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

[PeterUK]

"oes an anonymous report mean a beating happened? No, but the AP is not the National Enquirer and it doens’t print bald accusations."

AP the organisation which published the Pulitzer prize winning snuff pictures,the ones taken anonymously of election workers being gunned down on Haifa Streeet.

"Think about it. Pumped up soldiers on a fresh bombing scene realize they’ve captured the bronze alive (Osama being the gold and Saddam the silver)—what do you think they did, read him his Miranda rights or give him a few little jubilant stomps?"

The girl is really getting her rocks off here....so much rancid speculation as to be pornographic.

"Killing Zarqawi and three women in the house with him was not an act of war. It was an act of retaliatory terrorism. By our government. And I don’t want it to be in my name."

Perhaps the ptrecious little nitwit would like to discuss this with the Bigley family.
It should be enshrined in military regulations that before firing soldiers intone,"This isn't for Jeralyn"

"Even if he was, as we’re told, the devil incarnate. Violence begets violence. It’s time for the war and the killing to stop."

How much more violence is the former serial killer Zarqawi going to commit now?

Irt is also time for the sun to shine and the bluebirds to sing and for Jeralyn to interpose her body between the protagonists

The trouble with the Jeralyns of this world,is they shrink from putting a price on what they call peace.

[Sue]

Did anyone ask Ms. Merritt if she supports the troops too? I'm always interested in that facet of a liberal.

[PeterUK]

Of Course Ms Merritt supports the troops...as long as the don't fight.

[MayBee]

To be honest, I'm not sure she even says she supports the troops any more.

[kate]

She doesn't support the troops, she hates them and it must have been difficult for the left to have to pretend to support the troops.

For some strategic reason, the left has decided it is now ok to trash the military. They let Murtha lead the way and, of course, the media piled on, since they could barely hide their hatred all these years.

It's obvious that the media likes to count casulaties and highlight any incidents.

My question is: I'm not sure this a smart strategy at all. I have no indication that the public is not supporting the troops and that they will continue to do so.

Is the MSM leading the Dems over the cliff again?

[Lurker]

You guys rock.

Time to replace those MSMs with objective and accurate reporting.

Perhaps the "JM's" would not have a problem living under Dhimmitude as described by Joshuapundit?

Pretty scary for a Christian or a Jew!

The heartbreak of Dhimmi-itis...Work for the cure.

There IS no freedom of speech under Dhimmitude for complaints against Islam.

Funny how Zarqawi used Western materialism. Willing to bet that Osama bin Laden and Zarahiwi used Western materialism off and on when they could.

Joshuapundit mentioned Bat Y'eor's "Eurabia", an excellent read. Haven't read the others he mentioned but they looked interesting.

Interestingly enough, John Quincy Adams was fully aware of the consquences of Dhimmitude, which influenced his concept of a republic democracy for this country. Frontpagemag featured an article written by someone that read the John Quincy Adams papers. I don't know if I can find it.

[MayBee]

Kate-
I think the left blogosphere looks at the polls, sees overall disapproval for Iraq, and mistakenly believes everyone agrees with their underlying arguments. They are wrong to imagine most Americans think it is a terrorist act to bomb Zarqawi.
Here's the neat little narrative they've got going for themselves
- Zarqawi living on to kill more people would be proof the American military is ineffective and needs to get out of Iraq. America allowing Zarqawi to operate would not be done in their name.
- An attempt to bring Zarqawi in alive would eventually have resulted in claims that he was being tortured, or that his trial was a sham. This would not be done in their name
-An attempt to capture Zarqawi that resulted in the death of US soldiers would have added to the "Americans Killed in Iraq" tally to prove the war is horrible. Those soldiers would not have died in their name
finally
-Zarqawi being killed was retaliatory terrorism, and it was not being done in their name.

[Lurker]

"Yes, the wire services stink. But I believe that if it turns out , as I suspect, the Time story is a crock, there should be a nationwide boycott of the magazine--beginning at US commissaries everywhere. It's time to start putting liars out of business. And Time is a discrete target."

Right on! I've already started boycotting several of these magazines, including online sites, such as MSNBC, even CNN (only choice at work, though), Time, etc.

Yup, I found the article:

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad

What's Wrong with Turkey? Part II

Hey, gang, for those of you running conservative sites, be forewared and prepared:

Tampa GOP Cyber-Attack

Some other interesting articles at frontpagemag, too. I lurk there from time to time.

[Lurker]

Wanna know what else AP reported - shows how badly they want the republicans to lose so that they can step in...to save the day:

Ahmadinejad Suggests Tehran Has Upper Hand

Hhmmm...I doubt it.

[Lurker]

Maybee, UGH! Sounds like a set of conspiracy theories in the making. Caldwell was asked why they showed a photo of Zarqawi and the answer was to show the world the truth.

[kate]

Maybee: I agree. That's why they misplay certain stories like the NSA wiretaps, the death of Zarqawi, Haditha. They really take dissatisfaction with the war and assume that everyone hates the troops and the war. Most people just want things to be going better.

That's why it is so important to get the other side of stories like Haditha. Every time the wire services sneak the work massacre into their headlines we need to call them on that. This is part of their strategy to link Haditha to My Lai.

[PeterUK]

If killing Zarqawi prevents more innocents being ritually slaughtered,but this is not in Jeralyn's name,presumably the converse is true,all those slaughtered by Zarqawi are in Jeralyn's name.

Lurker the picture were shown for the same reason AP syndicated the Haifa St massacre.

[Patton]

Here's the biggest lunacy....haven't the left been telling us that the military didn't really want to get Zarqawi, or Zawahiri, or Osama...that we needed those bogey-men out there to continue our war for oil?

Well, then wouldn't our military have let Zarqawi go? Or let him escape, or not have bombed?

Was this a huge mistake and Zarqawi wasn't even supposed to be there only blind woman and crippled children for our military to feast their beatings on??

Just saying?

[PeterUK]

Zarqawi was attending a wedding at the orphanage where two childhood sweethearts,both blind,were getting married.The limbless mullah who had been as a father to them all their lives was to have officiated.

[clarice]

Oh hush your mouth,PUK. Tomorrow this will be printed as truth on sinesphere and jihadi websites throughout the world.

[Rick Ballard]

Here is one of the Marines description of events in Haditha via his attorney.

[kate]

Good that the Marines are getting their account of the story out there. The investigation is not slated for completion until August. That would give the AP "stringers" time to interview every Iraqi villager, human rights witnesses, lawyers out for more blood money and little orphan girls.

Time to counter that now. The media really loved having the field to themselves for three weeks now.

[clarice]

Rick--see this in the Wa Po article:
"Marine Reserve Lt. Jonathan Morgenstein, who served in Anbar province from August 2004 to March 2005, said that the account offered by Wuterich's attorney surprised him a bit.

"When I was in Iraq," Morgenstein said, "the Anbar-wide ROEs [rules of engagement] did not say we had the authority to knock down any door, throw in a hand grenade and kill everyone." Still, he said, if someone in a house in Haditha was shooting at them, the Marines' response may have been within procedure. "If they felt they took fire from that house, then that may be authorized."

Guess the reporter ran out of space to tell the reader that Morgenstein was a civil affairs officer for a few months in Ramadi and since then has been employed at the U.S. Institute for Peace.

[clarice]

Sweetness & Light, Riehl and Waldon deserve prizes for the only real investigative journalism in the Haditha matter.

[PeterUK]

Yes Clarice,
But this time we know where it came from and can prove that it is false,there nothing like providing a liar with his lie.

I hereby verify my Posted by: PeterUK | June 11, 2006 at 07:18 AM post was a complete fabrication,just as Jeralyn Merritt and the AP make shit up.

[Patton]

Peter, we know they had a gun to your head and made you type that......

On the bright side, Time just lost three 'well placed, highly reliable' sources at GITMO.

They took an 'early release'.....

[kate]

AP needs to be beat up over the beat up story. They should not be allowed to slink away from it and change the subject. Of course, who will hold them accountable. Reuters, they are worse, The New York Times, no it falls to the blog and the few conservative media outlets.

[Cecil Turner]

Interesting article. The description of the house clearing sounds exactly like how I was taught to do it (toss in a grenade, follow up with automatic fire before the smoke clears). It's not reckless as the unnamed Marine suggests. And it's unlikely to be an ROE violation if they thought they were taking fire from there . . . .

This is also a pretty stark example of the difference between a crime and a war crime. If the Marines acted in good faith, even if somewhat recklessly, it's not a crime. And frankly, the Staff Sergeant's story was consistent with most of the other reports I've read, and more believable than most of the accusations.

[PeterUK]

Now here is one that is true, Musab al Zarqawi never killed anyone in a fair fight.

[Rick Ballard]

"no it falls to the blog and the few conservative media outlets."

I think finally it falls to common sense. Merritt and her ilk (she's a Hillary clone - indoctrinated with Alinsky's "ideas" and following his "rules" in lockstep) are incapapble of building. They flit from one incoherent assertion to another in an attempt to construct a believable alternative reality but they truly haven't the agitprop skills necessary to close the deal.

Common sense responds to a logically constructed narrative based upon observable facts. That's what keeps Rush and Hugh in business and that's what gets Air America laughed into bankruptcy. It's also what is destroying the MSM, slowly, to be sure, but very surely.

Those whose only gift is that of tearing down aren't going to be hired as builders. Merritt and Miz Clinton haven't a clue concerning building anything. Their only skill is that of advocacy for constructing castles in the air.

It should be called CheapTalkLeft if truth had anything to do with it.

[PeterUK]

Ignoring Talk Left's tendentious rhetoric,the piece is an exemplar of the schizophrenic dichotomy in left wing thinking.It was perfectly acceptable to them that millions died to propagate communism but wrong for a mad dog like Zarqawi to be put down before he can slaughter more unarmed innnocents.
As for the Geneva Conventions,these rely totally on the principle of reciprocity,it is insane to extend the rights enshrined therein to those who do not extend those same rights to us.I find a complete absence of beheading snuff movies in the conventions.
Lastly our precious left wing whiners can only survive and prosper under the systems which they so despise,Zarqawi may not have been killed in their name,but he was certainly killed for their sake.

[pollyusa]

Tom,

by Sept 16, the DoJ had been told that the CIA was convinced that there was a problem; finally, on Sept 29, the DoJ moved on this (although MSNBC reported it the previous Friday, Sept 26).

On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the FBI to commence a criminal investigation.
Libby Indictment

[richard mcenroe]

Patton — It's perfectly simple in ThinkLeft.

The US war effort is so incompetent we couldn't even catch Zarqawi, so Zarqawi's freedom is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

The US needed Zarqawi alive and killing, to shore up their claims the war effort was good and necessary, so his death is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

The US knew where Zarqawi was all along, so their failure to kill him until now is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

The US knew where Zarqawi was all along, so leaving him free to kill women and children is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

Killing women and possibly children to kill Zarqawi who was killing women and children is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

Bringing an ambulance along to torture Zarqawi in (because that's where all the best torturing is done) is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

Acting unilaterally to kill Zarqawi is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

Bringing along Polish troops and Iraqi police on the operation proves America can no longer look after its own interests and is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

See? It's all perfectly coherent as long as you add the right prepositional phrase.

[Patton]

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/images/today-show-canoe.jpg

Never catch big time networks staging the news......ooops!

[PeterUK]

Looks like they sprinkled Zarqawi's breakfast raisin flakes with something.

[windansea]

Guess the reporter ran out of space to tell the reader that Morgenstein was a civil affairs officer for a few months in Ramadi and since then has been employed at the U.S. Institute for Peace.

good catch Clarice...if everyone of us emailed these little tidbits of truth to the right reporters we could at least make a dent in the MSM 24/7 smear campaign

[windansea]

wow...Rick (and all) well said!...looks like we are all locked and loaded....I like this team in a firefight :)

[clarice]

(I just baked three batches of desert safe cookies for a friend stationed in Al-Anbar province. Did you know that you cannot put nutmeg or mace in baked goods to be sent there because ME authorities regard those spices as aphrodisiacs? Ditto with vanilla extract because it has alcohol?)
I read last night that Zarqawi's first mission was to send a suicide bomber to blow up a theater in Jordan that was showing porno filsm, that the dope was so enthralled by what he saw on the screen he was distracted and blew his own legs off.
Let's all send nutmeg and porno films to the ME and strike a blow for freedom.

[topsecretk9]

I read last night that Zarqawi's first mission was to send a suicide bomber to blow up a theater in Jordan that was showing porno filsm

Yes and this happened in 1993

So, you know...violence begets violence I guess!

[clarice]

And another thing, that three man beheading film which the press implies occurred after Zarqawi's death--to create the impression that the violence will continue unabated and our success is really not a success--was shot and distributed on June 7, days before the air strike that killed Zarqawi.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Parachute a crack team of feminists in,let the burqas burn across the Middle East.

[clarice]

Remember that Iraqi interviewed when we invaded? He was asked what he most looked forward to? "Whiskey, sexy and freedom" he said--the desire of free men everywhere.

Here's a cite for my previous post. http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5346

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
They all want to be Kennedy's?

[clarice]

Maybe not that far, PUK. Just a recognition of the Dionysian impulse in the human breast.

[Jeff]

polly - I noticed that too. The weird thing is that the NBC report on September 26 was, I believe, a report of the referral, not of the beginning of the investigation - although it may have garbled its facts in that regard. But something also happens on the 29th. The order of events in that period is still rather confusing to me.

[Lurker]

Heh...how about replacing Zarqawi with "Osama bin Laden"?

"The US war effort is so incompetent we couldn't even catch Zarqawi, so OBL's freedom is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

The US needed The US war effort is so incompetent we couldn't even catch OBL, so OBL's freedom is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

The US needed OBL alive and killing, to shore up their claims the war effort was good and necessary, so his death is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

The US knew where OBL was all along, so their failure to kill him until now is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

The US knew where OBL was all along, so leaving him free to kill women and children is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

Killing women and possibly children to kill OBL who was killing women and children is a huge blow to the Bush Administration.

etc, etc, etc.,

Yes, I actually heard someone at work who is a hardcore democrat saying something similar to this.

Ya think that our military has been learning the truth about our friendly LSM / MSM all along?

Incidentally, some of the grunts told Robert Kaplan as written in his book, "Imperial Grunts", that they would prefer to stay the course in spite of their injuries and they want to continue another deployment.

These grunts do NOT do combat duty all the time. They actually provide training the the country troops, MEDCOM, DENTCOM, and VETCOM, at a minimum. They also adapt to the country's traditions, culture, religion, etc.,

MEDCOM = medical services.
DENTCOM = dental work.
VETCOM = veterinary work.

These grunts have had to grow beards, long hair, wear turbans, learn the localities (e.g., language, slang, culture, etc.).

And they love their jobs!

[Lurker]

Flopping Aces and Atlas Shrugged ar toying with an idea of having John Bolton becoming our next US president.

Now...that's an idea!

[Lurker]

"Tom,

by Sept 16, the DoJ had been told that the CIA was convinced that there was a problem; finally, on Sept 29, the DoJ moved on this (although MSNBC reported it the previous Friday, Sept 26).

On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the FBI to commence a criminal investigation.
Libby Indictment"

Number 25 says:

"25. On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003."

After reading about Mary McCarthy being forced to leave CIA and the problems with the CIA leaking to everyone, and some of the left-wing tactics, this statement, "the DoJ had been told that the CIA was convinced that there was a problem;", loses credibility in my mind.

1. Was there a specific person that informed the DOJ of any problems?

2. What specific problems did the CIA identify to the DOJ?

3. Did the CIA provide damage assessment to the DOJ?

4. Did the CIA tell DOJ that Valeria Plame was covert at that time (Sept 16)?

[Lurker]

CIA completed its investigation? Did they give the DOJ any findings?

The fact that Conyers ran that psuedo impeachment process in the Capital basement AND prohibited the defense team from challenging every count levied against Bush, AND wanting to replace Specter so that he can start the impeachment process against Bush, etc., speaks alot of words against the letter he received from the CIA.

Who is Stanley Moscovitz?

2. Was the CIA investigation biased and intent on "outing" Libby and Rove?

3. "Unauthorized disclosure of classified information" versus the common knowledge of Valerie's status.

From what I've read in the Conyer's letter and the word done by many posters at this site, this tells me that there's something really fishy with the CIA investigation.

[pollyusa]

Jeff,

I had also wondered about the timing and I think this is the sequence.

On the 9/26/03 the "Department of Justice authorized the FBI to commence a criminal investigation" per the indictment.

and in a letter dated 9/29/03 the DOJ informed the CIA that a they had intiated a criminal investigation per the Conyers letter.

[JM Hanes]

TM

Well, I finally got around to reading the Waas article in full. For a guy who is jumping all over the Ashcroft's recusal, he's noticeably fuzzy on the details of What Ashcroft Knew, and When He Knew It! Looks to me like he's deliberately fudging the very questions you're left with -- and more than willing to impute prior knowledge of later discoveries throughout. [Emphasis in quotes thoughout is mine].

For starters, Waas says that Ashcroft continued to oversee the Plame probe “for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings” that the FBI suspected Rove & Libby were trying to mislead them. Yet in the very next sentence he states that those very briefings took place “between October and December 2003.” Apparently in Waas' Reality Based Dictionary not only are "after" & "between" synonymous, prepositions of every sort are virtually interchangeable. Note his frequent, casual use of “later” to gloss over defiencies in his timeline.

After citing Libby’s first FBI interview on Oct. 14, Waas gives us the following masterpiece of conflation, if not outright contradiction. Let's follow the timing on Libby's notes, shall we? [emphasis mine]:

In November 2003, the FBI interviewed Libby a second time, and information derived from that briefing was also passed on to Ashcroft, sources said.

Around this same time, FBI agents had obtained Libby's own notes stating that Cheney, not Russert, was the person who told Libby about Plame's CIA connection. Also by then, investigators had obtained other government records and the accounts of other witnesses indicating that Wilson's Niger mission and Plame's possible role in sending her husband to Africa were major preoccupations for the vice president. As the agents interviewed Libby, they showed him his own notes on Cheney's disclosure to him about Plame's CIA job.

According to the FBI report cited in Libby's indictment, when Russert supposedly told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA, "Libby was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, Libby did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the vice president."

Although the FBI had not yet been able to interview any of the journalists -- Russert, Cooper, or Miller -- they were skeptical of Libby's account, sources said. Word of their concern was passed up to Ashcroft in a routine briefing on the status of the leak probe.

Within, at most, 10 days of the interview with Libby, sources said, Ashcroft was briefed not only on what Libby had told the FBI but also on the evidence that had made FBI agents and prosecutors doubt his story. Later, investigators obtained Libby's handwritten notes that showed that Libby had learned about Plame from Cheney.

Wray, the head of the criminal division, and Bruce C. Swartz, a deputy assistant attorney general who oversees criminal investigations involving sensitive national security matters, were later told of the notes' existence and of the investigators' belief that Libby might have been holding back to protect Cheney. It is unclear, however, whether Ashcroft was briefed in detail regarding Cheney before he recused himself from the Plame case.

Other papers that the White House later turned over to federal investigators would show that Cheney had been a driving force in encouraging Libby to discredit Wilson's allegations against the Bush administration.

Whew! It takes real work to make it sound like Ashcroft knew all about the discrepancies in Libby’s testimony at the same time you’re admitting that reporters had yet to be questioned, and that even Wray and Swartz, who were leading the investigation, found out about Libby’s all important notes “later.”

Waas also works mightily to make it sound like Ashcroft’s relationship with Rove was not the only compelling reason for his recusal. Perhaps that’s because it looks like all there was to know at that point was that the Novak and Rove stories were consistent with each other and that “investigators” were tossing around the idea of a possible collusion.

The pièce de résistance, however, is Waas’ thoroughly buried lede. There was no Deputy Attorney General in place to take the case off Ashcroft's hands!

Comey, who was nominated on October 3rd, wasn’t confirmed till December 9th. Waas states that “senior Justice officials concerned about the investigation faced unique hurdles in seeking Ashcroft's recusal.” Well, when the acting deputy attorney general was "a Yale classmate of Bush's and a lifelong friend of the president and first lady Laura Bush,” I’d say the most senior official of all faced a pretty unique hurdle himself, wouldn’t you?

Are Waas and other Ashcroft detractors seriously suggesting that Ashcroft should have reached down the ranks to invest the full power of his office in Christopher Wray, instead of the new Deputy A.G. just waiting in the wings for the Congressional approval which was sure to come?

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.

Comey was signed into office by the Prez on Thursday the 11th, and after what I’m sure was a jolly Christmas holiday, Ashcroft's brand new Deputy took over on the 30th. That’s the real timing in question here.

[Jane]

(I just baked three batches of desert safe cookies for a friend stationed in Al-Anbar province. Did you know that you cannot put nutmeg or mace in baked goods to be sent there because ME authorities regard those spices as aphrodisiacs? Ditto with vanilla extract because it has alcohol?)

Did your friend tell you how they figure out what is in the cookies? Taste test?

[JM Hanes]

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?

[Lurker]

The reponse to the Conyers letter appear to be an answer to Conyers' question of what's up?

As per Stanley, on July 24, 2003, the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of a review of the various articles by subject matter experts (I'd like to know who were these experts).

July 30, 2003, the CIA reported to the DOJ of a possible violation of criminal law concerning unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

This same letter informed DOJ (on July 30, 2003) that the CIA had opened an investigation into this matter. And faxed to DOJ on Sept 5, 2003.

Was Porter Goss fully aware of this investigation and endorsed it? Probably but this doesn't jive with his outing Mary McCarthy and whatever he did in the last 2 years before his retirement.

Sept 16 was the date that the CIA completed its investigation so why is Fitz taking more than 2 years to investigate this whole thing when it took CIA few months?

September 26, 2003 lands on a Friday and 29th on a Monday.

Actually, the Conyers letter indicated that it was Sept 16th when the CIA informed DOJ its investigation was completed and submitted a request to DOJ on this same day (Sept 16) that the FBI understake a criminal investigation of this metter.

Sept 16th, 2003 falls on Tuesday, almost two weeks before 29th.

[JM Hanes]

Polly & Jeff

Perhaps you can help clarify the early sequence of events for me as well. It’s my impression that there was an initial referral to Justice which the Criminal Div. was not enthusiastic about persuing without a stronger, more specific allegation/affirmation/affidavit of some kind from the CIA. This eventually came in the form of a letter from Tenet himself and/or another submission from the CIA, did it not? It may also have been what prompted the internal assessment when it finally took place. I believe there was something like a month or maybe even more in between the original subsmission and Tenet’s letter, but as you can see, I’m not really sure.

[JM Hanes]

Polly -- I see the letter to Conyers covers most of what I asked about above; I'm afraid I got to your link (for which, thanks) after my query. Can you tell me where the letter Tenet personally wrote figures in here?

[Lurker]

JM Hanes, enjoyed your posts. Many good points.

Guess Tenet was the head of the CIA at that time?

Somewhere in the timeline of your post is Oct 31, 2003 Libby indictment.

So from Sept 29th til about mid-October, 2003 was when the FBI did the investigation? When did the GJ vote on the indictment?

That's not very long. Seems that the investigation done by the CIA and FBI was very incomplete.

[clarice]

Jane, they don't. This is obviously one of those stupid concessions *wink wink* to local sensibilities.
JMH Kudos!

[Lurker]

It was sometime in Sept, 2003 that Tenet followed up with a memo raising questions about whether the leakers violated federal law.

You can play around with PollyUsa's calendar showing the timeframe.

Plame Timeframe

[Lurker]

The actualy Libby indictment as per PollyUSA calendar was Nov 26.

Note on Oct 4th, 2003 in this calendar, that the leak of Agent's name causes exposure of CIA front firm, "Brewster-Jennings" but Plame listed it on her 1999 W-2 form (via FEC record).

If this is the damage caused by the leak, did Libby ever referred to "Brewster-Jennings" during his conversation with the reporters?

How can outing Plame's name cause the exposure of "Brewster-Jennings"?

Joe Wilson referred to the Iran non-proliferation as another damage assessment?

[pollyusa]

JM Hanes,

It took the DOJ seven work days from when they recieved the CIA referal to their intiation of an investigation by the FBI.

The exact date of the Tenet letter is unknown.

Out of view of the public, the CIA took the first steps towards a formal investigation. On July 30, it reported to the Justice Department a possible offense "concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." In August the agency completed an 11-question form detailing the potential damage done. In September, Tenet followed up with a memo raising questions about whether the leakers had violated federal law.

On Sept. 26, 2003, the FBI launched an inquiry into who leaked Plame's name and occupation.
WaPo 10/30/05

More detail on the exact dates can be found in the Conyers letter and the libby Indictment.

July 30, 2003 letter from the CIA to DOJ that notified DOJ that the CIA would be forwarding a "written crimes report" pending a review of the news articles by subject matter experts.

In August the CIA completes the 11 question form

Sometime in September Tenet sends a letter

September 16th the CIA sends the DOJ the results of their investigation and requests that the DOJ begin an investigation.

September 26th the DOJ authorized the FBI to commence a criminal investigation.

September 29th the DOJ informed the CIA that a they had intiated a criminal investigation.

You may have been under the impression that the process was extended from an article written by York. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Navigate to September 2003 on this Plame Calendar and you will see all the dates and links. It really makes it easier to see that entire period.

[Rocco]

Has anyone seen this yet?

[pollyusa]

Has anyone seen this yet?

Yes

[Rocco]

That's why I love you people!

[Jeff]

Ah, memories of folding griddles, polly, such nostalgia.

I meant to mention that it's worth observing that the indictment's description of DoJ's authorization of the FBi to investigate specifies various reporters, not just Novak, as the recipient of the problematic disclosures.

[pollyusa]

I never saw that Tom Christian stuff at the end of that thread before. He must have a tracker on his website.

I did notice that Johnson remarked at the Plame panel on the cover Plame had. I think he was basically saying the CIA screwed up and should have provided better cover.

[Lurker]

"You may have been under the impression that the process was extended from an article written by York. That doesn't appear to be the case."

I didn't even read the York article today. If I read it before, I didn't pay much attention to it.

[pollyusa]

I never noticed the "various reporters" mentioned in the indictment. Interesting.

[MayBee]

At the Plame panel, didn't Joe Wilson say that a damage assessment had been done but the CIA is awaiting the end of Libby's trial to make it formal?
How is that the right thing to do? Or is it perhaps not true?

Why should Larry Johnson know about the cover Plame had? That's what bugs me here. Fitzgerald says it can't be discussed, yet Larry Johnson seems to know all.

[MJW]

JM Hanes quotes from Waas's article:

In November 2003, the FBI interviewed Libby a second time, and information derived from that briefing was also passed on to Ashcroft, sources said.

A minor point, perhaps, but the exact date of Libby's second FBI interview was November 26; so it was very near the end of November. In fact, it was the day before Thanksgiving, so the December began on the Monday following the four-day weekend.

[Patton]

Well that I was fun. I posted under the name Poppy on Talk Left for about a day and was banned.

Simply for posting truths they didn't want to hear.

I would have though JM had more of an open mind, but she really changed my opinion of her pretty quick.

For people who talk about inclusion and understanding and sharing they sure are quick to silenece you if you provide any information that doesn't match their particular world view.

I'd say they had much more sympathy for the three terrorists that carried out their appropriate sentences then for poor old me.

I was hung without a trail, I was strung up without even a chance to defend myself simply because the crowd demanded it.

[PeterUK]

"Joe Wilson say that a damage assessment had been done but the CIA is awaiting the end of Libby's trial to make it formal?"

What has this got to do with Joe Wilson,he isn't CIA and IIRC he is not material to the trial,yet here he is interfering in justice.

As with Larry Johnson,analsyt,last job with the State Department,blabbing about a case he has nothing to do with.
Is it not time the Judge took control of this trial by gossip?

[Patton]

The funniest thing is they actually blame Bush for these guys suicides when it was clearly Clintons fault.

1. Clinton maintained sanctions on Iraq making the claim they had WMD. this was a lie that the left perpetrated for eight years.

2. Clintons sanctions caused hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, millions with life long mental and physical problems due to malnutrition, lack of medicine, lack of health care, etc. etc.

3. In response to Clintons actions, Osama Bin Laden declares war on us in 1996 and 1998. Osama's main beef if you actually read his declarations is that we are committing genicide on the Iraqi people.

4. In response to Osama declaration of war, Clinton somizes an intern and general dies little else for three years.
Osama strikes on Sept 11th.

5. In response, America declares war on terrorists and starts rounding the up.

6. Some of those rounded up off themselves with our undying gratitude.

NOW IF JERALYN ACTUALLY BELIEVES VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE - SHE WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE CHAIN RUNS FROM CLINTONS VIOLENCE AGAINST THE IRAQ PEOPLE TO OSAMA VIOLENCE AGAINST US, TO OUR VIOLENCE IN RESPONSE.

So Clinton should be the poster boy on her hanging post picture.

[kate]

Patton-the left in this country is quickly become Stalinist. They want the death penalty for Marines, Libby, and Rove; but love and understanding for UBL and Zarqawi.

Just be thankful you were only banned and not sent to mandatory, virtual reeducation camp.

[Lurker]

A gag order? Maybe the judge might rule something about that tomorrow?

[kate]

Hmmm...yes tomorrow is another hearing. So far I'm not all that impressed with the judge. We shall see.

What is this hearing on again? Disclosure, discovery, reporters. It's all starting to run together.

[PeterUK]

The left have always been Stalinist,or some other dirigiste-ist or other,they don't care about truth, honour, democracy,mom's apple pie or the American way,they want world socialism and are prepared to do anything to get it.
They won't like it of course since the first thing the proletariate would do is put them up against the wall,it has not dawned it was they who Pol Pot drove into the fields to die.Poor dumb bastards.

[Lurker]

It is my understanding that it is a pre-status.

[clarice]

If there was a damage assessment, Libby asked for it during discovery and the CIA better not be holding it back.More of Ambassador Munchausen's fantasies again..Perhaps someone ought to forward that to Fitz and the Judge and ask for an explanation.

[PeterUK]

Surely,any damage assessment by the CIA would be classified,who told ex-Ambassador Munch?

[Lurker]

""Joe Wilson say that a damage assessment had been done but the CIA is awaiting the end of Libby's trial to make it formal?"

What has this got to do with Joe Wilson,he isn't CIA and IIRC he is not material to the trial,yet here he is interfering in justice.

As with Larry Johnson,analsyt,last job with the State Department,blabbing about a case he has nothing to do with.
Is it not time the Judge took control of this trial by gossip?"

And if Joe's information is correct, how does he know that AND did Fitz use Joe as one of his sources to come up with the damage assessment?

Hhhmmm, tomorrow might be an interesting day.

[maryrose]

It's been a beautiful day here and I just read the recent posts and I have to tell you I am very disturbed that Wilson and Co. at their Kos convention and Wilson previously at the correspondent's dinner feel free to spin this investigation to their advantage. It seems they want to bring in the big case because they know Fitz is losing in all areas. How does he know about a damage assessment you ask? Pillow talk with Val of course. Wilson has no classification no clearance no nothing yet he feels compelled to comment and to inadvertently try to pretend that some real EVIL has been perpetrated. I can't wait for his comeuppance or his grilling on the stand whichever comes first.

[clarice]

Hugh Hewitt notes that Haditha is not the only case under investigation where Murtha has pre judged the conduct of servicemen and blabbed to the press about it. He concludes:
"Even if charges are brought against Marines in both Haditha and Hamandiya and convictions secured, Congressman Murtha's conduct that has prejudged these men will always remain an outrageous political intervention into the military's criminal justice system. If any of those implicated by Murtha are not charged, or are charged and acquited, Murtha's conduct will be revealed as disgraceful. "

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/11-week/index.php#a002409

[maryrose]

Murtha putting his name in for majority leader smacks of his new arrogance and pride. This is his last hurrah and he's making the most of it. I say keep talking Murtha between him and Jefferson[I will not step down or resign} and Mollohan{sweetheart deals for a friend } these dems are showing the world what it means to play fast and loose with the truth and how unbecoming power mad people can be.

[Lurker]

Murtha's past experience in the military and current position does not give him any right to blab about it in advance of a pending investigation - just as much as the AP reporting something that's not corroborated AND its inferior quality of polling.

Think that should be ethical of Murtha to keep his mouth shut while an investigation is pending, right?

[maryrose]

Murtha is like Wilson neither one knows when to keep his big mouth shut.

[JM Hanes]

Polly --

Many thanks! I've bookmarked your calendar which is a much appreciated aide memoire.

I may be more sympathetic to Libby's faulty memory argument than I ought to be, because at a certain age, you begin to realize that you've exceeded your lifetime detail quota. In a process that seems more than a little unpredictable, I find I'm as likely to forget something important as I am to forget a triviality.

At any rate, following up on your links/leads with a little extra googling, this is what the timeline looks like to me now:

The first CIA notification occured on July 30th.

From the http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98733,00.html>"Raw Data" article your calendar links to, it looks like the CIA didn't actually provide the required assessment "questionnaire" till the last week in August. What is odd, and what may also be the source of my original impression, is that the CIA then seems to have gone through the entire process all over again!

They resubmitted the July referral to DOJ by FAX on Sept. 5. Then on Sept. 16th, per Conyers, "the CIA informed DoJ that the Agency's investigation into this matter was complete, provided DoJ a memorandum setting for the results of that investigation, and requested that the Federal Bureay of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter."

According to http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02072.html>Check Schumer's website, Tenet sent his memo to the FBI on Spetember 23rd. Then in a Sept. 29th letter (again per Conyers) "DoJ advised that the Counterespionage Section of DoJ had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter."

The reference in the indictment stating that "On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the FBI to commence a criminal investigation" seems a little off, doesn't it? The Sept. 26 Johnson/MItchell article linked on your calendar refers to CIA asking Justice to investigate, so I'm not clear on where the 7 business day interval you have in mind occurs. Starting from the original referral, it looks like nearly 2 months. Am I mixing something up here?

[clarice]

This accords with the assertion in Libby's pleadings to the effect that DoJ didn't accept the original referral .Recall he has asked in discovery for all communication reflecting this.

[JM Hanes]

I'm curious about the source of all this sudden concentration on the Ashcroft recusal. Pete brought the subject up here in what seemed to me at the time to be rather out of the blue. It was either before the Waas article came out, or at least before I'd heard about it anywhere. So...

Pete --

If you're around, I'd be interesting in where you came across the Ashcroft issue before posting on it at JOM.

[pollyusa]

JM Hanes,

Thanks for the link to Schumer's website, I will add the Tenet memo information to the calendar.

The seven work days I refered to are the business days between the 9/16/03 official request by the CIA to the DOJ to investigate and the 9/26/03 the day that the DOJ tells the FBI to begin an investigation.

The CIA hadn't requested that the DOJ investigate until 9/16/03, they had notified the DOJ earlier that they would be forwarding a "written crimes report" pending a review of the news articles by subject matter experts.

[JM Hanes]

Here's a little something from CDR Salamander at Milblogs">http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/06/11/#005623">Milblogs for the "violence begets violence" folks:

Members of an armed Fatah militia which claimed to have kidnapped an Israeli Saturday transferred the individual in question, a U.S. citizen, to the custody of the Palestinian Authority before dawn Sunday.

The PA security forces subsequently handed the American over to the Israel Defense Forces. Defense officials believe once the militants discovered the person was indeed an American citizen, they took steps to end the matter quickly.

“Apparently, the kidnappers did not want to end up like Zarqawi,” a defense official said.

[Lurker]

Would one of the subject matter experts be...Larry Johnson?

[Lurker]

JM Hanes, you pointed out that

"Comey, who was nominated on October 3rd, wasn’t confirmed till December 9th. Waas states that “senior Justice officials concerned about the investigation faced unique hurdles in seeking Ashcroft's recusal.”

When was Fitz appointed as a SP for this case? I guess Gonzales appointed Fitz? And to what extent of authority was Fitz given as a SP at this time?

When did Comey write the letter authorizing Fitz to investigate the CIA leaks?

[Lurker]

JM Hanes, regarding the milblog post, that's certainly good news. So...violence begat cowardice?

[steve]

Lurker, re this:
Note on Oct 4th, 2003 in this calendar, that the leak of Agent's name causes exposure of CIA front firm, "Brewster-Jennings" but Plame listed it on her 1999 W-2 form (via FEC record).

If this is the damage caused by the leak, did Libby ever referred to "Brewster-Jennings" during his conversation with the reporters?

How can outing Plame's name cause the exposure of "Brewster-Jennings"?

Me:
My pet theory is that it's B-J (as a CIA front) that was classified, not necessarily Plame herself. And as part of her 'no offical cover', she listed B-J on her political donations, etc...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. Because it links 2 things that can't both be 'true". (i.e Plame works for BJ AND Plame works for the CIA) It exposes that BJ is actually the CIA, which means that any other agents working there are now exposed, any people overseas that met with BJ 'employees' are now know to have actually been meeting with the CIA, etc...

Maybe this is why Wilson could tell peeps that his wife worked for the CIA and not get in trouble...- because unless they 'knew' differently, is there any harm? Who's going to see her paycheck stub to see that it's really from BJ?

[JM Hanes]

Polly

"The CIA hadn't requested that the DOJ investigate until 9/16/03, they had notified the DOJ earlier that they would be forwarding a "written crimes report" pending a review of the news articles by subject matter experts."

From the wording above, it sounds like what you're referring to here, per the Conyers' letter, is actually the July 24th telephone message that preceded the first official notification letter on the 30th (which also mentions a CIA investigation). Are you perhaps inadvertantly conflating the two? Since the CIA submitted precisely the same letter to the DoJ more than a month later, I must admit, I'm having a hard time not seeing it as do-over.

[pollyusa]

JM Hanes

The reference in the indictment stating that "On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the FBI to commence a criminal investigation" seems a little off, doesn't it?

I don't think so. The indictment says September 26th. Schumer says Ashcroft reported the 26th

Attorney General John Ashcroft reported that the Department of Justice opened its investigation on Friday, September 26th
Schumer's website

and the 10/30/05 WaPo has the 26th

On Sept. 26, 2003, the FBI launched an inquiry into who leaked Plame's name and occupation.
10/30/05 WaPo

I think the confusion is that the Conyers letter states that the CIA was informed on the 29th.

They resubmitted the July referral to DOJ by FAX on Sept. 5

I think this is incorrect. The fax was not the referral. The referral was submitted on 9/16/03.The fax was a repeat of the July 30 letter, per the Conyers letter.

The July 30 letter was basically notification of a "possible violation".

[JM Hanes]

Lurker

Comey appointed Fitzgerald. If you check out the Fitzgerald's DOJ Website you'll find that the first three PDF's spell out most of the details you're asking about. On the http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html>second page, he's also posting most of the government's legal filings -- if not exactly in a timely manner!

[pollyusa]

JM

We cross posted, but I think the July 24 phone call was followed up by the July 30 letter, and then the 9/5/03 fax was the same as the July 30 letter.

All of the above preceed the actual referral which was sent on 9/16/03.

I don't know why the CIA sent the July 30 letter again on 9/5/03.

[Lurker]

So Fitz indicted Libby before Comey appointed Fitz?

Fitz was not a SP when he indicted Libby?

[pollyusa]

Libby was indicted on 10/28/05

Fitzgerald was appointed on 12/30/03

[Lurker]

Ah, ok, thanks, think you have the year wrong on 10/28/05 date in your calender.

[JM Hanes]

Polly

"I think the confusion is that the Conyers letter states that the CIA was informed on the 29th."

Yes, I think you're right. I see that the Conyers letter was about informing the CIA, not an announcing the launch.

"I don't know why the CIA sent the July 30 letter again on 9/5/03."

Or essentially repeated the required assessment -- when they had submitted one at the end of August -- for a second time as well. That August confirmation actually should have qualified as the original referral, in the same way you're suggesting the Sept. 16 assessment submission did. It seems to me that were also hearing about the CIA referral well before Sept. 16, but I'll have to check around for supporting links on that.

[pollyusa]

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

I corrected the calendar, I had the Indictment in 2005 with the wrong date on the press conference link.

[Pete]

JM Hanes - "Pete -- If you're around, I'd be interesting in where you came across the Ashcroft issue before posting on it at JOM."

It is hard for me to respond without knowing which post of mine you are referring to or which aspect of Ashcroft you are referring to.

Was it this post of mine?
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/
06/who_is_mark_cor.html#comment-18022283

Recently I posted after the Waas article came out. I have been interested in the Ashcroft investigation for a long time because I think that the initial days are very meaningful.