April 24, 2024 / by 

 

The Torture Document Dump Timeline

John Lopresti noted that it might be helpful to have a timeline of all the torture documents released in the last several weeks. And you know I can’t resist requests for timelines. So here goes:

April 6: NYRB posts the Red Cross report on high value detainees

April 9: CIA Director Leon Panetta bans contractors from conducting interrogations

April 16: Obama statement on memo release, torture memos released:

  • August 1, 2002: Memo from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA 
  • May 10, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA ["Techniques"]
  • May 10, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA ["Combined"]
  • May 30, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA

April 21: Senate Armed Services Committee releases declassified Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US Custody

April 22: Senate Intelligence Committee releases declassified Narrative Describing the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel’s Opinions on the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (Jello Jay’s statement on the release)

April 23: Ali Soufan, FBI interrogator, publishes NYT op-ed describing early interrogation of Abu Zubaydah

April 23: DOJ announces it will release a number of photos showing detainee abuse that had previously been FOIAed, along with thousands more

April 24: Greg Sargent gets a copy of Cheney’s request for two documents to make his "efficacy" case

April 24: In ACLU FOIA case, Judge Hellerstein orders a more expansive response on torture tape documents from CIA

April 24: WaPo releases JPRA memo–which had been circulated among the torture architects–using the word "torture" and warning that torture will beget false information


The March 10, 2004 Hospital Confrontation, A Timeline

I’ve had this timeline mostly done sitting in my drafts. Given Murray Waas’ two latest articles, I thought I’d put it out.

One reason I’m posting this today: if Gonzales’ claim that he probably wrote his notes during the weekend immediately after the Hospital confrontation is correct, it suggests he didn’t take his notes until after Bush learned Comey and Mueller might resign. Also, he wrote his notes of the Gang of Eight meeting after Mueller had already first saved his notes on the confrontation.

This timeline is a combination of this timeline of Robert Mueller’s notes (which is, IMVHO, one of my better timelines, so click through and read it for more analysis), this timeline of the OLC opinions pertaining to the program from the time period, details from Comey’s testimony before SJC, as well as other known events. I will add details from Barton Gellman’s book in the next week.

October 3, 2003: Jack Goldsmith confirmed as head of OLC.

Mid-November 2003: Goldsmith writes draft memo for Ashcroft: Review of Legality of the [NSA] Program

December 11, 2003: Comey confirmed Deputy AG.

Monday, March 1, 2004: Mueller meets with Comey in his office.

Thursday, March 3 or 4: Comey and Ashcroft decide not to reauthorize the warrantless wiretap program.

Thursday, March 4: Ashcroft hospitalized with pancreatitis. Comey becomes Acting AG.

Tuesday, March 9

10:00AM: Mueller meets with top FBI officials–several with counter-terrorism focus, Fedarcyk, Pistole, Caproni (and perhaps Wainstein and Gebhardt).

12:00PM: Meeting at Card’s office, VP, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, NSA Director Michael Hayden, Robert Mueller, Alberto Gonzales and others present. (Note, Mueller does not record that Comey was at this meeting.)

4:00PM: Meeting at Card’s office with Mueller, Comey, attorneys from OLC, VP, Card, Gonzales, Hayden and others. (Note, this meeting is basically an extension of the earlier meeting, this time with the lawyers from DOJ present.)

Time unknown: Comey refuses to reauthorize the program.

Wednesday, March 10

Time unknown: Briefing for the Gang of Eight (Denny Hastert, Bill Frist, Porter Goss, Pat Roberts, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Jane Harman, and Jello Jay). According to Gonzales, at the briefing "the lawmakers rejected emergency legislation but recommended that the program should continue despite the Justice Department’s opposition." Jello Jay disputes Gonzales’ account; it is unclear how he and Jane Harman responded.. Nancy Pelosi opposed the continuation of the program.

7:15PM? (Comey says around 8:00, but before the call to Mueller at 7:20): Ashcroft Chief of Staff David Ayres calls Comey as he is on his way home. He says Mrs. Ashcroft has received a call–possibly from the President–and "as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft."

7:18PM?: Comey directs his driver to take him to George Washington Hospital. Comey calls his Chief of Staff to tell him to "get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately."

7:20PM: Comey calls Mueller at he is at a restaurant with wife and daughter. Comey is at AG’s hospital with Goldsmith and Philbin. Tells Mueller that Card and Gonzales are on the way to hospital to see the AG but that AG is in no condition to see them, much less make decision to authorize continuation of the program. Asks Mueller to come to AG’s hospital to witness condition of AG. [Note, Mueller says Comey calls from hospital, Comey says he calls from his vehicle.]

7:25PM?: Comey reaches hospital. Tries to orient Ashcroft.

7:30PM?: Goldsmith and Patrick Philbin arrive at hosiptal.

7:35PM?: Gonzales and Card arrive at hospital. Gonzales explains they are there to get Ashcroft’s approval on the warrantless wiretap program; he has an envelope with the authorization in it. Ashcroft raises himself off his pillow and explains the problems with the program. Then, Ashcroft reinforces that Comey, not Ashcroft, was the Attorney General at that moment. Ashcroft also complains that the White House-ordered compartmentalization had prevented Ashcroft from consulting with experts on the legality of the program.

7:40PM?: Mueller and Comey speak. Comey asks Mueller to meet with Ashcroft to serve witness to his condition. Comey also asks him to inform the FBI detail that no one is to be permitted to see Ashcroft, other than family, without Mueller’s consent. Mueller passes on these instructions to the security detail. [Comey says this second conversation took place by phone before Card and Gonzales arrived, with a third conversation in person after they left, Mueller says the order to the FBI detail took place in person after Card and Gonzales came and left.]

8:10PM?: Mueller describes his visit with Ashcroft: Saw AG. Janet Ashcroft in the room. AG in chair, is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed.

8:20PM?: Mueller departs the hospital. Comey gets an "urgent" call in the command center from Card. Card orders Comey to come to the White House immediately. Comey says he will not meet with him without a witness present. Card plays dumb, "What conduct? We were just there to wish him well." Comey responds, "After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness. And I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States."… "Until I can connect with Mr. Olson, I’m not going to meet with you." Card asked if Comey was refusing to come to the White House, to which Comey responded, "No, sir, I’m not. I’ll be there. I need to go back to the Department of Justice first." Comey calls Ted Olson at a dinner party and Olson and the other top leaders of the department meet at DOJ.

8:30PM?: Comey returns to DOJ to meet with Olson and other top leaders of DOJ (including Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum, Goldsmith, Philbin, and other staffers).

11:00PM: Comey and Olson go to DOJ together.

11:20PM?: Comey and Card have a more civil discussion. There is some discussion about DOJ resignations.

11:30PM?: Gonzales and Olson join Comey and Card.

Thursday, March 11

1:37-1:40AM (7:37-7:40AM Madrid time): Almost simultaneously, bombs go off on four different trains in Madrid.

Time unknown: Goldsmith sends Gonzales a one-page letter "seeking clarification regarding advice that OLC had been requested to provide concerning classified foreign intelligence activities."

Time unknown: Tom DeLay briefed on warrantless wiretap program. 

Time unknown: Gonzales signs reauthorization of warrantless wiretap program in lieu of Comey signing it.

12:00PM: Mueller meets with Card in Card’s office at his request. [6 paragraphs are redacted]

12:40PM: Mueller stops by Gonzales’ office after meeting with Card.

1:15PM: Mueller meets with Comey, et al., at Comey’s office.

Time unknown: Comey prepares a letter of resignation dated March 12, the following day. David Ayres asks Comey to hold off on resigning until John Ashcroft was well enough to resign at the same time. Comey agrees to hold off resigning until Monday morning, with the understanding that Friday March 12 would be his last day.

2:50PM: Gonzales calls Mueller.

Friday, March 12

9:00AM?: Comey and Mueller brief Bush and Cheney on counter-terrorism efforts.

9:30AM: Bush speaks with Comey, alone, in his office.

9:45AM: Bush calls Mueller into the side office off the Oval Office after the conclusion of the morning briefing of him. [7 paragraphs redacted] Bush tells Mueller to do what DOJ thinks is needed to put the program on a legal footing.

10:45AM: Mueller meets with Comey and others at DOJ.

Time unknown: Goldsmith sends a one-page memorandum to Comey providing legal advice concerning certain decisions relating to classified foreign intelligence activities.

4:06PM: Mueller first saves his notes about the confrontation in a file titled, "H:RSM_DocsMiscellaneousProgram.wpd March 12, 2004 (4:06PM)."

4:50PM: Mueller calls Gonzales.

5:00PM: Mueller meets with Comey and others.

6:45PM: Mueller calls Gonzales.

Saturday March 13

Time unknown: "Probably on the weekend immediately following" the March 10 showdown, on Bush’s direction, Alberto Gonzales records responses from Gang of Eight members to briefing on warrantless wiretap program.

9:55AM: Mueller calls General Hayden.

Sunday March 14

Time unknown: OLC provides a briefing titled "Presentation: Where DOJ is on [REDACTED CLASSIFIED CODENAME]." It consists of a two-page presentation, and (presumably) five-page handouts of bullet points related to the presentation. These materials "were prepared for purposes of providing legal assistance and advice to other Executive Branch officials concerning DOJ’s views about foreign intelligence activities."3:00PM: Mueller meets at DOJ with Comey, et al.

Time unknown:"Within the next day," Gonzales adds a single line to his notes on the Gang of Eight briefing.

6:20PM: Mueller calls Comey.

6:45PM: Mueller calls Gonzales.

Monday March 15

8:50AM: Mueller discusses issues with Tenet after morning briefing in Sit Room.

9:30AM: Mueller calls Comey.

Time unknown: Goldsmith prepares a three-page memorandum (of which there are four copies) for Comey. The memo includes an electronic file. The memo "outlines preliminary OLC views with respect to certain legal issues concerning classified foreign intelligence activities. The memorandum specifically notes that OLC’s views have ‘not yet reached final conclusions’ and that OLC is ‘not yet prepared to issue a final opinion.’"

Tuesday March 16

Time unknown: OLC 63 [the same as FBI 4] is a two-page memorandum (and related electronic file) dated March 16, 2004, from the Acting Attorney General to the Counsel to the President, copied to the President’s Chief of Staff, containing legal recommendations regarding classified foreign intelligence activities.

1:45 PM: Gonzales calls Mueller.

6:40 PM: Comey calls Mueller.

8:00 PM: Gonzales calls Mueller at home.

8:30PM: Comey calls Mueller.

Wednesday March 17, 11:05AM: Comey calls Mueller.

March 22, 2004. from Goldsmith to Comey: OLC 114 consists of two copies of a three-page memorandum dated March 22, 2004, to the Deputy Attorney General from the Assistant Attorney General for OLC, which confirms oral advice provided by OLC on a particular matter concerning classified foreign intelligence activities.

Tuesday, March 24, 1200: Mueller meets with Cheney, at his request, in his Office. (Note, at almost precisely the same time, Scooter Libby was perjuring himself before the Grand Jury.)

March 30, 2004, briefing from Comey to Ashcroft: OLC 65 is a five-page document (plus an electronic file), dated March 30, 2004, entitled "Briefing for AG." This outline for a briefing to be provided to the Attorney General by the Deputy Attorney General prepared by Department staff includes a summary of preliminary OLC conclusions concerning the TSP and other intelligence activities; a discussion of issues for decision concerning these intelligence activities; a description of advice provided by OLC to other Executive Branch agencies and components concerning these activities; and an identification of legal issues requiring further discussion.

May 6, 2004: Jack Goldsmith drafts OLC 54, a memo for John Ashcroft, which consists of six copies, some with handwritten comments and marginalia, of a 108-page memorandum, dated May 6, 2004, from the Assistant Attorney General for OLC to the Attorney General, as well as four electronic files, one with highlighting, prepared in response to a request from the Attorney General that OLC perform a legal review of classified foreign intelligence activities.

June 17, 2004: Jack Goldsmith announces his resignation.


Anthrax Timeline, Two

[I’ve updated this timeline with dates from the DOJ documents.]

July 6, 2000: The last lot of BioPort’s anthrax vaccine fails potency tests; Ivins say the shit is about to hit the fan

August 12, 2000: Ivins says "last Saturday" (August 5) was "one of my worst days in months"

Spring 2001: Ivins taken off Special Immunization Program

September 7, 2001: Ivins put back on Special Immunization Program

September 14, 2001: Ivins works late for 2 hours 15 minutes

September 15, 2001: Ivins works late for 2 hours 15 minutes

September 16, 2001: Ivins works late for 2 hours 15 minutes

September 18, 2001: Less lethal "media" anthrax letters postmarked

September 26, 2001: Ivins emails, "I just heard tonight that Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas" … "Osama Bin Laden has just decreed death to all Jews and Americans"

September 28: Ivins works late for 1 hour 42 minutes

September 29, 2001: Ivins works late for 1 hour 20 minutes

September 30, 2001: Ivins works late for 1 hour 18 minutes

October 1, 2001: Ivins works late for 20 minutes

October 2, 2001: Ayaad Asaad interviewed about claim he was a bioterrorist; Judy Miller’s Germs published; Ivins works late for 23 minutes

October 3, 2001: Ivins works late for 2 hours 59 minutes

October 4, 2001: Ivins works late for 3 hours 33 minutes

October 5, 2001: Ivins works late for 3 hours 42 minutes; Bob Stevens, photo editor of Sun newspaper, dies

Almost immediately after attacks: FBI works with Ft. Detrick scientists to identify anthrax

October 2001: Ames strain at Iowa State destroyed with consent of FBI

October 9, 2001: Ivins works late for 15 minutes; Daschle and Leahy letters postmarked

October 12, 2001: Judy Miller gets fake anthrax letter

October 14, 2001: Ivins works late for 1 hour 26 minutes; Guardian first suggests tie between anthrax and Iraq

October 15, 2001: Daschle letter opened; Bush presses FBI to look into Middle Eastern links to anthrax

October 16, 2001: Ivins’ coworker emails "Bruce has been an absolute manic basket case the last few days"

October 18, 2001: Nerve attack scare in White House situation room

October 18, 2001: John McCain links anthrax attack to Iraq and Phase II of war on terror

October 21, 2001: First of two DC postal workers dies of anthrax poisoning

October 22, 2001: Secret Service reports traces of anthrax on letter opening machine in White House

October 24, 2001: USA PATRIOT passes House

October 25, 2001: USA PATRIOT passes Senate

October 26, 2001: USA PATRIOT signed into law; ABC News cites well-placed sources (now explained to be then current and former scientists conducting analysis of the anthrax) with bentonite claim

October 29, 2001: General John Parker mis-reports that silica found in anthrax sample

December 2001: FBI investigators start questioning Ft. Detrick scientists

December 2001: Ivins improperly cleans worksite

December 5, 2001: Leahy letter opened at Ft. Detrick

December 12, 2001: Reports first tie anthrax to Dugway strain

February 2002: Ivins turns over samples but fails to follow protocol

April 10, 2002: Ivins turns over samples

May 2002: FBI tests mailboxes in Princeton, NJ

May 10, 2002: Ivins speaks to investigators about his efforts to clean worksite in December 2001

June 18, 2002: Barbara Hatch Rosenberg briefs Leahy and Daschle with her US scientist theory–naming Hatfill directly

June 25, 2002: FBI conducts consensual search of Hatfill’s apartment–tips off media

July 2002: MZM receives White House contract for "threat mail technology insertion"

Late July 2002: FBI Special Agent Bob Roth ignores Hatfill’s lawyer’s offer for consensual interview

August 1, 2002: FBI conducts second search–media again tipped off; DOJ gets Hatfill fired from new job at LSU

August 6, 2002: Ashcroft names Hatfill person of interest

August 11, 2002: FBI leak of contents of Hatfill novel to ABC news pre-empting Hatfill public statement; FBI canvasses Princeton residents to see if they had seen Hatfill in Princton

August 12, 2002: Newsweek reports on use of bloodhounds

August 13, 2002: Hatfill files formal complaint with DOJ

October 5, 2002: Richard Lambert assumes Inspector in Charge role in investigation

November 2002: Robert Mueller incorrectly announces FBI trying to reverse engineer strain

January 9, 2003: Officials at counter-terrorism conference tell ABC Hatfill most likely suspect

March 14, 2003: Ivins recives honor for getting anthrax vaccine back into production

April 11, 2003: OPR says investigation into leaks reveals no leakers

May 5, 2003: Supervisory Special Agent Van Harp (previously in charge of investigation) retires

May 11, 2003: WaPo reports that FBI draining pond in search of clues on Hatfill

August 26, 2003: Hatfill sues DOJ

November 21, 2003: DOJ moves to stay suit

December 12, 2003: FBI finds additional samples of Ivins’ samples

January 5, 2004: DOJ moves to dismiss suit

April 7, 2004: Ivins submits new samples to FBI; FBI seals flasks with evidence tape

May 2004: Roscoe Howard, later named as source for several journalists, resigns as US Attorney

June 17, 2004: The seized Ivins samples submitted to Navy Medical Research Center

October 21, 2004: Judge Walton grants Hatfill discovery on press reports, not investigative files

February 22, 2005: DOJ demands that Hatfill have identity of leakers to pursue privacy case

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, because his claim for damages requires him to establish that any disclosure of information protected by the Privacy Act was “intentional or willful,” he cannot prevail without establishing the identity of the individual who made any such disclosure and the circumstances surrounding the disclosure.

February 23, 2005: Hatfill moves to question Van Harp (who admits contacts with many of the journalists who reported on Hatfill)

March 31, 2005: Ivins confronted with the fact his samples didn’t match

June 22, 2005: DOJ opposes Hatfill deposition of Virginia Patrick, wife of Bill Patrick

November 19, 2005: Ivins writes email naming two colleagues as potential anthrax culprits

April 21, 2006: Jean Duley caught drunk driving

July 17, 2006: Hatfill files motion to compel, including material from depositions and Congressional contacts

August 2006: Douglas Beecher publishes article stating that FBI misunderstood nature of anthrax used in attack

October 13, 2006: Jean Duley pleads guilty to DUI

October 24, 2006: Grassley writes letter following up on reassignment of Lambert to Knoxville; Lisi and Montooth would have replaced Lambert

May 7, 2007: Ivins claimed he was aware that his anthrax matched that used in the attack within three months of the attack; he claims he was told by three colleagues who had tested the anthrax used in the attacks

July 18, 2007: forensic psychiatrist profiles Ivins

August 13, 2007: Judge Walton orders some reporters to reveal their sources

November 1, 2007: Ivins’ house searched

December 23, 2007: Duley caught driving with no headlights, DUI

March 2008: FBI Agents confront Ivins and his wife, accusing him of killing people

March 7, 2008: Judge Walton holds Toni Locy in contempt

March 19, 2008: Ivins found unconscious in his home

March 28, 2008: Fox News reports four suspects in case

April 10, 2008: Duley’s DUI and driving with no headlights not prosecuted

April 24, 2008: Duley pleads guilty to DUI

May 26, 2008: Ivins finishes four weeks of rehab

June 27, 2008: DOJ settles with Hatfill

July 9, 2008: Duley alleges Ivins makes threats; Ivins interviewed in presence of attorney; Pat Leahy asks Mukasey about anthrax case (12:20 PM)

July 10, 2008: Ivins attends bubonic plague vaccine meeting, then barred from Ft. Detrick and taken for psychiatric evaluation

July 24, 2008: Duley signs complaint against Ivins

July 29, 2008: Ivins dies of apparent suicide


Anthrax Timeline

The media is finally beginning to question the story about Bruce Ivins (though Glenn is still schooling them). But here’s a question I see no one asking, much less answering. The LAT reported that attention began to focus on Ivins in "late 2006" only after FBI Director Mueller changed the leadership team on the investigation.

Federal investigators moved away from Hatfill — for years the only publicly identified "person of interest" — and ultimately concluded that Ivins was the culprit after FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III changed leadership of the investigation in late 2006.

The FBI’s new top investigators — Vincent B. Lisi and Edward W. Montooth — instructed agents to reexamine leads or potential suspects that may have received insufficient attention. Moreover, significant progress was made in analyzing genetic properties of the anthrax powder recovered from letters addressed to two senators.

What was it, I wonder, that caused the FBI to reverse course that at that point? I wanted to put together the details we know of Ivins with those revealed in Steven Hatfill’s suit to see if I could figure out what changed in 2006 (one possibility, for example, is that in the course of defending against the Hatfill suit it became obvious they had the wrong guy).

September 18, 2001: Less lethal "media" anthrax letters postmarked

October 2, 2001: Ayaad Asaad interviewed about claim he was a bioterrorist

October 5, 2001: Bob Stevens, photo editor of Sun newspaper, dies

Almost immediately after attacks: FBI works with Ft. Detrick scientists to identify anthrax

October 2001: Ames strain at Iowa State destroyed with consent of FBI

October 9, 2001: Daschle and Leahy letters postmarked

October 12, 2001: Judy Miller gets fake anthrax letter

October 14, 2001: Guardian first suggests tie between anthrax and Iraq

October 15, 2001: Daschle letter opened; Bush presses FBI to look into Middle Eastern links to anthrax

October 18, 2001: Nerve attack scare in White House situation room

October 18, 2001: John McCain links anthrax attack to Iraq and Phase II of war on terror

October 21, 2001: First of two DC postal workers dies of anthrax poisoning

October 22, 2001: Secret Service reports traces of anthrax on letter opening machine in White House

October 24, 2001: USA PATRIOT passes House

October 25, 2001: USA PATRIOT passes Senate

October 26, 2001: USA PATRIOT signed into law

October 28, 2001: ABC News cites Ft. Detrick scientists with bentonite claim

October 29, 2001: General John Parker mis-reports that silica found in anthrax sample

December 2001: FBI investigators start questioning Ft. Detrick scientists

December 2001: Ivins improperly cleans worksite

December 5, 2001: Leahy letter opened at Ft. Detrick

December 12, 2001: Reports first tie anthrax to Dugway strain

May 2002: FBI tests mailboxes in Princeton, NJ

May 10, 2002: Ivins speaks to investigators about his efforts to clean worksite in December 2001

June 18, 2002: Barbara Hatch Rosenberg briefs Leahy and Daschle with her US scientist theory–naming Hatfill directly

June 25, 2002: FBI conducts consensual search of Hatfill’s apartment–tips off media

July 2002: MZM receives White House contract for "threat mail technology insertion"

Late July 2002: FBI Special Agent Bob Roth ignores Hatfill’s lawyer’s offer for consensual interview

August 1, 2002: FBI conducts second search–media again tipped off; DOJ gets Hatfill fired from new job at LSU

August 6, 2002: Ashcroft names Hatfill person of interest

August 11, 2002: FBI leak of contents of Hatfill novel to ABC news pre-empting Hatfill public statement; FBI canvasses Princeton residents to see if they had seen Hatfill in Princton

August 12, 2002: Newsweek reports on use of bloodhounds

August 13, 2002: Hatfill files formal complaint with DOJ

October 5, 2002: Richard Lambert assumes Inspector in Charge role in investigation

November 2002: Robert Mueller incorrectly announces FBI trying to reverse engineer strain

January 9, 2003: Officials at counter-terrorism conference tell ABC Hatfill most likely suspect

April 11, 2003: OPR says investigation into leaks reveals no leakers

May 5, 2003: Supervisory Special Agent Van Harp (previously in charge of investigation) retires

May 11, 2003: WaPo reports that FBI draining pond in search of clues on Hatfill

August 26, 2003: Hatfill sues DOJ

November 21, 2003: DOJ moves to stay suit

January 5, 2004: DOJ moves to dismiss suit

May 2004: Roscoe Howard, later named as source for several journalists, resigns as US Attorney

October 21, 2004: Judge Walton grants Hatfill discovery on press reports, not investigative files

February 22, 2005: DOJ demands that Hatfill have identity of leakers to pursue privacy case

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, because his claim for damages requires him to establish that any disclosure of information protected by the Privacy Act was “intentional or willful,” he cannot prevail without establishing the identity of the individual who made any such disclosure and the circumstances surrounding the disclosure.

February 23, 2005: Hatfill moves to question Van Harp (who admits contacts with many of the journalists who reported on Hatfill)

June 22, 2005: DOJ opposes Hatfill deposition of Virginia Patrick, wife of Bill Patrick

April 21, 2006: Jean Duley caught drunk driving

July 17, 2006: Hatfill files motion to compel, including material from depositions and Congressional contacts

August 2006: Douglas Beecher publishes article stating that FBI misunderstood nature of anthrax used in attack

October 13, 2006: Jean Duley pleads guilty to DUI

October 24, 2006: Grassley writes letter following up on reassignment of Lambert to Knoxville; Lisi and Montooth would have replaced Lambert

August 13, 2007: Judge Walton orders some reporters to reveal their sources

November 1, 2007: Ivins’ house searched

December 23, 2007: Duley caught driving with no headlights, DUI

March 2008: FBI Agents confront Ivins and his wife, accusing him of killing people 

March 7, 2008: Judge Walton holds Toni Locy in contempt

March 19, 2008: Ivins found unconscious in his home

March 28, 2008: Fox News reports four suspects in case

April 10, 2008: Duley’s DUI and driving with no headlights not prosecuted

April 24, 2008: Duley pleads guilty to DUI

May 26, 2008: Ivins finishes four weeks of rehab 

June 27, 2008: DOJ settles with Hatfill

July 9, 2008: Duley alleges Ivins makes threats

July 10, 2008: Pat Leahy asks Mukasey about anthrax case; Ivins attends bubonic plague vaccine meeting, then barred from Ft. Detrick and taken for psychiatric evaluation

July 24, 2008: Duley signs complaint against Ivins

July 29, 2008: Ivins dies of apparent suicide


A Timeline of Lamar Smith’s Pathetic Attempt to Save Karl Rove

I noticed something rather curious about the timeline of Lamar Smith’s panicked attempt to save Karl Rove’s ass.

July 1: Luskin writes Conyers claiming "Mr. Rove will respectfully decline before the Subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process in response to a subpoena directed to this subject."

July 9: Michael Mukasey says that, "there are various avenues open for exploring those allegations [that Rove was involved in the Siegelman proscution], including exploring their source and having testimony on the subject."

July 9: Fred Fielding writes to Luskin who writes to Congress invoking absolute immunity–but not once mentioning Executive Privilege.

July 15: Lamar Smith submits questions to Karl, giving a July 16 deadline.

July 15: Luskin confirms receipt of the questions for Karl, stating they will respond by July 22.

July 22: Luskin submits Karl’s responses.

July 23: Mukasey testifies and is asked–predictably–about why Rove can’t show up if Mukasey himself has said they can have a hearing. As a follow-up to that question, Darrell Issa introduces Rove’s responses into the record, claiming Rove has therefore dispensed with any questions that might be asked of him that don’t relate to Executive Privilege (and he uses that term).

You see, Lamar Smith’s attempt to save Karl Rove’s ass didn’t even start until after Rove had blown off Congress! It was not, then, an attempt to proactively get testimony from Rove. It was an attempt (however pathetic transparent) to be able to claim that Rove had provided information to Congress before Attorney General Mukasey came to testify. (In fact, I’d wager that the colloquy someone tried to invite Conyers into at the beginning of the hearing was an attempt to enter these questions into the record before Mukasey first got asked about Rove’s non-appearance.)

I suspect the Republicans all know that Rove’s no-show was completely illegal, based not least on his claim that these were his "official duties." I suspect they see some risk that Mukasey will balk at this one (I’ll do another post on this, but Mukasey seemed to claim that Rove had properly invoked Executive Privilege, even while DOJ hadn’t done any analysis of the instant request). And given the risk that Rove’s entire basis for blowing off the Subcommittee is so obviously unfounded, they got these questions to try to tamp down the calls for Rove to testify.


Some Perspective on the Bush Administration Fight Against Terrorism

December 2000: Richard Clarke develops policy paper entitled, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects." It calls for identifying and destroying known Al Qaeda camps and pressuring Pakistan to cooperate in the fight against Al Qaeda.

January 25, 2001: Clarke sends the "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat" document to Condi Rice, noting that "we urgently need … a Principals level review" of the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

September 4, 2001: Condi holds first Principals Committee meeting dedicated to Al Qaeda.

February 14, 2003: The Bush Administration unveils the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which includes the objective: "Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens."

July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission releases its report. The first recommendation is:

The US government must identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. We should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help.

June 23, 2006: The Bush Administration announces the indictment of the Liberty City Seven, an alleged terrorist cell the FBI admits is "more aspirational than operational."

August 3, 2007: The Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act signed into law. It requires:

(1) REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT ON STRATEGY.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report, in classified form if necessary, that describes the long-term strategy of the United States to engage with the Government of Pakistan to address the issues described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection (a)(2) and carry out the policies described in subsection (b) in order accomplish the goal of building a moderate, democratic Pakistan.

December 13, 2007: The first trial of the Liberty City Seven ends in a mistrial, with one defendant, Lyglenson Lemorin, acquitted of all charges.

April 16, 2008: The second trial of the Liberty City Seven ends in a mistrial.

April 17, 2008: 87 months after Richard Clarke first insisted that the Bush Administration develop a strategy to combat Al Qaeda, 62 months after the Bush Administration announced its intention to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 45 months after the 9/11 Commission called for the Administration to develop a strategy to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 258 days after Congress required the Administration to submit a strategy to combat terrorist safe havens in Pakistan within 90 days, and one day after the Bush Administration insisted it may try a group of aspirational terrorists a third time, GAO releases a report finding:

The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas

No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007).

The report also states:

al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, including the identification, training, and positioning of Western operatives for an attack. It stated that al Qaeda is most likely using the FATA to plot terrorist attacks against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America "designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population.

(h/t democracy arsenal on the GAO report)


What Got Added to the Renzi Indictment Since October 2006?

I noted earlier that there was good reason to believe that the impending Renzi indictment is the most likely explanation for Paul Charlton’s firing in December 2006. A number of reports described the investigation stalling just before Charlton was fired. That raises the question of whether the investigation has progressed since the time Charlton was fired–or whether DOJ has simply stalled since then.

The chronology of Charlton’s firing and the Renzi investigation

A quick reminder of the chronology:

June 2005: Investigation into Renzi launched

Months before election day, 2006: Investigators ask for clearance to tap Renzi

September 13, 2006: Charlton’s name added to the firing list

Late October, 2006: Wiretap approved and put into place

October 26, 2006: News of the Renzi investigation leaked to the press; this alerts Renzi to wiretaps used in the investigation

Late October 2006: Renzi’s Chief of Staff, Brian Murray, calls Charlton’s office and asks about "pending indictment;" Charlton alerts DOJ

December 7, 2006: Charlton fired

Early 2007: Key witnesses first subpoenaed

April 19, 2007: Renzi’s insurance company raided

April 21, 2007: John Wilkes WSJ article lays out most of charges described in indictment

November 9, 2007: Mukasey assumes AG position

December 17, 2007: Diane Humetewa assumes AZ US Attorney position

February 22, 2008: Renzi indicted

In other words, after stalling the approval of wiretaps in 2006, after raiding Renzi’s business (technically owned by his wife) in April 2007, it still took until today to bring the indictment.

So was DOJ stalling, or were they conducting an ongoing investigation?

What DOJ knew by April 2007

As I point out, by April 21 of last year, the WSJ’s John Wilke was able to describe almost all of the counts laid out in the indictment. He described that investigators had found:

2001 James Sandlin and Renzi become partners in Fountain Realty and Development

2002-2003: Sandlin buys Renzi out of the business

2002: Renzi receives $369,000 illegally from Fountain

2003: Sandlin buys the alfalfa field

2004: FEC audit finds the illegal 2002 payment from Fountain

2005: Resolution Trust Co (Company A in the indictment) seeks Renzi’s support of land swap so they can acquire land near Superior to start a copper mine

2005: Renzi conditions his support for the swap on the inclusion of an alfalfa field, owned by Renzi’s business partner, James Sandlin, for the price of $4 million (four times the price Sandlin paid for it); Resolution refuses

2005: Renzi conditions a different land swap with Petrified Forest Group (Investment Group B in the indictment) on purchase of alfalfa field; Petrified Forest purchases the land

May 2005: Petrified Forest makes first payment for alfalfa field; Fountain makes $200,00 payment to Renzi through vineyard owned by Renzi (though sold to his father just days later)

2005: After Resolution makes charges of preferential treatment, Renzi drops his support for Petrified Forest’s swap

These details describe the events behind 27 of the 35 charges included in the indictment. The only details added to the description of the alleged crimes are further details on the loan Renzi made Sandlin so he could buy Fountain (an additional $800,000 loan on top of the $200,000 noted in the story), details on the dates and amounts of wire transfers (to demonstrate the money laundering and wire fraud), and the description that Renzi used this money for personal expense and to pay a delinquent tax bill. So with regards to what the government was investigating in October 2006, little if anything was added since April 2007 (though presumably a lot of the details on the money laundering came from bank records that may have been the subpoenas that DOJ stalled in fall 2006).

While I have no way of knowing whether DOJ knew about the remainder of the indictment or not, the following details describing Renzi’s alleged insurance fraud did not appear in Wilke’s April 2007 article.

2001: Renzi and co-conspirator Andrew Beardall fail to pay $236,000 in premiums to insurance broker North Island Facilities

2001: Renzi submits fraudulent paperwork to cover up this embezzlement with clients and the FEC

2001-2002: Renzi transfers $400,000 out of Patriot Insurance into his congressional campaign

2002: False statements by Renzi and Beardall to cover up their fraud

2003: Further false statements to cover up the fraud

In other words–the only substantive thing added to the indictment after April 2007 is details of the early embezzlement from Patriot Insurance into Renzi’s campaign coffers. This information may have come from the raid on the Insurance company in April 2007, just days before Wilke’s article.

But there is nothing about the evidence described in the indictment that would necessarily have been added after April 2007.

The indictment excludes all mention of Fort Huachuca

More interesting than what got added to the indictment since last April is what got left out of the indictment: all mention of Renzi’s and his father’s ties to Fort Huachuca. In April of last year, Wilke explained:

Mr. Renzi told Resolution in 2005 that his support for the land swap would hinge in part on whether it helped fulfill a goal to cut water consumption along the San Pedro River, which slices through the desert far from the mining area, in southern Arizona, participants in the deal say. Fort Huachuca, a big U.S. Army base nearby, was under court order to cut water consumption, and it had been seeking help to retire farmland near the river. Mr. Renzi has longstanding ties to the base, the economic engine of the area. He grew up near it, and his father, retired U.S. Army Gen. Eugene Renzi, is its former commandant, now employed by one of its largest contractors, ManTech Corp.

[snip]

The FBI is also looking into the congressman’s dealings with Fort Huachuca, these people say.

The indictment also neglects to mention that Renzi shifted the vineyard to his father days after it was used as a money laundering vehicle in this scheme.

Now, perhaps the government has spent the last ten months trying–but failing–to pull together indictments pertaining to Huachuca. Perhaps the government hopes, by indicting now, they can get such information from Co-Conspirators Beardall and Sandlin. Who knows.

But for the moment, the indictment does seem to skirt around allegations of improper influence pertaining to Daddy’s installation in Fort Huachuca. Which might tell us as much about GOP efforts to squelch this investigation as anything else.


Plame Investigation and Missing Emails Timeline

Okay, what follows is an uber-timeline, matching the dates for which OVP and WH don’t have any email archives to the Plame investigation, as well as laying out further details on how the investigation proceeded over time. Before you read further, a couple of important comments:

  • It would be completely irresponsible to assume that the email losses are entirely related to the Plame investigation. The large number of emails missing from CEQ, CEA, OMB, and OTR shows that, even if the emails were disappeared deliberately (which is a big assumption), they were disappeared for a myriad of reasons, many of them completely unrelated to the Plame investigation. That’s part of the reason I did the Medicare Part D post–while that post, like this one, is completely speculative, it shows there may be any number of explanations for the missing emails.
  • This post relies on information about the investigation revealed during the Libby trial. With one exception (the WHIG subpoena), those materials cover only subpoenas to OVP. There are undoubtedly subpoenas to the White House that we don’t know about that may pertain to these dates.
  • Remember that, in addition to the days for which no email archives exist for a given office, there are a large number of days for which offices don’t have archives of all the emails (that is, days when an archive includes vastly fewer emails than the office would have sent). So this timeline probably leaves out a large number of days which might be interesting or pertinent, because some significant number of emails are missing from the archives.
  • Even if all the connections you could might draw from this timeline were valid, they still wouldn’t explain all the funkiness with email pertaining to the Plame investigation. It still doesn’t describe possible funkiness with the Rove-Hadley email, and the search terms used to find emails may have led to further funkiness.
  • I will do a speculative post on some of the connections we might draw (probably tomorrow or Monday, I’m toast). But understand that this whole examination is one big experiment, which has the potential of drawing completely bogus conclusions. By looking solely at two discrete events, we presume a connection between them that ignores the complexity of the White House, or even the sheer number of potential scandals!
  • Much of this work–particularly the chronology of what evidence was turned over to investigators when–relies on work Jeff did and on ongoing conversations he and I have been having. Thanks to Jeff for sharing that earlier work.

So here’s your timeline:

March 2003: Starting date of period during which White House has incomplete archives for emails. Because the White House was taping over prior backup tapes, from March to October, 2003, email archives and backup tapes are incomplete.

March 8, 2003: DIA provides report to Rummy using Wilson’s trip report to sustain the Iraq uranium claims.

March 25, 2003: Bush issues EO 13292 that, after turning it into Pixie Dust, Cheney would later use to justify his insta-declassification.

July 11, 2003: Rove writes Hadley email immediately after his call with Matt Cooper.

September 12, 2003: No email archive of OVP emails.

September 14, 2003: Wilson article in San Jose MercNews. Cheney appears on MTP.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, Ambassador Joe Wilson, a year before that, was sent over by the CIA because you raised the question about uranium from Africa. He says he came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could not find any documentation that, in fact, Niger had sent uranium to Iraq or engaged in that activity and reported it back to the proper channels. Were you briefed on his findings in February, March of 2002?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.

[snip]

I have no idea who hired him and it never came…

MR. RUSSERT: The CIA did.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don’t know.

Jeff noted (via email) that Cheney’s response almost exactly regurgitates the OVP talking points Cheney dictated during leak week–and Russert responds as the talking points set up, by offering up that the CIA sent Wilson.

September 26, 2003: DOJ starts an investigation into Plame leak.

September 29, 2003, morning: Scottie McClellan claims ignorance of a DOJ investigation into the leak.

September 29, 2003, evening: John Ashcroft informs Alberto Gonzales of investigation.

September 30, 2003, morning: Alberto Gonzales informs White House staff of investigation.

September 30, 2003, 6:15 PM: Alberto Gonzales informs White House to retain (for period from February 1, 2002 to present):

  • Materials relating to Wilson, Plame CIA identity, or Wilson’s trip to Niger
  • Materials relating to discussions with journalists about Wilson and/or Plame
  • Materials relating to Novak, Royce, or Phelps, or anyone "acting directly or indirectly on behalf of them" [note, this last bit would presumably cover the involvement of Hohlt and Duberstein–it’s the first time I noticed this]

October 2003 (unknown date): White House CIO stops "recycling" backup tapes.

October 1, 2003: Mayfield to Martin email passing on transcript from that day’s Press Gaggle; the email was not apparently turned over until February 2006, presumably among the emails "not archived properly."

Armitage "recognizes" he is Novak’s source, tells Powell, Taft; Taft provides minimal details to Gonzales.

No email archive of OVP emails.

October 1 or October 2: Sometime before his trip to Jackson (see October 6), Libby also told the Vice President:

"Look, I wasn’t the source of the leak of this . In fact , I learned it from Tim Russert. And, you know, by that point he was, you know — other — lots of reporters knew, all the reporters knew, he told me all the reporters knew,"

October 2, 2003: DOJ requests White House turn over materials relating to Wilson, his Niger trip, Novak, Royce, and Phelps. Armitage interviewed by FBI. No email archive of OVP emails.

October 3, 2003: Gonzales informs White House to turn over materials by October 7. Jim Comey nominated DAG.

Libby finds the June note recording Cheney telling him about Plame. He then told Cheney:

I told you something wrong before. It turns out that I have a note that I had heard, heard about this earlier from you and I just — you know, I didn’t want to leave you with the wrong, I didn’t want to leave you with the wrong statement that I heard about it from Tim Russert. In fact, I had heard about it earlier, but I had forgotten it.

No email archive of OVP emails.

October 5, 2003: Date on which Martin to Fleischer email printed out, apparently by Martin. It was originally written on July 7, 2003 and contained OVP talking points on Wilson for Fleischer to use in his press briefing, including the words, "Niger" and "Joe Wilson." Probably turned over to DOJ on October 9, 2003. No email archive of OVP emails.

October 6, 2003: Libby returns from Jackson Hole. According to his own account, Libby probably talks to Cheney about helping him get Scottie McClellan to publicly exonerate him from the leak.

October 7, 2003: Reporter asks Scottie McClellan whether White House officials have to turn over emails they’ve deleted.

Q No, I understand that. I’m just saying how would this work? Let’s say I remember — I’m an official, I remember sending some email about this, but I’ve long since deleted it. How —

[snip]

Q I just want to be clear, though, the White House is obligated to provide emails that may have been deleted by the individual but are still archived by the White House —

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back — it said what is in the possession of, I believe, in the White House, the employees and staff.

In same briefing, Scottie exonerates Libby (and Rove and Abrams).

FBI interviews Novak.

October 13, 2003: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin to Michael Anton email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Niger" and "Wilson."

October 14, 2003: FBI interviews Libby.

October 17, 2003: FBI interviews Grossman. David Cloud article purportedly describes INR memo.

October 20, 2003: Deputy Assistant AG Bruce Swartz reviews Libby documents in Addington’s office; he requests a number of these documents.

October 21, 2003: Addington provides Libby documents to Swartz.

October 22, 2003: FBI interviews Cathie Martin.

November 14, 2003: Eckenrode speaks to Russert by phone; Russert refutes Libby’s claim that Russert told Libby about Plame.

November 24, 2003: Eckenrode speaks to Russert by phone.

November 25, 2003: Per Hubris, date on which Rove aide B.J. Goergen prints out Rove-Hadley email (eventually turned over on October 14, 2004). The email mentions "Cooper" and Niger."

November 26, 2003: FBI interviews Libby and asks him to sign waiver freeing journalists to testify (he refuses). Earliest Rove email preserved by RNC.

December 11, 2003: Jim Comey assumes role of DAG.

December 16, 2003: Subpoena for:

  • Libby, Martin, and Millerwise notes, phone logs, and calendars for May 6-10, June 1-15, July 4-25, July 28-29, September 27-October 13
  • Materials relating to early Kristof or Pincus articles
  • Materials relating to either version (June 10 or July 7) of the INR memo

The last of these notes would not be returned until March 5, after Libby’s first appearance before the grand jury, though they had a due date of December 23.

December 17, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.

December 19, 2003: Libby certifies his response to the December 16 document request.

December 20, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.

December 21, 2003: No email archive of WH emails.

December 22, 2003: Due date for December 16 document request. Martin certified her documents on this day.

December 24, 2003: Addington submits originals of Libby notes subpoenaed on December 16. These include handwritten notes regarding the negotiations between Libby, Cheney, Hadley, and (second-hand) John McClaughlin regarding the July 11 CIA statement, including discussion about declassification of the NIE, the trip report, and the January 24 document. It also includes the original hand-written copy of Libby’s note recording Cheney telling him that Plame worked at CIA.

Sometime after this but before the end of January, Libby turns over his notes from June 9, 2003, which show Bush expressed concern about the Kristof allegations on the morning before OVP started its aggressive research into Wilson’s trip.

December 30, 2003: Ashcroft recuses himself, Comey names Fitzgerald Special Counsel.

January 2 through 6, 2004: Press reports on request for waivers for journalists.

January 5, 2004: Libby signs a waiver releasing journalists of confidentiality.

January 9, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

January 10, 2005: No email archive of WH emails.

January 11, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

January 12, 2004: Fitzgerald tells Novak he has waivers from Rove and Armitage.

January 14, 2004: Novak interview; Fitzgerald also brings Harlow waiver.

January 15, 2004: Cathie Martin interview.

January 23, 2004: Addington receives subpoenas (dated January 22):

  1. For materials relating to calls made during the July 12 Air Force Two trip (which would include the calls to Cooper, and possibly others), due January 30.
  2. For materials relating to Wilson, his trip, or Valerie, extended to include the period from October 1 to January 23, due February 6.
  3. For materials relating to a long line of journalists, including Miller and Cooper, due on February 6.

That night (on Friday, at 5:42 PM), Addington sends out an email alerting OVP staff to retain this information. Date Cathie Martin printed out September 30, 2003 email referring to Cooper’s article and speculating Libby might be Cooper’s source.

On the same day, the White House received a subpoena for all documents relating to WHIG, from July 6 to July 30, 2003, due on February 4.

January 26, 2004: Addington sends out the formal request to fulfill January 22 subpoenas, due January 29.

January 29, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.

January 30, 2004: No email archive of OVP emails. Libby certifies his response to subpoena for July 12 Air Force Two documents. Deadline for WH subpoena on Air Force One phone records, July 12 Gaggle transcript, and Gerald Ford party guest list.

January 31, 2004: No email archive of OVP emails.

February to early March, unknown date, 2004: Libby talks to Russert about speaking to Libby’s lawyer.

I spoke to him but not — I didn’t talk to him about the content of the investigation. I did call him at one point to ask if he would be willing to talk to my lawyer.

February 1, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

February 2, 2004: Addington drafts a letter to Keith Roberts, Acting General Counsel, Office of Administration, listing the new terms for a search of the OVP domain. The proposed search would apparently not return emails referring to Judy Miller or Matt Cooper by either their nickname or just their last name. If "Joe Wilson" or "Niger" were mentioned in the October 1 gaggle, the October 1 Martin to Mayfield email should have been found in this search. No email archive of WH emails.

February 3, 2004: No email archive of WH emails.

February 4, 2004: Libby certifies his response to subpoena for WHIG materials.

February 5, 2004: Libby certifies his response for Wilson materials (since beginning of investigation) and for journalist materials. Novak interviewed.

February 7, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.

February 8, 2004: No email archive of OVP or WH emails.

February 11, 2004: Date on which June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Pincus" and "Niger."

February 11, 2004: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin and Cooper email exchange printed out. The email was apparently discovered in search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Matthew Cooper" and "Niger." Cooper’s initial email was printed out, probably on July 11 or 12, though it has no date; Libby wrote notes on it on how he would respond to Cooper.

February 12, 2004: FBI interviews Addington.

February 13, 2004: Ari Fleischer gets immunity.

February 25, 2004: Novak testifies to grand jury.

March 5, 2004: Libby’s first GJ appearance. During that appearance, Libby comments that there are emails reflecting a conversation with Novak in late July 2003.

My note — I do have a note somewhere around the 25th or the 28th which indicates something about Novak and uranium, and there is subsequently some e-mails that I’ve seen so that indicates that to me that was the time, because I only remember one conversation.

After returning from the GJ, someone printed out Libby’s schedule for June 12, 2003 (the day Cheney purportedly told him about Plame and also the date Grossman may have told him about Plame). Later the same day, Addington turned over six pages of material responsive to the December 16, 2003 subpoena, though apparently not the schedule for June 12.

March 18, 2004: Addington turns over Jenny Mayfield’s "Niger/Uranium" folder contents (which contains 414 pages), which she admitted to having on March 17 in an interview. Among other things, the folder contains Libby’s edit of the OVP talking points Cheney dictated to Martin (on which Libby notes some awareness of Wilson’s 1999 trip), the transcript from Condi’s disastrous June 8 appearance on George Stephanopoulos, a copy of the June 13 Kristof article, and Libby’s underlined copy of Joe Wilson’s op-ed. While the Condi transcript and the Kristof article had not been formally subpoenaed at that point, both the talking points and the underlined Wilson op-ed should have been turned over to the government in response to the very first October 3, 2003 document request.

March 24, 2004: Fitzgerald asks Libby about email, suggesting Fitzgerald was surprised by the lack of email he received as evidence.

Q. You’re not big on e-mail I take it?

A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.

April 6, 2004: Addington sends memo in response to subpoena seeking, "All versions and/or drafts of daily schedules and calendars for Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Chief of Staff Lewis Libby for the period July 6, 2003 through July 14, 2003." The memo is numbered and instructs, "Do Not Reproduce or Disseminate," though the subpoena does not require such a warning. Due date on subpoena is April 14.

April 14, 2004 (presumably): Libby turns over schedule for July 8, 2003 reflecting "private meeting at St. Regis."

May 8, 2004: Debra Heiden turns over original copy of Cheney’s annotated copy of Wilson’s op-ed; Heiden produced a copy to Addington on October 7, 2003.

June 5, 2004: WaPo confirms Cheney interviewed by Fitzgerald.

June 24, 2004: Fitzgerald interviews Bush.

August 2004: In response to "unspecified legal inquiries," RNC stops its automatic email destruction policy.

October 2004: Per Hubris, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin first notices the Rove-Hadley email.

Rove’s office had given Luskin a folder full of e-mails that included the one Rove had sent to Hadley. But Luskin hadn’t noticed the important Hadley e-mail until October 2004, just before Rove was about to go back to the grand jury for the third time. (402)

October 14, 2004: Per Hubris, Rove turns Rove-Hadley email over to Patrick Fitzgerald.

…on this day [Rove] turned over what he claimed was a recently discovered copy of the July 11, 2003, e-mail he had sent to Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. (377)

2005, unknown date: RNC terminates Rove’s ability to delete his own email.

February 15, 2005: Appeals Court rules Miller and Cooper must testify. No email archive of OVP emails.

February 16, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

February 17, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

May 21, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

May 22, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

May 23, 2005: No email archive of OVP emails.

June 27, 2005: SCOTUS refuses to hear Miller and Cooper appeal.

September 30, 2005: Judy Miller testifies.

October 2005: White House Office of Administration discovers not all email has been archived properly.

According to CREW’s sources, in October 2005, the Office of Administration ("OA") discovered a problem with this email retention process. The OA undertook a detailed analysis of the issue, which revealed that between March 2003 and October 2005, there were hundreds of days in which emails were missing for one or more of the EOP components subject to PRA. The OA estimated that roughly over five million email messages were missing.

OA briefs Harriet Miers and Patrick Fitzgerald on the email retention process. October 2005 is also the end-date of the period during which White House emails were not preserved properly.

October 7, 2005: New subpoena to several people in OVP for all notes and phone logs for Libby from June 16 through July 3. This would give the prosecutors a complete set from June 1 through July 25, and is clearly a response to Miller’s testimony that Libby had spoken to her before July 8. The documents were due on October 14. Addington’s memo regarding this subpoena also includes a circulation control, noting that only 6 copies existed.

October 12, 2005: Judy Miller testifies. Libby certifies his response to October 7 subpoena, noting that "others have custody of other files" which they will produce separately. Jenny Mayfield notes on her certification (dated October 7) that she turned over all related files to Christian Woelk when she became Deputy Press Secretary.

October 25, 2005: Peter Zeidenberg asks Adam Levine about a conversation he had with Rove just before or after Rove’s conversation with Cooper. Levine may have sent Rove an email around the same time as Rove sent Hadley an email.

October 28, 2005: Libby indicted. Rove avoids indictment with, among other things, last minute explanation for email discovery.

January 23, 2006: Fitzgerald informs Libby that not all emails were archived properly.

In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.

February 2, 2006: Date on which Martin to Mayfield email accompanying Scotte McClellan transcript printed out, apparently by David Addington. The emails themselves do not mention "Joe Wilson" or "Niger,"though it is unclear whether the transcript included in the email mentions those words (the press briefing from that afternoon mentions "Wilson" but not "Niger"). The date and the high Bates number suggest this email was one of those "not archived properly."

February 6, 2006: According to Bill Jeffress, Fitzgerald received the missing emails.

I may say we are also told that there are an additional approximately 250 pages of documents that are emails from the office of the vice president. Your Honor, may recall that in earlier filings it was represented or alluded to that certain e-mails had not been preserved in the White House. That turns out not to be true. There were some e-mails that weren’t archived in the normal process but the office of the vice president or the office of administration I guess it is has been able to recover those e-mails. Gave those to special counsel I think only on February 6 and those again are going to be produced to us.

January 30, 2007: Fitzgerald asks Judy Miller whether she corresponded with Libby via email.

April 13, 2007: "Gold Bars" Luskin reveals that Fitzgerald made a copy of Rove’s hard drive, from which he may have been able to reconstruct emails that were deleted off the server.

June 18, 2007: Waxman releases report on White House email use.

August 22, 2007: White House claims OA exempt from FOIA.

November 12, 2007: Judge issues restraining order preventing White House from destroying backup tapes.

December 20, 2007: Waxman renews request for information on White House emails.

January 8, 2008: Judge gives White House five days to reveal what emails are recoverable from backup tapes.

January 15, 2008: White House CIO submits statement admitting the White House "recycled" backup tapes before October 2003.

Updated per Jeff’s comment.


Disappearing White House Emails Timeline

Jeff kicked my arse on a timing related issue yesterday, so I thought I better lay out the disappearing White House email timing all nice and neat like. Much of the detail on emails relies on some very cool work Jeff did on the emails.

I’ll move this over into a permanent timeline after you guys tell me what I’m missing (Jeff, I’m looking at you).

February 26, 2001: Gonzales informs White House staff they must preserve their email.

April 2001: GAO report on problems with ARMS and emails from the VP’s office in the Clinton Administration.

June 4, 2001: Bush announces plan to name CIO to manage and monitor email.

2001, unknown date: Susan Ralston prints off Rove email in response to Enron inquiry, gives that email to Alberto Gonzales, presumably alerting him to Rove’s use of RNC servers for official emails.

Late 2001 to early 2002: White House deactivates ARMS system put in place by Clinton Administration to archive emails.

Between 2002 and 2003: White House converts from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange.

March 2003: Starting date of period during which White House has incomplete archives for emails.

July 11, 2003: Rove writes Hadley email immediately after his call with Matt Cooper.

September 26, 2003: DOJ starts an investigation into Plame leak.

September 29, 2003, morning: Scottie McClellan claims ignorance of a DOJ investigation into the leak.

September 29, 2003, evening: John Ashcroft informs Alberto Gonzales of investigation.

September 30, 2003, morning: Alberto Gonzales informs White House staff of investigation.

September 30, 2003, 6:15 PM: Alberto Gonzales informs White House what to retain.

October 2003 (unknown date): White House CIO stops "recycling" backup tapes.

October 1, 2003: Mayfield to Martin email passing on transcript from that day’s Press Gaggle; the email was not apparently turned over until February 2006, presumably among the emails "not archived properly."

October 2, 2003: DOJ requests White House turn over materials relating to Wilson, his Niger trip, Novak, Royce, and Phelps.

October 3, 2003: Gonzales informs White House to turn over materials by October 7.

October 5, 2003: Date on which Martin to Fleischer email printed out, apparently by Martin. It was originally written on July 7, 2003 and contained OVP talking points on Wilson for Fleischer to use in his press briefing, including the words, "Niger" and "Joe Wilson." Probably turned over to DOJ on October 9, 2003.

October 7, 2003: Reporter asks Scottie McClellan whether White House officials have to turn over emails they’ve deleted.

Q No, I understand that. I’m just saying how would this work? Let’s say I remember — I’m an official, I remember sending some email about this, but I’ve long since deleted it. How —

[snip]

Q I just want to be clear, though, the White House is obligated to provide emails that may have been deleted by the individual but are still archived by the White House —

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back — it said what is in the possession of, I believe, in the White House, the employees and staff.

October 13, 2003: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin to Michael Anton email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Niger" and "Wilson."

November 25, 2003: Per Hubris, date on which Rove aide B.J. Goergen prints out Rove-Hadley email (eventually turned over on October 14, 2004). The email mentions "Cooper" and Niger."

November 26, 2003: Oldest Rove email preserved by RNC.

February 2, 2004: Addington drafts a letter to Keith Roberts, Acting General Counsel, Office of Administration, listing the new terms for a search of the OVP domain. If "Joe Wilson" or "Niger" were mentioned in the October 1 gaggle, the October 1 Martin to Mayfield email should have been found in this search.

February 11, 2004: Date on which June 11, 2003 Martin to Mayfield email printed out. The email was apparently discovered in a search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Pincus" and "Niger."

February 11, 2004: Date on which July 11, 2003 Martin and Cooper email exchange printed out. The email was apparently discovered in search of OVP files by "OVP RM." It mentions "Cooper" and "Niger." Cooper’s initial email was printed out, probably on July 11 or 12, though it has no date; Libby wrote notes on it on how he would respond to Cooper.

March 2004: FBI begins probe into Abramoff scandal.

March 24, 2004: Fitzgerald asks Libby about email, suggesting Fitzgerald was surprised by the lack of email he received as evidence.

Q. You’re not big on e-mail I take it?

A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.

May 8, 2004: Date on which Abramoff-Susan Ralston email using the RNC server printed out by Greenberg-Traurig. This may have been the first public indication that White House employees (Ralston) were using the RNC server to bypass the more public White House server.

June 2004: Senate Indian Affairs Committee issues its first subpoena in its investigation into Abramoff scandal.

August 2004: In response to "unspecified legal inquiries," RNC stops its automatic email destruction policy.

October 2004: Per Hubris, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin first notices the Rove-Hadley email.

Rove’s office had given Luskin a folder full of e-mails that included the one Rove had sent to Hadley. But Luskin hadn’t noticed the important Hadley e-mail until October 2004, just before Rove was about to go back to the grand jury for the third time. (402)

October 14, 2004: Per Hubris, Rove turns Rove-Hadley email over to Patrick Fitzgerald.

…on this day [Rove] turned over what he claimed was a recently discovered copy of the July 11, 2003, e-mail he had sent to Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. (377)

2005, unknown date: RNC terminates Rove’s ability to delete his own email.

October 2005: White House Office of Administration discovers not all email has been archived properly.

According to CREW’s sources, in October 2005, the Office of Administration ("OA") discovered a problem with this email retention process. The OA undertook a detailed analysis of the issue, which revealed that between March 2003 and October 2005, there were hundreds of days in which emails were missing for one or more of the EOP components subject to PRA. The OA estimated that roughly over five million email messages were missing.

OA briefs Harriet Miers and Patrick Fitzgerald on the email retention process. October 2005 is also the end-date of the period during which White House emails were not preserved properly.

October 25, 2005: Peter Zeidenberg asks Adam Levine about a conversation he had with Rove just before or after Rove’s conversation with Cooper.

October 28, 2005: Libby indicted. Rove avoids indictment with, among other things, last minute explanation for email discovery.

January 23, 2006: Fitzgerald informs Libby that not all emails were archived properly.

In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.

February 2, 2006: Date on which Martin to Mayfield email accompanying Scotte McClellan transcript printed out, apparently by David Addington. The emails themselves do not mention "Joe Wilson" or "Niger,"though it is unclear whether the transcript included in the email mentions those words (the press briefing from that afternoon mentions "Wilson" but not "Niger"). The date and the high Bates number suggest this email was one of those "not archived properly."

February 6, 2006: According to Bill Jeffress, Fitzgerald received the missing emails.

I may say we are also told that there are an additional approximately 250 pages of documents that are emails from the office of the vice president. Your Honor, may recall that in earlier filings it was represented or alluded to that certain e-mails had not been preserved in the White House. That turns out not to be true. There were some e-mails that weren’t archived in the normal process but the office of the vice president or the office of administration I guess it is has been able to recover those e-mails. Gave those to special counsel I think only on February 6 and those again are going to be produced to us.

May 2006: Theresa Payton begins as White House CIO.

January 30, 2007: Fitzgerald asks Judy Miller whether she corresponded with Libby via email.

Spring 2007: Emails turned over as part of Waxman’s GSA investigation and HJC’s USA Scandal investigation reveal ongoing use of RNC servers for official government business.

March 13, 2007: A DOJ document dump includes a Scott Jennings’ email–pertaining to the hiring and firing of US Attorneys–sent on the RNC server. 

April 2007: RNC terminates the ability for White House employees to delete their own emails.

April 12, 2007: CREW releases "Without a Trace" reporting the loss of millions of emails supposedly saved on White House servers.

April 13, 2007: Dana "Pig Missile" Perino press briefing on White House emails.

April 13, 2007: "Gold Bars" Luskin reveals that Fitzgerald made a copy of Rove’s hard drive, from which he may have been able to reconstruct emails that were deleted off the server.

June 18, 2007: Waxman releases report on White House email use.

August 22, 2007: White House claims OA exempt from FOIA.

November 12, 2007: Judge issues restraining order preventing White House from destroying backup tapes.

December 20, 2007: Waxman renews request for information on White House emails.

January 8, 2008: Judge gives White House five days to reveal what emails are recoverable from backup tapes.

January 15, 2008: White House CIO submits statement admitting the White House "recycled" backup tapes before October 2003.


Recycling Torture Timelines

Per Jeff’s suggestion, I took a closer look at Zelikow’s memo on how the CIA stiffed the 9/11 Commission on evidence relating to interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri. I’ll come back and comment on it in more detail–but I was struck by how closely the requests coincided with the beginnings of the Abu Ghraib scandal and Tenet’s resignation. So for now, I’m just adding some dates to this timeline (which I’ve integrated my torture tapes timeline). Look closely at the roles of Rummy, Cambone, Tenet, and McLaughlin.

August 1, 2002: Bybee Memo on torture governing interrogations by CIA

March 2003: Second John Yoo opinion on torture, governing interrogations by DOD

June 6, 2003: 9/11 Commission requests "’all TDs and other reports of intelligence information obtained from interrogations’ of forty named individuals from CIA, DOD, and FBI

August 31 to September 9, 2003: Major General Geoffrey Miller ordered to Abu Ghraib from Gitmo

September 22 and September 25, 2003: 9/11 discussions with CIA about interrogation process

October 1, 2003: Hamdi petition filed with SCOTUS

October 14 and 16, 2003: 9/11 Commission sends questions to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller on interrogations

October 31 and November 7, 2003: Response to 9/11 Commission with little new information

Fall 2003: General Sanchez visits Abu Ghraib regularly

December 2003: Jack Goldsmith tells Rummy he will withdraw March 2003 opinion on torture

December 23, 2003: 9/11 Commission requests access from Tenet to seven detainees; Tenet says no; Lee Hamilton asks for any responsive documents

January 5, 2004: 9/11 Commission decides CIA responses inadequate

January 9, 2004: SCOTUS agrees to hear Hamdi

January 13, 2004: Joseph Darby gives CID a CD of images of abuse

January 15, 2004: Memo to Gonzales, Muller, and Steve Cambone asking for more information

January 15, 2004: General Craddick receives email summary of story

January 19, 2004: General Sanchez requests investigation of allegations of abuse

January 20, 2004: Craddick and Admiral Keating receive another notice of abuse

January 2004: General Myers learns of abuse

January 26, 2004: After negotiations with Gonzales, Tenet, Rummy, and Christopher Wray from DOJ, 9/11 Commission accepts asking questions through intermediary

January 31, 2004: Taguba appointed to conduct investigation

February 9, 2004: 9/11 Commission requests “all TDs and reports related to the attack on the USS Cole, including intelligence information obtained from the interrogations of Abd al Rashim al Nashiri” from CIA

February 2 to 29, 2004: Taguba’s team in Iraq, conducting investigation

March 9, 2004: Taguba submits his report

Late March, 2004: 60 Minutes II starts on story

April 2004: General Miller ordered to Abu Ghraib to fix problems

April 7, 2004 (approximately): 60 Minutes II acquires photos authenticating Abu Ghraib story

Mid-April, 2004: General Myers calls Dan Rather to ask him to delay story

Mid-April, 2004: Taguba begins to brief officers on his report ("weeks" before his May 6 meeting with Rummy)

April 28, 2004: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld argued before SCOTUS; Paul Clement assures SCOTUS that the Administration doesn’t torture

QUESTION: May I ask just one other question, I think it’s just relevant. But do you
think there is anything in the law that curtails the method of interrogation that may be employed?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, I think there is, Justice Stevens. I mean —

QUESTION: And what is that?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, just to give one example, I think that the United States is signatory
to conventions that prohibit torture and that sort of thing. And the United States is going to honor its treaty obligations. The other thing that’s worth mentioning of course —

QUESTION: But you said something about self-executing. In connection with the Geneva
Convention, you said, well, it’s not self-executing. Would you say the same thing about the torture convention?

MR. CLEMENT: Justice Ginsburg, I actually have the sense that the torture victims — you have the Torture Victim Protection Act, of course, which I think doesn’t actually apply to the United States. So I’m not sure that there would be any other basis for bringing a private cause of action against the United States. But as this Court noted in footnote 14 of the Eisentrager opinion, the idea that a treaty is going to be enforced through means other than a private cause of action doesn’t mean that it’s not a binding treaty, doesn’t mean that it’s not going to constrain the actions of the executive branch. Just to finish up my answer to Justice
Stevens’ question, I wouldn’t want there to be any misunderstanding about this. It’s also the judgment of those involved in this process that the last thing you want to do is torture somebody or try to do something along those lines.

April 28, 2004: Abu Ghraib story airs on 60 Minutes II

May 2004: CIA briefing for Addington, Bellinger, and Gonzales on torture tapes

May 6, 2004: Taguba meets with Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cambone, Myers, and others

In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. "Could you tell us what happened?" Wolfowitz asked.

[snip]

“Here I am,” Taguba recalled Rumsfeld saying, “just a Secretary of Defense, and we have not seen a copy of your report. I have not seen the photographs, and I have to testify to Congress tomorrow and talk about this.”

May 7, 2004: Rummy testifies before Congress on Abu Ghraib

May 20, 2004: 9/11 Commission asks about Abu Zubaydah reference to Saudi prince; they get no response

June 3, 2004: Tenet announces his resignation; John McLaughlin resigns as well

June 7, 2004: WSJ refers to March 2003 OLC opinion

June 8, 2004: WaPo refers to Bybee Memo

June 15, 2004: Goldsmith informs Ashcroft he will withdraw Bybee Memo and resigns

June 28, 2004: Hamdi decision

June 29, 2004: John McLaughlin confirms that CIA "has taken and completed all reasonable steps necessary to find the documents in its possession, custody, or control responsive" to the 9/11 Commission’s formal requests and "has produced or made available for review" all such documents

July 11, 2004: Tenet’s resignation effective

I’m struck by three things.

First, Rummy and Cambone almost certainly knew of the Abu Ghraib scandal when they were negotiating with the 9/11 Commission about getting testimony from Abu Zubaydah, among others.

Second, one of the last things McLaughlin did before he resigned as DDCI was to assure the 9/11 Commission they had handed over all the documents relating to the interrogations in question.

Third, look at the context of that CIA briefing for Addington, Gonzales, and Bellinger in May 2004. Not only was the Administration dealing with the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib story, but it was also facing Goldsmith’s reconsideration of John Yoo’s torture guidance.

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/timeline/page/2/