Isikoff Arrives!

Mike Isikoff of Newsweek finally brings a bit of coverage to the Karl Rove e-mail to Steven Hadley, which spawned the Matt Cooper saga.

He is essentially telling us now what I told folks last August:

Fitzgerald should have had (if not looked at) the Rove-Hadley e-mail by March. Which means Rove's lawyers should have seen it too (and blanched!).

To recap and supplement a bit, with thanks to Reddhedd and Polly's comments at firedoglake:

White House records were first subpoenaed in Sept. 2003.  The Rove-Hadley e-mail should have been caught in this net, but wasn't.  Why not?  Rove's attorney, Luskin Some attorney explains that the wrong search words were used.  Hmm - per the Wash Times excerpts, the word "Niger" appeared in the e-mail.  Not enough of a clue?  Evidently not.  That said, if "Wilson" appeared in the e-mail, the Wash Times did not report it.

After Fitzgerald took over the case, he issued a new batch of subpoenas, including, per this Newsday excerpt, "records created in July by the White House Iraq Group", of which Rove and Hadley were members.  Evidently, they found the e-mail this time.  The NY Times has more.

The obvious guess - In his capacity as high priced defense talent, Luskin reviewed on behalf of his client the material picked up in response to the new subpoena, blanched, and alerted both Rove and Fitzgerald.

Isikoff discusses the other discrepancies between the Rove and Cooper versions of their phone call.  We went through this a few days ago, but the gist is, there is good evidence that Rove and Cooper did, in fact, discuss welfare reform, regardless of Cooper's failure to recall that.

On the Judy Miller drama, Isikoff assumes, rather than reports, with this:

...the e-mail isn't the only belatedly discovered document in the case. Fitzgerald has also summoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller back for questioning this week: a notebook was discovered in the paper's Washington bureau, reflecting a late June 2003 conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, about Wilson and his trip to Africa, says one of the lawyers.

I would substitute "recently" for "belatedly" (thereby losing the parallel structure) - as Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft explains, these notes were not part of Fitzgerald's subpoena.  Consequently, since she has never previously been ordered to produce them, it's hard to see how they are belated.

Now, folks who have been studying the Miller saga deeply will ponder this - both Matt Cooper and TIME, Inc. were subpoenaed separately for their Rove testimony and notes.  (Eventually, TIME gave up the notes, so that for Cooper, resistance was futile).

However, IIRC, the NY Times Co. was *not* subject to a subpoena, having convinced the prosecutor that all of the relevant material was in Ms. Miller's possession.

So - where was this recently discovered notebook?  If, as Isikoff reports, it was "the paper's Washington bureau", might one argue that the Times had it in their possession, and misled the prosecutor?  And if the Times (rather than Ms. Miller herself) discovered this a while back, shouldn't they have alerted the prosecutor immediately?  OK, that is a rhetorical question - of course they should have notified Fitzgerald, unless they convinced themselves that it was in Ms. Miller's possession even though it was physically in their office. 

And there is a middle "Don't ask, don't tell" scenario, in which various Washington Timesman stare at Judy's drawers (her desk drawers, for my Brit readers), and say, "You open it".  "No, you open it".  "I'm not gonna open it."  "Well, I'm not gonna open it".  Yeah, tell that to Fitzgerald.

That would be more news for the "Some of the News We Want To Print" crowd to cover - did the NY Times Company mislead the prosecutor and conceal key evidence?

But then again, Isikoff read the Russert story almost exactly backwards, turning what looks like a carefully, craftily worded denial into an unambiguous "It wasn't me", so he is not my main man on this.

From the July 29, 2005 WSJ:

Until then, Mr. Pearlstine says he viewed the leak investigation as "a speck on the horizon, at best." Now he realized that "there were institutional issues that weren't being addressed," he says. Asked to elaborate, he would say only that he came to appreciate the legal differences between defending an individual and defending a corporation. Time Inc. technically owned an electronic file that contained Mr. Cooper's notes, he says. As a result, the parent company could potentially be held in contempt of court and forced to pay large fines if its magazine and reporter didn't cooperate.

Ms. Miller, by contrast, apparently kept personal possession of her notes, and the Times's view is that it never had them.

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.