As you’ll recall from the Plame case, Michael Isikoff helped Karl Rove stay out of jail in at least three ways:

• After the WaPo published the damaging 1X2X6 article, Isikoff published an article appearing to–but not entirely–refuting it (Isikoff tried again in Hubris, claiming that the 1X2X6 story only got printed due to an editorial error, an attempt that Swopa quickly shredded).
• When he called Luskin for comment on the fact that Rove was Matt Cooper’s source for Plame’s identity, Isikoff (by his own admission) read Luskin the entire email from Cooper to his editor, alerting Rove’s lawyer to everything that appeared in one of the main pieces of documentary evidence that incriminated Rove.
• Just before the inquiry, Rove someone at the White House prodded Isikoff to ask Woodward about his "bombshell," probably forcing Woodward to come clean that Armitage had leaked Plame’s identity to him in June 2003, thereby ruining what little value Armitage would have had in a perjury case against Rove.

Laundering information through journalists is a common Rove tactic. For example, someone conveniently launched a false campaign insinuating Ari Fleischer was one of the Novak’s for Plame’s identity; by coincidence (ha!) that campaign was launched the day that Luskin attempted to manage the revelation that Rove was one of Novak’s sources. Even going way back to his days in Texas Rove laundered leaks through the press to attack Jim Hightower and Ronnie Earle.

But in recent years–certainly during the CIA Leak case–Isikoff has been one of Rove’s key information conduits.

In the last couple of months, Rove seems to have been attempting–with no apparent success–to goad reporters covering the Siegelman case to serve as similar information conduits. His surrogates in the AL GOP tried to demand information from CBS and MSNBC about what evidence there is implicating Karl, all while refusing to give up their own information. More recently, Rove has launched a pissing contest with Dan Abrams, attacking Abrams’ journalism, apparently in an attempt to force him to reveal information about evidence against him. Yet with Rove out of the White House, his ability to use journalists to his own ends seems to have diminished.

Except, perhaps, with Isikoff.

The other day, I noted that the news that the revelation of Bob Kjellander’s discussions about firing Patrick Fitzgerald with Rove was an unsurprising move from Fitzgerald. By introducing it in court, it made the information publicly available for others–like John Conyers–to use it for other purposes.

Fitzgerald’s office (though not Fitzgerald personally) has just said to John Conyers, "Hey, I see you’re still looking into politicized prosecutions. Well, here’s a witness who can testify that a Rove crony was working with Rove to get Fitzgerald fired–just before Fitzgerald almost got fired." This adds another witness–like Dana Jill Simpson–who is willing to testify that Rove got personally involved in prosecutions affecting his political allies. But it also brings someone from the requesting side to the fore–someone who (unlike the GOP cronies in Washington who got John McKay fired and unlike the GOP cronies in NM who got Iglesias fired) is apparently willing (and presumably has already signed an affidavit to the effect) to testify that Karl Rove entertained these demands for firing seriously. Conyers will, undoubtedly, take a few days to respond (he’s not so quick as Henry Waxman), but I imagine he will respond.

Sure enough, Isikoff reports today that Conyers is going to follow up on the tidbit coming out of the Rezko trial.

The House Judiciary Committee "intends to investigate the facts and circumstances alleged in this testimony," panel chairman Rep. John Conyers of Michigan said in a statement to NEWSWEEK.

Yup, Conyers was right on schedule with his three-days-longer-than-it-takes-Waxman schedule. Since all of this is so unsurprising, let me add another completely predictable detail. Isikoff includes in his story a description of precisely the kind of evidence Ata has against Rove.

A source familiar with Ata’s testimony (who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters) said that Ata was meeting regularly with Rezko that fall. The two men shared a concern about Fitzgerald’s ongoing probe of Illinois public officials. In one of those conversations, the developer allegedly told Ata that Bob Kjellander, a prominent GOP state lobbyist, was talking to Rove about getting rid of Fitzgerald. The reason: to "get a new U.S. attorney" who would not pursue the Illinois corruption probe, the source said. Ata, who has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is now cooperating with the Feds, has no evidence that the conversation took place other than what Rezko allegedly told him, the source says.

I swear, somewhere on Isikoff’s computer there’s a file called "KeepRoveOutOfThePokey.dot." It reads something like this:

A source familiar with [insert name of witness against Rove in the current scandal]’s testimony (who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters) said that [insert summary of witness testimony]. [insert all details described in any legal documents; when possible, quote the pertinent phrases verbatim]. [insert clear description of whether or not witness has any direct evidence that implicates Rove].

I mean, Isikoff must have a template for this stuff, right? Otherwise, how would he be able to replicate these helpful leaks so precisely time and time again?

One more thing. I wonder why Isikoff quoted that bit from Conyers: "intends to investigate the facts and circumstances alleged in this testimony"? Was Isikoff probing for more specific information there, too, such as whether Conyers already had some kind of evidence from Ata, or whether Conyers planned to bring Ata to testify?

Update: very very basic grammar fixed per danps.

Are you ready for some football? Hot damn, I am. And guess what, there really is football to talk about. And lots of other things too, but let’s start off with the gridiron. Hey, did you notice that the asterisk is still in the title? Of course it is, because Spygate is the gift that keeps on giving for the New England Patriots. Thank god that FISA stuff seems to be wrapping up, because the ole Scottish Haggis is gonna be needing the legislative time and resources to question Matt Walsh and get to the bottom of Belichick’s torture tapes.

Alright, lets get down to business. The 2008 NFL Entry Draft is beginning as this post is going up. Michigan offensive lineman Jake Long has already been signed by the Fish, and Howie Long’s spawn is reportedly set to be taken at number two by the Rams. Then the crapshoot begins. What needs does your team have, who do you like to fill them, and what else is up on the pigskin front? I understand the Patriots are torn between this guy and this guy.

Don’t tell Marcy, but there are actually sports other than football. In fact, I understand that, up in Canada, they play something called hockey; and not just any hockey understand you, they are currently in Playoff Hockey for the cherished Stanley Cup. The Cup has to be the coolest trophy in all of sports, every winning player gets his name etched onto it for eternity. And it goes fun places during the year as each player on the winning team gets to cart it around wherever he wants. I hear tell it goes to a lot of pubs, and a few cathouses too. I don’t know diddly squat about hockey, but in honor of our fine feathered friends in the Great White North, Ishmael, Skdadl, and all the others, I thought we ought to give a shout out to Stanley Cup Playoffs, thus the "What The Puck" part of the title to this post.

Due to the surprising response I got the last time, I will also trot out F1 for your consideration. This weekend is Round four of the circus, the Spanish GP from Circuit de Catalunya in Barcelona, Spain. Kimi Raikkonen is on pole, having beaten out Fernando Alonso in literally the last second of qualifying. Catalunya is a nice circuit, should make for an excellent race. Heh, you know America is one screwed up place when Max Mosely’s Nazi torture fantasy with hookers gets more press than, you know, the President of the United States actually torturing people. Go figure.

Last, but most certainly not least, I want to note yesterday’s announcement that there was a putative appearance of the Wackiest Ships in the Iranian Navy and Filipino Monkey. Of course, the US government already has twenty different takes on the incident. Pretty much the only time our bozos can keep a story straight is when they are ginning up propaganda for their Rent-A-Generals. The video attached to this post is in honor of my two favorite monkeys, The Filipino and The Boosh (technically a chimpanzee I guess). Do check out the video, it is pretty cool. Monkey Man by the one and only Rolling Stones.

Lastly, EW is going to be up with an important post on the Michigan Clusterfuck and her rational solution thereto. I think it is going to be double posted both here and at FDL. At any rate, there is going to be a full court press to get some publicity and national press on the post, so chip in, sign the petition and spread the word. However, because it is important to the cause, use this thread for any "Off Topic" discussions etc. so that she can keep that thread clean and on point.

By now, the story of the CIA’s destruction of the "torture tapes" is well known. Although the problems with the CIA, and every other portion of the Bush Administration, maintaining custody and control of evidentiary video and audio tapes is literally almost a running bad joke, the capstone revelation came with a December 6, 2007 New York Times article by Mark Mazzetti. Mazzetti’s article detailed the willful destruction by the CIA of videotapes directly exhibiting the use by US Agents of "extreme interrogation techniques" on detainees Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

To refresh your recollection of the entire sequence of events on the Torture Tapes, here is a remarkably complete timeline. For the instant consideration, the critical event is the evidence supplied to date by the Bush Administration, and most significantly the CIA, on their rationale for the destruction of the Zubaydah and al-Nashiri tapes. The initial statement of the position and defense of the CIA is contained in CIA Director Michael Hayden’s message to the body of his agency, which indicates:

…CIA videotaped interrogations, and destroyed the tapes in 2005. I understand that the Agency did so only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries–including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

The official position has been further refined by testimony of CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo and the pseudo-proffer of Jose Rodriquez via his attorney Bob Bennett. We also know that, at a minimum, four White House lawyers were involved in discussion of the proposed destruction of the tapes. The most recent evidence of the government’s position is contained in sworn statements by CIA officials made in mid-April in the Rashid Abdullah case, again positing nothing but good faith and lack of knowledge of any compelling reason to preserve the tapes.

However, yesterday, an insufficiently noticed page A-16 story by Dan Eggen in the Washington Post, appears to put the lie to the defenses the Administration has posited to date and raise serious issues in relation to intentional, malicious destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. The Post article relates information gleaned from recent CIA/Administration filings in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed last June. From the Post:

The CIA concluded that criminal, administrative or civil investigations stemming from harsh interrogation tactics were "virtually inevitable," leading the agency to seek legal support from the Justice Department, according to a CIA official’s statement in court documents filed yesterday.

The CIA said it had identified more than 7,000 pages of classified memos, e-mails and other records relating to its secret prison and interrogation program, but maintained that the materials cannot be released because they relate to, in part, communications between CIA and Justice Department attorneys or discussions with the White House.

Well, that’s interesting. It turns out that the CIA and the Bush Justice Department, the vaunted OLC no less, knew full well that the tapes were directly and specifically material and germane to "inevitable criminal, administrative or civil investigations". Oops, now that is a little different than the initial stories pitched by the Administration isn’t it? And exactly how specific and deep was the knowledge of the critical materiality of the Torture Tapes? Again, from Eggen:

The documents indicate that lawyers at the CIA and elsewhere were aware that CIA personnel might be subject to criminal prosecution or other legal sanctions.
…
The records submitted to the court list and briefly describe dozens of communications between the CIA and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC. At least 10 were in 2004, five were in 2005, and seven were in 2006; virtually all were classified "top secret" or even more restricted.

"The CIA’s purpose in requesting advice from OLC was the very likely prospect of criminal, civil, or administrative litigation against the CIA and CIA personnel who participate in the Program," said a declaration from Ralph S. DiMaio, information review officer for the CIA’s clandestine service. He added that the CIA considered such proceedings "to be virtually inevitable." (Emphasis added).

It appears as if the new declarations in the FOIA lawsuit pretty much obliterate any Bush Administration pretensions of good faith belief that there was no reasonable materiality, nor potential evidentiary value, in the Torture Tapes. Correspondingly, the new declarations almost completely solidify allegations of a plethora of substantial crimes including obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congressional process, false statements to Congress, false material statements to multiple Federal courts, destruction of evidence of a governmental crime, conspiracy and, of course, torture/war crimes. I suspect we will be discussing the specific circumstances and elements of the individual crimes quite soon.

And to think, CIA Director General Michael Hayden, he of all the exculpatory lip service from the outset about no evidentiary value of the tapes, has just announced his formal retirement from the Air Force for "practical considerations related to military retirement." I’ll bet. The move appears to almost double his salary because now he can collect both his retirement pension, which will now be locked in (in case, you know, anything bad happens), and a civilian salary for his position. Will more sudden "personal employment considerations" be taken by additional Administration officials?

For anybody paying attention, the "Snowball" of Bush Administration culpability has been gathering both mass and momentum in it’s downhill run for quite some time now. In any rational and legitimate period of American democracy, the snowball would have overwhelmed Nancy Pelosi’s barren, empty table; but not in this day and age of derelict Democratic House Leadership. No, the current House Leadersheep have the mistaken notion that their oath to office demands that they protect the most corrupt and criminal Presidential Administration in history, instead of the Constitution of the United States of America. They are wrong; the sole demand of their oath of office is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States".

Since Hillary apparently needs a reminder that Israel has nukes–some of the technology for which they stole from us–yesterday’s charging of Ben-Ami Kadish for spying
ought to provide her a useful reminder.

An 84-year-old former Army engineer in New Jersey was charged on Tuesday with leaking dozens of secret documents about nuclear arms, missiles and fighter jets to the Israeli government during the early 1980s, federal prosecutors said.

While I’d be interested in Israel’s nukes attracting more attention in discussions of Middle East policy, at the moment I’m more curious how the government suddenly discovered Kadish’s alleged spying … more than 20 years after the events in question?

The NYT admits it doesn’t know the answer to that question.

Federal officials said authorities became aware of what they called Mr. Kadish’s spying activities only in recent months but would not say how they learned of his efforts more than 20 years later.

Mr. Kadish admitted to an F.B.I. agent last month that he had shown 50 to 100 classified documents to the Israeli official, according to prosecutors’ court filings on Tuesday.

It also reminds readers that Israel had assured us that they had revealed all of the spying Yosef Yagur–the science attache who appears to have solicited Kadish’s spying and who also was the Israeli agent handling Jonathan Pollard–had engaged in.

Though Mr. Kadish is suspected of having operated at the same time as Mr. Pollard, and not afterward, another conviction would be embarrassing for Israel because its officials were supposed to have disclosed to the United States all relevant information about Israeli intelligence gathering at the time of Mr. Pollard’s arrest.

So how did the US uncover Kadish’s spying?

One possibility is that Larry Franklin disclosed Kadish’s spying to the government. While the AIPAC trial is increasingly likely to be dismissed rather than have Condi reveal her A1 Cut-Out methods under oath, Larry Franklin’s plea deal did require his ongoing cooperation with the government–so presumably, if he knew of other Israeli spying, he revealed it to them. But Kadish was charged in relation to a grand jury investigation out of SDNY, not EDVA (Kadish committed the alleged acts in New Jersey).

Another possibility is that the government traced back technological information they knew had ended up someplace it shouldn’t have back to the Israelis, and with it, to Kadish. The criminal complaint describes three documents above all that Kadish shared with the Israelis.

1. One containing information relating to a nuclear weapons system
2. One describing a modification of an F-15 sold to another country
3. On concerning the Patriot missile system

It also noted that Kadish had signed out these documents in question. In other words, it’s possible that the government worked backwards from a country that had integrated certain F-15 modifications and Patriot missile technology into their own nuclear program to learn how they had acquired that technology–which led them through Israel to Kadish. One possibility is that this information ended up with Pakistan and this is an investigation that arose in relation to active investigations into the AQ Khan network (back in the BCCI days, the Israelis dealth US nuclear technology to the Pakistanis; though by 1988, the Pakistanis had modified their F-16s to carry nukes). It’s also possible Saudi Arabia is involved, since elsewhere the complaint describes Kadish saying the F-15 document "had a direct correlation to Israel’s security."

But the bit I find most telling are the charges only tangentially related to espionage: obstruction and false statements. As the complaint describes,

On or about March 20, 2008, after law enforcement officials … interviewed BEN-AMI KADISH, … KADISH received a telephone call from … CC-1 [almost certainly Yosef Yagur, Kadish’s handler], and CC-1 instructed KADISH to lie to the Law Enforcement Officials.

On or about March 21, 2008, the Law Enforcement Officials interviewed KADISH again in connection with the Grand Jury Investigation, and during this interview, KADISH stated that he (KADISH) did not speak with CC-1 after the First Interview.

In other words, Yagur (who is not in the US) apparently learned that the FBI had interviewed Kadish about the espionage (it is unclear whether the FBI first interviewed Kadish on March 20, or earlier than that). Yagur called Kadish and told him to lie. And the very next day, the FBI re-interviewed Kadish to ask about that call from Yagur, which Kadish denied.

Yagur knew–and knows–they’re closing in on him, over twenty years after he fled the country. And the FBI presumably had tapped Kadish or Yagur.

Back when Yagur handled Jonathan Pollard, he escaped charges (and escaped the country). For some reason, the government seems to have renewed interest in Yagur.

By now you have probably heard that the New York Times has an in-depth piece by David Barstow out for Sunday’s edition on the use by the Pentagon of media "military experts" as propaganda conduits.

It would be nice to be able to say that the revelations in Barstow’s article are shocking, but they are not. Spin and propaganda have, from the outset, been more important to the Bush Administration than efficient and effective performance and truth. This already looks to be a big deal around the blogosphere, everybody will be discussing the general parameters of the story. Dave Neiwert serves up a dissection at FDL (and do click through his links here and here to his earlier pieces at Orcinus in 2004 on Bush Administration psy-op propaganda, they are excellent).

Beyond the face value of the NYT article, however, lurk some more interesting issues. Marcy has, as usual, immediately found one in relation to the spotty history of the NYT on Bushco propaganda, most notably in regard to Judith Miller and the case for the Iraq War (can you say "Sweet Judy Blew Lies"? I can). Here is mine; we know this Pentagon propaganda scheme is crass and loathsome, but is it legal?

Arguably, the answer is no, it is not legal; of course, as we have seen time and again, that is never an impediment to the Bush Administration. And, as with so many other Bushco ills, we have a template for analysis because they have made a pattern and practice of crossing the line of propriety in this area. The gang of tricks is all here, "creative" expansion of law and standards, even one of those OLC opinions exonerating the conduct.

The framework for analysis here is supplied by the previous actions of the Bush administration in relation to paying Armstrong Williams to shill the No Child Left Behind program and the propagation of prepackaged fake video news stories. The heavy involvement of the Pentagon in the disingenuous news business was demonstrated by Jeff Gerth in a December 2005 NYT article:

The media center in Fayetteville, N.C., would be the envy of any global communications company.

In state of the art studios, producers prepare the daily mix of music and news for the group’s radio stations or spots for friendly television outlets. Writers putting out newspapers and magazines in Baghdad and Kabul converse via teleconferences. Mobile trailers with high-tech gear are parked outside, ready for the next crisis.

The center is not part of a news organization, but a military operation, and those writers and producers are soldiers. The 1,200-strong psychological operations unit based at Fort Bragg turns out what its officers call "truthful messages" to support the United States government’s objectives, though its commander acknowledges that those stories are one-sided and their American sponsorship is hidden.
…
The recent disclosures that a Pentagon contractor in Iraq paid newspapers to print "good news" articles written by American soldiers prompted an outcry in Washington, where members of Congress said the practice undermined American credibility and top military and White House officials disavowed any knowledge of it. President Bush was described by Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, as "very troubled" about the matter. The Pentagon is investigating.

But the work of the contractor, the Lincoln Group, was not a rogue operation. Hoping to counter anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, the Bush administration has been conducting an information war that is extensive, costly and often hidden, according to documents and interviews with contractors, government officials and military personnel.

The campaign was begun by the White House, which set up a secret panel soon after the Sept. 11 attacks to coordinate information operations by the Pentagon, other government agencies and private contractors.

Since 1951, Congress has enacted an annual, government wide prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for purposes of "publicity or propaganda." For instance, in 2005, the prohibition stated

No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. G, title II, 624, 118 Stat. 2809, 3278 (Dec. 8, 2004). (The language of the prohibition has remained virtually unchanged since 1951.)

All of these ginned up propaganda programs started hitting the public consciousness in 2005, causing a public outcry and Congressional calls for an investigation, which was undertaken by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO issued a formal report in February 2005 indicating that the Bush Administration efforts to shape the news via the prepackaged video news releases were inappropriate. The GAO subsequently issued similar opinions on the other Bush propaganda programs, for instance, this September 2005 report on the paid use of Armstrong Williams on NCLB:

In previous opinions and decisions, we have found “materials . . . prepared by an agency or its contractors at the behest of the agency and circulated as the ostensible position of parties outside the agency” amount to covert propaganda that violates the prohibition. B‑229257, June 10, 1988. A critical element of this violation is the concealment of, or failure to disclose, the agency’s role in sponsoring the material. E.g., B-303495, Jan. 5, 2005. For example, in B-223098, B‑223098.2, Oct. 10, 1986, the Small Business Administration (SBA) prepared “suggested editorials” and distributed them to newspapers. The editorials advocated public support for an administration proposal to merge the SBA with the Department of Commerce. We found that those agency-prepared editorials were misleading as to their origins. The agency intended for the newspapers to print the editorials as their own position without identifying them as SBA-authored documents. This effort to conceal the agency’s authorship and make it appear that respected, independent authorities were endorsing the agency’s position went “beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities” and violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition. Id. Similarly, in 66 Comp. Gen. 707 (1987), we held that newspaper articles and editorials (supporting the government’s Central American policy) that were prepared by paid consultants at government request and published as the work of nongovernmental parties violated the prohibition. Again, it was the covertness of the government’s actions that led to the violation. In that case, the government was attempting to convey a message to the public advocating the government’s position while misleading the public as to the origins of the message. Id. at 709.

In addition to the violation of the standard Appropriations Act language, the GAO has also pointed to the violation of the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act provisions:

The Department’s use of appropriated funds in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition also constituted a violation of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. sect. 1341(a). This act prohibits making or authorizing an expenditure or obligation that exceeds available budget authority. B-300325, Dec. 13, 2002. Because the Department has no appropriation available to procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, it violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. sect. 1341(a). Cf. B-303495, Jan. 4, 2005; B-302710, May 19, 2004. Under 31 U.S.C. sect. 1351, the Department must report its Antideficiency Act violations to the President and the Congress. At the same time, a copy must be sent to the Comptroller General.

The bottom line seems to be that any "covert" program by the government to shape the news, or disseminate false news, to the domestic American audience constitutes a violation of both the Appropriations Act prohibitions as well as the Anti-Deficiency Act. As further evidence of how sensitive the United States has historically been on prohibiting the governmental dissemination of domestic propaganda, keep in mind that the Smith-Mundt Act even prohibits the domestic dissemination of information utilized in foreign propaganda efforts of the US, which, of course, are legal (think Voice of America radio).

You would have to imagine that the first rationalization from Bushco will be along the lines of "well this is different than the Armstrong Williams situation because we didn’t expend any money paying the military analysts and there was no quid pro quo". I would argue that the following snippets from today’s NYT article put the lie to that likely defense:

Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
…
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
…
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”
…
Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. “You’ll lose all access,” Dr. McCausland said.
…
Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 — the first of six such Guantánamo trips — which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment.
…
It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.” The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.
…
The memorandum led to a proposal to take analysts on a tour of Iraq in September 2003, timed to help overcome the sticker shock from Mr. Bush’s request for $87 billion in emergency war financing.
…
Some Pentagon officials said they were well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage. “Of course we realized that,” Mr. Krueger said. “We weren’t naïve about that.”
…
Some e-mail messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage.
…
The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.

Sure looks like there was a conscious quid pro quo, and that a lot of money and effort went into this program that was not formally appropriated, and therefore was in violation of both the Appropriations Act yearly provisions and the Anti-Deficiency Act provisions.

Oh, by the way, remember my mention of the attempted use of one of those golden OLC Opinion shields? Here it is, although it now seems to be missing from the official list on the DOJ website. The opinion was authored by our old friend Steven Bradbury; although, clearly, neither the GAO not Congress found it persuasive in the least. What a shock.

In thoroughly unsurprising news today, the Ned Lamont campaign was cleared of any wrong-doing in the crash of Lieberman’s server leading up to primary day in 2006. The Stamford Advocate reports that the FBI determined–way back on October 25, 2006–that Lieberman’s campaign bears all responsibility for the server crash.

Case closed, right?

No. Not on the outstanding legal issues arising from the campaign, anyway.

As you might recall, the Lamont campaign filed an FEC complaint, coincidentally just two days before the whole server crash case was closed in October 2006, noting that Joe Lieberman had a campaign finance entry for "petty cash" expenditures that were way beyond the legal limits: $387,000 of "petty cash."

The Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually have violated the clear and unambiguous terms of 11 C.F.R. §102.11 in at least the following three ways.

First, according to the FEC October Quarterly report filed on October 13, 2006, the Lieberman campaign has petty cash disbursements amounting to $387,561.00, which is roughly 8 percent of its total disbursements, or one out of every twelve dollars spent. On several occasions, petty cash disbursements greater than $100 were reported, as supposed payment for “volunteers.” As summary of these disbursements from the Friends of Joe Lieberman report are attached hereto. These disbursements reflect patent violations of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Second, the report does not include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. Again, Friends of Joe Lieberman stands in clear violation of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, the Associated Press reported earlier today that Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun claims the cash was supposedly used pay to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing (Andrew Miga, Lamont Questions Lieberman’s Spending, October 23, 2006). There is no evidence that the Lieberman committee kept and maintained a written journal of any kind regarding these disbursements as required by 11 C.F.R. §102.11. As I am sure you are aware, the rationale for this regulation is to, among other things, prevent the creation and utilization of slush funds for illicit purposes. The $387,561.00 involved here is a sum of supposed petty cash expenditures unprecedented in any race in our state’s history. The Lieberman campaign’s patent disregard for this regulation calls for the immediate investigation of this matter by your office to ensure that the voters of Connecticut can be fairly informed about the conduct of their elected officials. [my emphasis]

Since the time the Lamont campaign filed the complaint, Connecticut’s US Attorney has been appointed acting Chief of Staff to Alberto Gonzales and (just days ago) ascended to serve as Associate Attorney General of the US. Also since that time, the FEC has gone from having a quorum of commissioners that could have decided this issue (through 2007) to the point where, with only two commissioners, they cannot make any enforcement decisions. Also since that time, Joe Lieberman has been Chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee for well over a year–without conducting any meaningful oversight hearings. Also since that time, Connecticut’s voters have soured–badly–on their increasingly Republican Senator Joe Lieberman. And since that time, those Democratic Senators who once backed Lieberman have grown increasingly glum with his shrieking support of war.

I called Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan just to make sure the FEC hadn’t secretly told him that they had completed the investigation of Lieberman’s bloated slush fund without publicizing that decision. Swan has heard nothing–nada–in the year and a half since he filed the complaint.

We proved today that Joe Lieberman submitted a legal complaint against the Lamont campaign–and flogged unsubstantiated accusations in the media–though he had not one shred of evidence that Lamont’s campaign was involved.

But there’s still a whole lot of evidence that Lieberman took $387,000 and used it improperly–for walking around money, probably, but perhaps even to support his third party campaign. And we’re no closer to knowing whether Lieberman broke the law in the way he spent that $387,000 than we were a year and a half ago.

Update: Amount corrected, per complaint, and spelling of Stamford corrected, per njprogressive.

I suspect because of the dynamics of the Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee actually seems to be making progress. So far this hearing, we have established:

1. Everyone has had it with this war–Republican and Democrat.
2. The biggest threat to the United States from Al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not in Iraq (as Biden got Crocker, the former Ambassador to Pakistan, to admit).
3. Petraeus and Crocker agree with Barbara Boxer and a bunch of other Republican and Democratic Senators–and presumably will go tell Bush as much–that Iraq has got to start paying for its own militias.
4. We will never remove the threats of AQI and Iranian influence in Iraq, so the best end point we should strive for is to achieve some kind of stability in Iraq.

There was one moment, when George Voinovich was flogging the fact that we’re broke and therefore will be forced to leave in the near term…

Do you realize that that is where we are today? We are bankrupt and the gravy train to Iraq is coming to an end. Is anyone over there telling the Iraqis this? [thanks to maryo2 for transcribing]

…where both Crocker and Petraeus seemed to realize that they have failed to meet Bush’s goals–to not only sustain Republican support for the escalation, but also to paint the image that we’re winning. As much as anyone, Voiny summed up how bleak things look for us in Iraq.

Now let’s hope we can take today’s accomplishments (and whatever the House can wring out of Bush’s witnesses) and bring this thing to a close.

The nice thing about having two full days of Dog N Pony show is that you can keep it on in the background, like Muzak, and still feel like you participated. I’ve seen some–but not all–of today’s testimony.

The weird thing about the Dog N Pony is the way the upcoming elections really challenge the message discipline of the Republicans. Susan Collins sounded almost sane. John Cornyn sounded like he’s gonna get beat by Rick Noriega. And Joe Lieberman–safe from any upcoming challenge–sounded like the biggest Republican. John McCain even sounded stern and concerned and managed to avoid mentioning his 100 year plan. Republicans and Democrats alike rightly asked why, with $105/barrel oil, we’re still funding Iraq’s redevlopment–a question Petraeus and Crocker were unable to answer satisfactorily.

Kudos to Hillary for promoting herself to honorary co-Chair in order to give (as Thomas Ricks dubs it) the third opening statement of the hearing; presumably Obama will do the same this afternoon.

The other thing about these hearings (and the Iraq war generally) is you never know who will really shine. I liked Claire McCaskill’s line of questioning (she was incredulous when Petraeus declared Maliki the victor in his recent debacle in Basra), but I would have liked to see her press Petraeus some more. My prize for the best questioner–at least for the morning–is a tie going to Evan Bayh (whom I saw) and Jim Webb (whom I missed, but whose questioning Spencer Ackerman captured nicely). Both pointed out that Petraeus’ take on the overall value of staying in Iraq really didn’t account for our commitments elsewhere, most importantly on the border of Paksitan, where the guys who hit us on 9/11 still run free. Here’s Spencer’s description of Webb’s question:

Webb’s concerned about overstretch and the strain of the war’s required deployments on military readiness. He was incredulous: there’ll be 10,000 more troops in Iraq after the surge than there were there before? Quickly he moved to the wages of decreased readiness, noting that Al Qaeda continues to rebuild itself in Pakistan, implying that we won’t be able to meet needed challenges there. "The concern I have with keeping that level force in iraq, looking at these other situations, particularly Afghanistan… I’m curious at the level of agreement in [your] plan [comes from] the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?"

Petraeus didn’t want to touch that. All he said was that Admiral Fallon, the former head of Central Command, and Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were "fully informed." Webb and Petraeus gave each other what looked to me like thousand-yard stares. Webb promised that next week he’d ask Mullen that question.

Other than that, I’d like to highly recommend the liveblog of Thomas Ricks, my favorite "real" journalist to pick up the art of liveblogging. Ricks caught the thick tension between Joementum and the Democrats:

I don’t know if it is visible on television, but it looked liked there was a lot of teeth-gritting going on just now among the five Democrats sitting on the left side of the hearings as their erstwhile colleague (and vice presidential nominee)–Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) –lectured them on how much better the war in Iraq is going. Why wouldn’t they just be "honest," he asked?

[snip]

I’m not a political reporter, but I had to think that part of [Hillary’s statement on the irresponsibility of not considering withdrawal] was aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman. Didn’t the Clintons help him in his recent re-election effort? I forget.

I suspect Sen. Clinton just hates being called irresponsible. If she got elected president, that might replace "inappropriate" as Washington’s favorite word.

And he has what (thus far, though it’s still early) the most astute observation of the day:

Also, where does a senator from Mississippi [Roger Wicker] get off invoking President Lincoln’s perseverance in the Civil War?

I guess Wicker isn’t as deftly thinking of his November election as Susan Collins.

Scott Horton has more on the news that Jim Haynes has lawyered up–borrowing Dick’s trusty lawyer–in the face of scrutiny from Armed Services. Scott seems to imply that Armed Services is closing in on Haynes on perjury charges.

I’ve been looking into this trying to get a sense of what, exactly, the Armed Services Committee is so eager to discuss with Haynes. Two possibilities emerge.

First is the subject that Isikoff identifies: committee staffers have been carefully assembling secondary accounts concerning Haynes’s role in the process of authorizing highly coercive interrogation techniques, in preparing memoranda, and in soliciting memoranda to cover his advice from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Haynes’s relationship and dealings with OLC are drawing particular attention. Similarly, staffers are looking very carefully at Haynes’s prior appearances before the Committee, as well as his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with his nomination to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

My hunch is that the facts and circumstances surrounding the preparation of the two “torture memoranda,” which I have dubbed Yoo Prime (August 2002) and Yoo Two (March 2003) will be right in the center of questioning. Something that Haynes said, it seems, doesn’t sit right with the investigators.

The second matter is Haynes’s role in restructuring the Military Commissions at Guantánamo and tasking prosecutors and the legal advisor to the convening authority. This is the point on which the president of the New York City Bar, apparently now joined by other bar associations, is pressing for Haynes’s examination under oath. Accusations come from the former chief prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, among others. Davis has recently stated that he is prepared to submit to a lie-detector test about the matter. Haynes has refused to make public comment, offering only a bland statement that he “disputes” Davis’s charges through a Pentagon public affairs spokesman. [my emphasis]

That would be just like a Bush Court nominee, to lie under oath (something even Scottish Haggis has insinuated Alito has done). Guess it’s time to review that transcript.

The Davis testimony is likely not perjury–while DOD has issued a statement that Davis’ allegations are bunk…

Reached for comment, Defense Department spokesperson Cynthia Smith said, "The Department of Defense disputes the assertions made by Colonel Davis in this statement regarding acquittals."

…that statement was not, after all, under oath or to Congress.

But if Levin confirms that Haynes did rig the Gitmo tribunals, one would hope that would be enough to scuttle the hearings–at least the rigged hearings as currently constituted.

Karl says he’ll testify.

As Governor Siegelman states, bring him in, let him swear on a bible and either testify or lie under oath.

Rove has, of course, reportedly lied under oath on two other occasions, once in Texas and once in the CIA leak case. He’s probably thinking "three’s a charm."

But let’s do it, this time, in front of the teevee cameras. I’m sure Artur Davis–of Alabama–would welcome Karl’s testimony. And while he’s there, you might ask him all the questions about the USA purge he has refused to answer.