Plame Investigation and Missing Emails Timeline

Okay, what follows is an uber-timeline, matching the dates for which OVP and WH don’t have any email archives to the Plame investigation, as well as laying out further details on how the investigation proceeded over time. Before you read further, a couple of important comments:

  • It would be completely irresponsible to assume that the email losses are entirely related to the Plame investigation. The large number of emails missing from CEQ, CEA, OMB, and OTR shows that, even if the emails were disappeared deliberately (which is a big assumption), they were disappeared for a myriad of reasons, many of them completely unrelated to the Plame investigation. That’s part of the reason I did the Medicare Part D post–while that post, like this one, is completely speculative, it shows there may be any number of explanations for the missing emails.
  • This post relies on information about the investigation revealed during the Libby trial. With one exception (the WHIG subpoena), those materials cover only subpoenas to OVP. There are undoubtedly subpoenas to the White House that we don’t know about that may pertain to these dates.
  • Remember that, in addition to the days for which no email archives exist for a given office, there are a large number of days for which offices don’t have archives of all the emails (that is, days when an archive includes vastly fewer emails than the office would have sent). So this timeline probably leaves out a large number of days which might be interesting or pertinent, because some significant number of emails are missing from the archives.
  • Even if all the connections you could might draw from this timeline were valid, they still wouldn’t explain all the funkiness with email pertaining to the Plame investigation. It still doesn’t describe possible funkiness with the Rove-Hadley email, and the search terms used to find emails may have led to further funkiness.
  • I will do a speculative post on some of the connections we might draw (probably tomorrow or Monday, I’m toast). But understand that this whole examination is one big experiment, which has the potential of drawing completely bogus conclusions. By looking solely at two discrete events, we presume a connection between them that ignores the complexity of the White House, or even the sheer number of potential scandals!
  • Much of this work–particularly the chronology of what evidence was turned over to investigators when–relies on work Jeff did and on ongoing conversations he and I have been having. Thanks to Jeff for sharing that earlier work.

So here’s your timeline:

March 2003: Starting date of period during which White House has incomplete archives for emails. Because the White House was taping over prior backup tapes, from March to October, 2003, email archives and backup tapes are incomplete.

March 8, 2003: DIA provides report to Rummy using Wilson’s trip report to sustain the Iraq uranium claims.

March 25, 2003: Bush issues EO 13292 that, after turning it into Pixie Dust, Cheney would later use to justify his insta-declassification.

July 11, 2003: Rove writes Hadley email immediately after his call with Matt Cooper.

September 12, 2003: No email archive of OVP emails.

September 14, 2003: Wilson article in San Jose MercNews. Cheney appears on MTP.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, Ambassador Joe Wilson, a year before that, was sent over by the CIA because you raised the question about uranium from Africa. He says he came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could not find any documentation that, in fact, Niger had sent uranium to Iraq or engaged in that activity and reported it back to the proper channels. Were you briefed on his findings in February, March of 2002?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.


I have no idea who hired him and it never came…


VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don’t know.

Jeff noted (via email) that Cheney’s response almost exactly regurgitates the OVP talking points Cheney dictated during leak week–and Russert responds as the talking points set up, by offering up that the CIA sent Wilson.

September 26, 2003: DOJ starts an investigation into Plame leak.

September 29, 2003, morning: Scottie McClellan claims ignorance of a DOJ investigation into the leak.

September 29, 2003, evening: John Ashcroft informs Alberto Gonzales of investigation.

September 30, 2003, morning: Alberto Gonzales informs White House staff of investigation.

September 30, 2003, 6:15 PM: Alberto Gonzales informs White House to retain (for period from February 1, 2002 to present):

  • Materials relating to Wilson, Plame CIA identity, or Wilson’s trip to Niger
  • Materials relating to discussions with journalists about Wilson and/or Plame
  • Materials relating to Novak, Royce, or Phelps, or anyone "acting directly or indirectly on behalf of them" [note, this last bit would presumably cover the involvement of Hohlt and Duberstein–it’s the first time I noticed this]

October 2003 (unknown date): White House CIO stops "recycling" backup tapes.

October 1, 2003: Mayfield to Martin email passing on transcript from that day’s Press Gaggle; the email was not apparently turned over until February 2006, presumably among the emails "not archived properly."

Armitage "recognizes" he is Novak’s source, tells Powell, Taft; Taft provides minimal details to Gonzales.

No email archive of OVP emails.

October 1 or October 2: Sometime before his trip to Jackson (see October 6), Libby also told the Vice President:

"Look, I wasn’t the source of the leak of this . In fact , I learned it from Tim Russert. And, you know, by that point he was, you know — other — lots of reporters knew, all the reporters knew, he told me all the reporters knew,"

October 2, 2003: DOJ requests White House turn over materials relating to Wilson, his Niger trip, Novak, Royce, and Phelps. Armitage interviewed by FBI. No email archive of OVP emails.

October 3, 2003: Gonzales informs White House to turn over materials by October 7. Jim Comey nominated DAG.

Libby finds the June note recording Cheney telling him about Plame. He then told Cheney:

I told you something wrong before. It turns out that I have a note that I had heard, heard about this earlier from you and I just — you know, I didn’t want to leave you with the wrong, I didn’t want to leave you with the wrong statement that I heard about it from Tim Russert. In fact, I had heard about it earlier, but I had forgotten it.

No email archive of OVP emails.

October 5, 2003: Date on which Martin to Fleischer email printed out, apparently by Martin. It was originally written on July 7, 2003 and contained OVP talking points on Wilson for Fleischer to use in his press briefing, including the words, "Niger" and "Joe Wilson." Probably turned over to DOJ on October 9, 2003. No email archive of OVP emails.

October 6, 2003: Libby returns from Jackson Hole. According to his own account, Libby probably talks to Cheney about helping him get Scottie McClellan to publicly exonerate him from the leak.

October 7, 2003: Reporter asks Scottie McClellan whether White House officials have to turn over emails they’ve deleted.

Q No, I understand that. I’m just saying how would this work? Let’s say I remember — I’m an official, I remember sending some email about this, but I’ve long since deleted it. How —


Q I just want to be clear, though, the White House is obligated to provide emails that may have been deleted by the individual but are still archived by the White House —

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back — it said what is in the possession of, I believe, in the White House, the employees and staff.

In same briefing, Scottie exonerates Libby (and Rove and Abrams).

FBI interviews Novak.

October 13, 2003: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin to Michael Anton email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Niger" and "Wilson."

October 14, 2003: FBI interviews Libby.

October 17, 2003: FBI interviews Grossman. David Cloud article purportedly describes INR memo.

October 20, 2003: Deputy Assistant AG Bruce Swartz reviews Libby documents in Addington’s office; he requests a number of these documents.

October 21, 2003: Addington provides Libby documents to Swartz.

October 22, 2003: FBI interviews Cathie Martin.

November 14, 2003: Eckenrode speaks to Russert by phone; Russert refutes Libby’s claim that Russert told Libby about Plame.

November 24, 2003: Eckenrode speaks to Russert by phone.

November 25, 2003: Per Hubris, date on which Rove aide B.J. Goergen prints out Rove-Hadley email (eventually turned over on October 14, 2004). The email mentions "Cooper" and Niger."

November 26, 2003: FBI interviews Libby and asks him to sign waiver freeing journalists to testify (he refuses). Earliest Rove email preserved by RNC.

December 11, 2003: Jim Comey assumes role of DAG.

December 16, 2003: Subpoena for:

  • Libby, Martin, and Millerwise notes, phone logs, and calendars for May 6-10, June 1-15, July 4-25, July 28-29, September 27-October 13
  • Materials relating to early Kristof or Pincus articles
  • Materials relating to either version (June 10 or July 7) of the INR memo

The last of these notes would not be returned until March 5, after Libby’s first appearance before the grand jury, though they had a due date of December 23.

December 17, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.

December 19, 2003: Libby certifies his response to the December 16 document request.

December 20, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.

December 21, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.

December 22, 2003: Due date for December 16 document request. Martin certified her documents on this day.

December 24, 2003: Addington submits originals of Libby notes subpoenaed on December 16. These include handwritten notes regarding the negotiations between Libby, Cheney, Hadley, and (second-hand) John McClaughlin regarding the July 11 CIA statement, including discussion about declassification of the NIE, the trip report, and the January 24 document. It also includes the original hand-written copy of Libby’s note recording Cheney telling him that Plame worked at CIA.

Sometime after this but before the end of January, Libby turns over his notes from June 9, 2003, which show Bush expressed concern about the Kristof allegations on the morning before OVP started its aggressive research into Wilson’s trip.

December 30, 2003: Ashcroft recuses himself, Comey names Fitzgerald Special Counsel.

January 2 through 6, 2004: Press reports on request for waivers for journalists.

January 5, 2004: Libby signs a waiver releasing journalists of confidentiality.

January 9, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

January 10, 2005: No email archive of WH emails.

January 11, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

January 12, 2004: Fitzgerald tells Novak he has waivers from Rove and Armitage.

January 14, 2004: Novak interview; Fitzgerald also brings Harlow waiver.

January 15, 2004: Cathie Martin interview.

January 23, 2004: Addington receives subpoenas (dated January 22):

  1. For materials relating to calls made during the July 12 Air Force Two trip (which would include the calls to Cooper, and possibly others), due January 30.
  2. For materials relating to Wilson, his trip, or Valerie, extended to include the period from October 1 to January 23, due February 6.
  3. For materials relating to a long line of journalists, including Miller and Cooper, due on February 6.

That night (on Friday, at 5:42 PM), Addington sends out an email alerting OVP staff to retain this information. Date Cathie Martin printed out September 30, 2003 email referring to Cooper’s article and speculating Libby might be Cooper’s source.

On the same day, the White House received a subpoena for all documents relating to WHIG, from July 6 to July 30, 2003, due on February 4.

January 26, 2004: Addington sends out the formal request to fulfill January 22 subpoenas, due January 29.

January 29, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.

January 30, 2004: No email archive of OVP emails. Libby certifies his response to subpoena for July 12 Air Force Two documents. Deadline for WH subpoena on Air Force One phone records, July 12 Gaggle transcript, and Gerald Ford party guest list.

January 31, 2004: No email archive of OVP emails.

February to early March, unknown date, 2004: Libby talks to Russert about speaking to Libby’s lawyer.

I spoke to him but not — I didn’t talk to him about the content of the investigation. I did call him at one point to ask if he would be willing to talk to my lawyer.

February 1, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

February 2, 2004: Addington drafts a letter to Keith Roberts, Acting General Counsel, Office of Administration, listing the new terms for a search of the OVP domain. The proposed search would apparently not return emails referring to Judy Miller or Matt Cooper by either their nickname or just their last name. If "Joe Wilson" or "Niger" were mentioned in the October 1 gaggle, the October 1 Martin to Mayfield email should have been found in this search. No email archive of WH emails.

February 3, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

February 4, 2004: Libby certifies his response to subpoena for WHIG materials.

February 5, 2004: Libby certifies his response for Wilson materials (since beginning of investigation) and for journalist materials. Novak interviewed.

February 7, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.

February 8, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.

February 11, 2004: Date on which June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Pincus" and "Niger."

February 11, 2004: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin and Cooper email exchange printed out. The email was apparently discovered in search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Matthew Cooper" and "Niger." Cooper’s initial email was printed out, probably on July 11 or 12, though it has no date; Libby wrote notes on it on how he would respond to Cooper.

February 12, 2004: FBI interviews Addington.

February 13, 2004: Ari Fleischer gets immunity.

February 25, 2004: Novak testifies to grand jury.

March 5, 2004: Libby’s first GJ appearance. During that appearance, Libby comments that there are emails reflecting a conversation with Novak in late July 2003.

My note — I do have a note somewhere around the 25th or the 28th which indicates something about Novak and uranium, and there is subsequently some e-mails that I’ve seen so that indicates that to me that was the time, because I only remember one conversation.

After returning from the GJ, someone printed out Libby’s schedule for June 12, 2003 (the day Cheney purportedly told him about Plame and also the date Grossman may have told him about Plame). Later the same day, Addington turned over six pages of material responsive to the December 16, 2003 subpoena, though apparently not the schedule for June 12.

March 18, 2004: Addington turns over Jenny Mayfield’s "Niger/Uranium" folder contents (which contains 414 pages), which she admitted to having on March 17 in an interview. Among other things, the folder contains Libby’s edit of the OVP talking points Cheney dictated to Martin (on which Libby notes some awareness of Wilson’s 1999 trip), the transcript from Condi’s disastrous June 8 appearance on George Stephanopoulos, a copy of the June 13 Kristof article, and Libby’s underlined copy of Joe Wilson’s op-ed. While the Condi transcript and the Kristof article had not been formally subpoenaed at that point, both the talking points and the underlined Wilson op-ed should have been turned over to the government in response to the very first October 3, 2003 document request.

March 24, 2004: Fitzgerald asks Libby about email, suggesting Fitzgerald was surprised by the lack of email he received as evidence.

Q. You’re not big on e-mail I take it?

A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.

April 6, 2004: Addington sends memo in response to subpoena seeking, "All versions and/or drafts of daily schedules and calendars for Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Chief of Staff Lewis Libby for the period July 6, 2003 through July 14, 2003." The memo is numbered and instructs, "Do Not Reproduce or Disseminate," though the subpoena does not require such a warning. Due date on subpoena is April 14.

April 14, 2004 (presumably): Libby turns over schedule for July 8, 2003 reflecting "private meeting at St. Regis."

May 8, 2004: Debra Heiden turns over original copy of Cheney’s annotated copy of Wilson’s op-ed; Heiden produced a copy to Addington on October 7, 2003.

June 5, 2004: WaPo confirms Cheney interviewed by Fitzgerald.

June 24, 2004: Fitzgerald interviews Bush.

August 2004: In response to "unspecified legal inquiries," RNC stops its automatic email destruction policy.

October 2004: Per Hubris, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin first notices the Rove-Hadley email.

Rove’s office had given Luskin a folder full of e-mails that included the one Rove had sent to Hadley. But Luskin hadn’t noticed the important Hadley e-mail until October 2004, just before Rove was about to go back to the grand jury for the third time. (402)

October 14, 2004: Per Hubris, Rove turns Rove-Hadley email over to Patrick Fitzgerald.

…on this day [Rove] turned over what he claimed was a recently discovered copy of the July 11, 2003, e-mail he had sent to Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. (377)

2005, unknown date: RNC terminates Rove’s ability to delete his own email.

February 15, 2005: Appeals Court rules Miller and Cooper must testify. No email archive of OVP emails.

February 16, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

February 17, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

May 21, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

May 22, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

May 23, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

June 27, 2005: SCOTUS refuses to hear Miller and Cooper appeal.

September 30, 2005: Judy Miller testifies.

October 2005: White House Office of Administration discovers not all email has been archived properly.

According to CREW’s sources, in October 2005, the Office of Administration ("OA") discovered a problem with this email retention process. The OA undertook a detailed analysis of the issue, which revealed that between March 2003 and October 2005, there were hundreds of days in which emails were missing for one or more of the EOP components subject to PRA. The OA estimated that roughly over five million email messages were missing.

OA briefs Harriet Miers and Patrick Fitzgerald on the email retention process. October 2005 is also the end-date of the period during which White House emails were not preserved properly.

October 7, 2005: New subpoena to several people in OVP for all notes and phone logs for Libby from June 16 through July 3. This would give the prosecutors a complete set from June 1 through July 25, and is clearly a response to Miller’s testimony that Libby had spoken to her before July 8. The documents were due on October 14. Addington’s memo regarding this subpoena also includes a circulation control, noting that only 6 copies existed.

October 12, 2005: Judy Miller testifies. Libby certifies his response to October 7 subpoena, noting that "others have custody of other files" which they will produce separately. Jenny Mayfield notes on her certification (dated October 7) that she turned over all related files to Christian Woelk when she became Deputy Press Secretary.

October 25, 2005: Peter Zeidenberg asks Adam Levine about a conversation he had with Rove just before or after Rove’s conversation with Cooper. Levine may have sent Rove an email around the same time as Rove sent Hadley an email.

October 28, 2005: Libby indicted. Rove avoids indictment with, among other things, last minute explanation for email discovery.

January 23, 2006: Fitzgerald informs Libby that not all emails were archived properly.

In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.

February 2, 2006: Date on which Martin to Mayfield email accompanying Scotte McClellan transcript printed out, apparently by David Addington. The emails themselves do not mention "Joe Wilson" or "Niger,"though it is unclear whether the transcript included in the email mentions those words (the press briefing from that afternoon mentions "Wilson" but not "Niger"). The date and the high Bates number suggest this email was one of those "not archived properly."

February 6, 2006: According to Bill Jeffress, Fitzgerald received the missing emails.

I may say we are also told that there are an additional approximately 250 pages of documents that are emails from the office of the vice president. Your Honor, may recall that in earlier filings it was represented or alluded to that certain e-mails had not been preserved in the White House. That turns out not to be true. There were some e-mails that weren’t archived in the normal process but the office of the vice president or the office of administration I guess it is has been able to recover those e-mails. Gave those to special counsel I think only on February 6 and those again are going to be produced to us.

January 30, 2007: Fitzgerald asks Judy Miller whether she corresponded with Libby via email.

April 13, 2007: "Gold Bars" Luskin reveals that Fitzgerald made a copy of Rove’s hard drive, from which he may have been able to reconstruct emails that were deleted off the server.

June 18, 2007: Waxman releases report on White House email use.

August 22, 2007: White House claims OA exempt from FOIA.

November 12, 2007: Judge issues restraining order preventing White House from destroying backup tapes.

December 20, 2007: Waxman renews request for information on White House emails.

January 8, 2008: Judge gives White House five days to reveal what emails are recoverable from backup tapes.

January 15, 2008: White House CIO submits statement admitting the White House "recycled" backup tapes before October 2003.

Updated per Jeff’s comment.

129 replies
    • Rayne says:

      That is one of the inconsistencies that bugs me. Addington’s search must have meant “OVP domain” in the non-technical sense of the word “domain” — but did the application of instructions really limit the search to those emails sent to/from users of email addresses, or was the intent to search all emails by OVP members on the EOP network?

      • emptywheel says:

        It definitely picked up emails to people outside of OVP–witness the email between Martin and Cooper sent on July 11, found on February 11, 2004 in what is probably the search Addington described in my last post.

        • Rayne says:

          But was that picked up because of the “Matthew_Cooper” parameter? Martin would also be a member of “OVP domain” in a non-tech sense of the word. And it would also fit the narrow domain.

          The bottom of the print out of the Martin-Mayfield email dd. 6/11/2003, printed 2/11/2004 also suggests it came up as part of the First Search (which included “Matthew_Cooper”), but also as part of “(3rd%20Req…” — was this part of a third request? Are there other documents fine-tuning the search process that we don’t know about, I wonder.

          • emptywheel says:

            Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

            Also note that both this post and the last one sort of flatten out the search we’re talking about. There were three searches:

            1) On all the journalists, from summer to October
            2) On the Wilson sorts and “Plame” from Oct 1 to Jan 2004
            3) On Valerie Wilson (don’t know why that was necessary, but wtf)

  1. BlueStateRedHead says:

    Hoping that these simple non-technical questions are not a distraction from the unbelievable creation (thank and kudos, EW)

    What role do the Abramoff emails retained by Indian Affairs and McCain play in all this. Can they play a role? Surely Waxman can get his hands on those without a subpeona? Surely they would indicate days were there were emails that were traceable at the time of that investigation.

    This is a repeat What is to keep Waxman from summoning Mr/Ms IT to testify. Exec. privilege depends on the right of the president to counsel I thought, not that it matters to this admin.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m wondering whether Mr. IT has testified–it seems that the person who made the chart of the missing days is probably the person no longer employed at WH CIO whom Payton referred to.

      And there’s also the name of an MS tech floating around–not sure if anyone has gotten that person yet, but I know some people are trying.

      • Rayne says:

        Ditto. I have the impression that somebody with explicit knowledge of the IT systems has already provided information. There’s too much data that hasn’t been provided by the sources we see from the public’s perspective.

        • GulfCoastPirate says:

          If someone has already testified then why not in public? I know you folks have been on this a long time so please humor me. Is there some legal reason? Why wouldn’t Waxman and the Democrats want it to be public knowledge that they have evidence the president and his people were engaging in this type of activity?


      • BlueStateRedHead says:

        If Mr. IT was forced out for testifying to the Congress is that not a violation on a few laws. And can he become a whistleblower? Where is our John Dean going to come from if not IT?

  2. masaccio says:

    March 2003: Starting date of period during which White House has incomplete archives for emails. Because the White House was taping over prior backup tapes, from March to October, 2003, email archives and backup tapes are incomplete.

    I didn’t previously grasp this. Doesn’t it mean they have all the e-mails from the period between inauguration and March, 2003?

    • emptywheel says:

      Yes, I think so.

      They have all the archives, but no or incomplete backup tapes, from 2001 to March 2003.

      They have incomplete archives and no or incomplete backup tapes from March 2003 to October 2003 (one of the reasons the stuff is so suspicious vis a vis Plame, since it covers the entire lead-up to the investigation).

      They have incomplete archives but complete backup tapes from October 2003 to October 2005.

      Who knows what they have since then, since the person who told us about the incomplete stuff previous to October 2005 is gone?

      That’s one of the reasons that October 1 email is curious–we know it was not archived properly (or at all). But we don’t know whether they had to reconstruct from hard drives.

      And of course, keep in mind the RNC stuff adds another wrinkle to this–for people like Karl Rove, this is all moot bc he was in his own little world.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        That October 1 email has been driving me nuts. There are several very weird things about that email. It was obviously printed from Microsoft Outlook, but not in the usual way. Consider the name at the top:

        Addington, David S.

        As you can see from the faxed email to the DOJ, that’s Addington’s full name in Exchange Server. That means David Addington printed that email. Of course, he’s not listed in the “To:” line. Was he “BCC:’ed”? I don’t think so.

        Look at the header line. It says “Message” on the left and Page 1 of 13 on the right. That’s not the header line Addington used in 2003. Also, notice how the original message is indented. That’s another Outlook setting different from Addington’s email. But the weirdest thing of all is the word “Thanks”. See how it starts to the left of the “Subject” line? I don’t even know how to make Outlook do that. But Cathie Martin does. Go look at her message to Ari that you linked to. Every one of those indicators (the print header, the message body starting with a negative indent compared to Subject line, etc.).

        So, what’s up? The only explanation that I can come up with is that Cathie Martin made David Addington a “Delegate” on her .pst file. Addington opened up her .pst file and printed the email. Outlook picked up her print settings, etc.

        I think this leads to some other interesting conclusions, but I’m going to spend a little quality time looking at all these emails.

        Oh wow, I just noticed a huge clue in Matt Cooper’s email. Did you notice that line about how he didn’t get one of those “funky message received” emails? Martin replies that she got his earlier message.

        • emptywheel says:


          If I’m not mistaken, both Martin and Mayfield were in different positions at that time (Mayfield definitely was, anyway). but keep in mind, they may have gotten this from her hard drive–it’s in the tiem period where there may have been no archive and no backup tape.

        • WilliamOckham says:


          I just emailed you a copy of GX52701. It’s the first email from Cooper to Martin. The one he didn’t get a “funky message received emails in return”. This message didn’t turn up in the OVP RM search.

          That’s significant.

        • MadDog says:

          WilliamOckham, I too have been scrutinizing that October 1 email. but I came up with a view that differs with your comment. Hhave you considered that:

          The “delegation” was in the other direction. That is, David Addington had his email “delegated” to Cathie Martin so that she could deal with stuff that was sent to him. This is very typical as you know for Executive Assistants/Secretaries who work for high-powered bosses.

          Cathie Martin would be David Addington’s “delegate” to handle stuff like adding appointments to his Outlook calendar and even perhaps responding to the more trivial emails that were sent to Addington.

          In that case, (CM was DA’s delegate), the printing of the email could be by her from Addington’s PST or even just accessing his Exchange mailbox as part of her normal assumption of “delegation” duties. That may also “solve” the print settings thingy.

          • emptywheel says:

            Pretty sure that’s not right–like I said, i think she was gone to the WH by then, and she was never Addington’s delegate, or even close. She was press secretary, having taken over for Matalin when Matalin left.

            More likely Addington was her delegate after she left.

            But remember, this was probably reconstructed from either a backup or her hard drive.

            • WilliamOckham says:


              That makes sense. She left and her .pst file stayed behind. It would be reasonable to put “legal” in charge of her files in this case.

              I still think there is a relationship between the lack of a “funky message received” and the results of that OVP RM search.

  3. Rayne says:

    And of course, keep in mind the RNC stuff adds another wrinkle to this–for people like Karl Rove, this is all moot bc he was in his own little world.

    Speaking of Karl, I could use a review on what we know about Karl’s fit in this email mix; with all this newer info, I’m afraid I’m missing something about his communications that might have changed.

    Jeff, you out there? can you give an overview and give EW a break?

    • emptywheel says:

      Karl’s fit is still predominantly RNC driven, as far as we know–therefore non-existent, perhaps, for most of this period.

      I still don’t have a good explanation for how that Rove-Hadley email eluded detection (behind human error)–it may well be a mix of RNC and WH email funkiness.

  4. JohnLopresti says:

    Does RIM have an archiving feature either inside or outside US; offices in both Silicon V, and Waterloo ONT. They were undergoing patent intellectual property disputes throughout this period; I wonder if discovery in that forum caused RIM to keep actual content. Ostensibly the process is a simple rf wireless concordance like laptops utilize for version control.

  5. mainsailset says:

    For some reason I keep remembering the can of worms that was Karl & Jack Abramoff & Guam that was swirling around, the USA’s replacement, once vetted by Karl took office in May ‘03.

    • emptywheel says:

      Sometime between October 21, 2003 and December 24, 2003. That is, several months before the RM version was turned over–and it was probably turned over in response to the first request for documents (though after Martin was interviewed by the FBI). So it was produced as a document having to do with Niger or Wilson, not as an email responsive to Cooper per se.

      • emptywheel says:

        And it’s likely that she had this in a file of issues relating to Niger (since it had Libby’s notes on it). That is, it was no longer an email, it was a Libby doct.

  6. WilliamOckham says:

    btw, I’m gonna try to talk the exec. asst at work who is a delegate on my boss’s Exchange account into printing out an email that I send her (the boss). Either that or I’ll make somebody I trust a delegate on my email (hmmm… it does come in handy when one’s grown son works in the same department). I really want to see how that works…

  7. emptywheel says:

    But remember–this was one of the emails “not archived properly.” Meaning, they had no copy.

    So it wasn’t necessarily a matter of giving her .pst file to someone. it was a matter of either reconstructing October 1 from a backup tape (which may not have existed, as it was still within the time they may have been recycling them), or reconstructing it some other way.

    So once you reconstruct emails, what do you do to do a sort and hand it over to Fitz? That’s where the answer lies, I imagine…

    • MadDog says:

      But remember–this was one of the emails “not archived properly.” Meaning, they had no copy.

      So it wasn’t necessarily a matter of giving her .pst file to someone. it was a matter of either reconstructing October 1 from a backup tape (which may not have existed, as it was still within the time they may have been recycling them), or reconstructing it some other way.

      So once you reconstruct emails, what do you do to do a sort and hand it over to Fitz? That’s where the answer lies, I imagine…

      A couple of things then:

      1. The October 1 Mayfield to Martin email was printed out under the identity of David Addington. Either he did this himself, or someone had access to his Username/Password combination on Outlook/Exchange to be able to print this out. The October 1 Mayfield to Martin email was printed out via Outlook/Exchange.

      2. The October 1 Mayfield to Martin email was not printed out as a result of using that web-based application we saw used in the June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email. The October 1 email does not have the tell-tale URL stuff at the bottom to show that it was printed out as a result of a web-based application query like the June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email.

      Which leads me to these questions:

      A. How did someone find the “October 1 Mayfield to Martin email” (what search facility did they use)?

      B. How did whoever they are get access to Cathie Martin’s Outlook mailbox (via PST, OST, Exchange server mailbox backup or otherwise)?

      C. Who did the printing, and therefore, who provided this email to Fitzgerald?

  8. nolo says:

    first — this is simply fabulous work, EW! now, you opined:

    . . .irresponsible to assume that the email losses are entirely related to the Plame investigation. The large number of emails missing from CEQ, CEA, OMB, and OTR shows that, even if the emails were disappeared deliberately (which is a big assumption), they were disappeared for a myriad of reasons, many of them completely unrelated to the Plame investigation. . . . there may be any number of explanations for the missing emails. . . .

    i am certain you are right about this.

    to that end, i am just now making some progress
    on the beginnings of a very voluminous hypertext
    document, to cross-reference your timeline events,
    above, to the “what was happening in the world
    stories-by-date-line (originally put together
    as a series of word documents, by
    the very fine folks at CREW!) — from various
    of the national newspapers, magazines, speeches, etc. . .

    the convergences with historic events — and the inter-
    sections with notorious ones — are already, even in
    the very first passes, rather remarkable, for the
    depths to which all of this points: the utter lawless-
    ness of it — the idea that they MUST have been using
    e-mails to coordinate both the lawlessness, and their
    cover-stories for the same — and then, POOF! all the
    e-mails for those days are “disappeared“. . .

    ’tis mind-bending in the sheer audacity, and scope of
    the operation — it literally touches everything these
    chuckle-heads did — or tried to do — in the years
    2003 through 2006. . .

    thank you from the bottom of my heart for this, EW!

    p e a c e

    • emptywheel says:


      Please keep in mind, if the emails were disappeared deliberately, they were disappeared to hide stuff–almost certainly criminal stuff (since to disappear the emails is itself arguably criminal). So to just compare the email disappearances with “historic” events–most of them perfectly legal, most of which we have nowhere NEAR the granularity of detail that we have here–that’s an even more foolish pursuit than this is, and I admit this is a foolish pursuit that, at least, has the benefit of the Plame investigation apparently being tied to the investigation of the missing email in the first place (and having discovered relevant email in response).

      • nolo says:

        as ever, you are the voice of reason, here, EW.

        and, i admit to long be given to fools’ errands, as
        the whole idea of actually indicting the sitting US
        vice president has forever appeared so tenuous, as
        a matter of the previously-settled precedents, as
        to look quixotic to almost all rational observers. . .

        yet, i think i’ll press onward.

        consider the record, thus far: it is certainly true
        that CREW believes — in their litigation in DC on the
        missing e-mails — that there are reasons for the over-
        laps — in these dates. for example, the vice president’s
        FERC manuevers seem oddly co-incident to the dates on
        which his e-mail troves (are said to) no longer exist.

        now, to be clear, i do agree — in a more normal time,
        it would entirely, absolutely appropriate to presume
        that missing email — in itself — would not be evidence
        of criminal enterprise. in these times, however — of
        outing covert CIA assets, in war-time, for partisan gain,
        of willful shameless perjury by the VP’s chief of staff,
        about it, of “legal” memos asserting torture is okie-dokie,
        of mercenaries who repeatedly rape and kill innocents — only
        to be then carefully-shielded by the state department’s own
        byzzantine [non-] oversight mechanisms and officials. . .
        of a president so bent on war with iran, that he now denies
        his own national intelligence estimates, about that country. . .

        i think it reasonable to be skeptical as to whether this
        much email — for just these dates — goes “missing” with-
        out some nefarious motivation beneath it all. . .

        as ever, keep up the good work! you are clearly on the
        path of the higher-percentages — while i am looking for
        a needle — in a haystack — of needles(!).

        p e a c e

        ps: thanks so much Thera-P, and you know i will keep on it!

  9. WilliamOckham says:

    Where’s the evidence that they’ve reconstructed any emails from backup tapes? I don’t think they’ve done that yet. The OA “CIO” pretty much says (by not saying) that they haven’t.

    Even if this is reconstructed from backups, those backups will get you one of three things:

    1. A backup of Exchange Server at a particular point in time. If that’s what you get, you have to restore all the mailboxes to a different Exchange Server and pull off what ever was in those mailboxes at that time. Anybody who’s gone through that mess can tell you what a nightmare it is (although it’s lots better with Exchange 2007).

    2. A backup of somebody’s .pst file (if they have one, at most places you make people store their stuff in their mailbox) at a point in time. This is really unlikely.

    3. A backup of one of those archived .pst files. If the email wasn’t archived to begin with, that doesn’t do you any good.

    That “CIO” never did mention how often they back up their Exchange Servers.

    • GulfCoastPirate says:


      Help me out here.

      Per your number 1- Why is this so difficult? I’ve done it many times.

      Per your number 2 – huh? Outlook has an auto archive feature. I believe the default is 14 days. This file should be placed on a file server for redundancy. With the systems available to these folks why would everything be stored in the mailbox on the Exchange Server?

      Per your number 3 – Are you assuming you send me an email which I read and delete? What about the ‘Sent Items’ folder on the senders side? How many of these people are techie enough to clear that folder?

  10. WilliamOckham says:

    If anybody is following along at home, you can compare the Martin email to one of Kyle Sampson’s after he left the DOJ in OAG878-914.pdf (assuming you saved all the files from that scandal like I did). You’ll notice that instead of saying Kyle Sampson at the top, it says OIP (I assume that’s the Office of Information and Privacy at the DOJ).

    • JohnLopresti says:

      Mostly I worked as an exponent of the dilletante factor, but these linkRich timelines are proving enticing. The other day I found a headerless Sampson document, probably because it is a printout, but the redacting is sufficiently transparent in the new version of AcrobatReader to be legible. I guess this, too, is OT; but it is from the US attorney purge scandal, linked from a footnote in the McKay WA exUSA law journal article currently available. If everyone already knows what is under the redaction I will skip that project, but it seemed worthwhile at first glance.

  11. bmaz says:

    I am watching you folks at work, kicking butt and taking names, with great interest; but zip in the way of any ability for intelligent help. One question: Is(are) this October 1 email(s) at issue the product of David Addington’s gatekeeping/custodian of records work as I contemplated here on the last thread?

      • bmaz says:

        You’re darn right that is what I mean. I can’t think of any reason it is not a good faith discovery attempt; the worst that happens is that the court grants a motion to quash.

        Uh oh. Jeff is in the doghouse? Better not tell the spyguyforhire.

  12. Jeff says:

    For what it’s worth, Bond testified that Libby told them that he found the note of the 6-03 conversation with Cheney (which became GX 104) on October 3, 2003. Also, Mayfield was interviewed by the FBI on March 17, 2004, not in front of a grand jury.

  13. MadDog says:

    EW, just a note here. Your link in the “February 6, 2006: According to Bill Jeffress, Fitzgerald received the missing emails.” always fails in Acrobat Reader with an error message of “File does not begin with ‘%PDF-’” so I can never open it. All the other links to PDFs work fine.

  14. WilliamOckham says:


    1. Have you done it to restore a single email? Now, look at the list of dates that has been published. Do you really think they did all that for Fitzgerald’s investigation? I don’t.

    2. Most larger companies strongly discourage folks from keeping their email in .pst files. If you’re going to have to answer legal requests for records, you really want all those emails in one place. Also, you really don’t want people taking sensitive (or in the case of the government, classified) information off the network.

    3. I’m talking about the official archived email solution.

    • GulfCoastPirate says:


      On 1 – no, not for a single email but you could certainly do it for a single user and then search the mailbox of that user.

      On 2 & 3 – OK

  15. bmaz says:

    Interesting story in Sunday’s New York Times on the liability insurance carrier Jose Rodriquez, former head of the CIA Directorate of Operations (Clandestine division) and the other spooks involved in the torture tapes destruction, apparently as well as a whole boatload of other Administration officials and agents (an astounding 32,000 of them), are relying on.

    Like a growing number of C.I.A. employees, Mr. Rodriguez, former head of the agency’s clandestine service, had bought professional liability insurance from Wright & Company. The firm, founded in 1965 by a former F.B.I. agent, is now paying his mounting legal bills.

    The standard Wright policy costs a little less than $300 a year. The government pays half the premium for all supervisors and certain other high-risk employees, a group that includes hundreds of C.I.A. officers, including everyone at the agency involved in counterterrorism or counterproliferation.

    When Al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2001, Wright & Company was insuring about 17,000 federal employees against the legal hazards of their work. Today, that total has nearly doubled to 32,000, Wright executives say, spurred in part by a spate of lawsuits, investigations and criminal prosecutions related to mistreatment of detainees from Iraq to Guantánamo Bay, an immigration crackdown and other aftershocks of 9/11.

    The standard Wright policy pays up to $200,000 in legal fees for administrative matters like investigations by Congress or an inspector general, or cases involving demotion or dismissal. An additional $100,000 is available for legal fees in criminal investigations, and the policy pays up to $1 million in damages in a civil suit.

    As the subject of both Congressional and criminal investigations, Mr. Rodriguez, former head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service, has $300,000 in coverage for legal fees. How long that might last is anybody’s guess. He has hired Robert S. Bennett, a Washington lawyer who represented President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit and whose standard rate was described by colleagues as more than $900 an hour.

    The videotape case has brought claims for legal representation from several C.I.A. employees other than Mr. Rodriguez, said Mr. Lewis, who declined to name them. George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence; Scott W. Muller, the agency’s former general counsel; and John A. Rizzo, the current acting general counsel, are among those who have retained counsel. Spokesmen for the three men declined to comment.

    A new possible source of reimbursement for legal fees was created in 2006 by the Military Commissions Act, which requires the government to pay lawyers for C.I.A. and military officers facing lawsuits or criminal investigations for “authorized” actions involving detention of suspected terrorists. Whether the destruction of the videotapes would qualify is uncertain, but lawyers in the matter are studying the question. (Emphasis added)

    Couple of thoughts here. In relation to the first portion bolded, what is the government doing underwriting insurance to cover wrongdoing by it’s employees? Is this a proper use of taxpayer money? Did Congress authorize this; if not, who did?

    As to the second bolded portion, we know that Congress did pass the contemptible Military Commissions Act in 2006 thanks in a large part to the disingenuous actions of St. John McCain, Lindsay “Huckleberry” Graham, Mr. Liz Taylor John Warner and Harry Reid; not to mention the deception and outright lies of the Bush Administration. That aside, the question still remains, is this a proper use of taxpayer money? For 32,000 governmental employees? For my money, it most certainly is not.

    • masaccio says:

      It looks like Wright & Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association. Look at the bottom of this link. Actually, Wright & Co. is an insurance agency, not an insurance company. I googled around a bit, and I cannot tell for sure who is actually providing the insurance. Wright is a Virginia company, apparently, and it shows a group of insurance companies that it represents. Only one is a property and casualty company, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, a subsidiary of AIG. Link2. This looks like a pretty good guess.

      In any event, the article makes it look like Wright & Co is the insurer, but it clearly isn’t.

      • bmaz says:

        Interesting. I kind of figured Wright was a pass through via reinsurance or something; because their premiums don’t look sufficient to create the reserves necessary to be a full carrier. That was a wild assed guess though. Their website is sure a little ambiguous as to what the real deal is. May be that they are nothing more than a broker. I wonder if the 50% contribution, described in the NYT article, as being made by the government is instead made by this Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association. If so, that might effect my question of propriety, might not; have to ponder that a little more. I still kind of have issues with subsidizing support for wrongful conduct……

        • masaccio says:

          I’m guessing SAMBA is organized to share in the proceeds of the insurance premiums, and use them for charitable purposes to aid FBI agents and employees.

      • Rayne says:

        The whole thing looks squirrely; why are acts of government agents being insured at all? Why aren’t we simply “self-insuring” by paying legitimate claims made through the courts? Who’s making the profits off the invested premiums?

        I’ve got a friend in reinsurance underwriting; I’ll ask them to give this a look-see.

        One of the other concerns I have is whether this is an actual insurance business; to be licensed/accredited in many states, there has to be actual insurance business, not just an attempt to put money in a tax sheltered account as premiums are. What else is being insured? And how are the premiums being invested?

        Covert ops with solid returns like drug running, or legitimate investments?

  16. icecreamkid says:

    New info from that other TIMES

    “It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célèbre in the US.”…..216737.ece

    • jackie says:

      Just odd, but there was a strange plane crash in Turkey (over the weekend?) six nuclear guys on board.

    • klynn says:


      It was your article posting which tweaked my questions above @ 67. Did you read this?…..e-fbi.html

      EW & Jeff’s timeline and the appearance of “other Times” article seemed to hit me at once and old questions came back to me. Especially, Conyer’s request of Fitz to oversee both investigations at one point…

  17. JodiDog says:

    Great God of Chaos!

    Please don’t befuddle these people anymore. Don’t drive them further into the frenetic pit.

    They could still discard their foil hats, and start living good quiet sensible lives.

  18. Citizen92 says:

    David Addington stuns me again and again. The nerve of the guy.

    Regarding his required document production on 12/24/03 he wrote in an accompanying memo:



    Irony being thick because OVP nor EOP is following the Presidential Records Act in any way. Just paying it lip service.

    • bmaz says:

      Well, that is a nice little document.


      I am telling you, Addington has consistently served as a records custodian and is subject to discovery for his acts in this regard. It was foolish of him to do this; he should have supervised, and controlled, everything exactly like he did, but had the productions made under a subordinate’s certification. Now, this is a slightly different situation than we were discussing above, but it reinforces what I have been saying; at least I think so anyway. I dunno, if I were one of the plaintiffs out there, I would take a run at him just for grins.


      Handle them as classified even though, you know, they are not. Of course.


      Whaaa? Gee, I thought they claimed they were a fourth branch. Kind of supports Bill Leonard eh?

  19. Jeff says:

    I don’t know, in the stark light of day, I’m still finding few outright errors. I must have done a better preemptive job of correcting errors than even I realized.

    Some additions that might be useful:

    September 30, 6:37 p.m. Addington forwards the 6:15 message to OVP people. (GX52)

    October 16, 2003: Armitage goes to Grossman and tells him stuff he thinks he should know, including that he was the one who leaked to Novak; Armitage also discusses whether was was leaked was confidential, classified or not. Similarly, on October 17, after his FBI interview, Grossman went back and reported on it to Armitage.

    December 10, 2003: FBI interviews Grenier. (1-24 p.m.)

    January 8, 2004: Schmall’s first FBi interview, with two agents and CIA lawyer present.

    January 2004 Fleischer pleads the 5th before the grand jury.

    February 11: SP approves Fleischer’s request for immunity (though as you say it’s not ordered by judge until the 13th).

    February 24: Grossman interviewed by FBI for the second time. (1-24 a.m.)

    February 27: Fleischer’s grand jury appearance, where apparently for the firs time he answered questions. (1-29 p.m.)

    April 22: Schmall interview by government again, at CIA HQ, with two FBI agents, CIA lawyer, and Fitzgerald and Kedian present. (1-24 p.m.)

    June 10: Fleischer meets with the FBI.

    August 5: Cooper and Libby talk.

    September 14: Novak participates in follow-up deposition.

    September 2004: Fleischer testifies before the grand jury again (presumably including about Pincus, who testifies on September 15) (1-29 a.m.)

    September 22: Armitage testifies for second time before the grand jury.

    July 29, 2005: Grenier appears before the grand jury again (1-24 p.m.)

    December 20 or 22 or so, 2006: The defense receives the government’s Jencks material, including what witnesses had testified to in the grand jury. (2-14 p.m.) News to them that Fleischer had been given immunity.

    January 13, 2007: Addington meets with the defense; the defense shoves a document toward him for him to glance at. (1-30)

    • emptywheel says:

      Yeah, that was pretty exhausting, huh, telling me over and over I had made an error?

      I had a bunch of that stuff in the timeline (though I need to put Ari’s testimony and Armi’s obstruction in), but I took them out to try to get a Plame plus email thing. I’m assuming that OVP and WH weren’t all that aware of what Grenier was doing and maybe not State. Though I’m really taken with the idea that Ari’s lawyer may have been able to talk to Dick’s lawyer.

      • Jeff says:

        Yeah, I wasn’t sure what fell outside the scope of this particular timeline.

        But yeah, it was exhausting! But totally worth it, considering how well the final product came out.

  20. Jeff says:

    For some reason I keep putting little winking smiley faces in but they don’t show up in the actual comment. So consider my last several with such a wink-smile.

  21. TheraP says:

    Couple of thoughts here:

    re bmaz @ 52 (following from C92 @ 51):


    Given the context here, could the the “mistake” of two n’s rather than two p’s be deliberate? I’m betting it would. Suppose that misspelling is a way of indicating that info should be “classified” (e.g., hidden) in pigeon holes that are adjacent (like n is adjacent to p in the alphabet) or actually use deliberate misspellling. I say this because a person is unlikely to accidentally type two n’s when they need to type two ps. Just look at your keyboard and you’ll see this has to be deliberate. Not sure how to take this idea further, but keep in mind where you see misspellings, like this, that are simply not easy to do by accident on a keyboard. And this has to mean something… but I don’t know what! (some kind of simple code being used? to tell the intended reader something they would know?)

    C92: glad to see you following this! (your talents are many)

    nolo @ 30:

    I literally got shivers up my spine when I read your post. I realize that EW has already suggested your project is not a worthwhile use of time, but I disagree. This whole criminal enterprise, in my view, is so interlinked and complex that it might be hugely important to have a database where EW’s timelines can be overlaid the historical events. I think a wide net needs to be cast, because it may not be yet clear how seemingly unrelated – and even non-criminal events – may intersect with or explain or be explained by the criminal activity.

    In other words, what I’m suggest is not to foreclose your thinking too soon, by assuming you understand all the crimes. You may be tugging at threads (the crimes you see) which interconnect at some much deeper level – interacting with national or international events whether political or economic or whatever. Don’t rule things out unless you’re totally sure they have no relevance!

    JMHO. And I am stunned by the amazing work going on here!

    • emptywheel says:

      My point may have come off badly. It was a caution against seeing ghosts where we have no evidence there is any. Not a judgment that such inquiries are unproductive.

      • TheraP says:

        Thanks for the clarification. And sorry if I misunderstood.

        And kudos for what you’re doing for the country here!

    • JimWhite says:

      Suppose that misspelling is a way of indicating that info should be “classified” (e.g., hidden) in pigeon holes that are adjacent (like n is adjacent to p in the alphabet) or actually use deliberate misspellling.

      I would think this should also be considered along with the suggestion by several of us in the previous thread who are concerned about the potential inclusion of “delivery error” language in subject lines as a means of excluding emails from later searches. In light of your suggestion, this could also be more code for misfiling. Are these thoughts related to the “funky message received” phrase?

      • TheraP says:

        Exactly. It has some meaning and that meaning is likely related to the previous thread’s lines of thinking. And your follow up question is very intriguing.

        Also, interesting the use of caps instead of upper and lower. Is that the way the man usually writes? I doubt it. And if so, then how does that play into the mix here?

    • TheraP says:

      And JimWhite:

      Oops! Looking at the document itself, there is no misspelling. Nor in caps. There goes my whole theory! Down the drain!

      So how did C92 above make that mistake? C92???

      Sorry for wasting anyone’s time on this!

      • bmaz says:

        TheraP and Jim White – Heh, sorry about that; is probably more my fault than C92’s. I copied and pasted off of C92’s PDF doc. The capitalization and scrunching of characters were some type of computer reaction to that process. The font/whatever is fine on the PDFdoc is fine, but when you paste into the EW comment box, it came out that way. It was late and I was lazy. My bad.

        • TheraP says:

          Let’s just all have a good laugh and be glad we’re not in any hot water like the dark side! (I bet they wish their problems could be explained so easily.)

      • JimWhite says:


        Thanks for finding that. Oh, well. There are many nuggets that those digging will continue to find. It is nice being on the side of those who want to work with what is real and what the law is. It’s so much simpler when we don’t have to keep track of the lies we have told. I think that may be why we have trouble unravelling the lies here: it is just such an irrational process that they have gone through.

    • JodiDog says:

      No, no.

      That is not how it is done. That is just a bit of dyslexia.

      Way too obvious.

      Better to use special words or numbers or even dates of events, and better to use special words in conjunction or in the vicinity of each other.

      ie “further detailed analysis”
      “simple work effort”

      or “double” —separation— “parcel”

  22. klynn says:


    First, outstanding timeline. Thank you to you and Jeff.

    I think I need a Plame refresher. I’ve been going over old Plame postings, trial blog and articles. I am missing the point where Hannah and Wurmser go from being “closed in on” in the investigation to practically non-existent.

    At one point didn’t Wurmser share with friends his concerns that he was a focus for Fitz. I know Hannah was the “I have to remind Libby” testimony that Fitz then pounced on…

    Both were questioned in the AIPAC case as well.

    It just seems both cases are tightly wound together. Honestly, Conyers thought so because he suggested during Fitz’ Plame investigation that Fitz also be assigned to the investigation of the AIPAC case because of McNulty putting the breaks on the investigation. Why was McNulty stalling? Answer to THAT question would probably reveal Plame and AIPAC all in one.

    Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, AIPAC honcho Steven Rosen, and the Lobby’s number one Iran specialist, Keith Weissman, were indicted on August 4, 2005.

    As you know too well this story broke in August 2004.

    Franklin probably didn’t act alone. Pleading guilty means he understood he was the “fall guy”. And if you look at the web between Rosen and Weissman and OVP office — it’s endless. And how many times has this trial been delayed?

    Which leads me to the question which has been asked previously in the last two posts. Why just these search terms. Why only these people references. Fitz’ request seemed larger in regards to Plame. Why didn’t Fitz push this for more?

    Forgive me if I have caused a rehash of old news…

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s not clear from any public documentation that either Wurmser or Hannah were targets of the investigation. Hannah testified, but his role in the leak (at least as far as public documents say) was somewhat minor (Cheney kept this pretty close). There was reporting Hannah had flipped–and approximately 2 days later Cheney made him his replacement NSA, which Cheney wouldn’t have done if he had any dream that Hannah had flipped.

      Nor is there reason to believe AIPAC had anything to do with Plame. While Dougie Feith likely plays a role in both, the players and the MO in both are different.

      • bmaz says:

        You know, sometimes I think people give the cabal too much credit for being diabolical evil geniuses controlling everything in the world like Blofeld or Goldfinger or something out of James Bond. They are just rapacious common criminals, gangsters and bullies, that have plowed a destructive path because the Democratic leadership were too timid to stop them and the American public too distracted, uninformed and lazy to care.

        • klynn says:

          Hey bmaz, I like the snark and the reality of #72.

          One reason I asked questions @67 was that there was a report at one point where both FBI investigations AIPAC & Plame were crossing information because of the broadening of Fitz investigation regarding the SOTU 16 words issue…

          “Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, an assertion that was later disputed.”

          Although the MO’s are different the timelines for both and the cast of characters have some surprising overlaps. The SOTU 16 words had ties to both investigations but we have never really heard “why”. My guess is that it relates to Plame’s work.

          I had never really caught any final insights on this. We may not until the AIPAC trial is done…

        • Leen says:

          “too timid” or complicit? For the American public to follow this they would have to be as committed as you folks. The MSM has not helped the American public come to an understanding of the Plame case and has not even reported much about the Aipac/Franklin case.

        • GulfCoastPirate says:


          So why are the Democrats so timid? At what point can we conclude that maybe they aren’t timid, maybe they actually agree with much of what has been done?

          • phred says:

            Some of us concluded the Dem leadership was complicit quite awhile ago. No argument from here on that count.

    • Leen says:

      MSM has barely whispered about the investigation and upcoming A trial. Matthews whispered once about another delay..he must have been slapped down. As Matthews said to me when I was able to talk with him at the Libby trial. When I asked him about the lack of coverage on the Aipac investigation and the lack of coverage on the Israeli Palestinian conflict Matthews responded “I don’t control the programming at MSNBC” Code for Who does?

  23. bigbrother says:

    My bet is the WH chief of staff had meetings with departmwnt heads on e-mail protocal. There should be notes and there is rules issued for all usage of WH communications at those meetings deletions have tyo be part of the discussion. Subpeona subpeona bubpeona from Waxman, Conyers and Nagle.

  24. MrJJ says:

    From The Sunday Times
    January 20, 2008

    FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft

    The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets

    She claimed corrupt government officials helped the network, and venues such as the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington were used as drop-off points.

    The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001.

    It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célèbre in the US.

    One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist.

    But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.…..216737.ece

  25. pdaly says:

    re: timeline, this was news to me:

    “May 8, 2004: Debra Heiden turns over original copy of Cheney’s annotated copy of Wilson’s op-ed; Heiden produced a copy to Addington on October 7, 2003.”

    When did we learn this? Where is Ms. Heiden now? Are she and Cheney still friends? (*g*)

    With respect to the missing e-mail archives (as opposed to missing back up tapes) is there a way to tell whether the archive was created and then went missing at some point? or whether the archive was never created? I’m thinking maybe the archives have library numbers assigned to each tape/disc and that we might spot a gap if the archive went missing.

    Do we know what the IT protocol is supposed to be for missing archives? and did that person in charge of following protocol notify someone? Do we know whom he/she notified?

    Could we add the dates of the Jan 2003 SOTU (16 words) and the commencement date of the Iraq War (maybe ‘war’ is the inappropriate term since Congress did not declare one) to the timeline?

    • highllama says:

      Emptywheel, it appears you’ve begun compiling a grand almanac of this administration’s horrific 8 year reign. Great work, keep going!

      Like pdaly, I want to suggest that timeline include also the date for Colin Powell’s appearance at the UN, February of 03 (which I find now bizarrely transcribed on the White House web archives:…..205-1.html). The story here is the push for war against Iraq (and our failure to stop that, which I lament every day) and the Plame story is a subset of the larger sad history, as I believe Valerie and Joe would agree. I know the larger picture doesn’t speak specifically to disappearance of e-mails, but it is all paper trail. The Intelligence Estimate of August 2001 warning Bush that a terrorist attack was immanent is also a piece of the story. And there is the Project for the NAC doc. Paper trail. It’s all inclusive really: stolen elections via Ohio and Florida.

      How do we gather, organize and utilize the available information so that 1) something like this can not happen again and 2) the guilty parties are more likely to be held accountable in some way, whether that’s by criminal penalties or simply the judgement of time. Of course the “something like this” that “can not happen again” is every small detail of abuse which amounts to a huge mountain we are almost overwhelmed by, such disregard for the dignity of office and the meaning of democratic government is unbelieveable and yes I think akin to Nazi Germany. And the real world parallels… Let us also see the growing war dead in a margin of these tables. Relevant articles in each day’s major news papers: the trail of reports, leaks and versions of events.

      May they return as children for peace.

      (My first post since the new FDL. thanks everyone.)

  26. looseheadprop says:

    I’m gonna rpint this one. may even have itr bound a s abook and keep on my shleves as a reference work.


  27. Citizen92 says:

    Responding to TheraP January 20th, 2008 @ 8:09 am

    Absolutely I’m still following his story.

    The capitalization and misspellings were simply a function of copying raw text from the PDF to the comments section. It was late, so I didn’t have my full faculties to edit.

    On a sep note, can anyone tell me what’s going on with these files:

    It appears as though CEQ was compelled to do ARMS searches at in response to a FOIA sometime back. (ARMS is the Clinton-era automatic archiving system that was “turned off” supposedly with the Lotus Notes/Outlook switchover). Anyway, the documents seem to show searches that happened in 2002, but were printed out various years afterward:

    This one is dated 2003 in the footer:…..ms_112.pdf

    This one is dated 2006 in the footer:…..ms_399.pdf

    There are various files (index1, index2, index3, etc) under this hierarchy.

    What I’m getting at here is that, at least for the 2006 document, it appears that CEQ did this search to be responsive to a FOIA request. Now clearly they were searching through records retained in ARMS, but were they also *supposed* to be searching through records which might have been contained in the nonexistent slapdash “archiving” system after ARMS was taken down? And if so, did the FOIA response note there were periods of missing records?

  28. Citizen92 says:

    And let me toss a little more irony into the mix. Not criminality, but irony.


    White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales discusses Records Management

    The Federal Freedom of Information Act represents a policy choice by the Congress. It represents a balance of making information available to the American people so they know what the government is doing. And a balance of recognizing that candor and confidentiality is important for the executive branch to perform its function in a way that serves the public good.

    Part of your job, as a government employee, is to preserve and maintain documents that you create as a government employee. These documents have a very historical value—they represent the work of this administration. We should be proud of the work that we do and should ensure that the documentation that we create, as evidence of the work of this administration, is preserved in the matter that it should be.

    Each of you works for an agency that has a designated records official. You should contact that official to determine what the record policies are for your agency.

    Congress made a deliberate choice that not every document created by you in connection to your duties should be released to the public. You should check with your records official to determine which of the documents should in fact be released and which of the documents should be preserved.

    For example, certain types of documents related to litigation, documents that may implicate the privacy act, deliberative documents are all types of documents that Congress has determined can be preserved by the agency in order to ensure that the agency functions the way that it should on behalf of the American people.

    Original and still active link here:…..cript.html

  29. WilliamOckham says:


    Thanks for those. I’ve been looking for something like that. I’m working on an answer to your question. Are there anymore like that?

  30. WilliamOckham says:

    From my initial perusal of the ceq foia documents, I can make the following conclusions:

    ARMS was still operating (actively archiving Notes emails) as late as August 2003. It was still responding to search requests as late as July 2005.

    I also am re-evaluating my interpretation of the Payton declaration.

  31. phred says:

    EW, I’m pretty late on this series of threads, primarily because I don’t have the technical chops nor the grasp of details that others here have. However, I remain puzzled by the non-contiguous dates. Someone should have noticed much earlier if the backup system was that flaky (working one day, but not the next). So, that makes me inclined to think that someone went out of their way to mess with the records system. But, the only way for that to successfully delete email on a permanent basis is if the incriminating emails (lets say from the 11th) were all deleted on the 11th, because if the relevant users had them in their email mailboxes on the 12th, then the successful backup on the 12th would have captured them. Would individuals within EOP and OVP who were comfortable enough to engage in potentially illegal conduct, have been sufficiently uncomfortable on the day an email was sent to make sure they immediately deleted those messages? The subsequent mucking about with the backups could have occurred much later, but the actual deletion of messages had to be on the days in question.

  32. radiofreewill says:

    I’m with bmaz. More than just a Gatekeeper for the Subpoena responses, I think Addington was the OVP RM – as in Records Manager. I think he was probably the guy who could ‘look into’ the .pst files of former OVP User IDs, unlock employee desks and review files, and review phone logs – as part of his additional duty as RM, including review of Classified Documents.

    Check out this EW article from the TNH Archives:


    Jenny Mayfield amends her Oct. 7, 2003 document request certification with a note saying that her e-mail production was done for her by…wait for it…D. Addington…who did a “Central E-Mail Search” – which means he Searched Only the ARMS Repository (properly archived database).

    Now, this is Mighty Convenient for Jenny and Addington and Scooter – because it narrows Fitz’ legal discovery searches enough that any improperly archived e-mails (like the Oct. 1, 2003 Mayfield-Martin exchange) don’t get ‘discovered.’

    Somehow, Jenny’s 414-page Niger Uranium Folder – a Treasure Trove of Evidence – also doesn’t get picked-up, either – until after Libby’s first GJ appearance.

    So, I’d say the chances of Addington Not Knowing about the Improperly Archived Accounts and Jenny’s Treasure Folder are about as likely as the Whole Days of Missing Archives being a Random Glitch – Absolutely Zero.

    Jenny’s Oct. 7, 2003 document certification All But Says: I’m not telling you all the responsive e-mails/documents I have (because it would be significant) – I told Addington, and he said he’d handle it for me – he told me I was ‘covered.’

    • Rayne says:

      Addington as OVP RM — wow, that has certain ring to it.

      But if he’s a gatekeeper, did he inherit this role? Or was he ALWAYS the focal point, going back to the earliest failures of the OVP’s office to furnish records?

      I think bmaz is right — we subpoena this bastard and let him try and weasel out of compliance with the Fourth Branch’s claim that they are entitled to executive privilege.

      (Where are those Energy Task Force documents, by the way?)

        • Rayne says:

          Yup. And if he’s had responsibility and authority for OVP documents for the entire course of the administration, his role in production of responsive documents in re: this one subpoena or one case is not a one-of.

          When exactly did the OVP’s office stop complying with ISOO and who made that decision? Who effected that decision? Addington? Is he the real source for the Energy Task Force documents, too? He was the wiener who sent the cease-and-desist letter to when they were poking fun at Lynne Cheney; is he also the “brand manager” for the House of OVP? He allegedly assumed that responsibility for protecting the Cheney name; did he take on his OVP RM role on his own, too, or was it assigned to him?

          • bmaz says:

            Rayne – Check out the comment by Citizen92 at 51 and my comment at 52 in relation to the bogus ISOO position of the fourth branch. Kind of inconsistent…..

            • Rayne says:

              Yes, inconsistent, even to the designation, “Furnished in Confidentiality”.

              WTF?? I never saw anything like that in my experience as an admin assistant in corporate law. Huh???

              He’s made sh*t up all along. Must be a trait he and his master share in common, the ability to pull nonsense out of their behinds and call it something other than crap.

              What I think GX50701/2 suggest to us is that the actions the OVP takes are to be judged on the role for which they are undertaken, and since most are for the OVP and not President of the Senate, they’re subject to PRA.

              (Dammit, that’s ALL of the Energy Task Force documents. Sorry, those have been a sore spot for me since 2001 — feels like a lifetime.)

            • Citizen92 says:

              I think you’ve got a really good commentary/theory going with Addington being the “records czar” of the OVP. Positioning himself as first and last point of appeal, review, etc for all things records-related in OVP, he would be in a key position to shut anything down. Of course, he could only shut down what he could control which might explain how Fitzgerald got his hands on the Cheney-annotated Joe Wilson article (Libby had it, right?) or the Cathie Martin talkers e-mail (printed off of someone’s computer, right?)

              Not seeking to hijack this into an anti-Addington tirade (there’s plenty out there on him), lest we not forget his tenticles run deep. From day one, he’s been the point of obstruction between OVP and the required regular reporting of the Office of Government Ethics.

              Rememberr how Cheney’s office refuses to report its travel? Under the hand of Addington, of course.

              Addington’s letters to USOGE ==>…..to0304.pdf
              And a story about the practice ==>…..px?aid=760

              One weakness to Addington’s arguments, might lie in his greatest strength that he uses as regular justification of OVP’s noncompliance. As Addington is fond to point out, OVP has a split personality – half “Executive” and half “Legislative.” OVP draws two operating appropriations and has both staff directly paid by Congress (those who work in the Hill office) and staff paid by appropriation to the Executive Branch for OVP ops. Addington is in the latter category – he’s an Executive staffer. Theoretically, he should have no control over records produced by or staff work covered by the Congressional appropriation. He should have no power of review of Congressional records (remember “separation of powers?) And since over half of OVP’s staff come from the Congressional salaries that would cut his minion army by half.

              • Rayne says:

                Yup, the split means all OVP activities rendered as delegated powers of the Executive should be subject to PRA, and all activities rendered as a subset of the Senate should be readily FOIA-able.

                And ALL documentation of which, if Addington is the gatekeeper, are not subject to executive privilege, with the possible exception of the few documents that are utilized in deliberations by Cheney directly as he performs executive duties.

                So bmaz: you sent a message to Waxman yet?

                    • bmaz says:

                      Boy, and I don’t want to tack one bummer on top of another, but in response to your comment @118, I have no idea what application my little theory has on congressional document acquisition like by Waxman. I simply don’t have the knowledge or experience with the congressional process the way I do traditional civil litigation and criminal litigation process. Usually in civil litigation, the custodian of records is identified and makes the certification of thorough and complete production by countersigning the discovery response or, alternatively, by executing a certification or affidavit to that effect that is attached to the discovery response. Very rarely are they ever seen or heard from (like almost never). Even in cases where the requesting party feels that discovery has been withheld, or is otherwise incomplete, the standard response is to file a motion to compel. I believe you mentioned working in corporate law, so you probably know all this. I had the pleasure (pain?) of working on several unusual civil rights cases against governmental entities that are really animals of a different nature though. There were a couple of instances where my partner and I were absolutely convinced the adverse party was not producing things they should be. In one instance, in a false arrest litigation, we asked the sheriff’s office and county attorney’s office for all cases that had similar fact patterns within the last ten years. They produced next to nothing. Problem was that we had ourselves represented a criminal defendant in a case exactly like the underlying case at issue and knew there were others too; when they didn’t even produce our own case, we knew something was dishonest about their search and production, so we noticed their custodian for a full deposition. They fought it, but the court permitted the depo. We learned all kinds of good stuff, and that was just from a county records clerk; my mind spins on what Addington could be asked. Now you would not be able to ask substantive questions about the documents themselves, but just the ability to ask chain of custody questions, foundational questions, and, most importantly, questions about how they searched, who was involved, what the parameters were, who set the parameters etc. It could be a treasure trove of good stuff. Bottom line is I don’t know about Waxman, but any of these civil plaintiffs sure are in a position to try this. Hard to see how it is not a good faith discovery attempt; the worst that can happen is that it is challenged by a motion to quash and the court agrees.

                    • Rayne says:

                      Thanks, bmaz. I think it’s imperative that the query process is more fully detailed, the backup and archiving process is more fully detailed, as is the network and who has access. That last bit is a huge problem, but it’s hard to rule out malicious intent — and the ISOO situation already makes it clear that the Cheneyites had no concern for established security processes.

                      EW — thanks, I really thought we would be able to obtain documents submitted to Congress.

                    • emptywheel says:

                      Congress is the one that passes FOIA laws. Conveniently, it means they get to exempt themselves. And with the Jefferson ruling, they apparently now believe they can shield accepting bribes from us too.

    • jdmckay says:

      Check out this EW article from the TNH Archives:


      Jenny Mayfield amends her Oct. 7, 2003 document request certification with a note saying that her e-mail production was done for her by…wait for it…D. Addington…who did a “Central E-Mail Search” – which means he Searched Only the ARMS Repository (properly archived database).

      Hmmm… Thanks rfw, I never (or don’t remember) seeing that. I need to start keeping better notes around here.

  33. bmaz says:

    Looks like the Bushies want to stick it to the US and the world again, this time by making a last minute appointment of dishonest political shill Gen. David Betrayus Petraeus to the post of Supreme commander of NATO, so that he can carry over to the next administration. From the NYT:
    The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year, a move that would give the general, the top American commander in Iraq, a high-level post during the next administration but that has raised concerns about the practice of rotating war commanders.

    In one approach under discussion, General Petraeus would be nominated and confirmed for the NATO post before the end of September, when Congress is expected to break for the presidential election. He might stay in Iraq for some time after that before moving to the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, but his next posting would be decided before a new president takes office.

    • skdadl says:

      My first reaction to that NYT report was to think Oh, noooo! But now I’m not sure. That is a very ambiguously written piece. I’ve been looking at the military structure of NATO, and it is complex. Does anyone understand how it works, and where the U.S. president and Congress would be slotting someone in? I’m not sure there is just one Supreme Commander, and if you read over the fuzzy Times intro, “the top NATO command” could mean a multiple.

  34. jdmckay says:

    yet, i think i’ll press onward.

    consider the record, thus far: it is certainly true that CREW believes — in their litigation in DC on the missing e-mails — that there are reasons for the over-laps — in these dates. for example, the vice president’s FERC manuevers seem oddly co-incident to the dates on which his e-mail troves (are said to) no longer exist.

    No surprise there. Drives me nuts BushCo has never had to answer for that “free market” maneuver.

    i think it reasonable to be skeptical as to whether this much email — for just these dates — goes “missing” with-out some nefarious motivation beneath it all…

    Bingo!!! (thanks for your work)

  35. klynn says:

    Looking back at Addington’s “bit” at the Libby Trial is interesting…Some interesting bits from Addington’s testimony at Libby Trial (via EW’s liveblogging and thread comments):

    W In connection with your review of the documents, is it also correct that you had a practice of having discussions with WH counsel Abu Gonzales wrt certain of the documents you were collecting

    A Explains that “The Vice President Has Seen” stamp is standard practice.

    Swopa @ 2

    A specific subpoena for July 12 conversations, eh?

    Judy I plus Judy II = 40 mins I wish someone had recorded. And, yeah, a specific subpoena for that day? How’d the prosecutors know to ask about that date way back when?

    A On this particular page, no, but in the course of production, there were situations in which I received handwritten notes saying “treated as” some particular classification, when the govt came back later and asked for originals, from that I take it that when they made copies, they stamped that on there, but this one it seems like they stamped that on the original.

    I noticed that Marcy bolded Addington’s response (which I also bolded). I think the legalese and Addington’s speaking style is confusing me. Is he saying that some documents may not have been initially stamped as “classified”, but they treated them as classified info, and therefore marked them as classified after-the-fact?

    Also, what’s with the copies of documents versus originals? Are we to assume that if they couldn’t find originals, they used electronic copies of the originals?

    This juror question may have interesting relevance to the above exchange:

    Walton Can you provide clarification why sometimes request for documentations was sent to Libby, and why, sometimes, it was not.

    A I have to make a judgment who might have responsive documents. The first one was very broad. For some of the later requests, such as originals of Scooter Libby’s documents, I’ don’t have to send them to the guys in the motor pool. There were a few requests for particular things, so I could go to the person who had that particular set of records.

    F returns to the Libby sonnet/Cheney meat grinder document. Asking A how it would look when he found it.

    There’s a stamp at the top, that says, “treated as Top Secret/SCI, then crossed out, with declassified.”

    F walks him through how it looked when Addington got it. Has Addington talk though what Top Secret and SCI mean. Can documents be properly classified as “treated as Top Secret SCI” Is that a proper classification?

    A President’s EO doesn’t use that phrase.

    F Do you recall seeing any other document that were “treated as Top Secret/SCI”

    F Did you put that marking there.

    A No

    F Do you know how it got there?

    A On this particular page, no, but in the course of production, there were situations in which I received handwritten notes saying “treated as” some particular classification, when the govt came back later and asked for originals, from that I take it that when they made copies, they stamped that on there, but this one it seems like they stamped that on the original.

    F Now asking whether Addington discussed the document with O’Donnell and Abu Gonzales. Explain difference between O’Donnel and your role.

    A My client is VP in official capacity. Particular relevance in this case.

    A is talking through govt attorney not being able to invoke attorney client privilege, naming everyone, including dissents.

    He’s going on for a long time.

    A The reason it’s important in this case, if you want to communicate to an attorney, you have to talk to your private attorney. It’s important to be careful what you’re asking and what you’re answering. It’s an artificial complexity introduced by the DC circuit.

    My bold at the end there…

    Go here to back read:…..ngton-two/

  36. radiofreewill says:

    EW – Have you done any articles on That One Document with “Treated as Top Secret/SCI” on the Original?

    Late in the Bond testimony (Bond 5,6 or 7), Jeffress does a ‘blurt-out’ along the lines of “Jenny Mayfield says that they (Jenny and Scooter?) just stamped everything.”

    So, is the implication here that Scooter had an original note, that HE (or Jenny) then stamped “Treated as Top Secret/SCI” and put in his files?

    Do we know what that original document is? Can we tell who De-classified it?

    • emptywheel says:

      Yeah. I’d have to look, but it was shortly after the trial ended. Actually, I did several, hte most interesting of which showed that the three documents Libby had marked as “TS/SCI” all implicated Bush or Cheney in some fashion. Also note tehre was a fight in the trial over whether Mayfield had stamped the documents or Libby, with Deb Bonamici arguing that Libby had done so himself.

      But this particular document was the note recording Cheney telling him that Plame worked at CP. What’s most remarkable about it is that it probably comes from an entire day’s note, but was rewritten onto its own note. The first versin of those that was turned in was stamped “Treated as Secret/SCI.” But when the gov’t came back for the original, it was stamped as “Treated as TS/SCI.” That stamp had to have happened sometime between October 21 and December 24.

Comments are closed.