« And the Republican Nominee from CT Is... | Main | Putin's Quid Pro No Go »

July 15, 2006

Comments

I have to confess I'm being a bit irresponsible in making my argument this way. My point is, if we can describe how any of these non-governmental employees (a the time of the leak, that is) were involved in the conspiracy, then we get to discovery; the suit doesn't get dismissed on Cheney's immunity claim.

It probably won't be GannonGuckert who gets us there. My bet's on Newt.

But how funny would it be if it were GannonGuckert!

Fun as well as intriguing post. I've often wondered whether GannonGuckert was merely using a cover slur when he referred to a "pathetic whistlebloser", much like Miller referred to Libby (as a cover for him) as a ex-hill staffer (can't remember exactly) The mind swirls in glee at the thought of Gannon Guckert returning to fame.

I think you are right on the first amendment shield employed Rovishly.

New in this mix is the draft legislation S.2453-Specter (with Addington's counsel); this law is the FISA remake which is essentially the administration's method of court stripping all secrets cases, and giving ABGonzales authority to aggregate all such cases in the name of Secrecy, for hearing in Secret. Maybe my worry is too much of a stretch here. I will have to see what sage minds contend in the discussion as S.2453 proceeds to a vote. I could picture this bill generating the Fristian agar-agar for remaking the cloture rule in the US Senate, as well. S.2453 is, innocuously enough, only about really dangerous internationals who are up to no good and deserve only the pokey once surveilled; but, as written in draft it looks like a new bailiwick controlled by the stroke of ABGonzales' nib; anything he swears to goes without question for one year and is not briefed to Hoekstra or Specter in any specificity for that full year. Mainsailset may rewrite this sentence about the briefs; ahem.

I suppose the counterpoint Specter's S.2453 affords might heighten the overall atmosphere of vaudeville.

NB: In the House Harman Conyers have colalborated on a counterproposal, which I need to read; it is on the internet already, I believe.

Are you folks who follow every jot & tittle of Plamegate making sure her lawyers have a copy of everything you've done?

If Gannon really got a copy of the INR then why didn't he report on it?

Instead all he did was plagiarize the Wall Street Journal for his interview question to Wilson (link).

While this part of the Gannon saga isn't anywhere close to crazy Johnny Goesch territory I still think it's barking up the wrong tree.

Ron

First, it doesn't matter whether he got the actual INR memo. All that matters is he used a still-classified document to justify the leak. Furthermore, if you compare the WSJ article to the things JJGG says about it to the actual memo, JJGG gets some things close to right that Cloud gets wrong. JJGG correctly describes that the anlayst's notes describe the February 19 meeting at CIA (though it mistakenly suggests the same INR analyst wrote both the notes and the memo).

A memo written by an INR (Intelligence and Research) analyst who made notes of the meeting at which Wilson was asked to go to Niger

Whereas Cloud describes what appears to be a misrepresentation of the February 12 CPD discussion about what to do.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

That is, JJGG notes that Wilson was present; Cloud doesn't, and in fact describes a meeting in which it'd be impossible for him to be present since they hadn't yet decided to send Wilson.

Further, has anyone explained how JJGG figured out it was an INR memo, since the WSJ used "intelligence personnel"?

I frankly think whoever leaked to Cloud was using a draft of the SSCI report, because one could easily confuse the two meetings in that document, and it would explain how they knew about the February 12 meeting when they obviously weren't there.

Now, perhaps JJGG got the same leak of the SSCI report. But one way or another, he fixed one of the errors that the WSJ article made and added the detail that it was from INR. I'm not arguing he got the INR memo or even an SSCI draft. But I am suggesting that JJGG added details the WSJ doesn't have, and I doubt he did that on his own.

Actually, let me correct that. What Gannon wrote of his interview with Wilson is identical to the errors the WSJ had:

TN: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?

Wilson: I don't know anything about a meeting, I can only tell you about the meeting I was at where I was asked if I would prepare to go, and there was nobody at that meeting that I know. Now that fact that my wife knows that I know a lot about the uranium business and that I know a lot about Niger and that she happens to be involved in weapons of mass destruction, it should come as no surprise to anyone that we know of each others activities.

But by the later statement (and I've never found a date for that--he may have gotten it from the WaPo, in which case I am totally wrong) corrects those errors.

Except that the WaPo doesn't clearly say Wilson was at the meeting.

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

hmmm...let me meditate and and get back to you on the rest but here's a possible date for the Gannon article, as posted on
Free Republic on July 15, 2004.

Since it wasn't on his Website earlier than June 9, 2004 according to Archive link that looks like the correct date.

Here's the full link to the original Gannon article which says "The Senate Intelligence Committee let some air � a lot of air - out of Joe Wilson�s overly inflated ego last Friday when it issued its first report on prewar intelligence."

In the revised version he changed "last Friday" to "last year" and the INR was released in July of 2004.

sweet

- analysis that is.


things could, maybe, get interesting again.

discovery in and of itself would be worth a lot in terms of better understanding the details of the attack on the wilsons.

i hope the wilsons get that far. i wonder if that would not satisfy them; it would me.

whatever else one may think or read about joe wilson, he really is a principled patriot. i know - it is forbidden to write such words in our worldly wise times.

Having read this post several times, the only thing I understood was why I didn't go to law school. A 'primer' for the uninitiated would be appreciated.

Thanks for trying...

Hmm, I left a comment questioning your use of JJGG in one of your "Anatomy of a Smear" posts - I wish you had not ignored that.

First, I seriously doubt you will find an article by JJGG in which he states that Plame was widely known. As best I recall, JJGG's claim to fame was his ALLEGED access to the INR memo.

However, eventually even the Kos Kidz (SusanG broke this) eventually tossed in the towel, dated JJGG's story, and concluded he interviewed Wilson *after* the WSJ article. And JJGG told the NY Times essentially that, again, IIRC (which I do).

I have to check my notes.

OK, here is a Kos diarist:

At some point during the week leading up to October 28th, Gannon interviews Wilson by phone. The contents of that interview are astonishing.

Astonishing, indeed.

And lest there be skeptics, here is the Times, Feb 19 2005:

Mr. Guckert denied seeing a Central Intelligence Agency memorandum disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame, a C.I.A. operative, even though he had strongly insinuated as much in an interview with her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, the transcript of which he posted on the Internet.

Mr. Guckert's phrasing in that interview so strongly suggested he had seen the classified memorandum that it brought F.B.I. officials to his house as part of the Plame leak investigation, he said. But he said referring to the memorandum as though he had seen it was merely an interview technique. "What I said was no more than what was reported in The Wall Street Journal a week before," he said.

I think your idea of looking elsewhere than Guckert is a good one.

(FWIW - the Kos Kidz broke this the Times' first story bit fully on the "access to classified docs" meme, and since there was a Plame connection I dug in - you would be surprised how few folks knew about that WSJ story back in Feb 2005.

My initial cheap shot, I mock the Times, and a grand mid-flight summary.

Ron and Tom

You've convinced me about JJGG. Thanks for the correction.

Thank for always listening...which is part of the reason you're one of the best.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad