Powered by TypePad

« "A Complete Straight Shooter" | Main | "Seethe The Day" »

May 20, 2006

Comments

verner

Clarice,

Have you ever seen this? Ray MCGovern says he has worked with Alan Foley:

Alan Foley, the CIA official in charge of analysis on weapons of mass destruction, has announced his retirement. His name hit the news recently when it was learned that Foley tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the bogus report on Iraq-Niger from finding its way into the president's state-of-the-union speech. Foley's credibility was immediately attacked by the White House — which may come to regret having done so.

I have worked with Alan Foley. He is cut of the same cloth as Ambassador Wilson. I am betting that the White House's latest preemptive strike will not deter Foley and other intelligence officials able to put conscience and integrity before career from following Wilson's example.

Things are likely to get even more interesting.

Will post link to the entire piece in JOM

verner

The date on McGovern's Piece is October 4, 2003:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/McGOvern_Plame-Affair.htm

Cecil Turner

I'm not surprised you're more interested in those other sources, since the source who actually blew Plame's cover to Pincus appears to be in the White House.

Heh, heh. There's a self-awareness alert for ya.

Jane

"Deputy AG James Comey delegated to Patrick Fitzgerald "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"

That explains the lack of oversight.

noah

Jeff, care to cite Pincus saying that a White House official outed Plame to him?

Jeff

No need to read what I wrote, Rick. It's hilarious you think I'm trying to avoid State. If the Bush administration were as good at waging real war as you are at waging the war on straw, we'd be doing a lot better.

Since there's betting going on, you want to bet on whether Pincus' July 12 source came from the White House or from State?

PeterUK

Cecil,
"Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee and a leading administration critic, wrote the president June 2 asking why Bush had included the Niger case as part of the evidence he cited against Iraq. "Given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended -- that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa -- was simply false," Waxman said."

Was this the first time Niger and Africa were conflated?

sbw

Among the interesting lists JOM commenters have compiled, I do hope that someone is gathering a list of relevant scrubbed websites and the screenshots of what has been scrubbed from them.

Cecil Turner

Since there's betting going on, you want to bet on whether Pincus' July 12 source came from the White House or from State?

You mean other than the ones that came from CIA or were retired from State?

Was this the first time Niger and Africa were conflated?

No. At the latest it was Kristof's May 6 piece:

Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger . . .
I suspect it was earlier, but am too lazy to track it down.

noah

I googled "...pincus, plame, white house.." and ended up at a Kos article that quotes Pincuses article stating that an "administration" official referred to the White House NOT a White House official.

Kate

PUK..I'm afraid this is going to sound catty. Meow.

Val is a nice looking lady, but she is a little, er, mature to be a typical scandal babe. I can say that because I'm her age-alright, I'm older, darn it!

Now the media is not treating him like one, they usually reserve that treatment for the Republicans, they are called bimbos and ridiculed in the media.

Fawn Hall was truly beautiful and actually Donna Rice does very good work on protecting children on the internet. She is an articulate and commited spokeswoman and advocate for children, and still lovely.

Val is doing all the scandal babe stuff. Hide for awhile, come out and let the media see you, book deal, soon we'll have tearful tinterviews. I just don't see Tom and Daisy, I mean, Joe and Val ever giving back to the community like Donna.

Rick Ballard

Tiresome as it was, I did read your entire post. Your speculation concerning Armitage's behavior with Fitz still winds up with your finger pointed at the White House. How very surprising.

I'm sticking with Pincus using a telepathic turtle as his primary source for everything he writes. It's a kind gesture on my part to refrain from just labeling him a propagandist of the second or third tier. That you choose him as emblematic of good journalism is an opinion that I find very amusing.

clarice

Verner, I suspected but did not know that. Thank you.

noah

So, Jeff, from what I know now absent a link you are fabricating.

kim

Jeff, how come you don't quote 'The Politics of Truth' to support your arguments over here, but you do at emptywheel?
===================================

verner

Here are a few points I want everyone to keep in mind:

a)the nucleus of Joe Wilson's disinformation campaign had already started on 1-23-2002, with a letter signed by Mel Goodman (CIP), the Christisons (VIP steering committee who later resigned)and various others who would later make up Iraq Policy Information Project. It was issued by Foreign Policy in Focus--where William Goodfellow (Mr. Dana Priest) is on the board. The contact info for the letter leads to Institute of Policy studies--a group connected to the Nation mag and CIP.

b) Alan Foley, Val's boss, was resentful of Cheney.

c) Ray McGovern of VIPS states that he has "worked with Alan Foley"

d) Val sends the "Crazy reports" memo and recommends her husband. He goes pro-bono, and does not sign a confidentiality agreement.

e) We suspect that Joe Wilson joins Iraq Policy Information Project and either before or in OCtober 2002 (around the time of the report on Niger Uranium is released) when he writes his first letter to the editor in the San Jose Mercury.

Wow, interesting timeline.

clarice

noah, Jeff is emulating Fitz, trimming a couple of pesky pieces to get the jig saw puzzle to fit even though it yields the wrong picture and a lot of spare pieces.

noah

Maybe Jeff is one of Leopold's "sources" which put Leopold just a sock puppet away from his "story".

PeterUK

Kate,
She probably had it when they hired her...don't gorget Fitz is a middle aged batchelor.

clarice

verner--even so, Joe remained rather within the Scowcroftian limited criticism of a war with Iraq until after May 2 and the SDPC meeting where he (and his wife) met with Kristof.

verner

Clarice,

Did you ever read this from "The Nation"?

comment | posted February 13, 2003 (March 3, 2003 issue)
Republic or Empire?
Joseph Wilson

It may be a bit Scocroftian, but is also seems to fit right in with the WWW/IPIP bunch--and besides, part of Joe's value to the IPIP people was the ability to claim that he was a Republican.

clarice

So, let's start at the beginning: Foley is likely the highest person in the agency to have known about the Mission; he is also Plame's immediate boss and likely to have particiapted in the preparation of the referral letter; he is a friend of McGovern who is cheek and jowl with Wilson and who first floated the "forgery" story (June 14 EPIC) and been a source for a significant number of journos who framed the frame. He is also likely to have been among the very first people the investigators talked to.

clarice

I don't recall reading that Verner but have traced a number of his public statements pre May 2003 and I do know that he was in thick with Katrina and The Nation. And yes heplayed the Republicn shtick for a while until his contributions were made public and his role in the Kerry campaign made evident.

noah

So Jeff is a "lego master" of Plameology except when he fabricates? Hmmm. (Not to be confused with a "lunatic retard" [which BTW originated on an old thread where Jeff seemingly could not grasp the meaning of "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good" despite much patient and well-meaning explanation]).

verner

And, let's add, Katrina and the Nation were thick with the VIPS.

PeterUK

Clarice,
Then Foley would be the ideal person to spot the possibilities in Joe's Amazing African Adventure,also in a good position to prevent the Niger forgeries from being passed up the line?

clarice

Well, yes, PUK. Remember the SSCI said that for 6 months they remained locked away in a safe in the office where Plame worked (per the SSCI). The on the record explanation was that they were to go to some member of the team who was away on the day it was distributed and in that person's absence, they were locked up and forgotten.

Was the intended recipient Plame? Was Joe wrong on "the names and dates were wrong" because his wife had not seen what we'd received? Just asking.

verner

And Foley would have also been in an excellent position to make a few phone calls to his old buddie Ray McGovern, complaining about Cheney and the neo-con "cabal" that was trying to take over the agency.

I wonder if Foley ever worked with Mel Goodman too?

Lurker

Ah ha! So Ray McGovern's statement of meeting Wilson for the first time in June '03 was most likely incorrect.

Wonder when Val announced her retirement to stay at home with her twins (s), if she was actually working at home for Brewster Jennings today?

clarice

Miller reported that Libby said Tenet was unaware of the Mission. Foley wasn't, however. He obviously cleared the off the books Mission, terms (including burying it in office expenses, no written report and no non-disclosure agreement). Because he didn't tell Tenet about it and because there was scant record evidence of the Mission, it delayed the Administration response to the lies.

Then, as I have surmised Foley plays a key role in the phony referral letter and in the investigation, pointing the investigators in the direction of his political enemies.

Lurker

"I googled "...pincus, plame, white house.." and ended up at a Kos article that quotes Pincuses article stating that an "administration" official referred to the White House NOT a White House official."

Sounds like...Armitage or Hadley?

verner

Maybe it is true that McGovern didn't' "physically" meet Wilson until June , but that is irrelivant. People that McGovern was in close contact with certainly had--through IPIP for example. McGovern would have know a lot about Wilson.

clarice

I take it we can assume from her close connection to IPIP that Dana Priest also knew Plame's identity.

Kate

PUK...Yes, I think Plame could clearly manipulate Fitzgerald.

Lurker: I knew Hadley was innocent when he was having fun with the media last fall when his name was floated as Woodward's source. The JL/JW/LJ crowd have been after Hadley for sometime. I think they've give up on that.

owl

Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted 20 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.

The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name as well as the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Gonzales said he would not comment specifically on whether The New York Times should be prosecuted for disclosing the NSA program last year based on classified information.

He also denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources.

"We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said, under a "probable cause" legal standard.

But he added that the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security. If the government's probe into the NSA leak turns up criminal activity, prosecutors have an "obligation to enforce the law."

"It can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," Gonzales told ABC's "This Week."

Think my first AP to love.

PeterUK

Clarice,
It still looks like this might have been originally CIA CYA,until someone noticed the political explosiveness therin.If it was important enough for Wilson to be sent to Niger and write an op-ed about,it was important enough for others to have evaluated up the line.

clarice

It may be tantalizing to suppose honeypot Plame manipulated Fitz but I think it more likely that Foley did.

clarice

PUK, perhaps Foley was on the CYA script, but Mac keeps throwing out tantalizing clues about people in the agency being involved in the OFF bonanza and even suggesting that money they received from it was used to fund off the books ops..I have no firm fix on this.

But I suspect that Beers and Clarke noticed the political advantage to Kerry of the Ambassador and his Mission in any event.

Lurker

Too bad the democrats gave AP Gonzales a hard time when he was nominated for a Supreme Court justice position. Seems he has one of the sanest heads in WDC at this time.

Ok, here's a very strange article:

Not gonna tell what the title is

Posted by MerlinOS over at AJStrata about the strange article above:

"First it does not have any value as to the validity of the case at all, it is only a clear hatchet job about someone indirectly related to this issue. The story is admittedly based in part on a source that is a self admitted liar even in the story. The title of the article seems to profess invasion of privacy but then proceeds to do so in reckless abandon."

clarice

If Mac's hypothesis seems farfetched, recall that CYA 's lamebrained scheme to pass on to the Iranians a slightly wrong blueprint for a nuclear reactor backfired when their messenger pointed out to theme the doctored parts thereby speeding up their nuclear program.

verner

So Foley throws a rotten egg referral over Plame's "outing" right as he walks out the door. And if it turns out later that the referral was bogus, what can they do to him? (Has a whiff of Mary McCarthy, doesn't it. She almost got away with the same thing.) By the time they (Lawyers at Justice) figure it out, the referral has been leaked to the press, and they are screaming for blood. JD can't just throw it in the trash, it would look too "political." Thus, we get Patrick Fitzgerald.

clarice

There's a certain karmic wheel here--see the Gonzales statement above..And let me tell the press I TOLD YOU SO a long time ago.

Lurker

Wonder if Porter Goss verified the authenticity of the CIA referral letter. If not, then Hayden can be asked to verify its authenticity?

I'm lost as to whether we *know* that the CIA referral letter is factually bogus.

Lurker

From what I've read about MacRanger, his ideas don't seem farfetched.

verner

Clarice,

Notice that Dana Priest is one of the people Libby's lawyers want docs from.

She would be one of the first people I put under oath.

If I were a betting woman, I'm say the farm goes on yes, Priest knew about Val.

Now, will the judge let that in?

Jeff

So, Jeff, from what I know now absent a link you are fabricating.

noah, far be it from me to assert that you know much. And let me add you don't know how to reason either. Be that as it may, here is one of numerous things I might cite indicating Pincus' July 12 on Plame was in the White House. It's Pincus on NPR's Weekend Edition on October 23, 2005, being interviewed by John Ydstie. I don't have a link; but I'm more than happy to have this be a test of whether I'm a fabricator or you're an idiot.

here's what Pincus says:

Mr. PINCUS: Well, I think it--in this case, what you have is little pieces that have been picked up. And the material that's been released so far, it appears that the ambassador goes on "Meet the Press" July the 6th. On July 8th, somebody talks to Robert Novak and mentions Wilson's wife's alleged role in setting up the trip. By then that same day there is a conversation between New York Times correspondent Judy Miller and Scooter Libby. And the two of them had already talked about this and he had mentioned Wilson's wife. You then had other reporters being contacted. Matt Cooper was contacted by Karl Rove and given the same story. And then I was called on July 12th, and a White House source in effect asked why I was still writing about Joe Wilson's trip, didn't I know that his wife had arranged it, and since at least two people are involved in talking about it, those things in this White House, it's assumed don't happen independently.

I appreciate being prompted to look back at this, because that last bit is interesting. I wonder if there's reason to rule Rove out as Pincus' source. I doubt it's him. But it's still interesting.

clarice

Lurker, we know she wasn't "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA and that the agency did not do everything it could to protect her identity--necessary elements of the referral and therefore I maintain the referral was false.

Lurker

Re: AP Gonzales' interview

"In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name as well as the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program."

Funny that Fitz's original objective is now absorbed by AP Gonzales' department.

If Wilson was the one that "outed" Plame's identity, does it mean that AP Gonzales can prosecute him even though he may not call himself a journalist?

clarice

??????????? Lurker,I think the AG is pointing out the obvious that as a result of the Plame investigation, it's been established that journos have to testify in leak investigations. No more than that.

And as I said, it's that karmic wheel turning.

Lurker

Thanks, Clarice, ya think that the Team Libby will challenge the authenticity of the CIA Referral letter and its contents?

Jane

On the Chris Matthews show (I know I know) in the "tell me something I don't know" segment, Kathleen Parker just predicted that Karl Rove would not be indicted on Tuesday, next week or in the next few weeks and went on to say it was likely that he would not be indicted but would receive a "letter of declination".

She premised her remarks by recognizing Matthews and his producers disappointment.

Matthews said a letter of declination still didn't sound like a good Christmas (or something, equally inane.)

Lurker

Sorry, Clarice, I should've honed in on the first paragraph in addition to the copied / pasted paragraph:

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security."

clarice

since at least two people are involved in talking about it, those things in this White House, it's assumed don't happen independently. Just goes to show how easy assumptions are often wrong.

If the call was from Cathy Martin--we know her source was Harlow who it turns out was one of Novak's sources...again establishing the falsity of the referral letter's claim that the agency was doing everything in its power to protect her identity from disclosure.

verner

Maybe so Lurker, but let me ask, can anyone produce one shred of evidence, not coming from Joe Wilson, that indicates the Val was NOC? After all this time, certainly something would pop up. And as I've said, even the VIPs are backing off that claim.

Until the letter is made public, how can we know for sure?

Just a little something to chew on--maybe the letter is still under wraps beause it is evidence in a broader investigation of CIA leaks. Who knows?

Cecil Turner

I wonder if there's reason to rule Rove out as Pincus' source. I doubt it's him. But it's still interesting.

What's most interesting is your apparent uninterest in Pincus's original source. Which makes the "proof" of the white House "outing" her more than a little silly.

clarice

A letter of declination is a formal letter from a prosecutor indicating you are not being charged with wrongdoing. I should imagine Rove's counsel asked for it because of the length of the investigation and the publicity which has for so long suggested he engaged in wrongdoing.

If the report is true, perhaps both Truth out and Hardball should be put in suicide watch.

PeterUK

"I'm lost as to whether we *know* that the CIA referral letter is factually bogus.

The very first thinga any agency of state does in a CYA operation is classify,invoke the not in the public interest rule,keep the lid on things.

Ranger

This is the same Pincus that "forgot" that Bob Woodward told him the whole story about Plame sending her husband weeks before all of those phone calls he's refering to?

clarice

Why not ask TM to invite Foley here for an online session where we get to ask that little weasel a few questions ourselves.

clarice

Re, the AG's remarks, isn't it odd that Rockefeller skipped the eyden hearings claiming back problems and yet the next day kissed his butt in a presser? Mac says he's under investigation--was his security clearance suspended?

And isn;t it odd after having received 30 briefings and yet claiming publicly they were in the dark about the NSA program, only 7 Senators showed up for the more detailed private briefing? I hate that the Dems treat national security so lightly that they politicized it so.

Lurker

Just saw this post over at TO:

" Maybe The Rove Story Was Rather Biased
Dear Marc:

Remeber the "Bush New Questions on Bush Guard Duty" fiasco that involved CBS and Dan Rather in September, 2004?

The Neo-Cons -- with the obvious hand of Karl Rove -- had once again brought an old political trick into the digital age:

1) Somebody jumps the gun on a story embarrassing to Bush and Rove. The
"digital age" part of the trick is to put a "high tech" feint into the story. [I'm not saying that this is the cleverest way to pull the shenanagan off. It's more
of a matter of it being the neo-con's "M.O."

In the Rather story, the story was "proven false" because it had been typed on a PC that used WordPerfect. Obviously, WordPerfect wasn't available in 1974.

2. The Busheviks use the "jumping the gun" part of the story so as to discredit the accusation or indictment in its entirety.

3. If the Bushies get lucky, some ethical journalists recant their error and that soon becomes the entire focus of the story -- not the contents of it.

What CBS did to themselves with the Bush Guard Duty story was obviously pre-planned AND very probably with their consent. Didn't Gordon Sumner say that year that "Bush is better for our (Viacom's) bottom line?" The trick CBS sold its soul over took the entire Bush Guard story out of circulation for the rest of the 2004 campaign.

CBS thought it even looked better in the end for doing an "internal investigation" of Dan Rather and CBS News. The investigation would (temporarily) appease the Right's fantasy that Rather is a dangerous liberal and even make CBS (temporarily)look like it somehow still gives a shit about the truth.

So don't knock yourself out over the premature leak of Rove's indictment. Obviously, Jason Leopold is not to be trusted ever again. [By the way, the "high tech" slant here was to use a blog to prematurely release the story.]

If it means anything: assume that Fitzgerald is a Republican appointed to a Federal judgeship with the consent of the Federalist Society -- until it's proven otherwise. ergo, probably no one will be indicted for the actual leak of Plame's CIA status -- which is why the Justice Department picked Fitzgerald in the first place.

by pellelindbergh (stellagh444@sbcglobal.net) on Sun May 21st, 2006 at 08:48:30 AM EDT"

Thought the last paragraph was interesting. Clarice, what do you think?

PUK and Clarice, based on your rationales, donja think Fitz should've come to the same conclusion as you did? Shows how incompetent he is plus the lack of ability to separate the wheat from the chaff, huh?

verner

Does anyone know if Fitz ever talked to Foley?

Suicide Watch at Hardball. Now THAT would be worth watching!

PeterUK

"If the report is true, perhaps both Truth out and Hardball should be put in suicide watch."

Nah,they are too frail to live,besides they would have wanted to go this way.

clarice

Lurker, so now JL's pack of lies was a Rovian trick along with the TANG memos? Where is Soylent? We really, really need him.

What do I think about that last graph, Lurker? It is the product of the same deranged mind that wrote the preceding graphs.

Tom Maguire

On Pincus - at Jeff's suggestion last fall, I actually listened to the NPR segment.

And I was goaded by the change adopted by the WaPo:

Pincus, who spoke with Fitzgerald early in the case after his source said he could, has never revealed who told him that Wilson's wife helped arrange the trip to Niger. Pincus has said the source was not Libby, and has described the person as a "White House official" who called him. The source came forward to the prosecutor and released Pincus to discuss their conversation with Fitzgerald but not with the public.

Oddly, the CJR in early 2006 made new news but backpedaled on the White House source - CJR cleared up my whine that Pincus had never actually said his *FIRST* Plame leak came on July 12. However, CJR also went back to "Administration" for the source. My guess - inadequate research.

Two quick hits - first, here is a link to the chapter of Wilson's book with the Novak encounter. Fans of metaphor will thrill to this:

Who Valerie was and what she did, or who I was and what I did, were merely the administration's means of obfuscating the real issue and confusing the public. The White House was trying to fling dust into the eyes of the press and public...

I thought it was "sand".

Lots more: from Dwilkers, on my wild Russert scenario:

But he didn't know about [Russert's testimony] before his own testimony, TM.

That posits Armitage playing a very dangerous game. Of course there is evidence he was doing exactly that with the Woodward thing.

Well, OK. Of course, they may have a confidentialy understanding, Russert may have been talking to him as Woodward was, etc.

But my point is not so much that I think it happened - my point is that, if it *might* have happened, the obstruction is material, and Fitzgerald ought to think so.

Supplemental Thoughts - There is *no way* Fitzgerald announces that he is indicting Armitage because that obstruction has thrown reasonable doubt on the Libby case. But that connection is so obvious that maybe it becomes a reason for not indicting Armitage at all.

Second Supplement - a similar argument about the materiality of ROVE's obstruction could be made. Maybe Rove leaked to Russert, then sat tight on that, like he did with Coooper.
In which case, indicting Rove with an argument that he may have undermined the investigation by leaving open the possibilty that he leaked to Russert is awkward re the Libby case for the same reason Armitage is.

Oh, as to Jeff's idea that the WH leaked to Woodward the ID of Novak's source - maybe yes, maybe no.

In the May 5 trancript, the defense officialy does not know the Woodward source, so presumably they don't know Novak's source either.

But oddly, there is a sentence in the transcript suggetsing that Rove told Libby both the Novak story *and* Novak's source. In that case, Libby knows darn well who leaked to Novak.

