Murray Waas On The Ashcroft Recusal

Murray Waas has some backstory on the Ashcroft recusal:

Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews. Despite these briefings, which took place between October and December 2003, and despite the fact that senior White House aides might become central to the leak case, Ashcroft did not recuse himself from the matter until December 30, when he allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to take over the investigation.

According to people with firsthand knowledge of the briefings, senior Justice Department officials told Ashcroft that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had misled the bureau about his role in the leaking of Plame's identity to the press.

By November, investigators had obtained personal notes of Libby's that indicated he had first learned from Cheney that Plame was a CIA officer. But Libby was insisting in FBI interviews that he had learned Plame's name and identity from journalists. Libby was also telling investigators that when he told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, he was only passing along an unsubstantiated rumor.

I have read it three times, but I still can't answer this question - did Libby, with or without the assistance of his notes, tell the FBI in his October interview that he first learned about Ms. Plame from Dick Cheney?

I can see that Mr. Waas is trying to hint that Libby did not - he tells us what Libby did say in October, tells us that the FBI only got Libby's notes in November, and reassures us that in his November session, Libby copped to the Cheney connection.  All very suggestive.

But why is it so hard to actually write "Libby concealed the Cheney disclosure in his October interview with the FBI"?

And let's just say that this is quite an impressive cover-up - Libby handed over his handwritten notes mentioning that Cheney discussed Plame with him.  If he remembered taking those notes, why hand them over and then try to conceal the conversation?  Shouldn't he have either lost the notes or frantically re-written them?  Or else handed them over and then admitted that he discussed Plame with Cheney?

Of course, if Libby actually had forgotten that conversation with Cheney, the rest of his story and behavior makes a bit more sense. 

But maybe Libby is so smart that he calculated that the FBI would reason that way and let him go - it's the old "I'll hand over the notes that contradict me and then say 'I Forgot', because nobody who really remembered could be that stupid" defense.  Well, it didn't work.

As to the rest - fine, in the fall of 2003, the FBI had suspicions of a politically motivated cover-up.  Two and a half years later, does Fitzgerald plan to translate those suspicions into an indictment and offer evidence in support of it?  And when, in the fall of 2003, did the FBI learn the identity of Novak's first source (Presumably Richard Armitage of State)?  What is going to be done with him?

Last May 8, when the WaPo told us that Fitzgerald was close to wrapping up his investigation, I put a 70% probability on a Rove indictment and added this:

I also don't understand VandeHei's lead, that Fitzgerald is close to wrapping up his investigation of Rove.  Why should Fitzgerald announce anything?  He is not going out of business, since he has the Libby trial to contend with, and maybe Libby (or somebody) will suddenly offer evidence relevant to Rove's situation.  Lightning may strike.

As a matter of fair play, Fitzgerald may announce that he is not actively pursuing a case against Rove or anyone else.  But if he announces nothing, I won't be surprised.

A month later, nothing has been announced (Jinx!).  As we play "Waiting for Fitzgerald", let me officially note that the probability of a Rove indictment ought to be falling with the passage of time.  Consequently, I will back-pedal to 50-50.

MORE:  Now the FBI doubles as journalism critics?  This is weak on the Rove-Novak problem:

Rove told the FBI that when Novak mentioned Plame's CIA connection and that she might have played a role in selecting her husband to go to Niger, he (Rove) simply said that he had heard much the same information. According to sources, Novak later told investigators a virtually identical story.

Ashcroft was advised during the fall 2003 briefings that investigators had strong doubts about Novak's and Rove's accounts of their July 9 conversation. The investigators were skeptical that Novak would have relied merely on an offhand comment from Rove as the basis for writing his column about Plame.

The investigators were skeptical that Novak used a weak second source because he had a strong first source and other confirmation that *something* was up (such as his chat with CIA press spokesperson Bill Harlow)?  Fine, then Matt Cooper is lying when he says that Libby was source, since, per Cooper, all Libby said in confirmation was ' "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect.'

Well, we didn't like that spin the last time Mr. Waas promoted it; if the FBI is still promoting it, we still don't like it - I can accept that it puzzled them in the fall of 2003, but surely it is clear by now that at least one other journalist on this case did exactly that.

Comments

[cathyf]

The investigators were skeptical that Novak would have relied merely on an offhand comment from Rove as the basis for writing his column about Plame.

Notice how well this fits my "Geeks vs Gossips" explanation. The journalists know that creating "personal interest" (i.e. gossipy details) is what gets people to read stories and what sells newspapers. The gossipy details that the geeky/wonky/nerdy serious policy guys aren't interested in. The journalist is the synthesizer of information -- gets the good gossip dished out by UGO, then goes over to the geeks to get the substantive stuff. While at the geeks, dishes some gossip, gets and "Unh, huh, yep I heard it too" but they move on the the weighty stuff immediately afterwards.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Maybe we should give the FBI a better idea of how journos work? Maybe Fitz, too?

[Patton]

I think if Woodward had come forward sooner, Libby wouldn't have even been indicted, or at best he would have only 1-2 counts.

Fitzs investigation is what was off track.

[Other Tom]

For what it's worth, the madmen at TruthOut are still insisting, as of yesterday, that Rove was indicted on May 13. Gotta wonder what's going on over there.

[Rick Ballard]

"According to people with firsthand knowledge of the briefings"

Waas continues to recycle from his dedicated sources. He couldn't have a certain recently "retired" FBI agent [coughEckenrodecough] in a vest pocket could he? I mean, Fitz had Eckenrode standing right next to him at the presser right before Fitzlemas.

There sure have been a lot of "retirements" around this case. Lots of rubbish put out on the curb.

[Sue]

According to sources, Novak later told investigators a virtually identical story.

That's kind of funny. If they tell a slightly different story they get indicted for perjury, if they tell a virtually identical story they should be indicted for perjury.

[clarice]

Rick, it may be he but I suspect the source(s) are former members of Comey's Office.(I remind you that NSA refused security clearances for the Dept's OPR and I think there was a good reason for that--that people in the Dep. AG's office were suspected of leaking the NSA stuff. (I also think it may be where Mitchell learned of the referral letter, though on that I'm more agnostic. It may just as likely come from the CIA.)

[Foo Bar]

let me officially note that the probability of a Rove indictment ought to be falling with the passage of time. Consequently, I will back-pedal to 50-50.

The longer we go without an indictment, the more I wonder whether Rove is going to get through all this like the gopher at the end of the movie "Caddyshack", i.e., dancing to the Kenny Loggins song "I'm alright; don't nobody worry 'bout me".

[Gary Maxwell]

Foo

So surprised to see you out on this saddest of all sad days. Is the prozac helping? I mean seriously who could not understand the depression after hearing about Busby, and of course the memories tumbling back about Hackett. ONly moral victory after moral victory. The evil King Bush continues his reign with Rove still playing the evil Rasputin. Then to pile on, the US smokes Zarq. All anyone wants to talk about is progress in Iraq. How can this be? A lefty just cant catch a break.

[cathyf]

If they tell a slightly different story they get indicted for perjury, if they tell a virtually identical story they should be indicted for perjury.

No, no, no, Sue, keep it straight here. If you tell a slightly different story it's perjury, virtually identical stories mean conspiracy.

Oh, yeah, and if you don't remember, saying that you don't remember is a lie.

There sure are a lot of rules to keep track of...

cathy :-)

[lurker]

Anyone notice that CSPAN is going to air the YearlyKOS workshops? Perhaps, 1) some of us can watch the CIA Leak clinic. and 2) Find someone to heckle Ray McGovern?

[Sid]

Didn’t Novak use Rove as just enough support to go to the CIA who was the real first source when it verified UGO’s story that VP worked at CIA? One source says VP is CIA and recommends Joey, 2nd person “heard that too” and CIA confirms employment but denies VP was in on Joey’s TDY. Then CIA guy researches who VP is, calls Novak back and says “don’t use her name”. The CIA guy has just proven to Novak that he really did not (completely) know what he was talking about with regard to VP. Meanwhile, Joey’ buddy confronts Novak on the sidewalk, causing Joey to call Novak all hot and bothered. If I’m Novak, I confidently go to press with a 10x confirmed story.

[sad]

From James Toronto at Best of the Web in regard to a cookie theft incident at a school:

****Maybe the Justice Department should appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. After all, unlike in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle, there does seem to be an underlying crime here.*****

Sid

What you said.

[MayBee]

The sad thing is, Waas is still writing as if Libby and Rove were hiding the fact that they were Novak's source. The FBI suspected it, so Ashcroft recused himself and in came Fitzgerald.
BUT THEY WERE WRONG! Wrong wrong wrong. Someone else was Novak's source. Other people *were* talking about Plame.
So as much as it looked like Libby and Rove were lying about the leak the investigation was about....they weren't!

So Libby either did or didn't spill about Cheney. That looked bad to investigators. But so WHAT? Cheney didn't have anything to do with Novak's source either.

Why this might be a story is beyond me.

Waas:Libby looked suspicious to the FBI. Rove looked like he was making stuff up. But the FBI was wrong. I'm still going to write about it in an incriminating way!

