by emptywheel
Jim VandeHei, who tends to serve as a Luskin's most faithful stenographer, tells us Rove spent most of his three hour chat yesterday talking about Matt Cooper.
Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source said. Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they expect a decision on Rove's fate soon.
But I don't think Fitzgerald was thinking solely about whether he'll charge Turdblossom with perjury and obstruction, or just with perjury. I think the testimony directly relates to larger conspiracy charges.
First, consider this little detail VandeHei tells us:
His grand jury appearance, which was kept secret even from Rove's closest White House colleagues until shortly before he went to court yesterday, suggests that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald remains keenly interested in Rove's role in the case.
There's a reason no one knew about Karl's fifth grand jury appearance. It's because someone--either Rove or Fitzgerald--wanted to keep it quiet. I can see why Rove might want to keep it quiet, what with Josh Bolten frantically firing and demoting people. But what if Fitzgerald wanted him to keep it quiet, so other suspects in the case didn't find out?
Why would he want to keep it quiet that he's asking further questions about the Matt Cooper mystery? Well, consider how Libby's Nixon lawyer portrayed the substance of the Libby's original lies in February in a court hearing,
MR. JEFFRESS: Your Honor, the indictment in this case alleges that Mr. Libby lied about a conversation with Mr. Tim Russert in which Mr. Libby recalled that Tim Russert told him, mentioned the wife to him and said all the reporters know it. Mr. Libby also testified that he was hearing that reporters were mentioning to the White House as opposed to vice versa that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA. Mr. Libby in the grand jury identified two particular people from the press who he recalled had given that information either to him from someone else in the White House who had passed it on to him. The government says that he is wrong about Mr. Russert, who was one of those two people, and indeed that he lied about the conversation. But the indictment also alleges that there is someone who did tell Mr. Libby about this who Mr. Libby didn't remember when did testify at the grand jury, and that is Mr. Cooper and that's alleged in the indictment. [emphasis mine]
Jeffress is basically saying "Well, what Libby said in his testimony is that he heard from two reporters who said they had heard from other people in the White House or other reporters about Plame. Libby said Russert was one of these people, and that he forgot who the other one was. Now the government is saying he lied about Russert and that Cooper is the one he forgot about."
As I described in my earlier post on this, if that is the substance of Libby's lie as Libby understands it (or the lie he's now telling to get out of lying in the past) it suggests he was trying to tell a story based on a grain of truth. He had heard from a reporter who had spoken to other people in the White House, but that reporter was Judy and she apparently first found out from him. And he had heard from a reporter, later in the week, who had been told by someone else in the White House about Plame, but he obscured who that reporter was.
That reporter, of course, was Matt Cooper. Cooper told Libby on July 12 that he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA and was involved in getting Joe Wilson sent to Niger. And, according to the indictment at least,
LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;
Now, curiously, this discrepancy (whether Libby told Cooper or Cooper told Libby) is not the basis for the perjury and false statements charge. The basis for that is whether or not Libby told Cooper that he had been hearing this from journalists and whether or not he knew it was true. And whether he told Cooper that he didn't know whether Wilson had a wife or not. Now, it's not entirely clear from the indictment--because Fitzgerald doesn't highlight it or mention it in the substance of the perjury charge--whether Libby testified he told Cooper or rather just confirmed something Cooper presented to him. But the language cited from Libby's FBI interviews seems to suggest Libby testified to telling Cooper, not to confirming Cooper's story:
Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters –
A. Yes.
Q. – plural, were saying. Correct?
A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.
. . . .
Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?
A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't
know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know – I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing. [my emphasis]
And again from grand jury testimony:
Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?
A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?
A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was – that's what – that's how I did it.
. . . .
Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?
A. I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.
Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know – I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.
Still totally ambiguous. Did Libby testify that he told Cooper about Plame, or that he confirmed the story about Plame? Fitzgerald doesn't reveal that part of the testimony to us. But Jeffress says Libby forgot who had told him about Plame, that he forgot that Matt Cooper had been one of the journalists who told him about Plame. And Libby must have testified that he told Cooper--otherwise Fitzgerald wouldn't have agreed in August 2004 to limit his questions for Matt Cooper to his conversation with Scooter Libby.
I'm suggesting--as I suggested in my earlier testimony--that in addition to lying about journalists and so forth, Libby also lied about whether Cooper told him or he told Cooper. I'm suggesting that Libby told the FBI and grand jury that he--Libby--told Cooper, not the other way around. I'm suggesting that Libby did so to hide the evidence that someone in the White House had told Cooper about Plame already.
If I'm right, then Fitzgerald is interested in more than just when Vivnovka told Luskin that she knew Rove was Cooper's source. He's interested in how Rove's changing story lines up with Libby's attempts to hide the fact that Karl Rove had already told Cooper of Plame's identity when Libby confirmed it for him on July 12.
The lie I suspect Libby told--that he was the first to inform Cooper of Plame's identity, survived until August 2004, when Cooper testified that Libby was not his source for Plame's identity. Only then, apparently, did Luskin "discover" an email proving that Karl Rove had talked to Cooper beforehand. Up until then, though, a number of people must have conspired to hide the evidence of Rove's conversation with Cooper: the person who altered the phone log, the person who hid the emails, and Libby, who lied about what he said to Cooper.
Here's the story Rove is still trying to tell about his lies:
Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said.
Yes, it would be a suicide mission. But he still might lie if there was a reason why everyone at the White House was hiding evidence about the conversations with Matt Cooper. Why is the Cooper conversation so important, besides the fact that it proves Rove was an active leaker in this process? I'm not sure. But several reports of the July 12 strategy session aboard Air Force Two suggest Libby and Cheney were trying to figure out how to respond to Cooper. So this conspiracy, as so many others, may lead right back to Dick.
Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit makes it perfectly explicit that Libby testified that he brought up Wilson's wife on July 12 not just with Cooper but also with Miller and, I think, Kessler (who testified that their conversation didn't touch on Plame at all). So I think it's exactly right that one of the things that makes Fitzgerald suspicious about Rove is that it looks like Rove and Libby could have coordinated their stories in order to hide Rove's contact with Cooper, and Rove only started coming around once it was clear that Fitzgerald was going to not only go after Cooper but succeed at getting him to testify about his original source on Wilson's wife.
I'm not sure, however, that the strategy session on Air Force 2 between Libby and Cheney was focused on responding specifically to Cooper.
The story Libby tells about raising Plame with Miller obviously covers his own part, by making it sound like he only brought up Plame with Miller after having heard from two reporters (one directly, one indirectly) about Plame. As for Kessler, who knows - maybe for consistency.
But there remains something puzzling about Libby's testimony about July 12, and I'm sure it has to do with Cheney. I mean, Libby acknowledges - I think, though it's hard to tell what comes from Cathie Martin - getting all this direction from Cheney on how to respond to reporters, but somehow he has to persuade the prosecutor that Cheney didn't instruct him to say anything about Wilson's wife, that was just freelancing on Libby's part. But then, according to Libby, he freelanced about PLame with no less than three reporters on July 12. It's weird.
One last thing: Cheney seems to have told Libby to reiterate with reporters the information that had been declassified and released by Tenet, and repeated in distorted fashion by Fleischer, the day before. The other thing that had happened the day before -- allegedly -- was that Novak's story went on the wires. But if that was really the case, and the White House knew it, I don't see why that wasn't Libby's alibi. He knew the report was out so he was just repeating it to other reporters. The fact that this was no part of Libby's story may just mean that it's not true, as I've suggested before, that Novak's column was out on the 11th.
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2006 at 09:10
Let me just clarify. I think it's clear that Libby testified to having told Cooper of Plame. So why didn't Fitzgerald include that--a clear lie--in the perjury charges? Because he was still investigating it.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 09:13
Also, want to highlight something Anonymous Liberal noted in Kornblut's New York Times article:
If they brought Novak back, they may be closing on Novak's continued inconsistencies. Or on his story about Rove.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 09:24
Let me just clarify. I think it's clear that Libby testified to having told Cooper of Plame. So why didn't Fitzgerald include that--a clear lie--in the perjury charges? Because he was still investigating it.
just an aside in support of this theory that you didn't mention. FitzG was reportedly surprised by Cooper's testimony that Libby was not Cooper's original source, but merely a confirming source. Now, the only reason I can come up with for FitzG being surprised by that info is if Libby had (as you are stating) told FitzG that he (Libby) was Coopers original source....
**************
as to why this lie is not included in the perjury indictment --- it would be a very tough charge to get a conviction on, because the defense could create sufficient confusion about who exactly said what to whom about whom at what point to get an acquittal on that charge. There is really no daylight in the five counts of the indictment that FitzG brought --- its not "he said/he said" its "Libby said this, and we have tons of documents and testimony that shows he lied about these things."
Posted by: p.lukasiak | April 27, 2006 at 09:38
I pretty much agree with lukasiak - there are in fact a bunch of apparent lies that Fitzgerald didn't specify as the basis for the indictment - and would just add that it would also be sort of confusing and not that persuasive to indict Libby for saying he told reporters about Plame, when part of the motivation for the indictment is the significance of telling reporters about her or not.
I noticed that last line of Kornblut's article last night, and I'm not yet confident it's not an editor's error, mistaking Mr. for Ms. Novak, even though Robert is the subject of the previous sentence and Ms. Novak's testimony is mentioned separately earlier in the article. I sent an email to Kornblut but don't expect a response, as Times reporters appear not to take the new email function seriously. (I've yet to receive a reply from a Times reporter, though I once got one from a former reporter.)
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2006 at 09:59
You guys may be right. Though I kind of disagree (daunting that, disagreeing with both of you at once).
Fitz almost certainly leaves out a bunch of the Judy details because 1) she's unreliable and is probably still lying about some of this, and 2) there is more there--if he ever gets into the bulk of the Judy testimony, it'll be for things related to (for example) the NIE, which relate back to Dick.
The Russert stuff, I agree, there is abundant documentation for. No brainer stuff, the Russert charges.
But the Cooper charges are very obscure and there is not documentation for them. They're basically a he said she said about what exactly Libby said to Cooper. And given that no one disputes the timing (that is, even Libby admits to spreading this stuff by July 12), all the other documentation doesn't directly apply. I mean, the Cooper charges boil down to three claims: that Libby told Cooper he had heard this from journalists, that Libby told Cooper he didn't know whether it was true or not, and that Libby said he didn't even know whether Wilson was married. The only evidence--that we know of--that supports that case is Cooper's testimony and (presumably) his email to editors. So if you're going to include all that, then why not include the other related detail, that Libby lied about who told whom. It is clearly more central to the question of obstruction (since it led Fitz to accept an agreement with Cooper that basically led to a 1 year delay in discovering the truth about the leak). So if he didn't include it, it's because he's holding it back for something else.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 10:12
Oh, wrt the Novak point.
