Scottie’s Briefing

I’m going to continue my discussion of Scottie McC’s chronology. But first I want to look closely at how Scottie McC describes his September 29 press briefing, and what the briefing actually includes.

Here’s what Scottie McC claims to have cleared with Bush in the early morning September 29 conversation (in addition to the "Karl didn’t do it" claptrap described in this post).

I then turned the conversation to the approach I was planning to take with the White House press corps later in the morning at the gaggle and in the afternoon briefing.


"I plan on saying you believe the leaking of classified information is a serious matter, and that it should be looked into and pursued to the fullest possible extent," I said to the president. "And that the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to look into it. And I don’t plan on going too far beyond that."

"Yeah, I think that’s right," the president replied. "I do believe it’s a serious matter. And I hope they find who did it."

"And Andy, I am still good to say that nothing has been brought to our attention to suggest White House involvement, beyond what we have read in the papers, right?" I asked.

"I do not know of anything," Andy responded. "And last I heard from Al, he did not either," he added, referring to Al Gonzales, the White House counsel and longtime Bush loyalist from Texas.

And here’s what he cleared with him between his gaggle and his briefing.

Card and Gonzales had already assured me they knew of no White House involvement in the disclosure of Plame’s identity.


I’d visited with [the President] before the briefing to make sure he was fine with my saying in response to questions that he would fire anyone involved in the leaking of classified information, specifically the identity of Valerie Plame.

And here’s one last detail of what he says he said–though he doesn’t claim he got Bush to approve it first.

I reiterated that the president expected everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standard of conduct, and that no one would have been authorized to leak the identity of Wilson’s wife.

And here’s the briefing in question for your viewing pleasure.

No One Would Be Authorized

Let’s start with the last bit first, Scottie’s assertion that he said "no one would have been authorized to leak the identity of Wilson’s wife." I was struck by Scottie’s assertion since we are now at the place where we know Bush did authorize the leak of some information, perhaps or perhaps not including Valerie Wilson’s identity. It seemed, when I first read it, an attempt to retrospectively distance Bush from a leak that appears to have been done with his implicit–though perhaps not explicit–authorization.

But Scottie’s right–he did say that, once. Almost word for word.

No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

I find it telling, though, whom he said it to: Helen Thomas, in response to the question,

Scott, has anyone — has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

It was the first thing out of his mouth in the briefing, and he did not repeat it again. I find that telling because it’s almost the only question that directly asks about outing a CIA officer.

Classified Information

The rest of his responses about leaking information mostly refer to classified information, not outing a CIA spy. But look at how he refers to this classified information. He repeatedly questions whether or not Valerie Wilson (who is never named) really was a covert agent.

And I’ve seen different statements in the media reports from, the CIA hasn’t confirmed or denied that this was a covert agent for the CIA;


Q He does not know whether or not the classified information was divulged here, and he’s only getting his information from the media?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we don’t know — we don’t have any information that’s been brought to our attention beyond what we’ve seen in the media reports.


I’ve seen the media reports and in one report I saw that the CIA had neither confirmed or denied that this individual was a covert operative for the CIA.

But for much of the briefing, Scottie refers very specifically to Bush’s opposition to leaking classified information.

The President believes that if someone leaked classified information of this nature, that it should be looked into.


Q But isn’t the President concerned when there is a leak of this magnitude, that could threaten someone’s very life?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that earlier. Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you’re talking about the leak of classified information. The leak of classified information, yes, you’re absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods.

As I noted in 2005, this all looks like a very technical denial. It would be serious, Bush thinks, if someone leaked classified information. Back then, this appeared to be an effort to deny that Valerie was covert. But given the hindsight of knowing that Cheney was apparently insta-declassifying stuff to leak to journalists, they may have been working with the understanding that Valerie wasn’t covert because Cheney had insta-declassified her identity.

Which is why I think it rather significant that the only time Scottie McC said "no one would be authorized" to do something was when he was asked–by Helen–who outed a CIA agent.

Remarkably, everything Scottie McC said on September 29, 2003 (except for his exoneration of Rove) is consistent with what he says now: leaking classified information is serious but that Bush would not have authorized the leak of a CIA Agent’s identity. Of course, now Scottie McC admits that Cheney and Libby leaked information by declassifying it, but Scottie McC claims he didn’t learn that until April 2006.

When Did You Talk to Karl?

It’s worth noting that Scottie McC lies outright when asked whether he had spoken to Rove the previous weekend (after news of the 1X2X6 story came out).

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn’t — it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this.

Q And that conversation that you had with Karl was this weekend? Or when was it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry? No, I’ve had conversations with him previously. I’m going to leave it at that.

Perhaps Scottie McC didn’t think the "no" in response to the question "was this weekend" implied that he had not spoken to Rove over the weekend, when he now reports he had. But it sure seems to me that Scottie McC deliberately tried to hide the fact that had spoken to Rove in relation to the 1X2X6 story.

Did Karl Have the Information?

Finally, there’s Scottie McC’s curious response to questions about whether or not Karl had the information–Valerie Wilson’s covert identity–when he spoke with people about this issue.

Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson’s wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew —

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know whether or not — I mean, I’m sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re going down a lot of different roads here. I’ve made it very clear that he was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.

I find the response curious because according to Scottie McC, Rove had told him just two days before he got asked these questions that he had not had the information when he spoke to Novak.

Rove got in touch with my trusted deputy Claire Buchan, letting her know he’d received an email inquiry from Mike for the story.


Claire spoke with Rove before I returned to the White House in the staff vans. I arrived back at my office sometime after 1:00 P.M., and a short time later got the rundown from her.

She informed me that Rove had volunteered to her that Novak had called him about Plame. He hadn’t confirmed Plame’s CIA status because he didn’t know about it

I replied in bewilderment,"Karl spoke to Novak?"


He repeated to me what he had told Claire earlier in the day: "He [Novak] said he’d heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. I told him I couldn’t confirm it because I didn’t know."

Why, if Rove had just told Scottie McC that he didn’t know of Valerie Wilson’s covert identity when he spoke to Novak on July 8 or 9, was Scottie McC unwilling to pass that information on to the press corps? Didn’t he believe Rove? And if so, then why did he exonerate Rove publicly?

The Final Tally

For fun, here’s my tally of what Scottie McC did say in his briefing:

"Leaking of classified information is a serious matter:" 6 mentions

"DOJ is appropriate entity to investigate this:" 35 mentions

"Bush hopes they find the person:" 3 mentions

"No evidence White House was involved:" 30 mentions

"If anyone leaked this, Bush will fire them:" 2 mentions

"The CIA has not confirmed she was covert:" 3 mentions

"The White House hasn’t been told anything by DOJ:" 7 mentions

86 replies
  1. bobschacht says:

    So, it seems clear that his main talking points were

    “DOJ is appropriate entity to investigate this:” 35 mentions
    “No evidence White House was involved:” 30 mentions

    These were his themes of the day. Of course, he knew what DOJ would do.

    Bob in HI

    • emptywheel says:

      He had to do two things. First, stave off the calls for an Independent Counsel (Conyers had already called for one at that point). And two, push back against the 1X2X6 feeding frenzy.

      What’s interesting about his treatment NOW is that he tries to hide how freaked out the WH was about the 1X2X6 article. He tries to suggest they didn’t do a massive brainstorming session on September 27 in response to Allen’s request–but if you look at the Condi briefings WO linked to, it’s clear they did.

  2. sasetc says:

    I love the final tally. At the time, I graphed the stock responses in Scotty’s July 11, 2005 briefing. (Man it was great back in the day–when I had time on my hands).


  3. MadDog says:

    Totally OT: Yippppppeeeee!!! I finally can connect again to FireDogLake again!

    Mucho thanks to bmaz, RBG, and the server host folks who helped getting me back here! Man, I’ve been totally jonesing since they moved the server last Wednesday.

      • MadDog says:

        The rain was wet; dare I say very wet?

        The bugs gnawed on us mercilessly as is their wont.

        And while the fish pleaded to jump in our boats, not even that could cure my EW withdrawal cravings. I’m hopelessly addicted, and the pleasure is all mine!

        And how was your sojourn in my fair city?

        Hope we didn’t behave to badly, and if we did, you’ll think of it as the normal aberrant behavior of folks who’ve never seen summer before.

        • emptywheel says:

          It was fun, but rather tough as I had to try to fill in for Christy for a second panel, which is big shoes to fill. We went out to an Italian restaurant that was much nicer than it seemed it would be. And then we went out to some place on Nicollet for a big party–I think that’s place is kind of hip.

          But now I’m tired, hoping to continue braindumping on Scottie McC, and committed to a drive to Lansing tomorrow to do some training.

  4. lokywoky says:

    Dennis Kucinich is on the floor of the House right now delivering 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush.

    It’s Live on C-Span

    • obsessed says:

      Is Kucinich in any way responding to the new McClellan stuff or is this just the standard laundry list of impeachable offenses?

      • JThomason says:

        Its a bill of particulars in law citing the Constitution, federal statutory law, treaty adopted by Congress, the doctrine of jus cogens in international law, with particulars in violations, sundry ultra vires acts, the Pat Tillman matter, the Jessica Lynch propaganda, permanent military bases, failure in body armor and a high sense of comprehensive justice from what I can tell from a partial listening and presented with great and appropriate solemnity.

    • Rayne says:

      I just lost it. Article 14 that Kucinich just read off addressed the crimes related to outing Valerie Plame.

      I never thought I would ever hear those words on the floor of the House.

  5. obsessed says:

    Marcy – how’s about giving us the officical EW betting odds.

    1) What are the odds that the McClellan testimony will actually occur rather than be blocked by the WH?

    2) What are the odds that he’ll say something that results in the Plame investigation being reactivated?

    • emptywheel says:

      1) 90%
      2) Low

      Much more likely is that it’ll lead to more hearings.

      Fitz knows, I’m pretty sure, that Cheney ordered the leak. But he can’t indict that for a number of reasons.

      My best outcome for Scottie McC’s testimony is that he is forced to say that he believes Cheney ordered the leak, which will set off recriminations, and Bush will try to get rid of Cheney, which he can’t do.

      • MadDog says:

        I’ve been ravenously devouring your Scottie posts EW, and it got me to wondering: What is Scottie’s motivation for, not only publishing a Tell-all, but actually agreeing to testify before a Congressional Committe run by the opposition?

        And the most immediate answer is Payback!

        Not against Junya, whom he still seems to idolize, but against Turdblossom. I wonder if Scottie believes knows that Rove was instrumental in getting Scottie fired?

        And that Scottie intends to burn Turdblossom to a crisp should only the right questions be asked.

        • FrankProbst says:

          And the most immediate answer is Payback!

          Not against Junya, whom he still seems to idolize, but against Turdblossom. I wonder if Scottie believes knows that Rove was instrumental in getting Scottie fired?

          And that Scottie intends to burn Turdblossom to a crisp should only the right questions be asked.

          I don’t think it’s vindictiveness so much as setting the record straight. Rove and Libby sent Scottie out to lie his ass off and ruin his own reputation, and I’m guessing they never even bothered to apologize for it. At this point, even Fred Fielding concedes that Libby is a bald-faced liar. You’d think that he could at least call Scott McClellan and say, “Hey, sorry I made you look so unbelievably awful in front of the entire world, just to try to save my own ass. My bad. No hard feelings, okay?”

      • FrankProbst says:

        Fitz knows, I’m pretty sure, that Cheney ordered the leak. But he can’t indict that for a number of reasons.

        My best outcome for Scottie McC’s testimony is that he is forced to say that he believes Cheney ordered the leak, which will set off recriminations, and Bush will try to get rid of Cheney, which he can’t do.

        I’d really like to see the White House try to invoke executive privilege, then have Fitz pipe up and say, “Are you sure about that, Mr President? Because you told me that you never talked to anyone about this, so there shouldn’t be any basis to invoke privilege. Would you care to revise your previous statement?”

        • emptywheel says:

          True. That does add a third dimension to this. I have wondered whether that was why they didn’t invoke EP with Scottie–because they didn’t try to do so during the investigation.

  6. JamesJoyce says:

    “Gliewitz” one Nazi fabrication to justify a preemptive military action to protect “zee” homeland. Hence…. the Blitzkrieg and invasion of Poland!

    How many time can bush/cheney lie and get away with it! The corporate aristocrats who occupy the White House are constitutional usurpationists seeking to protect business interests (oil) at the expense of the republic and the governed, and Iraq. Kucinich is defining the the “Iraq Oil Plot,” and corporate oil interests responsible. Bush forgot our own history, dealing with a king and his corporate cohorts in colonial crime, in Iraq! The prize … the sweet crude beneath Al Anbar. “Corporate Treason” de facto as forewarned by Jefferson.

  7. MadDog says:

    More Totally OT – As reported by the Hill:

    FISA measure tests relationship between Rockefeller and Bond

    Tension is growing between the two senators who shepherded a controversial rewrite of surveillance laws through the Senate, with each dismissing the other’s role in closed-door negotiations to finalize a deal with the House and the Bush administration.

    …“The DNI has not talked to Chairman Rockefeller. I have worked with the intelligence community, the Republican leaders in the House to make the offer that we made to Mr. Hoyer,” Bond said.

    Rockefeller responds: “I have been working with the DNI and with Steny Hoyer, and [Bond] is the one that has not been involved.”

    …Democrats privately say that they have been agitated by Bond’s aggressive style and partisan attacks and that the Republican has tried to insert himself into the process as they delicately attempt a compromise with the administration.

    But Republicans say Rockefeller has created problems by backing away from assurances to keep the Senate bill intact and that his role is now grossly overstated…

    …After The Hill reported Rockefeller’s comments last week, the White House and DNI came to Bond’s defense and issued statements saying that the administration was not holding separate talks with Democrats. Bond has been the point person in trying to break the stalemate, they stated, and they reaffirmed their support of the recent GOP plan.

    Shana Marchio, a Bond spokeswoman, said the administration’s statements “speak for themselves.”

    Marchio said last week that Bond was unaware of Rockefeller’s “direct involvement” in the FISA discussions between the House and Senate.

    When asked about those statements, Rockefeller had this to say: “What I think about that is that they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

    Hmmm…did someone finally come up with the right strategy to stop the Repugs? Pissing on their shoes and telling ‘em, “It’s raining” works for me. *g*

  8. JamesJoyce says:

    Dennis “K” building the case which “Smedley Scott McClellan” has blown wide open. If congress/asslelpahnts have the constitutional testicles to do what is required…. Hold these constitutional usurping bastards accountable now!!

  9. Rayne says:

    What I want to know is how is he doing it? How is it that Kucinich is reading off all 35 articles, and nobody has stopped him?

    He’s obviously prepped for this as the big show; he’s got a very formal tie, white shirt and his most serious suit on.

    I don’t mean to sound like I’m making fun of him; I’m just shocked.

    Still shocked to hear him read off “Article 14, Misprision of a felony…”

    • Hmmm says:

      OT –

      What I want to know is how is he doing it? How is it that Kucinich is reading off all 35 articles, and nobody has stopped him?

      Yes. Incredibly, it’s also not being covered in TradMed at all as far as I can see, after what, 90 minutes? I mean, I’m in Tokyo now so I can’t judge the US TV coverage, but it’s not breaking on the web or the international TV. I think there could be a plan/agreement then, both in the House and in the media. They could vote immediately when Dennis finishes, all before the news even gets out. Wow. The D nomination has been quite a distraction… maybe now is the opportune moment. (Excuse me, I have to go suppress hope now…)

      Oh: And if a bridge should just happen to fall down, or if something colossal should just happen to explode today… well, it wouldn’t necessarily be the first time. I’m just sayin’.

  10. BooRadley says:

    Thanks ew. I had given up hope that I would ever again get to read you addressing these issues. This is so great on so many levels.


  11. JamesJoyce says:

    Smedley Butler……….. “War is a Racket.” 2008 and it is still the same. This is gross………

  12. Minnesotachuck says:

    EPUed on the Condi thread:

    Just finished watching Olberman. First, he played much of the precious tape of the attempted ambush interview of Bill Moyers at the NCMR in Minneapolis this past weekend. Secondly Keith interviewed Scottie after his forthcoming June 20 appearance before the HJC had been announced earlier today. It sounded like he’s going to let it all hang out. Beer and popcorn please.

  13. Rayne says:

    Damn, so many threads to pull and unravel at the same time.

    What’s the chances that Unisys was one of the telecom service providers that assisted with domestic spying? The amount that Kucinich just said they overbilled on a no-bid TSA contract was ghastly, to the point where one wonders what they were really providing.

    Is this an effort to flood the zone? Force the White House to answer so many questions at once that they utterly lose control of their message? I can’t believe the House Dems would be this organized…

    • strider7 says:

      At the very least,Kucinich will know in his heart that he tried to expose the issues and consequently,if this again proves to be ineffective that the whole fucking system is resposible.

  14. JamesJoyce says:

    “extraordinary rendition” fascist tactics “Imagining Argentina” or America, can’t imagine it, will not accept it, bush is a criminal….

  15. FrankProbst says:

    Random thoughts from the last few threads:

    What happens if the White House invokes executive privilege and both Congress and Scottie simply ignore it? They can even send a little note to the DOJ saying, “We’re going to hold off on referring this complaint to you at this time, because we understand how busy you are enforcing all of our prior subpoenas.”

    The 1×2×6 article has come up again, which I’ve always found intriguing. Clearly, someone on the inside was pissed off enough to blow the whistle to the press AT THE TIME OF THE LEAK. I’m most interested in that person’s testimony, because they were obviously disgusted by what was going on, and they seemed to know quite well what WAS going on.

    • MadDog says:

      Excellent point. I wonder if EW would consider a pool on who the 1×2×6 SAO was?

      Twasn’t Richard Clarke since he left in January 2003 and the 1×2×6 WaPo article came out in September 2003.

      How about the DC Gossip – Richard Armitage? Probably not since how could he be morally pissed as reported by the 1×2×6 WaPo article if he was spilling the same beans to WaPo’s Woody?

      Could it be George Tenet? Hmmm…probably not since he still had a crush on Junya.

      How about Colin Powell? Maybe, but I think not. Colin is too conflicted with being a good soldier.

      How about Colin’s Chief of Staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson? Getting warmer!

      Who else?

      • MadDog says:

        Forgot a key player who would fit the bill:

        FBI Director Robert Mueller who tops my list of folks who talk to journos and who would certainly know about the CIA’s complaints.

      • Rayne says:

        Thought there was a pool at one point, of a sort, when Swopa and EW had different permutations of the 1×2×6 composition.

        But I can’t find it as there’s more than 81 different internet entries out there dissecting the 1×2×6.

        • emptywheel says:

          I’d have to let Swopa speak for whom he thought 1 was. But if I’m not mistaken he argued that 2 were Ari and Bartlett.

          I think the news that Allen’s source (often believed to be Adam Levine) knew–but would only share off the record–who 2 were, and Allen promptly called Rove, I thin Rove is one of the 2. Now, since Ari purportedly got counsel after READING the 1X2X6 article, it’s possible that he was, with Rove, 2.

          But I think that Allen called the other person before he wrote his article. that could still be Ari (in which case he would have gotten counsel before the article came out, but in response to it). But I think, given McC’s reluctance to exonerate Libby, it’s Libby.

          • Rayne says:

            I’m pretty sure that was the bone of contention:

            EW > 1 x (Rove, Libby) x 6

            Swopa > 1 x (Ari, uncertain) x 6, with uncertain being Bartlett

            but I can’t find the post with the exchange where Swopa named Barlett, only your comment where you said you thought Swopa was (Ari, unnamed).

            Will keep digging, bugging me now because there was sooo much back and forth on that with Jeff and polly and so many others.

            • Rayne says:

              Sh*t, no wonder I’m confused. Swopa had a an early theory in 2006 that died, somehow based upon “immaculate dissemination”, another subsequent theory wherein Bartlett was one of the 2, and then I think another later variant where Bartlett was both 1of2 and 2of2 — was confusing then, still very confusing now, still not certain I have that right.

              Would be lovely to have our little chubby-cheeked cherub from Texas simply purge his soul to Conyers and the HJC and make all speculation go away.

  16. Hmmm says:

    Thx MadDog & bobschact. So HJC would have to vote the Cheney articles and refer them to the floor before the House could vote on Cheney? I wonder, is HJC in session right now by any chance?

    • bobschacht says:

      First of all, the HJC (or more likely, one of its subcommittees) would have to initiate hearings on impeachment. To do that, they usually need a resolution referred from the Floor, and we’ve already got that for Cheney, in the form of Kucinich’s previous resolution. They don’t yet have a reso on Bush, though I suspect that’s what Kucinich is attempting to do today.

      Then the HJC (sub)committee needs to hold hearings and collect evidence. This is an extremely important step, as it airs to public view the specific charges and the evidence for them. The committee can vote each article up or down. If a bunch of articles are approved by a subcommittee, then the approved articles are forwarded to the entire committee for consideration. The HJC as a whole can then debate and vote on each article, and then can send the approved articles to the House floor. Of course, Pelosi controls what happens after that, and she might choose not to bring the articles even to the floor for debate. Or she can allow the articles to be considered on the House Floor.

      At this point, the most important thing is the hearings by the committee. With their enhanced powers of investigation that are automatic with impeachment proceedings, this can produce for the public record a clear set of offenses, much like Sen. Ervin’s Senate Select Committee did in the Senate during Watergate. These hearings would attract lots of media coverage that the MSM could not fail to notice. And that is what needs to happen, IMHO.

      Bob in HI

      • darclay says:

        Pelosi should be charged with failure to do her duty as Speker of the House(in the real world).

      • Hmmm says:

        I don’t disagree with the wisdom of your analysis. But speaking only procedurally, they could vote to impeach on the strength of the evidence that Dennis is reading into the record, could they not? And collect then the evidence and air it in hearings after the House impeachment vote, but before the Senate trial?

        • bobschacht says:

          No, IIRC. Once the House votes to impeach, their articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate, and the role of the House ends.

          If they voted up or down on Kucinich’s articles, without having any hearings, or collecting any evidence, the motion would probably fail, and the opportunity to shine light in all the dark corners will have been lost.

          Bob in HI

  17. urbanempire says:


    Marcy, I’m extremely interested to now your thoughts on the, just submitted, letter and affidavit by Omar Khadr’s lawyer to the SCOTUS. Khadr’s lawyer says that while preparing for Khadr’s military commissions trial, he stumbled across an unclassified portion of Schmidt-Furlow report regarding the Tiger Team in which Guantanamo interrogators were told to destroy any notes regarding the interrogations. This might have a big impact on the upcoming Boumediene decision, because on the key questions is whether the CSRT process is an adequate remedy instead of habeas. But as the letter notes, how can the CSRTs be even remotely adequate if interrogators are intentionally destroying notes that contain relevant information pertaining to the detainee?

  18. whitewidow says:

    Rayne, I’m feeling like you are. It’s pretty surreal listening to the 35 articles of impeachment while reading a very weedy emptywheel post on the Plame leak.

    Then to have him start talking about Whitehouse and pixie dust. (well, he didn’t say pixie dust, but he was outlining the EO’s that are double secret)

    What strikes me while listening is how substantial each and every article is. These are just the “35 worst”. I mean, if you went by the Clinton rules, there could be 1000 articles. Not that we didn’t all know that. But it seems kind of big to me to be hearing it all on the House floor.

  19. Mauimom says:

    Marcy, I hope the HJC makes a contribution to FDL/EW in the amount of the salary of a committee staffer/investigator. You’ve certainly done the work [that they should have done before the last hearing, and hopefully will utilize before this one]. They could show their gratitude by helping to keep FDL up & humming. Seems there’s always a new need for it!

    • Hmmm says:

      They probably can’t do that. But here’s an idea: Congressional Medal of Honor for EW. Pass it on.

  20. Minnesotachuck says:

    I just checked the websites of the three major TV networks in the TC area (I don’t count Faux as a “major”) plus the Strib and none of them has a single word about Kucinich’s speech.

  21. Rayne says:

    Okay, here’s Swopa explaining his long-time theory:

    …Swopa’s 1×2×6 theory has long been that the WaPo’s source heard Ari Fleischer and Dan Bartlett calling 6 or more reporters from Air Force One on July 12, 2003 (and leaking about Plame during those conversations).

    Fleischer acknowledged during Libby’s trial that he and Bartlett in fact did call multiple journalists from Air Force One on July 12th (something that had never been reported, except in my theorizing), and Walter Pincus testified that Ari told him about Plame during the call he received.

    Fleischer wasn’t asked about what he said to any other reporters (he claimed he didn’t leak to Pincus, which is obviously wrong), and Bartlett wasn’t questioned. But based on the circumstantial evidence, it seems pretty clear that I was right.

  22. Rayne says:

    OT — Kucinich on Article 31, failure to respond to Katrina. He is very riled up; you can tell this particular article really gets under his skin.

    So very sad.

  23. darclay says:

    EW did you help Kucinich compile all of this, sound like your organizational mind at work?

  24. Rayne says:

    Kucinich done, asks that Cummings, Woolsey, Defazio, Kaptur be allowed to extend remarks when next convened — but it looks like the day is adjourned, and that the articles were submitted without a resolution…??

    what happens next??

Comments are closed.