Murray Waas On The Ashcroft Recusal

Murray Waas has some backstory on the Ashcroft recusal:

Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews. Despite these briefings, which took place between October and December 2003, and despite the fact that senior White House aides might become central to the leak case, Ashcroft did not recuse himself from the matter until December 30, when he allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to take over the investigation.

According to people with firsthand knowledge of the briefings, senior Justice Department officials told Ashcroft that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had misled the bureau about his role in the leaking of Plame's identity to the press.

By November, investigators had obtained personal notes of Libby's that indicated he had first learned from Cheney that Plame was a CIA officer. But Libby was insisting in FBI interviews that he had learned Plame's name and identity from journalists. Libby was also telling investigators that when he told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, he was only passing along an unsubstantiated rumor.

I have read it three times, but I still can't answer this question - did Libby, with or without the assistance of his notes, tell the FBI in his October interview that he first learned about Ms. Plame from Dick Cheney?

I can see that Mr. Waas is trying to hint that Libby did not - he tells us what Libby did say in October, tells us that the FBI only got Libby's notes in November, and reassures us that in his November session, Libby copped to the Cheney connection.  All very suggestive.

But why is it so hard to actually write "Libby concealed the Cheney disclosure in his October interview with the FBI"?

And let's just say that this is quite an impressive cover-up - Libby handed over his handwritten notes mentioning that Cheney discussed Plame with him.  If he remembered taking those notes, why hand them over and then try to conceal the conversation?  Shouldn't he have either lost the notes or frantically re-written them?  Or else handed them over and then admitted that he discussed Plame with Cheney?

Of course, if Libby actually had forgotten that conversation with Cheney, the rest of his story and behavior makes a bit more sense. 

But maybe Libby is so smart that he calculated that the FBI would reason that way and let him go - it's the old "I'll hand over the notes that contradict me and then say 'I Forgot', because nobody who really remembered could be that stupid" defense.  Well, it didn't work.

As to the rest - fine, in the fall of 2003, the FBI had suspicions of a politically motivated cover-up.  Two and a half years later, does Fitzgerald plan to translate those suspicions into an indictment and offer evidence in support of it?  And when, in the fall of 2003, did the FBI learn the identity of Novak's first source (Presumably Richard Armitage of State)?  What is going to be done with him?

Last May 8, when the WaPo told us that Fitzgerald was close to wrapping up his investigation, I put a 70% probability on a Rove indictment and added this:

I also don't understand VandeHei's lead, that Fitzgerald is close to wrapping up his investigation of Rove.  Why should Fitzgerald announce anything?  He is not going out of business, since he has the Libby trial to contend with, and maybe Libby (or somebody) will suddenly offer evidence relevant to Rove's situation.  Lightning may strike.

As a matter of fair play, Fitzgerald may announce that he is not actively pursuing a case against Rove or anyone else.  But if he announces nothing, I won't be surprised.

A month later, nothing has been announced (Jinx!).  As we play "Waiting for Fitzgerald", let me officially note that the probability of a Rove indictment ought to be falling with the passage of time.  Consequently, I will back-pedal to 50-50.

MORE:  Now the FBI doubles as journalism critics?  This is weak on the Rove-Novak problem:

Rove told the FBI that when Novak mentioned Plame's CIA connection and that she might have played a role in selecting her husband to go to Niger, he (Rove) simply said that he had heard much the same information. According to sources, Novak later told investigators a virtually identical story.

Ashcroft was advised during the fall 2003 briefings that investigators had strong doubts about Novak's and Rove's accounts of their July 9 conversation. The investigators were skeptical that Novak would have relied merely on an offhand comment from Rove as the basis for writing his column about Plame.

The investigators were skeptical that Novak used a weak second source because he had a strong first source and other confirmation that *something* was up (such as his chat with CIA press spokesperson Bill Harlow)?  Fine, then Matt Cooper is lying when he says that Libby was source, since, per Cooper, all Libby said in confirmation was ' "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect.'

Well, we didn't like that spin the last time Mr. Waas promoted it; if the FBI is still promoting it, we still don't like it - I can accept that it puzzled them in the fall of 2003, but surely it is clear by now that at least one other journalist on this case did exactly that.

Comments

[cathyf]

The investigators were skeptical that Novak would have relied merely on an offhand comment from Rove as the basis for writing his column about Plame.

Notice how well this fits my "Geeks vs Gossips" explanation. The journalists know that creating "personal interest" (i.e. gossipy details) is what gets people to read stories and what sells newspapers. The gossipy details that the geeky/wonky/nerdy serious policy guys aren't interested in. The journalist is the synthesizer of information -- gets the good gossip dished out by UGO, then goes over to the geeks to get the substantive stuff. While at the geeks, dishes some gossip, gets and "Unh, huh, yep I heard it too" but they move on the the weighty stuff immediately afterwards.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Maybe we should give the FBI a better idea of how journos work? Maybe Fitz, too?

