Posts

Bob Novak Is One Key to Libby’s Aspen Letter

/in /by

Alright. Admittedly this discovery is rather dated. But hell–what are blogs for, if not to rehash that old Aspen letter Libby sent Judy in September 2005? Especially if, after rehashing the letter, you discover that Bob Novak may be there hiding among the Aspen trees?

Back when I first analyzed the letter, I compared how Libby’s description of the testimony of journalists matched up against published accounts about that testimony.

Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.

I compared that statement to the public reports from Tim Russert and Matt Cooper and agreed (after some coaching from readers), that Russert "did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with [Libby]" and Cooper "knew about her before [Libby’s] call." Surprise! Even in a cryptic letter, it appeared, Libby was being transparent and honest with Judy. Which struck me as rather suspicious–that Libby might tell such transparent truths in such cryptic language.

But I did that analysis a month before I first speculated that Libby had spoken to Bob Novak the week of the leak, and a full year before Libby’s and Novak’s conversation on July 9 was confirmed in court filings. That is, when Libby wrote the Aspen letter, we didn’t know that Novak was among the journalists who had testified about a conversation with Libby, but Libby knew it. And if my reading of the script Libby sent Judy via Steno Sue and Pool Boy was correct, then Judy would have known about the conversation, though not that Novak had testified. As a reminder, here’s how I first speculated that Libby and Novak had spoken:

Steno Sue’s Secret Message
The morning Judy testified the first time to the Grand Jury, one of Libby’s allies managed to get the following passage inserted into the newspaper that will replace the NYT as the nation’s newspaper of record.

[snip]

The Novak Surprise
Now we come to far and away the most curious part of this coaching session:

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

Is this still a message for Judy? Why would Libby’s friend need to remind Judy that Libby hadn’t spoken to Novak in the case? Unless she knew that he had spoken to Novak? I think it highly possible that Libby’s friend is telling Judy not to mention the fact that she knew Libby spoke to Novak about this case.

Read more →

Share this entry

Isn’t It Time to Chat with Kyle Sampson Again?

/in /by

Here’s an exchange between Dick Durbin, Senior Senator from Illinois, and Rove acolyte Kyle Sampson about the firing of Patrick Fitzgerald.

Durbin: Were you ever party to any conversation about the removal of Patrick Fitzgerald from his position as Northern District of Illinois US Attorney?

Sampson: I remember on one occasion in 2006, in discussing the removal of US Attorneys … or, the process of considering some US Attorneys that might be asked to resign, that I was speaking to Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley and I raised Pat Fitzgerald. Immediately after I did it I regretted it. I thought, I knew it was the wrong thing to do. I knew that it was inappropriate. And I remember at the time that Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley said nothing, they just looked at me. I regretted it and I withdrew it at the time and I regret it now.

Durbin: Do you recall what you said at the time about Patrick Fitzgerald?

Sampson: I said, Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to this list.

Durbin: And, there was no response?

Sampson: No. They looked at me like I had said something totally inappropriate, and I had.

Durbin: Why did you do it? Why did you recommend, or at least suggest that he be removed as US Attorney?

Sampson: I’m not sure, I don’t remember. I think it was maybe to get a reaction from them. I don’t think that I, I know that I never seriously considered putting Patrick Fitzgerald on a list and he never did appear on a list.

Now put that exchange together with Rove’s non-denial denial that he was involved in having Patrick Fitzgerald fired:

But Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, today issued an unequivocal statement about all of this to the Tribune on behalf of Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President Bush, architect of Bush’s presidential campaigns and a private consultant in Washington now.

"Karl has known Kjellander for many years,” Luskin said, "but does not recall him or anyone else arguing for Fitzgerald’s removal. And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn’t take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House — or in the Justice Department — about doing anything like that.”

Of course, when Rove says "I don’t recall" about an event, it usually means, "I won’t admit it until you show more evidence" about that incident. Read more →

Share this entry

Fitzgerald Learned Rove Was Trying to Fire Him in 2005–While Rove Was Still Under Investigation

/in , /by

In a supplement to his responses to the House Judiciary Committee, Patrick Fitzgerald confirms what we’ve always suspected: Karl Rove was trying to have Patrick Fitzgerald fired while Fitzgerald was still investigating Rove for his role in leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity–and the timing lines up perfectly with the Administration’s efforts to fire a bunch of US Attorneys.

Remember back in June, when Fitzgerald publicly suggested he had more details to share with Congress about Rove’s efforts to get him fired?

"If I owe a response [about the putsch to remove him from his job], I owe it to Congress, first," Fitzgerald said when asked about all this after the verdict.

Well, it turns out Fitzgerald did share those details with Congress. And those details make it clear that Fitzgerald learned Rove was trying to fire him while Fitzgerald was still actively investigating Rove’s role in the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity.

In my answers submitted on May 2,2008, I noted in my response to Question Eleven that I omitted discussion of when I first learned that I might be asked to resign as United States Attorney. I declined to answer more fully due to the then pending trial of United States v. Antoin Rezko in the Northern District of Illinois. With that trial concluded, I can briefly elaborate further: I learned some time in or about early 2005 from agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") that a cooperating witness (who later testified at the Rezko trial, but not about this topic) had advised the FBI agents that he had earlier been told by one of Mr. Rezko’s co-schemers that it was the responsibility of a third person in Illinois to have me replaced as United States Attorney. I should be clear that I did not understand that any putative effort to replace me as United States Attorney was related to my conduct as Special Counsel but understood instead that it was related to the investigative activities of federal agents and prosecutors conducting a corruption investigation in Illinois. [my emphasis]

As a reminder, here’s the allegation with all the names handily added in (though I think Fitzgerald is referring to someone besides Ata, because Ata was not yet cooperating with the Rezko prosecutors):

In a hearing before court began, prosecutors said they hoped to call Ali Ata, the former Blagojevich administration official who pleaded guilty to corruption yesterday, to the stand.

Read more →

Share this entry

The Attorney General Thinks It’s Okay for the Vice President to Have Ordered the Outing of a Spy

/in /by

Now we know why Attorney General Mukasey is willing to write such ridiculous letters in the service of hiding Vice President Cheney’s role in the outing of CIA spy: he apparently thinks it’s no big deal that the Vice President ordered the outing of a CIA spy.

At least that’s the implication of this exchange between Mukasey and Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter (34:00 to 36:01):

Specter: Moving to reporters privilege in the limited time left. Attorney General Mukasey what was the justification for keeping reporter Judith Stern [sic] in jail for 85 days when the source of the leak was known to be Deputy Attorney General [sic] Richard Armitage?

Mukasey: As you know I was not on duty when that case came to the fore, and it’s my own view that that case may very well be a better argument against the Special Counsel than it is in favor of legislation of the sort that’s been proposed.

Specter: I’m not prepared to deal with the Special Counsel because he’s not here. If I had Senator Leahy’s gavel, I would have brought him in here a while ago, once the case was finished. But it’s very germane in evaluating public policy on whether the Department of Justice ought to have the authority to issue a subpoena in the context and move for a contempt citation and hold a reporter [sic] in jail under very unpleasant circumstances. I can attest to that first hand–I went to visit her.

Mukasey: There’s no such thing as jail under pleasant circumstances. It is an inherent contradiction. It is something that therefore we use as a last resort, and we’re gonna continue to use as a last resort.

Specter: Well, why’d you need a resort when you know the leak? When you know who the leaker is, why go after a reporter or keep her in jail?

Mukasey: As I said, that was not…

Specter: I know that would be better addressed to the Special Counsel.

Mukasey: It would.

Specter: Someday we may have an opportunity to do that. But right now, you’re the one we’ve got, Attorney General Mukasey. You’re the guy who’s pushing a policy. So I think it’s a fair question to say to you, why maintain a policy that gives whoever the prosecutor is the power to do that when you know who the leaker is.

Mukasey: We don’t give that power to a prosecutor, for precisely that reason. Read more →

Share this entry

Waxman, Fitzgerald, and Mukasey

/in /by

In a response to Waxman today, Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that Mukasey’s obstruction is the only thing standing between Waxman getting the Bush and Cheney interview reports. And Waxman is none too happy about it. Good.

In his letter, Fitzgerald confirms what has been clear thus far: because Bush and Cheney avoided the dangers of grand jury testimony, their interview reports are not protected under grand jury secrecy. But if Waxman wants them, he’s going to have to get them from Mukasey.

As to interviews which we have determined are not protected by Rule 6(e), we have provided responsive information to you, after allowing the appropriate executive branch agencies to review the documents consistent with the process described in my earlier letters. As discussed in prior correspondence, the Special Counsel team is not responsible for determining whether executive branch confidentiality interests will be asserted in response to particular requests by the Committee.

Consistent with the above process, I can advise you that as to any interviews of either the President or Vice President not protected by the rules of grand jury secrecy, there were no "agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation" and either the President or Vice President "regarding the conduct and use of the interview of interviews."

Shorter Fitz: blame Mukasey.

Which Waxman promptly did.

On June 16, 2008, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena to you for the production of documents relevant to the Committee’s investigation of the leak of the covert identity ofCIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. You have neither complied with this subpoena by its returnable date nor asserted any privilege to justify withholding documents from the Committee. In light of your actions, I am writing to inform you that the Committee will meet on July 16, 2008, to consider a resolution citing you for contempt of Congress.

[snip]

The arguments you have raised for withholding the interview report are not tenable. When the FBI interview with the Vice President was conducted, the Vice President knew that the information in the interview could be made public in a criminal trial and that there were no restrictions on Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s use of the interview. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified this key point last week, Read more →

Share this entry

DOJ’s Attempt to Shield Obstruction of Justice

/54 Comments/in /by

I agree with bmaz. This letter from DOJ refusing to turn over the Bush and Cheney interview reports is a load of crap (h/t WO, who’s doing all the heavy lifting today). I’ve gotta go to a meeting, so check back later for (I hope) some real smack-down of DOJ’s crap. But here are the key passages.

In seeking to accommodate the Committee’s requests, however, we must take into account core Executive Branch confidentiality interests and fundamental separation of powers principles, and we must avoid taking steps that could compromise the effectiveness of future criminal investigations involving White House personnel. Consequently, as we have informed the Committee, we are not prepared to provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or the Vice President fiom the leak investigation. To do so would allow Congress to obtain through access to Justice Department investigative files information that it otherwise could not gather through its own inquiry because of separation of powers.

Your various letters on this matter have explained that the Committee’s legislative purpose for its inquiry concerns the review of White House procedures for handling classified information. We have attempted to accommodate this interest by permitting the Committee to review the reports of interviews of senior White House staff, which contain some information relevant to this subject. However, these reports also contain considerable information detailing the internal White House deliberations and communications of senior White House staff concerning how they should respond on behalf of the President to public assertions challenging the accuracy of a statement made in the President’s State of the Union Address. The Executive Branch has important institutional interests in the confidentiality of such White House deliberations and communications, and we therefore accommodated the Committee’s interests by making interview reports of senior White House staff available for review but not copying, with limited redactions of presidential and vice presidential communications and personal information not germane to the leak investigation.

We are not prepared to make the same accommodation for reports of interviews with the President and Vice President because the confidentiality interests relating to those documents are of a greater constitutional magnitude. The President and the Vice President are the two nationally elected constitutional officers under our Government. Read more →

Share this entry

Fitzgerald’s Successful Argument to Keep the Bush and Cheney Reports Out of Discovery

/16 Comments/in /by

Back in the discovery period leading up to Scooter Libby’s trial, Ted Wells made a valiant attempt–based on Fitzgerald’s notice that he was going to include reference to the insta-declassification of the NIE–to get Bush and Cheney’s interview reports in discovery. But, as far as I can tell from the available record, Wells failed. Fitzgerald argued that, so long as he was willing to stipulate that the leak of the NIE on July 8 was not illegal, then any discovery of the Bush and Cheney reports would count as Jencks, and therefore he would only be obligated to turn them over if the government called Bush or Cheney to testify.

Given the fact that Mukasey appears to have claimed he can’t reveal the reports for some crazy reason, I thought I’d lay out this argument. Nowhere does Fitzgerald explain that he couldn’t turn over the reports–only that he doesn’t think he has to, unless Judge Walton orders him to do so.

MR. WELLS: Your Honor, with respect to the issue of the NIE, as Your Honor knows, Mr. Libby testified that he had discussions with Ms. Miller concerning the NIE based on expressed instructions from the vice president and with the understanding that President Bush had declassified the document. This is a case that concerns unauthorized disclosure of classified material. To the extent that Mr. Fitzgerald is in possession of documents or grand jury material or interviews that establish that, in fact, the vice president and the president were aware that those documents had been declassified, he should turn them over because I do not want to be in a position during this trial that there is some question that Mr. Libby, in disclosing that material to Ms. Miller, did anything wrong.

THE COURT: But the government is not alleging any violation of the law regarding that.

[snip]

THE COURT: You are not challenging whether there was a declassification of that information at the time it was produced?

MR. FITZGERALD: We’re not challenging the declassification authority as of July 8. What he is asking now is Jencks. And that’s what we kept writing in our briefs, we don’t turn over Jencks material before trial. Now we’re asking for grand jury testimony. It is not an issue. The NIE is not mentioned in the indictment. Read more →

Share this entry

Those Democratic Committee Chairs Aren’t COORDINATING, Are They?

/35 Comments/in /by

Here’s a little timeline, just for fun.

May 30: Conyers troubled by McClellan’s revelations

June 3: Waxman writes to Mukasey, demanding Bush Cheney reports by June 10

June 9: Conyers schedules McClellan testimony for June 20

June 11: Mukasey has his underling reply to Waxman

June 16, 2008: Oversight subpoenas Mukasey for Bush Cheney reports

June 20, 2008: During McClellan hearing, Conyers announces he’s going to request the Bush Cheney reports

June 23, 2008: Due date on Oversight subpoena

June 24, 2008: DOJ tells Oversight to fuck off

June 26, 2008: HJC votes to subpoena Mukasey for a laundry list of documents

June 27, 2008: HJC delivers subpoena, including demand that Mukasey turn over the FBI reports on the Bush and Cheney interviews

June 27, 2008: Oversight requests documents from Fitzgerald

July 3, 2008: Due date for documents from Fitzgerald

July 7, 2008: Due date on HJC subpoena

Now, far be it for me to suggest that Henry Waxman and John Conyers–members of the same political party (!)–are in cahoots. In fact, all my experience with the Democrats since they’ve been in the majority makes me believe that the chances they’re working in tandem here are extremely small.

But still. Look at the dates. HJC only voted to subpoena Mukasey for the Bush and Cheney interview reports (and a laundry list of over materials) after Mukasey had already told Waxman to fuck off. And conveniently, Waxman has given Fitzgerald a deadline that comes before Mukasey’s deadline to hand over the reports to HJC.

You see, I can’t help but think that Oversight has a relatively weak claim to those interview reports. Ostensibly, they have asked for the reports to answer the following questions:

(l) How did such a serious violation of our national security occur? (2) Did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred? ‘ And (3) what changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of our national security from continuing?

In other words, Waxman has described the rationale of his request in terms of strict oversight roles–ostensibly to prevent someone else–besides the Barnacle, I guess–from outing CIA spy with impunity. DOJ has allowed Oversight to see (but not keep) interview reports showing clearly that Bush and Cheney not only didn’t launch an investigation into the leak. They obstructed justice, by exonerating Rove and Libby publicly. But if, given what Mukasey has seen and we haven’t seen, Bush and Cheney can claim they had declassified Plame’s identity before Libby and everyone else leaked it, well, then, the whole question of why they didn’t do an investigation is moot. Read more →

Share this entry

What Is Michael Mukasey Helping Dick Cheney to Cover Up?

/94 Comments/in /by

Never mind. I know the answer. Attorney General Mukasey is helping Cheney and Bush hide the fact that they played insta-declassification games that may have–though they’ll never tell–included leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity.

Apparently, DOJ responded to Waxman’s subpoena for the Bush and Cheney interview reports by telling Waxman to go fuck himself (h/t WO).

On June 16,2008, having been informed in writing by the Justice Department that it would not produce the interview reports of the President and Vice President, the Committee issued a subpoena for those interview reports, as well as other responsive documents not previously produced, with a return date of June23,2008. On June 24,2008, the Justice Department informed the Committee by letter that it would not comply with the subpoena and would not "provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or the Vice President from the leak investigation."

Waxman appears to be calling DOJ on whatever grounds DOJ invoked when refusing to comply with the subpoena, because he’s asking Fitz for clarification on whether or not there was an agreement between him and the Barnacle Branch that would shield the FBI reports from any exposure.

To assist the Committee in evaluating the Department’s position, I request that you produce the following information to the Committee no later than July 3, 2008:

1. Documents sufficient to show the date and terms of all agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the President of the United States, regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews of the President conducted as part of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation.

2. Documents sufficient to show the date and terms of all agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Offrce of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Vice President of the United States, regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews of the Vice President conducted as part of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation.

I’m guessing, but it appears that Mukasey has claimed that Fitz made some kind of agreement with Bush and Cheney, and that agreement prevents him from turning over their interview reports. But, as Waxman notes, these reports were among those that Fitzgerald determined "were not protected by Rule 6(e)."

Read more →

Share this entry

A Response to Dean: The Failure, So Far, Has Been Congress’

/155 Comments/in /by

John Dean thinks Patrick Fitzgerald may have gone soft on the White House.

If McClellan’s testimony suggests that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, for any reason, gave Karl Rove and Dick Cheney a pass when, in fact, there was a conspiracy – which is still ongoing – to obstruct justice, then these hearings could trigger the reopening of the case. But this is a pretty large “If.”

[snip]

As experienced a prosecutor as Fitzgerald is, he was playing in a very different league when investigating the Bush White House. These folks make Nixon’s White House look like Little Leaguers – and based on what is known about the Plame investigation, I have long suspected that Fitzgerald was playing out of his league. (See, for example, here and here.)

I would counter Dean and suggest it was not Fitzgerald, but Congress, which dropped the ball.

Dean suggests that we don’t know what Fitzgerald found.

Yet since no one knows what Fitzgerald learned, except those who cannot speak of what they know, it is not possible to determine whether he might have been outfoxed by the White House.

Um, not quite. While it is true we don’t know the contents of Rove’s grand jury appearances nor those of many other key players, we do know quite a bit beyond the details surrounding Libby’s narrow perjury charge. With the caveat that some of the following can only be supported with circumstantial evidence, here’s what we do know:

  • Dick Cheney declassified Valerie Wilson’s identity (either with Bush’s implicit or explicit approval) and told Libby to leak it to Judy Miller. He may have instructed Libby to leak details about her name and status to Novak during his July 9 conversation as well. But since he declassified Valerie’s identity, the legal status of that leak is–at best–unclear. After that leak, those in the White House who knew about it operated as if it was a legal leak of non-classified information.
  • The stories of Rove, Armitage, Novak, and Libby have significant discrepancies, meaning (in spite of what the Administration’s backers claim) we don’t yet have an adequate explanation for the leak to Novak. Probably, some of Rove’s testimony was perjurious, but there is no credible witness to that fact (since Armitage was himself either lying or a terrible witness), so it would be difficult to charge. Read more →
Share this entry