Powered by TypePad

« Away We Go | Main | Notes Ex Machina »

October 24, 2005



Well Well Well

Is this the ">http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051023-104217-9679r"> investigation we have been looking for?


I asked this once before, but it was on a thread that was pretty dead and no one answered. Somebody here knows when Judy Miller got back from Iraq. I have this rememberance that it was like June 21st or 22nd. So Fitzgerald is going to indict one party to a conversation because the punch-drunk-from-jet-lag other party to the conversation doesn't remember what was said, but has some ambiguous notes (taken while jet lagged) that may or may not mean something?


cathy :-)


I agree Cathy--and if he did would Lobby bring in the entire NYT's staff who've said she is a liar to discredit her? LOL

Yesterday Hannah's lawyer is quoted as having flatly denied that his client was a target or had been a cooperating witness for the SP against the WH, contrary to last week's breathless reports that he was..


LIbby, not Lobby--ECH


TT, did you notice this paragraph from the UPI story?

This opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of the CIA leak case, that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or artificially exaggerated. This was the same charge that imperiled the government of Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after a BBC Radio program claimed Blair's aides has "sexed up" the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Notice what UPI left out? The fact that the BBC took a huge hit to its credibility over this, had its head resign, and drove a source to suicide when it was revealed that it was the BBC who had done the "sexing up." While they claimed to have multiple sources high enough up to know what had happened at the meetings in question, they built this story from a single source who simply did not make the "sexing up" claim and who was not in a position to know whether the claim was true or not.

Amazing. They state totally accurately and totally misleadingly that the charges were bad for the Blair administration. They were, at least until they were totally discredited... And why do I bother laughing at the Weekly World News?

cathy :-)


One small tidbit - TM's theory that Tenet was Pincus' July 12, 2003 source is definitively dead. Not only did the WaPo report that the source was a White House official, Pincus himself said as much on NPR this past Sunday. My money remains on Hadley, who I still think is the third major player along with Rove and Libby at the center of this. Hadley is, of course, neither dead nor Canadian. He's promoted. I wonder if it will be treated as a big deal if the sitting National Security advisor gets indicted?

Was Hadley also Novak's first source? I have no idea, though lots of speculation seems to be focusing on Fleischer.


If the UPI story is true, I really doubt it means that Fitz is investigating the pre-war intelligence process. It's probably Fitzgerald's attempt to establish what Cheney, Libby, Rove, etc. were thinking when Wilson went public. Still it's not good for the White House. The forgeries are very suspicious, more so because nobody really seems interested in figuring out who did them. And if Fitzgerald is using them to establish the WH mood, as in 'let's make sure nobody goes further with Niger', then I doubt he's going to settle for dead Canadians pleading guilty. Big if.

Geek, Esq.

I'm done speculating until Fitzgerald goes public.

The Starr investigation spoiled the media and the commentariat--Fitzgerald is playing this very secretively.

Idaho Boy

It appears that Miller did not think enough about the June 23 meeting with Libby to even pursue any type of story on the "clandestine guy" angle. And her story of that first meeting was not clear at all. But now she says she did not even think about pursuing a story until after the July 8 meeting with Libby. That is after Russert already spoke to Libby (on July 3). Russet has not denied saying something like "Wilson's wife works at the CIA and was involved in sending Joe". Russert just denies using her name and mentioning anything about covert statues.

From Miller today on the July 8 meeting as the driver for her to pursue a story (not the June 23 meeting):

"You chose to believe Jill Abramson when she asserted that I had never asked her to pursue the tip I had gotten about Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger and his wife’s employment at the C.I.A. Now I ask you: Why would I – the supposedly pushiest, most competitive reporter on the planet -- not have pushed to pursue a tantalizing tip like this? Soon after my breakfast meeting with Libby in July, I did so. I remember asking the editor to let me explore whether what my source had said was true, or whether it was a potential smear of a whistleblower."



Come on it is clear that Pincus knew who Plame was before he spoke to anyone in the WH--He wrote one of the first stories about the case. IIRC he quoted heavily in it from a "CIA analyst" who was surely Plame.

Interestingly enough, he said he did the piece because he'd learned Wilson was going to have an op ed about the Mission in the competing NYT.

