The Evolution of a Mea Culpa

by emptywheel

I've long been fascinated with the competing stories about what went on in the drafting process of George Tenet's July 11, 2003 mea culpa. In this post, I noted that Libby and Rove offered one version of the drafting process...

Back at the White House, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby had been at work all week, along with Ms. Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, helping to craft a statement that was issued on Friday by George Tenet, the C.I.A. director. Mr. Tenet did precisely what the White House needed: he took responsibility for the inclusion of the 16 words on uranium in the president's speech, and he made clear that Mr. Cheney had neither dispatched Mr. Wilson to Niger nor been briefed on what he found there.

... and shortly after, the CIA offered another version.

On July 9, Tenet and top aides began to draft a statement over two days that ultimately said it was "a mistake" for the CIA to have permitted the 16 words about uranium to remain in Bush's speech. He said the information "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

A former senior CIA official said yesterday that Tenet's statement was drafted within the agency and was shown only to Hadley on July 10 to get White House input. Only a few minor changes were accepted before it was released on July 11, this former official said. He took issue with a New York Times report last week that said Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had a role in Tenet's statement.

Then, in this post, I noted the different versions from Suskind and Woodward (which I'll quote below). We now have three different versions of the Tenet statement, plus Cathie Martin's description of events from the night of July 10, when much of the drafting took place. I'm going to analyze what changed when as a way of understanding the tensions of the week.

July 6-7

The scenario starts with what Woodward portrays (in State of Denial) as a fairly amicable discussion between CIA and NSC, in which both accept some of the blame (note, I don't know why Mr. Superstar journalist seems to have these dates off by a day, but I'll just assume that NSC didn't start responding to Wilson until, at the earliest, the night of July 5, when his op-ed was posted).

On Saturday, July 5, Tenet talked to the chief NSC spokesperson, Anna Perez. As best she could tell, the fact that the 16 words about the uranium had made it into the State of the Union address was the result of failures in both the NSC staff and the CIA. "We're both going to have to eat some of this," Perez said. Something should be done to correct the record on what the president had said in his speech. 

[snip]

Tenet agreed with Perez that all would share the blame. The plan was to work on a joint statement over the weekend that would be put out on Monday. Rice and Tenet spoke next and agreed that they had to put the issue to bed. Rice was with the president traveling in Africa. Hadley and some NSC staffers worked on a draft but they couldn't reach an agreement. (231-2)

This is weird. Woodward says the statement would go out on Monday, which would have been July 7. But Woodward describes Ari's statement--admitting the WH shouldn't have used the Niger claims--as scuttling the process.

Tenet said he would put out a statement. On Tuesday, July 8, however, after Ambassador Joseph Wilson's New York Times op-ed piece cast doubt on the claim, the White House released a statement saying, "Knowing all we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." (232)

Maybe this just means that the late Monday statement from Ari didn't make it to Tenet (who was in Idaho) until Tuesday. But still--why no Tenet statement on July 8?

July 8

No idea. But sometime on July 8, it seems that Martin called Michael Anton in NSC, asking who was still reporting on the story. Anton directed her to Bill Harlow, who was a bit grumpy. But Harlow at least told Martin who was working on a story--Andrea Mitchell and David Martin. Cathie Martin told Cheney and Libby that--and Cheney directed Libby to try to get Andrea Mitchell to back off her story. Martin observed Libby calling either Mitchell or David Martin from his office.

July 9

Libby seems to have gotten to Andrea Mitchell, placing blame on CIA--and Stephen Hadley seems to have blamed Cathie Martin for placing that blame (all the while Libby ducked his head, avoiding the blame that appears to have been his own). Here's Martin, responding to Fitzgerald's questions.

M The next day which was Wednesday, as is typical we talk about breaking news since the previous day. Stephen Hadley raised the evening news report by Mitchell and said that there had been suggestions that WH was pushing blame to CIA and that was not helpful. Hadley said Tenet was unhappy, Hadley said we shouldn't be saying it. About 20-some-odd people, a lot of people were on the trip to Africa. A dozen at the table and a few of us who sit behind–maybe sixteen. Who did Hadley believe was saying this–he turned around and looked at me.

F Had you spoken with Mitchell.

