Fitzgerald - Missing Emails?

In recent court filings from the Libby case we learned that certain White House emails had not been archived in accordance with normal procedures (see Exhibit C).

Georgia10 at the DailyKos does a nice job of unmasking the Bush-Cheney conspiracy, but also does a nice job of preserving a question mark in the headline:

Fitzgerald Reveals Someone's Been Tampering With Evidence?

Tampering with evidence?  Georgia10 makes much of the "twelve hour gap" - the DoJ notified WH Counsel Gonzalez about the Plame investigation in the evening, and Gonzalez notifed the WH staff to preserve records the following morning.  Of course, WH emails are subject to archiving under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, so the gap is irrelevant to this specific issue, but fun's fun.

Even the word "deleted", tossed about casually by folks untroubled by reality, is premature - for all you or I know, the White House has a double-secret archive for national-security emails, and Fitzgerald is simply hinting to Libby's attorneys that to access these emails they have to ask the archivists nicely with the proper buzz-phrase that pays.  [Or, Fitzgerald may be alluding to the mysterious journey taken by the Rove-Hadley email - see UPDATE.]

As noted at DKos, an investigation into destruction of evidence is well within the scope of the Fitzgerald inquiry.  The good news is, there is no need to appoint a special counsel to look into this, since we already have one.  More good news - if this is really a significant story, Fitzgerald's office continues to be leak free.  And even better news - Fitzgerald notes that "we are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed".  How he would know that without some hint as to what is missing is baffling, although I suppose it may be a statement of pure ignorance.  But if Fitzgerald does know what it was that was not archived with the normal procedures, that does suggest that he gained access to it some other way.

The NY Sun also covers this - they manage to round up some "no comments", and walk through the legal background going back to the 80's.  Pete Yost of the AP also has coverage, and concludes with this:

The Presidential Records Act, passed by Congress in 1978, made it clear that records generated in the conduct of official duties did not belong to the president or vice president, but were the property of the government.

The National Archives takes custody of the records when the president leaves office.

"Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists government secrecy project.

"A particular subset of records sought in a controversial prosecution have gone missing," Aftergood said. "I think what is needed is for the national archivist to ascertain what went wrong and how to ensure it won't happen again."

Well, there are plenty of questions without answers, so I expect this will make a useful Dem screaming point for a few days.  And we are curious to see how long the folks at DKos can hold on to that question mark.

MORE:  More on Mark Kleiman?  Oh, whatever.  Let's reflect on this point of his:

Disposing of another wingnut talking point, Fitzgerald asserts that, as of the Novak column, the only reporters who knew that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA were Woodward, Miller, Pincus, and Cooper. So much for the argument that the fact was widely known in political Washington...

Just to grab a name at random, the consensus is that Fitzgerald never even chatted with Nick Kristof of the Times.  In his letter Special Counsel Fitzgerald was able to distinguish between what he knew ("we were not aware"), and what was.  Would that others could do the same.

UPDATE:  Fitzgerald cites both the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President in his cautionary statement:

"We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed," Fitzgerald wrote in a letter to the defense team.

But the prosecutor added: "In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Well - might he simply be referring to the mysterious journey taken by the Rove-Hadley email?  Maybe he was offered some techno-babble explanation for why that email eluded the first round of subpoenas, and the supporting evidence included other emails not "preserved through the normal archiving process".  In which case, he may simply be advising the Libby team of his own *possible* inability to comply with their discovery since the White House *may* have failed to comply with his subpoena - sure, they tell him they have solved the glitch and recovered everything, but how is a Special Counsel to know?

Comments

[kim]

What is Aftergood's basis for claiming that stuff is missing?

And I'm with the pure ignorance crowd. Fitz's statement was of simple agnosticism.
========================================

[kim]

Or was missing?
===============

[p.lukasiak]

Fitzgerald notes that "we are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed". How he would know that without some hint as to what is missing is baffling, although I suppose it may be a statement of pure ignorance.

legally, that is precisely how it has to be read. ("We know stuff is missing, we don't have any evidence that what is missing is exculpatory").

But if Fitzgerald does know what it was that was not archived in the normal procedures, that does suggest that he gained access to it some other way.

yes, well the references to "preservation" through "normal" archiving procedures certainly leads one to speculate that there were archives other than the "official" ones that are under the jurisdiction of the National Archives.

Personally, I think the odds are good that this is just a red herring --- that Fitz is just trying to scare a few people.

**********************

Just to grab a name at random, the consensus is that Fitzgerald never even chatted with Nick Kristof of the Times. In his letter Special Counsel Fitzgerald was able to distinguish between what he knew ("we were not aware"), and what was. Would that others could do the same.

there is no evidence that Kristof was aware of the "Plame connection", which is what the entry referred to. That being said, the "Andrea Mitchell" comment remains unresolved, and is far more significant than speculation re: Kristof...

[p.lukasiak]

What is Aftergood's basis for claiming that stuff is missing?

the fact that FitzG knows stuff is missing from the "normal" White House archives.

Its entirely possible that all Fitz knows ist that stuff is missing --- activity logs would reveal that emails had been sent and received that should have been part of the archives, but are not.