I think Tenet was Novak's original source and so does Mac..and he testified early. If he was and admitted it, that would explain why Novak wasn't called before the gj. The sp can get a subpoena for a reporter under DoJ guidelines only if he can show there is no other way to get the information.

If that is the case, Tenet would have explained why he did so--the fear that there were rogue elements in the Agency who had sandbagged him and the Administration and that pushing back this story was necessary to national security.

Appalled Moderate

I leave myself the option to speculate. It might be amusing to discover how bloody wrong I am.


Great catch, Idaho!

Geek, Esq.

Okay, one final prediction before the indictments come in:

There will be no indictments for the actual leak. What happened is that someone inside the WHIG found out or was generally aware that Plame worked for the CIA, but was unaware of her specific role.

The WHIGgas then decided to spread this information about her status.

When it turned out that she was covert and that outing her was a horrendous blunder, the WH went into damage control mode and tried to cover it up. But for political reasons, not legal ones.

The cover up involved acts of obstruction and perjury.


If the Wilsons are truly that clever, maybe they should be running the CIA, and not Goss. Imagine the skill it takes to sandbag the entire Administration and then, when they fight back, concoct (via the CIA and Justice Department) a special prosecutor and grand jury to entrap several aides in perjury and obstruction of justice. And she got her photo in Vanity Fair.


yes that was a good catch..Judy is talking about 2 sources in this...the "tip" of the "war on Wilson" and exploring what her other source said, which was Wilson was sent by his wife and CIA did not report back, exploring which source was right.


I should have said, she is speaking about a "tip" ( in the end becomes a source) squaring with what she had ALREADY learned from her source (Libby)

she met with Libby June 23, and he informed her to the story in the context of defending the VP--Veep didn't know the "clandestine guy", Veep didn't know about the trip, CIA didn't report

then she receives a "tip" about a "war out on Wilson"...so her story angle to verify if the information provided by Libby is true, or or is what Libby said a "lie" to combat Wilson


New Rawstory

Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told him that Plame set up the Wilson trip.

Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson and his CIA to Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice

Jim E.

Whatever happens this week, we will learn how reliable RawStory is. They've broken a few "scoops" that no one else has really run with. Either they had awesome sources, or they're a joke. Rawstory has a new story up which spells everything out (at least as rawstory sees it). Short version: Geek's 11:10 post above, but with names. We'll see what happens -- rawstory's reputation is riding on it. (Not the most important thing, I realize.)


Ok, interesting new on Pincus.

The available non-Rovian big fish might be Hadley and Bolton.

That UPI story on the Niger forgeris could cut either way - expose Wilson and the CIA cabal, or show that Libby (and friends) planted the forgeries, then lay in fear of Wilson.

My guess - Fitzgerald is covering the bases and has no link.

Bonus point - Wilson told the LA Times that Fitzgerald called him in Sept.

I cannot think of a reason for Fitzgerald to do that (unless he has emotionally embraced the "punish the whistleblower" theory).

Also, Wilson could be a bloviating liar.

However, there is *no way* Fitzgerald personally called a target of his investigation. To tell him what, "Don't leave town?"

Fitzgerald would have contacted Wilson's attorney, if Wilson even has one.

(OK, maybe he called Wilson and told him to get one... No.)


I don't think Wurmser could be Novak's senior administration source however. I don't think he would be considered senior.

Geek, Esq.

It was probably Fleischer. Maybe Hadley.

Jim E.

"I don't think Wurmser could be Novak's senior administration source however."

Agreed. I think Hadley would fit as senior and not a partisan gun-slinger.

Appalled Moderate


I'd pick Cheney over Fleisher, except I can't imagine Dick soiling himself that way. (That's what Chief of Staffs or Mary Matalins are for.) The action here seems to be at the VP office, not over in Ari-land. (Also, Ari has denied being Novak's source -- and I operate under the theory that nobody who is Novak's source would issue a specific denial.)

The Raw Story summary seems plausible -- which makes me skeptical. This is the story somebody who has been reading this blog religiously could deduce. When a rumor tracks what one can make an educated guess about, there's a good chance the rumor is just somebody's educated guess.


I thought June was well established. Was I supposed to be scandalized by the raw story? I'd scandalized if multiple levels and layers in the Gov't were not checking into the claims of an unnamed envoy accusing them of wrong doing in June? Senate report details the non distribution of the report on Wilson's trip ( a report that does not support the envoys claim) why is it suspect for the WH to be learning as much as they could about this...they could have been looking to see if perhaps they did ignore his report (that did not support his claim)


I'll go along with Hadley.

On the Fitz/Wilson call

The call occured on the day Miller was released from jail. Fitz interviewed Miller before he let her out.

The call to Wilson must have something to do with the Miller interview.


I'm going with Clarice, Tenet was Novak's 'no partisan gunslinger"

Geek, Esq.


Good points. Though I think that your argument tends to point things in Hadley's direction.

Remember about Raw Story that they're a sensationalist rag. Something that completely undercuts the "Niger Documents/Treason" talking point would certainly not be something they'd be inclined to run with.


However, there was an additional sign that Fitzgerald continued to investigate aggressively. He phoned Wilson on Sept. 29, the same day Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to divulge her confidential source, was released from jail after agreeing to testify in the case. She testified the next day.

Wilson declined in an interview to discuss the nature of their conversation, but confirmed that it occurred.

If Wilson is not a part of the investigation this is just weird wording or weird placement


TM:/Ok, interesting new on Pincus.

The available non-Rovian big fish might be Hadley and Bolton./
That's an old story. Bolton visited Judy in jail. Do you think he'd open himself up to an obstruction charge by meeting with her then? I don't.
/That UPI story on the Niger forgeris could cut either way - expose Wilson and the CIA cabal, or show that Libby (and friends) planted the forgeries, then lay in fear of Wilson./

The UPI story is full of glaring errors. It looks like Justin Raimondo wrote it. The only thing missing is an accusation against Ledeen.

Again why would anyone who was for the war submit such a crude forgery ? If the scam is worth doing and you have the resources why do a crap job of it, a crap job sure to be detected along the line?
/My guess - Fitzgerald is covering the bases and has no link./

Me, too, though if he does he's more than likely to leave that for someone else to proesecute.
/Bonus point - Wilson told the LA Times that Fitzgerald called him in Sept.

I cannot think of a reason for Fitzgerald to do that (unless he has emotionally embraced the "punish the whistleblower" theory).

Also, Wilson could be a bloviating liar.

However, there is *no way* Fitzgerald personally called a target of his investigation. To tell him what, "Don't leave town?"

Fitzgerald would have contacted Wilson's attorney, if Wilson even has one.

(OK, maybe he called Wilson and told him to get one... No.)/

The only lawyer who has spoken out on Wilson's behalf if not a criminal lawyer. Since Wilson didn't make an appearance before the gj he doesn't seem to have an attorney of record in this matter. The only way to ascertain if he has one, is to ask him.
There probably are some reasons to do that, but I can think of only one at the moment:Who will accept service on his behalf.

Geek, Esq.

"but I can think of only one at the moment:Who will accept service on his behalf."

Fitzgerald wouldn't need to ask Wilson that. If he intended to serve Wilson, he'd just serve him directly.


Not having read Miller's statement today that Abramson refused to let her do the story after her July meeting with Libby, Kincaide notes the NYT's role in this matter:
[quote]If Miller deserves criticism, it is for failing to write the story when Libby handed it to her on a silver platter. She had the perfect opportunity to set the record straight about some misinformation that had already appeared in her own paper. After all, it was Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who had asserted, in a May 6, 2003, column, that "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." We now know that Wilson was the source of this information, and that it was false. He whitewashed the nature of the CIA role in the trip because he wanted to protect his wife. Wilson wanted people to think that the Vice President's office was somehow behind his mission.

We also know, because of Miller's account of her testimony under oath, that it was because of this misinformation that Libby talked to Miller and wanted to get out the other side of the story. The Vice President's office, said by the liberal press to be at the center of the CIA leak "conspiracy," was justifiably outraged over Wilson going public with misleading information about his mission and blasting the administration in the process. Miller also testified that she thought Plame's CIA connection "potentially newsworthy." You bet it was. But she didn't write the story. This is where Miller failed her paper and the public.

