Powered by TypePad

« "Today Is A Good Day" | Main | It's A Crock »

June 08, 2006



.The problem comes in that if she is identified as working for the CIA, when all this other paperwork out there shows her working for BJ, that blows teh cover of Brewster Jennings and it's usefulnness as a front company.

The only problem with that is there are at least two other CIA people who list Brewster Jennings on their resume...spcifically one lady who do so and listed her CIA employment on the same resume on the internet...



For old times sakes...remember that threat with Tom Christian (UV Marker spray?) and the Brewster Resumes? Well according to Tom Ch. the fellow who had the Brewster Resume contacted Tom Ch. and said he (the resume guy) was conducting a web project and asked Tom Ch. to particpicat..Tom Ch. declined...life is stranger than fiction...

(Don't have the link, laptop in the "shop"...original TM post was Libby and the PDB's)


thread not threat (although if you read the Libby and the PDB thread Tom CH, does threaten me-- so that was Freudian I suppose)

JM Hanes


"Now I'm confused. What did they submit in August?"

Actually this may be the piece that I'm confused about. Under August 1, 2003 you have "Sometime in August, the CIA completed an 11-question form detailing the potential damage done," and I have always had the impression that they passed something along to DoJ at the time. However, I see that I originally cited the http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98733,00.html>article you linked to as a reference to the August submission, when in fact it's actually referring to September. I'll see if I can scout up something on August, but it looks like maybe I'm just mistaken about that.

JM Hanes


Thanks for responding. The post I had in mind was more specifically directed at the timing of the Ashcroft recusal, but it's not that important to nail it down. Has that particular topic been a source of continuing comment elsewhere on the web? I've just been curious about the timing of what seemed to me to be a certain resurgence of interest in this particular piece of the puzzle.


I'm not sure which post of Pete's you are referring to. But I do remember someone posting here a few weeks ago that Murray Waas had been on some radio program, and had said this would be coming under discussion. Which means, in my book, that's all he could think of to write about right now.
Do you remember that post? Did what you are thinking of precede that?


Since the subject of Brewster-Jennings has come up again, I'll repeat a point I made a while ago, 'cause I find it interesting.

The company name listed on Plame's FEC form is "Brewster-Jennings & Assoc.," with a hyphen between "Brewster" and "Jennings." That's also how Robert Ellmann listed the company name. So, we are led to suppose this energy-related company had two founders: Mr. or Ms. Brewster and Mr. or Ms. Jennings -- like Kimberly-Clark and McGraw-Hill. But there was a real, non-hypenated, B. Brewster Jennings, who was the founder of the company that became Mobil Oil.

So it seems to me that as a cover, the name itself is somewhat less than convincing -- like a supposed defense contractor named "Douglas-MacArthur & Associates."



Sue or CathyF noted the company was under

Victor Brewster

FWIW...Victor Brewster and Who Jennings?


TSK9, after reading your post, I Googled "Victor Brewster," and as far as I can tell, the CIA didn't bother thinking up a first name for Jennings. I guess the creativity train ran out of steam after coming up with the "Brewster-Jennings" gag and the name "Victor."


"Murtha putting his name in for majority leader smacks of his new arrogance and pride."
There is a medical name for this,long term Senators should be checke for age related mental conditions.


"""My pet theory is that it's B-J (as a CIA front) that was classified, not necessarily Plame herself. ""

If B-J was classified, then noone should have published their resume' showing work as both a CIA emplyee and a B-J employee.


The Libby indictment was written and presented to the GJ on Oct 31, 2003. Who wrote the indictment and presented to the GJ? Apparently it wasn't Fitz at that time.

Patton, I agree. That's a stupid move on Plame's part. If it was supposed to be classified, BJ should never have been used on one's resume and W2 forms, and for donations.


Thanks, pollyusa. There is another date on your calendar that confused me. That is 11/26/2003. The title on that day says "Libby Indictment". I clicked on that and it turns out to be the indictment submitted and presented to the GJ on Oct 31, 2003.

It led me to believe that Libby was indicted on 11/26/2003, which also led me to question the timing and quality of the investigation.

This led to more confusion to the Ashcroft initial days and the so-called 2 or 3 months of investigation til recusal. I don't see it and its issues as well at this point.


Correction. Patrick Fitzgerald's name is on the Oct 31, 2003 indictment as presented to the GJ so who appointed Patrick Fitzgerald before Comey was confirmed?


According to Schumer's website, he urged Gonzales in appointing a Special Counsel in early Oct. From Oct 1, 2003 to Oct 31, 2003 to have Fitz's name on the Oct 31, 2003 indictment was mighty fast. This implies that the CIA written report based on its investigation performed by subject matter experts, whose names have not been identified.

I'm willing to bet at this point that the subject matter experts were biased in their work on this subject matter.

Incidentally, Schumer implied some damage assessment in his press release:

"By "burning" Ms. Plame, Schumer said these senior administration officials may have made it impossible for her to do her job at a time when intelligence in her specialty - Weapons of Mass Destruction - is sorely needed as the threats posed by Iran and North Korea are escalating."

Based on the timeline as identified, when did Ashcroft begin and end his investigation, providing that Fitz's name was on the Oct 31, 2003 indictment presented to the GJ AND the FBI authorized on Sept 26th, 2003 AND the CIA completing its investigation shortly before that date? Doesn't look like he got involved in the investigation for very long, if he did.


Patton& Lurker-mea culpa,inartfully worded on my part.

Not that BJ was classified, in and of itself, but the fact that it was a CIA front company.
So therefore a former employee could list both the CIA and their current employer on a resume, because it's only the fact that BJ is actually a CIA front that is clasified. Using Goss as an example, he's a former CIA employee. Him being elected to the House doesn't make the house a CIA front, capiche?

Again, not that the name BJ is classified, but it's the fact that it's tied to the CIA...it would be part of Plame (or any other employees 'cover' to use it on their resume, on their 1040's, to give donations, etc etc...

Let's say, arrguendo, that Tom Mcguire is a CIA agent. It's only when he's "exposed" that JOM is 'blown' as a CIA front. Up to that point, if he's TM, regular joe, we wouldn't be able to identify JOM as a CIA front because we don't have that vital piece of info, that TM is a CIA agent...It's only when that fact is known that we can roll back up the chain...

Same with Plame and BJ. Does anybody really think they answered the phone "Brewster Jennings, A CIA front company, how may I direct your call'?

Of course not. But this theory of mine explains why Plame doesn't seem to meet IIPA standards, but yet the CIA referral has been looked at by a couple of different judges and allowed to go forward. If it's that BJ (as a cia front) is classified, by linking Plame, (a known BJ employee) to the CIA they've 'blown' a CIA asset. Because (as I stated earlier) you now have 2 facts that can't seem to be reconciled:
Plame is a CIA employee
Plame works for Brewster Jennings.


Doing a find in this thread led me to Rick Ballard's post:

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

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."

I'm leaning towards Rick Ballard's conclusion about Schumer and Conyers' tactics in the early days and that their tactics are working quite well so far.

York just had a writeup about last weekend's YearlyKOS. Could he be a harbinger warning us of what could come in the future had DailyKOS become powerful...censorship of anyone that speaks against them, especially after seeing several posters being banned at several left-wing blog sites? Seeing how Markitos compared Osama to a Republican doesn't bode well for anyone that are not democrats.


How about the third part about "they've "blown" a CIA asset?"

Who blew a CIA asset?

Think Clarice would be better to address the rest of it.


Who "leaked" Brewster-Jennings? PollyUsa showed one date in her calendar that Novak published something about Brewster-Jennings. And Novak said that Libby and Rove were not his sources. So who leaked "Brewster-Jennings"?


Sorry about the long link but there is a link over at hotair about Lakoff's speech at YearlKOS along with Jawa Report's post. A very chilling report of how Lakoff's speech bodes for the future of politics and how he paints "neocons" and the making of "neoliberals". The last thing Lakoff did was a comparison of "neocons" as "Nazis":


"One of the last things Lakoff said, in response to a question I didn’t quite hear, was that conservatives, according to their daddy-party logic, believe that the mentally ill are evil and must be punished. He really said that. And you know, if the Democrats keep listening to this guy make stuff up about conservatives, they’re crazy—which (by my daddy-party logic) means that they’re going to get the punishment they deserve at the polls in November."

People bought Lakoff's speech.

Think the "stay at home, sit in their couch" non-voters will change their minds coming November as they read more of this crap.