Then again, the fact that the Rove-Hadley email surfaced after a computer search of emails that should have turned it up strongly suggests that relevant emails were deleted from the system....

[kim]

How odd you must find Kristoff.

Perhaps some emails were shown to Fitz in October.
=================================================

[kim]

Blackberry splotches? Did I ever tell you about the time I saw a load of starlings getting flocked on the rotting fruit of a mulberry tree? Ye shall know them by their issue.
=======================================

[Sue]

p.luk,

Not trying to be a contrarian here, but how exactly does an email that didn't turn up strongly suggest emails were deleted?

[kim]

p.l: You're not making sense here. Where in Fitz's words do you find that email is or was missing?
=============================================

[kim]

Remember, 'not found' is not the same as 'missing'.
==================================================

[kim]

Are all conversations archived? All phone calls? All emails? All blackberry commo? The laws, as is usually the case, only approximately fit us.
===============================================

[maryrose]

Curioser and curioser; the Plame investigation unfolds. Personally the e-mail kerfuffle; I'm hard pressed to see any there there.

[Dwilkers]

"...there is no evidence that Kristof was aware of the "Plame connection..."

That's right pluk, Kristoff had breakfast with Joe and Val months before to talk about Joe's trip but he didn't find out that Val worked at the CIA. Even though the meeting was the basis for Kristoff's ensuing column. I mean, she was there, but he just thought she was there to make the eggs and pour the OJ - and little Joe and Val didn't tell him because, you know, it was top secret, and Kristoff's subsequent columns describing her career and all don't have anything to do with what he learned that day.

That makes a lot of sense. Just keep repeating it to yourself.

[Jeff]

Questions for Clifford May: It's been reported by David Corn that you told him that you had been interviewed by investigators in the CIA leak inquiry. And you have stated in print that you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA before Robert Novak's July 14 2003 column. Yet you are not among the reporters that the special prosecutor has recently stated are the only ones he is aware of who knew that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA prior to July 14, 2003. What did you tell investigators about your knowledge of Wilson's wife's employment at the CIA? And why, like Robert Novak but unlike the other reporters on Fitzgerald's list of those how knew Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA, have you not published an account of your role in the investigation?

[Jeff]

I would like Kristof to be more forthcoming. But there is a relevant difference between Kristof and May: May has claimed that he knew Plame worked at the CIA before Novak's column. Kristof has claimed no such thing. And May stands with Robert Novak and as the only reporters who have claimed pre-Novak knowledge of Plame's CIA employment who have not offered accounts of their role in the investigation. Not very good company. Let's add in Andrea Mitchell, who perhaps claimed and then retracted the claim to pre-Novak knowledge of Plame's CIA employment, but who has given some account of her role in the investigation, however unsatisfactory. We've gotten even less from May. Not very good company, and I hope he gets out of it soon, and offers us a clear and unambiguous account of his role in the investigation, in particular telling us what he told investigators, when he was interviewed and by whom, and so on.

[p.lukasiak]

Not trying to be a contrarian here, but how exactly does an email that didn't turn up strongly suggest emails were deleted?

a "keyword" search of the archives was supposedly done that should have turned up the "Rove-Hadley" email.

The fact that the Rove-Hadley email did not turn up in the "keyword" search of the archives strongly suggests that it had been deleted from the archives.

*********************
p.l: You're not making sense here. Where in Fitz's words do you find that email is or was missing?

Oh, I think the following language says that email is missing from the archives...

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

do try and pay attention to all the facts, kim, not just the ones you want to know about....

*********************

That's right pluk, Kristoff had breakfast with Joe and Val months before to talk about Joe's trip but he didn't find out that Val worked at the CIA. Even though the meeting was the basis for Kristoff's ensuing column. I mean, she was there, but he just thought she was there to make the eggs and pour the OJ - and little Joe and Val didn't tell him because, you know, it was top secret, and Kristoff's subsequent columns describing her career and all don't have anything to do with what he learned that day.

yup.....what's so difficult about believing that Plame would maintain her cover during a visit by Kristof to talk to Wilson?

I know that wingnut logic insists that this whole thing is a massive conspiracy between the media and the Wilsons, but the facts don't bear that out.

[nittypig]

TM, The language on the missing evidence "we are aware of no evidence" is basically the same as that on the reporters, "we were not aware". Fitz doesn't know what's in the missing emails, and hasn't built his case on it. Likewise he doesn't know of other reporters who might have known about Plame, and hasn't built his case on that either.

You cannot reasonably claim that Fitz' statment suggests that he knows what's in the missing emails, any more than Kleiman can claim that his statement on reporters means that no-one else knew.

[kim]

'Not all email was preserved through the normal archiving process' is not the same as saying that stuff is or was missing. Please try to pay attention to logic.
===============================================

[p.lukasiak]

Fitz doesn't know what's in the missing emails, and hasn't built his case on it.

Fitz may, in fact, be building part of his case on the missing emails.....

He may (or may not) know what is in the emails. What he probably does know is

1) who sent and received each one, when each one was sent, and how long each one was.

2) When each one was removed from the archives, and by whom

I think the "by whom" may be key here, because it is unlikely that any of the principles had sufficient knowledge to screw around with the archives -- that means some geek did it, and that geek basically destroyed federal property and was threatened with an indictment if he didn't tell who told him to destroy the information in the files....

.....my guess is (as usual) Hadley.

[cathyf]

Is this a Microsoft Exchange server? If the answer is "yes" then this assertion:

"Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists government secrecy project.

Is hilarious. As anyone who has ever been a victim of a microsoft mail system knows, MSExchange corrupts its databases over time.

A classic symptom is that if you connect with POP vs IMAP you see different messages. In order to fix it, you have to shut the whole system down and rebuild the database indices from the data, and there is always mail that just disappears in the process -- typically it's mail that was showing on one protocol but not the other. While the system is shut down (typically a 1-3 day process) all of the mail that would normally get fed into the mail system, as in from the internet, has no where to go. Depending upon how those systems are configured, the mail either sits there patiently waiting and comes in when the server goes back online, or it gets dropped in the bit bucket and is never seen again. (Bill Gates: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!")

While MSExchange is a particularly unreliable program, they all have bugs in them, and they can all fail. Not to mention that the archiving is done on some sort of electronic media (disks, mag tapes, cds, etc.) and some certain percentage of that stuff just fails and becomes unreadable. Anybody who thinks that data storage systems are perfect and any failure is suspicious really ought to be taken to their local mental health facility for evaluation -- see what other delusions they are suffering from.

cathy :-)

[p.lukasiak]

'Not all email was preserved through the normal archiving process' is not the same as saying that stuff is or was missing. Please try to pay attention to logic.

get serious. If the emails were not preserved (and everything was supposed to be preserved) that means they are missing FROM THE ARCHIVES.

And really, don't lecture me about logic, when you don't have the first fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Gary Maxwell]

What? Aren't you the guy just upthread talking about a looney wingnut conspiracy theory? And then you blurt out something so wild that anything you derided above pales in comparison? Sheesh.

[kim]

Your speculations about Fitz's knowledge of those emails is horse patootie.
===========================================

[Sue]

Fitzgerald asserts that, as of the Novak column, the only reporters who knew that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA were Woodward, Miller, Pincus, and Cooper.

How can Fitz unequivocally assert that these are the only reporters who knew? He thought Novak, Miller, Pincus and Cooper were the only ones until Woodward stepped forward. He thought Libby was the first to leak to a reporter, until Woodward stepped forward. He has to be saying they are the only ones he has corroborated evidence that says they knew. Or he is setting himself up for another egg on his face moment.

[kim]

Actually, Sue, I think he has been very careful there. I interpret that to mean that at a certain period of time those were the only reporters that he, Fitz, knew about. Wild.
=============================================

[cathyf]

'Not all email was preserved through the normal archiving process'

could mean something as innocuous as 'we have special folders for the penis-enlargement, breast-enhancement, Canadian-pharmacy, bootleg-software, mortgage-refinance, and phishing spam and we don't mix it into the regular archives.'

(Haven't you ever wondered whether the president and the pope get more or less spam than the rest of us, and if their experts have figured out more clever ways to deal with it?)

cathy :-)

[Cecil Turner]

The fact that the Rove-Hadley email did not turn up in the "keyword" search of the archives strongly suggests that it had been deleted from the archives.

Nonsense. It strongly suggests they used the wrong "keywords." (Which is both what they claimed, and the most logical answer if you actually read the thing.)

Oh, I think the following language says that email is missing from the archives...

No it doesn't. It says "not all email . . . for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." That could mean it was preserved via a non-normal process, or not preserved. Or, perhaps he's saying the VP's e-mail system has a remote database that didn't update properly. (And yes, assuming the first has to be true is a logic issue.) In any event, it sounds like he's talking about a computer glitch.

yup.....what's so difficult about believing that Plame would maintain her cover during a visit by Kristof to talk to Wilson?

What's so difficult about believing she might talk? It looks to be pertinent, so why not ask?

[Sue]

I read the actual letter. I should have done so first instead of using an article that refers to wingnuts. Mr. Fitzgerald asserted they were they only ones he was aware of. Not that they were the ONLY reporters.

[The Unbeliever]

p.luk, I think what kim is getting at is roughly similar to my theory: Fitz's language indicates the e-mails could have been archived, but not using the proper bureaucratic methods. The entire paragraph of his letter pasted on Raw Story:

"We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed. In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email... was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

This does not indicate that the e-mail was deleted from the archives--which would require deliberate action--but that it may never have been stored there in the first place, for reasons unlisted. It may be that the White House IT staff was swithcing to a new archiving system, and e-mails from a certain time period are now languishing in a temporary data store; or maybe they were foolish enough to use MSExchange (don't get me started on a tech rant), and e-mails during that time never into the DB in the first place, but got dumped into a system folder.

In these cases, a keyword search on the main archives would fail to turn up some data, but that data is not lost or being willfully obscured. (Though I suspect whatever poor intern got assigned the task of manually adding these e-mails to the DB has received a stern talking-to...)

[The Unbeliever]

Oops, Cecil made my points first while I was typing. That'll teach me to post without refreshing the thread first...

[Sue]

We are aware of no evidence...which has been destroyed.

That statement is in response to a question/statement in the January 5, 2006 letter sent to Fitzgerald by Libby's counsel. Is that letter posted elsewhere? It wasn't in the link TM provided as EX C.

[Dwilkers]

On the e-mail thing I remember reading a story shortly after the election in 2000 about GWB having decided he couldn't use e-mail to talk to the twins anymore because every e-mail he sent was going to be public record. I thought that was sad at the time.

The e-mail thing is disturbing, but the best evidence there's no 'there' there is that there hasn't been an indictment. That would be very high on my list if I were Fitz and there was something fishy going on - and you'd think he'd have learned about this problem a couple years ago.

Whatever the case you can bet Rove and Libby aren't responsible for running the backup tapes at the White House every night before they turn off the lights.

[Sue]

Bad...bad...italics....

[Sue]

Apologies to the board...

[kim]

You made me a believer, Unbeliever.
=====================================

[TM]

Personally, I think the odds are good that this is just a red herring --- that Fitz is just trying to scare a few people.

Well, I will seize a rare opportunity to agree with P Luk.

However, we are all circling around the other obvious explanation - something strange *may* have happened to that Hadley-Rove email, and Fitzgerald clearly refers to both the OVP and the Exec Office of the Pres, which might include Rove.

A possible unified explanation - Fitzgerald got some techno-bable explanation about why Rove's email was so hard to find (wrong server, wrong archive, whatever), and part of the evidence backing the story was that a batch of emails were misplaced.

So, "in an abundance of caution", Fitzgerald is just saying to Libby's team, look, I am trying to cooperate with you guys on your discovery, but I can't promise you that everything I ought to have in compliance with my own subpoenas has actually been sent to me. So, if it looks like I am horsing you around by withholding something I ought to have, it may be that the archivists horsed me around.

Or, (to try again) Fitzgerald might be saying, look, I know some stuff got misplaced, and was eventually found; I have no idea whether I can conclude that everything was found, or how I would be sure of that.

Well - as noted, he is authorized to investigate this, and, with Rove, presumably he is.

[Joe]

I heard somewhere that Fitz had evidence that the emails in question were generated with an IBM Selectric and used a proportional spaced font...

[Ranger]

Wasn't there a similar problem with e-mail archiving during the Clinton administration? I seem to recall that something like a year and a half's e-mails were just never captured and stored. I think Judicial Watch filed a wistleblower case for a fired White House staff member or contractor who was threatened with reprisal if they exposed the problem. I also recall that one of the key White House IT staffers at the time (who was central to the controversy) was later (a few years later) fired from an important IT job at DHS for having bogus stuff on her resume.

[Cecil Turner]

I don't know anything about their system, but the one we had at my last command used to dump itself about once a quarter, and we'd inevitably lose some of the data. On rereading Fitz's somewhat technical phrasing, that seems to be the sort of thing he's implying. (Presumably as an explanation of why Libby's broad discovery request might not be feasible). I'm beginning to doubt there's anything here.

[Syl]

Why is so much current trouble pointed to laws and regulations made in the '70's? Don't answer. The question was rhetorical, but the solution may not be.

-Presidential Records Act, 1978
-"budget process rigged for spending by the Democrats in 1974" (WSJ, Instapundit)
-FISA, 1978
-and I will add the Hughes-Ryan Act, 1974, which instilled micro-management of the CIA
-And the granddaddy, the Church Committee, which resulted, among other things, in Ford's executive order to ban assassinations

Looking back it seems the '70's were an overreaction. A correction seems necessary.

[Sue]

The letter is in response to a formal discovery request, whether in the form of a legal document or a letter (I believe federal courts (and possibly some states) (I further believe they allow for letters in this instance since this letter is the prosecution's response and it is not in legal form) require initial disclosures that are pretty standard.

Sample question: Your written response to any document production request should state the following: (a) Whether no DOCUMENTS exist; (b) If you withhold any DOCUMENT
because of a claim of privilege, IDENTIFY each such DOCUMENT and the specific ground for withholding it; (c) If your response is that any requested DOCUMENTS are not in YOUR possession, custody or control, describe in detail the efforts YOU made to locate the DOCUMENTS and IDENTIFY who has control and the LOCATION of the DOCUMENTS; (d) IDENTIFY
the source of each DOCUMENT you produce; and (e) If any requested DOCUMENT has been destroyed IDENTIFY all facts concerning the DOCUMENT and its destruction.

I think too much is being made of the response in Fitz's letter. It is a standard reply to a standard question with a caveat, possibly knowing how Rove's email was discovered at a later date, and other emails might surface the same way that one did.

[Jeff]

Syl - I love it. The new era of personal responsibility ushered in by the Republicans: don't blame us Republicans who control both law-making branches of the federal government for the absurd budget. It's the 1974 Democrats' fault! They rigged the process! And it can't be unrigged! We've been screwed!

[SmokeVanThorn]

pluk - Before you sneer at others' lack of logic, see if you can grasp the notion that the statement "my son did not put his bicycle in the garage as I instructed him to do" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion "the bicycle is now missing" because it could be found someplace else, like the driveway or the bushes.

