise when questioning Cooper; or 2)Team Hadley also failed to produce the email, at which point it becomes utterly impossible to believe that there is an innocent explanation for all of it? And the problem with 1) would appear to be that it's impossible to explain why Cooper's initial subpoena didn't cover contact with Rove as well as Libby.

Rove supposedly lost his WH office-with-a-view, but not his security clearance, right?
Might they have revoked it unannounced?

Again my apologies to the wheel and others here, but on some thought about Tom's link re the Hersh "Stovepipe" source on the CIA involvement in concocting the Niger forgeries, I have a couple of followup questions for Tom:

1) Do you think Hersh was accurately portraying what his putative source - "a former senior C.I.A. officer," as Sy describes him - was saying about the forgeries, i.e., that they were an attempt to "put the bite" on Cheney?

2) If so, was the said "former senior C.I.A. officer" telling Hersh a true story about what he knew or had heard?

3) Regardless on the answer to #2, what "former senior C.I.A. officer" would wish to devulge such a thing to Sy Hersh, i.e., what was his (Sy uses the masculine pronoun) motive. Sure, Ray McGovern and VIPS wouldn't want to spread such a tale, would they?

Jeff,
But wouldn't your second scenario actually help Rove and Luskin? I mean, they can say the printout was misplaced or whatever, and also point to Team Hadley and say (in their best Eddie Haskel voice), "See, they couldn't find it using a computerized search, either. May we be excused?"

Jeff

I revert back to my "in possession" scenario. They knew they were going to be subpoenaed for anyting "in their possession." They got rid of entire chunks of email, "in their possession," therefore shielding it from all email searches. Yet they were still able to get printouts. It's STILL questionable how Rove got off. But at least practically possible--and it would explain why Hadley didn't hand it over, either.

semiot and Tom

Remember eriposte's description (compelling, IMO) of what happened with the forgeries. It wasn't so much the forgeries that were the substance of this claim. It was cables from SISMI that had been cleaned of suspicious details (and, in thet case of the actual contract, had been invented out of thin air). So that might explain how the perception of CIA involvement happened (because someone in CIA WAS providing feedback to SISMI). But it would also make the question of who MADE the forgeries moot--the important question was, who cleaned up the info for the cables?

emptywheel

It's not that I don't think it's physically possible. Sure, it could be done. But my point, of course, is that once the emails were discovered by the investigation, and the fact that they were in possession of Team Rove and Team Hadley, how on earth could the fact that Team Rove had them since November 2003 not add to the sum of other fishy things to tip the balance against Rove. I say this without bitterness or disappointment; I find it genuinely astonishing.

And yes, Jim E., pointing to Hadley's equal failure to produce the email would be a reasonable thing to do in Rove's defense. But completely unpersuasive, from an investigator's point of view. I mean, one lazy-ass, incompetent, irresponsible lawyer working for the most powerful people on earth I can strain to imagine. But two, no way.

********
1. Karl's minions deliver 20 boxes of hard copy emails, secure in the knowledge that Luskin will never read them; this achieves a sort of compliance with the subpoena, since they have delivered the docs to an officer of the court.
********

????
Huh? When one party has a subpoena outstanding, the other party turning over docs to their own lawyer does not constitute any kind of compliance with the subpoena. Their lawyer will always want to review docs, and someone I am pretty sure - whether Luskin, an associate or a paralegal - was paid for reviewing the docs.

Fitzgerald wasn't appointed yet and the failure to turnover would seem to point more towards the relationship of Rove and Ashcroft than anything else.

********
********
Libby's BSing notwithstanding, that Woodward operated under special rules and that everyone was under standing instructions to just spill everything to the guy. Scary, but there it is. And Fitzgerald had no intenrion of being the Special Counsel who busted Bob Woodward for learning too many secrets
********
********

How was it within the scope of the Spec. Prosecutor's appointment to investigate or bring charges relating to unauthorized leaks to Woodward? Read Walton's opinion and some of the related case law and you will see that scope matters. Fitzgerald's scope limited to " the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity," and the later clarification that perjury, conspiracy, etc. related ot that were also covered.

If people were passing on info unrelate to theCIA employees identity - it was outside his scope to investigate, except as it related to the item he was investigating. If he found Col Mustard dead in the library with a candlestick - he's not auth in DC to bring the charges on that.

So you have a) limited scope and b)appointment in a manner where all matters not brought out in indictments and charges will never be reported on or revealed.

This is why, IMO, from the beginning it never should have been anything other than an indep counsel reporting to Congress - so that as and if related bad acts were involved, they could be addressed and matters of import could be reported to, and reacted on, by Congress.

That's the Time's real failing. They can't on the one hand say they rejected the call for an Indep Counsel - which would have resulted in much more public information - and yet say that the secretive, limited, in-house approach that they did champion is .... secretive, limited and in-house.

EW - congrats on the book. Yours will be the definitive one.

emptywheel.

(Perhaps there is a lexicon somewhere on the site explaining the interesting handles here?)

Anyway, I understand what you are saying, and yes the NYT got mad at Judy which is why they are no longer employing her. I believe the editor said something like. ~... we didn't know the extent of Judy's involvement with Libby.~ She say something back like ~... we weren't involved, we just had a working arrangement.~

But regardless of all that, the NYT seemed to feel it had a vested interest in protecting generally a reporter's right to keep their source confidential.~ You seem to not want to consider that.

I think that most of you are barking up a tree that the masked bandit (raccoon) has long since abandoned. Still I agree if Rove did "do the crime, he should do the time." I just believe that your train has left the station.

jodi

Jodi

Yes, I understand the NYT's interest in protecting journalists. BUt that doesn't negate the fact that their own behavior falls just short of obstruction. Their motivations for falling just short of obstruction may not be to help Libby escape justice, but that doesn't change the fact that they knew he was coaching testimony, and hid the fact and helped Judy avoid testifying.

I also think you misunderstand my approach to the case. I do think Rove got away with not just lying, but also outing a NOC. But I'm not so interested in Rove. I'm interested in Dick CHeney (and have been primarily interested in him since April or May). It is crystal clear Dick Cheney pushed this, from start to finish. Now, we actually don't know whether Fitz can prove that--I seem to be the only one who realizes the case Fitz has built so far. But you certainly don't know that that train has "left the station," particularly since none of us know how Libby's case fits into Fitz' overall strategy.

I would think I could square Jeff and Jim's circle:

And yes, Jim E., pointing to Hadley's equal failure to produce the email would be a reasonable thing to do in Rove's defense.

I would have guessed that there was a unified compliance exercise at the White House, led (I would imagine) by the WH counsel.

So, Hadley's lawyer gets 15 boxes of hard copy of every email hadley sent/received; Luskin gets his 20 (hypothetical) boxes.

The WH counsel then gives them a short list of what the WH Counsel thinks is responsive; the high priced legal talent reviews *those only*, raises objections or whatever, and the agreed batch is sent over.

The high priced legal talent does *not* review the entire 15-20 boxes, however.

Just for flavor, Newsday described "*three* grand jury subpoenas to the *Executive Office of President George W. Bush*...

My point being that Karl was not subpoenaed separately, so compliance would have been handled by WH Counsel, not Luskin.

I *guess*.

I have a friend in did this sort of thing under Clinton, so I really ought to give him a call (he hates reliving that as much as I do, so don't be holding your breath).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad