Andrew Sullivan is hammered [in an Irish boxing sort of way] by the GayPatriotWest on the recent Fitzgerald filings.
« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
Andrew Sullivan is hammered [in an Irish boxing sort of way] by the GayPatriotWest on the recent Fitzgerald filings.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 07, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (202) | TrackBack (1)
The filing by Special Counsel Fitzgerald that we discussed yesterday contained tantalizing hints as to Dick Cheney's involvement in the Valerie Plame leak. But is there enough evidence for Fitzgerald to Get Dick? While we are handing out song suggestions, here is possible theme music for the folks hoping that Special Counsel Fitzgerald will indict VP Cheney for his role in the Plame leak - "Many Rivers To Cross".
In his coverage of the latest Fitzgerald filing (the "President Approved Leak!!! story) Murray Waas presents yet another speed bump on the highway to justice:
Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, according to people familiar with Cheney's interviews with the special prosecutor.
Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney, according to people with familiar with his statement to investigators.
So - Libby hasn't ratted Cheney out; Tenet hasn't even testified that he told Cheney about Valerie Plame, let alone provided evidence that he told Cheney that Plame was covert... Keep Hope Alive!
GO FISH: This is interesting, from Judy Miller's account of her grand jury testimony:
Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer was no.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 07, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (295) | TrackBack (1)
Evidently the NY Times is not able to report honestly and accurately on stories involving White House leaks and/or Joseph Wilson. Presumably this is a consequence of their glorious history as publishers of the James Risen NSA warrantless eavesdropping story last December and the Joseph Wilson op-ed from July 6, 2003.
Let's check their breathless coverage of the latest:
Cheney's Aide Says President Approved Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON and DAVID E. SANGERWASHINGTON, April 6 — Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff testified that he was authorized by President Bush, through Mr. Cheney, in July 2003 to disclose key parts of what until then was a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq, according to a new court filing.
The testimony by the former official, I. Lewis Libby Jr., cited in a court filing by the government made late Wednesday, provides an indication that Mr. Bush, who has long criticized leaks of secret information as a threat to national security, may have played a direct role in authorizing disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq.
Oh, the hypocrisy! President Bush, who has criticized some leaks as a harming national security, does not seem to believe that all "leaks" (including authorized disclosures) harm national security. Inconceivable!
The reporters let us catch our breath in paragraph four, reminding us that "The president has the authority to declassify information".
More air is let out of the balloon in paragraph six:
Mr. Libby did not assert in his testimony to a grand jury, first reported on the Web site of The New York Sun, that Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney had authorized him to reveal the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson.
That is a wildly significant point. However, the Times fails to cover the comment made by Special Counsel Fitzgerald (p. 27 of his filing), which is even stronger than a failure by Libby to assert something in testimony:
During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser [i.e., Libby, who had both jobs] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment...
That is not just Libby asserting that the President was uninvolved in Libby's leaks of the Plame info; it is Fitzgerald saying so too.
And the balloon is fully deflated in the eleventh paragraph:
A little more than a week later, under continuing pressure, the White House published a declassified version of the executive summary of the estimate, in an effort to make the case that Mr. Bush's statement had been justified by the intelligence community's best judgment.
So Bush authorized an informal release of some part of the NIE to one reporter a week before portions were made public. Commence impeachment hearings!
The Times relates this to the Wilson trip to Niger, and, hmm, misinforms their readership about the material presented in their own paper:
The leak was intended, the court papers suggested, as a rebuttal to an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, by Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former United States ambassador and the husband of Ms. Wilson. Mr. Wilson wrote that he traveled to Africa in 2002 after Mr. Cheney raised questions about possible nuclear purchases by Iraq. Mr. Wilson wrote that he concluded it was "highly doubtful" Iraq had sought nuclear fuel from Niger.
At Mr. Cheney's office, the Op-Ed article was viewed "as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq," according to the court papers filed by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Well. "Mr. Wilson wrote that he concluded it was "highly doubtful" Iraq had sought nuclear fuel from Niger" is, presumably, an intentional mis-characterization of the Wilson op-ed. The relevant sentence from Wilson's op-ed is this:
It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Regardless of his doubts about whether such a "transaction had ever taken place", Mr. Wilson's report to the CIA included a hint that Iraq had, in fact *sought* uranium from Niger. Here is George Tenet responding to Joe Wilson's op-ed on July 11, 2003:
He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence also covered this in their 2004 report - one wonders how the Times reporters could have missed it:
Niger Conclusions
(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents9 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.
Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
As to whether the op-ed was a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice-President and President, here is Wilson's lead:
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Not a hard call.
Out thoughts on this latest revelation are here.
MORE: Props to the Times for including links to the Fitzgerald filing and the Wilson op-ed.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 07, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack (5)
Judge Walton, overseeing the Libby trial in the Plame investigation, recently issued the following order, summarized at PACER:
ORDER directing movant served with a Rule 17(c) subpoena pursuant to the Order of February 27, 2006 shall produce the designated items on April 18, 2006. It is further ordered that any movant seeking to quash or modify subpoena issued pursuant to order of February 27, 2006, must file a motion to quash or modify subpoena by April 18, 2006. Any opposition shall be filed by April 25, 2006 and reply thereto shall be filed by May 1, 2006. It is further ordered that the movants shall file a consolidated motion to quash or modify and the defendant shall file a consolidated opposition. It is further ordered that this Court will hear argument on any motion to quash or modify filed by Movant on May 5, 2006 at 1:30pm..
Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on April 3, 2006. (zjsc)
Per Jeralyn Merritt, current subpoena recipients are Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Matthew Cooper, TIME, Judith Miller, and the NY Times.
Oddly, this has not been widely reported.
We are especially keen to see the April 18 requests to quash the subpoenas because we are curious to see whether the media will pick up the theme originally initiated by the Libby defense, that the appointment of Fitzgerald violated the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution.
MORE: Libby's team is meant to respond to the controversial Fitgerald discovery filing by April 12.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 06, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)
How can you not love the hapless NY Mets?
The crowd gave Billy Wagner a standing ovation as the closer sprinted to the mound last night with "Enter Sandman." Six pitches later, Brian Bannister could say good night to a win in his major-league debut.
Nationals rookie Ryan Zimmerman delivered a solo homer against Wagner - the subject of endless debate because his Metallica entry song matches Mariano Rivera's - to force extra innings.
Jorge Julio, another member of the Mets' revamped bullpen, then served up the game-deciding homer in the 10th as Jose Guillen belted a two-run shot. The Mets fell apart with a Paul Lo Duca passed ball and throwing error in a five-run inning as the Nationals beat the Mets, 9-5.
...Wagner had taken a lighthearted approach to the "controversy" with Yankee fans over his shared music with Rivera. When teammates warned him during spring training that his "Enter Sandman" entrance music would rile Yankee fans, Wagner replied: "Nah, surely they're definitely brighter people than that."
"Oh, well," he concluded yesterday.
Wagner actually found the topic hysterical. He even called former teammate Jeff Bagwell, who picked the song for him in 1996, to tell the veteran Astro to check out the New York media accounts on the Internet.
"I can't wait to talk to Mariano because I know he's going to be laughing about it," Wagner said. "Honestly, this is funny. It's the funniest damn thing I've seen in my life. They said anything can happen in New York.
"Does he wear Nike or Reebok? Maybe I've got to change that, too. I think he wears black socks, too. I have to stop wearing those."
Even if Wagner would have considered changing music, he said there's no way he could now because it would seem like he's caving in to Yankee fans. Steve Trachsel joked that the Mets should play the early 1990s metal tune when each Met came to the plate.
With the wisdom of Solomon, I propose that everyone change songs. Met relievers can stagger in to "Send in the Clowns". Alternatively, for a John Travolta / NYC feel, maybe the Bee Gees (pre-disco) hit "I Started A Joke" should be considered. And the transcendantly great Mariano has never had a heavy metal persona - his song always should have been the title theme from that old Clint Eastwwod classic, "For A Fistful of Dollars".
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 06, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)
Architects sometimes refer to "negative space" as important in creating a desired effect - an area devoid of architectural details can enhance a larger effect.
Or amongst fans of detective fiction, there is the famous incident of the non-barking dog in the night-time - it was what did *not* happen that was important.
Today there is good blogospheric buzz about a new filing (39 page .pdf) by Special Counsel Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation. There is an overheated reaction to the news of President Bush's involvement, but for our current purposes it is what Fitzgerald does not say that is interesting.
Our quick reaction is this:
(a) Some of the responses to the Bush Connection are over-done - Fitzgerald does not come close to alleging wrong-doing by President Bush. However, he does explicitly state the opposite regarding Libby's leaks on p. 27 of the .pdf:
During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser [i.e., Libby, who had both jobs] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him.
(b) There are fascinating new bits about Cheney's involvement, although the negative spaces are also fascinating. The filing buttresses the notion advanced by Chris Matthews and many others that Fitzgerald's real target was Dick Cheney. One might infer that the indictment of Libby was simply an attempt to elicit his cooperation, and that, so far at least, it is is a flip that failed.
(c) The Libby defense has made much of the possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's CIA status did not actually harm national security, and that her covert status was not widely known within the White House. Their point is that, absent this information, Libby had no obvious reason to lie when talking to the FBI or the grand jury. Fitzgerald attempts to address this by explaining that Libby wanted to spare the White House political embarrassment, and that he feared for his job. However, Fitzgerald seems to have misunderstood or mis-stated the public record in this regard. From the filing:
Thus, as defendant approached his first FBI interview he knew that the White House had publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Ms. Wilson and that, at defendant’s specific request through the Vice President, the White House had publicly proclaimed that defendant was “not involved in this.” The President had vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information. [Emp. added.]
Well. This old post covers what the President actually said on Sept 30, 2003 as well as subsequent press distortions. Here is George Bush from Sept 30:
And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
People who broke the law were to be fired; folks who leaked classified info were to be treated appropriately.
That actually might explain the motivation behind Libby's story about the NIE.
It also seems clear that Fitzgerald is holding few cards on the question of her status - this filing would have been a lovely opportunity for him to present any evidence at all that the White House , specifically Messrs. Cheney or Libby, had been warned about Ms. Plame's status.
(d) Fitzgerald has repeatedly told the judge that his investigation is ongoing. In the latest filing, he provides a strong hint that Rove (no surprise) and Hadley are still in trouble - per the filing, Rove and Hadley are not currently expected to be called by the government as witnesses. Given their roles in the indictment that seems odd, unless they are still under the gun.
Let's cover these with a bit more detail. The filing is in response to a defense motion for discovery, and Fitzgerald is explaining why he does not need to surrender certain documents. Here is the passage on Bush that prompted such excitement:
"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.
Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.
Nothing illegal or untoward is alleged. Fitzgerald did talk to Bush and Cheney together, and if he had a different story from them, this would have been the time to note it. [This post covered the executive orders on declassification, and yes, of course the President can declassify things.]
That said, Libby's story is quite odd. Apparently, Cheney talked to Bush and got the secret declassification for Libby's July 8 meeting with Judy Miller. On a parallel track, Stephen Hadley and others were working to get portions of the NIE declassified, which happened on July 18. Yet Libby never told Hadley that the NIE had already been declassified, not even with a wink or a "Mission Accomplished". One can imagine that this story did not sit well with Fitzgerald.
(Sorry, bloggus interruptus - duty calls. On point (b), Cheney's involvement, some highlights are in this earlier post under "GET DICK!"
I will let points (c) and (d) stand alone for now.)
MORE: On point (c), Libby's motivation to lie: the defense position is that Libby had no reason to lie since he was not aware that Ms. Plame was covert, and, in any case, there has been damage assessment released showing that national security was harmed.
Fitzgerald's response, as noted above, is that Libby did not want to embarrass the White House or get himself fired by admitting involvement in the leak.
However - there is a peculiar discrepancy in the testimony of Matt Cooper and Lewis Libby. Per Libby's grand jury testimony, it was Libby who told Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife was with the CIA.
But Matt Cooper testified that it was he who disclosed the Plame tidbit to Libby; Libby responded with something like "I heard that, too".
So Fitzgerald's position is what - that Libby feared to tell "the truth" about his chat with Cooper, to wit, Cooper had disclosed Plame to him? That in order to protect his job and spare the White House, Libby invented the lie that he had leaked to Cooper? How does that make any sense?
Now, Libby's story might fit into a a theory about a conspiracy to protect Rove (who did leak to Matt Cooper). But Fitzgerald notes repeatedly in his filing that Libby is not charged with any conspiracy counts; presumably, he cannot make that argument now and then reverse field and introduce that at trial without annoying the judge.
On the question of Libby's motivation, Fitzgerald's filing misrepresents the President's own words and leaves one baffled by the underlying logic.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 06, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (273) | TrackBack (2)
The NY Times reports on school vouchers in Washington DC:
Program on Vouchers Draws Minority Support
...Amie is one of about 1,700 low-income, mostly minority students in Washington who at taxpayer expense are attending 58 private and parochial schools through the nation's first federal voucher program, now in its second year.
Last year, parents appeared lukewarm toward the program, which was put in place by Congressional Republicans as a five-year pilot program, But this year, it is attracting more participation, illustrating how school-choice programs are winning over minority parents, traditionally a Democratic constituency.
Washington's African-American mayor, Anthony A. Williams, joined Republicans in supporting the program, prompted in part by a concession from Congress that pumped more money into public and charter schools. In doing so, Mr. Williams ignored the ire of fellow Democrats, labor unions and advocates of public schools.
"As mayor, if I can't get the city together, people move out," said Mr. Williams, who attended Catholic schools as a child. "If I can't get the schools together, why should there be a barrier programmatically to people exercising their choice and moving their children out?"
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 06, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack (0)
The TigerHawk growls, or takes wing, or something...
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 06, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)
[The UPDATE is a must read for Plamaniacs].
We have a new 13 page opinion [and the HTML version]. The subject seems to be is the ex parte submissions by Fitzgerald (I have read just one page and dinner calls...)
MORE: Here is the Order - the defense request is granted in part and denied in part.
After a quick skim of both, I see no bombshells. But see below for a flinig from Fitzgerald which cites Bush and Cheney.
UPDATE: The late bird gets the worm - Josh Gerstein of the Sun reports on a late thirty page response on discovery by Fitzgerald which slipped past my early evening stake-out. From the Sun:
Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury
New York Sun Web Exclusive
A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.
The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.
Read it all, including the point that we don't know what the President knew that prompted his involvement, and Libby's poetry on the final page. There are other interesting snippets in the response. From p. 7 of the .pdf, we get a bit about the conspiracy to respond to discredit Joe Wilson, and about the alleged Sept 2003 comment by Colin Powell that "everyone knows" that Ms. Plame was at the CIA :
Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. The government declined to produce documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation, even if such documents could be so characterized as reflecting a possible attempt or plan to discredit or punish Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson. The government has no knowledge of the existence of any notes reflecting comments by former Secretary of State Powell regarding Ms. Wilson during a September 2003 meeting.
As to prospective witnesses:
Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals – Mr. Tenet, Mr. Hadley, and Mr. Rove – defendant is not entitled to discovery based on the need to prepare to cross-examine those individuals.
Very interesting - Rove is virtually named in the indictment as having told Libby that Novak was about to publish a column on Wilson. One might think that is he is not being called, it is because his own problems are still in play. And what about Hadley - wouldn't similar logic apply?
[Let George do it? If Murray Waas is correct, he will be useless for the prosecution - see "The Loosening Noose" far below]
P. 19 - Get Dick!:
At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate).
Developing (I have to take a break).
And more on Cheney:
Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President.
MORE: Either Andrew Sullivan can't read, or he can't write:
Bush Nailed
We have a missing link. No, I don't mean the post-fish. I mean the Bush connection in the Plame leak. It turns out that, according to Libby, it was the president who first sanctioned the leak of the NIE data to discredit Joseph Wilson. Money quote:
..."Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.
Emphasis added to what will surely become the rave-up lefty talking point. However, as Mr. Gerstein noted, and as the excerpt printed by Mr. Sullivan makes clear, we *don't know* what Cheney and Bush discussed before Bush authorized the partial disclosure of the NIE. President Bush may have been vitally interested specifically in discrediting Joe Wilson; he may not have heard the name, and simply authorized the disclosure to help with the White House side of the press coverage. That said, Bush's involvement preceded the July 8 meeting with Judy Miller, (p. 19/20 of .pdf), which is not great news.
So, was "Bush Nailed" for helping with a White House PR pushback? I'll bet he gets involved with White House message management pretty regularly.
TECHNO-NOTE: The Sun Also Sets, or at least, their site is down as of 11:25 AM ET. I blame Andrew and the Christy Hardin Smith of the firegals. That said, the Sun does provide a link to Fitzgerald's filing.
THE LOOSENING NOOSE: Murray Waas covers the story and tells us this about Cheney and Tenet:
Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, according to people familiar with Cheney's interviews with the special prosecutor.
Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney, according to people with familiar with his statement to investigators.
Hmmph - without Libby to testify that Cheney ordered him to leak Plame's name, or even Tenet to testify that Cheney knew Plame was covert, Fitzgerald is going to have to perform magic to Get Dick.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 05, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (408) | TrackBack (11)
Clarice Feldman, writing at the American Thinker, delivers her second installment on the question of whether the appointment of Special Counsel Fitzgerald was unconstitutionally broad.
Let's get some background - here are links to the relevant filings, and Ms. Feldman's Part One attracted comment in this old post.
Let's also bring in an opposing view - at firedoglake, Christy Hardin Smith takes Fitzgerald's side. Ms. Hardin-Smith is a progressive prosecutor, so her sympathies are predictable; why I am a relentless apologist for the Bush crowd is less obvious.
I hope to have more later, but my quick reaction to Christy is that she is relying too heavily on the Section 509-510 argument that the Attorney General has the power to appoint and delegate. If it was that simple, Fitzgerald's response would not have included such howlers as his assertion that the Attorney General can oversee Fitzgerald's work simply by reading the newspapers.
Here is my quick, no links, no research, subject to revision take on this: Prosecutions - empaneling a grand jury, taking testimony, delivering indictments, and conducting trials - are an Executive Branch function. And of course, in normal circumstances the President is in charge of the Executive Branch.
The creation of a Special Counsel is an attempt to square a circle and place someone in the Executive Branch with the constitutional authority to conduct an investigation, yet who is sufficiently independent of executive oversight that he/she can credibly investigate the White House staff, the Vice President, and the President.
That turned out to be not so easy to achieve. Congress passed independent counsel laws with various mechanisms for appointing and supervising a Special Prosecutor. These were challenged in court, and the Supreme Court handed down various decisions outlining the criteria for a Special Prosecutor.
When the last Independent Prosecutor law lapsed in 1999, the Clinton Department of Justice drafted guidelines for the appointment of a Special Counsel under the authority of the Attorney General. These guidelines were an attempt to create an independent office while balancing the requirements of the Supreme Court precedents, and although they were untested, presumably they were well thought through. Let's also note that they were oriented towards the appointment of someone not currently serving in the Justice Department, although that distinction may not matter.
However - when Acting Attorney General Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel in the Plame case, he did not invoke or rely upon these guidelines at all. Instead, he simply cited the AG's authority to delegate under Sections 509, 510, and 515, and moved on.
Now, that may be fine, but it has never been tested in court, and it certainly was *not* well thought through in the context of the various court decisions. Hence the Libby challenge.
The major media has essentially dropped this - for example, the WaPo covered the initial Libby filing by getting a quote from a Constitutional law professor who had almost certainly not read the Libby brief.
My hope is that, now that there little March distraction is resolved, the guys from George Mason who were right about the Solomon Amendment when everyone else was wrong will take a look at this.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 05, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (214) | TrackBack (0)
Jeb Bush joins the immigration debate and plays the spousal card:
WASHINGTON — Accusing politicians of "pounding their chests" on immigration for short-term political gain, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the tone of the debate had been "hurtful" to him and his Mexican-born wife, Columba.
Bush, the younger brother of President Bush, reserved some of his sharpest criticism for conservatives in his own Republican Party, calling it "just plain wrong" to charge illegal immigrants with a felony, as a provision passed by the Republican-led House would do. He also opposed "penalizing the children of illegal immigrants" by denying them U.S. citizenship, an idea backed by some conservatives but not included in the legislation.
...Gov. Bush has generally avoided injecting himself into national political fights, and he rarely invokes his soft-spoken wife of 32 years in such a public way. But his comments reflect the concern among many Republicans that calls by conservatives for an immigrant crackdown risk alienating Latino voters.
The LA Times story also contains an interesting straw in the wind:
The Florida governor has said he does not intend to run for president in 2008. But he has been mentioned as a potential running mate for another likely candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Hmm. By odd coincidence, the Chicago Tribune also mentioned Jb Bush in their coverage of a speech by Rudy Giuliani:
Speaking in Chicago today at an urban affairs forum, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani warned another large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil was likely.
"It's better to assume we will be attacked again and go from there," Giuliani said during a speech at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
... "It would be irrational not to be afraid of another attack," he said. "But the fear should lead you to do what a police officer does or a firefighter or a soldier or what Mayor (Richard M.) Daley did: prepare."
Giuliani lauded Daley, sitting in the front row, for being one of two leaders who sent not only assistance, but observers to New York after the terror attacks. The other, he said, was Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
How about that? Rudy-Jeb '08! Or John-Jeb '08. Either way, the Bush Machine gains a stake in the outcome.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 05, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)
Well-deserved props to Captain Ed Morrissey, named Blogger de L'Année by "The Week".
At this point, the bar has been set pretty high - Powerline won in 2004 by bringing down Dan Rather; the Captain won in 2005 by bringing down the Canadian government. What will it take to win in 2006?
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 05, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)
Max Sawicky delivers the book on how to collect more taxes without raising taxes:
Bridging The Tax Gap: The Internal Revenue Service estimates that as much as $350 billion in taxes are not paid voluntarily and on time. Only about $50 billion of that is eventually collected by the IRS. Much of this enormous gap can be attributed to offshore financial manipulations, abusive tax shelters, complexity of the tax code, and failure to implement basic financial reporting and withholding procedures. Compounding the compliance problem is the enforcement burden on an inadequately funded IRS.
Well. We are certainly talking about serious money even if we can only collect an additional $100 billion per year. Now, stricter enforcement is "sort of" like a tax increase, politically, and very much like a formal tax increase economically (I say that presuming that folks have set their expectations to a certain level of non-compliance).
But so what? If this is a politically palatable back-door by which taxes are raised, so be it. One can imagine the rhetoric - for example, why should the tax cheats be subsidized by the rest of us? I see Dems using a study like this as a Fall '06 talking point to document the standard talk about reducing the deficit by attacking fraud, waste, and corporate welfare. And further down the road, Reps such as McCain or Giuliani might go after the deficit the same way.
MORE: If someone could subsidize my Metaphor-Masher, that would be great. Otherwise, the free lunch may include palatable doors.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 04, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (62) | TrackBack (0)
I am virtually insight-free on Tom DeLay, but maybe you aren't!
Here is Memeorandum; and Mark Coffey identifies an "important" piece.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 04, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)
James Taranto's "Best of the Web" included this absurdity reported in the Indianopolis Star:
Honesty doesn't pay: This seems to be the lesson officials at Indianapolis's Stonybrook Middle School wish to send their charges. The Indianapolis Star reports:
Elliot [Voge], 14, said he was walking to the school entrance in the brisk weather March 3 and had placed his hands in his coat pocket when he felt the Swiss army pocketknife in the pocket.
"I went straight to the office right inside (the front door)," he said.
He said he handed the knife to Teri Donahue, the school's treasurer, and told her he had brought it to school by mistake.
As a result of Elliot's actions, the school's principal, Jimmy Meadows, suspended Elliot for the maximum 10 school days as allowed by law and recommended Elliot be expelled. A confidential expulsion hearing is scheduled for April 10.
In a triumph of common sense, the school administrators have bowed to public opinion as whipped up by a derisive media (AP) and have dropped all disciplinary action against the boy. From the Indy Star:
Warren Township school leaders today ordered a halt to the disciplinary proceedings against a teenager who said he accidentally brought a pocket knife to his middle school.
The principal at Stonybrook Middle School had suspended Elliot Voge for 10 days. The boy realized he had a Swiss Army knife in his coat pocket as he headed inside the school last month and, according to the principal's report, "Elliot immediately went into the main office and handed the knife to our school treasurer."
Today the district administrators cancelled an April 10 hearing that would have considered expelling Elliot, and the school board said in a letter that "we can all learn from this incident and in the future apply some common sense when interpreting rules."
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 04, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)
This will all be explained in the movie someday. Meanwhile, the story of the high-powered banker, the tony neighborhood, the brutal murder, and then a full replay with a second brother is just unbelievable.
Andrew Kissel, the U.S. real estate developer charged with fraud, forgery and theft, was found dead in his home with multiple stab wounds, less than three years after his brother was murdered in Hong Kong.
Police in Greenwich, Connecticut, said in a statement yesterday that the body of Kissel, 46, was found by workers from a moving company.
The ever-calm Daily News:
First 'milkshake murder' & now ... bloody mystery
Kissel bro found dead in his home
The twisted tale of murdered millionaire banker Robert Kissel's family took another ugly turn yesterday when his brother was found slain in the bloody basement of his Connecticut mansion.Cops said movers found Andrew Kissel, 46, bound and bludgeoned and likely stabbed after they entered his red-brick home on Dairy Lane in tony Greenwich before 10 a.m.
Kissel's "hands were tied behind his back, his feet were tied and there was some kind of bag over his head, or a pillowcase," said Chuck Re, vice president of JB Moving Services in Stamford.
"There was blood all over," Re said after talking with the movers who found the body.
Andrew Kissel, under prosecution for state and federal fraud crimes and separated from his wife and two young daughters, was in the process of moving out of the two-story home.
His brother Robert was murdered in Hong Kong three years ago in what was dubbed the "milk shake murder."
Robert's wife, Nancy, was convicted of killing the wealthy investment banker by feeding him a drug-laced milk shake and beating him to death.
Andrew Kissel and his estranged wife, Hayley, had been battling for custody of Robert's three daughters - and his $15 million fortune.
But a judge named the brothers' sister, Jane Clayton of Washington State, as the girls' temporary legal guardian last year. She couldn't be reached for comment.
Here is the Times coverage. The Times got a colorful and cavalier quote from the father - we hope it is out of context, but here we go:
"I haven't read the book of Job yet, but I'm about to," Mr. Kissel's father, William, said on Monday after learning of his other son's death.
Meanwhile, the "milkshake murder" in Hong Kong is even more bizarre - here is an article about how the body was rolled in a blanket and put in the storeroom of the high-end apartment building in Hong Kong.
And get this - the infamous milkshake laced with sedatives was apparently served to both the hubby and a friend who had dropped by.
Complete coverage here.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 04, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)
Jason Leopold at Truthout breaks the latest on the vast White House conspiracy to cover up the outing of Valerie Plame. John Hannah of the Office of the Vice President reprises the star turn he took briefly last fall.
I found this bit of the Leopold effort to be strangely unsatisfying:
Rove was questioned by FBI investigators at least five times between October 2003 and February 2004. Libby was questioned by investigators at least twice during that time, according to attorneys familiar with Rove and Libby's interviews with investigators.
Well - I am not an "attorney familiar with Rove and Libby's interviews", but I am familiar with the court filings in which Libby's team was offered the intelligence briefings for the five days around each of his periods of testimony. From the record, that suggested two rounds of FBI questioning and two sessions with the grand jury for Libby. Five sessions with the FBI for Rove seems high, by comparison, although it may be that Lt. Columbo was on the case.
Jeralyn Merritt offers much better conspiracy coverage than I can muster. Her key, and very plausible, point - *IF* Hannah's testimony was such a big deal, it is likely that Stephen Hadley (not Richard Armitage) was a source for Novak. [Left unexplained - per the Feb 24 court hearing, both the judge and Special Counsel Fitzgerald seemed to be bending over backwards to conceal the identity of "Official One", who appears to have been Novak's source. The judge's view was that, since Official One did not face charges, his privacy should be respected. Laudable, but... if Mr. Leopold's Big Story is that Hannah cooperated and Hadley was fingered, but now Hadley is in the clear, well, so what? Where is the Big Conspiracy? And it's worth keeping in mind that Hadley was promoted to Condi's old job as National Security Advisor in Jan 2005, when the presence or absence of a legal cloud should have been clear.]
The NY Sun covers the latest defense filing which argued that Fitzgerald's appointment was unconstitutionally broad. Amongst the Major Media, that filing was covered by Pete Yost of the AP, and James Taranto of the WSJ, but if the Times or WaPo covered it, I missed it. Perhaps the MSM has lost interest but the Department of Justice seems to be taking the defense arguments very seriously.
MORE: Gold for Pacer fans from Jeralyn Merritt:
The media has reported on some of the subpoenas Lewis "Scooter" Libby has issued to reporters and news agencies. Here's a list of those who are fighting them, and the federal docket numbers of the cases...
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00123-RBW: NBC NEWS & AFFILIATES
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00124-RBW: MATTHEW COOPER
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00125-RBW: JUDITH A. MILLER
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00126-RBW: ANDREA MITCHELL
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00127-RBW: TIM RUSSERT
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00128-RBW: TIME, INCORPORATED
CASE #: 1:06-mc-00129-RBW: NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
Per Ms. Merritt, the news organizations are currently responding with what I presume is a routine request for more time. However, a regular commenter here (Sue? [Or JM Hanes!]) pointed out that the MSM may pick up the "Fitzgerald's appointment was unconstitutional" theme in fighting these subpoenas. In that event the confluence and effluence of the high-priced legal talent should be extraordinary.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 04, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (83) | TrackBack (1)
Adam Nagourney of the Times writes on blogs and politics.
He repeats the observation that Dem blogs have dragged their party to the left, and discusses the effect on fundraising and organizing, but barely a mention goes to the ability of blogs to affect the news cycle.
Where it is mentioned, he notes two Republican attack blogs whose mission seems to be clear from their names; the two Dem attack blogs he cites look like stealth efforts (although I have not checked that yet):
Both parties have set up Web sites to discredit opponents. In Tennessee, Republicans spotlighted what they described as the lavish spending habits of Representative Harold E. Ford Jr. with a site called www.fancyford.com. That site drew 100,000 hits the first weekend, and extensive coverage in the mainstream Tennessee press, which is typically the real goal of creating sites like this. And this weekend, the Republicans launched a new attack site, www.bobsbaggage.com, that is aimed at Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey and focused on ethics accusations against him.
For their part, Democrats have set up decoy Web sites to post documents with damaging information about Republicans. They described this means of distribution as far more efficient than the more traditional slip of a document to a newspaper reporter.
A senior party official, who was granted anonymity in exchange for describing a clandestine effort, said the party created a now-defunct site called D.C. Inside Scoop to, among other things, distribute a document written by Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, discussing the political benefits of the Terri Schiavo case. A second such site, http://capitolbuzz.blogspot.com, spread more mischievous information: the purported sighting of Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, parking in a spot reserved for the handicapped.
No mention of either Rathergate or the Swift Boats from the 2004 cycle. And this quote is pretty funny:
Still, Democrats have been particularly enthusiastic about the potential of this technology to get the party back on track, with many Democratic leaders arguing that the Internet is today for Democrats what talk radio was for Republicans 10 years ago. "This new media becomes much more important to us because conservatives have been more dominant in traditional media," said Simon Rosenberg, the president of the centrist New Democratic Network. "This stuff becomes really critical for us."
He is referring to the traditional alternative media, of course.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 02, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (182) | TrackBack (0)
The Times headline writer is not hyperventilating after Russ Feingold got his censure hearing:
Call to Censure Bush Is Answered by a Mostly Empty Echo
WASHINGTON, MARCH 31 — The Senate Judiciary Committee opened a bitter if lopsided debate on Friday over whether Congress should censure President Bush for his domestic eavesdropping program.
Although few Senate Democrats have embraced the censure proposal and almost no one expects the Senate to adopt it, the notion that Democrats may seek to punish Mr. Bush has become a rallying cause to partisans on both sides of the political divide. Republicans called the hearing to give the proposal a full airing as their party sought to use the threat of Democratic punishment of the president to rally their conservative base.
Five Republicans at the hearing took turns attacking the idea as a reckless stunt that could embolden terrorists. Just two Democrats showed up to defend it, arguing that Congress needed to rein in the White House's expansive view of presidential power. The Democrats' star witness was John W. Dean, the former counsel to President Richard M. Nixon who divulged many of the details in the Watergate scandal.
The "star witness" is that American hero, John Dean? Say no more.
But I have more! I have a great idea for Dems, actually, and no, you can't pay me for this kind of advice:
"If we in the Congress don't stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we become complicit in the lawbreaking," Mr. Feingold said.
Well, the time for noting Congressional complicity is long past - Congressional leaders have been briefed on this program since its outset. However, if Dems are seriously interested in demonstrating a desire to take this seriously, rather than simply playing "gotcha" politics with this (should I stop right now?), the next step is simple - rather than wait for the day when a Republican majority censures the President, the Dems should create an opportunity to both demonstrate seriousness of purpose and generate headlines and attention. How? Simply by punishing, in some fashion, the complicit Congressional Democrats.
Let the democratic Congressional Caucus vote Nancy Pelosi out of her leadership spot, or censure her, or something. Move Rep. Jane Harman down a peg in the House Intelligence hierarchy, since she didn't blow the whistle on this NSA program when she moved up to become the ranking Democrat on the committee; and do something similar with Sen. Rockefeller, who was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when Bob Graham overlooked this program as chairman, and is currently the ranking Democrat there.
Headlines, credibility, commitment - it's all there. Won't happen, of course, but there it is.
Posted by Tom Maguire on April 01, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (304) | TrackBack (1)
Recent Comments