Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« One Day More... | Main | Miers - Slow Fade [But No Lame Ducks Quacking] »

October 10, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d8345b426969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Isikoff Arrives!:

» The least perceptive post ever. from Obsidian Wings
Tom Maguire owns Le Game Plame. Owns it, I tell ya. If ya ain't readin' him, ya ain't readin'. Also, I like boullabaise. Always have. Always will. Has something to do with the saffron, I think. Moving on, if Field [Read More]

» The least perceptive post ever. from Obsidian Wings
Tom Maguire owns Le Game Plame. Owns it, I tell ya. If ya ain't readin' him, ya ain't readin'. Also, I like boullabaise. Always have. Always will. Has something to do with the saffron, I think. Moving on, if Field [Read More]

» Arianna Nails Keller and the Times from TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
New York Times Editor Bill Kellor spoke in Phoenix last week at the annual Association of National Advertisers conference. Among his comments: "Most of what you know, you know because of the mainstream media," Keller said. "Bloggers recycle and chew... [Read More]

» Arianna Nails Keller and the Times from TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
New York Times Editor Bill Kellor spoke in Phoenix last week at the annual Association of National Advertisers conference. Among his comments: "Most of what you know, you know because of the mainstream media," Keller said. "Bloggers recycle and chew... [Read More]

Comments

Anonymous Liberal

Isikoff's use of the passive voice is so frustrating (The wrong such terms "were used." Notes "were discovered.") Who used the wrong search terms? The DOJ? The White House Counsel's office? Rove himself? And who discovered the new notes? Miller? Other Times staffers? These distinctions matter.

As for Isikoff's source regarding the search terms point, you assume in your post that it was Luskin. I think you're probably right about that, but there is another possibility. The Rove-Hadley email was clearly responsive to the initial subpoena/document requests served on to the White House by the DOJ. The failure to turn over such a crucial email is a problem not just for Rove, by for the White House generally. After all, it was the White House, not Rove, who was served with the subpoena. So it was the White House counsel's office that was ultimately responsible for ensuring that all responsive documents were collected and turned over to DOJ. Failure to comply with a subpoena is a big deal. This leak to Isikoff may be attempt by the White House to explain it's apparent lack of compliance with the initial subpoena.

Billy

If someone wants to assume that Rove knowingly leaked classifed information to Cooper during the call then why would Rove document that call in an email? If Rove did it to ultimately make Cooper look bad (which it does since Cooper lied about the premise of the call not being welfare and it hints that Cooper appeared to try to bait Rove) then why wouldn't Rove want to make sure that email was included in the intial turnover of documents to the Prosecutor? Was he hoping for another document request at a later date? I don't think so.

I have thousands of emails stored and I often can't find them when I conduct a search on what I remember being relevant terms. Then I will accidently run across that email at a later date when I am not even looking for it.

Rove isn't the one that has some splainin' to do about that email...however, Cooper does.

topsecretk9

So we have Joe "pissed off, I'll make sure the story has legs, becuase we can't let those assholes get away with it" Wilson ...speaking at an Iraq Forum on JUNE 14, 2003 where his bio reads --not passing the Ms. Wilson smell test---"He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children."

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=68&showlogin=1

and this bouncy little WAPO in Oct. 2003, but notice it starts by detailing a previous reporters visit on JULY, 3, 2003 . Valerie was present, but put on her ear muffs and ducted taped her mouth, serving up the chicken while Joe sat in the livingroom doing what he does best, sipping

"...A few months after that July evening, her name -- and her occupation -- would be published and broadcast internationally. In the public imagination, she would become "Jane Bond," as her husband later put it. ...

Over the July Fourth weekend, the Plames were with the Wilsons..."

---a few months, try 10 days!

Valerie was interviewed by the FBI early on in the investigation...WHY?

she didn't speak to reporters, Joe did! They wouldn't go to her for her CIA status, they would go to the CIA for that...

Jon H

""He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children.""

