Rove and Nixon and Anne Armstrong and the Work Yet to Be Done

I did a post last year, not long after Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face, tracing the ties between the Armstrong family and Republican corruption. I showed how Anne Armstrong has been present at all the big-name Republican scandals going back to Watergate.

Anne Armstrong Event Associated Republican Scandal
1971-1973 RNC Co-Chair Watergate
1973-1974 Cabinet-level Counselor to Nixon and Ford Watergate
1976-1977 Ambassador to the UK Â
1980 Reagan-Bush Campaign Co-Chair October Surprise
1977-2000 Board Member, Halliburton Cheney commissions KBR to studyprivatization of military contracts (1991); Cheney named CEO Halliburton (1995)
1981-1990 Chair, Foreign IntelligenceAdvisory Board Iran-Contra
1981 Â Armstrongs fund Karl Rove + Company
1997 Texas A&M Regent George HW Bush Library opens atTAMU, 1997

(Later in the same post, I showed how Anne’s daughter Katharine, always seems to be present when Bush is pitching an illegal war.)

That post focused primarily on the long-term connections between Cheney and the Armstrong family, right through the days when Cheney launched Halliburton’s KBR unit onto the military gravy train. But the post noted, too, that the Armstrongs have been equally tight with Karl Rove over the years.

And apparently, one of the finds from the recently-released Nixon materials shows how far back this relationship goes.

Tucked away inside 78,000 pages of documents from the Nixon administration, released by the National Archives earlier this week, is a little gem: a strategy memorandum from the man who would go on to become the architect of President Bush’s rise to political power.

Mr. Rove, then a 22-year-old aide on Capitol Hill, was planning a run to become chairman of the College Republicans, a position he would ultimately win twice. So he wrote to Anne Armstrong, then counselor to Nixon. Mrs. Armstrong had been co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, and therefore Mr. Rove’s ultimate boss the previous year when he was executive director of the college group.

In the memorandum, he thanked her for “taking time out of your busy schedule” to talk with him, and offered up his musings — in the form of a nine-page typed outline — on how to strengthen the Republican Party by motivating students.

“Appreciate anything you might be able to do for me,” he wrote, on simple stationery with only his name, Karl C. Rove, at the top. “I have taken the liberty of enclosing the rough outline of my platform. Of special interest is the ‘New Federalism Advocates’ mentioned in the campaign section.”

The memo is, as Stollberg notes, a strategy document detailing the ways in which College Republicans can support larger RNC campaign efforts. But it also a strategy document laying out several initiatives–things that reek of Grover Norquist and wingnut welfare–that have been the key to recent Republican success. Rove talks about:

  • Professionalizing the College Republicans and earning legitimacy within the GOP
  • Requiring all Republicans to adopt “New Federalism” that advocates
    • Decentralization of Federal power
    • Limitation of federal power
    • Challenging the “proper role” of government
  • Developing Republican spokesmen within the academic community
  • Developing a “talent bank” to put on workshops within the academic community
  • Mobilizing college Republicans in “state legislature” schools to focus on state races
  • Providing training in “practical politics” (precinct training)
  • Developing materials to be distributed in college PoliSci classes to “place GOP oriented materials into student hands”

The memo lays out many initiatives that would professionalize the College Republicans and would spread wingnut welfare to campus efforts.

The memo is instructive not just because it traces Rove’s ties to Texas’ big money back over 30 years. A lot of these are things the Democrats still haven’t implemented. This is what it takes, folks.

Fitzgerald: Not a Runaway Prosecutor, Explained Simply

I wanted to elaborate on the Armitage post I did earlier, showing that (contrary to the wails of the Libby Lobby), Fitzgerald did not pursue Libby while ignoring the Novak leak. In addition to the inconsistencies in Armitage’s Novak story, in fall 2004, there remained inconsistencies in the Rove Novak story and–I would submit–the Libby Novak story.

As I explained earlier, in August 2004, Fitzgerald had identified the following inconsistencies in Armitage’s Novak story:

Novak and Armitage agree on several importantfacts, such as the time, date and place of the meeting during which theconversation took place, and the fact that Wilson’s wife and employment by theCIA was disclosed to Novak by Armitage in response to a question by novak as towhy the CIA had sent Wilson on the trip. Their testimony diverges as to whetherArmitage provided the first name of Ms. Plame, though both agree the last name,“Plame” was not provided. Novak recalls being told by Armitage that Wilson’swife worked in the area of weapons of mass destruction –[redacted] Armitagedoes not recall discussing the area in which Wilson’s wife worked. Novak andArmitage give differing accounts of other materials not germane to the instantmotion. The investigation of Armitage’s conduct is ongoing. [my emphasis]

There’s one more that was not yet identified, too:

Armitage testified that he did not recalldiscussing Wilson’s wife’s employment with any reporter other than Novak priorto July 14,2003, and specifically denied any recollection of discussing thematter with Cooper or any of his Time colleagues.

Reggie’s Going to Smile

If the hapless Democratic Congress ever gets around to an investigation through which they can ask Reggie to turn over the CIA Leak case grand jury materials.

But for now, I’d say he’s still cranky, wouldn’t you?

In commuting the defendant’sthirty-month term of incarceration, the President stated that thesentence imposed by this Court was “excessive” and that two years ofsupervised release and a $250,000 alone are a “harsh punishment” for anindividual convicted on multiple counts of perjury, obstruction ofjustice, and making false statements to federal investigators. Althoughit is certainly the President’s prerogative to justify the exercise ofhis constitutional commutation power in whatever manner he chooses (oreven to decline to provide a reason for his actions altogether), theCourt notes that the term of incarceration imposed in this case wasdetermined after a careful consideration of each of the requitestatutory factors, and was consistent with the bottom end of theapplicable sentencing range as properly calculated under the UnitedStats Sentencing Guidelines.

Indeed, onlyrecently the President’s Attorney General called for the passage oflegislation to “restore the binding nature of the sentencing guidelinesso that the bottom of the recommended sentencing range would be aminimum for judges, not merely a suggestion,” a stance that is fullyconsonant with the policies of this Administration as a whole. Inlight of these considerations, and given the indisputable importance of“provid[ing] certainty and fairness in sentencing . . . [and]avoid[ing] unwarranted sentencing disparities,” it is fair to say thatthe Court is somewhat perplexed as to how its sentence could beaccurately be characterized as “excessive.”[my emphasis]

In the meantime, I’m not holding my breath on the hapless Congress.

Why the Libby Lobby Story about Armitage Is False

Let’s pretend, for a second that all the other reasons why the cries of "runaway prosecutor" from the Libby Lobby don’t exist. Set aside the fact that the FBI and then Fitzgerald were investigating all leaks of Valerie Wilson’s identity, not just those to Robert Novak. Set aside the fact that the 1X2X6 story (as well as the clear evidence of at least three leaks by October 12, 2003) didn’t have the FBI looking for more than one leaker.

The claim that Fitzgerald should not have investigated beyond the the day when, on October 1, 2003, Armitage identified himself as the first source to Novak would still be wrong.

That’s because there were clear discrepancies between Armitage’s and Novak’s stories. And Fitzgerald was actively investigating Armitage and Novak at least until September of 2004. The FBI couldn’t close up shop on October 1, 2003, and Fitzgerald didn’t close up shop on December 30, 2003, because it was still trying to determine whether Armitage had leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity to Novak intentionally for at least nine more months.

The newly unsealed portions of the affidavits Fitzgerald wrote in pursuit of Judy Miller’s and Matt Cooper’s testimony make this clear (I’m getting these scanned–I should have links to them in the next day or so). In the Miller affidavit, Fitzgerald lays out some of the discrepancies:

Executive Privilege, RNC Style

The NYT reports that Sara Taylor will come before the SJC today and testify about some things.

Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, has agreed toanswer some questions as a “willing and cooperative private citizen,”during testimony about the United States attorney firings last yearwhen she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee later today.

But, as a former presidential adviser, she will also honor thepresident’s invocation of executive privilege to keep quiet about“White House consideration, deliberations, or communications, whetherinternal or external, relating to the possible dismissal or appointmentof United States attorneys,”according to a written copy of her opening statement provided by herlawyer’s office. Those parameters were set forth in a letter to Ms.Taylor’s attorney, W. Neil Eggleston, from the White House counsel,Fred F. Fielding.

Now, seeing as how the defining character of human beings is our ability to communicate, I don’t see how, if Sara Taylor refuses to testify about "communications, whether internal or external," we’re going to get much information. This news seems to support Kagro X’s argument–that they’re trying to muddy the waters about where contempt of Congress starts.

Though the power of the various subspecies of executive privilege to prevent witnesses — especially former WhiteHouse officials — from testifying is Read more

No More $$ to Shred our Constitution

Now that I’m in DC, I’m thinking maybe I’ll just stay here until the impeachment. Because things are getting fun. As in, no more taxpayer dollars to help Cheney shred our Constitution.

Senate Democrats movedTuesday to cut off funding for Vice President Dick Cheney’s office in acontinuing battle over whether he must comply with national securitydisclosure rules.

A Senateappropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., refused tofund $4.8 million in the vice president’s budget until Cheney’s officecomplies with parts of an executive order governing its handling ofclassified information.

At issueis a requirement that executive branch offices provide data on how muchmaterial they classify and declassify. That information is to beprovided to the Information Security Oversight Office at The NationalArchives.

Tomorrow at 10 Sara Taylor will say, over and over, "I can’t reveal that," because it is protected by Executive Privilege (not sure I can make this hearing–we shall see). Then at noon, it’s time for Victor Rita’s lawyer to explain about how SCOTUS thinks 33 months for perjury is reasonable. And then the following day, it’s Miers’ turn to repeat, "I can’t reveal that," over and over again.

And all the while Cheney will be wondering how he can fund his ongoing plan Read more

“I Don’t Know Enough About It”

So says Pete Domenici, when asked by Andrea Mitchell whether he would testify before Congress if asked. ThinkProgress points out that a conversation between Rove and Domenici closely preceded David Iglesias’ firing. But I’ll go further, and raise this report.

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush’ssenior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesiasout and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.

The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after theelection but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S.attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

Iglesias’ name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutorswho would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared inOctober.

Lucky for Domenici that Andrea Mitchell is a beltway-sucking simp. Because rather than say, "In fact, Senator Domenici, you apparently do know about it–and your conversation with Bush is the one thing that most implicates executive privilege in this case,  as it is the Read more

IOB and Gonzales’s Latest Perjury

I’ve got just a few minutes before I’ve got to pack up for DC. But I wanted to point out a curious detail about the WaPo’s story on NSLs: the centrality of PFIAB in it. The story, of course, reveals that Gonzales received reports of violations of National Security Letter procedures, and then went into Congress and said there had been no problems with the program. But in addition to Gonzales, the board that’s supposed to police our intelligence activities also received reports of the violations.

Each of the violations cited in the reports copied to Gonzales wasserious enough to require notification of the President’s IntelligenceOversight Board, which helps police the government’s surveillanceactivities. The format of each memo was similar, and none minced words.

"Thisenclosure sets forth details of investigative activity which the FBIhas determined was conducted contrary to the attorney general’sguidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and ForeignIntelligence Collection and/or laws, executive orders and presidentialdirectives," said the April 21, 2005, letter to the IntelligenceOversight Board.

The oversight board, staffed with intelligenceexperts from inside and outside government, was established to reportto the attorney general and president about civil liberties abuses orintelligence lapses. But Roehrkasse said the fact that a violation isreported to the Read more

Conyers Hearing on Libby Commutation

HJC has announced the list of witnesses for Wednesday’s hearing on Libby’s get-out-of-jail-free. They are:

  • Joe Wilson: You guys know him, I think. I suspect he’ll talk about how Bush and Cheney are involved in this case.
  • Roger Adams, US DOJ Pardon Attorney. He’ll end up talking about the normal process for commutation. Hopefully, some smart Congressperson will ask him about the measures Congress put into place to prevent bogus insta-commutations after the Clinton pardons.
  • Douglas Berman, Fancy Law Professor, who also blogs at Sentencing Law and Policy. Presumably he’ll explain about how Libby had a light sentence within the guidelines and probably about how Libby’s sentence may be used by defense lawyers in the future to argue for leniency.
  • Tom Cochran, Vincent Victor [thanks nolo] Rita’s lawyer. This is great theater. Rita, of course, just lost a SCOTUS challenge on the appropriateness of his 33 month sentence. SCOTUS said 33 months sounded about right for a guy convicted of perjury. I’m sure Cochran will have a lot to say about how his client’s bid to have his sentence lowered because he’s a long-term serviceman didn’t work. I guess he doesn’t have the goods on the Vice President, though.
  • David Rivkin. Rivkin is the designated Read more

Novak’s July 7 Meeting

Credit where it’s due. Tom Maguire hits all the right notes about this Novak book excerpt, save one. He notes that Novak’s story has a way of changing with the seasons.

Interesting.  This old post has the Novak version before he was willing to name Armitage; here is Novak (post-"Hubris") rebutting Armitage’s version.

There are subtle shifts in the story – now we are told that "Hementioned her first name, Valerie", a detail not presented earlier.

I love the way righties note how changeable Novak’s story is–yet they always seem to fall for his most ridiculous lines. Like about how, when he referred to Valerie Plame as a covert Agent, he really meant she was running a Congressional campaign in Wyoming (no really–he did say that once–you think he’s got former Congressmen from Wyoming on his mind)?

Oh wait. This is a credit where it’s due post. Sorry. Maguire also points out that Novak’s cover story about Fran Townsend is changing too.

OK, we have had that before – the prevailing version as told by Murray Waas has been that the Townsend column came out on July 10;Rove defended her to Novak at length on the 8th or 9th, and then Novakslipped in a Read more

image_print