[Patton]

I think if Woodward had come forward sooner, Libby wouldn't have even been indicted, or at best he would have only 1-2 counts.

Fitzs investigation is what was off track.

[Other Tom]

For what it's worth, the madmen at TruthOut are still insisting, as of yesterday, that Rove was indicted on May 13. Gotta wonder what's going on over there.

[Rick Ballard]

"According to people with firsthand knowledge of the briefings"

Waas continues to recycle from his dedicated sources. He couldn't have a certain recently "retired" FBI agent [coughEckenrodecough] in a vest pocket could he? I mean, Fitz had Eckenrode standing right next to him at the presser right before Fitzlemas.

There sure have been a lot of "retirements" around this case. Lots of rubbish put out on the curb.

[Sue]

According to sources, Novak later told investigators a virtually identical story.

That's kind of funny. If they tell a slightly different story they get indicted for perjury, if they tell a virtually identical story they should be indicted for perjury.

[clarice]

Rick, it may be he but I suspect the source(s) are former members of Comey's Office.(I remind you that NSA refused security clearances for the Dept's OPR and I think there was a good reason for that--that people in the Dep. AG's office were suspected of leaking the NSA stuff. (I also think it may be where Mitchell learned of the referral letter, though on that I'm more agnostic. It may just as likely come from the CIA.)

[Foo Bar]

let me officially note that the probability of a Rove indictment ought to be falling with the passage of time. Consequently, I will back-pedal to 50-50.

The longer we go without an indictment, the more I wonder whether Rove is going to get through all this like the gopher at the end of the movie "Caddyshack", i.e., dancing to the Kenny Loggins song "I'm alright; don't nobody worry 'bout me".

[Gary Maxwell]

Foo

So surprised to see you out on this saddest of all sad days. Is the prozac helping? I mean seriously who could not understand the depression after hearing about Busby, and of course the memories tumbling back about Hackett. ONly moral victory after moral victory. The evil King Bush continues his reign with Rove still playing the evil Rasputin. Then to pile on, the US smokes Zarq. All anyone wants to talk about is progress in Iraq. How can this be? A lefty just cant catch a break.

[cathyf]

If they tell a slightly different story they get indicted for perjury, if they tell a virtually identical story they should be indicted for perjury.

No, no, no, Sue, keep it straight here. If you tell a slightly different story it's perjury, virtually identical stories mean conspiracy.

Oh, yeah, and if you don't remember, saying that you don't remember is a lie.

There sure are a lot of rules to keep track of...

cathy :-)

[lurker]

Anyone notice that CSPAN is going to air the YearlyKOS workshops? Perhaps, 1) some of us can watch the CIA Leak clinic. and 2) Find someone to heckle Ray McGovern?

[Sid]

Didn’t Novak use Rove as just enough support to go to the CIA who was the real first source when it verified UGO’s story that VP worked at CIA? One source says VP is CIA and recommends Joey, 2nd person “heard that too” and CIA confirms employment but denies VP was in on Joey’s TDY. Then CIA guy researches who VP is, calls Novak back and says “don’t use her name”. The CIA guy has just proven to Novak that he really did not (completely) know what he was talking about with regard to VP. Meanwhile, Joey’ buddy confronts Novak on the sidewalk, causing Joey to call Novak all hot and bothered. If I’m Novak, I confidently go to press with a 10x confirmed story.

[sad]

From James Toronto at Best of the Web in regard to a cookie theft incident at a school:

****Maybe the Justice Department should appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. After all, unlike in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle, there does seem to be an underlying crime here.*****

Sid

What you said.

[MayBee]

The sad thing is, Waas is still writing as if Libby and Rove were hiding the fact that they were Novak's source. The FBI suspected it, so Ashcroft recused himself and in came Fitzgerald.
BUT THEY WERE WRONG! Wrong wrong wrong. Someone else was Novak's source. Other people *were* talking about Plame.
So as much as it looked like Libby and Rove were lying about the leak the investigation was about....they weren't!

So Libby either did or didn't spill about Cheney. That looked bad to investigators. But so WHAT? Cheney didn't have anything to do with Novak's source either.

Why this might be a story is beyond me.

Waas:Libby looked suspicious to the FBI. Rove looked like he was making stuff up. But the FBI was wrong. I'm still going to write about it in an incriminating way!

[Tom Maguire]

Didn’t Novak use Rove as just enough support to go to the CIA who was the real first source when it verified UGO’s story that VP worked at CIA?

I don't think Novak was having a lot of angst about whether Armitage had given him a bum scoop. But a "second source" confirmation from Rove was good form.

Besides, the Admin official in Rove's story were only providing the detail that Ms. Plame sent Joe:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

If Harlow is "the CIA" in that excerpt, he certainly confirmed her CIA employment.

[Pisistratus]

'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' 'They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, ...

[MayBee]

If Harlow says "If you write about her, don't use her name," does that make her name significant?

[Carol Herman]

Just you wait.

Fitzgerald, in his rush to judgement, FORGOT to obtain Libby's state of mind.

In other words, INSIDE THE COURTROOM, Libby's DEFENSE can show what really must have been going on. Meaning the White House was AWARE OF THE CABAL to destroy the presidency. Bringing it down through a legal assault, when Conyer's received a STILL SECRET REFERRAL LETTER from the CIA, that's so far "missing in action."

You want to believe Valerie was a super-duper spy? Go right ahead.

I believe, Chirac, using the french foreign service to deceive, had every intention of providing false documentation that he thought would lead to Bush's impeachment.

And, after the prosecution rests, the DEFENSE gets to "tell a narrative." NOT ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ! But why Libby's story is TRUE; and there are media people who are parsing like crazy.

Should be interesting to see this.

As to Waas, you get to see his spinning machine. Looks broken to me. But what the heck. Time will tell. And, Wells may put the pieces together in a coherent approach.

Don't forget, I'm not a lawyer. But I take it for granted that lawyers just can't lie to the court. Fitzgerald's as close to a liar as a man can risk. NOT GET CAUGHT AT THIS LATE HOUR, however; is far from obvious.

Fitzgerald avoid following some pretty good clues. And, he's willing to accept Wilson's lies; by saying they're not important to his case. He may try to block exposure of the underlying crime. WHich he was actually sent out to investigate!

What happens, if at some future point, the White House removes the secrecy tapes surrounding the CIA's boondoggle?

[Javani]

"But the indictment of Libby alleges that he lied about this, and instead was told about Plame by Cheney, an undersecretary of State, and at least two other government officials."

So let's get this straight - Libby's recall was fake, a lie, and he trusted Cheney, an undersecretary of State, and at least two other government officials to support him in this quest. What BS.

Not BS is possible Rove-Novak collusion. He signaled to the world, incl. UGO and Rove, beforehand in an article how he was going to cast their conversations. BS, but no big deal the one who caused this public train wreck, UGO, remains uncharged and unnamed.

[Jim E.]

For a bunch of commenters that love to manufacture charges about Fitzgerald's unethical behavior, it's fascinating that no one has exactly saw fit to comment on Waas' lead.

OK, it's not fascinating. It's utterly predictable. You'd all have the vapors if Waas was reporting about Janet Reno; Aschcroft, on the other hand, gets a pass.

[Pisistratus]

Quite right Jim E. Also note that this site's focus on the whole case as Fitz's creation is belied by the fact that the FBI suspected Libby and Rove long before Fitz was enrolled.

[topsecretk9]

Sorry if this is a repeat, but...

The investigators were skeptical that Novak used a weak second source because he had a strong first source and other confirmation that *something* was up (such as his chat with CIA press spokesperson Bill Harlow)?

No kidding, on July 8th Novak said... (Politics of Truth

Late on Tuesday afternoon, July 8, six days before Robert Novak’s article about Valerie and me, a friend showed up at my office with a strange and disturbing tale. He had been walking down Pennsylvania Avenue toward my office near the White House when he came upon Novak, who, my friend assumed, was en route to the George Washington University auditorium for the daily taping of CNN’s Crossfire. He asked Novak if he could walk a block or two with him, as they were headed in the same direction; Novak acquiesced. Striking up a conversation, my friend, without revealing that he knew me, asked Novak about the uranium controversy. It was a minor problem, Novak replied, and opined that the administration should have dealt with it weeks before. My friend then asked Novak what he thought about me, and Novak answered: “Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, **Valerie**, **works for the CIA**. She’s a **weapons of mass destruction specialist**. She sent him.” At that point, my friend and Novak went their separate ways. My friend headed straight for my office a couple of blocks away...

Novak and Rove talked July 9th.

[cathyf]

I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' 'They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, ...

Project, rohrshack-like, whatever you choose on "it." That's the beauty of pronouns. ...And there you have Fitzgerald's case in a nutshell...

cathy :-)

[MayBee]

I'm not sure what you are labeling Waas's lede, Jim E. Feel free to expand your thoughts here.

In fact, I addressed the point that although the FBI was suspicious of Rove and Libby, their suspicions turned out to be ill-founded. As much as it may have looked to the FBI that Libby and Rove were hiding something about being Novaks source, they *weren't*. They a)weren't hiding anything b)they weren't Novak's main source.
The FBI was wrong in their theory.

As for your suppositions about Reno, again you are wrong. I liked Reno. I think she did the best she could in an untenable situation. I'm glad the special prosecutor laws expired.
But I don't remember her recusing herself. Did she? I thought she gave permission to the various investigators to expand their investigations or not. Even when it was the President himself under investigation.

[maryrose]

TM:
so glad to see you have floated back down to earth regarding the possible Rove indictment. Remember Kate and I both said no indictment. I still think 50/50 is too high an estimate. Maybe 15/85 with 15 being an indictment. I'm sure Tradesports has it even lower. Fitz is methodical and is still waiting for Godot or somebody, anybody to come forth and save his floundering case. That's why he keeps the Rove window open. He wanted the VP or Rove and now he's got Bupkis. Waas can yammer all he wants... he's not credible. I don't venture to the Kos darkside -nothing of value there.
I do have a new name for them-KRAZY KEYSTONE KOS.

[Rick Ballard]

ECKENRODE: Look, Mr. AG, right here, see Libby turned over his notes which clearly show that the VP talked to him about Flame, no, I mean Plame. Then look at this transcript - see how he answers falsely.

ASHCROFT: This is gibberish. Where's the clear question?

ECKENRODE: No, you don't understand - look, Libby is clearly lying to us.

ASHCROFT: Who assigned this case to you?

ECKENRODE: Uh, Mr. Comey.

ASHCROFT: I see. Well, we'll have to do something about this. Thanks.

Ashcroft recuses.

ECKENRODE: Look, Mr. Fitzpatrick, right here, see Libby turned over his notes which clearly show that the VP talked to him about Flame, no, I mean Plame. Then look at this transcript - see how he answers falsely.

FITZ: I see what you mean. I'm going to have to have Comey clarify something - I'll be back to you soon.

[Pisistratus]

CathyF, how about you project "the name" onto the pronoun since Novak himself does. In linguistics, that's called the postcedent. A well used and perfectly understandable construction.

[maryrose]

Pis:
The FBI wouldn't know a conspiracy or a leak if it came up and bit them on the rear end.They need 5 years to get their updated computers up and running. They were marginalized since Clinton's era and have been fighting their way back ever since.
Ashcroft did the best he could. Ask Hillary-she was in his prayer group.

[MayBee]

I have great respect for the FBI. I think they were mislead on this one, and in turn mislead Fitzgerald. Someone told the FBI that Plame was "outed" to Novak purely for revenge, and the FBI believed that. I don't think they expected someone in the admin to incorrectly point fingers at others in the admin. (cough*grossman*cough)

[maryrose]

IMHO:
Ashcroft never should have recused himself. That was part of the dem/Kerry/Wilson/Plame plan. Now we are stuck with this nothingburger case with forgetful spinning reporters who can't remember who said what to whom.

[maryrose]

Are Grossman Armitage and others collecting paychecks or pensions or other compensation from the government? I know Val has a sweetheart deal with her CIA retirement package but if any others are hiding the truth about this case than I believe some financial adjustments should be made.

[Patton]

The WHOLE reason the investigators thought Libby was lying is because they hadn't talked to the reporters.

They thought no reporters knew prior to Libby talking to them. But what would the investigators have said if they KNEW beforehand that UGO had told WOODWARD and Woodward had TWO meetings with Libby, both of which he had the Plame information with him and to the best of memory he couldn't recall if he had told Libby.

I THINK THE INVESTIGATORS WOULD HAVE HAD A WHOLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY PURSUED THE FACTS.

If they had known UGO told Woodward and Woodward might have told Libby they may have actually been doing a decent job...then they could have followed up.

But they apparently took UGO at face value..they never seemed to pursue any other reporters UGO talked to during this timeframe, otherswise they would have found Woodward prettty easy.

[Patton]

Things I'd like to ask Fitz:

If it is impossible for Libby to forget the information passed to him from Cheney,

1). why is it possible for UGO to forget he passed it to Woodward?

2). why is it possible for Miller to forget she heard it in June?

3). why is it possible for Pincus to not recall hearing it from Woodward.

SHOULDN'T YOU HAVE TO INDICT UGO, MILLER AND PINCUS IF THE INFORMATION WAS SOOO DAMN MEMORABLE??

[Patton]

I don't think you can have a truly fair investigation if you are playing by different rules for some witnesses/players.

Just because your profession is reporter, you were treated entirely differently, you were questioned very narrowly, you didn't have to talk about anyone else you talked to about this information, ETC. ETC.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE INVESTIGATORS TO CONNECT ALL THE DOTS BECAUSE TREATING THE REPORTERS SPECIAL, MEANT THEY NEVER GOT ALL THE DOTS.

[Sue]

If I understood Russert correctly, they didn't even ask him if Libby told him about Plame. Asked him if he told Libby and that was it.

[Tom Maguire]

For a bunch of commenters that love to manufacture charges about Fitzgerald's unethical behavior, it's fascinating that no one has exactly saw fit to comment on Waas' lead.

Maybe Jim E can complete the following sentence, since Waas did not even attempt to:

"Because of Ashcroft's failure to recuse himself earlier, the following harm was done to the Plame investigation:[LEFT BLANK BY WAAS]".

[kate]

The first sign to me that Rove might not be in as much trouble as thought was the desperation in Waas' articles. No longer the gleeful conspiracy charges, the multiple indictments. Two articles ago, it was sure Rove/Cooper is a he said/he said story, but please, Mr. Fitzgerald, Rove is a bad boy so you have to indict him. But just for false statements and maybe perjury, no more conspiracy, obstruction.

Now this, he's going back in time to his no longer current FBI sources to try to rescue the Libby case.

[clarice]

Picky, pciky ,Tom Maguire...

[Specter]

I have to comment as to the bigger picture here. What happened in this case, from the original FBI investigation on, is that the investigators went into the whole thing with preconcieved notions and to heck with what the evidence said. The whole basis was that someone "outed" Plame to get back at Joe. And obviously, who would want to get back at Joe - but the WH. Therefore we narrow the investigation to them and make the "facts" fit the theory.

Unfortunately this happens all the time in our society nowadays. Too many "investigators" and "prosecutors" brought up on Law & Order and CSI. It is the contining deterioration of our legal prosecution system.

The flip side is that too many people are so full of hate towards Bush that they will not even consider another POV. So they spew hate and vitriol and add nothing to the conversation.

[kate]

So we could make the argument that the FBI did a poor job on the initial investigation and focused on Rove/Libby as not being honest with them--which might be somewhat true. They subsequently briefed Fitzgerald, who believed the investigators and decided that Rove/Libby must be punished, if not for the underlyng crime, than for lying to the investigators, and he would provide an opportunity for them to lie to the grand jury (perjury).

So Fitz was only guilty of believing his investigators. Jim E. will be happy to hear that my opinion of Fitz is going back up.

[MayBee]

One thing I love about Waas is his unqualified description of Plame as having "a covert position". In every article he writes about her.

[clarice]

I do think he was misled, but I'm not sure it was by the FBI alone--I think some of the misleading came from the DoJ, more specifically Comey's office. But that doesn't get Fitz off the hook. (Had the case been supervised, however, I think he'd have been protected from his own folly. He would have had to diagram his case, in effect, and you can be sure someone would have made him see the weaknesses.)

[MayBee]

Waas: In papers filed in federal court on May 12, 2006, for example, Fitzgerald noted that Cheney was so upset over Wilson's New York Times op-ed that the vice president made handwritten notes in the margin of a photocopy of the column.

Cheney: I am so upset I will write 6 mildly worded questions on your op-ed! FEAR THE WRATH OF ME!

[topsecretk9]

Is Jime ay yearly Kos?

[topsecretk9]

at

[Jim E.]

TS9,

No. In fact, I can write with confidence that TM reads DailyKos more frequently than I do.

[clarice]

Rick, as to the FBI, I'd like to know if this man had any connection to the investigation: David Szady.

[maryrose]

TM;
Caution; enter koslandia at your own peril. I do think spending too much time there can begin to warp your view. It's the surreal life over there-not based in reality and a virtual spin zone with incredibly bad language.

[maryrose]

OT;
JimE
What is your take on today's events?

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Steering committee.

I can't join in admiration of the FBI on this. They were charged with discovering the two SAO's and "CIA says".

Fitz doesn't have two SAO's and a "CIA says" in his game bag. Instead we have "Honest error UGO", maybe confirmation that Novak considers "I heard that too" as an unimpeachable corroboration and who knows for sure for "CIA says".

I trust that the FBI can be led to water quite easily, I'm not at all sure that I would trust them to drink - even if they were thirsty. And I'm absolutely positive that I will never answer any FBI agents questions without a videocam, my attorney and a notarized agreement of immunity signed by the director and the AG in my hand.

That's what they've done for my faith in the "justice" system.

[clarice]

Exactly so, Rick you got the very point I've been making for months. The other one is unlikely to apply to you, but it is my advice that if a special prosecutor is appointed and you are asked to cooperate, leave the position and refuse to. It's a fool's game.

[maryrose]

What Rick said!

[clarice]

OT: It's official--it is now time to sit shiva for the Duke case:
"The second dancer in the Duke lacrosse case told police early on that allegations of rape were a "crock" and that she was with the accuser the entire evening except for a period of less than five minutes.
The second dancer, Kim Roberts, made that statement when she was first contacted by Durham police one week after the party where the first escort service dancer said she was gang raped by three men.

Roberts' statements and notes of the detectives in the case were made public today in a court filing by lawyers for one of the defendants, Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Falls, N.J.

Seligmann's lawyers said police omitted important facts contradicting the accuser's story when they obtained an order to photograph and take DNA samples from the players, including Roberts' statements to police."
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/448437.html

[Specter]

But in the smaller picture - well down the totem pole at least...allowing cops to search your car, home, take DNA samples, or even question you without protection of your rights is stupid. In today's world, investigators and prosecutors are not trying to find out who is innocent. They will use anything they can, and twist it any way they want, to make a person look guilty.

[maryrose]

Ironically someone like Sandy Berger in an even higher position actually gets caught red-handed stealing documents and gets a measly slap on the wrist.
Libby does nothing and faces 30 years in prison. Clinton committed perjury;they had him dead to rights-just another disbarment for 5 years and court costs, plus out of sypathy Hil gets a Senate seat. If JFK JR. was alive that would not have happened.

[maryrose]

This Duke case will be dismissed before the end of the year. It has been politically motivated from the get-go.

[Specter]

In deference to women (and men) who have suffered actual abuse from someone (especially in our family here) I agree maryrose. There is real abuse out there and your heart has to go out to those who have suffered. But the number of false allegation cases is skyrocketing. Allegations of this sort are being used as revenge or leverage tools more and more. MSM has played the hype to the hilt so people automatically assume anyone accused is guilty. It isn't right.

[Javani]

Jim E writes

"For a bunch of commenters that love to manufacture charges about Fitzgerald's unethical behavior, it's fascinating that no one has exactly saw fit to comment on Waas' lead."

The lead? That it allegedly took two months? That ominous spin is silly. Let's take the fact - the FBI informed their superior, Ashcroft, that certain government officials not under Ashcroft's command may have perjured themselves. What should he do make an immediate recusal? No, needs legal briefing on his recusal, consider it, then legal briefing on this new delegated prosecutor relationship not the same as the past Special Prosecution set ups (procedural law had expired). Discussions, roundtabling, prep, that would take two months easy. Note: now Libby has challenged the this set up on technical grounds.

The lead is empty innuendo. Further, I believe Ashcroft recused himself because at some point he realized he would have a real conflict - the interview with President Bush - who hired him and another conflict - friendship. And recall people screaming that Ashcroft would hide this and protect that, he had to get out of the loop.

[maryrose]

Javani;
Dems were screaming, to heck with how they want the investigation to go. Keep an honorable Attorney general Ascroft as opposed to Comey's buddy Fitz who has botched this case from day one.

[Pisistratus]

Here's my question Fitzophobes:

What determination do you think Ashcroft made as to the merits of the case before recusing himself?

Obviously, it had to be more than Rove might be involved since it took him two months to get out of there and he knew that from day one.

So what happened in those 2 months that he decided to recuse?

[topsecretk9]

TS9,

No. In fact, I can write with confidence that TM reads DailyKos more frequently than I do.

I got you confused with Jeff...I think...I thought he said he was going...wouldn't fault you if you were there though.

[Lurker]

Because Ashcroft was investigating and recused himself once he was informed by the FBI.

[Rick Ballard]

Schumer and Conyers were doing cartwheels, pirouettes, triple Sacows, setting off fireworks and running a Punch and Judy show to the admiring Demsm.

All part of the Acme Political Strategy for a Democrat [free] Future. Both Schrum and Soros signed off on it and it's working quite well.

[Lurker]

Exactly. Which is why this trial has to go to the court or dismissed by Fitz or the judge.

A pardon will play into Schumer and Conyers' hands.

Removal will also play into these hands of the dems.

[Javani]

P. writes

"What determination do you think Ashcroft made as to the merits of the case before recusing himself?"

Nothing more than needed than it was at least a step above prima facie frivolous. Cooper, Miller and Russert hadn't been interviewed. The FBI interview selected texts and the assumption Libby was lying must have come from contrasting interviews with other government officials. So he had to suspect something if he was told the details so far, but the main witnesses to the perjury hadn't been interviewed.

""two months""

See my post a few above about the "2 months".

Sidenote: Judith Miller must be kicking herself for that jail stint. She had to be thinking she was the possible subject for receiving a leak. The Fitz agreement allowing her not to testify about her Plame contacts other than Libby signaled to her, or her lawyer, it was no longer a general leak investigation, but a Libby-focused one.

[Rick Ballard]

Exactly.

Wells has to pants Inspector Clouvert in court.

Tom gets to expose some of the cheesiest "journalism" ever committed by Dem propagandists.

We get to applaud from the sidelines and the Dems continue to be exposed as having the strategic and tactical minds of common termites - good at destroying but unable to build anything except rock hard nests of their excreta.

Not the best of worlds but it could be worse.

[Javani]

Mary writes:

"Fitz who has botched this case from day one"

I wouldn't say he botched the case at all. He certainly didn't live up to expectations of various factions who want Rove or want it to go away.

My comments are on the quality of the case, but he's the prosecutor not judge and jury.

[Lurker]

Er...don't forget that Tom DeLay was an exterminator in his pre-political life.

[Rick Ballard]

Lurker,

Still is.

[Lurker]

ROFL!

Did you read about his farewell party? It's hilarious.

[Specter]

Somewhat OT - Michelle Malkin reports on the stupidest question asked during the WH press conference today:

Will the Zarqawi success help the President on immigration?

Snow's response (with admirable restraint, but detectable contempt): "I don't know."

Gotta laugh at the tin-foil hat crowd that thinks the news media has brains....

[richard mcenroe]

Dammit, Tom, Zarqawi knew EXACTLY who Libby leaked to!

THAT'S WHY THEY KILLED HIM!

[Pete]

TM - "Because of Ashcroft's failure to recuse himself earlier, the following harm was done to the Plame investigation:[LEFT BLANK BY WAAS]".

If such answers could be unambiguously proved then this investigation would already be over. But the investigation is not over yet.

When there is a potential conflict of interest, one recuses him/herself not because they did anything wrong, but rather the potential for wrongdoing exists.

The potential exists that Rove/Libby could find out what the FBI was discovering, and could be altering their testimony based on the feedback they received.

There is evidence that their testimony and the public statements have been shifting. Rememeber when the White House flatly denied that Rove and Libby had no involvement in the leak.

Note that Rove and Novak have been talking too after the news of the investigation became public.

Abd Novak initially said that the name was given to him by the administration officials, but then later changed his story.

[clarice]

Pete, that is on a par with the idiotic claim that because Gonzales waited until the following morning (with the prosecution's permission) to notify the WH staff to save everything, some skullduggery MIGHT have taken place.
Nonsensical.

Ashcroft could have remained in charge or appointed a statutory special counsel with absolutely no interference with the investigation.

[Pete]

Did anyone here notice that Ashcroft's spokesman is now Rove's spokesman.

[Specter]

So what? Another conspiracy Pete? Wow...there are so many it is hard to keep track....I wonder how we weave Jefferson and Mollohan into that.

[Rick Ballard]

Specter,

It happened after a boxing match in Vegas. Reid got em some free tickets and....

[Lurker]

Jefferson is connected with Joe Wilson, Jennifer, Akitu, and Bill Clinton.

And watch for Jerry Lewis. Looks like something new about him will start to come out.

[Lurker]

Jennifer is Akitu's wife, indicted for whatever she did. And supposedly Joe Wilson's first wife.

BTW, if Rick Ballard's description of the FBI is correct, then there is still no proof that the their testimony and the public statements shifting and to date, there are no public information proving that Rove and Libby had no involvement in the leak. So the WH at this time is correct in this case.

[Pete]

clarice - "Pete, that is on a par with the idiotic claim that because Gonzales waited until the following morning (with the prosecution's permission) to notify the WH staff to save everything, some skullduggery MIGHT have taken place."

What is so idiotic about the claim? Since the media had already mentioned it, Gonzales should have sent the memo right away to the White House staff. There was no reason for him to delay the official notification, because that is when the clock starts ticking.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[sad]

Richard Mac

**********Dammit, Tom, Zarqawi knew EXACTLY who Libby leaked to!

THAT'S WHY THEY KILLED HIM!*************

Too, too funny!!!!

[Lurker]

There were too many unknowns from day one of Ashcroft's investigation til the day he recused himself (until the FBI approached him). Perhaps Ashcroft and Gonzales both knew and believed that Rove and Libby were innocent. After all, there were claims that neither were involved in the leak incidents.

Perhaps they still believe that Rove and Libby remain innocent to this very day but when the FBI approached Ashcroft, Ashcroft knew he had to recuse himself and Gonzales wrote that memo to save everything.

[clarice]

Pete, it is a normal accommodation. Since when do we assume that the WH staff and officials operate like Mafioso.

He received the word late in the afternoon. To have locked everything down would have caused great inconvenience. The prosecutor agreed with the accommodation.
PHEH

[cathyf]

Jennifer is Akitu's wife, indicted for whatever she did. And supposedly Joe Wilson's first wife.

Do you have any proof of this? This site has a picture of Jennifer, and she looks much too young to be Joe's first wife. (Joe has twentysomething twins from that marriage. The woman in the picture doesn't look old enough for kids-in-20s.)

cathy :-)

[Lurker]

That's why I used the word, "supposedly". I've been searching for proof. When was that photo taken, btw?

[danking70]

"supposedly Joe Wilson's first wife."

I want proof too. That's just too crazy to be true. ;-)

[clarice]

Lurker, I think she isn't. There was some not very clear discussion in the comment session and I asked if they were talking about Jennifer. They weren't. The reference is more oblique and it was to Wilson's second wife, Jacqueline, who represents the government of Gabon.

[Lurker]

Joe's second wife is Jacqueline as per Captain's Quarters:

[Pete]

It is fairly reasonable to assume that the guilty may try to destroy incriminating documents.

It makes absolutely no sense that whatever Gonzales did the next morning would have caused "great inconvenience" the previous afternoon and none the next morning. The case has simply not been made why Gonzales should not have immediately sent out his memo.

How hard can it be to send out the memo? And in this day where everyone has blackberries.

[Lurker]

Guess not, check rasmusen link:

joe wilson

So, Joe had been playing alot of golf in the 90's, which makes him an expert in these spy things???

Thanks, Cathyf! :)

[Lurker]

The previous afternoon was close to the end of a work day with many people heading home. The next morning was the beginning of a 9 - 5 job. Gonzales could also have been writing a memo the previous afternoon. Gonzales could also have been making phone calls to the WH the previous afternoon. But the memo officially went out the next morning.

I don't see a problem with whatever Gonzales did.

[Pete]

I would be surprised if any of the regulars here saw anything wrong with what this White House did.

I don't think that the government shuts down at 5pm. The send button still works at 5pm and later.

[Lurker]

If an official memo was sent via snail mail, then it was sent the next morning. Perhaps a draft memo might have been sent via electronic mail but many people would have gone home already, in spite of some people working long hours. These people probably rely on administrators to gather the hardcopy documents, file them under lock and key, and programmers to make backup tapes, etc.

If you are referring to this specific case in regards to what the WH did that might be wrong, there's no evidence that they did that was wrong in this specific case.

[Pete]

Programmers do not need to make a backup tape right away when the memo is sent.
If some people had gone home so what? The purpose of the memo should be that people not shred evidence.

While there may be no hard evidence of wrongdoing, there certainly is the very mysterious case of the Rove email which somehow got lost/deleted/archived whatever.

[Lurker]

No, of course not. There may be regular nightly backup of tapes but they may have wanted the programmers to make a snapshot the next morning.

Shredding of evidence, gathering of documents, filing them away, and locking them up, etc.

Ok, whatever. Gonzales sent an official memo out. He might have called the WH the previous afternoon. He might have sent a draft memo the previous afternoon. But Gonzales still sent an official memo out the next morning.

How many of us lose, delete, archive memos, emails, etc., more than once? No big deal about the Rove email that got lost but later recovered.

[Lurker]

My husband gets about 500 to 1000 emails per day. I'm guessing that Rove gets far more emails than my husband. So it's easy for Rove to lose track of his emails and mails. Even if Gonzales sent that memo out the previous afternoon, the odds of a very mysterious case of the Rove email which somehow got lost/deleted/archived whatever can still exist.

[clarice]

Pete, the mysterious email was Fitz noted a problem with the archiving process and all was found. You are implying wrongdoing when Fitz didn't.

[Carol Herman]

The FBI has a track record. On Wen Ho Lee. Where they were hoping major news breaks would paint Wen Ho Lee as Chinese. Hence guilty.

Well, Wen Ho lee IS Chinese. NOT GUILTY.

Then there was the anthrax stuff. And, the blame went to Hatfill (sp?). They never solved that case, either. Even though they dredged out a lake.

And, on the Rove bet; I guess it will depend on November? If the donks think indicting Rove ahead of the election works, then I guess they'll pin the "tale" on him. Heck, DeLay's missing from the upcoming story line. So what do they have? Doughnuts and a ham sandwich.

Then, of course, there's the real lousy bet. When you have NOTHING in your hand. But you think you can fool people by pushing lots of money into the pot. Uh huh. The FBI will get you to drop your cards and stick your hands in the air! T'marra.

What if the election in November shows that the donks didn't sell their Edsels. And, they've still got a showroom full of candidates, chrome-hatted. But UNSOLD?

Maybe, then they go to their Rove must be arrested ploy? Callng Agent Smart.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

Not the best of worlds but it could be worse.

Yeah, you could have lived in a not so safe house in Baquba.

[Pete]

One may send hundreds of emails a day and not remember all of them, but it is fairly easy to search the emails on keywords at a later point in time.

On the email in question that Rove sent to Hadley, some simple and obvious searches should have returned that email.

If I was asked to testify in this case, and if I sent hundreds of emails every day, I would start first by searching my emails which contain Niger, Plame, Wilson, uranium etc.

Fitzgerald may not be able to conclusively prove wrongdoing with respect to that email. But the fact that the email did not surface initially but surfaced later on when it was convenient for Rove, should at the very least strengthen the case that Gonzales should have sent out a memo as soon as he was notified that a probe had been initiated.