Stephen Hayes Tells the Truthiness: “There Wouldn’t Have Been an Investigation”

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of Hayes’ retelling of the Plame story in his biography on Cheney is his description of the events of fall 2003.

Before I explain it, I should note that Hayes has a problem with time. He frequently alters the chronology of events so he can screw with the causality. For example, he depicts Tenet’s July 11 statement–released at the end of the day in DC–as occurring before Condi’s earlier statement on Air Force One pretty much forcing Tenet’s hand to take the fall. I presume he does this to minimize the viciousness of Condi’s attack on Tenet–or some such thing.

Something similar happens with Hayes’ depiction of the announcement of the investigation. Hayes–and therefore I presume Cheney–claims the investigation would never have happened if it weren’t for Andrea Mitchell’s story on the investigation on September 26, 2003.

Then, on September 26, 2003, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News and Alex Johnson of MSNBC broke a big story on the MSNBC Web site. "The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador Read more

Share this entry

TALON, Guardian, Insert Your Name of the Week

Several people noted the announcement that DOD was shutting down the TALON database, wondering if the database was just going to be renamed down the line, as TIA seems to have morphed. Apparently they missed this detail:

It will be closed on Sept. 17 and information collected subsequently on potential terror or security threats to Defense Departmentfacilities or personnel will be sent by Pentagon officials to an FBIdatabase known as Guardian, according to Army Col. Gary Keck, aPentagon spokesman.

Give credit to William Arkin, who actually listed this database when he appeared on Democracy Now to talk about the Talon database:

AMY GOODMAN: Does this concern you?

WILLIAM ARKIN: What do you think? Of course, itconcerns me. I mean, I think that this is just one tiny picture of theactual amount of information which is collected by the F.B.I. and theintelligence community. We know that there are dozens of thesedatabases, Cornerstone, TALON, [inaudible], the Coast Guard ICCdatabase, the F.B.I. Guardian database, the F.B.I. TRRS database, theJoint Intelligence Task Force Counterterrorism Homeland Defensedatabase, the SSOMB database, the BTS summary, the C.I.A. TD database,the NSA traffic database called Criss-Cross. I mean, we know that thesedatabases are out there and that they all deal with domestic Read more

Share this entry

They Can’t Legislate $hit

Marty Lederman notes that Cheney’s latest dodge includes a reference to the ruling that limits Congress’ oversight over the Executive strictly to those areas where it pertains to legislation. From that, he argues that Cheney’s response was premised on the belief that FISA itself is an illegal restriction on the Executive.

Finally, the letter lists numerous reasons whythe VP’s office might not release the requested documents. The secondof those reasons is this:

The Office of the Vice President reserves the limitations on congressional inquiries set forth in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), which makes clear that the power to inquire extends no further than the power to legislate.

Now,I happen to think that this so-called "limitation" on congressionalinquiries is not nearly so clear: Many of the earliest legislativeinvestigations were not for the purpose of designing statutoryamendments, but were instead "only" to investigate wrongdoing ormalfeasance in the Executive branch; and the better view is probablythat Congress has at least some such broad investigative power,unrelated to its lawmaking functions. (The Court has even indicatedthat Congress has an important interest in Executive branchtransparency simply in order to facilitate "the American people’sability to reconstruct and come to terms with their history." Nixon v. Administrator, Read more

Share this entry

Wilkes Will Get an Enemy Combatant Lawyer for His Extraordinary Rendition-Related Trial

At least that’s what I infer from the comments of the lawyer from the public defender’s nonprofit that will now take on Wilkes’ defense in one of two cases (thanks to chrisc for sending this on) he has been charged on.

A lawyer from Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc., a nonprofit thatrepresents indigent people accused of federal crimes, will representWilkes in the criminal case with co-defendant Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, theformer third-highest-ranking official at the CIA.

[snip]

Federal Defenders of San Diego has several experienced lawyers who havecleared stringent background checks, Frank Mangan, the nonprofit’ssenior litigator said in an interview. The attorneys have worked oncases of enemy combatants accused of terrorism and who are being heldin Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Mangan said.

One of the office’s 40 lawyers will appear with Wilkes at ahearing scheduled for next month. At that point, Burns is expected toset a new trial date in 2008.

At issue is that Wilkes’ selected lawyer, Mark Geragos, refused to get a security clearance in a case in which one of the charged crimes has to do with Wilkes and Foggo setting up an air service of the type the CIA uses to conduct its extraordinary renditions. The judge in the case, Larry Burns, threw Geragos off the case and, after reviewing Wilkes’ financial declaration, decided that Wilkes is now indigent and will have a government-paid lawyer. I kind of like the karma that Wilkes will likely be defended by a guy that has also defended the kinds of people Wilkes aspired to deliver unto torture.

Share this entry

What Stephen Hayes Doesn’t Want You to Know about Cheney’s Involvment in Outing Valerie Wilson

I confess. I peeked ahead.

Today, we’re going to play a little quiz game. If you had to pick the parts of the CIA Leak story that Cheney’s hand-picked propagando-biographer would leave out, thereby leaving a picture that Dick Cheney was not centrally involved in the leak, what would you leave out?

The answers are after the jump.

Share this entry

Rally Squads and Disappearing Demonstrators

In a post on the $80,000 settlement BushCo had to pay for ejecting two people wearing an anti-Bush (that is, pro-America) t-shirt from a presidential rally, Pam Spaulding links to the Advance Manual used to prepare for such presidential rallies; the government turned over a very heavily redacted copy of the Manual during the suit. The Manual makes for intriguing reason for those who have gotten bored with Orwell, in particular the description of the "rally squads"–college/young Republicans,  local athletic teams, or sororities/fraternities–recruited to drown out the voices of anti-Bush attendees. I don’t mean to suggest Democrats don’t contest negative messages in the same way. But please. Call them something besides "rally squads." (I may be particularly sensitive because, after I consistently kept the ultimate team up very late on a tournament trip once, and after he learned that my mother’s maiden name resembles "rally," mr. emptywheel dubbed me the "rally captain" for the rest of that season.)

But I noticed something else interesting about the manual. As is normal for a document redacted by the government, each of the redactions is marked as such (though the government did not provide explanations for the redactions). Except in one case:

Advance_manual

Share this entry

Tom Davis, On the Record Source

By far the most interesting thing (to me at least) in today’s WaPo story on how Karl Rove mobilized Administration resources to commit massive Hatch Act violations is this:

"He didn’t do these things half-baked. It was total commitment," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III(Va.), who in 2002 ran the House Republicans’ successful reelectioncampaign in close coordination with Rove. "We knew history was againstus, and he helped coordinate all of the accoutrements of the executivebranch to help with the campaign, within the legal limits."

Tom Davis … Tom Davis. Gosh, isn’t he the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform? By golly he is!

That’s awfully curious, because this article relies on materials before that Committee: it relies on details about the briefings that have already been released through the Committee, as well as emails and briefing invitations that would fit under Henry Waxman’s requests for information of government agencies.

An invitation to a March 12, 2001, political briefing for federalofficials — one of the Rove team’s earliest — framed the mission thisway: "How we can work together."

[snip]

Most of the political briefings, officials said, were held at theWhite House or Old Executive Office Building for the liaisons or theagency chiefs of staff. But once or twice a year, Rove’s team sought tospread the message beyond this core team. Attendees were presented aslide show with the latest polling data, election talking points andmaps identifying competitive media markets, congressional races andpresidential battleground states.

The subjects for such meetings– which involved at least 18 agencies — ranged from "a politicalupdate" and "mid-term election trends" to "outreach" and "coalitionactivities/organization," according to invitations gathered bycongressional investigators.

DeBerry requested one such meeting at the Agriculture Department about five months before the 2004 election.

"Wewould like to hold a briefing for our political appointees on thestrategy we should focus on over the next several months," he wrote onJune 15, 2004, to Barry Jackson, the White House chief of strategicinitiatives. "The briefing you gave the Asset Deployment team about ayear ago would be perfect."

DeBerry’s e-mail captures what administration officials said was theessence of Rove’s approach: making sure that political appointees atevery level of government pushed a uniform agenda in key media marketsand on behalf of White House-backed candidates.

[snip]

Some briefings targeted political appointees because of their race orethnicity. On Aug. 11, 2006, for instance, Hispanic politicalappointees were summoned to a meeting with Rove’s team to discuss theadministration’s accomplishments for Hispanic Americans.

Mind you, I’m not accusing Davis of leaking this information or of any impropriety with his quote. Indeed, Committee Chair Henry Waxman is quoted as well, in the money quote of the entire article.

Share this entry

Beached Whale

Funny. In the entire Peter Baker article entitled, "Rove: Departure Unrelated to Investigations," Peter Baker never once quotes Rove as saying, "my departure is unrelated to the multiple investigations in my conduct." Or anything similar. Sure, Rove talks a lot about Ahab and Moby Dick.

"I realize that some of the Democrats are Captain Ahab and I’m thegreat white whale," he said. "I noticed the other day some Democraticstaffers were quoted calling me the big fish. Well, I’m Moby Dick andthey’re after me."

He admits that his departure won’t necessarily dissuade Democrats from investigating. But he never denies–certainly not in the any of the quotes included in the article–that he’s leaving because of the investigations.

Indeed, the whole thing reads like Rovian spin (and not very good spin at that) to try to suggest that Democrats will get hurt as they continue to pursue Rove’s actions.

In the interview, Rove criticized the Democrats for pursuing him andsaid their investigations have diminished their public support. "Thereis a reason," he said, "why the Congress has gone from high standingafter the ’06 election to being less popular than the president."

Mind you, Rove doesn’t provide any real data to prove his point. That’s probably for the best, Read more

Share this entry

A Thousand Words

13rove08

Remember this photo? This particular version is from Stephen Crowley of the New York Times–it’s part of a slideshow they’ve got up to commemorate the demise of Turdblossom. Go look through the slideshow and tell me whether you think they’re emphasizing the centrality of scandal to Rove’s tenure (there’s a hot picture of Rove and Luskin in there, for example, walking out of Prettyman).

In addition to Crowley’s, there are a number of other versions of this photo. I’ve always wondered whether the photo (all versions of it) wasn’t intended as a key to the secrets of the Administration, one the insider journalists all know the meaning of but won’t share it with us.

Indulge me, for the moment, and pretend that it is such a key. Let’s review the status of the people involved:

Scottie McClellan: Will go down in history as the least credible shill since Ron Zeigler,  Scottie had the unenviable role of telling the press that he had talked to Rove and Libby and they had assured Scottie they had nothing to do with the Plame leak. Scottie left the White House in April 20, at the same time Rove lost his policy portfolio, and just days before Read more

Share this entry

TSP and FISA

Yup, still mono-focused on FISA, but mr. emptywheel is clamoring for dinner, so maybe once I step away from the computer, I’ll remember all the other things I’ve been meaning to write on.

I want to object to the way Kevin Drum is referring to the new details of FISA:

Originally, FISA allowed warrantless wiretapping of anycommunication between two foreigners. It also allowed warrantlesssurveillance of "foreign powers" (including those on U.S. soil) as longas there was no substantial likelihood that the surveillance wouldinclude conversations with U.S. persons. "Foreign powers" did notinclude terrorist groups.

Democrats and Republicans were both willing to amend FISA to allowlimited surveillance of terrorist groups, and both were willing toamend FISA to overcome technical problems that had made it difficult tomonitor certains kinds of foreign-to-foreign communications. So whatwas the disagreement? Originally I thought it was mainly about how tofix one of the technical problems: namely, given modern communicationsnetwork architecture, what procedures do you need to put in place toensure a high likelihood that U.S. persons won’t be surveilled while atthe same time allowing NSA the widest possible latitude to monitorgenuine foreign-to-foreign communications?

However, that appears not to be the case.  Rather, NSA (and the White House) were specifically looking for newauthority Read more

Share this entry