M Libby sitting directly in front of me. He looked down. Mr. Hadley asked me and others from the press office and Michael Anton had him join us as well, to talk about the story and told us again we should not be pointing fingers, this was not the CIA's fault in any way shape or form. Afterwards I went to see the VP bc I thought the VP should know Hadley thought I had something to do with these reports.  Spoke to VP, Scooter was there, thought we had something to do with this.

So perhaps it was Libby's botched conversation with Mitchell that bolloxed the Tenet statement. And because Hadley blamed Martin, he kicked her out of the response process. Note though--at this point Hadley maintains that CIA was not to blame.

July 10

And then, at least according to Martin, Hadley, Libby, and Cheney plotted a response. Cathie Martin describes a process from July 10, working late into the night. Hadley had decided communicators wouldn't be involved, but Libby asked Martin to get involved nevertheless. Everything Hadley or Cheney called, though, Libby made her leave the room. Funny, but she doesn't say what Jenny Mayfield did when Hadley called?!?! Anyway, here's her take on it, responding to Fitzgerald's questions:

M On Thursday evening, July 10, I had been monitoring what was going on in the media, I hadn't talked to Scooter, I wanted to make sure he didn't need anything. If you need me I'm here, but if not I'm going to leave. Hang on, I want to talk to you.  We talked about a decision to keep communicators uninvolved.

M There had been a decision not to have communicators involved but wanted the judgment of someone in communication. Tenet is going to give a statement about the 16 words. There's ben a discussion abou twhat he's going to say, Mayfield was in teh room she had papers that seemed to reflect notes back and forth with Tenet. Had been occurring through Hadley. During that Conversation Hadley called, Scooter asked me to leave the room. Going in and out of his office. Returned to his office.

F Anyone besides Hadley calling at that time?

M I think that Scooter and Hadley and Scooter and VP. I left for conversations with either one of them.  I was writing notes about the strongest statement we could get from Tenet, also thinking about the VP piece of this, to make sure ours was in there was well, what can we do as part of tactics around this statement.

Here is the draft from that evening, apparently the papers Jenny Mayfield had that reflected "notes back and forth with Tenet" (Martin's own notes appear on the second page). The draft ends with the notes,

The honest truth is that the CIA posed no obj to inclusion of statement. No onetold WH to take it out
In the end of day no one said get it out

July 11

Not long after, at 12:15 Uganda time, 4:15 AM DC time, and 2:15 AM Idaho time, Condi stuck a shiv in Tenet, blaming him for the sentence in the SOTU.

And the speech was cleared. Now, I can tell you, if the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, had said, take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, without question.

[snip]

And had we heard from the DCI or the Agency that they didn't want that sentence in the speech, it would not have been in the speech.

Now, Suskind argues that Condi was so brutal because of a middle of the night conversation she had with Tenet in Idaho; when Tenet rehearsed all the things NSC had done that resulted in the 16 words, she got pissed and pre-emptively blamed him completely. But Condi's language actually seems to parrot the language in the July 10 draft, particularly in her insistence that no one in CIA told NSC to take the 16 words out. So it's unclear to me whether the middle of the night conversation really did have anything to do with Condi's aggression--the aggession seems to be in the draft speech already on the night of July 10.

But then the next day, the CIA put together it's own statement. Oddly, this faxed statement has no time stamp on it, so it's unclear how long CIA worked on it after Condi blamed Tenet, but the fax says Tenet will deliver his statement at 1315 hours--1:15. There are a few differences between the CIA statement and the one Cathie Martin saw the evening before. The CIA statement reflects the details Wilson gave about the security of uranium in Niger, which doesn't appear in the Hadley draft:

The former officials offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted.[CIA draft]

And rather than the phrase,

It received widespread lower level distrib but was not lighlighted to senior officials bcs [Hadley draft]

The CIA draft was more specific.

it was given a normal and wide distritbution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President, or other senior Administration officials. [CIA draft]

Both statements rehearse the reasons why CIA didn't use the Niger claims in Fall 2002, and detail the INR's objections.

It is in the description of the SOTU review process where the drafts differ the most--and even there the difference is subtle. The Hadley draft reads  (I've bolded significant differences):

SOTU rec;d by agencies shortly before final

SOTU was divided into parts. Not yet final... The agc raised some concerns about text and it was changed. Onbasis of those changes agc judged it was factually true. BNut itdid not have the level of certainty that it shd have to put in SOTU. The clearnance process did not work as well as it shd have.

I am responsible. I shd have done a better job to prot Pres. And I didn't

The honest truth is that the CIA posed not obj to inclusion of statmnent. No one told WH to take it out
In the end of day no one said get it out

The CIA draft reads:

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the lanaguage was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct--i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test. This did no rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured it stayed out.

The process involved in producing and reviewing the President's speech did not work as well as it should have. It is important to stress that our exchanges took place at levels well below the President, as typically is the case. I am confident the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound.

In other words, the CIA took out the "CIA posed no objection," no doubt because WINPAC head Alan Foley had done just that, objected. They put in words distancing this from the President, in the last paragraph. And most interestingly, they play a bit loose with the facts. They claimed the British claim was factually correct, yet that claim only asserts that the British had a document that asserted the Niger claim, not that that document itself was factually correct; this stops well short of the claim Jack Straw was making at the time, which was that the Brits stood by the claim itself. And they claimed the documents had not yet been determined to be forgeries, though the INR (and possibly, CIA itself) had done just that, determined them to be forgeries.

Two important details about this draft. First, CIA said they'd release it at 1315. But it ended up getting released much later, a true Friday night news dump. What caused the delay? Someone at CIA trying to protect Tenet?

The other thing is the cover sheet which, I'm guessing, carries Dick's handwriting (someone testified it was Cheney or Hadley, but since Hadley had written a draft which was, if anything, more balanced than this CIA draft, it seems unlikely to be him). It reads, "Unsatisfactory." OVP (I'm guessing) wasn't happy. Was that why it took several more hours before this was released?

And then, later that evening, Tenet delivered his statement. There are differences, again, between this early 7/11 draft and the one delivered--mostly coming in the first paragraphs of the statement. Compare the first two paragraphs of the early draft... (again, I've bolded the differences)

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech. Ongoing inquiries by the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the CIA's Inspector General will eventually shed light on that issue.

There is one thing, however, that is already clear. These 16 words should never have been included in text written for the President. All those involved in drafting and vetting this portion of the speech bear responsibility. We at CIA were among those who let the President down.

With the final version.

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

The bolded text in these two passages is, for general purposes, the substantive difference between the the CIA draft and the final. Which means that, after finding the CIA draft unacceptable, Dick or someone made four changes. They:

• Took out any promise that the use of the Niger claim would be investigated
• Emphasized CIA's approval of the speech
• Highlighted Tenet's responsibility for the vetting process
• Again distanced the President from the claim

Though it's worth noting--Tenet only takes responsibility for the vetting process, not for sustaining the intelligence claim itself. And these changes--particularly the reiterated distancing of Bush from the claim--seem to be NSC changes. The changes don't seem to respond to OVP's primary concerns. Now according to Martin, this statement was okay--helpful in some ways, but not everything they wanted.

M Fewer people paying attenion on Friday evening, and fewer people paying attention on Saturday was when it was reported. My view of the statement was that it was helpful, but didn't end the story. I wasn't at the office when it came out. I thought it had some helpful things, but I didn't believe it'd end the story.

She notes that she did not speak with Cheney about it, though. And I'm guessing that Cheney still felt (I'm assuming) the same way he did on Friday morning--that the statement was "unsatisfactory." One day before he maybe talked with Libby about sharing Plame's ID with Matt Cooper and others...

I'm going to do a follow-up post to talk about what wasn't in this statement. But it bears pointing out who wasn't in this statement, at least according to Martin: Karl Rove.

Comments

[semiot]

What exactly was "unsatisfactory" to Cheney? Perhaps it was the fact that the statement, wherein Tenet takes total responsibility on himself and the CIA for the 16 words "slipping in" the SOTU, doesn't "make some heads roll" for the "slip up." What Cheney was demanding, I'll hypothesize, is that those in the CIA who were responsible for the pushback were allowed to get their message out to the public in such a way that the president - and worse yet - Cheney himself were "in the neckgrinder" now.

This hypothesis fits with a corresponding hypothesis that links past efforts by people in the CIA to pushback against Cheney manipulations to the results that occurred over the following days in July 2003. Cheney knew about Valerie Plame and her work well before may or June or July 2003. Let's look at the possible opportunities for her to attract the "Eye of Sauron": Curveball; October Bush speech in Cincinnati; SOTU back and forth over yellowcake and aluminum tubes. Then, on March 8, Wilson starts pushing back in public. He was vetted by OVP. He's not only a long-haired big mouth with a penchant for grandstanding, he's also - Oh My God! - the husband of that hot blonde and the agc who has been one of the biggest pains for years. Bingo! Crisis, meet opportunity.

By this hypothesis, Cheney and the gang knew about "Valerie Plame" for quite a while by May or June or July 2003. But it was in the late Winter or Spring of 2003 that they put her together with Joe Wilson. When Ari hit the panic button on July 8, Cheney and Scooter, with assists from Rove and Hadley, turned the tap on the leak. The story was already out there among some, such as Armitage and Woodward and Novak and Miller. In July, post the Wilson op ed, that fact was seized on to create the obvious cover story - the journalists told Scooter, and Scooter just said "I heard that too"! Meanwhile Cheney was pulling the lever connected to the leaky tap, and the so-called President was given enough info to implicate him and bring him on board with the caper without compromising public denialbility.

[kim]

This may be old news for the Plamaniacs, I'm thinking Hadley makes sense as "1" in the 1x2x6 article -- he comes across in these stories as one of very few people who have some integrity in the Administration. I used to think Powell was "1", ages ago it seems, Tenet would also be a possibility.

[looseheadprop]

Marcy
How you can sustain this level of detail, is beyond me.

This is some serious piece of analysis

[HrikneH]

Marcy,
I tried to buy your book at Barnes and Noble yesterday, Feb. 3rd, 2007. They did not have it.They informed me they had 12 on order. They didnt know when they would be arriving. They told me that there weren't any of your books at any Barnes and Noble yet. They had no explanation of why.
I know it is available at Amazon, but I like to buy my books at the store. Is there another bookstore selling the book?
I will check online and see if I can find it near my home in Durham, NH.
I read about creating your own publishing company. Maybe this has something to do with it.
Keep up the good work live blogging!
HMRoberts

[janinsanfran]

Help me understand this -- why did they care whether the President had told a lie in the SOTU? Any normal human with a lively curiousity and access to the internet knew by early 2002 (1) that the President and the Administration were lying across the board about Iraq as a threat. That was not news -- Wilson simply supplied a new piece.

Was it all just various power centers within our ruling factions not wanting to be on the hook as the source of a particular falsehood? That is, was it an insider fight?

It didn't really matter much to the rest of us, US and Iraqi, which little part of the whole lying apparatus furnished which falsehood -- the results were quite clear. And while I know there are people of professional integrity involved in developing these government estimates, at the level this went on at, truth was simply never one of the criteria used to determine what was a "fact."

[DCgaffer]

Some of the things you noted as changed in the draft to final was a matter of placement – moving items from the penultimate and last paragraph to the beginning.

Putting aside Tenet’s statement, looking again at Martin’s notes brought to mind something I missed at first review: Specifically:

“...that the CIA cProlif Task Force asked an individ with ties to Niger to gho and inquire...“

The noteworthy item is “…CIA cProlif Task Force….”

The first time anyone every heard of a “Task Force” was from Hubris when Isikoff and Corn added detail to Plame’s job.

“…Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of the agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq--part of the Counterproliferation Division of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations--were frantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI was trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion that Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a career undercover officer named Valerie Wilson….”

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn

[emptywheel]

HMRoberts

I know someone who bought the book from an NYC B&N yesterday, so it will hopefully be in NH shortly.

The timing has more to do with delays in the printing than anything else--but that's life with books. It's hard to time these things perfectly.

[emptywheel]

DCgaffer

Not exactly--it's not a simple move of text from the end to the beginning. The text was changed along the way. I think you could make an argument either way, as to whether it softened or strengthened the statement. But it is a slightly different take on the speech, one that looks more attuned to NSC goals than OVP.

Also, Corn's was not the first mention of JTFI. It was mentioned in both SSCI and Robb-Silberman. What was new with Corn was tying it to Plame.

[DCgaffer]

EW:

I agree - not exactly. Also if you compare para 3 in the draft to para 2 in the final (excluding the 1 sentence [para) - you'll see how the OVP's talking points got more fully inserted.

I would suggest to you that Martin's note goes to the heart of knowledge and intent.

While one could (and I would) argue that just because someone works in Counterproliferation (which is in DO) that does not axiomatically mean one was classified or covert (though likely most were). However, when you couple counterproliferation, DO, "joint task force," "mounting espionage operations" there starts to become a preponderance of evidence that knowledge of said JTFI (at that moment in time) would have resulted in knowledge of said JTFI senior manager, and duties and responsibilities thereto.

[Garrett]

After the (apparent) call from Libby, Mitchell says this on her July 8 Capitol Report:

High-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

This is White House talking points, slightly disguised. But it's not sourced to Administration Official: it's purportedly "people at the CIA" that said it.

If Libby is putting a slightly disguised White House/OVP view of it into the CIAs mouth, no wonder George Tenet was not happy. No wonder Libby is looking at his shoes as Cathie Martin gets the blame for it.

And if Andrea Mitchell, in "reporting" on a CIA/White House pissing match, is willing to go along with putting one sides view in the mouth of the other: what a tool.

(If anyone happens to have a complete transcript of Capitol Report for July 8: please post a link?)

[I can see clearly now]

MT, thank you for taking on this important job. I learn something new everyday. Today I am leaning toward the theory that someone in Winpac sabotaged the work done by the rest of the CIA. This is based on Eriposte's detailed and wonderful analysis of the evidence coming out of the trial.

(1)He makes it clear that certain redactions to testimony presented to the Senate Security Committee were made, not for security reasons, but to support the WH position that Iraq had indeed sought to buy yellowcake. GOP Senator Pat Roberts was the one who made those those strategic redactions. An example: The British informed the CIA of the Niger claim. REDACTED: The CIA expressed doubts about the reliability of that information.

(2)Eriposte's analyses also seem to prove that the CIA HAD REPEATEDLY found the Iraq Niger story presented by the Italians not to be creditable. The only way it could have gotten into WH statement would be if it was inserted/suggested by a rogue CIA member of WINPAC.

(3)There is also an interesting note of an unprecedented meeting between the Italian Secret Service and Bush. The sequence then, seems to go like this: the Italians had tried to get the CIA to accept their story of the attempted yellowcake buy, the CIA kept refusing to do so. Someone in Winpac told the pres to go with the 16 words, and had the Italians meet with him to assure him the story was true.

[emptywheel]

Clearly

There is no doubt that WINPAC was central in sustaining the bad intell claims.

But that doesn't mean someone from WINPAC put it into the SOTU. Someone from WH had to do that--almost certainly Robert Joseph and (maybe) Stephen Hadley. WINPAC sustained the claim, but then WH used it.

And in the period we're talking about, OVP is making entirely unrelated issues to avoid taking the blame.

[SaltinWound]

Wheel, I love the live blogging, but it's great to have you back doing analysis. Question: didn't Hadley make a statement a week or two later where he accepted some responsibility? What motivated that? Also, I think it was last year around this (Super Bowl) time that I was trying to get you to check out "K Street," which was in the process of being shot when a lot of this broke. Mary Matalin's role is especially revealing (basically her biggest concern is that good people are going to have to get lawyers).

[Jodi]

empywheel, thanks for the live blogging. (And I like you without any plucking, very natural and wholesome.)

I have to still come back to how complicated this damn trial is. "Don't think about that except as to mind set." "Ignore that." "Look at this in this way."

That is why they don't put technical people on juries. We don't forget detail, and we challenge idiots, and we look for the truth, and we don't pay attention to idiotic instructions.

I have never sat on a Panel. Dumbheads, simpletons, crazies, malcontents, maniacs sat, but not me.

(... ok maybe I am worse or less than all those ...)

:)

[emptywheel]

Saltin

I did get K Street. Didn't get very far in it, though. I'll have to revisit it.

Hadley was forced into that mea culpa bc, after Tenet was made to take the fall, CIA leaked the details of the October 2002 discussion about the Niger claims, in which Tenet told Hadley to "take it the fuck out." In other words, Hadley knew he was wrong, knew the Niger claims were wrong, and CIA was leaking that he knew.

[RenB]

Loose at 10:40

Love reading your stuff at FDL.

Don't hold your breath---Union Leader, right? If THEY get an inkling, you aren't gonna find it in NH. Grew up in Manchester, and got out as soon as I could.

Am in Europe, but---whaddaya know.... after twenty years' respite, it's the same old, same old, and the big corporations took over.

Sorry EW. You do give me hope, but sometimes I could just throw in the towel.

[obsessed]

I ordered AOD from Barnes & Noble online (first time I've ever ordered from them) when it first became possible to do so because amazon didn't have it yet ... it still hasn't come ... I should have waited for amazon ... B&N online sucks.

[TheOtherWA]

I ordered from Amazon in late Dec. and was notified on Friday they're finally shipping it. It should arrive by the end of the week. *sigh*
I'm not very patient. ;)

[pdaly]

I cannot figure out why Tenet acquiesced to the mea culpa in the first place. That CIA quickly forced Hadley to apologize subsequently only adds to my frustration.

Though Tenet throws in hints in his mea culpa that CIA were less than willing to agree to the 16 words, Tenet still went out of his way to repeat most of OVP talking points re: Wilson. (WH did not send Wilson, WH not briefed on findings of Wilson's trip, even if WH had been notified Wilson's trip was not conclusive, even if Wilson found out thises things Nigerien officials would have had reason to be less than truthful to Wilson knowing it would get back to Washington, etc).

If Bush/Cheney have something on Tenet, so what? Now is the time to get it out there. The Wilsons have already shown the way to sacrifice in the name of American democracy. Wish that Tenet (with or without his Medal of Freedom) would publish his book already--lift up a major rock and allow us to look on as all the critters scurry for safety.

It has always bothered me that the CIA talks about intelligence "product" which it provides to its "customers" in the government. Taking the business analogy too far leads to the well worn phrase "the customer is always right." (as in this real world case). Stop pleasing the customer, CIA. Your customer is corrupt.

[SaltinWound]

Pdaly, I agree, the same thing was bothering me this morning. Cheney snarling at Tenet to change something didn't mean he had to, although there does seem to be something about Cheney that's very intimidating to a lot of powerful people. Still, it's possible the very fact that we're having this trial is Tenet's revenge and the reason so much is now coming to light-- without him, there probably never would have been an investigation into outing a C.I.A. agent in the first place.

[p.lukasiak]

Mitchell says this on her July 8 Capitol Report:

High-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

holy chit! I didn't realize that Mitchell was reporting on July 8 that Joe Wilson was sent by "covert operatives in the CIA".

[Tithonia]

Did Mitchell ever testify before the grand jury?

[Mimikatz]

There is still so much here that doesn't make sense. Why should Cheney be so upset about being connected to the yellowcake claim? Why did the Italians do the forgery in the first place, and even if Rocco Martini or whatever his name is did it for money, why did they keep pushing it on the US? Are these things related? Is there something else here we aren't supposed to find?

Libby really is a coward, isn't he, hiding behind Cathie Martin's skirts. What a first class jerk.

[emptywheel]

p luk

Yup. Maguire's been using that as proof that CIA outed Plame. Only now we know it probably came from Libby.

I think Mitchell was interviewed by the FBI. I wonder how forthcoming she was...

[MayBee]

There's a time problem with Libby sourcing Mitchell on that (from EW's liveblogging)

DB Yes. Believed he contacted Mitchell after 7/10 more likely after 7/14, according to Libby Mitchell had made negative comments about OVP, and he wanted to discuss them. He said he spoke to her. Mr Libby told us he explained to her about . Mitchell asked question about why VP sent him to Niger. may have told her what reporters were telling him that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Said it in way that she wouldn't ask him how he found out, didn't want her to know he learned it from Russert. Libby told us he thought it might be awkward, if he said he learned it from Russert.
3:24
DB Told us he didn't speak to Novak week of 7/7. Talked to him later, around 7/25.

-----

There would be a problem with Libby telling Mitchell that Wilson was sent by covert operatives, in that Fitzgerald says he has no evidence that Libby knew Plame was covert, and Libby was saying Plame sent Wilson. So we don't "know" Libby was Mitchell's source, unless we "know" more than Fitzgerald.
Note also that he did not speak to Novak the week you mentioned on CSPAN.

[MayBee]

I need to be clearer about the timing problem:P Luk's quote is from July 8, Libby said he didn't talk to her until later. Of course, Libby might have lied about this but he wasn't charged with that, nor was he the only one talking about Plame/Wilson/the CIA. In fact, the CIA was/is the entity that said Wilson wasn't sent by Plame, but by others in her group.

[Jeff]

What I think you're missing, MayBee, is that Cathie Martin testified that on July 8, apparently during the day, Libby was tasked by the Vice President to call Mitchell and David Martin, whom Martin had heard were both working on stories for the evening news. Martin witnessed Libby talking to one of them over the phone - and in light of the story that was done that evening by Mitchell, Martin was suggesting LIbby had talked with her, especially since Hadley was pissed and accused her, while Libby looked down at his notes at the meeting.

I don't know what time Libby might have spoken with Mitchell, or what time the relevant show we're discussing was on or was taped. But the point is that if the show happened after this newly disclosed phone call Martin was suggesting happened, that means that Libby has to enter the pool of candidates for having revealed information that Mitchell used - it at least throws into somewhat more doubt the use Maguire has been making of Mitchell's appearance for a long time, to presume that the CIA gave her that information.

[MayBee]

it at least throws into somewhat more doubt the use Maguire has been making of Mitchell's appearance for a long time, to presume that the CIA gave her that information.

Not really. As I said, Mitchell says covert operatives sent Wilson. That hasn't been Libby's story. We know that Libby spoke to reporters without mentioning the wife, and we know other people were talking about the wife sending Wilson (State), as well as some saying operatives sent Wilson (the CIA's story). We've never heard Libby said anything about covert operatives sending Wilson- that would actually implicate him in knowing that Plame was covert. The universe of possibilities has neither been increased nor decreased, and we absolutely don't know that it PROBABLY came from Libby.

Just as we didn't ever 'know' that Novak talked to Libby the week of July 6th, an idea Bond's testimony seems to contradict.

[MayBee]

ps. There is also testimony that Mitchell had called Harlow.

[Jeff]

MayBee

I agree it doesn't mean that what Mitchell got probably came from Libby. But it certainly raises the probability that it could have - since the probability had seemed to be zero, in the absence of knowledge that Libby had spoken with her at the precise time and the assertion that Mitchell's sourcing was in State principally and also CIA.

I'd also mention that the following is misleading in a couple of respects:

We know that Libby spoke to reporters without mentioning the wife, and we know other people were talking about the wife sending Wilson (State), as well as some saying operatives sent Wilson (the CIA's story).

We know that Libby spoke to reporters without mentioning the wife and he spoke to reporters while mentioning the wife, just as we know State people were at different times talking about the wife and not talking about the wife. Also, if your source for the CIA's story is Tenet's July 11 statement, that needs to be reconsidered in light of the substantial role we're learning OVP played in its production - which at least gave OVP access to that information and that formulation, if not a role in its formulation in the first place.

[Jeff]

MayBee

I should also mention that Bond was reporting Libby's testimony, not vouching for its accuracy. Indeed, it's quite clear that in numerous respects that she thinks Libby was providing false information, at least some of it deliberately. I didn't focus on what she had to say about Libby-Novak, so i don't know if you can read anything about the status off of that. But it is important not to take what she reports Libby saying as testimony as to what actually happened back in July 2003.

[MayBee]

Also, if your source for the CIA's story is Tenet's July 11 statement

No, my source is at a minimum Harlow, who seems to have said co-workers sent Wilson and denied to Novak that Plame sent Wilson. I believe Grenier said the same thing. Furthermore, Wilson says the same thing. They all deny Plame sent Wilson, and say her co-workers did.

[MayBee]

Jeff re your 22:45- True. But at the same time, Libby hasn't been charged with perjury on any of that testimony, and that is the testimony Fitzgerald sought to highlight at trial.

[Jeff]

But MayBee, I can cite back to you White House folks saying the same thing: Fleischer and Bartlett both were doing it during that week. And you seem to be making a distinction between the storyline that someone within CIA sent her and the storyline that Wilson's wife sent him. But of course those two storylines were far from necessarily mutually exclusive.

But at the same time, Libby hasn't been charged with perjury on any of that testimony, and that is the testimony Fitzgerald sought to highlight at trial.

The notion that Libby would have been charged specifically for each and every false statement that the investigators judged to be a lie is clearly incorrect. So your comment is neither here nor there on the question of whether we should take Libby at his word on that. There's a bunch of stuff that has come up that Fitzgerald is not highlighting that he clearly believes to be false testimony on Libby's part.

[MayBee]

But MayBee, I can cite back to you White House folks saying the same thing: Fleischer and Bartlett both were doing it during that week. And you seem to be making a distinction between the storyline that someone within CIA sent her and the storyline that Wilson's wife sent him. But of course those two storylines were far from necessarily mutually exclusive.

All true. I'm really just trying to augment my point- which you have mostly agreed with- that we don't seem to now know that it was probably Libby that told Mitchell.
Although I do think there is a point where the storyline about Wilson's wife sent him diverges from the CIA-coworkers sent him storyline. That is, the "wife sent him" story line doesn't necessarily exclude the "co-workers sent him" storyline, while the "co-workers sent him" storyline often seeks specifically to exclude the idea that the wife sent him.
What that means about why Mitchell reported it the way she did, I don't know.

The notion that Libby would have been charged specifically for each and every false statement that the investigators judged to be a lie is clearly incorrect. So your comment is neither here nor there on the question of whether we should take Libby at his word on that.
Again, true. I have no idea how Fitzgerald decided to make his charges. He didn't seem to hesitate to charge on some very fine points, though I don't know how he determined which ones were important.
And absolutely, I don't mean to imply that we know exact dates of various conversations- few of the witnesses have been stellar in that regard. I'm sure Libby got some dates wrong, just as most of those testifying against him have done.

[MayBee]

Oh Wait!
I want to reiterate this point, which is I think the better evidence pointing away from Libby being Mitchell's source on:

because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA

If Libby truly told Mitchell covert agents sent Wilson, I think Fitzgerald would have investigated that vigorously.

[emptywheel]

MayBee

I think it might help to review what Fitz charged on and what he didn't to get an understanding of why. The odder of the two charges is the Cooper one. But the alleged lie in question: that he said he heard from journalists and he said he didn't know if it was true--goes right to obstruction of IIPA. It is Libby lying to prevent any IIPA charge. Plus, with Martin Fitz has more than a he said she said (however weak Martin's testimony is).

And then the Russert charge has many more people as witnesses (part of this alleged lie is that he didn't know about Wilson). But again, it goes to the heart of the IIPA obstruction.

Other known lies--such as about telling Kessler--goes to a conspiracy or cover-up that Fitz isn't after. And the suspected lie that Cheney told Libby to leak the NIE to Judy, when he actually leaked Plame, depends too much on Judy and he otherwise has not credible witnesses for.

If he wanted to go after the Mitchell lie, it would be the same as the case with Judy--one less than credible witness (give Mitchell's public statements) and otherwise Cheney and Libby's word. That of course doesn't prove that Libby did leak to Mitchell, but it provides some explanation for why not charging it would be consistent.

[MayBee]

Thanks, ew. I guess I'm not really saying I literally don't understand why he charged the way he did, I'm saying I don't understand why he charged the way he did. I don't know how to put that in writing so it makes sense. :-( Maybe if I said-- you say the Cooper charge is odd and I say it seems incredibly weak and small. I'm sure we'll differ on that.

[emptywheel]

Let me put it this way.

Fitzgerald is arguing that Libby lied in a way that specifically took the IIPA off the table. He allegedly did so by lying about where he learned of Plame (Russert lie), and he did so by lying about how he presented his knowledge to reporters when he passed on that news (Cooper lie), which reinforced his alleged efforts to admit to spreading the Plame news, but doing so in such a way that IIPA would be off the table.

In other words, while the Cooper charge may appear "weak and small," it is a fundamental part of making the argument that Libby lied specifically to take the IIPA off the table.

That seems to be the deciding factor on whether Fitz did or didn't charge known lies.

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

EW -
Great post and follow-up discussion. I'm wondering though: I agree that the method emerging from the indictment seems to be picking out the lies that most clearly impeded any effort to determine whether an IIPA violation was committed and if so who did it. But if we were to assume (1) that Libby told Mitchell on July 8 that undercover officers sent Wilson on his mission, and (2) lied by denying that contact with Mitchell, I would find that to be a significant lie in the terms outlined above. That would constitute burying an incrediby inculpatory conversation.
That may mean that Libby was not the source for Mitchell's "reporting" (or not the juiciest bit) or it may mean that a Libby lie about this piece was particularly hard to prove. Perhaps Mitchell's testimony was even more facially unreliable than Judy's, no mean feat that (I shudder at the prospect of constructing a case out of this den of mendacious vipers). But the main point here is that if we assume Libby dished to Mitchell that "covert agents" sent Wilson, and then lied about it, that would be a hell of an obstructive lie (as the lie would obscure a key element of an IIPA violation -- i.e., Libby's knowledge of the covert status of the person who sent Wilson, which when combined with other facts means Plame). There would have to be an alternative expalination.

[emptywheel]

Agree, Sebastian.