[Sue]

Sorry, I meant to provide the http://www.lectlaw.com/forms/f047.htm>Source. Documents are identified in Federal Rules of Evidence 1001

le 1001. Definitions

For purposes of this article the following definitions are applicable:

(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.

(2) Photographs. "Photographs" include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.

(3) Original. An "original" of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original".

(4) Duplicate. A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.

[Rick Ballard]

Geez, Sue, now you're confusing me with facts....

Thank you.

[Syl]

Jeff

Rather defenseive are we? You're quite right. The Reps aren't doing their job. They're perfectly capable of adjusting the rules, they just haven't tackled it and as I understand it, their base is angry.

[topsecretk9]

Also, it's important to remember Cecil's point: if this wasn't tagged onto the indictment it's hard to see Fitz insinuating it's part of his case now. (Cecil of course articulates it better).

I'm also not sure Fitz would include "a red herring" about an issue he was currently investigating (the secrecy thing).

I think TM's 2 explanations are about right. There asking for everything including the kitchen sink and Fitz warning them he doesn't have the kitchen sink and they will loose there?

[topsecretk9]

loose = lose

[Rick Ballard]

TS,

I agree - surfeit of caution and rule following to the letter. Shakespeare may have written a play with an appropriate title for this situation.

The opposition's problem with Arachne's new nanothread is that the clothes produced are invisible.

[Uncontrollable laughter]

Paul Lukasiak:
do try and pay attention to all the facts, kim, not just the ones you want to know about....

I sent this in to the OED for a future example of self-parody. Really, PK, you act as if you have no track record in such matters.

[Neo]

The missing items are securely stored with the missing e-mails of former Vice President Al "I invented the Internet" Gore.

Seems Al either didn't use his e-mail or his "crack" team of IT folks lost most, if not all, of the e-mails that he did send.

Libby's attorneys should contact the guys at Judicial Watch who have had the Clinton White House in court over missing e-mails ad infinitum.

[clarice]

It must be a dul day on the rialto when a standard response like this to a discovery request (made in the last paragraph) about something we already know from the Rove situation--there was some misfiling of some correspondence--rises to this level of discussion.

Run with it cuckoos if you need to, but I assure you if it was a biggie this is NOT where and how we'd learn of it.

It does answer why that poor thing in the WH whose name I've forgotten spent so much time before the GJ (probably using up every spare cent she'll earn for the next 10 years and putting her years behind in repaying her school loans). She was explaining how this happened.

[clarice]

It must be a dull day on the rialto when a standard response like this to a discovery request (made in the last paragraph) about something we already know from the Rove situation--there was some misfiling of some correspondence--rises to this level of discussion.

Run with it cuckoos if you need to, but I assure you if it was a biggie this is NOT where and how we'd learn of it.

It does answer why that poor thing in the WH whose name I've forgotten spent so much time before the GJ (probably using up every spare cent she'll earn for the next 10 years and putting her years behind in repaying her school loans). She was explaining how this happened.

[maryrose]

Remember p.luk;

The minute profanity enters the discussion you are automatically fined 10 points off your underlying argument.

[TM]

You cannot reasonably claim that Fitz' statment suggests that he knows what's in the missing emails...

Well, that's why I didn't. But given his phrasing, he certainly is leaving open the possibility that, although the archiving procedures were not "normal", the emails were recovered (or at least, some were).

[Jeff]

Ok clarice, let's liven things up. Did you see my questions for Cliff May above? Maybe you could persuade him to address them in public? Just a request. Then we can get to work on Kristof, who hasn't, after all, claimed that he knew about Plame, which is the distinctive thing about May, and the puzzling thing about the fact that he hasn't given us an account of his role in the investigation, and the puzzling thing about the fact that Fitzgerald is unaware that May knew that Plame worked at the CIA before Novak published his column.

[PaulV]

Jeff, Clarice may think it might be more fun to see it explode in Futz's face at a trial.
PaulV

[clarice]

Jeff, I do not know May, but as I told you last night, I emailed him--sent him notice of Fitz' statement and asked him to comment. I will be on travel beginning Fri. I promise, however, that is he responds, I will let you know as soon as I do.

[clarice]

Jeff, I do not know May, but as I told you last night, I emailed him--sent him notice of Fitz' statement and asked him to comment. I will be on travel beginning Fri. I promise, however, that is he responds, I will let you know as soon as I do

[Extraneus]

Ok, I know you guys are all over this, and it's OT for this particular post besides, but p.luk asked the following question above:

...what's so difficult about believing that Plame would maintain her cover during a visit by Kristof to talk to Wilson?

Cecil replied that she certainly might have talked, so why not ask her. But just from a motivation point of view, why would she "maintain her cover" if she wasn't under cover? Does anyone still believe she was "covert" besides Pete Yost from AP?

I know you all are the experts on this. Is there a good place where the rabble can learn about what steps Fitz took to ascertain whether family or casual friends knew she worked at CIA? Thanks.

(I'm not positive, but I seem to remember from the Clinton investigations that the WH uses Lotus Notes, which makes MSFT software look like the Holy Grail of Email, at least in my experience.)

[clarice]

The language of the report on the Kristof meeting was always ambiguous. Was it Plame who met for lunch with them or Nick's wife? Reread it. I think the c.w. was wrong..it was Nick's wife, not Wilson's.

[larwyn]

OT - They just keep giving!

Left and Dems up in arms as usual
with fact that DOJ won't release
the memos of legal opinions given
to the President on NSA.

So, they have missing emails and
secret papers - they will be busy
boys.

Note: AJ Strata has warned one of them he will be the 1st banned from
his site for behavior unbecomming.
Naturally "Facist" was the word, was the word....

[p.lukasiak]

I know you all are the experts on this. Is there a good place where the rabble can learn about what steps Fitz took to ascertain whether family or casual friends knew she worked at CIA? Thanks.

the wingnuts have apparently forgotten that right before the indictments came down, FBI agents were dispatched to the Wilson's neighborhood to ask the neighbors if they knew that Plame was CIA. All of them (reportedly) said "no", that they were surprised to find out when NOvak's column was released....

nor have any of her friends, neighbors, or non-immediate family members claimed they knew---and the press asked lots and lots of them.

(and notwithstanding Toensing's partisan reading of the statute, it does appear that Plame acted in a covert capacity while married to Joe Wilson. A USA Today article, from 12/10/2005 stated "Plame had served for many years at overseas postings for the CIA, and her employment remained classified when she took a headquarters desk job, traveling overseas periodically")

[BurkettHead]

If it was Kristoff's wife (he's written about her, but I can't recall her name), wouldn't we have heard all about that by now?

[Florence Schmieg]

Please go NOW to National Review Online and go to the Corner blog. Byron York has just put up a review of current letters between Fitzgerald and Libby's lawyers. He (Fitz) is refusing to give out anything related to whether Valerie Plame was covert or classified and anything about Wilson's trip to Niger. In fact, he says he is not planning to call Wilson. Says none of the above relates to his charges against Libby. I cannot believe this!! I begin to think this man is sleazy. At least Libby's lawyers can call anyone they choose to for the defense (is that right? I know no law other than that I see on TV shows). This is a mockery of our judicial system. How could the original accusation about dangerous CIA leaks not even be relevant to the defense? He claims, I believe, he doesn't have any documents to release about the so called leak. Only Bush haters can be pleased with this.

[Jim E.]

"I know no law other than that I see on TV shows."

You don't say.

"This is a mockery of our judicial system."

Too bad Claire Kincaid was killed by that drunk driver, or else she could set McCoy straight!

[Soylent Red]

Kim said:

"Remember, 'not found' is not the same as 'missing'."

I thought in the lexicon of the left "Not Found" meant "Never Existed". cf. Iraqi WMDs

I wish the DNC would just go ahead and mass produce some sort of Universal Leftie Translator. When the same words have fourteen different situational interpretations it gets a little hazy for those of us not well versed in nuance.

[Syl]

So it seems there was no underlying crime, no harm done, and no reason to lie. Libby's entire testimony is material to nothing.

We do not have an Official Secrets act.

Case dismissed.

[Extraneus]

So Fitz refuses to show evidence of materiality. Does he have to?

[Seixon]

The perfect complement to this is asking: were the e-mails preserved through an abnormal archiving process?

I would suspect so, since Fitzgerald never says straight out that the e-mails were not preserved. He said they weren't preserved in the normal manner, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

[Cecil Turner]

the wingnuts have apparently forgotten that right before the indictments came down, FBI agents were dispatched to the Wilson's neighborhood . . .

No, it's just not relevant. (Nor is anything Cliff May has to say about the case.) The contention from many on the right is that while Wilson was leaking disinformation, it's apparent his wife provided him opportunity and some background. She'd also be in a perfect position to help establish his bona fides; and if she did so, the various reporters involved would already have known of her employment. Asking her neighbors is irrelevant. Asking the reporters is essential to understanding the case, and Fitz apparently didn't bother.

(and notwithstanding Toensing's partisan reading of the statute . . .

Shouldn't that read "notwithstanding Toensing's partisan writing of the statute . . . "?

[maryrose]

Florence:
This is a very disturbing post and the obvious reason for the refusal is that all will learn of the Wilsons's lies.

[p.lukasiak]

He (Fitz) is refusing to give out anything related to whether Valerie Plame was covert or classified and anything about Wilson's trip to Niger.

that's what you get for reading anything by Byron York.

1) Fitz G. is providing Libby with all information concerning discussions libby had pursuant to Wilson's trip to Niger, and Plame's (supposed) involvement in it.

2) Fitz is turning over sufficient information to Libby to demonstrate that Plame's position was classified at the time Libby outed her. (And even though he doesn't have to. he will also be providing Libby with all information relevant to Plame's classification status that he received from the CIA, or will be filing a "protective order" for the information under "rule 16 or CIPA". (see page 8, under "Request E" of http://rawstory.com/other/pdfs/RawStoryFitzLibby2.pdf -- and in the future, why don't you actually read the original documents, rather than spew wingnut talking points.)

rather than simply repeat

[p.lukasiak]

No, it's just not relevant. (Nor is anything Cliff May has to say about the case.) The contention from many on the right is that while Wilson was leaking disinformation, it's apparent his wife provided him opportunity and some background.

Cecil, are you being deliberately DENSE. Here is what I was responding to, and I quoted it before I gave my response...

I know you all are the experts on this. Is there a good place where the rabble can learn about what steps Fitz took to ascertain whether family or casual friends knew she worked at CIA? Thanks.

now, when I'm responding to a question, don't tell me my answer is "not material", because it doesn;t matter if its "material" or not --- its a response to a question.

READ FOR CONTEXT, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SCORE POINTS.

[p.lukasiak]

This is a very disturbing post and the obvious reason for the refusal is that all will learn of the Wilsons's lies.

what's more disturbing is that you and Florence won't bother to read the original documents, and instead simply believe whatever a liar like Byron York tells you....

[topsecretk9]

the wingnuts have apparently forgotten that right before the indictments came down, FBI agents were dispatched to the Wilson's neighborhood to ask the neighbors if they knew that Plame was CIA. All of them (reportedly) said "no", that they were surprised to find out when NOvak's column was released....

I haven't forgotten, in fact I thought it was Fitz most perplexing and (in hindsight) lamest move.

[Cecil Turner]

(And even though he doesn't have to. he will also be providing Libby with all information relevant to Plame's classification status that he received from the CIA, or will be filing a "protective order" for the information under "rule 16 or CIPA". (see page 8, under "Request E" of . . .

At the present time, he is providing nothing, but promising a future review, so Florence is essentially correct. The "even though he doesn't have to" is going to be argued in court tomorrow, and I'm betting it isn't going to work out in Fitz's favor. (BTW, the link to the same document was thoughtfully provided by TM above, under "Exhibit C," and we've been beating this to death on the previous post, where it's probably more topical.

[Jim E.]

New Murray Waas: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj3.htm

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil, are you being deliberately DENSE.

No, and you're projecting again. With the idiotic assertion that "the wingnuts have apparently forgotten . . ." you are implying we all should be talking about it. There's a reason we're not.

now, when I'm responding to a question, don't tell me my answer . . .

Kiss off, p.luk. I'll respond to you as I please. And if you're going to spew BS insults with every post, you should expect the same level of courtesy in return. (And the same charity you show given to your total inability to string together a sentence without making a factual error.) Get over it.

[maryrose]

pluk:
Just for the recorder I will list below the truth tellers and the liars.
Wilson- liar
Val Plame- liar by omission did not correct the record and admit she recommended Joe for the Niger mission
Andrea Mitchell Fudger- It was well known in the intelligence community that Plame worked in the CIA
NOT A LIAR------- BYRON YORK _Objective reporter.

[Sue]

p.luk chastizes for reading Byron York...in a post linked to a Raw Story article.

Sorry...the irony needed pointing out...

[p.lukasiak]

At the present time, he is providing nothing, but promising a future review, so Florence is essentially correct.

sorry, but Florence wrote...

He (Fitz) is refusing to give out anything related to whether Valerie Plame was covert or classified and anything about Wilson's trip to Niger.

he is NOT refusing to give out such information. He is perfectly willing to provide Libby with that information, as long as it doesn't compromise national security (thus the reference to CIPA) and included information that suggested that it would be no problem providing such information because the fact that Plame's job status had been classified is no longer classified information.

So either Florence was lying (or) was just repeating Byron Yorks lies.

[p.lukasiak]

p.luk chastizes for reading Byron York...in a post linked to a Raw Story article. Sorry...the irony needed pointing out...

Sue, I didn't link to a "raw story article". I linked to an original document found on the rawstory website.

Christ, you people are really a bunch of idiots. You don't read original documents, you make completely idiotic accusations -- and you all take each other seriously....

[p.lukasiak]

NOT A LIAR------- BYRON YORK _Objective reporter.

maryrose, since you are obviously too stupid/lazy to read the actual documents involved in the case, although you are entitled to your own opinion, anyone with an IQ above room temperature is going to ignore it.

[Sue]

p.luk,

The irony remains. Especially when the original documents have been linked http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_1>here and http://justoneminute.typepad.com/plame/files/show_case_doc-2.pdf>here.

[maryrose]

I'm deducting 20 points ---pluk
10 for snarkiness
10- for insulting remarks which show you know your argument is weak-
Does the defense have the documenyts in question as we speak NO.........
Fitz is stonewalling and we on this thread know why!

[TM]

Christ, you people are really a bunch of idiots. You don't read original documents, you make completely idiotic accusations -- and you all take each other seriously....

Hey, you left out "wingnuts", for two posts in a row!.

Any chance of your buzzing off, p luk? Your signal to noise has degenerated back to its normal hum. Maybe if you stay away for a few days, you'll find that absence makes the heart grow fonder (and maybe we will, too).

Or, look under "Plamaniacs" on my right column - lots of sites there that should be more sympathetic to you viewpoint.

[Sue]

Sigh...no edit button...1st link was incorrect, should have been this one http://justoneminute.typepad.com/plame/files/LibbyJan31A.pdf.pdf>JOM

[Cecil Turner]

He is perfectly willing to provide Libby with that information, as long as . . . he doesn't have to produce anything now?

Is this another of those logic lessons? He is currently refusing to provide anything. He is saying he might provide something in the future, while simultaneously arguing he doesn't have to. Florence's critical characterization is quite as valid as your supportive one.

Christ, you people are really a bunch of idiots. You don't read original documents, you make completely idiotic accusations -- and you all take each other seriously....

You mean the original document that's linked by TM above, and on the previous post as well? What kind of idiot accusation was that?

[p.lukasiak]

Is this another of those logic lessons? He is currently refusing to provide anything.

he is no refusing to provide anything at this point. Learn to read. thank you.

[TM]

OK, here is a great idea for an enterprising blogger (I may stael it!):

One certainly might infer from the Fitzgerald letter that John Dickerson spoke with the FBI or Fitzgerald, yes? Well, he ought to write about it. Same point to Cliff May.

Either or both might be able to shed some light on Andrea Mitchell's situation as well, in the sense that, if the FBI talked to them, they probably talked to her (like she said they did).

Oh, boy, things to do...

[narexbyrnesphdetc]

So, if lying isn't important - what was that Clinton impeachment thingy about? (Not so easy when it's your guy.) Also even if Plame was covert - doesn't Fitzgerald have to prove intent too? Isn't that a bigger sticking point?

MARS and MANIMALS, BITCHES!

[Rick Ballard]

There was a federal judge in Arkansas that determined the materiality of Bill's offense. He may have his bar license back so you could hire him to explain the difference to you.

[Cecil Turner]

he is no refusing to provide anything at this point.

He is also no providing anything. Not sure what you call that: "stalling"? I think "refusing" is apt. You are of course free to characterize it as you wish. (And thanks for the reading tip.)

So, if lying isn't important - what was that Clinton impeachment thingy about?

So, he was convicted eh? Or was it not that important?

[MJW]

P.lik: "...the wingnuts have apparently forgotten that right before the indictments came down, FBI agents were dispatched to the Wilson's neighborhood to ask the neighbors if they knew that Plame was CIA. All of them (reportedly) said "no", that they were surprised to find out when NOvak's column was released...

It's really odd that Fitz did that, considering that he now insists Plame's status is irrelevant to the charges against Libby.

[narexbyrnesphdetc]

Well, this is interesting ....

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj3.htm

[Sue]

MJW,

Interesting point.

[cathyf]

Hey, narexbyrnesphdetc, your url got munched. Wanna give it another try? (Or just give us the part starting with "2006/")

cathy :-)

[TM]

Wow, Murray Waas has done a great job on the Plame thing, but is he kidding?

Vice President Cheney and his then-Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were personally informed in June 2003 that the CIA no longer considered credible the allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials. The new CIA assessment came just as Libby and other senior administration officials were embarking on an effort to discredit an administration critic who had also been saying that the allegations were untrue.

...Despite the CIA's findings, Libby attempted to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger the previous year to investigate the claims, which he concluded were baseless.

Oh, for heaven's sake - Joe Wilson was saying that as of January 2003, the Admin was twisting the Iraq intel, and should have known the Iraqi-Niger story was false.

So for the CIA to step up in June and say, hey, good point, hardly addresses the question of whether Bush Lied in January.

Oh, well - he gets a byline *and* a check.

And if I could get the SSCI to load, I would cite the bit which tells us Murray's "news" - yes, the CIA issued a report in June 2003 admitting Iraq was not seeking uranium. To be fair, I dounbt the SSCI specifically says that Libby knew about it, but it is hardly a stretch.

OK, here we go:

(U) On June 17, 2003, nearly five months after the President delivered the State of the Union address, the CIA produced a memorandum for the DCI which said, "since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." This memorandum was not distributed outside the CIA and the Committee has not been provided with any intelligence products in which the CIA published its corrected assessment on Iraq's pursuit of uranium from Niger outside of the agency.

OK, so the news that Libby was tipped to this advances the ball.

[larwyn]

Byron York on Patrick Fitzgerald on National Review Online
B.York link:
Byron York on Patrick Fitzgerald on National Review Online

February 02, 2006, 2:24 p.m.
Fitzgerald: Was Any Damage Done By the Valerie Wilson Leak? I Don’t Know.

"The CIA leak prosecutor refuses to turn over evidence to Lewis Libby.

Watchers of the CIA leak investigation are buzzing over a series of letters between prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and lawyers for former Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In the letters, contained in motions filed recently by Libby's defense team and released by the court, Fitzgerald steadfastly refused to reveal whether he has any evidence that Bush administration officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, or any other law by revealing the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson."

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602021424.asp
Click here: Byron York on Patrick Fitzgerald on National Review Online

[larwyn]

OT
FANS DO BELIEVE IN FREE FREE SPEECH.

When the foul-mouthed mysogynist
took his show to SAT radio, he was
wise to get his buck$$$$ up front.

I really doubt that many Conservative voters are his fans,
but I'm sure these few subscribed
to the service.

Not the case with his unruly uncivil tribes:

Per report on CNN a few minutes ago, there are now "pirate radio
stations" broadcasting the SAT
shows over the web.

Sad that the stock holders gave the
money up front before a psych profile from Dr. Sanity.