I Smell a Subpoena Coming On

by emptywheel

Looks like Condi is daring Henry Waxman to subpoena her to testify before his committee. In response to his letter asking for a response to the many requests from him Condi has blown off over the years, the State Department's Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs wrote a letter back effectively flipping Waxman the bird. (Not surprising, really, since that's the only kind of diplomacy these Bushies appear to be good at.) I'll post an update with details below.

In response, Waxman wrote:

On March 12, 2007, I wrote to you on behalf of the Committee to request answers to multiple letters that I had sent to you over the past four years. I requested a response by March 23,2007, but I received no reply by that date. As a result, on March 30,2007, I sent a letter notifying you that the Committee will be holding a hearing on April 18,2007, and I requested that you make yourself available to provide testimony and respond to questions about the issues raised in the March 12 letter.

On April 3, 2007, I did receive a letter from your assistant secretary for legislative affairs, Jeffrey Bergner. Mr. Bergner's letter does not answer many of the Committee's questions, nor does it provide most of the information and documents the Committee requested. As a result, I continue to request your appearance before the Committee on April 18, 2007.

[snip]

As I hope you can understand, because of the inadequacies of Mr. Bergner's response, the Committee will not withdraw the invitation for you to testify on April 18, 2007.

Given the nastiness of Bergner's reply, I suspect (as I've been predicting) Condi has no intention of complying with Waxman's requests. Henry, ready your subpoena pen.

Do you think there's a reason Condi doesn't want to testify under oath about her role in putting the "16 Words" in the 2003 SOTU?

Update: Mr. Bergner's many styles of flipping Waxman the bird.

Response on Niger
The biggest question that Waxman posed in his original letter to Condi was to respond to his questions about the Niger intelligence. Waxman described his first inquiry to the Administration on this issue (a March 17, 2003 letter), but then named a June 10, 2003 letter to Condi as the first of several she blew off. He noted another dated July 29, 2003. Both letters were written in response to ongoing BS that Condi and Bush were spouting, so they clearly reflected new information and new questions beyond the original March 17 letter. But in response to these two later letters, Bergner sent the original response to the March 17, 2003 letter, which WH had pawned off on Powell's State Department, as well as a later State response to a letter directed to State. The earlier letter has statements that have been since debunked, which suggests that the US didn't know the Italian reports were based on the forgeries until March 4, 2003:

Not until March 4 did we learn that in fact the second Western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited.

Or this one about the December 19 fact sheet, which State has since admitted was created under John Bolton's direction:

The December 19 fact sheet was a product developed jointly by the CIA and the State Department.

The second document repeats this lie, asserting falsely that,

John R. Bolton ... did not play a role in the creation of this [December 19] document.

So State basically sent two outdated documents, and didn't address Waxman's questions specific to Condi, which are:

(1) whether you had any knowledge that would explain why President Bush cited forged evidence about Iraq's efforts to procure uranium from Niger in the State of the Union address; (2) whether you knew before the State of the Union address of the doubts raised by the CIA and the State Department about the veracity of the Niger claim; (3) whether there was a factual basis for your reference in a January 23, 2003, op-ed to "Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad"; and (4) whether you took appropriate steps to investigate how the Niger claim ended up in the State of the Union address after it was revealed to be fraudulent.

Basically, Waxman's asking about Condi's role, and State responded with details about anything but.

Ambassador Jones
Richard Jones is classic case of a Iraq contracting fraudster. While serving as Deputy to Paul Bremer's CPA, he steered a fueling contract to a Kuwaiti firm that subsequently bilked us, badly. And Condi, in her infinite wisdom, thought that made Jones the perfect candidate to serve as "special coordinator" for Iraq, even while State's IG and DOJ were still investigating his fraud.

On February 17,2OO5,I wrote to you seeking the results of the investigation regarding this issue or, if the investigation were not concluded, an explanation of why you appointed Ambassador Jones to this position while a criminal investigation remained ongoing.

Bergner's response? The State Department's dogs ate your homework, Henry.

After a thorough search of our database, we have found no record of your February 17, 2005 letter regarding the appointment of Ambassador Richard Jones as special coordinator for Iraq.

Bergner goes on to include the questions Barack Obama asked Jones before his confirmation. And rather than answer Waxman's questions about the results of the investigation, Bergner noted only,

Ambassador Jones was not the subject of a criminal investigation.

Well, that's a relief. I guess that makes one Bushie, not a suspect.

Telecom Loyalty Oaths (Again)
Waxman's next request pertained to loyalty oaths--and since it's so timely, I'll cite from the magazine article (ironically written by Viveca Novak and John Dickerson) that sparked the inquiry:

The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

So Waxman, being the kind of guy he is, thought maybe the American taxpayers ought to know if BushCo was administering loyalty oaths on international conference participants. Bergner explains why State blew Waxman off when he asked the first time:

In order to manage the substantial number of requests for documents and information requiring consderable research that the Department receives each year, the Department often requires that Congressional requests of this nature come from the chair of a committe or subcommittee of jurisdiction rather than from individual Members.... At the time your August 1 letter was received, we viewed your specific request in this context and decided in this case that a formal request from the Committee Chairman was needed.

Though Bergner did actually respond to Waxman's inquiry in his letter, if you count spin as a response:

A variety of Executive Branch entities with an interest ... are consulted to identify those individuals whose interest, experience and expertise would most effectively advance U.S. interests, including advancing U.S. policy on the subject of the conference, which is of course set by the incumbent Administration.

So the answer to Henry about loyalty oaths? Yes, the WH was administering loyalty oaths before picking participants for international conferences.

Overall, Condi appears to be following this strategy regarding a response to Waxman: aside from the dog eating letters in both directions (Bergner says they did respond to one of Waxman's requests), Condi is basically responding to requests solely as Secretary of State, now. So she responds to the Niger question not by addressing the question, but by answering as Colin Powell would have. And to the question about inconsistent treatment of classified leaks (you know, Valerie Plame), she just won't answer. She's not NSA anymore, why should she answer questions about what she did, even if she was asked those questions when she was NSA.

Comments

[Mad Dogs]

"...I suspect (as I've been predicting) Condi has no intention of complying with Waxman's requests. Henry, ready your subpoena pen."

Having the Secretary of State plead the 5th Amendment probably wouldn't smell any better than Abu Gonzale's doin' it.

[AZ Matt]

The Condi will just have to show up in her high heel boots and explain while she was as inept National Security Advisor as she is Sec. of State. She ought to be teaching at a great school like Regents University.

[Jodi]

Haven't you heard of executive privilige?

[Kagro X]

Jodi: Haven't you heard that executive privilege hasn't played since Nixon?

Of course not, because you're a clown.

Back to your corner, and think up a new plea.

[mainsailset]

Certainly the moment of accountability for Condi will make heckofajob Brownie seem like saint. Talk about a box, how can she do anything BUT take the 5th?

[Kagro X]

She can come to the committee and refuse to answer based on the Addington/Cheney theory of executive supremacy, which is what I can only assume Jodi was grasping at.

She can try executive privilege first, though. And she might, if the aim is to bog the proceedings down in litigation that she'll eventually lose, just to buy time. Then she can come back and plead straight separation of powers refusal to comply with legislative branch demands on the executive, which is what all of this intransigence is ultimately based on. That litigation will be bounced as an injusticiable political question, but that's about when the clock runs out and we all formally begin pretending we don't care any more because we have a new president, and what happened in the past can't hurt us anymore.

[John B.]

No could have imagined that Condi would take the 5th...

[seesdifferent]

EW: are you going to appear? if not, why the hell not? WADR to the committee staffers, nobody there can do that thing that you do....
seriously. Have you sent them your book? are you in contact with them? it's yer duty.....
I'm willing to beg or bribe, cajole, or whatever it takes... what are your demands?

[John Casper]

Tokyo Jodi, Condi has to assert Executive Privelege as a response to Waxman. She's too lazy to do that and it's not mentioned in Bergner's letter, which I guess you were too lazy to read.

You stated on a prior thread that you had read ANATOMY OF DECEIT. It certainly doesn't sound like it from your comment above. If Condi did assert EP, I think Waxman would ask about Scooter's GJ testiomy regarding precisely this kind of classified material. According to Scooter's GJ testimony, (the stuff that Fitz did not charge him with, because Fitz thought it was complete, accurate, and true) Cheney told Scooter that Bush authorized the selective leak of classified intelligence to one journalist, Judy Miller. Condi and Bush do not want to Waxman to ask why if Bush now thinks this is covered by EP, he ordered its very selective release to Judy Miller to write about in the NYTimes?

99.9% of your TNH comments are extremely vague sniping opinions. When was the last post by emptywheel that did not include at least one link? I don't recall any, ever. Your comments, however, always come completely unsupported by anything except your own misplaced faith in your really uninformed opinions. Instead of making "knee-jerk," comments, why don't you, Tokyo Jodi, try to find a link to someone who agrees with your position? Then, insert that link with your opinion.

[Veritas78]

I've heard of executive privilege, Jodi–it's invoked when there's something to hide. The founding fathers had never heard of it, so they didn't include it in the Constitution. They hadn't heard of the unitary executive, either.

[greenhouse]

Hey Lady Haw Haw (jodi), you must have a very large brain to hold so much ignorance.

[Neil]

Tokyo Jodi, Fair is fair. Not one of the responses by people responding for Condi Rice mentions executive privilege. I'm beggining to get the idea that your mind is already made up on these matters. Only lady justice should wear a blind fold.

EW, I subscribed to the RSS feed for the House Oversight Comittee, on their web page. The postings there and your analysis here have been an excellent source for keeping current on these issues. Thanks again.

[freepatriot]

yo, tokyo jodi;

sure, we've heard of Executive privilege

and, unlike you, we actually understand the concept, and how it is validly invoked, and in this case, how it would be invalidly invoked

crawl back under your bridge and try again

[emptypockets]

Executive privilege? Haven't you heard that 9/11 changed everything?

The president backed off his insistence that executive privilege precluded testimony by White House advisers, such as Rice, after getting written assurances from the commission and congressional leaders that their appearance would not set a precedent for future investigations.

Bush said he agreed to waive claims of executive privilege to let Rice appear publicly and under oath because the attacks were a "unique circumstance."

Seriously, though -- is the guesswork here that Rice herself has something to hide or rather that many others in the administration have something to hide and once Rice appears under oath, it will remove their figleaf of an excuse for not testifying?

(I'm sure most of you will answer "both," so perhaps a better way to ask the question is -- is the latter enough to explain the behavior, without having to invoke Rice's own culpability?)

[Sara]

The only party who can claim Executive Privilege is the President -- because at root the concept is about the President being able to openly and freely discuss policy matters with top Aids and Officers in the process of building policy. It is really a very narrow privilege because it must directly include a direct advisory role with the President on specific issues.

Watergate narrowed the privilege in the sense that it may not be claimed over discussions of illegal acts, such as Nixon tried to claim as part of the Cover-up. For instance, Nixon could not claim Ex Privilege on anything about conversations with Dean (his white house counsel) because the evidence existed that they had discussed how to raise the money and execute payments to the Watergate Burglers -- and he couldn't claim it regarding Colson, because they discussed pardons for the convicted, and that Colson should get messages to them they could trust in Nixon't intent to Pardon. Thus, once a relationship is tainted with conversation about criminal intent -- no executive privilege on any communications with that aid or advisor.

Condi may or may not have a privilege during the first Bush II administration when she served as National Security Advisor. While her job was not confirmable by the Senate, the actual job description of National Security Advisor is in statute, in the National Security Act of 1947. It is, to serve as primary national security advisor to the President, to chair the National Security Council in the absence of the President, and to coordinate all security and intelligence that flows to the President. Congress clearly has the right to question whether the Bush Administration followed the statute. There is clearly no prohibition on Congress asking detailed questions on whether its own statutes are being followed.

[emptywheel]

~pockets

There are several reasons to believe that Stephen Hadley willingly put the 16 words in the SOTU, having only invented thin rationale for it after the fact (that's what seems to have happened with the January 24 document--they asked for it after Foley already told them they couldn't use the Niger intell). And Armitage, at least, has said that Condi knew all of this as well. Waxman is asking very specific questions designed to either get Condi to admit this--or get her lying under oath.

The net effect of Condi testifying would be to admit (or come much closer to admitting) that the administration willingly used a discredited claim in its SOTU.

[Mickey]

Has anyone catalogued all of the Administration's varying answers to the "16 Word" issue in a single document? Frankly, It's getting hard to recall how that all came down. I think they're planning on us forgetting about it. It would be nice [for us as well as Waxman] to have it all in one place [with EW and eRiposte comments appended]...

[section9]

No, no, no, Democrats!!!

Stop buying into your bogus narrative. I'm speaking to you as a Republican. I know whereof I speak. Condi is baiting Waxman. It's so easy, too.

Condi never, ever proceeds against an opponent without an intimate understanding of who her opponent is and what his objectives are. Most of you people get your impression of Rice from listening to Keith Olbermann. Stop. Olbermann is an overpaid ass. Rice has an IQ of 186 (we think) and can easily best Henry Waxman.

You folks, because you are partisans, think Henry Waxman wants the truth. He wants nothing of the sort. He wants what ANY committee chairman wants: face time and glory in front of a live national TV audience (party doesn't matter, Republicans and Democrats up there are all unprincipled glory hounds...). The template of course was the Kefauver Racket hearings, and later the Senate Watergate Committee hearings.

Waxman is a bully, and treats his subjects as if they are all tobacco executives. Rice understands this, and also realizes that Waxman has hitched his wagon to the Left's bogus Niger narrative, which (if you read the President's 2003 SOTU) had nothing to do with an Iraqi uranium expedtition to Niger. GW's speech didn't even mention Niger. Joe Wilson did. Rice knows this too.

She's baiting Waxman, knowing that he's running hard with an ersatz narrative, knowing that he's a glory hound and a headhunter.

She's going to get him angrier and angrier. Condi knows how to do this. She's been dealing with Chinese, Russians, Palestinians, Germans, Iranians, Iraqis, and Lebanese, and of course, those damned, difficult Israelis for over 20 years, and you people think she can't handle Henry Freaking Waxman, a jumped up ambulance chaser? She's going to wound his pride until the pressure from the lefty bloggers and his own staffers and idiots like Pete Stark force him to subpeona her.

Then she'll destroy him on live TV, and his usefulness as a shakedown artist for the Democrats will be at an end. If Waxman is smart, real smart, he'll pick another target, like cost overruns in the F-22 or F-35 programs to go after that and let this jihad against Rice die a quiet death. But too many of you have the political acumen of Roman Hruska and the restraint of Joe McCarthy. Won't happen.

[Neil]

section8, lay off the bong dude.

[pseudonymous in nc]

Shorter section9: "Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

[emptywheel]

She's going to get him angrier and angrier. Condi knows how to do this. She's been dealing with Chinese, Russians, Palestinians, Germans, Iranians, Iraqis, and Lebanese, and of course, those damned, difficult Israelis for over 20 years

Um, section 9? She's been dealing with all those groups poorly, miserably. If that's her and her 186 IQ's idea of a good performance, I'd say Henry et al are in good shape. Hell, my diss subject overlaps heavily with Condi's, and I would say honestly that she can't even deal with the topics of her diss subject well.

[emptywheel]

One more thing, section 9? Reading lessons might be useful for you. You see, the questions Waxman has asked Condi don't ride on the wording of the SOTU, at all. So it doesn't matter if, after hearing No from Foley, Joseph invented a word game to satisfy him. Though of course, that, too, would be reviewed and expanded, which wouldn't help Dr. Rice either.

[baked potato]

Just like Irving Scooter Libby baited Patrick Fitzgerald.

[lespool]

Like so many Republicans, section9 has never evolved beyond his little reality and simply assumes that everyone else agrees with his vision of success. In his world, the only glorious life worth living is one filled with fame and fortune. He can't imagine finding inner-fulfillment from developing his unique talents because he isn't aware that he has any. But when he does, he will blossom and hopefully inspire his republican buddies to follow their intellectual passions where they too will find great skills that they were born to hone... Well, I did say hopefully after all.

[Ken Muldrew]

Folks, Section9 is obviously writing a parody. The anger just isn't there.

[Neil]

Waxman is nothing if not persistent. Besides addressing the concern about Iraqi oil production and transport, he is establishing his authority to merit the prompt and considered response of Secretary Rice's current and former Department.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Iraq Reconstruction
Corruption Mars Iraqi Oil Production and Transport
Chairman Waxman asks Secretary Rice to investigate persistent allegations of corruption that have slowed the recovery of the Iraqi oil industry.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1241

[greenhouse]

I dunno Muldrew. I would agree with your assessment of Jusumbody's rant on "David Iglesias: Nice Touch!" thread but section's got a li'l too much the smell of troll to it.

[William Ockham]

Nobody could possibly be serious who mentions Roman Hruska. I haven't seen or heard that name in years. At least we know that Section 9 isn't a teenager (although I wouldn't bet against him living in his mom's basement).

[John Casper]

Thanks Ken. Apologies Section 9, fwiw, Roman Hruska

[obsessed]

Condi's 186 IQ (we think - it could be much higher) is clearly evidenced by the way she played out all the possible results of the Iraq invasion so far in advance, brilliantly planning for every eventuality. How could Waxman stand up to that kind of brain power? I stand in awe of her superhuman intelligence, which is rivaled only by her collection of Italian stilettos.