Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Who Was Woodward's Source For His Plame Leak? | Main | The Revolt Against Rumsfeld »

April 13, 2006

Comments

boris

Why would an analyst lose her job?

One wonders if there are professionals in the CIA who frown on political hit jobs or the appearance of same.

Sue

Boris,

One could hope so. But from what has been leaking out of there, it wouldn't appear so.

MayBee

Sue-
The Milbank/Pincus clarification article on the eve of the indictments said the Wilsons regretted the VF shoot, and that she had been held in low esteem by her colleagues for it. (Paraphrase)

Of course when Wilson made the cable rounds in the days following the indictment, he stated he stood by the VF shoot and said it'd be in the spy museum some day.

So imagine. Conflicting information.

Sue

From Wilson? Why am I not surprised?

PeterUK

Sue,
"It is just to freaking weird how close Plame is to everything."

It is also worth noting that Plame's so called punishedment by " outing" has done her absolutely no harm whatsoever.She and Joe are celebrities and the boodle is rolling in.

BTW How much has this trip through the looking glass cost? Fitz has taken on the character of the Red Queen,it would have been cheaper for Libby to whack Wilson and shouted "Come and get me copper".

JM Hanes

PRSully

LOL! I sooo meant sexy in a good way.

Sue

It's funny that almost 3 years after the outing of a covert operative, no country has come forward and complained about her being there. At least not publicly. Surely someone, somewhere remembers her spying on them.

Walter

Cecil,

Two points:

1. Fitzgerald's discomfort with NIE disclosure prior to formal disclosure.

I believe he is not convinced that the usual niceties (consultation w/ department heads, formal up/down/sideways review, extensive sign-offs, and other _written_ documentation) should be dispensed with so lightly. Based on what we know so far, the declassification appears to be oral in nature and even Libby sought additional legal advice prior to disclosure.

Again, Fitzgerald didn't charge this. But I'll stand by my hypothesis that he highlighted it in his last filing because he thought it demonstrated another instance of Libby's playing fast and loose with the rules.

2. Motion in limine. I don't claim to be an expert on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but, as I understand them, a motion in limine is an evidentiary motion made just prior to trial and inappropriate during the discovery phases (where the threshold is "likely to lead to admissible evidence" rather than "admissible evidence".)

I follow this at least in part because I find it a good primer on procedure. Please correct me if I've misunderstood the pleading timeline.

MayBee

Just to back up my http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690.html> assertion:


"The Vanity Fair photos, in particular, hurt Plame's reputation inside the CIA; both Wilson and Plame have said they now regret doing the photo shoot."
--

And Sorry, it was Blitzer, not King:
BLITZER: So you don't have any regrets about the Vanity Fair picture?

WILSON: I think it's a great picture. I think...

BLITZER: It's a great picture, but I mean...

WILSON: I think someday it too will be in the International Spy Museum.

Sue

But I'll stand by my hypothesis that he highlighted it in his last filing because he thought it demonstrated another instance of Libby's playing fast and loose with the rules.

To me, it highlights the careful way Libby handles classified information. He sought legal advice before disclosing it in order to assure himself it was okay. How can you then term him as playing fast and loose with the rules?

kim

larwyn, take it one tag at a time.
===================

Walter

Sue,

I do not think he played fast and/or loose with the rules.

I do believe that Fitzgerald thinks so. In fact, the entire prosecution is premised on that belief of Fitzgerald's.

Rick Ballard

T'ain't no rules. Procedures, perhaps, but this is a pure function of the Executive - vide the Executive Orders establishing the 'rules'.

This was an offense agains "God and decorum"? Somewhere, perhaps, but not in the Oval Office.

jerry

One point I would make is that we do not know the contents of the referral letter, and may never do, but they may be rather different from what we imagine or what we have been told.

JM Hanes

Walter

"I believe [Fitz] is not convinced that the usual niceties (consultation w/ department heads, formal up/down/sideways review, extensive sign-offs, and other _written_ documentation) should be dispensed with so lightly."

To the contrary, it seemed to me Fitz was arguing that:

1) Libby attended very closely to classification matters, ergo he would never have made an inadvertant slip, and

2) The very uniqueness of the particular circumstances acknowledged by Libby is precisely what made them especially memorable.

Sue

And by including the bit about discussing the legality of the declassification with Addington, Fitzgerald thinks that will show Libby was playing fast and loose with the rules? What am I missing?