And that right there is the stereotypical depiction of an undercover CIA agent...

topsecretk9

Wilson 101--his words, not mine

Although Cooper indicated Rove did not specifically name Plame during their conversation, Wilson said: "My wife's name is Wilson, it's Mrs. Joseph Wilson. It is Valerie Wilson. He named her. He identified her ... so that argument doesn't stand the smell test."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2...,162485,00.html

Kate

Made the mistake of reading a leftist web site and they are indicating that there was a wide conspiracy to discredit Wilson beginning in June 2003. As far as I'm aware it would not be a crime to attempt to refute a critic. It's his wife's idenity that's the issue.

I'm guessing that even though Wilson was talking about his trip, technically, since parts of it were classified, the officials should have been more careful and given the standard "no comment" to reporters.

steve sturm

Regarding the 'failure' of Rove to turn over the email upon Fitzgerald's first asking for it: correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the White House the 'keeper' of emails, and wouldn't they be responsible for producing subpoenaed material?

If so, would an individual get in trouble for a failure on the part of the White House administrative group to produce all materials subpoenaed by the prosecutor?

steve sturm

A follow up: if the White House is charged with producing subpoeaned emails, how does Luskin - Rove's private attorney and I assume not on the government payroll - get involved in looking at and reviewing materials before they are sent to the prosecutor?

kim

Nickers.

Oops, I meant snicker.
============================

kim

Maybe Luskin was snooping in drawers.

Looking for Berger's socks.
======================================

Toby Petzold

How long is that list of reporters to whom the CIA's spokesman confirmed Plame's employment with the company?

Eric Satsker

"if the White House is charged with producing subpoeaned emails, how does Luskin - Rove's private attorney and I assume not on the government payroll"

Also - If Rove is convicted of something down the road from this case, who goes to jail? Karl or the White House?

WJ (Just passing through)

Made the mistake of reading a leftist web site and they are indicating that there was a wide conspiracy to discredit Wilson beginning in June 2003. As far as I'm aware it would not be a crime to attempt to refute a critic.

To clarify: it is neither immoral nor illegal to refute a critic. It is unethical to attempt to discredit and immoral to defame an honest critic, and many of the tactics used in spin and smear campaigns can easily slide over the line of illegality.

After all, if you are running a spin and smear campaign, we already know you have no integrity, so why be surprised if it turns out you committed a crime or two along the way?

But, such is the nature of the discourse inside the Beltway, where, as someone once noted, a "faux pas" is when someone accidentally tells the truth in public.

The more suits of whatever faction Fitzgerald can put in jail, the better off the country will be. The stench of corruption in Washington is driving property values down worldwide.

kim

I knew a man, he danced with his wife, in Chicago.
==============================================

TM

As for Isikoff's source regarding the search terms point, you assume in your post that it was Luskin.

As part of our high-falutin' editorial process, I actually paused, noted my apprent assumption, and went back to double-check. If I am still assuming, I am sacking the editor as a waste of time, but this is what I saw:

But after he testified, Luskin discovered an e-mail Rove had sent that same day—July 11—alerting deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley that he had just talked to Cooper, the lawyer says.

...Why didn't the Rove e-mail surface earlier? The lawyer says it's because an electronic search conducted by the White House missed it because the right "search words" weren't used.

Now, I can't rely on Isikoff's fine writing without contradicting myself about his reliability. But if he switched lawyer's in that paragraph, he really is a bum.

A follow up: if the White House is charged with producing subpoeaned emails, how does Luskin - Rove's private attorney and I assume not on the government payroll - get involved in looking at and reviewing materials before they are sent to the prosecutor?

Interesting. As I recall, there is a law requiring the WH to preserve e-mails, and they do have physical control of the servers (which is good, since individuals cannot delete material selectively).

However, WH staffers are entitled to private counsel. How the conflicts get resolved when security clearances are involved would be yet another puzzle.

Obvious guess - in order to comply with the subpoena, the WH counsel reviews material for relevance, and cc's Rove on whatever Fitzgerald gets. Luskin, as Rove's attorney, then reviews it for Karl.

topsecretk9

a so-called powerhouse new organization with credibility issues in hindsight might wished they'd had the council of Mr. Pearlstine

we'll never know the whines...TSelect will shield us

Anonymous Liberal

TM, I still think you're misreading Isikoff's attribution of sources. Look at the whole paragraph leading up to the part about the email search. Isikoff writes:

"But Rove did not disclose this conversation to the FBI . . . says one of the lawyers familiar with Rove's account. (He did not tell President George W. Bush about it either, assuring him that fall only that he was not part of any "scheme" to discredit Wilson by outing his wife, the lawyer says.) But after he testified, Luskin discovered an e-mail Rove had sent that same day—July 11—alerting deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley that he had just talked to Cooper, the lawyer says. Why didn't the Rove e-mail surface earlier? The lawyer says it's because . . ."

I think Isikoff is intending to attribute this information to the same anonymous lawyer cited throughout the piece. He describes that lawyer as "one of the lawyers familiar with Rove's account." That may be Luskin, but it could be someone else. I think it's just sloppy writing on Isikoff's part that makes it look like he is attributing the information about the search to Luskin.

TM

I'll be darned - some other lawyer is telling me what Luskin did (as well as what Rove did). OK.

I am sacking the editor.

Seven Machos

Mid-1947-ish: A federal grand jury is impaneled to investigate the Hiss-Chambers spy case.

December 15, 1948: To the absolutel shock and horror of the left-wing establishment, the Grand Jury indicts Alger Hiss for perjury.

kim

Here's a hypothetical for Fitz to pose to Rove. What trap did you not fall into with Cooper?
==============================================

kim

Find someone who is turning, and you will come around.
============================================

kim

I see no sinister reason the Email was not included in the first round of documents. It is exonerative to Rove.
=============================================

kim

But why the heck weren't they searching by date, or by sender or recipient? For cryin' out loud, folks, isn't there a better reason that email failed to be submitted earlier?
=============================================

kim

And of course the provenance of late evidence must be examined VERY skeptically. What is the assurance that it is genuine?
============================

emptywheel

TM

I've been after the NYT on this as much as anyone. But according to your argument, the NYT did not withhold evidence either, in this case. As you argue, the subpoena is only for the week of July 6. We don't know exactly what that notebook is (although I'm betting it's the lying Jill Abramson's notes on what reporters were writing when). But it may only cover June. I've made repeated arguments that Judy was severely restricted for the two months this happened, which might mean she was free-lancing wrt the reporting on Wilson in July.

One more detail. There has been reporting that Judy lost her DC desk 2004. In which case it was=sn't her desk these notes were found in--because her desk is in NY.

TM

But according to your argument, the NYT did not withhold evidence either, in this case.

I'm glad someone remembered. Right now I am watching my computer hang up as I try to make a few final changes to my post, mainly noting that point.

And the "sort-of" answer is, since we don't know for sure what deal the Times struck with the prosecutor *or* what is in those notes, we don't know whether they toed/crossed the line of compliance.

Cecil Turner

"But why the heck weren't they searching by date, or by sender or recipient? "

I suspect the problem was too many hits. Remember that July 11 was the same day George Tenet made the Administration's famous rowback:

The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.
Searching the relevant timeframe on "Niger" or "Uranium" would likely yield a mess that still had to be sifted through. And I suspect many of those conversations were about Tenet's statement, and those would look a lot like Rove's e-mail:
"When he finished his brief heads-up, he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him, I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
Further, none of the keywords available in Gonzalez's memo would work (except for "Niger"). A cursory search would likely conclude this e-mail wasn't pertinent.

Jerkweed

"but I said if I were him, I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

Leaving the investigation aside...

Is this advice still worth a damn in any way?

kim

Fah. It should not be hard to find.
===================================

enlargement

Enlargement

Prevention and symptoms of prostate cancer
For to understand the prostate cancer, we have to analyse first the prostate organ- a gland that sits bellow the bladder and it is also wrapped around the water pipe or urethra. One of its function is producing the seminal fluid that is then stored in a small gland called the seminal vesicle. In […]

penis enlargement

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame