It was bad enough that PFIAB member and Bush uber-donor Ray Hunt was doing business in Kurdistan. That put one of the President’s top private advisors on intelligence, someone who has access to a great deal of classified intelligence, and someone whose privately held company evades all kinds of public scrutiny, setting up shop in Iraq and potentially contributing to its destabilization.

But now we learn that Richard Perle has joined Hunt in the oil rush in Kurdistan (h/t egregious).

Mr. Perle, one of a group of security experts who began pushing the case for toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein about a decade ago, has been discussing a possible deal with officials of northern Iraq’s Kurdistan regional government, including its Washington envoy, according to these people and the documents.

It would involve a tract called K18, near the Kurdish city of Erbil, according to documents describing the plan.

It’s bad enough that the former Defense Policy Board Chair and one of the big champions of the war is looking to get rich off of Kurdistan’s oil. More troubling, though, is that he’s doing so via a company that seems to be the pure incarnation of the kinds of dubious Turkish ties that Sibel Edmonds has talked about.

A consortium founded by Turkish company AK Group International is seeking rights to drill there, the documents say. Potential backers include two Turkish companies as well as Kazakhstan, according to individuals involved.

AK’s chief executive is Aydan Kodaloglu, who, like Mr. Perle, has been involved with the American Turkish Council, an advocacy group in Washington. She didn’t respond to requests for comment. Phyllis Kaminsky, who identified herself as the U.S. contact for Ms. Kodaloglu, said she herself was aware of the drilling plan but referred questions about it to Mr. Perle.

"Richard would know the most," Ms. Kaminsky said. "He is involved, I know that."

Without going too deeply into Edmonds’ allegations, let me just say by far the best treatment I’ve seen of it is Chris Floyd’s piece seeing the murky relationships that Edmonds reported to be an outgrowth of (I’d say a reincarnation of) the amorphous networks of influence, money laundering, legally sanctioned covert ops, illegal ops, and arms deals normally referred to as BCCI. I’ve seen evidence (regarding Brewster and Jennings) that seems to refute some things Edmonds has said; I’ve seen reasons to believe she was describing an entire world as viewed through one slat of the blinds on a picture window; and I’ve seen Chuck Grassley, a champion of whistle blowers, move on from Edmonds’ case. Which suggests many things. But all of it still means that Perle’s ties to the Turks are a quasi-spooky nexus of power and influence.

And now, courtesy of the well-connected Richard Perle, the Turkish company AK Group is now dabbling in Kurdistan, the home base of Kurdish forces that–Turkey insists–are a threat to Turkish security.

It does make you wonder whether the State Department, while still ostensibly discouraging deals with Kurdistan, is helping AK Group find deals like they were with Hunt Oil? It almost makes you think the Bush Administration is encouraging these kinds of deals, doesn’t it?

TPMM and LAT elaborate on what I reported yesterday–that the anti-gay discrimination described in yesterday’s Monica Goodling report was targeted at Margaret Chiara and Leslie Hagen. Both have interviews with Hagen’s attorney; the LAT did an interview with Chiara herself. And together, the LAT interviews describe the gossip-mongering of a few people within the USA office in Grand Rapids providing both the rumors that the women were in a gay relationship–and that Chiara’s management had created morale problems in Grand Rapids.

The report describes an alleged "sexual relationship" between a career prosecutor and a U.S. attorney, who were not named. Margaret M. Chiara, the former U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., said in an interview with The Times that she now believed she was fired because of the erroneous belief that she was having a relationship with career prosecutor Leslie Hagen.

"I could not begin to understand how I found myself sharing the misfortune of my former colleagues," Chiara said of the eight other U.S. attorneys who were fired. "Now I understand."

Justice officials said after her firing that Chiara was let go because of mismanagement and because she had caused morale in her office to sink. Chiara said Monday she believed those concerns were raised by the same people who spread rumors about her and Hagen. [my emphasis]

Most troubling, though, is the suggestion from Lisa Banks, Hagen’s attorney, that the attorneys who started those rumors eventually won jobs at Main Justice.

Banks said she believed the rumors were started by other attorneys in the Grand Rapids office who eventually landed jobs at the Justice Department in Washington. [my emphasis]

How convenient. Someone plays to Monica Goodling’s narrow-mindedness and gives her a reason to fire Chiara–and they get moved up to DC. I wonder if they share an office with Rachel Paulose?

Over a year and a half has passed since Margaret Chiara was fired with a bunch of other US Attorneys–and we still have no good explanation why she was targeted. The apparent reason, though, is a rumor that she was having a gay relationship with an AUSA in her office, traveled with her on the government dime, and gave her preferential bonuses.

But today’s Monica Goodling report includes a denial from Chiara and the AUSA–Leslie Hagen–that they were in a relationship.

The AUSA told us that the rumors were false and that she was not involved in a sexual relationship with her U.S. Attorney. Similarly, the U.S. Attorney denied that she and the AUSA were involved in a sexual relationship.

We know these two are Chiara and Hagen because the details line up perfectly with Chiara’s description of learning that Hagen’s EOUSA detail on the Native American Issues Subcommittee would not be extended.

Here’s a description of the incident from today’s report.

In October 2005, an AUSA was detailed to EOUSA to work on Native American issues. She had been an AUSA since 2002, and had previously been a Republican elected office holder in her home state. As discussed below, we found evidence that, in part on the basis of this AUSA’s alleged sexual orientation, Goodling prevented an extension of the AUSA’s detail in EOUSA, attempted to prevent her from obtaining a detail to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and attempted to prevent her from obtaining a position with the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW).

A. EOUSA Detail
In the summer of 2006, the AUSA’s supervisor at EOUSA, Dan Villegas, offered her an extension of her EOUSA detail, which she accepted. Later, in October 2006, Villegas and the U.S. Attorney for whom she had worked told the AUSA that her EOUSA detail would not be extended. Villegas told the AUSA that EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki had been instructed by Goodling not to extend the detail. The AUSA said that Villegas also told her this was a political decision and was not based on her performance. In fact, the AUSA’s 2006 performance appraisal, which covered her detail at EOUSA, rated her performance as “Outstanding” on all performance elements, the highest possible appraisal.

Villegas told us that the AUSA had done a great job and he wanted to extend her detail. He said he asked Deputy Director Nowacki to extend the detail, but Nowacki said he would have to check. Villegas did not specify with whom Nowacki had to consult.

Nowacki told us that he asked Goodling whether the AUSA’s detail should be extended, and Gooding said that it should be terminated.

Nowacki said that when he raised the issue of the AUSA’s detail extension with Gooding, he told Goodling that he did not have a problem extending it because “everyone says she does a great job, she’s well regarded.” Nowacki said that Goodling told him that EOUSA details should only be for 1 year. Nowacki said that Goodling then brought up the issue of the AUSA’s “relationship in progress” with her U.S. Attorney “and made it clear just that she thought that was inappropriate.”

Nowacki said that Goodling’s decision was based, at least in part on the allegations that the detailee and her (female) U.S. Attorney were involved in a sexual relationship. Nowacki said he informed Villegas that the detail would not be extended because of a new EOUSA policy that strictly limited details to 1 year.

Villegas told us he did not believe Nowacki’s explanation for the termination of the detail because Villegas was aware of only two people whose details ended after 1 year – this detailee and another detailee from the same USAO. [my emphasis]

And here’s Chiara’s description from last year’s document dumps.

October 22, 2006: Chiara writes Mercer to complain that EOUSA has backed out on its promise to fund Leslie Hagen as the primary liaison to NAIS.

I met with Dan Villegas. … He informed me that he was no longer able to honor his previously stated commitment to renew Leslie Hagen’s detail through which she primarily serves as liaison to NAIS and to federally recognized tribes and other Indian communities nationwide.

[snip]

What is critical about this situation is the absolute necessity to continue Leslie’s service in her capacity as IC/NAIS liaison. She has spent a year establishing difficult to forge constructive contacts throughout IC [Indian Country].

[snip]

It has taken me almost a year to recoup from Tom Heffelfinger’s tenure as chair with EOUSA/AGAC. I have accomplished this with Leslie’s assistance because she goes almost everywhere and does almost everything that Tom believed that he had to do personally. Dan Villegas … has a directive from Monica Goodling that detailees will no longer be renewed for a second or subsequent year. [my emphasis]

Both include the details that Villegas extended an offer to renew Hagen’s detail, but then, in October 2006 rescinded the offer because Monica Goodling had declared that detailees should not serve more than one year. Which makes it clear that Hagen is the AUSA and Chiara the USA in question.

Now, if the rumor was in fact false, it sure was widespread. I heard the rumor from an AUSA here in Michigan (though not one from the same USA Office). And the rumor appears to be the reason David Margolis–no political hack–supported Chiara’s firing. Margolis lists Chiara, with Kevin Ryan, as the only USAs fired in December 2006 for performance reasons.

MR. BHARARA: Was that third person you have just been describing among the eight people who were ultimately asked to resign last year?

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes.

MR. BHARARA: And who was that?

MR. MARGOLIS: Margaret Chiara.

When asked what he considers performance reasons, he includes an affair with a subordinate.

And it could be having an affairs with a subordinate and treating that subordinate more favorably than other people, creating problems in the office.

Which sure seems to reflect the allegations about Chiara and Hagen.

But they deny the rumor, as part of a DOJ investigation. Was the rumor false?

The "Monica Goodling Report" makes it clear that the Bush Administration changed the hiring process for immigration judges not only to ensure judges would be tough on immigration, but to create a slew of patronage jobs they could offer to loyal Republicans. At one point, Monica’s predecessor at DOJ as White House Liaison, Jan Williams, pledged immigration judge slots as if part of some kind of lottery–"let the games begin!"

On May 17, 2005, Williams received an e-mail from the White House Office of Political Affairs addressed to White House Liaisons in agencies throughout the executive branch. The e-mail urged the White House Liaisons to “get creative” and find positions for more than 100 “priority candidates” who “have loyally served the President.” The White House also sought from each White House Liaison a “pledge of the number of the 108 priority candidates you can place at your agency.” In a follow-up e-mail, the White House reiterated that “we simply want to place as many of our Bush loyalists as possible.” The context of the emails made plain that the positions sought were political, non-career slots. On May 19, 2005, Williams responded: “We pledge 7 slots within 40 days and 40 nights. Let the games begin!”

As you can imagine, lotteries of hack Republicans don’t necessarily result in qualified candidates. But some of the ones described in the report rival Michael Brown in their lack of qualifications for the position.

On candidate described in the report has been described in earlier reporting–a New Hampshire GOP operative and former Judd Gregg campaign treasurer, Francis Cramer, who failed to get a job as a tax judge.

The first example of a direct appointment in which Sampson referred an IJ candidate to EOIR involved an attorney who served as the campaign treasurer for a Republican Senator from New Hampshire. The campaign treasurer had been nominated to the U.S. Tax Court by President Bush in 2001, and Sampson was the person at the White House who was assigned to “shepherd” the candidate through the nomination process. The nomination was not successful, and the candidate was appointed to a political position in the DOJ Tax Division.

In October 2003 the candidate approached an official in the OAG to inquire about IJ positions, and learned that Sampson was in charge of IJ hiring.

Shortly thereafter, the candidate spoke with Sampson by telephone. In January 2004, the candidate learned that he would be interviewed by EOIR for an IJ position. An EOIR official told us that he learned that the candidate had already been offered a position before he came to EOIR for his interview. The subsequent recommendation from EOIR to appoint the candidate as an IJ was sent to Baxter in the ODAG on February 19, 2004. In an internal Department e-mail dated March 18, 2004 to the Justice Management Division, Department White House Liaison Susan Richmond noted that the candidate would soon be
appointed and commented: “could you . . . advise [the] Sen. . . . of this? This is the issue he’d been pushing with us.” The candidate was appointed as an IJ on April 4, 2004.

For example, the White House reached out to a Republican Congressman, and on June 7, 2005, the Congressman’s staff sent an email to the White House recommending a candidate, described as a “great Republican,” for an IJ position in New York. On June 15, 2005, the White House forwarded that e-mail to Williams, adding that the candidate was a “long time donor to the local GOP,” and that local Republican Party officials would vouch for him. Williams forwarded the candidate’s name to EOIR.

Then there’s the one candidate the Executive Office for Immigration Review managed to refuse–who sounds like he’s a Republican frat boy who never had to interview seriously for a job before.

For example, the White House reached out to a Republican Congressman, and on June 7, 2005, the Congressman’s staff sent an email to the White House recommending a candidate, described as a “great Republican,” for an IJ position in New York. On June 15, 2005, the White House forwarded that e-mail to Williams, adding that the candidate was a “long time donor to the local GOP,” and that local Republican Party officials would vouch for him. Williams forwarded the candidate’s name to EOIR.

EOIR resisted this candidate proposed by the OAG. This was the only time we found that EOIR resisted any OAG candidate. In an e-mail dated December 7, 2005, Ohlson advised Williams that the candidate’s conduct during his EOIR interview “causes us to question whether he possesses the appropriate judicial temperament and demeanor to serve as an immigration judge.” Ohlson related that the candidate used profanity during the interview, acted abrasively, and when asked whathis greatest weakness was, responded “Blondes.”

And, finally, there’s one more candidate Williams tried to get hired during her lottey of Republican hacks–who was under investigation for misconduct.

Three weeks later, on July 7, 2005, Williams transmitted to EOIR the names of eight candidates for specific IJ positions. Ohlson responded the same day in an e-mail, noting that one of the named candidates was under investigation by the Department for professional misconduct,

Mind you, only one of these three is now serving as an immigration judge (though click through to last year’s WaPo piece to see the other kinds of hacks who are still serving as immigration judges). Yet had Bush had his way, all three of these geniuses would currently be in a permanent position

The DOJ IG report provides more details than we’ve seen before of Monica Goodling’s entire work history. And when you look at it, it’s pretty damn clear that her primary purpose at DOJ was to politicize the department.

Here are the details the report gives. As we knew, Monica’s first job out of law school was doing oppo research for the RNC:

From 1999 to February 2002, she worked for the Republican National Committee (RNC) where she held the positions of research analyst, senior analyst, and deputy director for research and strategic planning. Among her duties was what she described on her résumé as “a broad range of political research.”

Her first job at DOJ was spin–working in the Public Affairs department with Libby’s future PR flack Barbara Comstock and Rove’s future PR flack Mark Corallo:

According to Goodling’s résumé, while at OPA she worked closely with the OAG regarding public communications about the Department’s work, including media events, press releases, speeches, and talking points.

Then, they shipped her across the Potomoc for a short sting in a US Attorney’s office–so she’d look like a "real" lawyer when future promotions became available.

In September 2004, Goodling began a 6-month detail as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the USAO for the Eastern District of Virginia, where she handled criminal felony and misdemeanor cases.

I believe the use of  "handled" here does not include actually "handling" anything in a courtroom–as I recall Monica testified before Congress she had no real prosecutorial experience.

But here’s the real tip-off about Monia’s career: they created a brand new political Deputy Director of EOUSA for her to move into in March 2005–at which position they had her approving waivers for AUSA hires requested by interim US Attorneys. 

The political Schedule C Deputy Director position for Goodling was a new position within EOUSA. Contemporaneous e-mails of senior managers within the OAG and ODAG indicate that OAG personnel approved Goodling’s appointment as a political Deputy Director.

Then finally, they institutionalized and expanded this institutionalized political hiring and firing function by moving it to the Attorney General’s office.

Goodling’s major responsibility as White House Liaison was to interview and process applicants for political positions in the Department. In that job, she also interviewed and was involved in the selection of career attorneys who were candidates for temporary details to various Department offices, and candidates for immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals positions. In addition, Goodling continued to process waiver requests by interim U.S. Attorneys, although neither of her predecessors as White House Liaison, Susan Richmond and Jan Williams, had done so.

In other words, it seems the primary purpose of her career at DOJ was to create new levels of politicization in key positions.

Apparently, in Monica Goodling’s world, Democrats are scarier than terrorists. That’s the only thing I can conclude from the news that Goodling even politicized the hiring of am EOUSA counter-terrorism position, resulting in the US being served by an unqualified hack rather than someone who knew something about terrorism.

For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife’s political affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the position.

In a post 9/11 world, how did this go unmentioned? And what does President Bush plan to do about the fact that this woman helped the terrorists win?

The Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office has released another of its reports on the politicization of DOJ under Bush. This one ought to be called the Monica Goodling report, as it focuses on her litmus test hiring. I’ll post some updates on the details, but here is the conclusion:

In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs, which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.

Not only did this process violate the law and Department policy, it also caused significant delays in appointing IJs. These delays increased the burden on the immigration courts, which already were experiencing an increased workload and a high vacancy rate. EOIR Deputy Director Ohlson repeatedly requested candidate names to address the growing number of vacancies, with little success. As a result of the delay in providing candidates, the Department was unable to timely fill the large numbers of vacant IJ positions.

We also concluded that Goodling committed misconduct when she provided inaccurate information to a Civil Division attorney who was defending a lawsuit brought by an unsuccessful IJ candidate. Goodling told the attorney that she did not take political factors into consideration in connection with IJ hiring, which was not accurate.

In addition, we concluded that Williams provided inaccurate information to us concerning her Internet research activities.

Because Goodling, Sampson, and Williams have resigned from the Department, they are no longer subject to discipline by the Department for their actions described in this report. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Department consider the findings in this report should they apply in the future for another position with the Department.

In addition, we concluded that EOUSA Deputy Director John Nowacki committed misconduct by drafting a proposed Department response to a media inquiry which he knew was inaccurate. Although Nowacki knew that Goodling had used political and ideological affiliations to assess career attorney candidates for EOUSA detail positions, he drafted a media statement in which the Department would have denied the allegations. Nowacki is still employed by the Department. Therefore, we recommend that the Department consider appropriate discipline for him based upon the evidence in this report.

Hey! Good news! We might actually get to fire someone over this–John Nowacki, who is still employed by DOJ, just got caught lying about Goodling’s practices. Though, in Mukasey’s statement on the report, he somehow forgot to mention that he was going to fire Nowacki for covering up his colleague’s illegal activities.

Even as I commend the hard work and collaboration of the Justice Department’s Offices of Inspector General and Professional Responsibility on today’s report, I am of course disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees. I have said many times, both to members of the public and to Department employees, it is neither permissible nor acceptable to consider political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees. And I have acted, and will continue to act, to ensure that my words are translated into reality so that the conduct described in this report does not occur again at the Department.

Over the course of the last year and a half, the Justice Department has made many institutional changes to remedy the problems discussed in today’s report, and the report itself commends these changes. The report includes one new recommendation for institutional change, and I have directed the prompt implementation of that recommendation. It is crucial that the American people have confidence in the propriety of what we do and how we do it, and I will continue my efforts to make certain they can have such confidence.

I guess that means we’ll just have to try to get Sampson and Goodling and Nowacki disbarred based on this report.

Update: Conyers and Sanchez are considering a criminal referral for perjury.  I’m still reading the report, but I bet this would be a tough thing to pull off, since Sampson did admit Goodling’s politicization of Immigration Judges, and Monica admitted to it all. 

Alright. Admittedly this discovery is rather dated. But hell–what are blogs for, if not to rehash that old Aspen letter Libby sent Judy in September 2005? Especially if, after rehashing the letter, you discover that Bob Novak may be there hiding among the Aspen trees?

Back when I first analyzed the letter, I compared how Libby’s description of the testimony of journalists matched up against published accounts about that testimony.

Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.

I compared that statement to the public reports from Tim Russert and Matt Cooper and agreed (after some coaching from readers), that Russert "did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with [Libby]" and Cooper "knew about her before [Libby’s] call." Surprise! Even in a cryptic letter, it appeared, Libby was being transparent and honest with Judy. Which struck me as rather suspicious–that Libby might tell such transparent truths in such cryptic language.

But I did that analysis a month before I first speculated that Libby had spoken to Bob Novak the week of the leak, and a full year before Libby’s and Novak’s conversation on July 9 was confirmed in court filings. That is, when Libby wrote the Aspen letter, we didn’t know that Novak was among the journalists who had testified about a conversation with Libby, but Libby knew it. And if my reading of the script Libby sent Judy via Steno Sue and Pool Boy was correct, then Judy would have known about the conversation, though not that Novak had testified. As a reminder, here’s how I first speculated that Libby and Novak had spoken:

Steno Sue’s Secret Message
The morning Judy testified the first time to the Grand Jury, one of Libby’s allies managed to get the following passage inserted into the newspaper that will replace the NYT as the nation’s newspaper of record.

[snip]

The Novak Surprise
Now we come to far and away the most curious part of this coaching session:

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

Is this still a message for Judy? Why would Libby’s friend need to remind Judy that Libby hadn’t spoken to Novak in the case? Unless she knew that he had spoken to Novak? I think it highly possible that Libby’s friend is telling Judy not to mention the fact that she knew Libby spoke to Novak about this case.

On the morning Judy testified, one of Libby’s friends inserted a script for Judy into the WaPo (which Judy testified at trial to preferring over the NYT), telling her not to let on that she knew Libby had spoken to Novak "about the case." Before trial, it was not clear to me exactly when Libby would have told Judy about his conversation with Novak. But since we learned that Richard Hohlt sent Rove a copy of Novak’s column on July 11–the day before Libby and Judy spoke twice by phone about these issues–it is possible that Libby told Judy about Novak’s column on July 12, warning her she had just a few days to scoop Novak on the Plame story he had given her earlier in the week.

With our knowledge now that Libby knew that Novak had testified and that public reports of Novak’s testimony protected Libby entirely, and the supposition that Judy knew Novak and Libby had spoken–but not that he had testified, read the passage from the Aspen letter pertaining to Libby’s earlier conversations with journalists.

As you know, in January 2004 I waived the privilege for purposes of allowing certain reporters identified by the Special Counsel to testify before the Grand Jury about any discussions I may have had related to the Wilson-Plame matter. The Special Counsel identified every reporter with whom I had spoken about anything in July 2003, including you. My counsel then called counsel for each of the reporters, including yours, and confirmed that my waiver was voluntary.

[snip]

As noted above, my lawyer confirmed my waiver to other reporters in just the way he did with your lawyer. Why? Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call. I waived the privilege voluntarily to cooperate with the Grand Jury, but also because the reporters’ testimony served my best interests. I believed a year ago, as now, that testimony by all will benefit all. [my emphasis]

If you’re Judy, reading this in jail, you learn two vitally important pieces of information from this cryptic passage. First, that Fitzgerald had identified every reporter–everyone–that Libby had spoken to in July 2003. If I’m right and Judy knew that Libby had spoken to Novak, she would have known from this that Fitzgerald had discovered Libby’s and Novak’s conversation. In addition, Judy would have some reason to believe that Novak testified that he "did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity" with Libby "or" that Novak "knew about her before our call." As it turns out, Novak both testified that he did not discussion Plame’s name or identity with Libby, and testified that he knew about Plame before Novak’s call with Libby. Now this passage seems to serve a hidden purpose more appropriate to its cryptic tone.

Particularly since Plame’s name and identity are two of the elements of Novak’s story that have changed over time, which are currently explained only through Novak’s dubious claims about "Who’s Who" and congressional campaigns in Wyoming. And particularly since we know that Libby was planting precisely that information–Plame’s name and identity–with Ari Fleischer a day before Libby spoke with Judy and two days before Libby spoke with Novak.

When Fitzgerald asked Judy about the Aspen letter, he focused on two passages in particular. There was the passage that said, "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," and which Judy explained away as a reference to a chance meeting she had with Libby in August 2003. If you read my book, you know that when I asked Judy whether she had also seen Cheney on that trip to Jackson Hole, she did not answer the question (it was the only question she did not answer at all).

But Fitzgerald also asked Judy about the line about Plame’s name and identity.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me," Mr. Libby wrote.

The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words. I replied that this portion of the letter had surprised me because it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame’s identity. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job.

If you didn’t suspect that Judy knew about Novak’s and Libby’s conversation, you might well believe that this passage was an effort to coach Judy to say Libby had not spoken about Plame’s identity–and it may well be that and nothing more, though that wouldn’t explain why Libby’s message here conflicts with the message in the Steno Sue/Pool Boy script. But if you suspected that Judy knew that Libby had told Novak Plame’s name and identity, then the passage might read like a code to tell her that Novak had managed to cover up Libby’s role in leaking Plame’s name and identity.

In either case, with the knowledge that Novak would have been included in that reference to "every reporter with whom I had spoken about anything in 2003," it sure does seem like Novak is one key to deciphering the Aspen letter.

I know, I know, a lot of you want me to talk about Rove in Ohio. But I’ve been distracted with something else so I haven’t had a chance to assess it yet, and anyway, I’ve been pondering this assessment from Scott Horton:

The ultimate problem here is that Mukasey is not paying attention to the matter. Instead he is relying on political flaks at the Justice Department to prepare answers on his behalf, trodding down the same path that destroyed the careers of Alberto Gonzales and Paul McNulty. He has allowed himself to be roped into a series of incorrect statements about specific aspects of the Siegelman investigation. Michael Mukasey needs to recognize that he has brought his tenure at the Justice Department to the edge of a precipice.

Horton is talking, specifically, about the Siegelman investigation in general, but I suspect Horton is right on the money, and not just as it pertains to Siegelman (heck! maybe it pertains to the Ohio allegation as well…).

To support that argument, I point to two exchanges in Mukasey’s testimony before the House Judiciary the other day which suggest he’s not being informed of key issues that Congress regards as critical. First, there was his admission that he only recently realized–presumably between his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he refused to guarantee that Congress would learn the results, and that before HJC, when he said Congress would "absolutely" learn the results–that Congress itself requested the OPR investigation of the Siegelman affair.

Davis: Can we see OPR report?

MM: Absolutely. Congress was the complainant. Complainant always informed. If finding of misconduct, then you’ll get the report.

It is inconceivable to me that Mukasey didn’t go into the SJC hearing expecting a question about the Siegelman affair, if for no other reason than all the chatter pertaining to his Siegelman-related subpoena from HJC at the time. But no one thought to inform the Attorney General two key facts: that Congress had requeted the investigation and that, therefore, Congress would be guaranteed to learn of its results. Now, to some degree, this was just bad staff work on the part of DOJ, a failure to prepare for an obvious question. But the effect was to put Mukasey into an antagonistic relationship with Congress, defending something (hiding the results of the OPR investigation) that put the AG into an unnecessarily confrontational position.

Then there’s Mukasey’s claim that the President invoked "Executive Privilege" with regards to Rove’s testimony.

Mukasey: As I understand it, Mr. Rove acted at the request of the President in response to the invocation of Executive Privilege. He has offered to meet with staff, he has offered to discuss the matter–

Now, granted, this is a more ambiguous case of apparent sheer ignorance about a topic bound to come up in a hearing. Perhaps Mukasey was referring to executive privilege more generally, the general concept that the executive branch gets certain privileges which may or may not include the authority to blow off Congress altogether. Or maybe Bush did invoke traditional Executive Privilege without telling Congress. Still, Mukasey’s statement risked mis-stating the actual facts of the case–and you’d think he would have been better prepared for this question. Unless, of course, he was unprepared by design.

Which is why I think Horton’s assessment may well be right on the money–Mukasey’s political subordinates are deliberately keeping him compartmentalized from some of this information. If true, it would be a pretty remarkable tactic, huh? Keep the Attorney General out of the loop with regards to evidence that Karl Rove had (and presumably still) had politicized DOJ. And by doing so, prevent him from actually realizing the extent of the politicization?

I speculated the other day that Bob Novak’s Plame leak brokers in the Off the Record Club–specifically, top McCain aides Charlie Black and Ken Duberstein–were using him as a tool again when they leaked that McCain was about to name his running-mate.

Well, lo and behold, guess who’s now on the record, once again pitching an imminent announcement of McCain’s running mate?

Anxious to counter the blanket media coverage that has followed Sen. Barack Obama on his overseas journey, Sen. John McCain is weighing whether to announce his running mate in the coming weeks before the spotlight shifts to China and the opening of the Olympic Games next month.

"He’s in a position to make [the decision] on short notice if he wanted to," said Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain’s top political advisers.

Two top aides to the presumptive Republican nominee said the decision is likely to be announced after Obama returns from Europe on Sunday and before the Beijing Olympics begin Aug. 8. They said the campaign fears that unanticipated events coming out of China — whether in the form of athletic accomplishments or human rights protests — could deflect attention from the announcement if it were made during the Games. [my emphasis]

And if you compare this on the record story with what Novak was told–"they didn’t want it to come out the way it was going to come out"–both stories seem designed to pressure McCain not to announce his running mate when he currently plans to announce.

Many Republicans say the traditional time frame for an announcement — the days leading up to the GOP convention — is not practical this year, because the Democratic convention ends so soon before the Republican gathering. It’s unlikely, they said, that McCain would announce his pick the day after Obama gives his convention speech.

And several McCain aides said they oppose the idea of making a vice presidential announcement during the Olympics.

That, and I’m sure Charlie Black and friends are desperate to get whathisname back in the press, now that Obama’s sucking up all the media’s attention. How many more times do you think Charlie Black is going to try this ploy, before someone labels him the Boy Who Cried "Veep!"?