Sue

JM,

That makes more sense. But it goes to the outing of Plame, which I don't think Fitzgerald is all that interested in. Other than a way to get Libby with perjury, etc., to punish him for the crime Fitzgerald thinks Libby committed but can't prove.

kim

Yes, jerry, but wouldn't justice be served by disclosure of the referral?
==========================

MayBee

Larwyn- OT.
I don't think the Conyers thing would be the result of polling, necessarily. I believe there are some very good potential Dem candidates that don't want to have to deal with the foolishness that would ensue, and don't personally believe in the move-on/kos dementia.

jerry

Kim, I'll first say that your (and other's) emphasis on knowing the substance of referral seems to be recent news, why is this?

Perhaps the referral letter said "we pursue this investigation representing dozens of officers at the CIA who know that foreign nationals they work with have been routinely put in harm's way, and have in fact been harmed, when the Adminsitration releases classified information in the course of DC pissing matches. There are Federal laws prevending this sort of behavior and we believe that a very good case can be made against this Administration under these laws."

I put it together this way because the public facts suggest that the WH/OVP was freely burning intelligence sources, indifferent to the harm caused by this behavior.

MJW

There's been some talk 'round these here parts that Fitz might be investigating the NIE disclosures as a seperate matter. I very much doubt it, though I imagine Libby's team would be thrilled if it were true. The original letter Comey sent Fitzgerald stated, "I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department." Nothing about the NIE. Comey later "clarified" the authority to include obstuction crimes related to investigation. If Fitzgerald decided on his own to expand the investigation into areas unrelated he alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, the dismissal motion looks better and better.

Rick Ballard

MayBee,

They may not personally believe in the BS at all but they are going to have a tough time escaping from the vortex of the lefty death spiral. Ask Joe Lieberman or Bob Casey.

MJW

That's right, Jerry. The NIE disclosures really but a lot of CIA agents in harm's way. Perhaps you'd like to give a few example of information that was declassified by the administration the endangered someone.

Walter

MJW and JMH,

Thanks for the reminders.

I still like my explanation as it explains Fitzgerald's investigation and prosecutorial tactics without reference to bias, but I recogize that the reasons he gives are also plausible without reading other motives into his actions.

Sometimes, after all, a cigar is _just_ a cigar.*

*No, that is not a reference to any other investigation. Get your minds out of the gutter. Now!

Walter

MJW and JMH,

Thanks for the reminders.

I still like my explanation as it explains Fitzgerald's investigation and prosecutorial tactics without reference to bias, but I recogize that the reasons he gives are also plausible without reading other motives into his actions.

Sometimes, after all, a cigar is _just_ a cigar.*

*No, that is not a reference to any other investigation. Get your minds out of the gutter. Now!

MJW

Without the typos:
That's right, Jerry. The NIE disclosures really put a lot of CIA agents in harm's way. Perhaps you'd like to give a few examples of information that was declassified by the administration that endangered someone.

Cecil Turner

I believe he is not convinced that the usual niceties . . . should be dispensed with so lightly.

Fine, let him run for President and get elected; then he can make those decisions the way he likes. Until then . . .

But I'll stand by my hypothesis that he highlighted it in his last filing because he thought it demonstrated another instance of Libby's playing fast and loose with the rules.

I'm sure this is exactly the point: it's prejudicial. It's especially prejudicial if you can imply it was illegal or that Libby was lying. But so far those implications haven't stood up very well, and would presumably be even more problematic if Fitz stops being the sole gatekeeper for the information.

Motion in limine.

Dude, I'm a retired Marine officer. If you'd like to know how to blow something up, I'm your man. But I can't even spell "in limine" (okay, I cheated . . . and I take your point, that they'd prefer suppression). I maintain the available evidence suggests Plame's status is not or should not be classified (or at the very least was of arguable propriety). The defense would have a better shot at making that point rather than keeping it out (especially since even a juror with a room-temperature IQ could be expected to infer it from the nature of the discussions in the perjury charges).

Libby attended very closely to classification matters, ergo he would never have made an inadvertant slip . . .

Seems to me this works for Fitz either way. Either Libby's sloppy with classified info (and hence more likely to've leaked) or careful (and thus more likely to've done it intentionally).

Sue

MJW,

Hmmm...just when I think I'm going somewhere, someone drags me back down to earth.