[Tom Maguire]

Didn’t Novak use Rove as just enough support to go to the CIA who was the real first source when it verified UGO’s story that VP worked at CIA?

I don't think Novak was having a lot of angst about whether Armitage had given him a bum scoop. But a "second source" confirmation from Rove was good form.

Besides, the Admin official in Rove's story were only providing the detail that Ms. Plame sent Joe:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

If Harlow is "the CIA" in that excerpt, he certainly confirmed her CIA employment.

[Pisistratus]

'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' 'They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, ...

[MayBee]

If Harlow says "If you write about her, don't use her name," does that make her name significant?

[Carol Herman]

Just you wait.

Fitzgerald, in his rush to judgement, FORGOT to obtain Libby's state of mind.

In other words, INSIDE THE COURTROOM, Libby's DEFENSE can show what really must have been going on. Meaning the White House was AWARE OF THE CABAL to destroy the presidency. Bringing it down through a legal assault, when Conyer's received a STILL SECRET REFERRAL LETTER from the CIA, that's so far "missing in action."

You want to believe Valerie was a super-duper spy? Go right ahead.

I believe, Chirac, using the french foreign service to deceive, had every intention of providing false documentation that he thought would lead to Bush's impeachment.

And, after the prosecution rests, the DEFENSE gets to "tell a narrative." NOT ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ! But why Libby's story is TRUE; and there are media people who are parsing like crazy.

Should be interesting to see this.

As to Waas, you get to see his spinning machine. Looks broken to me. But what the heck. Time will tell. And, Wells may put the pieces together in a coherent approach.

Don't forget, I'm not a lawyer. But I take it for granted that lawyers just can't lie to the court. Fitzgerald's as close to a liar as a man can risk. NOT GET CAUGHT AT THIS LATE HOUR, however; is far from obvious.

Fitzgerald avoid following some pretty good clues. And, he's willing to accept Wilson's lies; by saying they're not important to his case. He may try to block exposure of the underlying crime. WHich he was actually sent out to investigate!

What happens, if at some future point, the White House removes the secrecy tapes surrounding the CIA's boondoggle?

[Javani]

"But the indictment of Libby alleges that he lied about this, and instead was told about Plame by Cheney, an undersecretary of State, and at least two other government officials."

So let's get this straight - Libby's recall was fake, a lie, and he trusted Cheney, an undersecretary of State, and at least two other government officials to support him in this quest. What BS.

Not BS is possible Rove-Novak collusion. He signaled to the world, incl. UGO and Rove, beforehand in an article how he was going to cast their conversations. BS, but no big deal the one who caused this public train wreck, UGO, remains uncharged and unnamed.

[Jim E.]

For a bunch of commenters that love to manufacture charges about Fitzgerald's unethical behavior, it's fascinating that no one has exactly saw fit to comment on Waas' lead.

OK, it's not fascinating. It's utterly predictable. You'd all have the vapors if Waas was reporting about Janet Reno; Aschcroft, on the other hand, gets a pass.

[Pisistratus]

Quite right Jim E. Also note that this site's focus on the whole case as Fitz's creation is belied by the fact that the FBI suspected Libby and Rove long before Fitz was enrolled.

[topsecretk9]

Sorry if this is a repeat, but...

The investigators were skeptical that Novak used a weak second source because he had a strong first source and other confirmation that *something* was up (such as his chat with CIA press spokesperson Bill Harlow)?

No kidding, on July 8th Novak said... (Politics of Truth

Late on Tuesday afternoon, July 8, six days before Robert Novak’s article about Valerie and me, a friend showed up at my office with a strange and disturbing tale. He had been walking down Pennsylvania Avenue toward my office near the White House when he came upon Novak, who, my friend assumed, was en route to the George Washington University auditorium for the daily taping of CNN’s Crossfire. He asked Novak if he could walk a block or two with him, as they were headed in the same direction; Novak acquiesced. Striking up a conversation, my friend, without revealing that he knew me, asked Novak about the uranium controversy. It was a minor problem, Novak replied, and opined that the administration should have dealt with it weeks before. My friend then asked Novak what he thought about me, and Novak answered: “Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, **Valerie**, **works for the CIA**. She’s a **weapons of mass destruction specialist**. She sent him.” At that point, my friend and Novak went their separate ways. My friend headed straight for my office a couple of blocks away...

Novak and Rove talked July 9th.

[cathyf]

I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' 'They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, ...

Project, rohrshack-like, whatever you choose on "it." That's the beauty of pronouns. ...And there you have Fitzgerald's case in a nutshell...

cathy :-)

[MayBee]

I'm not sure what you are labeling Waas's lede, Jim E. Feel free to expand your thoughts here.

In fact, I addressed the point that although the FBI was suspicious of Rove and Libby, their suspicions turned out to be ill-founded. As much as it may have looked to the FBI that Libby and Rove were hiding something about being Novaks source, they *weren't*. They a)weren't hiding anything b)they weren't Novak's main source.
The FBI was wrong in their theory.

As for your suppositions about Reno, again you are wrong. I liked Reno. I think she did the best she could in an untenable situation. I'm glad the special prosecutor laws expired.
But I don't remember her recusing herself. Did she? I thought she gave permission to the various investigators to expand their investigations or not. Even when it was the President himself under investigation.

[maryrose]

TM:
so glad to see you have floated back down to earth regarding the possible Rove indictment. Remember Kate and I both said no indictment. I still think 50/50 is too high an estimate. Maybe 15/85 with 15 being an indictment. I'm sure Tradesports has it even lower. Fitz is methodical and is still waiting for Godot or somebody, anybody to come forth and save his floundering case. That's why he keeps the Rove window open. He wanted the VP or Rove and now he's got Bupkis. Waas can yammer all he wants... he's not credible. I don't venture to the Kos darkside -nothing of value there.
I do have a new name for them-KRAZY KEYSTONE KOS.

[Rick Ballard]

ECKENRODE: Look, Mr. AG, right here, see Libby turned over his notes which clearly show that the VP talked to him about Flame, no, I mean Plame. Then look at this transcript - see how he answers falsely.

ASHCROFT: This is gibberish. Where's the clear question?

ECKENRODE: No, you don't understand - look, Libby is clearly lying to us.

ASHCROFT: Who assigned this case to you?

ECKENRODE: Uh, Mr. Comey.

ASHCROFT: I see. Well, we'll have to do something about this. Thanks.

Ashcroft recuses.

ECKENRODE: Look, Mr. Fitzpatrick, right here, see Libby turned over his notes which clearly show that the VP talked to him about Flame, no, I mean Plame. Then look at this transcript - see how he answers falsely.

FITZ: I see what you mean. I'm going to have to have Comey clarify something - I'll be back to you soon.

[Pisistratus]

CathyF, how about you project "the name" onto the pronoun since Novak himself does. In linguistics, that's called the postcedent. A well used and perfectly understandable construction.

[maryrose]

Pis:
The FBI wouldn't know a conspiracy or a leak if it came up and bit them on the rear end.They need 5 years to get their updated computers up and running. They were marginalized since Clinton's era and have been fighting their way back ever since.
Ashcroft did the best he could. Ask Hillary-she was in his prayer group.

[MayBee]

I have great respect for the FBI. I think they were mislead on this one, and in turn mislead Fitzgerald. Someone told the FBI that Plame was "outed" to Novak purely for revenge, and the FBI believed that. I don't think they expected someone in the admin to incorrectly point fingers at others in the admin. (cough*grossman*cough)

[maryrose]

IMHO:
Ashcroft never should have recused himself. That was part of the dem/Kerry/Wilson/Plame plan. Now we are stuck with this nothingburger case with forgetful spinning reporters who can't remember who said what to whom.

[maryrose]

Are Grossman Armitage and others collecting paychecks or pensions or other compensation from the government? I know Val has a sweetheart deal with her CIA retirement package but if any others are hiding the truth about this case than I believe some financial adjustments should be made.

[Patton]

The WHOLE reason the investigators thought Libby was lying is because they hadn't talked to the reporters.

They thought no reporters knew prior to Libby talking to them. But what would the investigators have said if they KNEW beforehand that UGO had told WOODWARD and Woodward had TWO meetings with Libby, both of which he had the Plame information with him and to the best of memory he couldn't recall if he had told Libby.

I THINK THE INVESTIGATORS WOULD HAVE HAD A WHOLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY PURSUED THE FACTS.

If they had known UGO told Woodward and Woodward might have told Libby they may have actually been doing a decent job...then they could have followed up.

But they apparently took UGO at face value..they never seemed to pursue any other reporters UGO talked to during this timeframe, otherswise they would have found Woodward prettty easy.

[Patton]

Things I'd like to ask Fitz:

If it is impossible for Libby to forget the information passed to him from Cheney,

1). why is it possible for UGO to forget he passed it to Woodward?

2). why is it possible for Miller to forget she heard it in June?

3). why is it possible for Pincus to not recall hearing it from Woodward.

SHOULDN'T YOU HAVE TO INDICT UGO, MILLER AND PINCUS IF THE INFORMATION WAS SOOO DAMN MEMORABLE??

[Patton]

I don't think you can have a truly fair investigation if you are playing by different rules for some witnesses/players.

Just because your profession is reporter, you were treated entirely differently, you were questioned very narrowly, you didn't have to talk about anyone else you talked to about this information, ETC. ETC.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE INVESTIGATORS TO CONNECT ALL THE DOTS BECAUSE TREATING THE REPORTERS SPECIAL, MEANT THEY NEVER GOT ALL THE DOTS.

[Sue]

If I understood Russert correctly, they didn't even ask him if Libby told him about Plame. Asked him if he told Libby and that was it.

[Tom Maguire]

For a bunch of commenters that love to manufacture charges about Fitzgerald's unethical behavior, it's fascinating that no one has exactly saw fit to comment on Waas' lead.

Maybe Jim E can complete the following sentence, since Waas did not even attempt to:

"Because of Ashcroft's failure to recuse himself earlier, the following harm was done to the Plame investigation:[LEFT BLANK BY WAAS]".

[kate]

The first sign to me that Rove might not be in as much trouble as thought was the desperation in Waas' articles. No longer the gleeful conspiracy charges, the multiple indictments. Two articles ago, it was sure Rove/Cooper is a he said/he said story, but please, Mr. Fitzgerald, Rove is a bad boy so you have to indict him. But just for false statements and maybe perjury, no more conspiracy, obstruction.

Now this, he's going back in time to his no longer current FBI sources to try to rescue the Libby case.

[clarice]

Picky, pciky ,Tom Maguire...

[Specter]

I have to comment as to the bigger picture here. What happened in this case, from the original FBI investigation on, is that the investigators went into the whole thing with preconcieved notions and to heck with what the evidence said. The whole basis was that someone "outed" Plame to get back at Joe. And obviously, who would want to get back at Joe - but the WH. Therefore we narrow the investigation to them and make the "facts" fit the theory.

Unfortunately this happens all the time in our society nowadays. Too many "investigators" and "prosecutors" brought up on Law & Order and CSI. It is the contining deterioration of our legal prosecution system.

The flip side is that too many people are so full of hate towards Bush that they will not even consider another POV. So they spew hate and vitriol and add nothing to the conversation.

[kate]

So we could make the argument that the FBI did a poor job on the initial investigation and focused on Rove/Libby as not being honest with them--which might be somewhat true. They subsequently briefed Fitzgerald, who believed the investigators and decided that Rove/Libby must be punished, if not for the underlyng crime, than for lying to the investigators, and he would provide an opportunity for them to lie to the grand jury (perjury).

So Fitz was only guilty of believing his investigators. Jim E. will be happy to hear that my opinion of Fitz is going back up.

[MayBee]

One thing I love about Waas is his unqualified description of Plame as having "a covert position". In every article he writes about her.

[clarice]

I do think he was misled, but I'm not sure it was by the FBI alone--I think some of the misleading came from the DoJ, more specifically Comey's office. But that doesn't get Fitz off the hook. (Had the case been supervised, however, I think he'd have been protected from his own folly. He would have had to diagram his case, in effect, and you can be sure someone would have made him see the weaknesses.)

[MayBee]

Waas: In papers filed in federal court on May 12, 2006, for example, Fitzgerald noted that Cheney was so upset over Wilson's New York Times op-ed that the vice president made handwritten notes in the margin of a photocopy of the column.

Cheney: I am so upset I will write 6 mildly worded questions on your op-ed! FEAR THE WRATH OF ME!

[topsecretk9]

Is Jime ay yearly Kos?

[topsecretk9]

at

[Jim E.]

TS9,

No. In fact, I can write with confidence that TM reads DailyKos more frequently than I do.

[clarice]

Rick, as to the FBI, I'd like to know if this man had any connection to the investigation: David Szady.

[maryrose]

TM;
Caution; enter koslandia at your own peril. I do think spending too much time there can begin to warp your view. It's the surreal life over there-not based in reality and a virtual spin zone with incredibly bad language.

[maryrose]

OT;
JimE
What is your take on today's events?

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Steering committee.

I can't join in admiration of the FBI on this. They were charged with discovering the two SAO's and "CIA says".

Fitz doesn't have two SAO's and a "CIA says" in his game bag. Instead we have "Honest error UGO", maybe confirmation that Novak considers "I heard that too" as an unimpeachable corroboration and who knows for sure for "CIA says".

I trust that the FBI can be led to water quite easily, I'm not at all sure that I would trust them to drink - even if they were thirsty. And I'm absolutely positive that I will never answer any FBI agents questions without a videocam, my attorney and a notarized agreement of immunity signed by the director and the AG in my hand.

That's what they've done for my faith in the "justice" system.