Cannonfire is right. People have gotten way too excited over this Scottie McC "revelation." I’d advise you all to look closely at what John Dean had to say about the flap on Olbermann:

Dean: Well, there’s very little that’s specific in this. I actuallythought about calling the publisher today. He’s a very ablepublisher–Peter Osnos, Public Affairs, good journalist. He knowsexactly what he’s doing. But if he says there’s not much more, andthat’s the indication, I think that’s maybe why they put this out as agood tease, to get bookstores interested in the book. [my emphasis]

Scottie McC’s publisher has pulled off quite the coup–taken a detail that was, largely, already known, and used it to cause a stir about a book that will not yet be published for another 6 months. Already, Dodd is calling for an investigation, folks are calling for HJC or Waxman to hold a hearing. What the left has done is read one publishing blurb designed to generate this kind of buzz, and played right into the plan. Congratulations. You’re all making Scottie McC rich.

What Scottie Said

That said, I guess it would pay to look more closely at what we know, so that everyone can calm down and stop putting dollars into Scottie McC’s pockets. Let’s look again at what Scottie says (and has said before, and his spokespeople have said since).

The most powerful leader in the world hadcalled upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility helost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So Istood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare ofthe klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publiclyexonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Roveand Scooter Libby.

There was one problem.  It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of thehighest ranking officials in the administration were involved in mydoing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief ofstaff, and the president himself. -from What Happened

Or, to translate:

• It was not true that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity.

We’ve know this detail–that Rove and Libby were involved in leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity since Fall 2005 and earlier.

• Scottie unknowingly passed on false information.

Scottie has been saying this for years, as well, ever since his tiny credibility took a hit when it became clear his public exonerations were false. In other words, Scottie still maintains that he, at least, had no idea the public exoneration was false.

• Rove, Libby, the Vice President, Andy Card, and the President "were involved" in having Scottie "unknowingly pass on false information."

Please note (again, as Cannonfire points out), Scottie says nothing about the President being "knowingly" involved. He doesn’t even detail how the President was involved. Given the way this Administration builds in plausible deniability, and given the degree to which the leak of Valerie Wilson’s name included a "secret mission" (as Libby lawyer Bill Jeffress called it) involving just Bush, Cheney, and Libby, I’m not sure that Scottie McC would know even if Bush were the mastermind of this leak and cover-up.

And he certainly doesn’t say so in this excerpt.

For the record, I heartily approve of both of Newsweek’s recent pundit hires–Rove and Markos. After all, news outlets dump a lot of money to pay pundits whose predictions turn out to be wrong year after year. So why not hire two guys who at least have contributed historic innovations to elections–the guys who execute campaigns, rather than talk about doing so? Plus, there’s a wonderful bit of symmetry here. Rove, direct mail, and the Republican party represent the past. Markos, online, and the Democratic party represent the future. I even love that it pits a fat white guy from Utah against a multicultural guy living in the Bay Area.

So I’m not necessarily gleeful with the news that Time Magazine rejected Rove’s advances, at least not because it might validate the opinion that Rove was a poor choice for Newsweek. Rather, I’m curious by the terms by which Time rejected Rove.

For its part, Time magazine said nothing publicly about Rove’s arrival at Newsweek, but a well-placed source told me that Bob Barnett (every Washington literati’s favorite lawyer, including Bill Clinton) had traveled to the Time-Life building on Sixth Avenue to offer Rove’s services before Newsweek snared them. Time‘seditors apparently felt the cost/benefit analysis wouldn’t be in theirfavor if they embraced the man who has done more than anyone to keepthe spirit of Joe McCarthy alive and well in American politics. (Read Joshua Green’s definitive profile from the Atlantic in 2004.) "Time thought this wouldn’t be like hiring George Stephanopoulos," my source explained. "They think Karl is essentially like an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies."

Well, yeah, I wonder whether Newsweek has done its due diligence on Rove. After all, it would suck for them if the Abramoff scandal USA Purge scandal email scandal wholesale politicization of government scandal  anything arose to hurt Rove’s brand.

But I’m most amused that Time magazine–the company that spent very large chunks of cash to withhold  details about Rove’s nefarious leaking of Valerie Wilson’s name from Patrick Fitzgerald–would call him "an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies." Time, after all, probably could have swung the election in 2004 (and they thought they could, too), had Matt Cooper simply revealed that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity. ("I’ve said too much already," Rove said.) That would have saved the American public from at least one out of a string of felonies.

So nice that Time magazine takes this moment to object.

There is not one but two articles in the WaPo today suggesting DHS’ massive corruption is impeding its efforts to get protective scanners in place at our ports and border. The first article explains that implementation of the big radiation detectors designated for the borders will be delayed, again.

For more than a year, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoffand others have told Congress that the costly next-generation machineswould sharply improve the screening of trucks, cars and cargocontainers for radiological material. In announcing contracts in July2006 to buy as many as 1,400 of the devices, Chertoff said they wereready to be deployed in the field for research. He recently calledtheir acquisition a "vital priority."

But in the face of growing questions by government auditors,Congress and border officials about the machines’ performance, Chertoffhas decided that they don’t operate well enough and need more work. Itcould be another year before they are ready, officials said.

More intriguingly, it suggests Chertoff’s DHS may be meddling with thedata surround the machines to try to get them approved for use.

In a Nov. 16 letter to Congress, the director of the DNDO said hisstaff members were looking into allegations that someone there directedpersonnel from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who were helping analyze recent results of testing of the machines, to delete some of the data.

"We have also issued a preservation notice to all personnel who haveworked on the ASP program directing them to preserve all documents,e-mail, and memoranda relating to the ASP program," Vayl Oxford,director of the nuclear detection office, wrote to Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has been examining the program.

Because if you’re paying $1.2 billion for a radiation detectors, you’re apparently not paying for a guarantee they’ll work, and you’ve got to fudge with the data to make it look right.

According to the LAT, the GOP presidential candidates have come up with a brilliant way of offering insurance to the uninsured: leave out those with pre-existing conditions, including people with medical histories just like the candidates’ themselves.

When Rudolph W. Giuliani was diagnosed with prostate cancer in thespring of 2000, one thing he did not have to worry about was a lack ofmedical insurance.

Today, the former New York mayor joins two other cancer survivors inseeking the Republican presidential nomination: Arizona Sen. JohnMcCain has been treated for melanoma, the most serious type of skinmalignancy, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson had lymphoma, acancer of the immune system.

All three have offered proposals with the stated aim of helping the 47million people in the U.S. who have no health insurance, includingthose with preexisting medical conditions.

But under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors suchas themselves could not be sure of getting coverage — especially ifthey were not already covered by a government or job-related plan andhad to seek insurance as individuals.

"Unless it’s in a state that has very strong consumer protections, theywould likely be denied coverage," said economist Paul Fronstin of theEmployee Benefit Research Institute, who has reviewed the candidates’proposals. "People with preexisting conditions would not be able to getcoverage or would not be able to afford it."

I was drawn to the article because I’m one of those the article explains would be denied health care coverage in almost all cases.

An expert with access to a manual that insurers use to make coveragedecisions said that most companies wouldn’t consider a cancer survivorfor 10 years, with some exceptions, and then would only issue a policyat a higher premium.

Nice to know I can always escape to Ireland if I lose my healthcare.

But in reading it, I wanted to recommend it because it is really the kind of coverage we need for a presidential election. It is informative, explaining in several different ways why and how cancer survivors cannot find affordable healthcare. It tells voters–in terms that put the voter at the center of the debate–information critical to assessing the candidates. And it’s a great story, using the cancer history of three leading candidates to emphasize the gaps in their plans.

It’s so rare we see good reporting on the presidential race, this article deserves attention.

As I pointed out in this post, the Senate Intelligence Committee used a remarkable argument to justify giving the telecoms immunity in their FISA bill. Basically, it argued the telecoms could neither prove or disprove whether they were entitled to immunity according to existing statutes, because the mean old Bush Administration had invoked State Secrets. And therefore, the invocation of State Secrets put them in an unfair position as they tried to defend themselves against lawsuits.

To the extent that any existing immunity provisions are applicable,however, providers have not been able to benefit from the provisions inthe civil cases that are currently pending. Because the Government hasclaimed the state secrets privilege over the question of whether anyparticular provider furnished assistance to the Government, anelectronic communication service provider who cooperated with theGovernment pursuant to a valid court order or certification cannotprove it is entitled to immunity under section 2511(2)(a)(ii) withoutdisclosing the information deemed privileged by the Executive branch.

[snip]

Providers who did not assist the Government are similarly unable toextract themselves from ongoing litigation, because the assertion ofthe state secrets privilege makes it impossible for them to demonstratetheir lack of involvement.

So the logic, in general, is that it is unfair for a defendant in a civil suit to be prevented from defending itself because the government has invoked State Secrets and thereby prevented the defendant from introducing the evidence that would prove its innocence or its immunity.

Of course, the Senate Intelligence Committee is only making that argument in the context of its desire to convince telecoms to cooperate with the government, regardless of the laws that are supposed to guide that cooperation. I’d bet you that, if a defendant were unable to defend itself from lawsuits because the government invoked State Secrets, and if that defendant had not cooperated with the government in illegal wiretapping, no one would bat an eye at the injustice.

Well, we’re going to get to see just that in the civil suit against Joseph Nacchio and other former Qwest officials. Because there, the government is invoking State Secrets in a case against individuals who refused to cooperate because–at least Nacchio claims–they believed cooperation would have been against the law.

As several folks have pointed out to me, Scottie McC is getting chatty:

The most powerful leader in the world hadcalled upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility helost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So Istood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare ofthe klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publiclyexonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Roveand Scooter Libby.

There was one problem.  It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of thehighest ranking officials in the administration were involved in mydoing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief ofstaff, and the president himself. -from What Happened

I’m not really going to hold my breath that this contains any new revelations. But I am intrigued by one thing: the mention of Andy Card, Bush’s Chief of Staff. We’ve known that Bush, Cheney, Libby, and Rove were intimately involved in this gig. But if we can pull Andy Card in–something Ted Wells alluded to during the trial–it might get interesting.

And, just as a reminder, Card and Scottie left the White House within a week of each other–both happening just before Turdblossom’s final grand jury appearance.

Again–not holding my breath. Just saying.

I admit–I’m getting sucked into the Geoffrey Fieger case. I will have more to say, but the short version is this:

The government alleges that Fieger and his partner got employees from their law firm to donate to John Edwards in his 2004 election. And then, the government further alleges, they reimbursed those people. From the government’s perspective, Fieger laundered a lot of money to give big dollars to Edwards. From the perspective of this Administration’s seeming pattern of politicized prosecutions, they went after Fieger (and other trial attorneys) to disincent trial lawyers from making political donations.

The big scandal (besides the possibility that BushCo is prosecuting Fieger as part of a political prosecution) is that it appears the government may be using tools designed for national security prosecutions in support of a campaign finance investigation–basically, Fieger alleges the government is abusing the tools Congress gave them to investigate terrorism in order to punish Democratic political activities. And he’s trying to get the evidence to prove that case.

At present (Fieger’s trial is due to start at the beginning of December), Fieger is dealing with four issues related to selective prosecutions.

• BushCo got a bunch of subpoenas for financial information–apparentlyunder grand jury subpoena–without having to reveal those subpoenas;Fieger’s team thinks they used National Security Letters or some otherimproper subpoena to get that information
• Bush’s DOJ sent a small army of people to search Fieger’s firm (and his employees’ homes), serious overkill for a white collar crime investigation
• The top three people in the USA office in Eastern Michigan recused themselves from the case; Fieger’s team thinks there’s some hanky-panky behind the recusal
• The only investigation into campaign finance violations for the 2004 Edwards campaign that ended in a civil–as opposed to criminal–penalty was a lawyer in Arkansas–but the agreement was signed at the same time that Bud Cummins was fired, a coinkydink that Fieger alleges was the reason Cummins was fired

Here’s the court’s opinion summarizing the last three of these issues (look on page 1 for Judge Borman’s description of three of four of these issues, he reviews these issues in camera before making the ruling on these three issues; he refuses to show Fieger the subpoenas in another order). On the issue of the army of FBI agents to investigate the firm, Borman allows Fieger to see dates of such overkill investigations, but not the names or details. On the issue of recusal, he orders the government into further discussion of the reasons behind the recusals. And on the issue of the one trial lawyer campaign finance investigation that did not end in criminal sanctions, Judge Borman refuses to provide the name to protect the innocent accused.

Back in May, a judge dismissed immigration charges against Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, arguing he had been tricked in the interview that led to his indictment. At the time, it looked like BushCo threw the case, not wanting to convict one of their favored terrorists.

But now, two of his associates have pled guilty to charges of obstruction of justice in connection with his case.

Two associates of Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles have pleadedguilty in the Western District of Texas to charges of obstruction of justice inconnection with the U.S. government�s investigation of Posada Carriles, MichaelJ. Mullaney, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas announcedtoday.

Osvaldo Mitat, age 65 and Santiago Alvarez, age 66, both natives of Cuba, eachentered pleas of guilty today to a one-count superseding criminal informationthat charged each defendant with obstruction of justice. The plea occurredbefore U.S. District Judge David Briones. Each defendant faces a maximumsentence of 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, three years supervisedrelease and a $100 special assessment. Sentencing for both has been scheduledfor Feb. 1, 2008.

According to the statement of facts agreed upon by each defendant, on or aboutDec. 18, 2006, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Texas subpoenaedboth Mitat and Alvarez to testify in the course of its investigation intoallegedly false statements made to the government made by Posada Carriles abouthis unlawful entry to the United States and other matters.

On or about Jan. 11, 2007, each was granted immunity from prosecution from anyself-incriminating statements and each was ordered to testify by the U.S.District Court in the Western District of Texas. Not withstanding the grant ofimmunity and court order compelling their testimony, the defendants refused totestify before the grand jury about the subject of its investigation. By doingso, Mitat and Alvarez did unlawfully and corruptly influence, obstruct andimpede, and endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administrationof justice.

Among others investigating this case were lawyers from the Counter-Terrorism section of DOJ.

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic. But if they’re getting pleas from Posada’s associates, does that mean things might move forward?

"Serious Person" Michael O’Hanlon and  escalation surge architect Fred Kagan end their op-ed with the following words.

There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly ahumanitarian worry; today it is as much a threat to our basic securityas Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and diplomaticallyprepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be thenext big test. [my emphasis]

I’m just a DFH and not a "serious person" or anything. But I am certain they have this wrong–dead wrong. It highlights the problem of neoconservatism–an acute myopia that therefore cannot see a problem until we’re already in the thick of it and until they can make an argument–however specious–that the only solution is military.

The way in which O’Hanlon and Kagan conceive of Pakistan "becoming the next big test" is the perfect illustration of this. They describe the events that need to occur for them to take some action–and of course, action is exclusively military.

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the UnitedStates simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descendedinto the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw ourforces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deterioratingone in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible militaryoptions in Pakistan, should it really come to that. [my emphasis]

Note, "could not stand by" … "should it come to that." They’re only considering action if Pakistan "descends into the abyss." Otherwise, here we are standing by.

Couple that with their ignorant assertion that, "There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly ahumanitarian worry," and you see the problem. They would not–and did not–consider action at a time when non-military solutions were the obvious solution to the problem, when AQ Khan and his nukes didn’t have us by the nuts. As I said last year when I was earning Matt Bai’s wrath, the time to address these problems is before they’ve exploded, while we’re still nominally allies. Because we’re going to have to do nation-building anyway, whether or not Pakistan falls into the abyss, if we want to prevent its extremists from accruing more power. Had we done it six years ago, when Musharraf took the risk of cooperating with us after 9/11 and when he was begging for a textile trade agreement so he could create jobs, we ignored him. Now, it’s going to take a lot more than some textile factories to find a solution to the crisis, peaceful or no.

But O’Hanlon and Kagan apparently can’t see that, because they’re looking in all the wrong places.

I think it’s great that Rachel Paulose has resigned (h/t JF)

Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, will beleaving the post to take a position at the Justice Department inWashington, according to a Bush administration official and acongressional aide.

According to a news release sent by thedepartment of justice, Paulose has accepted a position as Counselor tothe Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy at the Department ofJustice in Washington, D.C. Ms. Paulose will resign from her currentposition and assume her new role effective in early January 2008.

But why in god’s name are we keeping her on the taxpayer’s dime?

I can only imagine that her claims that she’s being targeted because she’s a Federalist Society member would make her hard for someone to fire…

The McCarthyite hysteria that permits the anonymous smearing of anypublic servant who is now, or ever may have been, a member of theFederalist Society; a person of faith; and/or a conservative(especially a young, conservative woman of color) is truly a disserviceto our country.

…particularly someone who had to be vetted by the Federalist Society to get his job. But c’mon folks!