Recall that Novak said, when asked at the indictment whether he could talk about his involvement, that Fitz had asked him to hold off for one other item. Now, I suspect Fitz has asked Novak not to testify until the Rove indictment is done. (And the conpiracy to obstruct justice indictments.) But he may have been speaking about a very specific issue.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 10:14
Or let me say further about the Cooper charges. With the Cooper charges, Fitzgerald has the same problem as Libby has more generally. That is, it's not a question of whether what Libby said was true or not. (It's not a question of whether Libby really was hearing from journalists about Plame.) It's a question of whether he actually said something to a specific person.
Now, the Russert charge is substantive. By proving that Libby really hadn't forgotten about Plame on July 10, you can prove that Libby lied in what he said to the GJ.
But for the Cooper charges you have no such clearcut evidence. It doesn't matter that Libby hadn't heard from a bunch of journalists, nor that we really do know he knew Wilson was married. The only thing that matters is Cooper's and Libby's competing version of the story. The case would actually be stronger if Fitz had made it a question of whether Libby told the truth about being Cooper's source. Because we can prove that to be a lie with corroborating evidence.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 10:26
EW....
another possibility why Libby's "I told Cooper" lie wasn't included in the indictment is that may have been a original lie that was recanted at some point after Cooper testified otherwise ("Oh, now I remember....") while standing by the rest of his testimony (like the "I didn't even know Wilson had a wife" crap).
Posted by: p.lukasiak | April 27, 2006 at 10:31
Disagreeing with Jeff is always a perilous course. However, I'll chime in with EW that the actual Cooper stuff in the indictment doesn't look any more compelling then the matter of who told whom.
That said, the entire jury might go bald from head-scratching if Fitzgerald indicted Libby, *not* for leaking to Cooper, and *not* for saying he leaked to Cooper, but for being wrong about whether he raised the subject with Cooper.
Well - while folks wonder about Libby's lies that did not result in an indictment, add this to the stack - per a recent defense filing, Libby testified that he had no knowledge that Ms. Plame had classified status:
Mr. Libby was not, of course, a source for the Novak story. And he testified to the grand jury unequivocally that he did not understand Ms. Wilson’s employment by the CIA to be classified information.
I find the absence of a perjury count there to be quite interesting.
Let me close by agreeing with Jeff about the significance of the Libby/Cooper discrepancy as to who told whom. And since no one is rushing to shake my hand, I will note that we have heard this theory before.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 10:34
Heck, Tom, I'm waiting for Jeffress to get indicted for lying that "Libby was not a source for Novak." Because I'm still strongly suspicious (based on what LIbby didn't want Judy to say and based on the Waas/Townsend story) that there was some kind of contact there. I read the statement, frankly, as Jeffress playing to the media again.
And, unlike you, I suspect, I'll place the classified info non-perjury count in teh bucket of "charges Fitz is coming back to."
Hand shake to you for that earlier formulation of this theory. I must have inhaled it and replicated it and expanded on it unknowingly. Are you then in agreement that there seems to be a conspiracy involved, both Libby's testimony and the elimination of emails/phone logs recording Cooper's call? ;-p
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 10:42
Apologies if this has been addressed, just doing a glance this am. The "Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they expect a decision on Rove's fate soon."
To me, the way this is written makes it sound like "why would I lie about this when I knew it would come up." If he knew the Cooper issue would come up why didn't he testify about it the first time?
I might be too literal or missing the obvious here.
Posted by: Ardant | April 27, 2006 at 10:52
Are you then in agreement that there seems to be a conspiracy involved...
I am in agreement that my guy's position could look better.
I will note the general principle that *disproving* a conspiracy is difficult.
Let me put it this way - I will be surprised if Fitzgerald indicts anyone for conspiring to discredit Joe Wilson or out his wife - the distinction between that and normal WH message management is problematic.
I will be much less surprised if he pins someone for trying to coordinate their response to the announcement of the investigation. However, about the best thing I can say about Libby's story in that regard is it might be too stupid to be false - I would have thought that five minutes reflection could have given him a more plausible, unindictable story. But would such a story have bought him the time Bush/Cheney needed to get to Nov 2004?
Well - as to whether Libby and Rove cooked up a story to delay any embarrassment past the election, and risked jail guided by the thought of possible pardons: I hope not, but certainly can't prove that is not the case. And there are certainly straws in the opposing wind.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 11:08
another ride on the fitzgerald merry-go-round - exhilarating but i'm getting dizzy again.
i like the image that comes to mind from paul lukasiak's comment (9:38):
"There is really no daylight in the five counts of the indictment that FitzG brought --- its not "he said/he said" its "Libby said this, and we have tons of documents and testimony that shows he lied about these things."
fitzgerald as
craftsman and master mason.
then
"the cask of amontillado"
popped into my head.
another image to savor.
Posted by: orionATL | April 27, 2006 at 11:33
Ah, yes, when all else fails there is the “that would have been stupid defense”. It appears that Karl Rove has chosen this to be a piece of his final efforts to avoid indictment. I’ve always found the very notion of this defense flawed. The premise of the defense is that smart people wouldn’t do stupid things or make decisions that could rationally be expected to lead to negative consequences. In Rove’s case, as I understand the issue, the argument is being used to explain an oversight to reveal all the details of his conversation with Matt Cooper (specifically the part about Valerie Plame)…in essence he simply forgot that portion of the conversation but to lie would have been stupid…and Rove knows people don’t think he is stupid.
The unspoken assertion by those who use this defense (Tom DeLay comes to mind) is that they may use their intelligence to walk right up to the line, but they are also smart enough to never cross that line…basically they know the rules so well they can navigate them like a skilled tightrope walker. On the surface it sounds reasonable and plausible.
Unfortunately, history often seems to contradict this defense and the premise upon which it is founded. That’s not to say these individuals are stupid…they are actually quite bright. However, what people may miss is an understanding that whatever these people possess in terms of smarts sometimes pales in comparison to the zeal with which they seek wealth, prestige, or power. In essence, smart people, not unlike others who lie and manipulate, are not above self-deceit in order to augment lofty goals, obtuse egos, and an unbridled hunger for power.
In the end, it’s a mistake to evaluate these situations on the basis of the individual’s intelligence…and historically juries often don’t. It’s not difficult to understand that a jury also evaluates where arrogance, greed and the desire for power sit in relation to intelligence. One’s desire for the former has a direct impact upon the amount of intelligence that is applied to any particular activity to achieve the latter.
The mathematical genius who abandons math for theater is not necessarily stupid. He is simply motivated by other interests and the application of his intellect may or may not be the dominating part of his life equation. Those who know this individual may know that he is smart but they may also know that a passion for theater, despite its failure to be a reasonable and rational calculation, is able to override the application of intelligence. He may well fail in theater while still being a very smart man.
Why would anyone assume the actions of politicians are any different? A better analysis of how these individuals and their scandals unfold is described by the “choose your poison principle”…what compels; controls. In looking at Karl Rove there is little doubt he is passionate and motivated. His history is littered with demonstrations of aggressively pursuing his objectives. To presume he would never cross the line, given his obvious intensity, would shift the use of the “that would be stupid defense” to Patrick Fitzgerald and a full Grand Jury. That would likely require a lot of smart people to look stupid. Is Karl Rove smart enough to pull that off? Perhaps.
read more observations here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Daniel DiRito | April 27, 2006 at 11:52
Back to the headline of this post:
Fitzgerald's Headfake: It's Not Just about Rove and Cooper
I have always found it odd that Rove's involvement with Libby in preparing Tenet's plank-walk for the 16 Words has just dropped out of the reporting.
One might wonder - if Rove really was involved with that, how did he *not* learn about Joe and Val? And just what did he learn, and from whom, and why does no one care?
Unless, of course, they do care.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 11:56
I think I agree with EW here, Tom. Can you say "superseding indictment?" Fitz doesn't have to show his entire hand on Libby right away, especially when Libby's obstruction has delayed his ability to get to the bottom of things.
If you also subscribe to the theory that Team Libby's secondary task (if not really their primary taks) is to go fishing with discovery and find out what *other* evidence Fitz has on the other members of the conspiracy, it would suggest to me that Team Libby and the other involved actors strongly suspect that Fitz's got a boatload of evidence that he hasn't indicted Libby on, and that would probably include conspiracy charges.
I really think that this Rove firewall Libby came up with is key to the whole case unraveling. Once Cooper spilled his guts on that, Fitz had to know that at least some other WH official and Libby were somehow coordinating their stories. And he had to keep that info on the qt, hence the many redacted paragraphs concerning Libby's testimony about Cooper (and maybe Cooper's differing account) in the August affy.
Hence, it would make sense that Fitz didn't indict on the obvious lie of who told whom about Plame. If he did, Libby's attys would be entitled to discovery on that subject, evidence, I'm sure would point to other discrepancies with Rove's testimony about his conversation with Cooper. (and that might be shared in an effort to stem conspiracy indictments)
I also wonder if this Cooper bombshell is the big reason why Tatel went along with the reporter subpoenas. Maybe Fitz was saying that he didn't think that Libby really had the covert ID of Plame, but he had to investigate Miller to be sure. And that he strongly suspected that Rove was the real leaker based on evidence we've yet to see and the fact that Rove and Libby had conspired to hide Rove's involvement.
And it also leads to a burning question I've had for some time: if Fitzgerald was so surprised by Cooper's bombshell, had no reason to suspect Rove was involved, then why did he haul Rove in front of the GJ back in Feb 2004, BEFORE he talked with Libby?
Posted by: viget | April 27, 2006 at 12:12
Tom
It hasn't falled out of my reporting. But that may not be what you're talking about.
Ardant
The problem with the "I would be suicidal" line is it assumes that Rove would have known a number of unexpected things would happen before they happened. Before Ashcroft's recusal, no one thought their FBI testimony would be looked at seriously. Before Fitzgerald's appointment and subsequent subpoenaing of journalists, no one thought the journalists would get subpoenaed. Before journalists started talking in August 2004, no one thought the journalists would talk. No one, apparently, thought the missing emails would be discovered. If you think of it this way, then you realize that Karl would be stupid not to try to get out of the crime he had committed, assuming nothing too serious would dismantle his position of strength. Only something did.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 12:14
Oops. "fallen" out of my reporting.