Novak blew it (BJ's cover) when he identified Plame as a CIA employee. With that knowledge, now (well, then) available to the general public, it was possible (via Who's Who, FEC database, etc) to find out that Plame was supposedly employed by BJ, not the CIA.
As I said before, you now have 2 pieces of info that can't be reconciled. That Plame is on record as a BJ employee, and Novak's column that says she's a WMD operative at the CIA.


steve- I tried to answer you upthread. Many CIA operatives have left the business and announced themselves as former operatives. Any company they were affiliated with would then come under scrutiny.
The CIA asked Novak not to publish Plame's name, although that information was readily available once one knew she was Wilson's wife. Perhaps the CIA was unaware that Wilson advertised her as the former Valerie Plame.
As I said above, you may be right that the CIA wanted to protect Brewster Jennings. I don't see how Wilson's friend David Corn screaming UNDERCOVER AGENT!!! and pictures of Valerie in Vanity Fair did much to keep Brewster Jennings under wraps for any counter-intelligence people that hadn't bothered to read Novak.


Leopold has a new article on Truthout about his reporting on Rove and the mysterious "Sealed vs Sealed" case in DC.


I just read Jason's article. It will be interesting to read what Clarice, Cecil, Jane, and others have to say about this case "06 cr 128" and the comments about the left side versus right side being sealed in regards as a "high profile" case.

Jason implied that an indictment can remain sealed for various reasons, one being that an investigation is ongoing. Judge Walton called a pre-status meeting, where the status of this investigation is supposed to be addressed.

Wonder if this article was timed with today's pre-status meeting?

Rove's name was not mentioned in this article.

Jason says that "But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed."

If the GJ returned the indictment and the case is still open, does it mean that the GJ approved it?

Gary Maxwell

Tell me again why we should not break out in convulsive laughter at anything Leopold now prints?


Whoa, Patton, check talkleft in reference to your banning.

Sunday Night Comment Spats

First post was:

"The good news is, if you riled up the Right, you're doing something right."



Good grief...just as Scary Larry wants no dissent on his blog, so goes the rest of the left leaning blogs. Daily KOS does it all the time. What people need to understand is you are deleted and banned for posting opposing points of view, not cussing, not name calling, not any of the usual standards. To prove my point, look at the posts that are considered a-okay in the thread explaining the banning of others. Sheesh...


*someone* on here dug up info on that sealed vs. sealed case before. I thought it was Sue, but it could have been TS or CathyF.

Wake up and help us, girls!


It was Topper...


Here is the case number


it is the same as Time Inc.'s number except for the cr ( Time is 1-06-mc-128) -- also every case number assigned in Libby ( NYT's, Miller...ect, ect) if you replace the mc with cr they are all recent cases that have nothing to do with Fitzgerald


The left's explanation of the Sealed v Sealed case is Fitzgerald suing McNulty who stopped his indictment on Rove. ::grin:: You've gotta hand it to them, they are nothing if not industrious little conspiracy theorists...


ahhh...of course it was Topper.


"By "burning" Ms. Plame, Schumer said these senior administration officials may have made it impossible for her to do her job at a time when intelligence in her specialty - Weapons of Mass Destruction - is sorely needed as the threats posed by Iran and North Korea are escalating."

One more time,where did Plame learn about the vastly complex subjects of WMD,Nuclear,Biological and Chemical weapons

She was educated here,

Plame is a 1985 graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, and the College of Europe, an international-relations school in Bruges, in 1995. Soon after graduation, she started working for the U.S. government in Washington D.C. During her time at Penn State, she had worked on the business side of PSU's student newspaper, The Daily Collegian. According to an October 9, 2003 Collegian article, she previously attended Lower Moreland High School in Huntingdon Valley, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Where does it mention Physics,nuclear physics,engineering,ballistics,
chemistry,bio-chemistry,electronics? Useful attributes,
"These rods? These rods are part of an umbrella stand,Ms Plame"...."Gee that's real neat!"

Plame worked for the Counter Proliferation Division(CPD)of the CIA,a department which somehow missed,North Korea's Bomb,Pakistan'S Bomb,Dr Khan's Bomb U Like,Libya's Bomb development..Iran's Bomb is no secret,"We get Bomb,we annihilate Israel"

If Plame was all you had between you andnuclear devastation ,I would say you were up shit creek without a paddle


I don't know, PUK. I think you can be in WMD intelligence either as an operative or as an analyst and not be a scientist. Similarly, I think you can learn a lot in 20 years in a job without college-level training.
I worked in computers. I didn't have any educational background in computers, nor could I have built a computer or designed an operating system. I was still very good at what I did.

I don't think she'd have to know how to build a bomb to help uncover networks. At the same time, there is very little evidence that what she was assigned to was of vital national importance, or that she was irreplacible.


That is the point,as soon as anyone inqires,the fairy dust is blown into their eyes,Plame was classified,a national treasure,Joan of Arc,but nobody seems to know what she did.
As for technical knowhow,it would be useful to be able to tell if a circuit was from a computer, a radar installation or a GPS,Plames skill are way off.
Just check College of Europe,her training is solid bureaucrat.
Then there was the strange affair of the Niger forgeries,which languished in Plames safe for some six months,that suddenly needed verifying when the VP asked questions,this triggered the panic trip by Wilson,since apparently the CPD had no humint in a major Uranium producing country.
So did Val Plame,that paragon of all things WMD fall down on the job,why didn't the CPD know for sure?

Carol Herman

There's a pretty good lesson taught to young lawyers: NEVER INTERRUPT YOUR OPPONENT when they're making mistakes.

IF the left wasn't erupting with such drivel, they'd be a harder enemy to refute.

The Internet grows on their "spins." No need to stop them on my account.

I see November coming closer, now. Without much juice in the mix for the donks. (Bilbray was supposed to lose, ya know? Didn't.) Maybe, that's just the first missed goal for the donks? There will be more to come.

I even think TIMING is against them. Since John Bolton's appointment comes to an end in the summer of '07. JUST IN TIME FOR HIM TO BECOME THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR THE PRESIDENCY? Why not? He's getting lots of "foreign affairs" experiences under his belt, right now. And, I think he's the best candidate out there. Hard to beat with what the donks have been throwing at him. And, they have no recovery. What's left? Tossing away Kerry's Cambodian hat? Patrick Kennedy's training wheels?



The events in the Plame Calendar are entered on the date they occurred. The source of the information is also indicated and may be from a later time.

For example, under 11/26/03 you will find that this was the date of Libby's second interview with the FBI. This information was made public in the Libby Indictment which is dated 10/28/05 and is included in the 11/26/03 entry to show the source of that information.

All of the enties in the Plame Calendar are linked to the source documents.



For old times sakes...remember that threat with Tom Christian (UV Marker spray?)

The link to that thread is here.

I never saw that Tom Christian had come on that thread until I looked again yesterday. Very strange.

The link to his website is on that thread. I can't believe he said he was going to sue us for libel.

JM Hanes


I think you may be looking at the wrong year. The Libby indictment came down in October of 2005, not October of 2003!


Leopold is back with Sealed vs. Sealed.



was going to sue us for libel.

He may has threatened you too but he saved most of his fire for little old silly me ::grin:: - I got an email to boot!


has = have


Thanks, PollyUSA and JMHanes,

The title "Libby Indictment" on 11/26/03 confused me. I did click on it and the source of this link happened to be the 0ct 31, 2003 indictment, written and prepared by Fitz. I take it that it was Oct 31, 2003 when Fitz made his first presentation to the GJ. Not the actual Libby indictment as it happened two years later.

In this case, Fitz was assigned as a Special Counsel sometime in early October. He managed to put together something by Oct. 31, 2003 so that he can present something to the GJ.

This tells me that Ashcroft did not spend much time investigating the CIA leaks.

Either Ashcroft or Gonzales appointed Fitz as a Special Counsel and probably in a limiting role.


Seixon has a good writeup on the new Jason Leopold article.


Fox News has an update regarding today's pre-status meeting:

CIA Leak Case Prosecutor Doesn't Expect White House to Block Classified Documents



The indictment was on October 28, 2005, not the 31st


He is a very strange guy, all I said about him was "One of the more entertaining guys in my Wacko bookmark folder"...no libel there.

He didn't send me an email, I guess you were really the one he was after.


While the indictment was served on Oct 28, 2005, there is that date on the indictment paper, "Oct 31, 2003". It was published on Oct 28, 2005 by one of the reporters.

So, it tells me that the indictment was written up and presented to the GJ on Oct 31, 2003 to help them decide their votes but the indictment was not served on Oct 31, 2003.

If I am wrong, do explain the date "Oct. 31, 2003" inside the indictment papers.


Isn't Oct 31 2003 when the grand jury was first sworn in?


I hadn't made that connection but that's possible. If that's the case, then that's the day Fitz met with a brand new GJ for the first time. Therefore, Fitz had less than a month to prepare the indictment paper (that is, without serving an indictment, which occurred two years later).

Boy, that was quick.


"Although it’s a relatively minor flourish, I also have to admire Waas’ choice quote from Charles Wolfram, ethical paragon emeritus, saying that “the 'most distressing' ethical aspect of the case was that Ashcroft continued overseeing the Plame probe even after Cheney's name arose" – especially when proffered so close on the heels of the author’s own disclaimer about whether or not Ashcroft was ever actually “briefed in detail regarding Cheney before he recused himself.”

Considering the intimate knowledge of those briefings which ostensibly informs this piece, does it not seem passing strange that Waas’ reliable insiders would fink out on this key point?"

I don't see what the problem is. The article says that: It is unclear, however, whether Ashcroft was briefed in detail regarding Cheney before he recused himself from the Plame case.

But even though Ashcroft may not have been briefed about Cheney in detail, it is a given that Cheney's name came up, since Libby was Cheney's chief of staff and since one of the key items that the FBI was looking at was Libby's notes which mentioned that Cheney told Libby about Plame's CIA connections.

I cannot imagine that a professor emeritus of legal ethics at an Ivy League college or other top college would say that Ashcroft's decision was ethical.


The Libby indictment states that the grand jury was sworn in on Oct 31 2003. It seems that when Fitzgerald was appointed on 12/30/2003 he got to work with the grand jury which was sworn about two months ago.

JM Hanes


"Therefore, Fitz had less than a month to prepare the indictment paper (that is, without serving an indictment, which occurred two years later)."

What on earth are you talking about? The Grand Jury was sworn in on October 31, 2003 and remained empanelled -- i.e. continued hearing evidence -- through Libby's eventual indictment on Octover 28, 2005. That is not "less than a month," it's nearly two years!

I'm also not sure why you keep suggesting that Gonzalez (or even Ashcroft) might have appointed Fitzgerald. Ashcroft recused himself in favor of Deputy Atty. Gen. Comey, and Comey appointed Fitzgerald.


JM Hanes: "Nowhere does Waas proffer any evidence whatsoever that Ashcroft was anything other than intensely interested in this case, which is not exactly shocking. He doesn’t even hint at involvement, interference, or direction. The A.G. was being briefed by his subordinates. Big Whup Waas."

It is one thing to be briefed on progress. It is another thing to be demanding and getting intimate details about what the investigators were finding about people to whom Ashcroft was very closely tied to politically.

The article does end with this quote:
Asked what might have caused the Fitzgerald appointment, Comey said: "If you were to speculate in print or in the media about particular people, I think that would be unfair to them." Then he added, almost as an afterthought, "We don't want people that we might be interested in to know we're interested in them."

Fits Rove and Libby to a tee.

JM Hanes


The fact that Cheney's name surely "came up" is completely beside the point. If you work through the passage I quoted, you will see that Libby's notes were not being briefed before Ashcroft's recusal. Personally, I can't imagine a professor of ethics faulting Ashcroft on the basis of information that no one, even those reporting on his every briefing in detail, claims Ashcroft ever had. Apparently I was wrong about that. Thank heaven the guy's no longer teaching!

JM Hanes

"Fits Rove and Libby to a tee.

Suits you to a tee is more like it.


PUK- Not to beat a dead horse about Plame. But we don't know what her technical knowledge actually was by looking at her education at University. And we don't know what it needed to be to perform her job well. That was my point.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say she was probably a smart cookie that was able to learn what she had to know. The CIA wouldn't have hired her otherwise. We don't know enough about her actual experience to denigrate her expertise.
I agree there are plenty of odd things about the way her career is presented, and it seems unlikely that she was the Girl Spy Saviour of America that she's been portrayed to be.

Let's go back to busting her for what we do know-- like that babbled about her covert status on the third date with a married man. ;-)


Pete, while I can imagine a professor emeritus of legal ethics at an Ivy League college or other top college saying Ashcroft's decision was ethical, I do find it more difficult to imagine one who gave $2,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Commitee, $2,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee, and $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. saying so.


MJW--Nobody loves a cynic. (Well. to be perfectly honest, I do.)


Byron York @ NRO reports statement from SP that Rove does not face charges!




Karl Rove Not Indicted! Good catch Maybee. Score Kate-we were true believers in his innocence from the beginning!


JM Hanes, can you explain the date that was typed up on the indictment papers?

Schumer requested in early October 2003 that a Special Counsel be appointed.

Of course, from the time the indictment was written up on Oct. 31, 2003 til the day Libby was indicted was two years. It took two years of investigation. But the date typed up on the indictment papers as published on Oct 28, 2005 tells me that it was typed on on Oct. 31, 2003.

Explain Oct. 31, 2003 that was typed up on the indictment papers.


JM Hanes: "The fact that Cheney's name surely "came up" is completely beside the point."

How is it besides the point when it is THE point that the professor makes?

"If you work through the passage I quoted, you will see that Libby's notes were not being briefed before Ashcroft's recusal."

It is not clear at all. Libby was shown his own notes in Nov. Ashcroft received extensive briefings till Dec. The article states that Wray who briefed Ashcroft was told about the exitence of the notes. The only thing that the article mentions is that it is unclear whether or not Ashcroft received a detailed briefing on Cheney.

The legal ethics experts are correct that once Ashcroft heard that suspicion fell on Rove and Libby, Ashcroft should have recused himself. Instead Ashcroft continued to get detailed briefings on what the investigators were uncovering.


Pete, I believe you were asked earlier and didn't answer: what did Ashcroft do or not do -- or what do you suspect he did or didn't do -- that interferred with the investigation?


Oct. 31, 2003 was the date when a new GJ was sworn in.

When was Fitz appointed?

JM Hanes


"Explain Oct. 31, 2003 that was typed up on the indictment papers."

The only mention of that date in the indictment is the reference to the convening of the grand jury, as you note in your subsequent post. It has nothing to do with when the indictment was written up. As laid out in the documents on Fitzgerald's http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html>DoJ Website, he was originally appointed Special Counsel on Dec. 20, 2003.

JM Hanes


"The article states that Wray who briefed Ashcroft was told about the exitence of the notes."

Waas sure works overtime to give you that impression, but what the article actually states is that Wray & Swartz "were later told of the notes' existence."


"later" is mentioned in the context of discovery of the notes. The article is poorly worded, and things are ambiguous, but I don't think that one can conclude that Ashcroft was not briefed by Wray about the notes in question.

Gary Maxwell

The legal ethics experts are correct that once Ashcroft heard that suspicion fell on Rove and Libby, Ashcroft should have recused himself.

This is one big steaming crock of horse dung.

What "legal ethics experts"?

Exactly what legal ethics are involved anyway?

Ashcroft had no conflict of interest in a legal sense. He recused himself because a bunch of Democrats were taking partisan shots at him and the President and thought he could remove politics from this whole fiasco by appointing a special prosecutor type. A stupid decision in retrospect.

And you either dont understand conflicts of interests, or just want to demagog this some more. Which is it?


Gary Maxwell - "What "legal ethics experts"?"

For starters there are two professors quoted in Waas's article.

Then there is this additional quote: "Current and former Justice officials not directly involved in the case said in interviews for this article, almost without exception, that once senior aides to both the president and vice president came under suspicion, Ashcroft should have recused himself entirely from the case."

Exactly what ethics are involved? If a close associate is involved in an investigation then one should not use his/her official position to get access to details about what the investigation is uncovering.


MJW - "Pete, I believe you were asked earlier and didn't answer: what did Ashcroft do or not do -- or what do you suspect he did or didn't do -- that interferred with the investigation?"

I suspect that he may have leaked the information to Rove/Libby.


Since folks here are ridiculing the notion that Rove's email could have been tampered with, here is a note from Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers on Jan 23 2006:

"we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."


Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Metin2 yang .

The comments to this entry are closed.