McClatchy has a story that shows that Pat Rogers, one of the key players behind the firing of David Iglesias, was an officer in the voter fraud group American Center for Voting Rights.

Iglesias said he only recently learned of Rogers� involvement assecretary of the non-profit American Center for Voting RightsLegislative Fund – an activist group that defended tighter voteridentification requirements in court against charges that they weredesigned to hamper voting by poor minorities.

Rogers, a former general counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party anda candidate to replace Iglesias, is among a number of well-connectedGOP partisans whose work with the legislative fund and a sister groupplayed a significant role in the party�s effort to retain control ofCongress in the 2006 election.

That strategy, which presidential adviser Karl Rove alluded to in anApril 2006 speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association,sought to scrutinize voter registration records, win passage of tougherID laws and challenge the legitimacy of voters considered likely tovote Democratic.

This is the Thor Hearne group generating false concern over non-existent voter fraud cases.

As McClatchy pointed out in its article and I’ve been pointing out for some time, Rogers is or was also a candidate to replace Iglesias. We know Domenici has supported Rogers’ candidacy for some time.

Yet we don’t yet have statements–from Domenici or from the White House–who was behind Rogers’ candidacy to be USA. Isn’t it about time we tried to find out whether Iglesias  was fired specifically to free up a place for a vote fraud hack? You know, kind of like what happened in Missouri? Because it would make it a lot easier to show the pattern behind these firings.

Frank Rich has a column out that means well–but repeats a Cheney talking point in a way that does more harm than good. He focuses on the connection between Bush’s revised Executive Order on classification and the CIA Leak argues that, when Bush gave Cheney classification authority equivalent to his own, he also gave him declassification authority equivalent to his own.

But few noticed another change inserted five times in the revised text:every provision that gave powers to the president over classifieddocuments was amended to give the identical powers to the vicepresident. This unprecedented increase in vice-presidential clout,though spelled out in black and white, went virtually unremarked incontemporary news accounts.

Rich’s construction here is uncharacteristically sloppy. Bush only explicitly gave Cheney the power to classify information (that is, to take unclassified information and make it classified). Here’s the relevant passage from the Executive Order:

Sec. 1.3.  Classification Authority.  (a)  The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1)  the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

By using the phrase, "every provision that gave powers to the president over classifieddocuments," Rich implies that this power included classification and declassification. But Bush did not revise the key section of the EO that defined Declassification Authority.

‘‘Declassificationauthority’’ means:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if thatofficial is still serving in the same position;

(2) the originator’s current successor infunction;

(3) a supervisory official of either; or

(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by theagency head or the senior agency official.

In other words, while Bush gave Cheney the power to classify information, he didn’t change the rule that only the originator, the successor, the supervisor of the originator, or someone specifically delegated can declassify information. The claim–that Cheney has the ability to declassify at will (as opposed to classify at will)–is an error that TPMM made last week as well.

This post follows on my wildarsed guess that one of the things that appears in the two-page gap is discussion of Libby’s and Novak’s super-secret July 9 meeting. I’d like to point out–and speculate on–several weird bits in Novak’s trial testimony. Full credit: Jeff Lomonaco identified several of these in a conversation with me, but I happen to know he’s at an undisclosed location with crappy Toobz access, so I’m going to run with it and he’ll just have to call in any comments!! Jeff and I have discussed some of these at some length, but I think they make more sense if, indeed, the Libby-Novak meeting is mentioned in the two-page gap.

To make it up to Jeff, here’s a link to his book, from which I’m transcribing these bits.

Fitzgerald Objects

The first weird bit is a successful objection Fitzgerald makes when Wells tries to get Novak to say he testified–before the grand jury–that Libby hadn’t told Libby anything about Plame. Ted Wells is trying to establish that Novak testified willingly at alltimes, including about his conversation with Libby. Novak has just laidout how he agreed to discuss Armitage, Rove, and Harlow in an interviewafter the prosecutors brought waivers from those three people. ThenWells moves to Rove’s grand jury testimony:

Wells: I’ll show you a copy of your Grand Jury testimony, dated February 25–

Fitzgerald: We’ll stipulate to the date, February 25, 2004.

Walton: Very well.

Now, reading this with some distance, it appears that Fitzgerald istrying to prevent Wells from handing Novak his grand jury testimony. Iseem to recall, though, that this exchange was a response to Novak’searlier (in his discussion of the interviews with Fitzgerald) claim tohave forgotten dates, so it may be entirely innocuous.

Laura asks why the government (and Kontogiannis, in a filing submitted yesterday) would fight to continue to seal the transcripts from his four hearings before Judge Larry Burns.

In an unusual step, Kontogiannis’ guilty plea was done in a secret,closed hearing. The plea agreement was unsealed earlier this month, andlast week Burns ordered that transcripts of four hearings related tothe plea also be made public.

Federal prosecutors objected in motions filed under seal lastweek. Yesterday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ordered thedocuments to remain secret and scheduled a hearing for the week of Aug.6.

Now the government is making an argument that these transcripts include classified information–an argument they apparently haven’t made before.

At a hearing in federal court in San Diego yesterday, Burnssaid that the government invoked federal laws dealing with classifiedinformation in their papers filed last week.

He said that when the secret hearings took place four monthsago, prosecutors knew that the information would become openeventually, and did not object then.

The judge appeared irked that the government was now objecting to theinformation becoming public and was raising the issue of classifiedinformation “for the first time ever.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Forge said government lawyersdecided after the hearings that they wanted more information keptsecret than they first believed was necessary.

Without going into details, Forge told Burns “the scope of theinformation the government viewed as non-disclosable turned out to bebroader” than they originally thought.

Meanwhile, John Michael’s lawyer suggests this is something more than an effort to keep classified information sealed.

You wouldn’t think that I–after babbling about this for two years and beating up the press for ignoring it–would miss an opportunity to highlight the super-secret Libby-Novak meeting, do you? Only that’s what I did yesterday, when I was puzzling through the remaining two-page gap in the Tatel opinion. Duh.

My post yesterday made the argument that, in addition to laying out the background for the Cooper-Rove conversation (and Rove’s prevaricating about it) and pointing out the discrepancies between Rove’s story and Novak’s, the two-page gap must explain why a bunch of seeming extraneous quotes from grand jury testimony appear in the unsealed portion. Those quotes include:

• Two details of Cheney’s involvement tied to Libby’s leaks without a larger explanation of Cheney’s importance in the leaks
• A description of Armitage’s somewhat implausible story of learning he was Novak’s source
• The following claims from Novak as to the sourcing of his column:

Novak identified Armitage’s comment as an “offhand revelation” from “asenior administration official” who was “no partisan gunslinger.”(II-20.) He referred to Rove simply as “another official” who said,“Oh, you know about it.”

One thing that could very logically tie these loose ends together is a discussion of the Libby-Novak conversation that happened on July 9. After all, it would provide a way to reintroduce (and explain) the Cheney involvement, it would provide a reason to doubt the "Armitage as primary source" story, and it would provide a reason to question Novak’s claim that he had two and only two sources.

It’s funny how, now that we’re so attuned to BushCo’s Friday news dumps, something reported on Friday attracts more notice than something reported on Thursday.

On Friday, we learned that Rachel Brand, one of the last remaining DOJ clique-members (and a tangential one at that) will resign on July 9.

Rachel Brand, the assistant attorney general in the Office of LegalPolicy, will step down July 9, the department said in a statement. Thestatement did not give a reason for her departure, but Brand isexpecting a baby soon.

I can understand not wanting to expose a near-child to the cesspool that is DOJ right now.

On Thursday, we learned that Scott Schools, technically an employee of EOUSA and currently interim USA for San Francisco, will resign around July 13.

Scott Schools, who became the interim U.S. attorney in San Francisco after Kevin Ryan was fired in February, will leave within weeks to return to South Carolina as a county prosecutor.

Schools, 45, was nominated Wednesday by South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford to be the solicitor, the equivalent of a district attorney, for Charleston and Berkeley counties. He will succeed Ralph Hoisington, who died of cancer June 9. Schools said Hoisington was an old friend with whom he once shared a law office.

The appointment requires confirmation by the state Senate. Schools said he will remain at his San Francisco post at least through July 13 during the confirmation process. Schools, a Republican, would face election to a new term as solicitor next year if he decided to run. He was noncommittal about a candidacy Wednesday.

I’m actually more intrigued by Schools’ resignation than Brand’s. From the reporting on Schools, it sounds like Bush might actually be nearing a nomination to serve as USA for San Francisco.

As I said earlier, the most interesting part of the Tatel opinion is the two-page section that remains redacted (thanks again to Jeralyn for making the opinion available), explaining why Fitzgerald suspects Rove perjured himself in his testimony about Novak and Cooper. I believe that section includes:

• An assertion that Rove lied when he testified that he responded to Novak’s story about Plame by saying, "you heard that too?"
• A description of some way that Rove’s testimony contradicts Novak’s description that Rove promised to declassify the CIA report on Wilson’s trip
• A description of Rove’s presumably changing testimony about Cooper–and possibly a description about the magically rediscovered Rove-Hadley email
• A description of one more piece of involvement on the part of Cheney

The passage comes after the long passage explaining the Miller subpoena. That Miller passage follows this logic:

• Describes the two Miller calls
• Asserts that, given the other reasons to distrust Libby’s testimony, he may have lied about the Miller conversations, too
• Describes the Russert/Libby discrepancies–including the quotes from both men’s grand jury testimony that lays out those discrepancies
• Describes proof Libby knew of Plame on July 8 using the Fleischer conversation
• Describes the potential discussion of Plame on Air Force Two and Cheney’s other involvement
• Shows that Miller may provide the final piece of evidence for a perjury charge

One important point here is that the quotes from Libby’s, Russert’s, Ari’s, and Cooper’s Libby grand jury testimony are all used to support Tatel’s argument that there is evidence of perjury. They’re very narrowly selected quotes that pertain directly to the case on perjury. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that the grand jury testimony that was unsealed today (including quotes from Novak, Armitage, and evidence pertaining to Cheney) also support an argument of evidence of perjury.

Which brings us to the passage on Rove that has just been unsealed. It starts by setting up that, according to both Armitage and Novak, Rove was involved in the Novak leak, all the while admitting that Armitage was also involved.

Although uncontradicted testimony indicates that Novak first learned Wilson’s wife’s place of employment during a meeting on July 8 with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 18), Novak said in grand jury testimony that he confirmed Plame’s employment with Rove (II-153-54), a longstanding source for his columns (II-121-22). According to Novak, when he “brought up” Wilson’s wife, “Mr. Rove said, oh, you know about that too” (II-154) and promised to seek declassification of portions of a CIA report regarding the Niger trip, which Rove said “wasn’t an impressive piece of work or a very definitive piece of work” (II-158). In an October 2003 column describing his sources, Novak identified Armitage’s comment as an “offhand revelation” from “a senior administration official” who was “no partisan gunslinger.” (II-20.) He referred to Rove simply as “another official” who said, “Oh, you know about it.” (II-20, 209-11.)

Upon reading Novak’s October column, Armitage recognized himself as Novak’s source and, as he told the grand jury, “went ballistic.” (II-859-60.) He contacted Secretary of State Colin Powell to offer his resignation (II-862-64) and spoke the next day with FBI and Justice Department officials investigating the leak (II-878-79). “I was very unhappy at myself,” Armitage testified, “because I had let the President down, I’d let the Secretary down, and frankly, I’d let Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson down. In my view inadvertently, but that’s for others to judge.” (II-860.) [my emphasis]

Now this passage does two things. It lays out all the details thus far presented to the grand jury by Armitage and Novak, though not Rove. And it provides some explanation for why Armitage was not charged with an IIPA violation, but it does not say as much. Alternately, it could lay the groundwork for an argument that Novak was lying when he said Armitage was his first source (which would explain why Tatel included so much detail about Novak’s sourcing)–but I’ll assume for now it doesn’t since the passage says that uncontradicted testimony says that Novak first learned of Plame from Armitage.

The following two pages are redacted, and the paragraph following the long redaction reads:

Pow wow is right. One of the best parts of today’s Appeals Court order releasing more of the grand jury material from the Plame investigation is this paragraph:

Even if the Armitage revelation created a compelling public interest in them—and it
is unclear to us why, as Dow Jones asserts, the Special Counsel’s knowledge that one individual leaked Plame’s identity calls into question the validity of his continuing investigation into others who may have unlawfully leaked this same information—this is irrelevant given that there is no First Amendment right of access to secret grand jury matters.

The Appeals Court judges are basically telling the AP and WSJ the same thing I said months ago–they’re being dumb when they claim that Armitage’s involvement in the leak touches on Libby and Rove’s guilt at all.

Nope, I still haven’t stopped obsessing over Clement’s opinion on the subpoenas.

As I pointed out yesterday, Clement makes one claim that I believe is false and probably disingenuous. He claims that Bush has a nondelegable power to appoint US Attorneys, inscribed in the Constitution.

These confidentiality interests are particularly strongwhere, as here, the communications may implicate a "quintessential andnondelegable Presidential power," such as the authority to nominate orto remove U.S. Attorneys.

[snip]

The Senate has the authority to approve or reject the appointment ofofficers whose appointment by law requires the advice and consent ofthe Senate (which has been the case for U.S. Attorneys since thefounding of the Republic), but it is for the President to decide whomto nominate to such positions and whether to remove such officers onceappointed. [my emphasis]

As I pointed out yesterday, the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to legislate how and who appoints inferior officers, including US Attorneys.

but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferiorofficers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courtsof law, or in the heads of departments.

But we don’t even have to go to the Constitution to prove that this is the case–after all, this whole scandal started after Brett Tolman snuck a provision into the PATRIOT Act that took the right to appoint US Attorneys away from judges and gave it to the Attorney Gonzales. This whole scandal started when Congress exercised its right to legislate how US Attorneys get appointed–even if Congress claims it didn’t know it was doing so at the time.

This bears mentioning.

Congress subpoenaed the White House for information on the USA Purge on June 13, just 15 days ago. Already, OLC has done its review, Paul Clement has written his opinion, and Fred Fielding has provided a response to Congress. 15 days.

Bill Leonard, head of ISOO, wrote Alberto Gonzales on January 9 for an opinion on whether Cheney was indeed exempt from Bush’s own Executive Order. On June 4, DOJ responded to a FOI request and as much as said that DOJ had not done any work on Leonard’s request. A DOJ spokesperson has since said there has been no work done. (Though on June 22, DOJ said it was reviewing the matter.)

Leonard first made his request 170 days ago, more than 10 times as long as it has taken DOJ to review the question of executive privilege. And still, DOJ has not provided its opinion as to whether Cheney has to follow the rules.