TM

On Libby and the NIE:

To me, it highlights the careful way Libby handles classified information. He sought legal advice before disclosing it in order to assure himself it was okay.

Well, maybe Fitzgerald was working towards a different point - if Libby got the OK from Cheney before leaking the NIE, maybe he did the same thing with Plame.

OK, there are obvious problems - someone else leaked to Novak, Libby scarcely leaked to Cooper or Miller (and forgot to tout the news that Ms. Plame suggested Joe for the Niger trip), Libby said he didn't know Plame was classified - but Fitzgerald might have thought the NIE story would buttress a "Cheney had to know about Plame" charge.

clarice

Cecil, certainly in Fitzlandia where if you decide to leave the WH mess to have lunch with a reporter is evidence of evil doing.

clarice

do what if Cheney had to know. Libby was tasked to do something altogether different and both his notes and Miller's indicate that.

clarice

So what if Cheney had to know. Libby was tasked to do something altogether different and both his notes and Miller's indicate that.

clarice

TM, I do so wish Fitz would diagram his case. He was charged with finding out who leaked classified information. He found out that that person was UGO. He didn't charge UGO. Instead he continuted with the investigation and dragged reporters into this, forcing them to disclose their sources only to charge womeone who didn't leak.
He accused Libby of perjury but discounted his testimony that he did tell Cooper that Ms. Wilson was Valerie Plame and she worked at the CIA and instead relies in the indictment on Cooper's tesimony that HE told Libby and Libby only said "I heard that , too".
He puts in the indictment Libby's conversation with Russert who says they never discussed the topic at all.
He claims "classified" in the indictment and in the presser and in the latter implied harm to "national security" but denies that he has evidence of either or that those matters are even relevant to the case,
He claims that Libby discussed portions of the NIE saying that Cheney said the President had declassified it. And, if Cheney or the President said otherwise, we'd certainly have heard that at the presser or seen it in the indictment so we muct assume that they told him that as well.

He brings in the kitchen sink and then says he needn't turn over documents in his possession related to those matters because they are irrelevant--but he made them relevant by saying these formed the motive on Libby's part to lie.
I have never seen such a jumble in a major case. Ever.

jerry

MJW, I wasn't limiting my hypothetical to the NIE. Classified info was leaked to the press prior to Plame (the aluminum tube story for example), probably prior to Cheney getting a declassification upgrade, and most always probably without following any formal declassification protocol.

Whenever classified information becomes public real sources, people, are compromised - these secrets aren't impersonal facts.

The bigger story seems to me that the WH not only "purveyed" classified info to friends in the press but knew this behavior was a bad thing to do.

Remember when Novak broke his silence about Plame after many months (before his meltdown on CNN)? His real issue/point was that he never heard that Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip. Seems like a great big (squib) deal, huh?

It's a big deal only if there's a real possibility he could have only learned this from a classified source.

Sue

Jerry,

Novak's source is not Libby. UGO is facing no charges. How does that square?

clarice

Jerry, here we go again:
Whenever classified information becomes public real sources, people, are compromised - these secrets aren't impersonal facts
I believe that the portions of the NIE the President declassified a few days before Tenet declassified the entire thing were well vetted to assure there was no harm to anyone in the revelation.

The CIA coup attempt--and that's what we are actually talking about--began with the neat trick of sending Joe without requiring him to sign a non-deisclosure agreement which allowed him to raise baseless charges which could not be answered without disclosing classified inromation or declassifying it, That was the beauty of the game. It takes a while to declassify it so that allowed Joe to up the amps on the fairytale. And now you have the chutzpah to say it shouldn't have been declassified because that ALWAYS creates harm?
Bull.

Sue

Just out of curiosity, what about the leaks that don't come from the White House? Like the NSA leak. Good leak?

Chants

Clarice said:

"He accused Libby of perjury but discounted his testimony that he did tell Cooper that Ms. Wilson was Valerie Plame and she worked at the CIA and instead relies in the indictment on Cooper's tesimony that HE told Libby and Libby only said "I heard that , too"."

All factual. And I can't for the life of me make a connection on this issue. It's like a circular catch-22. Each conclusion in the loop destroys the next premise.

I suppose the equation can be balanced with the premise that Fitz is dumb. But that premise is highly unlikely.