Consider the record of the Times in this case. Editorially, the Times called for the investigation but didn't want to cooperate with it. The paper also published the misleading Wilson and Kristof columns. And yet Miller, who didn't write anything, is the Times journalist under fire in the press because she wrote stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs before the war and later talked to Libby about how the CIA had gotten the facts wrong! Miller has become a target even though it's her colleagues who put the misleading Wilson column into the paper, published Kristof's erroneous account, and called for the probe that resulted in Miller serving jail time.

Miller's WMD stories are said by the hard left to be evidence of her reliance on the Bush Administration for information. In fact, it shows her dependence on the same sources that told the administration that Iraq had WMD. Those sources included CIA director George Tenet, a Clinton holdover, who told Bush that finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk."[/quote]


Kincaide notes that as soon as it was clear Wilson was the source, foreign intel agencies would have searched out his family and surely picked up the Plame connection to the CIA, so badly was that hidden.


Geek, of course he could serve Wilson direclty, but Fitz is a gentleman, Wilson is unlikely to flee to avoid service and in those circumstances it is S.O.P. to serve counsel and avoid a media show of the sort Ronnie Earle had planned for DeLay.


From TM's WaPo link:

Valerie Plame - The CIA officer was unmasked in July 2003 by columnist Robert D. Novak after her husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized President Bush for stating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein bought nuclear weapons-grade uranium in the African nation of Niger.


But now she says she did not even think about pursuing a story until after the July 8 meeting with Libby.

Well, Ms. Miller's very plausible hook was that the Times had run the Wilson op-ed on July 6.

That hook was less compelling in June.

OTOH, it supports the notion that Wilson was very incidental to whatver else they talked about in June.

On Bolton - as best we know, he has never been called by the grand jury, so I will be shocked if he rises to the top at this late date. Still...


Thanks, TM--I was afraid you were slipping..LOL


If the Plame affair is the "tit," I guess this is the "tat".

Or is it the other way around ?


They also left out that a British (I forgot which one) investigation, found the "Iraq in Africa" story to have merit.

The only spin they (UPI) didn't speculate on is whether Joe Wilson or someone(s) else (perhaps at the CIA) was improperly using classified data for their own purposes. If someone at CIA indicated that Joe Wilson saw the forgeries, there could be indictments that no one has yet speculated on.

The myopic view of this is Libby and Rove, but the view might be much larger. Pehaps Flame for leaking to Wilson and or Wilson dropping it on the Op-Ed pages of the MYT and, of course, the June stories.


There is an account from Kessler himself regarding his conversations with Libby in July 2003. I think it unlikely he pulled a Russert.

At Scooter Libby's request, I only discussed whether Valerie Plame or her husband were mentioned in two conversations I had with Libby in July 2003. The answer was no.


The indictment?
Kaus from Edward Jay Epstein: Conspiracy to misuse classified information.

Only question is how far up it goes. Stop at Libby or ??? My guess is that it stops with Rizutto, er Scooter Libby.

Libby, Rove (maybe) and perhaps others in the V.P. office.

Conspiracy, misuse of classified information, false statements (no perjury charges; too tough to prove).

Yeah, that makes the most sense even if most of what we've read is inaccurate.


Idaho Boy

Well, Ms. Miller's very plausible hook was that the Times had run the Wilson op-ed on July 6.

There were the May & June Kristof & Pincus articles before the July 6 Wilson article that should have been very plausible hooks as well. Maybe even more so since the "clandestine guy" was still (supposedly) a mystery.

The Wilson discussion being a very small (forgetable) part of the June 23 meeting seems reasonable. But then that gets to how important is the 6/23 meeting afterall.


Noteworthy reading:


"...the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the convictions of three New York police officers for conspiring to obstruct justice in connection with the investigation of the 1997 assault on Abner Louima in a Brooklyn police station.

The convictions were based on the proposition that the officers had entered into an agreement to obstruct justice by lying to federal agents investigating the assault in order to interfere with a grand jury investigation into the assault. Merely lying to the federal agents would not be enough to establish either conspiracy to obstruct justice or an obstruction of justice under 18 U.S. Code § 1503, which is the statute the conspiracy charge was based upon."

Apparently the talk of conspiracy charges is not going to hold up...at least fitzgerald knows this, one would think.


"Under the statute, to be guilty of obstructing justice, or of conspiring to obstruct justice, a person must act with the purpose of influencing, obstructing or impeding the “due administration of justice.” The Supreme Court has held that an investigation by federal agents does not constitute the “administration of justice” under the statute; there must be a grand jury proceeding or a court proceeding for the statute to apply."

I'm starting to think that it is an all or nothing proposition for Fitz. If he can't convict Libby-he's going to issue a no report.

Remember, Martha falsifed documents that she later submitted to Court review.

Geek, Esq.

"there must be a grand jury proceeding or a court proceeding for the statute to apply."

There is a grand jury proceeding in this case, as I'm sure you're aware.

Cecil Turner

There is a grand jury proceeding in this case, as I'm sure you're aware.

By my reading, obstruction of justice requires lying to them, as opposed to investigators. So now we not only need to know who said what, but to whom. Insufficient data.

A point to ponder - it is awfully late in the game for idle speculation . . .

Bite yer tongue!


Am I missing something. I don't see the Raw Story as that spectacular.

Goofy ambassador says he's traveling for the VP. VP's office confused. An assistant finds that the wife works for the CIA and probably helped send him and tells the VP's office. All have an interest in knowing this and all have security clearances.

It is only criminal if they say:

She's a covert agent and let's leak her identity.


Another day, no indictments. ;)


Sue-everyone is saying Wednesday. That means it should be leaking out like crazy tomorrow night.

Mark Maps

"Conspiracy to misuse classified information".

Couldn't this focus on Plame, Wilson, NY Times, et. al as conspirators to undermine a sitting president during a time of war?

Geek, Esq.

Here's a fuller explanation, CT:

"The problem was that the government did not have evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Judge Aguilar knew the false statements he made to the agents would go to a grand jury, thereby influencing the grand jury’s investigation and obstructing justice. Under the statute, to be guilty of obstructing justice, or of conspiring to obstruct justice, a person must act with the purpose of influencing, obstructing or impeding the “due administration of justice.” The Supreme Court has held that an investigation by federal agents does not constitute the “administration of justice” under the statute; there must be a grand jury proceeding or a court proceeding for the statute to apply."

Thus, the question would be whether the defendant knew that what he or she said would find its way in front of a grand jury.

If the agents said "anything you tell us will be heard by the grand jury" then there's obstruction.



I saw that somewhere. I also saw the same thing last week. ;)


It is crazy. All of the newspapers, up to their eyeballs in this to begin with, keep reporting the story as if Wilson did not lie in his op-ed.



Sad, this.

The expectant glee of those who await Fitzmas.

L'Affaire Double-O-Plame was and is an attempt to hurt McChimpy BusHitler.

Joseph Charles Wilson IV used his position and was himself used as an agent to hurt the POTUS at a time of war in hopes that the President's rival, John Forbes Kerry, could win election.

That's it folks.

Now that the election has passed, and those same politicos, hacks, and others react with near-glee at the cycle of "bad news", "Quagmire" and "Vietnamization of Iraq" for purportedly vindicating their opinion of the war, (read: satisfying their narcissistic injury at having lost the election and power), their joy will turn to sorrow once more, as the Special Prosecutor hands down no indictments for the "leak" of Mrs. Who's-Who.

It may turn out, that the investigation will be criminalized, so be it.

Martha went to jail for lying, not for perury. That's just the way it is.

But for all those shrill and shrieking voices who decried the so-called "endangerment" of an Agnecy officer, perhaps they will show some similar mettle and root for the USA and its allies to defeat Michael Moore's Minutemen and allow for the success of some 25 million Iraqis.

Just sayin'.


That conspiracy to misuse classified information sounds lame to me. I think that goes on every day in DC. Of course, the people think they are doing the right thing.


"The forgeries are very suspicious, more so because nobody really seems interested in figuring out who did them."

Thomas -

Read somewhere that there is an ongoing FBI investigation of forged dox and the French intel service is under suspicion. Don't know if that is true, just read it somewhere. But seems there are those who are still interested.

Seven Machos

Oh God, Geek, Esq. is at it again with crackpot legal theories.

MeToo: Wht is the difference between lying and perjury? Serious question...

Rick Ballard


It's not sad to be able to identify objectively pro-Islamofascist elements. Neither court nor judge nor jury is necessary to determine where the party's to the matter true interests lie. Declines in viewership and readership of propaganda organs are as predictable as declines in US contributions to Canadian tourism or purchases of French wines.

The price for the Plame affair will ultimately be paid at the ballot box. I'm quite sanguine about the final outcome. Confirmation of mendacity on the part of the opposition always has a pleasing flavor.


"Couldn't this focus on Plame, Wilson, NY Times, et. al as conspirators to undermine a sitting president during a time of war?"

Undermining a sitting president during war isn't a crime, it seems to me. What's the underlying crime that the conspirators are committing?

When Michael Moore calls the terrorists the equivalent of the Minutemen or when he issues some other inane commentary on the war, he's certainly trying to undermine Bush. But he's not committing any crimes.

Unless one wants to charge him with treason, which is a no go.

Lots of treason charges being tossed by some loony lefties (and some wacky righties) but no serious person believes that treason was committed by either side.

As I understand it, treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort.

No one who wishes not to be laughed out the room can argue that Libby or Rove or Wilson or Plame had adherence to any enemy.



Can anyone name a case where an individual or group were found guilty of obstruction of justice, when there was no underlying crime?

'Mistatements' made in the course of the investigation outside the grand jury are apparently not grounds for obstruction. Rove has gone back and corrected earlier mistatements, so perjury won't fit either.

Unless he lied in his final grand jury appearance, he is off the hook.

Fitz will not seek to prosecute, if there is no crime that was being concealed. Even in libby's case-he states he heard from russert, russert confirmed it. The source of Plame's name wasn't exchanged but it has been shown that Libby either revealed it to Miller or Miller told him-she can't remember.

This would be a piece of cake if Fitz could state the crime and then show the efforts to conceal it. At trial he will not be able to state the crime, if one did not occur. This thing is a loser unless he can get a plea.

The 82 Identity Act is out. I'll take V toensing over Larry Johnson anyday.

The 1917 act is out as well, as it seems to involve materials. Now if Libby gave the report that identified Plame to the press...
but after Miller's testimony, it is clear that that did not happen.

Fitz has to show that the intent to violate the 82 act was there, as the perp would have to believe Plame was covert. Novak calling the CIA before publication and the subsequent non-denial was enough to show that she wasn't.

It is the equivalent of asking a grad student in Chemistry to detail the book where they learned about ions-most would say they learned about them from multiple sources, and could not state the true source.

The full knowledge of Plame and her role probably does not have one source.

Someone tells Rove that Wilson's wife works on WMD's at the CIA and got him his gig. (Russert)

Someone else confirms her job and maybe name.(?)

The number of sources that knew the info is beyond the capability of Fitz to pinpoint. The State dept memo was a good idea, but apprently Miller and Libby knew in June, what was in a State Dept memo in july. Looks like they had another source.

Who is to say that the first source was someone at the CIA(a co-worker), who knew Plame and Wilson and realized that the unamed ambassador in the NYT articles was him? If they were politcally biased, how can you show that a co-worker did not drop a dime on Plame?

Fitzgerald has never sought the intial sources, asking only for the names in the whitehouse who contacted reporters, and not the reporters sources. It means he can't show the person who actually outed Plame to the Whitehouse-and thus cannot determine whether they believed her to be covert.

He has to get a plea, or he issues no report.

(Of note, he did have Joe Wilson testify. Why do you need his testimony if he has already talked to investigators? It's not like he is a target...?)



My understanding is that Martha was convicted of lying to investigators, she was not under oath at that time. Had she been, she would have then committed perury.

Any of the lawyers here care to correct?



I feel like I've been pregnant for more than two years awaiting the birth of this "baby." My worst nightmare?: Congratulations, Mrs. Myers, its a Karl Rove.

Geek, Esq.

We don't know what Rove said before the grand jury in his last appearance. He could have stuck to his story. He also could have thrown Scooter under the bus.

Seven Machos

Geek -- I have to be somewhere now, but I think you should run with this "thrown Scooter under the bus" thing. Here's a crime (or series of crimes) that you could probably dissect pretty well. Baby steps, Geek. Baby steps.

Stick to the easy stuff and, before you know it, you'll be able to move to more complex crimes without sounding like a complete tool.


"Conspiracy to misuse classified information"?

On second (and third) thought, that's a pretty weak charge. No, that's not a weak charge, that's an absurdly ridiculous charge.


What is the legal standard for "misuse" of information?

Seems to me that if we start prosecuting folks in Washington for "misusing classified information" we'll be locking up the whole city and will have to use Alaska to hold them all.

Hmm, maybe that bridge will be needed after all.



"If the agents said "anything you tell us will be heard by the grand jury" then there's obstruction."

That is why Rove was advised that anything he said at his reappearance could be used against him.

He was not previously advised of this, and by the fact that they felt they had to advise him in his LATER appearance, showed their concession that his previous statments did not expose him to obstruction.


misuse of classified information

The day anyone on any administration (Rep or Dem) gets charged and/or convicted of misuse of classified information, is the day that the President will be running the White House by him/herself.

The President (not Congress et al) is the final authority as to what is classified and what is not. If his own workers in the course of doing the "President's business" are guilty of misuse of classified information, then working at the White House is a "death sentence."


"Misuse of classified information"

That idea comes from the (usually) brilliant Edward Jay Epstein via the (sometimes) brilliant Mickey Kaus through the (??) brilliant me.

Sounded pretty good on first blush but then things cooled off for me.

It's a ridiculous charge.


ross blake

from the top to bottom this whitehouse is corrupt ,hang them all , publicly


Yes, to all that smg.


From the link of TexasToast:
... NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.

Martin Walker of UPI seems to think that this doesn't bode well for Rove and Libby. I think this should scare the shit out of Joe Wilson and probably a few folks at Langley.

If early in the investigation Fitzgerald was extending his purview, the whole Rove/Libby portion could be just a sideshow. While Walker thinks this is some sort of Fitzgerald indictment of the reasons for war, the courts would have shut him down as this is not in his purview. Rather, this could indicate that he went deeper into the intelligence side of the leaks, where Joe and Flame live.

While the "French" are the consensus source of the forgeries, Joe is the only player known for having had any interest in them and making claims about them, even though he later said never saw them. I put my money on a Joe Wilson perjury charge.


Cool. We have another one ready to convict without any evidence of a wrong doing. Just public opinion and spin. Oh well. If you hang 'em, hang 'em high. ;)


We did not go to war on one piece of evidence. There is no way Fitzgerald is conducting an investigation into the reasons we went to war.

Geek, Esq.

This Niger yellowcake stuff sounds like wishful thinking. I doubt Fitzgerald is going anywhere near that.


I don't think is looking at it from a 'why did we go to war" perspective...he is looking at it from a "criminal conspiracy' perspective?


"Niger yellowcake stuff sounds like wishful thinking"

You better hope so because if Fitz. finds out that it was lefty ex-CIA agents working with Wilson and Plame in an attempt to embarass those satanic neocons in the W.H., the shit will hit the fan bigtime.

You do know that Seymour Hersh has reported that it was indeed ex-CIA agents who created the forgeries? Old Seymour is not exactly an original member of the VWRC.

If this turns out to being the W.H. responding to attempts by a faction in the CIA to undermine the war, this will go to a level that we couldn't have imagined beforehand.

Now, that doesn't exonerate Libby et al. from violating any laws, mind you. But it does, let us say make for some interesting reading the next month or two.

And call me crazy, but I think it's (mostly) true.



I am saying this again...but about new post

Has anyone read AJ Strata's post on this forgery news item?


okay, this is just a general curiosity I have. Why do we have murky at best details on Niger trip circa 1999?


If early in the investigation Fitzgerald was extending his purview, the whole Rove/Libby portion could be just a sideshow.

Neo...this is my longshot theory as well...Fitz has executed a masterful headfake


SMG I think it may be true, and I don't see how this is anything but trouble for Wilson, if only on his tap dace about when he saw the forgeries.


the niger docs and Joe

that's your smoking gun Fitz

Jim E.

"You do know that Seymour Hersh has reported that it was indeed ex-CIA agents who created the forgeries? Old Seymour is not exactly an original member of the VWRC."

Hersh reported the rumor, not the fact. Therefore, it's BS to report that "indeed" ex-CIA agents created the forgeries at this time. Nope.


Fitz has executed a masterful headfake--

Windandsniff is right, if this is the case (Wilson trouble) it would seem to me the only way to achieve it successfully, under the nose of the MSM, is a no leaking headfake

Dave S in VaBeach

For Clarice or anyone who may know:

Two questions. (Pardon me if these have already been asked and answered previously.) First, I am assuming that when an indictment is issued by a grand jury that it is immediately disclosed to the public as a matter of transparent record keeping. Is that an accurate assumption, or can there be delays in public disclosure once an indictment has been issued?

Second, do we know the next time the special prosecutor is supposed to meet the grand jury?


Jim E
should we do a merlot wager?


Indictments can be sealed.

Jim E.

Dave S,
1. There are such things as "sealed indictments" which can be delayed.
2. GJ supposedly meets on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Jim E.



Actually, the current theory about who actually forged the Niger documents is:

"Italy's SISME [sic] also reportedly had a hand in producing the forged documents delivered to the U.S. embassy in Rome in early October 2002 that purported to show a deal with Iraq to buy uranium. Many in the intelligence community are convinced that a prominent neocon with long-standing ties to SISME played a role in the forgery. The truth of that proposition remains to be proven. This much is certain, either SISME or someone with ties to SISME, helped forge and circulate those documents which some tried to use to bolster the case to go to war with Iraq."

The "prominent neocon with lomg-standing ties to SISME" is alleged to be Michael Ledeen.

As in:

Even as the FBI was following the trail of the forgers, the Italians were looking into the matter from their end. A parliamentary committee was charged with investigating, and they issued a heavily redacted report: now, I am told by a former CIA operations officer, the report has aroused some interest on this side of the Atlantic.

According to a source in the Italian embassy, Patrick J. Fitzgerald asked for and "has finally been given a full copy of the Italian parliamentary oversight report on the forged Niger uranium document," the former CIA officer tells me.

"Previous versions of the report were redacted and had all the names removed, though it was possible to guess who was involved. This version names Michael Ledeen as the conduit for the report and indicates that former CIA officers Duane Clarridge and Alan Wolf were the principal forgers. All three had business interests with Chalabi."

SISME. Ledeen. Chalabi. And some former CIA officers.

If y'all are now suggesting that Wilson forged the Niger documents... could you also possibly take a stab at explaining why he would then expose them as forgeries?


to embarrass the administration

Jim E.



Jim E

HA! why Ha! You can even set the terms.


Dave, I don't know the answer to yor questions. The other day I read an apparently credible reportabout how it works in D.C. federal court.The report indicated that once the jurors vote to indict, they all troop down to the Clerk's office to formally notify the clerk who then formally takes possession of it.There is no reason I can think of why it must be immediately disclosed and I can think of circumstances where the Prosecutor would want it held and not made public.In this case I expect reporters are parked as close as possible to the grand jury room--and have been all along--so if the procedure is accurately described, I don't know how this could be kept secret.

I do not know when they meet again, I'll check the online Court schedule and post what I see, if anything.


I was thinking winner buy! win win...

Jim E.

If Wilson is indicted, you win.*

If Libby is indicted, I win.**
* I won't really pay up.
** I won't give you contact info, so you won't have to pay up.

Jim E.

Winner buy is actually a good idea, but see asterick #1 of my prev post.

Jim E.

shorter clarice: I have no idea.


no fair, no fake wagers...not allowed to save this a folder on your hrad drive either


Jim E:
I stand corrected. My error in phrasing what Hersh reported he found. It's obviously not a fact.

But your error too. Hersh did not report a "rumor". He reported this:

"Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves."

That's different from what I said but also from what you said.

Thanks for your charming response. Keep up that sunny personality Jim. It's winning over a lot of folks.



one more time

this in a folder on your hard drive either

Jim E.

Who said I'm trying to win anyone over? I corrected you, you admitted you were sort of wrong. Grow up.


TS LOL on the windansniff

CaseyL "the current theory"

that's ONE of the current theories

the docs were first given to Cheney as far as I know...does that point to Chalabi or to someone who didn't want the CIA to discredit them too fast?


Here is the US District Court cite--I could not find any indication on it of when or if the GJ is scheduled to meet again and the site indicates sealed matters do not appear on the schedule. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Weekly_Court_Schedule.pdf

CASEY! Next time you cite that fruitcake Raimondo, post a warning..He's so f**()ing nuts, me brain hurts after one or two sentences of his paranoid fantasies.

The comments to this entry are closed.