Viget,
He hauled Rove in for two reasons. 1) he was hauling everyone in, to get their sworn testimony. 2) he especially wanted to get Rove's testimony regarding what he said to Novak. While he wasn't a suspect for telling Cooper, he was definitely a suspect for telling Novak (to say nothing of his post-July 14 Chris Matthews comments).
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 12:20
I'm still interested in the timing here. If Libby's lawyers are pushing so hard for discovery of all the stuff that Fitz is holding in his hand, and the judge is making a case-by-case judgment on what can be revealed to him alone, ex parte, and what must be shared with the defense lawyers, then perhaps it makes sense for Fitz to play some of his cards earlier than he might otherwise? (Not to ignore that Fitz may have more time now that Ryan's been convicted.)
It's like sitting in the absolute darkness in a thunderstorm. With every bolt of lightning, you get a split second freeze frame of the action -- and you keep trying to put those mental images together to make a coherent moving picture of what's going on. Many thanks to all of you here who put your memories and analysis together and help illuminate the darkness.
Posted by: MK | April 27, 2006 at 12:42
I want to advance a slightly different theory about this current episode based on a completely speculative reading of Luskin's public statements recorded in VandeHei's article.
Luskin said:
"In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation."
and
Regarding Rove's testimony, Luskin said that it centered on information that has surfaced since he last testified, in October 2005.
You can read those statements to mean:
Fitzgerald called Rove into to rat out somebody else and it has to do with the newly discovered emails.
I think a plausible explanation of this event is that Fitzgerald now knows how and why the Hadley email didn't turn up and he wants to get Rove's side of the story, again. This looks very bad for Hadley in my view.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 27, 2006 at 12:48
MK
I'm not sure exactly what you mean--do you mean Fitz should bring on the conspiracy indictment sooner rather than later?
I actually just had this thought about timing. I have said that Karl would happily perjure himself if it postponed other indictments (particularly his own) until after the Mid-terms. I've also said that Rule # 1 in Republican scandals is they try to destroy the evidence. Obviously, I'm suggesting that these clowns are following a well-establish GOP pattern.
Well, Fitz has undoubtedly read the histories of Watergate and Iran-Contra closely. He knows, especially, about the Cap Weinbuger ploy. And he knows that he has until November to expose the full scale of this scandal before he loses his chance, before the Cap Weinburger ploy goes into effect.
All of which may explain why you invite Karl to testify a fifth time, rather than indicting. Once Karl gets indicted, then his crimes will (artificially or not) be frozen in time. "You mean we spent 3 years and all we got were two perjury indictments?" Particularly if you indict on just perjury before the election, Cap ploy goes into effect, because it's easy (as immanentize suggests) to spin the offenses as no big deal.
So what if you can get Karl to give a lot of the evidence you'd get through discovery and trial now, before you finalize the charges? Why not use him--and his expected anxiousness to push this beyond the Mid-terms--to your advantage.
I could be wrong. But I imagine Fitz stands a much better chance of getting to try the larger conspiracy if he delivers those indictments in a tidy little bundle, a bundle that highlights the references to Dick and Bush, before election day.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 12:56
William,
I was thinking that originally as well, but there's a conflict here.
VandeHei source (probably Luskin): "Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003"
Luskin statement: "Regarding Rove's testimony, Luskin said that it centered on information that has surfaced since he last testified, in October 2005."
What am I missing here?
Posted by: fireback | April 27, 2006 at 13:15
William
I don't think your argument is mutually exclusive from this one (p luk and I were arguing something similar yesterday--though I think we both think Andy Card may be the target).
If Fitz is thinking about the Cooper cover-up as a conspiracy, then the e-mails are certainly a part of it. And they were probably deleted by someone not named Rove or Libby (so it goes beyond our two big suspects). Add in whoever altered the phone log. Add in whatever reason they tried to cover-up the Cooper conversation.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 13:28
Perhaps some of those emails relates to the Cooper/Rove conversation in 03.
Posted by: fireback | April 27, 2006 at 13:32
fireback
Almost certainly--I think that has always been assumed. The 250 emails are ones that were not archived properly. So was the Rove-Hadley email. Ergo, the Rove-Hadley email was almost certainly among the 250 (though it was found in some other manner independently).
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 13:48
Thanks. That's is what I would guess also, it just seems strange that Rove (as theorized) would direct Fitz to something that may incriminate him. Unless he knew it would be found anyway.
Posted by: fireback | April 27, 2006 at 13:50
fireback,
What you are missing, I think, is the reason Luskin says some things on the record and others off the record. I'm assuming that on-the-record comments are things that are technically true but substantively deceptive AND won't get him in trouble with Fitzgerald. Off-the-record comments are pure spin (i.e. if they're true that's a mere coincedence). emptywheel is correct in pointing out that the secrecy before Rove's appearance signals that Fitzgerald didn't want Rove to tip anybody off. More and more, I think Luskin's on-the-record statement was a message to the conspirators that Fitzgerald has something new on somebody and Rove's testimony would hurt that person or those persons. If the testimony really did concern the Cooper business and the V. Novak business, I think Hadley is definitely one of the people in trouble, but I'm sure there are more.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 27, 2006 at 14:03
fireback
I think that's actually a great counter to my theory.
But I think it's a matter of timing. By submitting that email, Rove bought (so far) 18 months. And I honestly think he doesn't give a damn what laws he breaks so long as he pushes out the resolution of that.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 14:10
From very early,Jeff said this:
The fact that this was no part of Libby's story may just mean that it's not true, as I've suggested before, that Novak's column was out on the 11th.
Presumably the wire services know. However - although it came out on Monday the 14th, there is *no hint* in Novak's column about Tenet's "16 Word" swan-dive the previous Friday, or about Tenet's other revelations, some of which buttressed Novak's points.
If it did come out on the morning of 11th, that would make sense.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 14:26
EW --
Thanks, yes, actually I was wondering what trail of Reeses Pieces Mr. Rove (and his attorney) were trying to lay down for Fitz. I don't have enough together to tie the release of the INR memos into the package along with the Libby pressure for discovery, but something tells me there's a strategery operating in the background.
If they could possibly pull off another delaying maneuver -- something like the one P. Lukasiak laid out last night so brilliantly at FDL -- where Woodward's knowledge and alleged contact with Pincus about Plame could have thrown a last-minute monkey wrench into the plans for more and wider indictments -- you just know they'd do it. (Which is not to argue that Woodward is anything but a good-old-boy/tool here -- but something happened at the last minute to jog his memory/conscience/whatever.)
It's equally important to understand the limitations of the window of opportunity that Fitz has -- and I hadn't thought about that part of it.
Posted by: MK | April 27, 2006 at 14:27
I'd be willing to be there's a big folder of emails called "welfare reform" that in their very routing and misclassification as well as content are direct evidence of a wider conspiracy that includes Plame, Wilson, Robert Joseph and a whole lot of other stuff...
Posted by: peanutgallery | April 27, 2006 at 14:30
peanutgallery
LOL, you're making me laugh
MK
I don't know that the INR memo helped. At least as I read the memo, it proves that if Ari (or Armitage) learned of Plame from the INR memo but Rove didn't, then Ari couldn't be Rove's source for Plame's status but Rove could be. On top of that, you see how hard Bolton tried to hide his involvement in the Niger forgeries. And you get one more piece of evidence that Bush knew the Niger forgeries were bunk before he used the claim in the SOTU.
They may have intended it to come off differently. But I can read, damnit, and I've been obsessing about this fricking INR memo for almost a year now...
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 14:51
the actual Cooper stuff in the indictment doesn't look any more compelling then the matter of who told whom.
That said, the entire jury might go bald from head-scratching if Fitzgerald indicted Libby, *not* for leaking to Cooper, and *not* for saying he leaked to Cooper, but for being wrong about whether he raised the subject with Cooper.
I'm not really in disagreement, at least complete disagreement, here. I agree with the latter point entirely, which I think basically explains why that's not part of the indictment - taking it also that federal prosecutors have the luxury of going only for the slam dunk charges (which also may explain why he didn't include what Fitzgerald almost certainly thinks is also a lie about Libby's knowledge that Plame was classified). As for the actual Cooper stuff in the indictment, I would add two factors: are we sure that Cooper does not have notes of his July 12 interview with Libby? Somehow I thought he did. Second, Fitzgerald may have included the July 12 stuff because it forms a part of his larger case, showing the whole narrative that Libby constructed that was contradicted independently by various witnesses as numerous key points. Of course, he could have included that stuff as part of the charges in general without the specific statements forming the basis for one of the counts.
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2006 at 14:53
RE: Libby as Novak's source, "defendent" is 9 letters....
Posted by: kim | April 27, 2006 at 15:21
kim and all the redactionistas following along at home,
Defendant is too long to fit in the available space.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 27, 2006 at 16:22
Sorry, I am skipping about seemingly at random. This is from p luk, earlier:
...another possibility why Libby's "I told Cooper" lie wasn't included in the indictment is that may have been a original lie that was recanted at some point after Cooper testified otherwise
The dates of Libby's GJ testimony are not a mystery - he was never called back after testifying in early 2004, well before Cooper.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 16:27
Can you say "superseding indictment?"
Not while keeping a straight face.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 16:29
EW -- can we factor in the evidence and the timeline that Joe Wilson provided in "The Politics of Truth", on the assumption that what Wilson published is at least part of what he told the FBI in the fall of 2003, and then swore to in talking to Fitzgerald after he was appointed in early 2004. (a few months before Wilson published his book.) I assume that Wilson was smart enough to keep phone logs and contemporanous notes that are now in Fitzgerald's hands
The timeline begins on July 8 -- six days before Novak's column appeared, and it involves Novak walking out of the White House Compound, talking to someone he hardly knows on the street, who happens to be a friend of Wilson's, with the story about Wilson's wife Valerie. Friend X -- we still don't know who this is, but we can be sure Fitzgerald has his testimony -- tells Wilson about the encounter with Novak. Wilson takes notes and calls the news director at CNN Eason Jorday to see if Novak can be diverted from outing Valerie. (I assume both Wilson and CNN have a log of that call.) The next day Wilson gets a call to Novak through, and tries to warn him off the story. Again, I assume Wilson has means to document the call.
Anyhow -- doesn't this move the timeline back several days -- perhaps five?
I've always been interested in this story but I hold open a couple of podssible interpretations. The street encounter could have been an effort to "set Joe Wilson off" -- get him to go ballistic and in effect out his own wife. In fact he did not do that -- he tried to stop Novak. How do we factor this part of the saga into the current work on the Rove-Libby timeline?
Posted by: Sara | April 27, 2006 at 16:29
On the subject of Karl's motivation to lie about the Coper talk:
If you think of it this way, then you realize that Karl would be stupid not to try to get out of the crime he had committed...
A crime similar to that committed by the unindicted UGO?
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 16:31
Well, IIRC Woodward's version of what happend is that Fitzgerald asserted at his press conference that Libby was the first known leaker.
That called to Woodward's attention a glaring omission in the testimony of the unindicted UGO.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 16:36
Tom,
With respect to UGO (I like that better than Mr. X), there really is a scenario where Libby and/or Rove is at risk of an IIPA charge and UGO isn't. Fitzgerald believes that he would have to prove that the leaker knew that Plame was covert to substantiate an IIPA indictment. Libby may have been saved by the fact that none of the reporters that he leaked to published a story. Libby's own notes show that Cheney told him in June that Wilson's wife worked for the CPD (part of the covert side of the CIA). If Fitzgerald can prove that Libby saw the INR memo identifying her as a manager, that element of the crime is in the bag.
UGO, on the other hand, may not have known (or Fitzgerald may not be able to prove that he knew) that Plame was covert. If UGO is Armitage or Hadley, it is unlikely they didn't know Plame was covert. Hence, I think UGO is neither. I'm still holding out for Alberto Gonzales, but that's just my personal obsession.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 27, 2006 at 16:58
Tom
I think there are just too many unknowns about Mr. X (and Rove)--even if it is Armitage to assume there's a parallel there. For example, we don't know whetehr Mr. X knew Plame was covert; we know Woodward has testified that Mr. X didn't say anything about her being covert. Luskin made the case brilliantly last week that anyone who learned of Plame's identity from the INR memo (or more likely in Armitage's case, since we now have the June 10 circulation names) the Analyst's notes or conversations related to them wouldn't know Plame was covert (of course, Rove has testified that he never saw the INR memo; he had to have learned of Plame's identity from some other route, which may well have included the knowledge she was covert).
Further, we don't know for sure (though I admmit it likely) whether Novak and Woodward have the same Mr. X. We don't know whether Fitzgerald ASKED Mr. X if he had spoken to someone before, say, July 7 (we know, for example, when he subpoenaed Judy, he didn't subpoena for dates outside of the immediate vicinity to the leak).
Finally, we don't know how much evidence Fitzgerald has about what Rove really knew. Rove's stories so far about learning from a robin somewhere have not held up. If he learned from any of the early WH meetings or from Dick directly or from some "hush hush" conversation with Libby, he might well know Plame was covert. Plus, with Rove there's the intent proven by the later Matthews comment.
In any case, we have absolutely no basis to know whether what Rove did and what Mr. X did are even remotely equivalent.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 17:03
FWIW, as I see William and I are in disagreement--I think someone who leaks based on the INR Analyst's notes may not know he is violating any classification rules; if someone leaks based on the INR itself, he is guilty of leaking classified info but has not met the terms for IIPA, whereas whoever leaked Plame's to Novak, or whoever (like Libby) told 3 people before he leaked that something was hush hush and couldn't be leaked, is certainly guilty of IIPA.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 17:07
emptywheel,
The INR analyst's notes were marked SECRET/NOFORN. In any event, I haven't seen any suggestion that anyone outside of INR would have seen those except as an attachment to the June 10/July 7 memo. We can't be sure that the INR memo didn't have information identifying Plame as covert because of the redactions. The real crux of the IIPA case is Libby's notes of the Cheney conversation identifying Plame as an employee of the Counterproliferation Division of the Department of Operations of the CIA.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 27, 2006 at 17:26
On Hardball a few minutes ago, David Shuster (whom I don't find terribly reliable) reported that sources close to Rove said he (Rove) felt more worried, not less, about being indicted after his GJ appearance. According to Schuster, Rove was surprised by many of the questions and by the length of his visit.
Norah O'Donnell, subbing for the cartoonish screamer who usually hosts, strangely offered her own contradictory account of Rove. She said she heard that Rove attended a party last night, and was jovial and laughing and that while Rove said the GJ appearance was thorough--like a long doctor's visit--he felt fine about everything.
Posted by: Jim E. | April 27, 2006 at 17:26
Alright, if someone leaked on the basis of the INR memo, they'd be guilty of leaking classified info. But otherwise I agree--the CPD conversation is evidence of knowledge, as are the conversations with Edelman, Martin, and Fleischer. The INR memo, by itself, doesn't get you close to an IIPA violation.
Jim E
Thanks for that. FWIW, I also find Shuster unreliable.
I suspect they're a lot closer to getting Rove for Obstruction and Conspiracy to Obstruct--there's just so much evidence that "they" tried to game this thing in Fall 2003. But I also suspect he would try to put a good face on it, in any case. He's the master of spin, he's going to try to spin getting busted too.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 27, 2006 at 17:39
The dates of Libby's GJ testimony are not a mystery - he was never called back after testifying in early 2004, well before Cooper.
Tom, there is more than one way to recant testimony --- like submitting a signed/notarized deposition. Assuming that Libby first testified to the GJ that he told Cooper rather than vice/versa, Cooper's publication of his version of his Grand Jury experience would have provided Libby with a perfect "oops, that jogged my memory, and I apparently said something that wasn't true" opportunity to retract an erroneous statement.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | April 27, 2006 at 18:33
WO--
Just because it's marked SECRET//NOFORN, doesn't mean that it gives away Plame's covert ID. In fact, it may have been well known around the IC that Valerie Wilson was a CIA manager, but not that she was currently or previously a NOC (or even an official cover). I think that's why Fitz seems reluctant to indict Libby on IIPA. For whatever reason, even with Libby's supposed knowledge that Plame was CPD, and therefore on the DO, covert side, Fitz seems to think that doesn't necessarily mean Libby knew she was covert. Or it could be Libby certainly knew, but whatever info he leaked to reporters did not definitively ID her as such. (I think this scenario to be more likely). Maybe this is what Fitz means in his recent OWL interview about the law being unclear.
In any case, I would supect if whomever drafted the INR memo knew for certain that Plame was NOC, then that paragraph ID'ing her would certainly have been TOP SECRET with many SCI controls to make sure only those cleared to know her ID would know it. As it stands, paradoxically the only graf that seems to be TS is the completely unredacted one about the info in the NIE, which to me only highlights the seriousness of Libby's leaking of NIE info to Miller, possibly before it was declassified. And also the admin's capriciousness of declassifying it without going through the proper channels first.
Posted by: viget | April 27, 2006 at 18:46
viget - speaking of that OWL comment, did anyone else think that this comment:
suggests that Fitz is still seriously looking at conspiracy charges?Posted by: lukery | April 27, 2006 at 19:04
Tom, there is more than one way to recant testimony --- like submitting a signed/notarized deposition...
A deposition to which neither side has referred in the subsequent filings. Deposition ex machina...
On the matter of the INR memo, I would love to dredge up EW's analysis. However, a fascinating puzzle has ocurred to me, one which I am by no means qualified to solve. it relates to the comment that "if someone leaked on the basis of the INR memo, they'd be guilty of leaking classified info.", and I prsume the topic is Plame's name/CIA association; obviously, the trip details were also hush hush. The puzzle:
Per the NY Sun photo, we see the document marked "ORCON/NOFORN" in the upper right.
I'm going on memory now, but if I post on this in a day or two I will have the links handy - NOFORN means No Foreign Distribution, and seems innocuous.
ORCON, on the other hand, is thought-provoking - it means that the author, Carl Ford of the INR, is the Original Classifying Authority. This is relevant under the Executive Orders governing classification and ultimate de-classification, since it directs the archivists back to the INR if/when the subject of de-classifying this memo arises.
As a bonus, on the upper left we see "Secret/decl 1.6 x 1" - that is a notation saying that the memo should *NOT* be subject to automatic de-classification in ten years, in order to protect sources/methods (the 1.6 x 1 comes directly from the 1995 Executive Order cited by Ford, which had only recently been superseded.
That citation is down at the bottom - Secret/Classified by Carl Ford, EO 12598, ORCON/NOFORN.
I am closing in on a crescendo - *IF* this memo had been prepared properly, Plame's name almost surely would not have appeared. But set that aside - if the INR wanted to knowingly use a classified CIA name in their memo, they needed to mark that paragraph as being classified under derivative authority at the CIA, and note the ORCON for that portion as CIA. That way, archivists contemplating the declassification of this at a future date would know that that portion must be reviewed by the CIA, not the INR.
Simple. But my conclusion would be, no one familiar with these notations would reasonably conclude that, just because Plame is mentioned in a paragrpah marked "S", that she is the reason for the "S". (Joe Wilson is also mentioned in that paragraph, but no one thinks his name was classified).
In fact, a person familiar with these notations would, if they assumed the INR had vetted this properly, conclude that Plame was *not* classifed, since they were not seeing notations indicating the CIA as the ORCON for that paragraph.
Of course, there is also the casual reference to "a CIA WMD managerial type", which I doubt is widely read to mean "NOC".
SO, I think that anyone who got her background from this memo could easily argue that the presentation is not consistent with Ms. Plame having classifed status.
On the Rove-UGO parallel:
I think there are just too many unknowns about Mr. X (and Rove)--even if it is Armitage to assume there's a parallel there.
Well, there are a lot of unknowns, but if we are going to strain at these assumptions, I bet we could find plenty more that are essentially faith-based (I like to think I am aware of many of mine).
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 21:07
p.lukasiak,
Cooper's publication of his version of his Grand Jury experience would have provided Libby with a perfect "oops, that jogged my memory, and I apparently said something that wasn't true" opportunity to retract an erroneous statement.
Cooper didn't publish his account of his conversation with Libby until after Libby was indicted. The TIME article was avavilable on the internet on 10/30/05.
However on 7/17/05 Cooper did talk about his Libby conversation for the first time.
Posted by: pollyusa | April 27, 2006 at 21:52
"... would have provided Libby with a perfect 'ops, that jogged my memory, and I apparently said something that wasn't true' oportunity to retract an erroneous statement."
p.luk, in your hypo Libby would be trying to recant after being exposed. Why don't you think that's a tough sell? (And, IIRC, the case law says the "or" in 1623(d) is read as an "and.")
Posted by: Rat | April 27, 2006 at 22:22
In fact, a person familiar with these notations would, if they assumed the INR had vetted this properly, conclude that Plame was *not* classifed, since they were not seeing notations indicating the CIA as the ORCON for that paragraph.
Et voila: Armitage is reported to have seen the INR memo when he got back on the job in mid-June; Rove never saw it; and the general thinking has been that Libby never saw it. Funny. And Fleischer? Others - almost certainly Powell (at least according to Andrea Mitchell) - have told reporters Fleischer was perusing it on AF1. Fleischer, apparently, has said he never saw it, according to a source for Kornblut's 7-26-05 NYT article on Fleischer. Would Fleischer be familiar with all of those notations to pick it up even if he saw it?
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2006 at 22:24
Would Fleischer be familiar with all of those notations to pick it up even if he saw it?
Wouldn't you think so? He must have a clearance.
As to Rove never having seen it - this comes back to my point that he was working on the Tenet fall-down. Why didn't Rove see that memo? Hmm, could there be yet another memo?
And Libby was at the meeting with Grossman where it was discussed - why didn't he see it then?
Stray Random Thought - if I were working for Karl and was sure it would not irritate Fitzgerald, I would consider leaking to the press four factoids - how many emails did Rove send on July 11 2003 and that week, and how many Rove calls were logged that day and week.
It seems odd that we don't know that (unless the numbers are, for Karl, frightfully small).
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 27, 2006 at 23:15
Tom - I don't know how much can actually be discerned from the memo and who saw it, but such have been the stories told about Armitage, Rove, Libby, and Fleischer.
how many Rove calls were logged that day and week.
If I were working for Karl, I would be apprehensive about leaking that one. It kind of cuts both ways. I believe Vandhei's article today talks about Rove making hundreds of phone calls on the day he talked with Cooper.
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2006 at 23:35
New NYT article up. Interesting lead:
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case, is expected to decide in the next two to three weeks whether to bring perjury charges against Karl Rove, the powerful adviser to President Bush, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.
Rove's known for more than a month that he was likely coming before the grand jury again, and has known since the fall that Fitzgerald had more questions for him. But none of this has anything to do with his recent demotion, I mean horizontal move.
The article asserts that in February 2004 Rove testified about Novak, and in fact Rove had acknowledged the contact with Novak in the fall of 2003 with FBI investigators, which we pretty much knew, but not Cooper.
Then there's this, which is hilarious in its unconvincingness:
It is still not publicly known why Mr. Rove's e-mail message to Mr. Hadley was not turned over earlier, but a lawyer in the case said White House documents were collected in response to several separate requests that may not have covered certain time periods or all relevant officials.
So we've moved on from the search-word explanation to the time period and relevant officials explanation. I'm sure July 11 2003 was on no one's radar screen in connection with Rove and Hadley. But Rove had nothing to do with the search anyway, so no matter.
That's about all I see. I'm sure I'm missing something great.
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2006 at 23:57
NY Times tomorrow says that Fitz will decide on Rove's fate within next 2 to 3 weeks.
The NY Times also reports: "Mr. Rove admitted from the outset to investigators that he spoke to Mr. Novak on July 9, 2003, about Ms. Wilson. It was in that conversation that Mr. Rove first learned the name of Ms. Wilson from Mr. Novak, lawyers in the case said."
Are these specifics (the date, learning name from Novak) about the Rove-Novak conversation new? Or is this boilerplate stuff?
Posted by: Jim E. | April 27, 2006 at 23:57
you missed the mark on this one EW
Occam's razor, eh
simplest solution is the most likely
here are the lies that Fitz is gonna fry libby with:
"REPORTERS ARE TELLING US THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS TRUE"
"I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS TRUE"
"BASICALLY WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM (Wilson) UNTIL HIS STUFF CAME OUT IN JUNE"
This case is gonna be quick and bloody
Fitz is gonna present the dates and sources that libby "remembered", and the SEVEN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that libby talked about Valerie Plame with BEFORE the dates that libby "remembers"
libby took notes in his conversation with cheney, and six other well respected government officials have documented their conversations with scooter
so here's your case:
libby claimed that reporters told him this information, when in fact, libby learned this information thru his official duties, well before libby had any conversations with reporters
Fitz isn't playing "he said-she said" with reporters
Fitz has seven government employees who documented their conversations
and the punchline is SCOOTER WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO DOCUMENTED THE CONVERSATIONS
scooter is getting hung with his own notes
wanna bet on it ???
Posted by: free patriot | April 28, 2006 at 00:08
‘Twas the night before Fitzmas, and all through D.C.
The Senate stood empty, just waiting to see.
The Grand Jury listened to Fitz with much care,
He hoped that the votes all would be there.
Ken Mehlman and Rover all snug in their beds,
While visions of November danced in their heads,
And Dick in his bunker, as “W” did sip,
A drink from the flask he poured through his lips.
When out at the Post arose such a clatter,
They sprung from their cubes to see what was the matter.
Away to the phones they flew like a flash,
Called up their sources who asked for some cash.
The Times of New York had the lights all aglow,
As they savored the scuttle they knew soon would flow.
When, what to their wondering eyes should appear,
But a signature sheet with twelve names written so clear.
With Old Crow in his throat, George W then spits,
He knew in an instant it must be the Fitz.
More rapid he guzzled, his Party might lose,
So he bristled and shouted while chugging his booze.
Now Karl! First Libby!
Damn Fitz you vixen!
Lost Browny then Scotty!
Who else are you fixin’
To topple from power!
We’re takin’ a lickin!
Now damn Fitzy, damn you!
Damn you this hour!
If not for those levees and Katrina’s wrath,
Dear God, why all these obstacles, who chose her path?
You live in the big house, but the White House is blue,
What else can go wrong, will Dick Cheney go too?
And then in a tantrum, he ran to the roof,
The stomping and kicking of each little hoof.
As he pulled out his hair and was turning around,
Up through the hatch big Barbara came with a bound.
In blue robe with white dots, from her head to her toes,
Yes her clothes were old fashioned, but everyone knows.
A bag of buckshot she held in her hand,
Then she told him that Karl could not take the stand.
His jaw how it twitched, his chin to and fro,
His cheeks were like roses, his nose white from blow!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
She pulled on his ear…you’re back on the snow!
The shaft of a pen he held tight in his fist,
And the smoke it encircled, man was he pissed.
He made a mad face, then reached for the lead,
He shook and he scowled, I wish he were dead.
Righteous and pompous, a nasty old soul,
She slapped him and said, pull Cheney from the hole.
A wink of his eye and a grin on his face,
Soon Fitz he would show that he should stay in his place.
He spoke not a word but went straight to his work,
And filled all the shotguns, then turned with a jerk,
And with shaking fingers, he dialed the phone,
Dick Cheney I need you, he said with a groan.
Dick called for his chopper, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim as he flew out of sight,
Happy Fitzmas to all and we’ll get him tonight!
read more observations here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Daniel DiRito | April 28, 2006 at 00:23
You guys are clearly post-graduate students at this stuff whereas I am, at best, a sophomore. But I keep thinking: if Fitz used Libby to roll up Karl, what are the chances he is now going to use Karl to roll up Cheney?
Posted by: slangist | April 28, 2006 at 01:34
p.luk, in your hypo Libby would be trying to recant after being exposed. Why don't you think that's a tough sell? (And, IIRC, the case law says the "or" in 1623(d) is read as an "and.")
Fitz knew he had airtight cases on the perjury/obstruction charges that appear in the indictment. There is also tons of other stuff that Fitz could have brought specific indictments on, but those cases were weaker. Putting myself in the mindframe of a juror, the more "questionable" charges that I'm asked to decide on there are -- and that I have to acquit based on reasonable doubt --- the greater the skepticism I would be looking at the "solid" cases.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | April 28, 2006 at 02:34
Cooper didn't publish his account of his conversation with Libby until after Libby was indicted. The TIME article was avavilable on the internet on 10/30/05.
However on 7/17/05 Cooper did talk about his Libby conversation for the first time.
polly....thanx for the correction!
Posted by: p.lukasiak | April 28, 2006 at 02:37
SO, I think that anyone who got her background from this memo could easily argue that the presentation is not consistent with Ms. Plame having classifed status.
I agree, Tom. But the point is that people with access to classified information don't have the authority to decide what exactly is being classified, and what information might be "unclassified". Much of what we are seeing with the Plamegate cover-up probably has to do with the fact that people like Rove and Libby and others were revealing classified information to the press.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | April 28, 2006 at 02:44
Tom
You had me right up until this point.
SO, I think that anyone who got her background from this memo could easily argue that the presentation is not consistent with Ms. Plame having classifed status.
You see, you completely drop this point:
In fact, a person familiar with these notations would, if they assumed the INR had vetted this properly, conclude that Plame was *not* classifed, since they were not seeing notations indicating the CIA as the ORCON for that paragraph.
For the person leaking Plame's name, this is one question. But for you--ever diligently looking for proof that Plame wasn't covert, it's another thing. We have a number of reasons to believe that this memo wasn't vetted properly. One is the curious absence of the two guys who know anything about the events (along with the equally curious absence of the nuclear analyst in October 2002, when he should have been debunking the forgeries to the whole IC). Another is the way the Bolton involvement is one of the few things redacted in our copy. Another is the names listed on the cover sheet--not Ford, but Fingar, Silver, and Frisa (who has on two notable occasions "forgotten" testimony incriminating to John Bolton). And finally, we know how Bolton insinuated himself in vetting processes to, for example, make sure that Armitage didn't get information that would be useful to him. So yes, if Armitage saw this, he might believe Plame wasn't covert. But you're too shrewd to take the question of vetting of this at face value, aren't you?
Jeff
I think we can begin to dismiss the "Armitage with the memo" claims, based on the cover sheets. The first one has no distribution list (which is consistent with reports that say this circulated no farther than Grossman). The second has a distribution list including Armitage (he is D), which would suggest he didn't already have a copy at that point. That doesn't mean he didn't see other documents relating to this, perhaps the Analyst's notes. But the reports that say he only got the memo on July 7 now have archival back-up.
Tom again
There's no reason to think Rove would have seen the INR memo working with Tenet. As you point out yourself, it's ORCON, Ford owns its declassification. If they were trying to declassify it they would go to Ford, not Tenet.
Besides, the "report" that Novak mentions is almost certainly the CIA report on Wilson's trip. We know Libby was working on declassifying from it and leaking it to Judy, and Tenet cites from it in his mea culpa.
Also, all the reports about Grossman at the meeting say he briefed on the contents of the memo. No one has ever (AFAIK) said Grossman handed out copies.
free patriot
You're falling back into the Libby problem again. The perjury charges have four parts: a) How Libby claims he learned of Plame's identity as if it were new. b) What he said to Russert. c) What he said to Judy. d) What he said to Cooper. Part (a) can be largely proven or disproven based on the evidence you're talking about. It's hard for Libby to argue he heard from Russert originally on the 10th if he was chatting to Judy about it on the 8th. But for the remaining three, the issue is not whether Libby lied to a journalist--that's not illegal. So your points about the conversation with Cooper, as presented by Libby, are irrelevant; you've only proved that Libby claims to have lied to Cooper. What is important is whether he really told those lies or not. Cooper says he didn't. Libby says he did.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 07:15
My take on the NYT:
I'm assuming that this STILL comes only from Rove's team. But I also think they have no idea where Fitz is going with this.
I find this interesting:
A lawyer with knowledge of the case said that Mr. Rove had known for more than a month that he was likely to make another appearance before the grand jury, and that he had known since last fall that he would be subject to further questions from Mr. Fitzgerald before the prosecutor completed his inquiry.
Sounds like part of the Hail Mary attempt was an agreement that Karl would "willingly and voluntarily" testify again, thus Wednesday's meeting. I also think that's interesting given Novak's comments (I really do have to search this out) that Fitz had one more item he wanted from Novak, and that Novak therefore couldn't tell his story. Given Novak's continued silence and his reported post-November testimony, I'd wager he's going to be a witness (albeit hostile) against Rove. Which makes this statement (which seems to be a retreat from previous claims, and therefore perhaps an attmept to smooth out prior differences) all the more interesting:
Mr. Rove admitted from the outset to investigators that he spoke to Mr. Novak on July 9, 2003, about Ms. Wilson. It was in that conversation that Mr. Rove first learned the name of Ms. Wilson from Mr. Novak, lawyers in the case said.
That's almost certainly BS. And Fitzgerald may have Novak as a witness to the fact.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 07:37
given Novak's comments (I really do have to search this out) that Fitz had one more item he wanted from Novak, and that Novak therefore couldn't tell his story.
Yeah, that's news to me, I don't recall seeing that. I remember that Novak, in his valedictory at CNN, said he had been prepared to publish about his role in the case upon the expected indictments at the end of October, but then was advised by his lawyers to hold off when Fitzgerald announced that the case was not closed. But I don't recall Fitzgerald's advice, request or command playing a role in that episode. It would certainly fit with the as-yet-unretracted news from the Times that Novak did in fact talk to the investigation again after Libby was indicted.
But I also wonder whether Novak's recent chat with Fitzgerald might not have to do with Armitage, his apparently first source and Woodward's. With almost no success across the board, I've pushed the idea that Armitage is not yet necessarily in the clear, at least if Fitzgerald originally asked him about all his contacts with reporters concerning Plame, as I suspect he did.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 at 08:27
Jane's place is playing hard to get, so I'll post the long comment I was going to post over there.
A couple of data points.
First, to drouse at 24: Hoekstra's comment is particularly interesting, actually, since Fred Fleitz--the most suspected source of information regarding Plame's status and formerly chief enforcer for Bolton at State--has recently moved to work for the GOP at the House Intelligence Committee. (I'm looking for a link on his move; it was about 4 weeks ago.) So Hoekstra may be getting cues directly from Fleitz. But then, he's just saying Plame wasn't a NOC, not that Plame wasn't covert.
Second, going back to Vivnovka from the last thread. Don't forget that Fitzgerald cued Vivnovka about whether or not her meeting with Luskin could have been in March, and she discovered she had entered her 5 PM meeting as occurring at 5AM. Fitz may know about that from credit card receipts. But maybe he has reason (another witness?) to know exactly when Vivnovka spilled the beans?
And finally, one more data point about the emails. Don't forget Rove threw two Hail Mary passes last Fall. One was the Vivnovka story. The second was an email with Adam Levine about some thing that Rove ostensibly wrote just after he got off the phone with Cooper. I have long suspected that this move was about as bright as Luskin's comment, "Cooper is not going to jail for Karl Rove." Because if Rove wrote it just after he got off the phone with Cooper, than it would have almost the same logging information as the Rove-Hadley email. So it would provide Fitzgerald (or whatever tech wizards are working for him) a lot of information about the chunk of emails that should have included the Rove Hadley one.
So I suspect what happened is that Fitz got a hard copy of the email in Fall 2004. He was given some stupid excuse about why it hadn't shown up that could be backed by some technical information. But by giving Fitz the second email, the Levine email, Fitz was able to figure out where all the most interesting emails SHOULD be. Voila. Fun new evidence.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 08:43
Jeff
I'm still looking for it. But I think it was from a Novak interview in the days after the indictment. He was asked if he could tell his story. And he said Fitzgerald still had asked him to keep silent or (this is what I remember) Fitz had one more thing he wanted from him.
Even if Armitage is in trouble (though I think Walton's comments about Mr. X suggest he's not), why interview Novak again?
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 08:47
I still haven't found the Novak quote, but I did find this while I was looking. From the WaPo article on Ashcroft's recusal:
In other words, if Rove had been paying attention, he should have been able to do the math: subpoenas for info relating to conversations with Cooper + ability to subpoena the media without approval = risk his conversation with Cooper will be exposed.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 09:15
I think Walton's comments about Mr. X suggest he's not
I have recently been scoring points on this issue with Maguire (though he's yet to acknowledge it). Walton's comments in the 2-24-06 hearing were not as described by reports at the time, as we've been able to look at the transcript instead of having to follow a fast-moving court hearing live. Two major points: Walton simply did not say anything about official one/Mr. X./UGO having to have his reputation protected as he won't face (or even wasn't facing) charges. Such reports conflated two different parts of the hearing. And in fact when the discussion dealt with an official whose identity needed to be protected because he was innocent accused - which arose in the context of publicly releasing Fitzgerald's 2-16-06 affidavit in some form - it appears that they were talking about Rove or Hadley (which is pretty funny). In any case, the person they were talking about was known to the defense (since the point of that part of the hearing was that Fitzgerald didn't want that person's identity released to the public although it had been released to the defense), so they were not talking about official one in his capacity as official one. Second, the whole point of not releasing the identity of innocent accused to the public is that the investigation is open, so it's unclear who eventually will and who eventually will not be charged. So anyone they talk about in the context of being innocent accused is someone who may or may not be charged - that's why you have to be careful about releasing their identity. As far as the identity of official one is concerned, Walton's ruling was that it was immaterial.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 at 09:55
The more I look at that INR memo, the more convinced I am that it is relatively unimportant. I think most of the reporting about that memo is obviously wrong in many places. The easiest explanation that I see is that the INR analyst who went to the Feb. meeting DIDN'T KNOW that Plame was or had been covert. I think anybody who got their information solely from that memo probably isn't guilty of an IIPA violation (and I say probably only because of the redactions, but the point about ORCON is telling). Now that we have the memo, I want to raise a few interesting questions:
Who did Joe Wilson report back to at State? The INR memo is convincing is saying it wasn't INR, but I think he did talk to somebody.
Why did Libby call Marc Grossman (instead of Armitage) to ask about the "unnamed former ambassador"? When I read Kristof's column, I would have assumed INR would be the relevant bureau to call and they didn't report up through Grossman, they reported up through Armitage to Powell. Powell was out of the country on May 29, but Armitage wasn't.
How did Cheney find out about Plame being at the CPD? Did Fitzgerald ask Cheney? Cheney was using Libby to search out information. Was he also pursuing information through his CIA briefer?
And, the ultimate question, how did Novak find out Plame was covert? Fitzgerald doesn't seem to think it was from Mr. X. We only know that Cheney, Libby, and some CIA people knew. Libby is the only one we know who talked to the press. Is Fitzgerald trying to prove that the chain was Cheney to Libby to Rove to Novak?
Posted by: William Ockham | April 28, 2006 at 10:10
Oh, I've been saying the INR memo isn't important in the way it was spun to be for 10 months. Though, after having read it, I'm more convinced Fitz was interested in it for the chain of ownership earlier, pre-June 10.
Wilson reported though the diplomatic corps. Ambassador Owens Kirkpatrick would have reported on it.
I think Political Affairs implies you're the one who implements the President's political goals at State, which may be why Libby called him. Or, just as likely, Libby knew there was info at State, but didn't want either Armitage or Ford (who were both very hostile to Bolton) to go after it. Remember that the name on the memo is Thomas Fingar, who has received two promotions since the INR memo was produced.
The question I'm most interested in is, why did Libby wait from May 6, when Kristof published his column, until May 29, before he asked Grossman for more information? I think Rohn was already in Pakistan by May (so it can't be to wait until he's out of the way--I was wondering if Rohn wrote his notes after the Kristof column, but it doesn't appear likely). But I do wonder whether Fleitz and Bolton set up some information in the interim. (Though do you have a link to show Armitage was around on May 29?)
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 10:32
Wow, this is an All Star line-up. I hope initials are OK, until you guys pick uniform numbers:
From EW:
But for you--ever diligently looking for proof that Plame wasn't covert, it's another thing. We have a number of reasons to believe that this [INR] memo wasn't vetted properly.
Ahh, don't muddle me with "classified" and "covert". I have no doubt her status was classifed, mainly because Fitzgerald said so in the indictment.
I have serious doubts as to whether she had "covert" status as defined in the IIPA.
And my point was not that the INR memo proves she was not classified (although I am resisting temptation heroically) - my point was that a trusting reader would not have reason to infer that she was classified, and, in fact, could reasonably infer the opposite. And since state of mind counts, folks who took their guidance from this memo, like my man Armitage, could win a pass.
But yes, I am sure it is an INR error.
From Jeff:
...hilarious in its unconvincingness:
Unconvincingosity?
I thought the funniest bit from the Times was Rove's press flack:
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Rove, said Mr. Rove would be cleared. "We're confident at the end of this that Mr. Fitzgerald is going to find that Karl has been totally truthful and not only has done nothing wrong but has done everything right," Mr. Corallo said.
EVERYTHING right! So that scotches the impending indictment for "Failure to Floss".
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 28, 2006 at 10:49
Tom
Not sure if you saw my reference to the comment at Jane's about Pete Hoekstra's comment on Washington Journal yesterday: "Plame wasn't a NOC." I find it really interesting coming from Fred Fleitz' new boss. It suggests a kind of parsing: She was covert, had been a NOC, but was no longer a NOC. My point being, there's still space between NOC and classified which is probably where Plame's status was.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 10:58
From EW on Rove's work on the Tenet statement:
Besides, the "report" that Novak mentions is almost certainly the CIA report on Wilson's trip. We know Libby was working on declassifying from it and leaking it to Judy, and Tenet cites from it in his mea culpa.
That is a frighteningly good point which I, for one, will long remember. Does anyone think the CIA report on the Wilson trip made any mention at all of Ms. Plame?
Assuming it does not, what is Rove's source of info on the Plame-Wilson connection?
Now, we don't know what Fitzgerald knows, and I think there was general surprise when we found out just how many Plame-related sources Libby had, so maybe Rove has a similar surprise list.
But if he saw the CIA report and not the INR version, he may really not have known much officially. I like that.
From Jeff again:
I think Walton's comments about Mr. X suggest he's not
I have recently been scoring points on this issue with Maguire (though he's yet to acknowledge it).
Oh, I'll acknowledge that you'be been scoring points on the Walton transcript - flipping Cecil Turner was quite a coup. I'll look again, but I'm still a skeptic.
And Jim E extracted this from the Times:
"Mr. Rove admitted from the outset to investigators that he spoke to Mr. Novak on July 9, 2003, about Ms. Wilson....
Jeff has been saying that too, but my impression is that Rove denied being a source to Novak in his first FBI chats. Has Murray Waas from March 2004 been superseded?
But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
My theory has been that the Aschcroft recusal was triggered by the discovery of a possible false statements problem with Rove's initial Novak testimony and the subsequent change in his story, although I suppose that if Rove had admitted to being a Novak source, that could have posed a problem as well.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 28, 2006 at 11:12
Tom - That bit from Corallo is funny, but it's also smart: on the off chance that Rove does not get indicted, Corallo is setting up an interpretation of such a non-indictment as not "Rove got off by the hair on his chinny chin chin," but "Rove has been totally and completely cleared, this proves that Rove was right and in the right path all along."
And who is Mark Corallo, anyway? Oh, he was just Ashcroft's press affairs righthand guy at Justice when the investigation was getting going and when Ashcroft was getting periodic status reports on the investigation in fall 2003. Smart choice by Rove. In light of the point emptywheel just made about Rove reading the signs from Comey that Fitzgerald did not need approval to subpoena journalists, check out this from Corallo back in October 2003, just as the investigation was getting started:
Attorney General John Ashcroft must approve any subpoena of a journalist under his department's restrictive guidelines, which is why it happens so rarely.
"The essential guiding principle is that subpoenaing a journalist should be the last resort," said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo. "We should do everything we can to avoid the chilling effect on the press."
Can't you just feel the concern for the press in those words from Corallo? I'm quite certain it had nothing to do with assuring the White House screwups that Justice would not be getting any information out of the reporters. (This is from Kurtz's October 5 2003 WaPo article, by the way.)
And then there's Murray Waas recounting, in 2004, what he heard from Corallo back in fall 2003, as he acknowledged that Ashcroft had indeed been receiving status updates on the investigation:
In my article that appeared on Alternet.org first disclosing that Ashcroft was being briefed about the Plame investigation, Mark Corallo, the director of public affairs at the Justice Department, confirmed Ashcroft had received "status updates" regarding the probe from John Dion, a career Justice Department prosecutor. Corallo defended the briefings at the time, telling me: "The attorney general wants this to be investigated thoroughly and promptly, and to that end, he wants to be informed of the progress of investigators."
Mark Corallo, truthteller. I'm also sure he knew nothing about the investigation himself, and if he did, he has not shared any of it with Team Rove. I'm sure Corallo's earlier involvement in the investigation has nothing to do with why he joined Team Rove in the first place.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 at 11:13
EW--
Bingo. Larry Johnson has said as much over at BooMan's place and on the Sit. room with Wolfie right before the Libby indictment.
Plame *used* to be NOC. She was transitioning to "official cover" over at State, as per Larry Johnson (either as an analyst with INR or working in NP as some kind of analyst/officer, note this is my spec (and EW's and p.luk's too, I think)).
My understanding of IIPA is that it still covers "official covers," meaning as long as you've been overseas in some sort of covert capacity (be it official with State or non-official with whatever front), and someone blows your covert status having had access to classified info that names said status or being told by someone who had access to said info, that person is guilty of a violation.
The problem here is I don't think Fitzgerald is convinced 100% that Libby absolutely knew Plame was covert. Now, he (Libby) should have given the CPD remark by Cheney. But maybe, since we now know she was a "managerial type" in CPD, that such managerial types aren't necessarily assumed to be covert. In practice, probably many are, or were, but one cannot necessarily go from "If managerial in a divison of DO" to "then necessarily covert."
But I think the "classified" status of Valerie Wilson's employment is an entirely different story, as Tom rightly points out. One's job and/or affiliation with the CIA may very well be classified without them necessarily being "covert" as implied by IIPA. This may be why the GJ wanted to know so badly what Valerie's neighbors thought she did in the moments leading up to Libby's indictment.
My point is, as EW and WO have pointed out above, I think the INR memo tells us nothing about whether or not "Valerie Wilson" was covert. All we know is that her name and job at the CIA was probably classified SECRET (in fact, Fitzgerald has told us as much, that her job with the CIA was classified). So, technically Mr. X is probably guilty of leaking classified info, whether that's prosecutable under the Espionage act depends on whether that particular bit of classified info is "important for the nation's defense." We don't have an Official Secrets Act, though, so not all leaks are necessarily criminal.
But this still leaves us with the mystery, "Where did Novak get the words "operative" and more importantly, "Valerie Plame" which supposedly was Valerie's covert name? I don't think that's been revealed as of yet. The INR memo does nothing to help us answer this question, and indeed is just a distraction.
And the answer may be, as loathe as I am to admit it, that maybe the CIA was sloppy with hiding her covert status. That maybe, just maybe, Novak is telling the truth, and put two and two together from his background research on Plame and realized that she was probably a CIA operative. And when Harlow urged him not to run with the story, that was all the confirmation he needed.
So technically, maybe no IIPA violation occurred. But that still doesn't excuse the admin's behavior and their zeal to a) leak classified info just for partisan purposes to discredit their opponents and justify their cause for war and b)to conspire to obstruct justice in this probe and concoct bs cover stories about the leaks in order to save face politically.
Both of those actions are prosecutable crimes. And it seems that's where Fitz is going with his investigation. And even if there's not IIPA violation, prosecuting those responsible for the leaks is still a worthy attempt for justice for blowing B-J's and Plame's cover, as there's little doubt in my mind that significant damage has been done to our intelligence gathering networks because of these leaks. Remember that the Feds finally got Capone on tax evasion, not on the countless murders, rackets, and sundry other crimes that he facilitated.
Posted by: viget | April 28, 2006 at 11:57
Damn Jeff, nice catch on the Corallo. Corallo AND Comstock, theyve got. Who needs to use the NSA to spy on Fitz when you've got that?
Also note, that language (about why Ashcroft got updates) is almost precisely the language Ashcroft used when he put McNulty in charge of the AIPAC investigation.
viget
Technically, the INR memo doesn't even tell us Plame's identity was secret. At the time that was written, Wilson's trip was classified (asymetrically so, so that Wilson could talk about it but not CIA). So the S on that paragraph may have come from the Wilson trip ... particularly if the people producing it didn't know Plame was covert or were trying to make trouble.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 12:10
On Novak
It was reported early on that he had contacts with several White House officials.
As EW pointed out it seems highly likely that Novak talked to Libby in the week following Wilson's op-ed. In Waas's 12/16/05 article on Townsend, Waas says Novak talked with Rove on July 9, 2003 and says this about the the Novak conversation with someone in the OVP “The virtually simultaneous [with Rove] White House insider campaigns to leak information on Townsend and Plame”.
Novak's 7/14/03 column contains information that is likely from the Wilson Trip Report. We know the Wilson Trip Report was an attachment to the INR memo, was faxed to the OVP, and was probably also in play in the WH review of the Tenet statement.
This is what Novak had in his first column that either must have come from his non-partsian gunslinger (or some additional) source or Rove said more than "I heard that too". It's interesting that some of Novak's information is incorrect.
Note as well, Novak even has quotations around "highly unlikely" indicating he is directly quoting something or someone.
The Novak column was "was moved to his newspaper clients on July 11, 2003"
The information on the Wilson Trip Report couldn't have come from Tenet's statement since that wasn't released until the evening of 7/11/03.
It couldn't have come from the press gaggles in Africa since details about Wilson's CIA report weren't disclosed until the 7/12/03 gaggle. Ari clearly knew the details of the Wilson CIA report in the 7/9/03 gaggle, but he didn't provide the detail that Novak has in his column.
This is interesting from The Left Coaster on the timing of the availablity of the Novak column.
In Novak's second column he states that his source told him Plame was in counterproliferation.
On Rove and Novak
I'm not sure if Rove admitted his contact with Novak in his interviews with the FBI, but he did in his 1st GJ appearance.
According to Waas, Rove did not admit his contact with Novak in his October interview with the FBI
Posted by: pollyusa | April 28, 2006 at 12:18
Jeff
Then there's this, which is hilarious in its unconvincingness:
"It is still not publicly known why Mr. Rove's e-mail message to Mr. Hadley was not turned over earlier, but a lawyer in the case said White House documents were collected in response to several separate requests that may not have covered certain time periods or all relevant officials."
This is now boilerplate at the NYT. Here is the identical paragraph in the 11/4/05 NTY article.
Posted by: pollyusa | April 28, 2006 at 12:44
Damn Jeff, nice catch on the Corallo.
Mega-dittoes.
And Polly, on the "highly unlikely" - you are highly likely to find that phrase in the SSCI. The most topical cite seems to be this:
The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick [deleted], Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S. officials he thought there was "nothing to the story."
Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled
the former ambassador saying "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on."
Well, those are her words, but who is to say that they did not appear in her report, Wilson's report, or both?
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 28, 2006 at 12:47
Polly--
Wrt Rove's contacts with Novak, couldn't the reports of his FBI interviews also be saying, yeah he talked to Novak in the week before his column (which we know he did, supposedly about Townsend as per Waas), but he never discussed Plame? Why lie about talking to Novak when WH logs would clearly indicate that he did? And when you can trust Novak to cover for you?
And Fitz could have been asking in the first GJ session only if Rove had talked to Novak during the relevant time period and if so, what did he talk about. In other words, they could have discussed his contacts with Novak without specifically mentioning Plame. If the early GJ sessions were just fact-gathering missions, I would suspect Fitzgerald used these kinds of neutral questions. It's only later when Cooper spills the beans about his other source that Fitz suspects Rove may have been hiding something.
Or alternatively, Novak was caught in some kind of lie and had to roll on Rove. This all comes back to that mysterious 2nd (3rd?) GJ appearance by Rove. Has anyone definitively pinned down the date yet? (I only know of Feb 2004, Oct 2004, Oct 2005 and this past Wed).
Posted by: viget | April 28, 2006 at 12:56
It seems we might learn something about the timing of Novak's column releases by looking at the "Flame" "Plame" discrepancy on his 10/1 column. I need to go back and look, but the amount of time it took to correct in the columns where it was corrected might tell us the lead time on publication.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 13:02
Tom
Stray Random Thought - if I were working for Karl and was sure it would not irritate Fitzgerald, I would consider leaking to the press four factoids - how many emails did Rove send on July 11 2003 and that week, and how many Rove calls were logged that day and week.
This doesn't say how many calls or emails Rove sent on 7/11/03, but it was leaked by "associates of Mr. Rove" and implys he had a hundreds of calls and emails.
Posted by: pollyusa | April 28, 2006 at 13:15
polly - Thanks for the point about the Times' use of boilerplate on the Rove-Hadley email.
As for the Corallo catch, I think the connection was made either in a news report or by some blogger when it was announced that Corallo was going to be Team Rove's spokesperson with regard to the investigation. But I will take all the credit for pinpointing the sheer smarminess of his conduct back in fall 2003 (and Aschcroft's conduct that he was speaking for). It is striking how well his assurance that Justice would resist going after journalists, along with the expectation that the investigation would be kept in-house at Justice, jibes with the idea that Libby et al felt freed up to say what suited them to investigators in fall 2003.
But if I understand the implication of one of ew's points above, all that changed with Comey's appointment of Fitzgerald, which would seem to bolster Rove's story of his conduct in 2004, in the sense that he no longer could reasonably expect that journalists like Cooper wouldn't end up testifying, and so it would be crazy for him to deliberately lie to the grand jury in February 2004. At the same time, I take it the enduring obscurity - deliberately fostered by Luskin, I suspect - about just what Rove told investigators in fall 2003 could still be a source of trouble for Rove in 2004. My guess - and I think I read something along these lines somewhere - is that Rove told investigators that he had talked to Novak in July 2003 but was not a source for his article; I know Rove has been reported as being surprised to learn that his brief comments to Novak made him into Novak's confirming source.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 at 13:29
One other thing: the WaPo article from July 2005 Polly cites on Novak's column going on the wire on July 11 2003 is by Balz, but with reporting by Susan Schmidt, and I would be willing to bet she contributed the bit on the timing of Novak's column - she wrote the article (11-26-04, I think) that initially floated this idea. I used to think that knowledge that Novak was publishing helps to explain the uptick of White House activity on July 12 2003 - and it still might, regardless of when Novak's column was officially public (especially since Novak told Rove that he was publishing and Rove told libby) - and it still might. But as Susan Schmidt seems to be the only reporter who has reported on the July 11 Novak-on-the-wire point, I'd really like to see some confirmation of it. Nothing against Schmidt per se - though we know where her sources tend to be, and they appear to have misled her on key points, like with regard to the substance of Cooper's testimony on his conversation with Libby - it's just odd that such a significant fact which is so easily confirmable from numerous sources has not gotten any attention or play in other reports, as best as I can tell.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 at 13:37
Thought I would add a link to a perhaps overenergetic review posted yesterday by an ex-LAT columnist discussing a belated newsreel aired on CBS a week ago. It on the overal theater topic, rather than the phamphleteer thread here.
Annotation: Pollyusa's timeframes are helpful; yet, my own tabulation with respect to the 'one more thing BNovakism' apparently reside in memory only; and so far a skim of the summer and autumn 2005 JMMarshall archive is all Libby, not BNovak; incidentally, that archive link is fairly new.
Posted by: JohnLopresti | April 28, 2006 at 13:37
Tom
you are highly likely to find that phrase in the SSCI
True but the SSCI was published in July 2004 and Novak's column was published in July 2003.
Posted by: pollyusa | April 28, 2006 at 13:42
EW
On the Plame Flame, Novak's column as it appears at the Townhall website has Plame and is dated 10/1/03. The copy of the Novak column that had it as Flame was found here and was posted on 10/6/04.
The only way to find out may be by looking at the print edition.
Posted by: pollyusa | April 28, 2006 at 14:00
Interesting Bloomberg today
I don't think I believe that last bit, the NYT and AP have it this way.
Posted by: pollyusa | April 28, 2006 at 14:10
emptywheel,
Before I forget, you can see the schedule for Armitage and Powell on Thursday, May 29, 2003 here[1]. Powell is listed as being out of the country in Poland on May 30, so I suspect he left town on the 29th (after the "courtesy call by His Excellency Abdoulaye Diop, Ambassador-Designate of the Republic of Mali" at 10:45am). Armitage was in D.C. the next week (June 2 - 6) as well. Powell got back from his trip on Friday, June 6.
Interestingly, Marc Grossman was in Madrid at a NATO meeting on June 3 and 4 (Photographic evidence here[2]). He stopped off in North Africa on June 5[3].
[1] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2003/21038.htm
[2] http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/2003/m030603e.htm
[3] http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/21316.htm
Posted by: William Ockham | April 28, 2006 at 15:12
Thank you kindly, William.
Which leaves two big questions. Why did Libby wait for most of May until asking Grossman for the info. And why did he go to Grossman and not Armitage or Carl Ford.
FWIW, while I was back in old posts, I convinced myself again that Libby talked to Novak about Plame, though maybe not the week of July 7 (or maybe not in detail then). Townsend was appointed on May 27, so it is possible that Libby met with Novak in June about both Townsend and Wilson. I still think it possible that he met Judy AND Novak on June 23 to seed this smear (of course, Judy didn't write about that either). And it's certainly possible that he told them then that Plame was a NOC.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 15:30
I know Rove has been reported as being surprised to learn that his brief comments to Novak made him into Novak's confirming source.
I heard that, too.
Polly - my hope was that the SSCI would actually quote the Wilson report as using the phrase "highly unlikely", which would add to the notion that someone was reading that report to Novak back in 2003.
I guess all I got was the evidence that the specific phrase came easily to the lips of someone discussing the situation a year later, which is not real helpful.
All that said - if Novak has it in quotes, why wouldn't it be from someone with access to the Wilson report (which was an attachment to the INR memo, too).
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 28, 2006 at 15:34
Small piece of news (though it will undoubtedly trigger the latest round of mutual reassurance that Fitzgerald and his case are about to be embarrassed out of court and off the stage of world history among your commenters, Maguire): apparently as a result of Walton's command, Fitzgerald is producing the CIA referral to Justice, at least to Walton for him to look over. Unclear to me whether it will definitely be handed over to Libby, in some perhaps partly redacted form, though I assume so. My sense is that this will be no big deal, though one way or the other Team Libby is going to try to depict Justice's foot-dragging about starting an investigation as prejudiced over-aggressiveness on the part of Tenet. The more they do this, the more informative I predict Tenet's long-awaited book, slated for this October, will be.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 at 15:38
Tom - Shouldn't your line be, "The reporters are saying it, but I don't know if it's true. I don't even know if Novak had a source"?
As for the quoted "highly unlikely," that's really interesting. Either Novak got it from Wilson, whom he interviewed, sort of, on July 10, in which case it's all on the up and up; or he got it from one of his sources, Armitage or Rove. If I understand ew's explication of the distribution of the INR memo, Armitage was marked for distribution in July, is that right? That would seem to make him the more likely candidate. But at the same time Novak pins the White House as interested in declassifying the trip report, and it's almost certain that OVP at least had the report in his possession. Plus, if, as Tom and ew have been reminding us, one of the underreported dimensions of the story is the work Rove and Libby did with Tenet and Hadley that week on declassification, what are the chances that Rove did not have access to the report? In either case, if it wasn't straight from Wilson's mouth to Novak's ear, Libby wasn't alone in leaking classified information to reporters. But I'm betting Novak got it from Wilson.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2006 at 15:53
Jeff, et. al.,
The line of reasoning that says Armitage got the INR memo in July makes it less likely that Armitage is Woodward's source. I would think that would make you question your assumption that Armitage is Mr. Hugo X.
emptywheel,
May 29 is merely the start of the chain of events that Libby was asked about and he lied about. I suspect there are events between May 6 and May 29 which are significant in the larger conspiracy case.
All,
There is one very important fact that everyone is overlooking with respect to Libby's exposure on the IIPA charge. We've known since April 5, 2006 that Bob Grenier is the CIA official mentioned here:
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
Bob Grenier was a long-time veteran of the DO. He had to know that Plame was covert. Fitzgerald is planning to call Grenier as a witness in the Libby trial. I have a hard time imagining that Grenier is going to testify that he told Libby about Plame and didn't mention she was (or had been) covert. That raises the possibility that Libby was actually Cheney's source (the Grenier conversation is before the Cheney-Libby conversation).
Posted by: William Ockham | April 28, 2006 at 16:31
WO
I don't think that makes Armitage less likely. Remember this article:
Now whoever this source is (and I think it possible it's Armitage) is wrong; the INR memo does list Valerie's first and last (married) name. But if the rest is correct, then it's simply not how Armitage learned of her identity.
I agree with you, btw, that there's a lot of conspiracy that Fitz hasn't shown us. I imagine the answer to my question is something like, "Libby didn't ask Grossman until May 29 because it took until then for Fleitz and Bolton to line up the answers he wanted" or "Libby didn't ask before then because he hadn't found out from Fleitz about Plame's covert status until May 20." Something like that.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 16:54
Holy shit, there's a theory--that Libby was Dick's source. I like it. Because it might mean that the "leaking on instructions of Dick" is all a ruse. And then maybe Libby did alter his notes, which has been a question I've always wondered about.
In fact here's a totally minor point that has kind of obsessed me (as opposed to the rest of it, for which I'm sure my interest can be regarded as healthy). Woodward describes Libby's notes this way:
Huh? "Careful penmanship"? The biggest running joke between Libby's team and Walton and Fitz is how badly he writes. What's Woodward doing, trying to make Libby look pretty? Or did Libby stay up for the entire 2 week period recreating his notes. (Not likely, but hey...)
Posted by: emptywheel | April 28, 2006 at 16:58
Retreating for a moment to look at the collective forest, while our esteemed group of experts makes toothpicks from the trees, one can see that the individual bits of information are analyzed in the context of the individual’s initial assumption.
Initiated by Pincus and Wilson’s Op-Ed, bought by Fitzgerald and adopted as a religion by David Shuster, the world view of “Joe Wilson, courageous whistleblower” and “Cheney/Rove/Libby – conspirators in destruction” falls flat with the now-known facts about Wilson’s lies.
No one can credibly argue against the fact that the initial impression Wilson strived to make was that he was sent by Cheney to Niger and reported back that he had “debunked” the idea that Saddam had sought uranium.
Now that is undeniably proven that Valerie was the cause for the trip and that Wilson’s report (unseen by Cheney) tended to bolster the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium, the context of what Rove/Libby said and did becomes clear. Fitz’s case, without the underlying story establishing context, makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by: j.west | April 28, 2006 at 17:04