Squiggler

Jerry >>Perhaps the referral letter said "we pursue this investigation representing dozens of officers at the CIA who know that foreign nationals they work with have been routinely put in harm's way, and have in fact been harmed, when the Adminsitration releases classified information in the course of DC pissing matches. There are Federal laws prevending this sort of behavior and we believe that a very good case can be made against this Administration under these laws." <<

And perhaps the referral letter said ... come on guys we have done every thing humanly possible to harm, embarrass, smear or otherwise thwart George Bush and his White House. We have given him reams of faulty intelligence, we've done half-ass jobs at whatever assignments we've been given, we've touted forgeries, we've kept all kinds of secrets that we don't think the President needs to know, so come on help us out here ... bring on the full force of the Justice Dept. to back up your buddies over here (you know we'll protect you and make sure your people don't get revealed), just start the investigation, doesn't need to finish or go to trial, it can be schlock, just as long as it goes on long enough to get into the minds of the American people that their President is an incompetent liar with war mongering incompetent liars all around him. Don't worry, the media will be on your side and, and, and ... you get the picture.

Because that's what it really looks like happened, doncha' know?

Sue

The wild card in all of this is Ari Fleischer. We don't know what he has told Fitzgerald.

Cecil Turner

Classified info was leaked to the press prior to Plame (the aluminum tube story for example), probably prior to Cheney getting a declassification upgrade, and most always probably without following any formal declassification protocol.

What a crock. The Administration can declassify information at will, and release what it wants. This leakfest was almost entirely from the left, synchronized with Kerry's bid for President, and in direct response to a VIPS request to reengineer the Pentagon Papers:

The 25-member group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, composed mostly of former CIA analysts along with a few operational agents, is urging employees inside the intelligence agency to break the law and leak any information they have that could show the Bush administration is engineering the release of evidence to match its penchant for war. [March 17, 2003]

MJW

Jerry: "Whenever classified information becomes public real sources, people, are compromised - these secrets aren't impersonal facts."

So nothing should ever be declassified? An interesting position, to say the least.

jerry

I'll add one compelling fact, Libby states that his ok from Bush fo releasing classified info to Miler was the "First Time" (only time??) he'd requested this.

Let's just say that before the NIE no one ever even bothered to ask!

Seems that prior to this no one in the WH ever bothered to consider declassification issues (well lets say that Libby never bothered, but is there anyone more likely than Libby to get into this sort of issue?), this includes everything before March 2003 when the VP got "fuzzy authority."

clarice

We also don't know what Wells told the Judge in a sealed declaration today but my guess is it's an affidavit from someone present that Powell handed him the classified INR report which named Plame and he, in turn, yapped about it to a reporter on the plane. Making him yet another UGO.

As for the gj jury report is there anyone here who thinks it is anything but a ploy to keep people from talking and to be used as a means of fighting discovery requests--an effort, that is, to prevent Libby from defending himself?
Have we heard a single report from this gj? Is there a single reporter noting that it has even met? Is there any report from "sources close to the investigation" or "lawyers familiar with the proceedings" revealing any activitiy there at all?

clarice

The "him" I refer to is Fleischer.

jerry

"Novak's source is not Libby. UGO is facing no charges. How does that square?"

I'd say that Novak's source is Tenet and that Tenet has been cooperating with Fitz from the start.


Clarice, just because you believe the declassification was well vetted doesn't mean this occurred, or even was possible. I'd say this is a central issue.

Considering the pre- and post- July 2003 animus between the OVP and the CIA, asking for vetting would be like asking either for a public debate in the Post or a very very long wait.

Walter

Clarice,

The current (second) grand jury has met. IIRC it has heard from Woodward (UGO), Luskin, and at least one Newsweek reporter.

MJW

Jerry: "Remember when Novak broke his silence about Plame after many months (before his meltdown on CNN)? His real issue/point was that he never heard that Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip. Seems like a great big (squib) deal, huh?"

I'm at a loss as to what's your point, so I'll merely mention that in Novak's original July 14 column he didn't claim Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip, only that she "suggested" sending him.

clarice

We know they heard from Woodward. That was ages ago. Ditto with Luskin and I think Jessica Novak (Time magazine) . Woodward testified about UGO. Luskin and Novak about Rove..something Novak told Luskin which he passed on to Rove who then reappeared before the first gj to testify about.

But that was all quite some time ago. And since then--radio silence, Walter.

MayBee

Jerry-
From Novak's original column:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
---
are you hanging your hat on the word 'authorized'?

kim

jerry, what possessed you to imply that I or we are newly interested in the contents of the referral letter? We are also interested in who signed it and why and how. We are interested in how Andrea Mitchell knew about it. Rev your little old curiosiometer up a little and check the gauges, listen and feel at the seams.
================================

MJW

Jerry, your theory that Novak's source is Tenet is not unreasonable, but I think at this time it can pretty much be dismissed. "Tenet" is too short to fit in the spaces where Novak's source's name is readacted from Fitzgerald's affidavit. Also, if Tenet were Novak's source, Novak would not likely feel the need to check with CIA spokesman Harlow, having received it from the horse's mouth.

clarice

Upthread cathy made a very trenchant comment about classified information,Jerry.
But that's just stupid. "Classification" is, at it's very essence, selective disclosure. The duly authorized people select what will be disclosed and not disclosed. The duly authorized people are the ones who are elected, or appointed and confirmed by elected people, or appointed and delegated by the duly selected "superior officers."
What we have here is not "most of the public," but indeed maybe most of the press. And this small group does not dislike the idea of selective disclosure. What this small group dislikes is abiding by the results of an election when they are the losing side.
Which is nothing less than the fundamental civic duty in a democracy. (And I'll make my own claim about "most of the public." They disdain sore losers.)
cathy :-)

kim

Jerry, I happen to think it is possible that Tenet is one of Novak's sources. I have promoted him as UGO(Woodward's source) for quite some time with little evidence except for the jangling of every fibre of my nervous system, and extended data mining strings.

Tenet doesn't fit in the redacted portions where UGO's name is mentioned. Tenet makes sense since he can't be prosecuted for any revelation of Plame's name. If you assume his signing of the referral letter was accidental, then his Presidential Medal is for attempting to stand in the way of a coup attempt hatched on his watch. He sacrificed himself to his management style, and the taint of incompetence that entrained. Who lives like that dies by the swords of less honorable men.

If he's been co-operating with Fitz, then Fitz is even more foolish than imaginable, or there is a deeper game than has been made public being played.
===============================

kim

MJW, Novak would have double sourced as naturally as breathing. Who was first, I'm not sure.
===========================

kim

I suspect he may not have asked Tenet anything, just why, I don't know. Maybe he would have been tampering with a witness. I'm out on a limb here. What is up with UGO not identified? What is up with Tenet and Armitage quiet as mice? What is up with everyone silent? What is up with Woodward and Novak struck dumb?
========================================

clarice

AJ Strata reports some news:
"In a related development, The Post yesterday was subpoenaed by Libby’s defense team to produce records related to the case that the newspaper had not turned over to Fitzgerald. Eric Lieberman, a counsel at The Post, said the newspaper would comply by providing Libby with a complete copy of a memorandum by Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward from his interview with Libby on June 27, 2003.

Woodward has said Libby spoke in the interview about the same intelligence report he discussed with other journalists. “This action does not pose legal or journalistic concerns to The Post or Mr. Woodward,” Lieberman said.

Emphasis mine. Well, well, now this is interesting. If my guess is right, Woodward will have NOT noted anything regarding Valerie Plame and her job at the CIA in this memo. So Fitzgerald is going to have to explain why, if Libby was out to get back at Joe by outing Val, Libby missed this ripe opportunity to plant the story with a well reknowned and broadly read newsman like Woodward? If Libby was out to get at Joe, why not include Bob Woodward and the Washington Post?

Also interestingly, the Post had this memo and apparently did not report on it. At least to my recollection. Woodward knew by the time of his meeting with Libby about Plame from his other source (most likely Armitage). All speculation of course! Wouldn’t it be nice to see that leaked soon?"http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1618


Here's the Wa Po article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301687.html

kim

Here's a joyful thought. With Fitz's mistake about the key points and the subsequent media firestorm, there'll be a whole new class of journalists under threat of subpoena for testimony in venue motions or appeals.
=============================

kim

Ah, this explains the editorial.
===================

clarice

Beautiful of Woodward..Cooperating right off the bat. And of the WaPo for being upfront about it.

I wonder how many others are coming clean and cooperating with Libby's counsel , by, inter alia, providing affidavits of thinks Wilson told them about Plame?Perestz and Mays have said Plame's employment and realtion to Joe was well known. Did they step up to the plate?

TM

Is there such a crime: "conspiracy to punish a heroic whistleblower"?

Maybe Congress can build a statute to Joe Wilson somewhere - I'm sure he can hold a pose.

clarice

Please excuse all the typos--allergies and lack of sleep. I promise to use preview for the rest of the evening--

MJW

Kim, Novak claims he had two sources, one of whom is Rove; if the other is Tenet, Fitzgerald must have spelled it with four n's. Furthermore, he never implied he considered Harlow to be a source, so I doubt he considered talking to him to be double-sourcing -- Rove's "I heard that, too" was the double source (such as it was). Further-furthermore if President Bush tells you something, you don't go to Scott McClellan to confirm it -- same deal. At some point you've got the give up the Tenet dream.

kim

Ask ye, and surely the goddesses in the stratosphere deliver on time. That may what is immediately up with Woodward. Of course my questions were all dumb. The silence pervasive is from fear of a mad power beyond the pale. That's you, Fitz, me boy. Hang out with sociopaths so much it's rubbed off? Take a hike, we've warmed the showers. Bring in the long reliever.
=============================

kim

Yes, MJW, there are many flaws in my Tenet thesis, but the one that holds the most water is the redaction bit, and though it is a small cup it is sterling. The psychology of Bush 1-Tenet-Bush II fits well, but as with all things psychological, only border on the rational.
========================================

MJW

AJ Strata reports some news:
"In a related development, The Post yesterday was subpoenaed by Libby’s defense team to produce records related to the case that the newspaper had not turned over to Fitzgerald. Eric Lieberman, a counsel at The Post, said the newspaper would comply by providing Libby with a complete copy of a memorandum by Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward from his interview with Libby on June 27, 2003.

Interesting that Fitzgerald presumably didn't ask for this information.

kim

Kerry could make the Wilson statue the 5th bill he's ever sponsored. I'll fund a paper mache replica for the museum in Saigon that features Kerry.
==============================

clarice

I've been thinking about the Woodward thing. Doesn't the fact that Fitz apparently never asked for these notes reveal yet again that he has never sought any evidence which in any way would be exculpatory?

topsecretk9

MJW

You are so endearing -- Jessica Novak (Time magazine)--I know you meant Viveca, but who cares...you are on the right track

You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-maw-toe

clarice

MJW--great minds..

jerry

To All, I'd say that "DCI Tenet" would fit the redacted spaces.

Regarding Novak (Maybee and MJW) I wasn't referring to the July 2003 article but much later:

http://webarchive.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=58547

"There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson 'authorizing.' I was told she “suggested” the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow."

I share this "authorization" trivia because this "what is the meaning of is" issue was clearly Very Important to Novak (and refers to a State Department document about Wilson and Plame, I think).

Kim, regarding the substance of the referral, I guess I was responding to comments like this earlier comment by Clarice about the referral:

"the point is whoever the CIA was gunning for they unlawfully used a bazooka (fake assertions to the DoJ) to get a gnat."

clarice

Listen Jerry, I've left unanswered your suggestion that the fact that Plame worked for WINPAC was the "classified" part. I left it unanswered because I regard that as risible. Larry Johnson VIPS man extraordinaire was yapping about WINPAC publicly and said it was mostly uncovert analysts with a few covert agents thrown in so I find it unlikely that the fact that someone worked there could be considered a major secret.

kim

I would have said 'used a mortar to get fleeing gazelles'. They will ultimately hurt themselves.

MJW, Fitz had his hands over his eyes during the investigation, and now won't remove them to hear what Woodward has to say. At trial, during Woodward's testimony, little white wisps will be noted at Fitz's ears. Finest glass available and maxipixel digital imaging will not distinguish if it be cotton or smoke.
=================================

topsecretk9

Doesn't the fact that Fitz apparently never asked for these notes reveal yet again that he has never sought any evidence which in any way would be exculpatory?

OK, so Fitzgerald is godlike still but....come on

This fellow told the Judge, that very few reporters actually knew...do the equation here.

topsecretk9

-----Chicken Bone, Not the Body------

He said and he wasn't lying.

jerry

But I'd say, and I've said, that Plame may not be the only charge regarding declassification, did I suggest Plame/WIMPAC was the major issue?

clarice

Cherry picking the evidence , I'd say.

clarice

I thought you did, Jerry. If it was someone else (it's way up there somewhere) I apologize.

MJW

Kim, I think Woodward was such an embarrassment to Fitzgerald, that during his testimony, Fitz didn't want put his hands over his eyes, he wanted to put them over his ears while singing "Swanee River" at the top of his lungs.

topsecretk9

Thanks MJW

"In a related development, The Post yesterday was subpoenaed by Libby’s defense team to produce records related to the case that the newspaper had not turned over to Fitzgerald.

This is my personal pet peeve...my biggest gripe -- transparency--


This is the kind of tidbit news organs LOVE to plaster on FRONT PAGES...I still want to know who the other 6 in NYT's notes the NYT's won't tell us about -- the said Tenet and Ari...so why are they not telling us the identities of the other 6?

What is so special about these 6?

It would be nice if the WAPO broke the "subpoena" as an actual story rather than and inconvenient side-note.

clarice

Still--it did report it, didn't the Post, and I give them credit for doing so.

clarice

Can we figure out who the other 6 might be from what we know? Since Libby's asking--I suppose we have to add Grossman and Rove to the list (per his last filing.)

topsecretk9

--so why are they not telling us the identities of the other 6?--

on the NYT's

Um, they are the one writing OP ED's about secrets, the publics right to know ala leaks...

WHY THE CRAP don't they PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH?

Why does the NYT's get to make advantageous, strategic and secretive dissemination decisions, why they lecture on these very questions?

Jeff

Doesn't the fact that Fitz apparently never asked for these notes reveal yet again that he has never sought any evidence which in any way would be exculpatory?

"apparently" taking precedence over "the fact" here. The Post article talks of a subpoena to produce relevant records that the newspaper had not turned over to Fitzgerald. And the fact that the story goes on to say that it would comply by providing Libby with a complete copy of a memorandum by Woodward from the June 17, 2003 Libby interview would appear to imply that Fitzgerald had obtained a copy of the memorandum, just not the whole thing (presumably much the same way he obtained redacted versions of Miller's notes).

One interesting question the Post leaves unanswered is whether the production of the complete Woodward-Libby memo fulfilled their obligations under the subpoena, or whether there is material they are being non-compliant on. It's easy to imagine that's the case, since the Woodward memo would be an easy call, since it's material covering interaction with the party requesting the information. What about Pincus and his source, for instance? Or did Team Libby not go there, since -- I would bet -- Pincus' source was in OVP and was part of the press strategy laid out by Cheney on July 12, 2003.

MJW

Jerry; "To All, I'd say that "DCI Tenet" would fit the redacted spaces."

Sorry, you'd be wrong -- it's too long. "DC Tenet" fits, and, hey, Tenet lived in Washington D.C., so it could be a cool nickname, like "Philly" Frank DeCarlo for some guy from Philadelphia.

clarice

Yes, you are right. Since Libby subpoenaed them we have to assume he thinks there may be exculpatiry evidence in those notes--correct? And what interest would the NYT have in letting its readers know that it might have in its possession exculpatory evidence?

I think it's possible that the lst includes Senators to whom Wilson spoke. Notes on conversations with Wilson. Maybe Plame (they sure wouldn't want us to know they'd talked to super secret agent Plame..And we think she was with Joe when he spinned his web of lies to Kristof.

clarice

Jerry, their lawyer reported he had no legal or ethical problems with the request. That's because Libby was the source. If Libby had asked for notes of conversations with someone other than himself, we could expect a different result.

topsecretk9

Jeff

One thing to consider...which you must...they haven't revealed ---LIKE THE NYT"S--- the entirety of what the subpoen's cover

Which should annoy you as much as me.

topsecretk9

Sorry, unless there is some legal reason - hard to consider that since the NYT's gave up Tenet and Ari -- both WAPO and NYT have within scoops they are unwillingly and self-servingly to report.

They would not accept it from an controversial engulfed pol and it sicks big bananas or coconuts or other naughty things.

In fact, I think it warrants left blogs and right to ask these dear champions of the truth -- what the hector do these subpoenas call for?

clarice

This is the first report we have from the WaPo that it had any subpoena, isn't it? When the others reported they'd received them, the Post said they hadn't.

I'd be happy to blog on the NYT in the next day or so because you have consistently made a good point on this, but I feel less comfortable making the same charge about the Post.

MJW

Jeff, you chide us for presuming, then spin a tale that's at least as speculative. If a redacted version was turned over to Fitzgerald, the reason for the redactions would likely be the Post wanted to remove the parts that didn't concern Libby. But, if that were the case, why are they now willing to turn over those parts to Libby?

topsecretk9

Clarice

that is fair (to the WAPO, although a sneaky little --in other news- segue)

However, the Times deserves scorn...since if IRRC it was Pete Yost? of the AP that actually did the NYT's subpoena reporting. To my recollection the NYT's HAS NEVER reported any details (that is zip to their readers) they have even BEEN subpoena's...and if I am wrong on this point...it is because hit came 10 days later in paragraph 85.

clarice

Do you have any recollection of when Yost reported that to narrow my search, ts?

MJW

There's been some speculation that UGO is cooperating with the prosecution (which is to say, part of the prosecutor's case against Libby). I think that's unlikely, for if it were so, I very much doubt any judge would say his identity wasn't material to the defense.

clarice

Yes, MJW, I think we can discount that.
In one of his filings, Fitz made clear that he was only pursuing leaks against a whistleblower--Wilson. But I think he left off part of the sentence--he meant leaks against a whistleblower which came from someone in the WH. And with the likelihood that Fleischer has been nailed by Libby (declaration of Wells to the judge) I think we can further refine that to leaks against Wilson from the OVP.

Jeff

why are they now willing to turn over those parts to Libby?

Short version: Because Libby himself was the source, and it makes no sense to protect the source from himself.

First off, I suspect the redacted parts were not the parts that didn't concern Libby (since presumably it all concerned Libby) but the parts that didn't concern anything related to the Wilsons - such as mention of yellowcake or February 2002 - and perhaps also the NIE and other possibly classified information. But in any case, the answer to your question is: because Libby was, after all, Woodward's source here, so it makes no sense to protect his source from himself, when his source himself is requesting the info. With Fitzgerald, it's a different story: Woodward would want to protect his source to the greatest extent possible, not revealing any more than he had to. And there was undoubtedly lots of stuff in the memo of the interview with Libby that was not relevant to Fitzgerald's investigation.

That's my guess for the moment, anyway.

topsecretk9

huh, the things you find out when you search...

--Six Hill Aides Subpoenaed In Jefferson Investigation--
Associated Press
Friday, March 31, 2006; Page A12

A U.S. District Court has issued grand jury subpoenas to six aides to Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) who has been implicated in a bribery case.

------Sources Sought in Hatfill Anthrax Lawsuit--------
Apr 11th - 9:09pm
By PETE YOST Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawyers for a scientist investigated in the 2001 anthrax killings have questioned at least two journalists and are subpoenaeing other reporters, seeking the identities of their confidential government sources.

Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a bioweapons expert under scrutiny for the anthrax attacks, defends himself during a news conference outside his lawyers office in Alexandria, Va., in this Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002,

Through a lawsuit, Steven Hatfill is trying to track down suspected leakers at the FBI and the Justice Department who made Hatfill the focus of news coverage regarding anthrax-laced letters mailed to members of the press and to two United States senators.

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=754167


Anyways,

Update 6: Libby's Lawyers Subpoena Times, Reporters
By PETE YOST , 03.16.2006, 03:31 PM (March 16th!!!!!)

--The subpoenas also seek drafts of a personal account by Miller published in the Times about her grand jury testimony, and documents concerning a recent Vanity Fair article and her interactions with a Times editor. ---

But Yost had UPDATES to this, Forbes.

Jeff

MJW - It's for the same basic reason that I suspect that with the handover of the Woodward-Libby memo, the Post has not fully complied with the subpoena. Other sources would present a trickier set of issues, since in those cases the Post has an interest in protecting sources from Libby, just as they had an interest in protecting them from Fitzgerald. But the Post will, i suspect, work it all out sooner than the other media outlets, since they have been more inclined to negotiation rather than adjudication all along.

clarice

Thanks, ts. As to the Hatfill case, the reporter really on the hotseat is none other than Nick Kristof. It is likely the paper will reveal his sources (obviously from inside the FBI's counterterrorism office) or pay considerable money to the plaintiff.

topsecretk9

WAPO has a link too Clarice, but it is a dead-end-er...link doesn't work. But there was a lot of discussion on TM's archives about this at the time...so the date should help.

Hey clarice, ::why didn't you just ask Barbara Comstock instead of me?::

Who loves you Jeff?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame