Powered by TypePad

« Generalizations And The Peril Thereof | Main | Waas On Rove »

April 28, 2006



Drinks are on me if that happens.



Did you notice in last thread Walton ordered Fitz to turn over the referral letter to him and he did today ?

The United States of America, by and through Special Counsel, hereby notifies defense
counsel that it is this day, April 28, 2006, delivering a copy of the CIA’s criminal referral letter,
and accompanying documents, to the Court for its inspection, as requested by the Court in its
April 25, 2006 communication with Special Counsel and defense counsel.

I'll email pdf to you if you want.


Dangnabit, TM. The whole comments thread over at emptywheel appears from an intial scan to be one of the best rundowns on the whole current state of affairs.

Would you stop putting the good stuff in the comments of other sites!!!!

Now I've got to go back and read all of it in detail. And it's like playing Zork --
"...did we take a right-hand turn back there or go two steps back and avoid the blind alley??"


Rove better watch out,
Rove better not cry,
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Fiyzmas is coming to town.
He's making a list,
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out
Who's naughty and nice.
Fitzmas is coming to town.

He sees you when you're sleeping.
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
Rove, you better watch out!
You better not cry.
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Fitmas Claus is coming to town.
Fitzmas Claus is coming to town!

Tom Maguire

Dangnabit, TM. The whole comments thread over at emptywheel appears from an intial scan to be one of the best rundowns on the whole current state of affairs.

Would you stop putting the good stuff in the comments of other sites!!!!

I normally have a good time over there, but yes, that thread went well.

And yes, I woul dlove to see the order on the referral, thanks.


Don't you just this bit of news is just proof, PROOF I say that Fitzgerald and his case are about to be embarrassed out of court and off the stage of world history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on people, tell me I'm right...I need the reassurance!

:::wink::: Jeff.

Charlie (Colorado)

Okay, I'm putting my marker down on (d) no indictment, nothing. As someone other other said, Rove's lawyer is too smart to let him go back a fifth time and talk for three hours without pretty strong assurance Rove's not a target.

Lew Clark


Is Rove a: 1. UGO (code for being a leaker on the proper left side of the Bushchimpyhitler divide)- or - 2. A neocon mind-controlled baby killer.

Eww. Karl is in deep do do. He WILL be indicted for thought crimes and crimes against the Revolution. To bad they can't get Karl off to the Gulag before the big Mayday Parade. Well maybe next year.

Opps, sorry, had my crystal ball turned backwards and was viewing the "alternate reality". Got it turned around straight now. Karl walks! If Fitz couldn't indict him in the fever swamp of two years ago where everyone in the Whitehouse was a confirmed traitor, then I don't think he has the guts to phony up some charges now, in light of the revelations about McCarthy, Wilson, Beers, Clarke, etc, etc. But Fitz continues to amaze us with his dedication and devotion to the "cause". So we just gotta wait, don't we.
So far Karl and his lawyers have been able to figure Fitz out pretty well. If there was any hint that Fitz was going for an indictment, he'd have gotten three hours of "no comment". Since Rove spoke, he seems to be pretty confident that the "Frog March Rove" ship sailed away long ago.


topsecret - It's sort of like the mirror-image of the pre-Fitzukkah Fitzukkah celebrations on the left. wink back.


topsecretk9, good catch on the referral letter. An interesting request by Walton.

Bill in AZ

Fitz will indict because he is the stupidest SOB in this universe. To not figure out he has reversed the perp and victim in two major cases in a row - that puts him in his own category beyond galactically stupid. He would be laughed out of court if there were any adults in charge of him - but he and Comey fixed that problem. The Constitutional problems created by this fiasco will reverberate for many years to come since no one can put a stop to it.


I am very behind on PlameGate but I would have to say that if Rove and his team thought there was a even chance that an indictment was coming, he would have departed the WH by now. I realize that it's very tough right now to predict what Fitz is going to do, but Rove has met with this guy 5 times in front of the GJ, not to mention other meetings. He has to have some feel for where Fitx is going, no?


Aw Tom, after that great thread and you don't even give me my choice on your quiz?

I vote e: a combination of a with conspiracy to obstruct along with some other people (including Libby). I don't know whether Karl, or someone else, will get served with the evidence tampering charge. But history tells us you Republicans keep trying to destroy evidence and failing, and I suspect type will hold (yes, before you say it, we're specialists in the stained dress evidence, but it didn't get destroyed).

But I also think it'll take a bit of time yet. Karl chatted up a storm about those missing emails, and now Fitz has to visit with some of the other witnesses to answer some of the questions raised by Karl's testimony.


What evidence was destroyed? What did I miss?


to EW jeff et al

old irish proverb

beware of Maguires bearing gifts :)



you realize plagiarizing your :::winks::: & :::grins::: is a compliment, don't you.

:::finger snap pinky tuscadero style:::



I didn't realize they were mine. ::grin::



I went to EW and that's about all I can say.


It has been suggested that Rove would have resigned by now had he expected to be indicted. Why? Rove doesn't consider himself to be guilty of anything more than a memory lapse on an unimportant matter. Resigning would be a tacit admission of criminal wrongdoing. Even if he is indicted, he doesn't have to resign. Now that Rove is in a strictly political role, he would not need to step aside to defend himself against a politically-motivated charge.


Jeff...a small quibble

at EW site after being complimented for the Corallo "catch" you said

As for the Corallo catch, I think the connection was made either in a news report or by some blogger when it was announced that Corallo was going to be Team Rove's spokesperson with regard to the investigation.

so when did this "connection" happen exactly?

why can't you remember whether it was a reporter or blogger who told you?

are you sure you didn't tell them?

did this information appear "like the very first time" to you?


pinky tuscadero ? She's here? I'd make her TAC's mistress of the dance in a sec.


I still think that V. Novak told Luskin more about what was going on at Time than she's publicly revealed and that may explain the length of Rove's appearance.
(a) testifying about what Luskin told him and when
(b) testifying about how the records were archived and what the subpoenas had requested
(c) testifying about how and when he responded to those reports thru Luskin
(d) the search for the email and how and when it turned up and what was done with it when it did turn up

As I recall, V. Novak reported multiple conversations with Luskin and how many times would that be just about Cooper insisting he'd had this conversation with Rove?


"Very concerned at the WH"."Karl Rove is very nervous right now."
.....Scarbourough on Hardball now.

Fitz, IF he is in cahoots with the DEMS would love to take ROVE off the field for the 2006 midterms.

He may very well know, he is finished with any Pub admin - his only hope it to do some favors for the DEMS.

If that is his motivation, may it turn out as well for Fitz as it did for MOM.


Dollars to donuts the IT person in charge of email archiving in the WH is a career bueorocrat. The liklyhood of that source not leaking like a sieve if the news was bad for Rove is infantisimal.


Rove will NOT be indicted. If Fitz had anything concrete he would have moved 6 months ago.
Rove will continue to work behind the scenes or in the thick of things for the 06 elections. Dems know they don't have enough mojo to take the House or Senate so they are desperate to sideline Rove. It's not going to happen-poor dems they remain clueless. Ellen Goodman today in Boston Globe Begging Kerry not to run in 08,


We were two weeks to a decision on Rove in November, then it was to be the end of December, then 6 January. I see the same pattern, the nutty stuff gets leaked to MSNBC, Jason, Shuster (or they make it up) and unfortunately, the WAPO's reporting on this has been bad. The substantive material gets leaked to the New York Times. In October the fact that just Libby was going to be indicted was leaked to the Times the night before the indictment. All the other stuff was nonsense.

I think Fitz might indict even thought the case is weak because he's assessed the risk. The romper room crowd known as the media will not hold him accountable for weak charges, in fact, they will cheer him on. The jury pool in DC is overwhelmingly Democrat, and Bush is at 35%.

He will go with a weak indictment since he views the risks as low and the payoff high. Plus he wants another shot of that worldwide press conference. I'm sure he's convinced he can do a better job.


I had this fabulously fun theory cooked up, spawned from a little comment by spooky Kitty (aka ghostcat), but then I forgot and could not rebuild in my head until now (but now can not find GC's comment)

Tow of the most significant events around indictment time 1) VNovak and then 2) Woodward (visa versa)

So Rove is to testify finally to the VNov crud...one caveat not discussed is Fitz's obligation to see if all 3 roughly square because Luskin did testify too (or whatever)

But the other is interesting because it relates to the (which TM notes today about the times) testimony via contact with Bob Novak.

Woodward came forward because Fitz said in his presser that Libby was the first know WH official (first official, start of the chain is what he meant)

But Woodward was also working on a story, rumored to be a bombshell (Iskoff) at the time, and prodding UGO for a story -- UGO said no.

In any case, Woodward was working on a story and essentially Fitz's presser killed it...

Easy speculation would be that Woodward's story was an anti-anti-smear story, including tidbits on the Novak/UGO back-story.

It can be fairly concluded the only reason UGO is not in hot water is because Fitz team failed to ask UGO about other contact and/or adhered to Fitz's love of limiting inquiries. Otherwise he'd be in trouble for lying when asked, and a "I didn't remember" wouldn't fly with Woodwards year long prodding.

So I wonder if info garnered Woodward’s "reporting/story" led to conflicts between Novak and UGO testimony, and also shed some light into something differing between Rove and Novak. Rove said he learned Plame’s name from Novak. What if Novak said he didn’t know Plame’s actual name at the time he talked to Rove.

Now if Woodward talked to UGO far before and used Plame’s name, and then talked to Novak before Novak talked to Rove, and UGO and or Novak told Fitz UGO didn’t give up the name, just all the boondoggle details….

I had this way better in my head, but it just wondered because it was after the fact that Novak pulled the "Who’s Who" card

just a wild theory for fun (::Jeff::)


Dollars to donuts the IT person in charge of email archiving in the WH is a career bueorocrat.

Dollars to donuts the IT person in charge of email archiving in an employee of an independent contractor.

As I recall, V. Novak reported multiple conversations with Luskin
Ok, strictly gossip dish-dirt question: do you think Luskin and V. were, um, having a fling?

cathy :-)


I still think that V. Novak told Luskin more about what was going on at Time than she's publicly revealed and that may explain the length of Rove's appearance.

Well the media didn't exactly give her any inky column space retirement party did they...she just sort of crept of the payroll quietly.


Charging someone under US Code : Title 18 : Section 1623 is easy; conviction is much more difficult whether you are Barry Bonds or Karl Rove.

The proscecuter would have to that Rove's testiimony was material and his mistatement was done with Mens Rea.

Section 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate,
verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted
under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any
proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the
United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or
makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper,
document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to
contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred
within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section
alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court
or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has
knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to
the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify
which declaration is false if -
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute
of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration
set forth in the indictment or information shall be established
sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under
oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the
point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any
court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or
information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection
that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed
the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding
in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration
admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar
prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is
made, the declaration has not substantially affected the
proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has
been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is
sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such
proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by
documentary or other type of evidence.

Lew Clark

We can determine if they were having a fling. I'm sure Fitz has subpoenaed everything she wrote, received, or thought about writing. All that has to be done is find out if anything written to her by Luskin referred to "Aspens blooming".


What is it with your legal system where you can drag a man before a Star Chamber,question him without representation until he farts in the wrong direction,then indict him?
This is guaranteed to produce conflicting testimony.


Judge defends decision to jail Miller


...Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge of Washington's federal district court, told a meeting of the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association that he made the right call when he ruled there was no First Amendment protection for reporters to keep their sources confidential, especially in criminal matters.

The case of reporter Judith Miller began as a typical Washington political story as the White House tried to push back against critics in a brewing scandal, Hogan told the group.

"It was the perfect storm," he said, of Washington politics, the media and the law...

..."Blood was spreading in the water," Hogan said. "The sharks were gathering. It's typical Washington politics, except that this involved the commission of a crime"...

...Miller wasn't an innocent bystander, Hogan said. "She was an actor in the commission of a crime," he said. "She was part of the transfer of information that was a crime."...

...he judge said he did not enjoy sending Miller to jail. But he said the law is clear: Reporters do not have a special privilege under the First Amendment to keep their sources secret, especially when a crime has been committed.

Hogan predicted that the "clash" between the courts and reporters isn't going to end any time soon, especially in Washington. Federal judges are being asked to allow parties in civil and criminal cases to force reporters to reveal their sources...

...Hogan said he doesn't believe the media have support for a federal shield law in the Senate. Nor does the media have much support in the courts, he said. He said he had heard that not one Supreme Court justice voted to hear Miller's appeal..."


What happy news now that the AG is investigating like actual leaks of classified information that you know harmed national security. Why, I'd just bet that Patrick Fitzgerald's pic will be in every newsroom shrine.




--He said he had heard that not one Supreme Court justice voted to hear Miller's appeal--

thought interesting and a tag check, sorry if I "Larwyn'd the Thread"


And the crime is.........?


Oh, I did...thanks Boris.


Sorry in advance to further this discussion but emptywheel is misremembering history.

emptywheel wrote: (yes, before you say it, we're specialists in the stained dress evidence, but it didn't get destroyed).

The dress was not dry cleaned by Monica because of Linda Tripp, a Republican, convinced her not to.

Tripp's manipulations of Lewinsky stand out starkly in her first interview with the FBI, last Jan. 12, when she disclosed how the young woman had told her about the now famous navy blue dress that was stained with the president's semen. She told the agents that Lewinsky "won't have the dress dry-cleaned to this day."

What Tripp seems not to have told the FBI is that it was she who, according to Lewinsky's version, talked her friend out of having it cleaned.



FNC reported Rush Limbaugh has been arrested.


Rush Limbaugh was arrested Friday on prescription drug charges, with his attorney saying he has reached a deal with prosecutors that will eventually see the charges dismissed if he continues treatment for drug addiction.

Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant issued by the State Attorney's Office, said Teri Barbera, a spokeswoman for the State Attorney's Office.

The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and left an hour later after posting $3,000 bail, Barbera said. The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions, Barbera said.



I am sorry my last three posts have been off topic. Please forgive me.



FNC just reported.

Paid 30,000 Dollars and charges will be dropped if he is "clean" for 18 months.





Here is more about it.




Point well taken. Just trying to point out Dems don't lack their embarrassing evidence.


emptywheel wrote: But history tells us you Republicans keep trying to destroy evidence and (yes, before you say it, we're specialists in the stained dress evidence, but it didn't get destroyed).

Funny Ordi, 2 quickies came to mind when I read the evidence destroy comment


A Democratic researcher pleaded guilty yesterday to misrepresenting herself on a Web site as Michael S. Steele, Maryland's lieutenant governor and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, and fraudulently obtaining his credit report last summer....

... E. Mark Braden, who attended the hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, said a "statement of the offense" released yesterday contains several troubling details about the episode, including Weiner's use of a committee credit card to access Steele's report over the Internet...

...Weiner pretended that she was Steele, even creating an e-mail address -- gopsteele@yahoo.com -- needed to obtain the report, the statement said. She also agreed to the "terms of service" on the site, which included a warning "not to impersonate another person."

...According to the statement, Weiner's superiors were notified within hours of the episode, and the report was destroyed the next morning before it could be disseminated. Weiner and her boss, the committee's director of research, later resigned.

Of course that's just half the story, they left all the parts about he superior telling her what to do when she came across his SS#, anyhow it was destroyed, probably contained notes like this one, two

WASHINGTON -- Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who once had unfettered access to the government's most sensitive secrets, pleaded guilty yesterday to sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives, then using scissors to cut up some of them.

Rather than the ''honest mistake" he described last summer, Berger acknowledged to US Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration. He then lied about it to National Archives staff when they told him documents were missing.

''Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.

Robinson did not ask Berger why he cut up the materials and threw them away at the Washington office of his Stonebridge International consulting firm. Berger, accompanied by his wife, Susan, did not offer an explanation when he addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse following the hearing.

Cajun Kate

According to the Washington Prowler, the media is completely wrong in their reporting that Rove is worried. Instead, according to the Prowler, things went well and their were no surprises. The Prowler also stated that NBC reporters were circulating the rumors about Rove being worried.



How dare you bring up those examples of destroying evidence by a democrat!

Old Dad


Drudge has some info up on the disposition of Rush's case.

About 45 minutes ago, Michael Savage was trumpeting that Rush had been "arrested." ABC news had some ominous and very ambiguous mush on, too.

Could one of you legal eagles explain?



Limbaugh's perp walk was part of a negotiated settlement. Pride dented, case closed.


Funny how government bureaucracy (80% dem) doesn't go after Democrats with the same ferocity they go after Repubs.


Since the public disclosure that Plame was CIA came through UGO and not Libby/Rove, Fitz is frantic to establish some connection between the administration and "the crime".

Novak had enough for his column from UGO and Harlow even without Rove's "heard that too". Still, to Fitz that qualifies as a link of sorts and if Rove goes into the stew he can claim "conspiracy".

Limbaugh's perp walk was part of a negotiated settlement. Pride dented, case closed.
Yeah, well, except for the part where he is still in excruciating pain from the botched surgery. People don't think he's cranky enough already?

cathy :-)


Under the heading of:

But offfice I swear I was only tidding up the office a bit.

The man who abruptly retired as Kofi Annan's cabinet chief after shredding papers related to the Oil-for-Food program has been shredding still more documents at the United Nations, an eyewitness told FOX News.

Iqbal Riza, who has been working on a $1-a-year salary as a special advisor to Annan, has been shredding large quantities of unknown documents in his new 10th-floor U.N. office across the street from the U.N. Secretariat building, the source said.

According to the eyewitness, a U.N. staffer who works on the same floor as Riza, the retired cabinet chief arrived within days of leaving his old job, loaded down with many cartons of papers and files.

His Mother Said: I am proud my son is working to improve things for all of Mankind. She said he is more than happy to do it for A Dollar a Year. Mr Riza wife and children were unvailable for comment.



You are correct about that. We all have had our moments. It does not matter who or what we are. We are all human.


Speak for yourself, ordi.


For all you Rush Fans. Read the story on Rushlimbaugh.com

Settlement Agreement Ends State Investigation of Rush Limbaugh




Your not human, your a cat?


They don't even have to hide the evidence, the LSM just won't mention the indictments or convictions.
Did you hear anything about the Milwaukee "Repub Voters Vans" Tire Slashers getting jail terms?

What about the nifty memo regarding Judge confirmations?

Anyone other than Roll Call & the blogs print Rocky's memo? Or report on it?

And all the findings of Clinton's housing appointee have been kept under seal?

Think the Dems have the title on this one.

And speaking of titles:


"...sorry if I "Larwyn'd the Thread"

Walter wanted the title last night. And I did give him record on that thread but noted that sadly, I held it for the "season".

It was bad enough when I appeared as No 11 in Shrinkwrapped's Super Bowl Sunday post "Blogosphere Addictive Disorder"
February 05, 2006

Blogosphere Addictive Disorder

Since it is Superbowl Sunday, one of America's national holidays, I thought it would be a good time to "lighten up" and describe a new faux-problem.

As most people realize, the Psychiatric profession is always looking for more people who are victims of serious mental disorders. In order to assist the American Psychiatric Association in their noble quest of finding at least one DSM diagnosis for everyone, I would like to describe the diagnostic criteria for a new Psychiatric problem that is already prevalent and threatening to become an epidemic. I am, of course, speaking, with tongue held firmly in cheek, of Blogosphere Addictive Disorder or BAD.

BAD is a serious Psychiatric disturbance in which the sufferer begins to spend more and more time in the Blogosphere with often disastrous consequences in their "real life"; some victims have even missed meals because of BAD! However, the worst danger to those who develop BAD is that, like any addiction, it can progress to a far more disabling disorder, Blogging Addictive Disorder, or WORSE.

Herewith are some of the diagnostic criteria for BAD:

You know you have it BAD when:

10) Your kids ask where MOM is and you give them the url.

11) Larwyn has you on her mailing list.

12) You know what happened in Vienna in 1683.
A very funny post.

larwyn'd not quite infamy....but must consider dropping Tags 101


Jeez! getting an F


Jeez! getting an F


Spooky, eh?


Larwyn your theme song is "Oops I Did It Again".



Karl Rove is in the clear. www.intrade.com won't even put up a contract on either an indictment or conviction.

I wish they would. The last two times, I couldn't sell enough to the dumbbell liberals who thought Karl Rove was going to be indicted. Made more money than in my 457 plan.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'...Miller wasn't an innocent bystander, Hogan said. "She was an actor in the commission of a crime," he said. "She was part of the transfer of information that was a crime."...'

Interesting that that's what he takes away from Fitzgerald's arguments. I'd say Team Libby ought to jump on that misrepresentation, pronto.


11) Larwyn has you on her mailing list.

Darn Granny Girlfriend, your are busy.

Larwyn, I so super hope you don't give up tags 101, and I hope you know I really do get a huge kick when you "Larwyn the thread"


I see the Host Matters Hack is at it again.


" She was part of the transfer of information that was a crime."
Will this judge go on the record and make the identical statement about Dana Priest and Mary McCarthy?
Come on now let's show everyone how fair, balanced and non-partisan you are judge. How about Rocky and Risen-the NSA leaker twins any crime comments about them?


This was TM a while ago, at a far and distant place, but something I had heard as if for the very 1st time:

OK, I see I have to do the dirty work here - a new reason that Fitzgerald is so interested in Rove has emerged (and I only note this while digging into the question of whether Fitzgerald knew about Rove-Hadley; at one point, I had satisfied myself that the second Cooper subpoena did not name a target, which is odd per DoJ guidelines).

Anyway, here we go, from the WaPo:

The sources said Fitzgerald looked surprised in the August 2004 deposition when Cooper said it was he who brought up Wilson's wife with Libby, and that Libby responded, "Yeah, I heard that, too."

The prosecutor pressed Cooper to then
explain how he knew about Wilson's wife in the first place, and Cooper said he would not answer the question because it did not involve Libby, the sources said.

Hardly needs explaining, but - per the new docs, Libby had said that he told Cooper. Fitzgerald was probably just seeking confirmation of that, until Cooper surprised him by saying, Not so, I already knew.

So, was Libby protecting Karl by trying to keep him out of it? Inquiring minds would surely want to know.

Anyway, a case for Fitzgerald being unaware of Rove is at the ,a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2005/11/case-against-rove.html">Anonymous Liberal, including the comments.

Posted by: Tom Maguire | February 06, 2006 at 09:04

I do not recall reading that little Cooper bit, and it has renewed my interest with the 5th appearance...a result of Times VNov.



Remember we had a small back and forth about my belief one way for Mary McCarthy to clear her good name would to post haste issue Dana Priest a waiver of confidentiality so that Dana could exonerate her and that way Dana could protect other sources?


Pincus also gave testimony exonerating Libby, after a different source on Plame okayed his talking with Fitzgerald.
CJR Jan/Feb 2005

Isn't this in essence what Walter Pincus did?

and somewhere I think I have a vague memory of you not very approving of Walter for this way back, am I right?


JOMist Additive Disorder should be a subclassification.

I try to keep the emails to what they are covering - and Shrinkwapped thanks me and say keep them comming. Operating my own little "un-subcribed" clipping service. I love it when someone can put into words what I know or when brand new info pops. GatewayPundit really appreciated all the leads that the JOMists were providing as the MOM story broke.

Just a way to feel useful. Think I qualify for an associate membership in Captain Ed's new
Join the 101st Fighting Keyboardists!
Captain Ed unveils the LOGO complete with Chickenhawk - "a pretty impressive predator"
Jodi Rudoren NYT's on Rep Molloham, W.Va DEM & Rocky's buddy.

F.B.I. Set to Present Subpoenas to Lawmaker's Nonprofits

Gateway had the link to that - looks like an exciting Spring/Summer.


FYI Greta will Roy Black (Rush's Lawyer) on her show tonight.


How very odd. AJ has linked to a blogger that has pulled up the non-archived http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/12/26/torturet.html>2002 WaPo article entitled "Torture Tactics Used on Terrorism Suspects Held in Secret Overseas". Dana Priest and Barton Gellman Staff writers Bob Woodward, Susan Schmidt and Douglas Farah, and correspondent Peter Finn in Berlin, contributed to this report. She rewrites the earlier story in 2005 and wins a Pulitzer? So just when did Mary contribute to the story? What was her job description in 2002?


For anyone interested, here is the link to the http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/04/is_the_priest_s.html>blogger. Interesting stuff.



I'm not sure I weighed in an approval or disapproval on the Pincus thing. The only thing I remember is the detail that his source gave him a waiver to speak to fitz but not to let his name be known pubicly.

As for the MoM thing, I thought I answered you? Maybe I didn't. I was only responding to the notion that if Mary hadn't spoken with Dana Priest at all, a waiver was out of the question. It wouldn't even make sense. That's all I was saying.

If Mary had spoke with Priest (which seems to be the case) then of course, the possibility of a waiver would make sense.

I think it's possible I wasn't clear and you simply misunderstood me. At the point I wrote that I wasn't 100% sure Mary had ever spoken with Priest. That seems not to be the case.


Libby talked to Cooper after rove did? Both on July 11th?


Sue, that is from Riehlworldview, isn't it. I thought that was a fascinating comparion of the 2002 and 2005 stories where about the only difference is that the earlier story praised Clinton for these renditions and the latter blamed Bush for the horrid treatment of prisoners.



That's what I call "Recycling Newspapers". LOL



Yes. After I read through all of the comments section, it seems the article is archived at WaPo.


Yes. And as commenter at that site said, wonder what Gellman thinks about Priest receiving an award for an article that was reworked, this time without his byline?


Our dear friend and esteemed colleague, Jason Leopold insists his informed sources say the Rove indictment is just around the corner..

Luskin was informed via a target letter that Fitzgerald is prepared to charge Rove for perjury and lying to investigators during Rove’s appearances before the grand jury in 2004 and in interviews with investigators in 2003 when he was asked how and when he discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, and whether he shared that information with the media.

If the grand jury returns an indictment Rove would become the second White House official - and one of the most powerful political operatives in the country - charged in the case since the leak investigation began in the fall of 2003.

In the event that an indictment is handed up by the grand jury it would be filed under seal. A press release would then be issued by Fitzgerald’s press office indicating that the special prosecutor will hold a news conference, likely on a Friday afternoon, sources close to the case said. The media would be given more than 24 hours notice of a press conference, sources added.




Which Friday afternoon?


I don't think JL shared that insight from his sources knowledgeable about the proceedings.

BTW I have heard from my sources that on a Friday afternoon there will be a traffic accident. 'Nuff siad. All hush hush. Don't ask too many questions.


IMO,If Rove was still in trouble the WH would relieved him of all duites and his position at the WH and sent him to the RNC or somewhere in Serbia. But this is just my opinion. You know what they say about opinions and a$$holes .


Shoot that did not come out quite right.

I meant, with the recent reshuffle at the WH, If Rove was still in trouble the WH would have relieved him of all duites and his position and sent him to the RNC or somewhere in Serbia.



I doubt he thinks much of it. He understands his colleagues put everything aside, including Country for the brass ring called "The Pulitzer Prize". In the MSM it is called SOP.



Out of curosity, what is your take from a legal stand point on what happened to Rush tonight?

Joe Wilson

If other people can have a conspiracy theory, so can I. Mine was sparked by a Jack Shaefer (sp) at Slate tongue-in-cheek article at Slate about the measures the press should take to not get trapped by a prosecutor.

One of the items was: have your source call the switchboard, then be transferred to your desk. Keeps the call from being easily found.

Now, if Cooper was a regular Rove contact, I could think that's what Rove did in this case. But he wasn't. Sooo (here comes the conspiracy)....

Cooper called the switchboard and asked to be transferred to Rove because HE planned to later to start the rumor that Rove was his initiating source. Rove wasn't, Cooper already knew from the grapevine, and his conversation with Rove was unmemorable. Cooper knew his call wouldn't be in Rove's logs, and he set up the perfect perjury trap on behalf of the frogmarching brigade when he testified voluntarily at the Libby GJ.

Tom Maguire

Cooper called the switchboard and asked to be transferred to Rove because HE planned to later to start the rumor that Rove was his initiating source.

A great time to start that rumor would have been September 2004 - July 2005 was a bit late.


ordi, I think he cut a reasonable deal with another out of control prosecutor.He plead not guilty, will not be subject to prosecution and is a free man.
Joe, I think that is not a bad scenario. I think you forgot some things:(1)Cooper got through the swtichboard because of a pretextual claim that he was calling about welfare reform;(2) I am certain that V. Novak reported to Luskin more than she told us, and her report included backslapping at Time about how Cooper had shilled for Calabresi who already knew from other sources about Plame and was trying to pin the tail on the WH;(3) the strong possibility that Cooper, too, knew about Plame through his wife who was a high level Clinton appointee at the same time Wilson and Anne Pincus (Walter's wife) were.


TM, In this city, it's never the wrong time to stab your political opponents in the back.

richard mcenroe

"Now I've got to go back and read all of it in detail. And it's like playing Zork -- "

And we've got Jeff for BAR BAR BAR BAR...



Thanks for your thoughts on the subject!


You're welcome, ordi.



No. I got it and I should have noted our back and forth was -just- a segue to note that Walter Pincus did the same thing I was describing.

Something tells me though, you did have some ethical Pincus point tangent to this, that was spot on.


Just a way to feel useful. Think I qualify for an associate membership in Captain Ed's new

Larwyn, just so you know I think your tank style info bombs are 1- great 2- I dig your writing style and 3- Hilarious in a good way...and what is more fun for a person with BAD? Looking to see if the BAD Granny goofed her tag, I like to think of it as your own special way of making it feel human and homey.


I can't wait to read you Priest comment, but I know there is a story about all them WAPO reporters meeting on a frequent basis ( I believe the called the War-Room or some such...I remember thinking, Oh...you mean like the WH Iraq Survey(?) Group...you mean the strategize and then you all get to get together to strategize on just how mean and evil it is that they strategize? Swell)

Rick Ballard


Does it seem a trifle odd to you that Judge Walton asked for the referral after he issued his opinion? If he reads the referral and there is a mismatch between what Fitz claimed to have been investigating in the indictment and the referral - say the referral obviates IIPA - then he has a slight problem doesn't he?

JM Hanes

Actually, Rick, I can imagine him wanting to get the Opinion out of the way before asking to see the referral. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd welcome being backed into pushing this train off the tracks.

Rick Ballard


I suppose I just don't see this as a case that is going to leave anybody with a great reputation. I hope Judge Walton runs a courtroom better than he applies logic in his opinions.


Actually, Rick, I think he should have held a hearing on some of the things he was struggling with before he decided. He should have invited Gonzales in, for example, to see whther he felt he had a conflict in overseeing Fitz, and if he didn't why didn't he resume supervision and direction of the case? Did he agree with the policies instituted by Comey--that a delegation outside the statute was appropriate and why. Remember, we have not heard a single thing on this important statutory and constitutional issue from the Department.

As to the referral letter, I doubt there is serious misrepresentations made about the thing the investigation was supposed to look at. The bigger issue was whether it and the underlying documentation met the standard DeGenova and others said it had to meet--sworn answers to 11 questions to establish applicability of the IIPA.

Now, I think that there is no honest way the Agency could have answered those questions (i.e. covert posting abroad within last 5 years, agency took every step to conceal her identity, etc). I want to know whether McCarthy played any role in the referral (as perhaps a consultant or interviewee) or in the ensuing investigation. I want to know what the agency said and who signed the clearly false affidavits attached to the referral letter.


Walton was just reeaaacching for a reason to not throw the case out based on the Fitz too special theory.
The case is too big to just toss.


Clarice -

For those of us who haven't been following this silliness 24/365, please elaborate about the tainted affidavits.

The comments to this entry are closed.