Alternatively, Rove knew Novak's source, never told Libby, but leaked it to Woodward in late Oct as Jeff suggested.

Kate

Didn't know that Rove is alleged to have leaked to Russert. Thought Rove talked to Cooper and Novak. Thought Russert and Libby talked.

clarice

Here's a suggestion to Fitz..If Armitage actually obstructed and you don't charge him, rest assure that Libby will adduce that in the course of his trial and you will appear even more unethical than you already do. And you will lose that case as well.

TM, I do not see that Fitz has a choice if Armitage did not come clean and was actually asked about who else he told.

OTOH, I am not at all sure he asked him.

Jeff

What's most interesting is your apparent uninterest in Pincus's original source.

And that is? As Tom says

CJR cleared up my whine that Pincus had never actually said his *FIRST* Plame leak came on July 12.

The passage from CJR (which Tom linker to):

This July 12 conversation, Pincus says, was the first time he ever heard of Valerie Plame's CIA employment. (In previous accounts, he has not been entirely explicit about that point.)

Tom - polly, it seems, is in the process of collecting evidence of an effort in October 2005 by the White House to push reporters in the direction of Novak's source, clarifying that the source was not in the White House and so on. The effort looks vaguely familiar.

Cecil Turner

And that is?

Odds-on favorite is Joe wilson. (If he told five others, why would he hide it from Pincus? Why would Pincus buy his story without bona-fides?) Val is second, Woodward third.

This July 12 conversation, Pincus says, was the first time he ever heard of Valerie Plame's CIA employment. (In previous accounts, he has not been entirely explicit about that point.)

Nice denial. It's not even a quote, but a paraphrase. Also interesting is this bit:

Woodward said he had mentioned the tidbit to Pincus in the newsroom that same month. Pincus insists that he remembers no such conversation.
Now why am I thinking if Libby were telling a story like this (through an intermediary) you'd be calling him a liar?

PeterUK

Cecil,
Ah Yes! These Chronicler Monks living in their separate cells,with absolutely no contact with each other,even at their devotions in the Press Club Bar.

owl

When choosing between if Russert knew or did not know when he talked to Libby... That's all they talked about.

June 13..Russert trying to pin Condi over Wilson.

July 6..Mitchell has Wilson (again!!they beat the drum over and over at that place)

July 21?..Mitchell interviews...da dum..Wilson

Matthews rant about the back and forth complaining....and Mitchell said she knew (more than once). Joe and Val already joined the DNC......

So Russert was trying to pin Condi without any background?

clarice

PUK, you are such an amusing feller..
Owl--nice piece of work there.

Cecil Turner

These Chronicler Monks living in their separate cells,with absolutely no contact with each other,even at their devotions in the Press Club Bar.

No kidding. It's even less believable than the proposition that Pincus would talk to the guy who went on the mission, and the guys who sent him, as well as somebody familiar with the after-action report and its routing, and yet all decided to obscure the obvious link between them. Incredible! (As in "not credible.")

kim

Jeff, what's familiar is you imputing evil motives where they don't belong. What in God's name is wrong with the White House trying to save Fitz's reputation and career by outing Armitage before the Libby indictment?
====================================

topsecretk9

The White House was trying to fling dust into the eyes of the press and public...

Pathetic.


One thing to remember is Libby's team incessant use of Marc Grossman. This has the potential of really embarrassing Fitz and I am sure he's gotten a clue, hence Armitage and Novak GJ sightings...Marc Grossman definitely created the perception the WH was on a campaign (1x2x6), but when Woodward showed up he created an even bigger pickle for his boss Armitage.

Armitage is caught in a web of Grossman. Personally, I think if Armitage is cooperating it is more about Grossman than Rove, BTJMe.

PeterUK

Clarice,
This reminds me of the "He's Spartacus" moment.

topsecretk9

This is pretty funny:

Psst. Here’s the news. Karl Rove has been indicted. It happened last Friday at his lawyer’s office in Washington. Patrick Fitzgerald was there, and so was Rove. They tried to make a deal, but in the end Fitz handed Rove the indictment and gave him 24 hours to get his affairs in order. It’s a huge story. Huge. But the right-wing MSM—you know, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the networks—are so in the tank for Bush that they’re covering it up. The only guy with the guts to report it is Jason Leopold at that website, truthout.org. But as soon as he did, the wing nuts—hacks like Byron York at National Review Online—started attacking him, saying Rove’s people are denying everything. Get this—they say Rove and Fitz weren’t even at that office at all on Friday. It never happened. Well, don’t believe it. Jason is a first-rate journalist—don’t buy all that stuff about his being fired for untrue stories or any of it. He’s got the sources—just ask Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson. Jason is right. You’ll see. Really.
verner

"Why not ask TM to invite Foley here for an online session where we get to ask that little weasel a few questions ourselves."

Would be nice. On second thought, maybe we should send an e-mail to Byron York and get him to give Foley a call over at his new lab gig. He couldn't exactly claim that the answer to "How long have you known Ray McGovern ?" was classified information.

Wonder if Foley would return York's call?

clarice

PUK "He's Spartacus" from the movie or from the Pepsi ad? (Nothing's sacred in the commercial world here you know.)

clarice

Here's Foley's contact information:
Name Alan Andrew Foley
Work Phone +1 630-252-8232
Fax Number +1 630-252-5318
E-Mail Address foley@anl.gov

Quesrions we should ask:
1. How long have you known Ray McGovern?
2. Did you approve sending Wilson to Niger?
3. Were you the person who determined he needn't sign a non-disclosure statement?
4. When did you inform Pavitt and/or Tenet about the Mission?
5. Did you play any role in the preparation of the referral letter?
6. If so, did you state therein that Plame was a NOC? That the agency had done everything possible to protect her ientity from disclosure?
7. Were you ever questioned by DoJ investigators (including FBI and CIA agents acting on their behalf) about the Mission? When?


Patton

Val has gotten away scot free in most of this and I think she is the most culpable.

If she actually was in any way under cover, then it is her primary responsibility to preserve her under cover status.

Sending hubby on a missions an then let him do 50 interviews and attack the President in the NYT with lies is not the best way to maintain your covertness.

I can just see Val sitting at her desk at HQ smacking her gum and filing her nails when they came in with a mission to Africa....Hell no, I ain't going, I get two babies at home - I'll send my husband.

Lurker

Interesting article about Able Danger Documents...NOT Lost!!

Roughly ten thousand pages NOT destroyed.

These would most certainly disprove the conspiracy theories of 9/11.

But FOIA requests denied. FOIA response referred to an index of public documents, which implies that Able Danger information is correct?

Wonder if we can get Stephen Haynes to help these two guys to get those documents released?

And isn't Curt Weldon the target (as usual) by the dems?

clarice

I'm emailing Foley. Anyone have any other questions I should ask?

Lurker

"

Val has gotten away scot free in most of this and I think she is the most culpable.

If she actually was in any way under cover, then it is her primary responsibility to preserve her under cover status.

Sending hubby on a missions an then let him do 50 interviews and attack the President in the NYT with lies is not the best way to maintain your covertness.

I can just see Val sitting at her desk at HQ smacking her gum and filing her nails when they came in with a mission to Africa....Hell no, I ain't going, I get two babies at home - I'll send my husband."

Ya think AP Gonzales can prosecute Val (and Foley) for not abiding by the procedures of NOC status?

Also, you sure Fitz (or one of his delegates) reads these threads?

Patton

Can you imagine if Valerie was instead an ACE reporter and Tim Russert was her boss.

Here's the meeting:

Tim: So Valerie, how was the trip to Africa, did you find out anything about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake?

Val: Ohh no. I didn't go myself, I sent my husband, Chris Mathews said it would be alright, I just need to write a little memo on how qualified he is for the job.

Tim: But he is former government official, are they going to talk to him about sensitive stuff?

Val: Ohh, its OK, he's telling everyone he meets that everything they tell him will get back to the US government.

Tim: But aren't government officials going to not want to talk...

Val: Oh, he's not talking to any current officials, just ones out of office.

Tim: Well it would seem they wouldn't want to talk..

Val: Oh, they talked, they said Iraq has talked to them a couple times about trade, blah, blah you know the usual.

Tim: Well maybe I should have Andrea Mitchell debrief him about the trip?

Val: Oh sure, but could she do it at our house? He needs to watch the kids now that he's back from the junket...

Val: Anyway, he didn;t really need to go, we could have told you before he left that
those Frenchies have that place locked down tight..no Yellowcake getting out ever.

Tim: Well, were you aware that Pakistan started its Nuclear program with illicit trade of Yellowcake from Niger?

Val: Ohh, really, hmm. Anyway, I've got to go, I've got interviews and a book to get working on.

Tim: Thanks

Jeff

What in God's name is wrong with the White House trying to save Fitz's reputation and career by outing Armitage before the Libby indictment?

That's obviously not what the motive was (and I didn't say anything about the alternative being evil), since the White House could with good reason assume that Fitzgerald knew who Novak's first source was.

clarice

I sent a slightly amplied series of questions to Foley. I'll post his answers as soon as I get them. *wink*

Cecil Turner

That's obviously not what the motive was . . .

The motive for the conjectured "outing" of a "leaker" you don't have any evidence to suggest happened? Riveting. Why don't we speculate on Joe's motive for lying about telling folks about his wife's employment and involvement in his trip? Seems a bit more pertinent, eh?

verner

Good on you Clarice! My guess, he'll respond in 24 business hours. LOL

You didn't use the name of some mystery British journalist when you sent it now, did you?

clarice

I used verner..NOT.

kim

Son, son, son. Are you being purposely obtuse? Did Fitz know that Armitage had also told Woodward? Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder about you.
=================================

Patton

"""Did Fitz know that Armitage had also told Woodward? ""

Well, if he had listened to Libby, he would have known some big-time journalist may have told Libby, and he knew from one phone call to Russert that it wasn't him.

So why did Fitz stop looking? Why didn't he check and see what other journalists Libby had met with in late June/Early July
to find out if any of them knew?

Then he would have found Woodward ....ohh, that's right, he didn't want to prove Libby might be trying to tell the truth from memory, he just figured Libbys lying and no other big time journalist, male, late 50s, works in DC, has interviews with government leaders...etc. etc.

He needed to indict a White House person and so finding Woodward was not on the agenda.

clarice

Good leakers/bad leakers, Patton..Colin and friends inviolable..Cheney and staff putatively guilty by association and post hoc ESP.

Syl

Tom

Supplemental Thoughts - There is *no way* Fitzgerald announces that he is indicting Armitage because that obstruction has thrown reasonable doubt on the Libby case. But that connection is so obvious that maybe it becomes a reason for not indicting Armitage at all.

Second Supplement - a similar argument about the materiality of ROVE's obstruction could be made.

I disagree. Fitz is a prosecutor. He's looking for people who have committed a crime. If the indictment of someone else exonerates Libby well so be it.

I think fitz' only consideration would be how strong a case he's made against whomever he may indict. If he's weighing his options, he would go with the case he thinks has the best chance of conviction.

And with Libby's case weakening, fitz might just go for it.


jeff

Tom - polly, it seems, is in the process of collecting evidence of an effort in October 2005 by the White House to push reporters in the direction of Novak's source, clarifying that the source was not in the White House and so on. The effort looks vaguely familiar.

Well, ask polly to show you any evidence that the White House is pushing reporters in the direction of Armitage. All we've got is whosits relating what Inman said--but Inman has been saying it for a while in other venues as well. For all we know the current Armitage stuff is a smokescreen to take the heat off JL.

BTW, what difference does it make if anyone in the administration informed Woodward who Novak's source was? I just don't see it. 'First leak' was the trigger for Woodward to talk and that doesn't depend on who Novak's source was.

clarice

So, Patton, what is Fitz going to do now..now that the effect of his one-sided investigation becomes patent?

Tom Maguire

"But seriously, if Libby didn't see the op-ed, what do y'all think Cheney did with it? "

I dispute the premise that Cheney has lost the power of speech - why couldn't Dick just ask Libby about it?

And Libby denying that he saw it is *not* a denial that he discussed the op-ed or Plame with Cheney on that day.

I would like to think I have an ear for cracking ice...

Tom Maguire

From Clarice:

If Armitage actually obstructed and you don't charge him, rest assure that Libby will adduce that in the course of his trial and you will appear even more unethical than you already do. And you will lose that case as well.

I agree - this will come out at Libby's trial anyway. However, Fitzgerald may square that circle by delivering a conspiracy indictment. Here is a Google cache of Armitage as a member of the Aspen Institute, Judy and Libby's haunt.

I fear for the Administration, but I am mainly worried that if Jeff gets an Armitage/Cheney/Libby conspiracy he will be insufferable (thereby crowding my ecological niche...)

clarice

Then one would suppose such a discussion would have been the subject of inquiry and Fitz would not need this article because he would have more direct evidence of such a discussion. And, of course, if he had been asked and denied it and Fitz had contrary evidence--say from the VP we'd have had another count in the indictment,TM.

Do not underestimate the amount of razzle dazzle we are getting..

topsecretk9

---For all we know the current Armitage stuff is a smokescreen to take the heat off JL.---

Seems to me what it is.

clarice

An ESP conspiracy,TM? That would be a novel addition to Fitz' already creative reading of the federal criminal laws.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame