Archive for category: emptywheel

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 →

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 →

I’m supposed to be doing something else entirely. But I’m going to raise a point that I’ve raised already–because it sure seems like Democrats are sleeping through the Constitution.

Paul Clement, in his explanation of why BushCo could invoke executive privilege in the USA scandal, claimed
that the President has "nondelegable Presidential power" "to nominate orto remove U.S. Attorneys." It’s a claim repeated (though in more humble form) by Fred Fielding in his invocation of executive privilege.

In the present setting, where the President’s authority to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys is at stake, the institutional interest of the Executive Branch is very strong.

[snip]

Your letter does not dispute these principles.

[snip]

The letter does not challenge the exclusive character of the President’s appointment and removal power, nor does the letter attempt to establish a constitutional basis for the Committees’ inquiry into this matter.

Now, IANAL. But, particularly given Fielding’s retreat on this issue, I believe BushCo is on shaky ground on this issue and the Democrats really need to start pointing that out. After all, the Constitution itself disputes Clement’s and Fielding’s claims that Bush’s appointment power is non-delegable and exclusive.

but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such Read more →

As a teaser for the post I keep promising, but never delivering (identifying the document from which I think Cheney learned of Plame’s identity), I’m going to make a quick point about Cheney’s request to the CIA on June 10, 2003 for information on Wilson’s trip. This email, written by Robert Grenier’s Executive Assistant (but not seen by Grenier, if we can believe his trial testimony), repeats the story that Cheney gave to John McLaughlin to verify. Here’s the story:

In February 2002, CIA received an initial report of a shipment of uranium from Niger to Chad. Former Ambassador to Cameroon Joe Wilson (an old friend of the Agency and former Charge d’Affaires in Baghdad) was supposedly sent by CIA to Niger to investigate this story. He did so, and he concluded that there was no truth to it. Wilson said that he was debriefed by a CIA case officer who flew in (to where is unclear) [redacted]

Now, I presume that the parenthetical information about Wilson–"an old friend of the Agency and former Charge d’Affaires in Baghdad"–comes from the author of this email or McLaughlin. But I presume the rest comes from Cheney–it’s the story that he told McLaughlin he had heard, and would like verified or refuted.

Notice the false details in the story? Joe Wilson was never Ambassador to Cameroon–he was Ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome (and I’ve asked him–he was never otherwise stationed in Cameroon). And the February 2002 report, if it included any information about a shipment of uranium from Niger to Iraq, described that shipment as going through Benin, not Chad. The report described a contract being signed, not a shipment. The bit about the debriefing is weird too, with the ambiguity about where the debriefing took place. Cheney told McLaughlin a story that would lead him to find the real story on Wilson (the 2002 intelligence, the reference to Niger, and Wilson’s name should do that by itself), but that included some noise, some incorrect information.

I mentioned in my celebration of Jeralyn my friend whose clients never get the luxury of Presidential commutations. Well, he says this is an accurate quote, so I thought I’d let him have his say on Libby’s commutation.

David Moran, associate dean of the Wayne State University Law School,said Libby’s commutation directly contradicts the Justice Department’sposition in the case of Victor Rita, a highly decorated veteranimprisoned for perjury under circumstances strikingly similar toLibby’s.

U.S. Supreme Court justices recently upheld Rita’s prison sentence, andit’s that decision, not Bush’s commutation rationale, that federalcourt judges are bound to follow.

Still, Moran said, "Defense lawyers would be stupid not to latch onto the contradiction.

"The president made an elaborate argument for leniency, and I’d besurprised if we don’t see judges who want to hand out more lenientsentences citing the president’s statement specifically," he said.

I’ve heard a lot about the folks Dave represents. I suspect he’ll be making those elaborate arguments with little effect. Not that he’s not smart as all get out–and persuasive too (and since we’ve been talking about ultimate frisbee–he’s got a mean lefty huck that I used to be able to put to good use). But his clients, generally, are not protecting the President. Which, Read more →