Who Is Mark Corallo Working For?

The NY Times tells us that Mark Corallo, press flack for Karl Rove, has filed an affidavit in support of a motion to quash a Department of Justice subpoena to reporters:

Subpoenas issued last month to reporters for The San Francisco Chronicle were criticized yesterday by a former chief spokesman for Attorney General John Ashcroft as a "reckless abuse of power."

The former spokesman, Mark Corallo, made similar statements in an affidavit filed in federal court yesterday. He said Mr. Ashcroft's successor, Alberto R. Gonzales, had acted improperly in issuing the subpoenas.

"This is the most reckless abuse of power I have seen in years," Mr. Corallo said in an interview. "They really should be ashamed of themselves."

The subpoenas, part of an effort to identify The Chronicle's sources for its coverage of steroid use in baseball, would not have been authorized by Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Corallo said. "You just don't ride roughshod over the rights of reporters to gather information from confidential sources," he added.

Mr. Corallo left the Justice Department in 2005. His public relations firm represents, among others, Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.

...

Under the Justice Department's internal guidelines, subpoenas to the press for confidential sources require authorization by the attorney general. Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Corallo said, he and others also had authority to deny such requests.

Mr. Corallo said that in three years as the department's press secretary and public affairs director, he approved a single subpoena to the press, involving what he called a serious national security matter, and turned down many more. One of those he refused, he said in the court filing, concerned "a public corruption case involving leaks of grand jury information."

Mr. Gonzales has defended his decision to issue the subpoenas. "I think it was information that was necessary, that we needed to have in connection with that investigation," he told the editorial board of The Houston Chronicle last month.

Mr. Corallo said he had used a different standard, one rooted in Justice Department policy.

"It has to be a matter of grave national security or impending physical harm to innocent people," he said, "not just, well, this is the only way we're going to be able to get this information."

Someone ought to ask him whether he thinks the Valerie Plame case counts as a matter of "grave" national security - there are certainly plenty of reasons to think it does not.  (An obvious "Someone" would be Jeralyn Merritt, who has Mr. Corallo's contact info).

And if it does not, then might Rove and Libby have presumed that Ashcroft would not be issuing subpoenas to reporters?  One might wonder if they were calculating that, absent reporter's testimony, the case would just drift away.

Now, there is an obvious circularity to this argument - *IF* the national security implications were not significant, then why bother with a cover-up at all?  Well, the avoidance of political embarrassment would be the obvious motive.

Troubling.  As a side-note, let's award a Bad Job to the normally excellent Josh Gerstein of the NY Sun, who failed to note the Rove connection.  The San Fran Chronicle also missed that, but this story is more about them anyway, so we can overlook their non-Plamania.

ON THE 'TO DO' LIST:  Finding a copy of that affidavit should not be hard, once I figure out what the parties to this case are, and what court it is in (presumably it's San Francisco).  Assistance would be welcome.

Comments

[Pete]

TM "And if it does not, then might Rove and Libby have presumed that Ashcroft would not be issuing subpoenas to reporters? One might wonder if they were calculating that, absent reporter's testimony, the case would just drift away."

I read something to this effect that the policy then was that reporters would not be compelled to testify. I'll see if I can search it.

[Jane]

"You just don't ride roughshod over the rights of reporters to gather information from confidential sources," he added."

I must have awoken stupid but what specifically are those reporter's rights?

[Hughi]

The guy on the intelligence committee who warned us all of the dirty bomb that showed up was sent over to the baseball because he was doing intelligence on his own Morroccan network. So, the question is did someone like Plame, as a CIA example, using the DIA NSA assets(like the NSA phone company leak Americans had to deal with)find that the member of the intelligence committee was monitored because he was not an intelligence operative, but actively doing intelligence work instead of CIA, with whom he made a deal to work in certain areas of the world where he had connections?

If the NSA/DIA assets were used by someone like Plame only to find out that the intelligence committee was now monitored by DIA/NSA as a result of deals made with CIA in counter terror(effectively having the member used by operations officers); this would be one more reason why someone like Plame would bring up NSA monitoring domestically, alot like the domestic political groups(501s) that were being investigated by congress and CIA, that has been done by NSA since its beginning.

Ashcroft is acting on intelligence which includes the fact that Fitz passed on criminal conspiracy charges in the Plame/CIA case and, as usual, went for politicians. Plame and Fitz have this in common and, once again, there should have been criminal conspiracy charges. Ashcroftis operating under the fact that Fitz has passed on his job and is overlooking the same facts that Fitz has in his investigation.

[Sue]

Hughi,

I have no idea what you just said.

[Hughi]

That's okay. 'No Quarter' is smart.

Real sorry about the book deal!

[richard mcenroe]

First, any PR firm that represents Karl Rove should be returning their checks with apologies, cuz they're doing a lousy job.

Second, so, they represent Karl Rove. The difference between a PR firm and a bordello is that you feel cleaner after leaving the bordello. A PR firm would represent NAMBLA and the Mormon Tabernacle Boys' Choir without the slightest twinge of conscience.

[richard mcenroe]

I'm not sure, but I think Hughi thinks Ashcroft is still the Attorney General. As, apparently, does Corallo.

[Rick Ballard]

"I must have awoken stupid but what specifically are those reporter's rights?"

I just wish they would take that right to remain silent a bit more seriously.

[maryrose]

Reporters rights only extend to the level of harm they could cause to others.This was proven in the Plame case when it was merely PERCEIVED harm not proven harm. Their rights also end if they compromise national security which the NYT and WAPO are about to find out.

[Sue]

Richard,

I think Hughi came here from Scary Larry's place. They understand each other over there.

[MayBee]

One might wonder if they were calculating that, absent reporter's testimony, the case would just drift away.

That is precisely what Phelps (?) indicated happened in the Clarence Thomas leak investigation.
However.
I do think there is a difference when the leak is the crime (or supposed crime) vs. when the leak just gives information about others who may have committed a crime (like the steroid abuse case).
However, if reporters aren't going to be compelled to testify seriously, their testimony shouldn't be the basis of perjury charges.

[Dwilkers]

According to the SFGate acticle:

To support its contention that the balance favors the reporters, Hearst filed affidavits from legal experts...In one affidavit, Mark Corallo, press secretary and public affairs director under Attorney General John Ashcroft, said that...

So Corallo made the affidavit on behalf of the Hearst Co. Is it unreasonable to assume he was paid for that? Sometimes I think we need to keep in mind PR firms (and lawyers) are paid advocates for their clients.

/shrug

In any case I think he has a point as there's a significant difference of degree - in my mind anyway - between subpoenaing reporters over the steroid scandal and something like the NSA wiretapping hooey.

If we're going to go down this road - the fork the media selected in the Plame deal I would remind - we're going to have to observe some limits and I think that may be what he's complaining about.

[Dwilkers]

Sorry, TM is this what you're looking for? Its a 65 page PDF "Motion to Quash Subpoenas". And here's a link to a 411 page PDF called "Affidavits". I'm going to try to scan them real quick but I have to run off in a bit.

[Dwilkers]

OK, Corallo's affidavit starts on page 70 of the second PDF I linked, it is 4 1/2 pages long.

[Tom Maguire]

In any case I think he has a point as there's a significant difference of degree - in my mind anyway - between subpoenaing reporters over the steroid scandal and something like the NSA wiretapping hooey.

I completely agree that he has a point - I just think that if I were flacking for Karl Rove, for whom an indictment may be handed down in the next 24 buisiness hours, I hope I would not be telling folks that, back when Rove talked to the FBI, Ashcroft would probably not have subpoenaed reporters to investigate a perjury case.

Otherwise, someone might think that Rove had reason to believe he could get away with perjury.

[Semanticleo]

Sorry Maguire, but the smell test is still
in the olfactory of the inhaler.

Your dispute with the issue of Plame's
covert status cannot be reduced to
baseball record stats. Good try though.

[Dwilkers]

I just think that if I were flacking for Karl Rove, for whom an indictment may be handed down in the next 24 buisiness hours

ROFL

Or any other 24 hour period between now and the end of time.

OK that had me spewing coffee all over my monitor.

[cathyf]

I do think there is a difference when the leak is the crime (or supposed crime) vs. when the leak just gives information about others who may have committed a crime (like the steroid abuse case).

Actually, I think the Plame case looks a lot like the baseball steroid case. UGO leaked information about the Wilsons, who, like Barry Bonds, appear to have violated either laws or rules. And the White House would be like all of us run-of-the-mill baseball fans paying attention to journalists who were saying, "Well, DUH! Everybody knows that {Barry uses steroids} / {Val sent Joe}"

cathy :-)

[davod]

Either this guy is playing up his role in Justice or there was something seriously wrong with the running of the department when he was there.

Why would a press secretary and public affairs director have any input into the decision making process of criminal cases.

[Jane]

"I just wish they would take that right to remain silent a bit more seriously."

In this context, that made me laugh.

[Jane]

"In any case I think he has a point as there's a significant difference of degree - in my mind anyway - between subpoenaing reporters over the steroid scandal and something like the NSA wiretapping hooey."

Isn't that precisely what they gave - no shoved, away in exchange for the PLame business?

[maryrose]

Can't have it bothways. Either reporters can't be subpoened or thrown in jail or they can. Make some law that covers contingencies.

[Jane]

"Make some law that covers contingencies."

Reporters are not above the law and given their current level of competance should not be made above the law.

[verner]

When repoters become political partisans and operatives, they deserve to be treated like anyone else.

The idea that reporters deserve some hallowed place is BS.

[kim]

They make themselves 'fair game'.
====================

[topsecretk9]

Isn't the difference here the "waivers of confidentiality"??

[Carol Herman]

Yup. The HOUSE has rules. And, Lucianne's put the article up for discussion on her site, too.

Seems that the HOUSE has rules. And, there is something called "a separation of powers." There's also a poll out that says "86% of Americans believe in mob rules." Or that if a lot of people think congress critters stink they should all go to jail.

The issue isn't about "Karl Rove's flack." But, there, about GRAND JURY testimony that's been exposed by a reporter. The issue? STERIODS.

The GRAND JURY system isn't in our Constitution. And, it works to help prosecutors go to extremes. No judges are in the room. Nor is the victim allowed a lawyer. The one caveat is that this stuff "stays secret."

In a world where the TRUTH is best served out in the open.

"Karl Rove's flack" is defending the reporter that leaked the grand jury testimony about baseball players using steriods. HE QUOTED GRAND JURY TESTIMONY.

At one time reporters were protected when they when public with "secrets." And, the new-new Justice Department is clamping down on reporters. Too bad the grand jury system, itself, isn't exposed as BOGUS.

But if you're called in and the only guarantee you have is SECRECY to what you say. And, you're guaranteed that no newspaper can publish this stuff ... THEN THAT'S THE ISSUE ON THIS TABLE.

The HOUSE? Well, Hastert was READING INTO THE RECORD the "VII" information from the subpeonas coming at Representative Jefferson and his staff. It seems TESTIMONY by staff was given to the FBI freely. And, the nut of Hastert's complaint was in the over-reaching done by Justice, as it grabbed some paperwork NOT COVERED by the subject under subpeona.

This stuff doesn't matter in Mob Rule.

Our SUpreme Court, as far as I know, doesn't deal in MOB RULE, either. No matter how well some of this stuff "polls." So it's an interesting test of our system, after all.

[Hughi]

' Make some law that covers contingencies'

There was a law that covered these contingencies. DOJ chose to ignore a criminal conspiracy investigation, something that Fitz was, but passed, and went for politicians like Plame.

Yes, a new law is needed when DOJ passes on the existing laws.

[clarice]

I love it when the media gets what it asked for. Plame was soooo important they wanted a tenacious Special Counsel who'd move heaven and earth, including subpoenaing the press, to get his man. (So long as the man was in the WH, it seems).

OT: Sweetness & Light shows us what we all get when we pay attention to another kind of presshysteria--the FEC is refusing to issue rules on 527's which provide a special class of citizens--those who need not refuse to foreign contributions or follow any of the onerous free speech limitations the rest of us must adhere to. http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/fec-backs-down-on-controlling-agit-prop-527s/

They yipped and yapped that the public wanted CFR citing phonied up polls by Pew and citing law review articles ginned up by that same foundation to gag us and let the Soroses and Burkles and Bings do whatever they want.

[Rick Ballard]

"Isn't the difference here the "waivers of confidentiality"?"

The problem with that, TS, is that it implies that a reporters duty is to their source rather than to the justice system. That implication is an assertion of status on the part of the reporter that is without any legal foundation (within the federal system, at any rate. Various states do have 'liars shield' laws which protect propagandists and those promoting agendas through selective leaking).

The pretense of special status is humorous but it may be an error to give it much attention. No new laws are needed - the more propagandists in jail, the safer the republic.

[clarice]

I'm looking forward to a lot of embedded journos' reports on the state of American prisons soon.

[topsecretk9]

Rick

Yes, but in terms of Rove and Libby expecting that Reporters would not be subpoenaed...is silly since they were compelled, like everyone else in the Admin., to sign "waivers of confidentiality"

Also, according to Waas...Rove informed the Grand Jury #1 that Novak had called him to say he would protect Rove and not "burn" him (or some such)

Sounds like to me there was no expectation of protection to the point that it was not reciprocated (i.e Rove spilled the beans on Novak)

[clarice]

That's a good point about the waivers, ts..In any event if anyone in the WH thought the press wouldn't selectively point fingers at them when the going got tough, they were foolish.

[maryrose]

Biggest abuse of McCain -Feingold 527's now have free rein to do whatever they want and to use money wherever they can find it. This is reform?

[maryrose]

Press first and foremost will protect itself. That's why they are currently fighting Libby's lawyers for their information on Plame case and the Wilsons. That is a loser of a fight.

[Rick Ballard]

TS,

The waivers are a PR fig leaf issued for political rather than legal purposes. Arguing that there is purpose outside of being helpful in maintaining the illusion that there are ethical standards for journalism that might be compromised simply enhances the illusion.

The answer to the question of whom Mark Corallo works for is best answered by looking at his paycheck and the A/R report for his company. PR is fun as long as no one takes it seriously.

Your analysis is correct, I just don't want to pretend that journos are any more than what they prove themselves to be on a daily basis. Which would be shills.

[kim]

The protection for whistleblowers and journalists is more cultural than legal, though common law may speak to it. The problem here is that journalists still expect the protection they earned in the era of objective journalism now that they've been seduced into advocacy.

However, we have a tough and durable culture. Legitimate whistleblowers will always be able to leak to honest journalists. Lady Justice requires it.
=========================

[topsecretk9]

Rick

--Your analysis is correct, I just don't want to pretend that journos are any more than what they prove themselves to be on a daily basis. Which would be shills.--

True that.

[BostonBarrister]

I found the info on Howard Bashman's site:

http://howappealing.law.com/060106.html#014943

The targets are the two SF Chronicle reporters who published the book on Barry Bonds, and reported on the grand jury leaks.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/01/BALCO.TMP

Here's a link to the SF Chronicle's brief:

http://sfgate.com/templates/types/blogs/pages/sfgate/newsevents/pdf/J76151-2(564256_1_SF).PDF

Here's a link to the

[Jeff]

This is a great insight, and troubling stuff indeed. The only thing I would say is that the relevant question here is not whether you or I think the Plame thing was a matter of grave national security, but whether Mark Corallo at Justice, and his boss John Ashcroft, and the rest of the Republicans at Justice, thought it was. And, of course, the question almost answers itself. And of course the existence of waivers is no qualification on your point, since it was perfectly reasonable to expect exactly what happened: the reporters did not take the waivers themselves as any kind of sanction to talk, it was only under the rather severe pressure of subpoenas enforced by contempt citatons - which Corallo has basically told us were not going to happen under Ashcroft - that the most important reporters talked.

Furthermore, clarice is, shockingly, wrong on several levels with the comment that

In any event if anyone in the WH thought the press wouldn't selectively point fingers at them when the going got tough, they were foolish.

Not only did the press not selectively point fingers at the White House at any point, with the possible exception of Mr. Liberal Media Bias Robert Novak, none of the really damaging stuff came out until after the 2004 elections.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

Finally just read the Foley blog, but I would add this...Foley didn't ask for a VF retraction for being named her boss...but if it weren't the Wilson's who supplied the lie to Vanity fair than surely they'd ask for a correction for the "misquote, misattribute--literary flair"" i.e. dishonest information, right?

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

Oops meant to add...Valerie Plame would know if Vanity Fair misidentified her boss and would want to correct the record right?

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

Nevermind. We've been down that road already.. for Wilson never demanded Pincus or Kristoff correct their egregious errors for putting words he'd never said in his mouth and never demanded Pincus correct the record that Wilson said "the names were wrong, the dates were wrong"

They are kinda of cool with their lies since they aren't pressed.

[Jeff]

That's quite a response Foley gave, remarkable for its understated piquancy. A couple of things. The fact that the Wilsons were sources for the Vanity Fair article doesn't mean every single piece of information can be sourced to them, especially since the article obviously has numerous other sources, both named and unnamed. That said, I can imagine any number of reasons why an employee of CPD would be content to let an inaccuracy like that remain uncorrected; I mean, they're not going to name her actual boss.

As for this question:

where did Judith Miller get this bit of information which she seems to suggest she got from Libby at their July 8 meeting?

let me suggest it is poorly framed, since Miller does not seem to suggest she got it from Libby, she downright asserts that Mr. Libby said it. She even believes she heard it first from him; but even if that's not the case, there's much more than a suggestion that he told her Plame worked at Winpac. And just to offer one way of cutting through the complicated knot here, it might be worth considering the possibility that, Libby having learned from Cheney that Plame in fact worked at CPD, which was on the DO side of the CIA - meaning that there was a much greater chance that her status was classified, that she was covered, what have you - Libby lied to Miller, telling her she worked at the Non-proliferation center on the DI side rather than the Counter-proliferation office on the DO side. If Libby wanted Miller to pursue a story on Plame, it wouldn't be smart to tell her she was at CPD, which would immediately make Miller make an assumption different from the one she made - the one she made being that Plame was an analyst, not an undercover operative. Tell Miller that Plame works at CPD and she will suddenly be much more careful about information about Plame, hesitant to talk to people about her, and certainly more hesitant to go ahead with publishing. Just a thought.

One other related thing that came up a little while ago. Tom was wondering what Fitzgerald meant when he indicated to Libby during grand jury questioning that Libby's notes indicated he learned from Cheney that Plame worked in the Counterproliferation functional office. The point there is that CPD was an office defined by a substantive topic, not by a region. So the implicit contrast is between a regional office and a functional office.

And speaking of the grand jury testimony, anybody still arguing that Libby was not claiming to investigators that he had not forgotten about Plame's CIA employment when he talked to Russert, but was rather feigning a state of mind of ignorance with Russert?

[sad]

Clarice

Found this comment at the Rathergate blog. Thought you might enjoy it.

******Dave Lucas Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:35 am
I think Clarice Feldman over at American Thinker is going to solve the riddle and free Mr. Libby before Fitz makes his opening statement.
He/she is one hell of a reporter.********

[kim]

Tortured Jeff, tortured. Where you been? Getting Dimmed from CT?
==================================

[maryrose]

In almost every thread you have been consistent.
Jeff:
In almost every thread you seem to find clarice wrong about something. It is at the point that one upmanship could be inferred from your answers. Just wanted to make you aware of how you are coming across.

[Syl]

Jeff

And speaking of the grand jury testimony, anybody still arguing that Libby was not claiming to investigators that he had not forgotten about Plame's CIA employment when he talked to Russert, but was rather feigning a state of mind of ignorance with Russert?

You're kidding, right?

I still believe it was a state of mind Libby was speaking of. That he was pretending to forget to Russert, not to the GJ.

[Sue]

Jeff,

Aren't you curious as to why almost 2 years later Mr. Foley decides to answer the question as to whether he was indeed Plame's boss? I know I am. I am also curious as to why he didn't respond immediately to that assertion, if indeed it isn't true. And yeah, the Wilson's sourced it. Probably Joe Baby. They wouldn't have gone to press with it if it wasn't sourced by Plame or Wilson. ::grin:: Of course, I've been wrong before.

[sad]

Perhaps Jeff suffers from CDS: Clarice Derangement Syndrome

[verner]

Hey Jeff,
Notice that Val's book deal went south? Maybe it was because the story about her grand role in the lead up to the war just didn't add up?

As for Foley. WINPAC was said to have around 500 employees. That's the size of most small to middling corporations. Now, maybe a CEO wouldn't know the name of everyone in the building. But I would surmise that Foley would have known everyone in his organization with any responsibility worth mentioning.

Further, he is distancing himself from the Wilsons. And how!

And the point about WINPAC is a good one. Why no correction? The idea that the Wilsons would just let it lie to protect her "real" job is just plain silly. It's like saying that Joe didn't work for Rock Creek Corp., when obviously he did.

There had to be some reason to try and connect Foley to Valerie. What could it be? For one, it made her look more important than she likely was.

Are you trying to imply that VF's fact checkers didn't run the piece by the Wilsons beforehand? I mean really, Valentine doesn't even touch the sweet tenor of that little pro Wilson powder puff piece--certainly they did.

Also, I must ask, is everybody associated with DO covert? (And here I must refer to Clarice's excellent article on the topic in American Thinker) Apparently not

[sad]

Verner

A little sensitivity please!! Mentioning Clarice's excellent article is likely to hurt someones feelings.

[verner]

Yeah Sad--kind of like telling a five year old there is no Santa Claus.

[sad]

Verner

How can Val tell anything of interest in her book? Won't her superdoopersercretivecovertness prevent her from revealing anything?... sort of "I can tell you but then I'd have to kill you"

[verner]

"How can Val tell anything of interest in her book? Won't her superdoopersercretivecovertness prevent her from revealing anything?... sort of "I can tell you but then I'd have to kill you""

Well Sad, no doubt that's the tale we'll be reading in "TRUTH OUT" or on KOS in, say, about 24 to 48 hours. They'll have to get someone besides Leopold to write it though--too suspicious.

[Jeff]

I still believe it was a state of mind Libby was speaking of.

Have you read the excerpts from Libby's grand jury testimony that Fitzgerald attached to his 5-24-06 filing?

But I would surmise that Foley would have known everyone in his organization with any responsibility worth mentioning.

Right, and he didn't know Plame because . . . she didn't work for Winpac! She worked for CPD. And whatever the explanation for why current and former CIA employees didn't demand that Vanity Fair run a correction (like, say, it has to do with the CIA!), and whatever the explanation for why Foley smacks down, um, clarifies things for Clarice now (like, say, he wants people like Clarice to leave him alone, so he definitively undercuts the purported empirical basis for their conspiracy theories), the fact is that Foley was not Plame's boss, since she worked in a different part of the CIA altogether, and we've known that for quite a while.

Not that it's going to stop y'all from seeing some new dastardly plot in a Vanity Fair - Vanity Fair! - inaccuracy.

And no, not everyong in the DO was covert, or covered or had an affiliation with the CIA that was classified, and so on. But the odds were a lot better that some such thing was the case with a DO person than a DI person. This is exactly why Miller says that when she heard that Plame worked at Winpac she assumed she was an analyst, not a covert operative.

[danking70]

Verner,

Is that 24-48 business hours or regular hours?

[clarice]

Thanks, sad..
Jeff. Judy says she got it from libby she thought but flips in so many qualifiers, I'd bet on cross examination she concedes that it is equally possible she got that information from someone else.

[verner]

"Right, and he didn't know Plame because . . . she didn't work for Winpac! She worked for CPD. And whatever the explanation for why current and former CIA employees didn't demand that Vanity Fair run a correction (like, say, it has to do with the CIA!)"

Sorry Bud, it don't wash. There was absolutely NO REASON to mention WINPAC at all in the VF piece! The Wilsons could have simply stated "She doesn't work at WINPAC--but we can't say where she did work. Let's just not go there." But they didn't did they? Hey, VF even disguised Val with Jackie O sunglasses and a scarf! Certainly they would have been sensitive to such an issue--not to mention, no magazine with any reputation likes to repeat lies--it makes them look bad. The truth usually comes out one way or another.

And despite what you say, VF isn't just perfume ads, they have some great writers in house--even though Graydon Carter has lost his mind.

Which brings us back to Val and covert. Did you even bother to read the Chicago Tribune article that Clarice linked to? Brewster Jennings, the super duper secret covert cover corporation? Ha...give me a big fat break. A ten year old with a google search engine could disprove that little gem.

[Jeff]

Judy says she got it from libby she thought but flips in so many qualifiers, I'd bet on cross examination she concedes that it is equally possible she got that information from someone else.

I don't disagree that Judy is being as unhelpful to Fitzgerald as possible. The fact remains you mischaracterized what Miller said in her article. And you're still doing it. She asserts that Libby told her Plame worked for Winpac. She is less confident that this was the first time she was hearing that information, though she believes that to be the case. It's also worth noting that Miller testified about the July 8 conversation initially without testifying about the June 23 conversation - which I suspect she was well aware of at the time. So part of her hedging was borne out by the fact that she subsequently had to testify about the June 23 conversation.

verner - what is it exactly that you think the dastardly act was involved in Vanity Fair's inaccuracy? That it was the truth revealed? or what?

[topsecretk9]

---Not that it's going to stop y'all from seeing some new dastardly plot in a Vanity Fair - Vanity Fair! - inaccuracy.---

I wouldn't expect the Wilson's to demand a correction for anything ---I was being sarcastic.

I would however expect the subjects of a pretty big article at least let the author know they had a pretty big fact wrong...as in, "You keep referring to Foley as my boss...Foley was NOT my boss, but I can't say more"

And so, since they were pretty cool with this misinformation it is pretty consistent with Wilson's history of either telling reporters things that weren't true and later asserting the reporters misquoted and misattributed him OR letting reporters misquote and attribute him and NEVER asking for a correction.

[clarice]

Here is what I quoted Miller saying about the WINPAC notation in her notes..I will italicize those portions which to me constitute the kind of wiggles that she built into this--wiggles likely to prove handy on cross:

I said I couldn’t be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame’s identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative

[Sue]

I don't know if it is a big deal or not. But I find it very interesting that Foley is named her boss and 2 years later no one has corrected it on the record. Including Foley. Why now? And I don't buy Jeff's line. If Foley wanted to get rid of Clarice, he merely needed to hit her email as spam and off into never-never land it would go, never to be bothered with Clarice again. He didn't have to answer her email. So why now? Not even curious Jeff?

[Jeff]

topsecretk9 - So the most you can get out of the Vanity Fair article is another example of Wilson not correcting errors, or some such. But we're all agreed that the theory of the CIA conspiracy Foley was supposed to be at the center of, which prompted clarice's questions to him, is dead, right?

[verner]

How about, how can Judy Miller be so very sure that she didn't tell Libby that Val worked at WINPAC? She seems rather sketchy on quite a few details, like where Valerie Flame came from, for example.

Where would Libby have gotten "WINPAC" from--if Val never worked at WINPAC. And why would Libby tell Miller a deliberate lie, knowing that before she put Valerie Plame and WINPAC into print, she would have had to do the same thing that Novak did--call the CIA for verification. Isn't that normal journalistic practice at places like the NYT? (By the way, the CIA didn't exactly follow the standards for "covert" agents with Novak, now did they?)

And for Jeff-- put that together with why was the lie repeated again in the pages of VF? Rather weird, isn't it? Hmmm....

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

[Sue]

Were we supposed to get something from the VF article?

[topsecretk9]

OT, but

---Not that it's going to stop y'all from seeing some new dastardly plot in a Vanity Fair - Vanity Fair! - inaccuracy.---

Is there a huge Deborah Howell/WAPO style blogswarm taking place that I am not aware of?

[clarice]

And Jeff that strawman you just set up is a whopper. No one said Foley was at the heart of the CIA conspiracy. Whoever Plame's boss was, however, might be part of one.And that, as we know, appears not to have been Foley.

[Jeff]

clarice - I'll say it again. I agree Miller is providing herself wiggle room. But the fact remains that you mischaracterized what Miller said. I think you should issue a correction, frankly.

Sue- As I've indicated, when ordinary people receive as definitive a denial as the one clarice got from Foley, they leave it alone. And I take it that's what clarice is doing, as she seems to be dropping this particular iteration of the CIA conspiracy theory, and instead shifting focus to the implications of Foley's denial of connection to Plame, Wilson, his trip and the investigation for the fact that Miller was getting the same false information from Libby that Vanity Fair got. I take it the new idea is going to be that Miller got the Winpac information from allies of the Wilsons if not from the Wilsons themselves. I have no determinate take on that suggestion, except to say that clarice is inaccurately characterizing what Miller wrote and in so doing downplaying the sheer fact that Miller says that Libby told her that Plame worked at Winpac.

[topsecretk9]

--So the most you can get out of the Vanity Fair article is another example of Wilson not correcting errors, or some such.---

Or some such? Jeff, you know as well as I, that published errors disproportionately occur when WIlson is involved.

And I think this "fact", stated as "fact" is a "fact" that, to those following, is rather a big one. VF wrote Foley was her boss at "WINPAC" -- he says he didn't know her and had NO authority what-so-ever for her.

Sorry if I think a big expose on the Wilson's personally, complete with dinner meetings with Saddams french arms buyer, would attempt to clearly nail down her employment status. They did and the only person who could say was Valerie.

[Sue]

Which has nothing to do with what I said. ::grin:: Aren't you the least bit curious why Foley chose Clarice, an anonymous emailer, to so forcefully respond to? I know I am. Odd things keep popping up, like this.

[verner]

Hey Jane, maybe a good time to add this into the mix here at JOM (From the Bolton Hearings):

"Ms. O'Connell: Do you remember having a conversation with the NIO for Latin America?
Mr. Foley: Yeah, but this is later. I think the first time I met the NIO -- the first time I met the NIO LA was in the context of the -- a memo he was writing on the Niger business. So, this would have been early '03, I guess, or somewhere in that time frame. And he had written a memo -- I can't remember what art form it was -- a NIC memo, or something like that -- where, basically, he said, "Look, the from a political analyst's perspective, the notion that the Nigerians would sell yellow cake to the Iraqis is just crazy." I mean, I'm paraphrasing. He didn't say it -- I mean, he said it much more eloquently. And my analyst, I remember, came to me and said, you know, "We're concerned about this memo, because he doesn't even acknowledge other information we have that suggested maybe they did." And so, I remember the NIO coming down to my office, and I think a couple of my analysts were there, and I made the case to him. I said, "Look, you may not agree with this, but I think, analytically, you ought to at least acknowledge that there are these other reports, and, you know, give your reasons why you think they're ridiculous, and then move on." But to just ignore this is a little bit arrogant, because it's, sort of, saying, "Anybody who could fall for this stuff is just totally naive about what goes on in Niger," and it sort of gives an incomplete picture. So I think that --

Mr. Levine: Why would the NIO LA be talking about Africa?

Mr. Foley: Wasn't he -- didn't he have Africa in his portfolio? Africa, Latin America?

Mr. Levine: I don't think so.

Mr. Foley: I thought he did, Ed.

Mr. Levine: I won't necessarily rule it out.

Ms. O'Connell: It's news to me. It's news to me.

Mr. Levine: I believe there was a separate NIO for Africa.

Mr. Foley: Well, you know, that's interesting. That's my recollection. The first time I met him had to do with this Niger memo."

Just crazy heh? Sound familiar? Now who was that NIO LA? Anybody want to take a guess?

[Sue]

that published errors disproportionately occur when WIlson is involved

Ain't that the gospel truth? But it is never Wilson's fault. Seriously. People just can't put into print his nuanced answers.

[Jeff]

And Jeff that strawman you just set up is a whopper. No one said Foley was at the heart of the CIA conspiracy. Whoever Plame's boss was, however, might be part of one.

So the strawman consisted in saying Foley was at the heart of a CIA conspiracy, on your theory, rather than saying that Foley was part of a CIA conspiracy, on your theory?

Where would Libby have gotten "WINPAC" from--if Val never worked at WINPAC.

Non-proliferation, counterproliferation - sound sorta similar, don't you think? WMD, WMD - sound sorta similar, don't you think? Say you're Judith Miller and Libby tells you Plame works in Winpac; then you find another source who tells you Plame works on wmd at the CIA. You're pretty much good to go. And say your journalistic scruples are about what Robert Novak's are (which is about where I take Miller's to be). So you do talk to the CIA and they try to discourage you from publishing, but no matter, and boom, you're ready to publish.

The only trouble was that, unbeknownst to Libby, Miller was being kept on a really short leash by the Times, on account of her previous run-ins with journalistic scruples.

[clarice]

From this bit of the SSCI report and the transcript of the Bolton hearing, my guess is that Foley's memory is often imperfect:
__U) The WINPAC Director and the NSC Special Assistant disagreed, however, about the content of their conversation in some important respects. First, when the WINPAC Director first spoke to Committee staff and testified at a Committee hearing, he said that he had told the NSC Special Assistant to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech because of concerns about sources and methods. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that there never was a discussion about removing "Niger" and "500 tons" from the State of the Union and said that the drafts of the speech show that neither "Niger" nor "500 tons" were ever in any of the drafts at all. He believed that the WINPAC Director had confused the State of the Union conversation with a conversation they had previously had in preparation for the Negroponte speech in which they did discuss removing "Niger" from the speech because of the WINPAC Director's concerns about revealing sources and methods.

(U) A few days after his testimony before the Committee, the WINPAC Director found the draft text of the State of the Union in WINPAC's files and noticed that it did not say "500 tons of uranium from Niger." In a follow up interview with Committee staff, he said that he still recalls the conversation the way he described it to the Committee originally, however, he believes that he may have confused the two conversations because the documentation he found does not support his version of events. The draft text of the State of the Union he found said, "we know that he [Saddam Hussein] has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa." The White House also told the Committee that the text they sent to the CIA in January said, "we also know that he has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa."

(U) Second, the WINPAC Director also told the Committee that the NSC Special Assistant came up with the idea to source the uranium information to the British during their conversation when he was attempting to come up with an unclassified way to use the uranium reporting. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that the reference to the British came from the White House speech writers who were working to come up with publicly usable sources for all of the intelligence information in the speech. Because the speech writers obtained information regarding Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Africa from both the intelligence underlying the NIE and the British white paper, the speech writers sought to attribute the State of the Union reference to one of those sources. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff the discussion with the WINPAC Director was focused on which of the two sources would be better to use and that the WINPAC Director preferred sourcing the information to the British paper because it was unclassified. Both the WINPAC Director and NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that there was never a discussion about the credibility of the information.

(U) Finally, the two disagreed about the WINPAC Director's account that he had told the NSC Special Assistant that the CIA had urged the British to remove the uranium reference from their white paper, also because of concerns about sources and methods. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that the WINPAC Director did not tell him the CIA had asked the British to remove the reference from their white paper.

(U) The CIA has told the Committee in a written response that the agency did not coordinate with any other NSC directorates on the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa.

_____

[Sue]

Fulton Armstrong was the NIO LA being discussed. How does he fit in?

[verner]

Hey, this sure is interesting. Have any of you read it?

http://www.alternet.org/story/21704/

[clarice]

I ask you to remember that Foley's utterly wrong testimony was made under circumstances where (a) he surely had an idea of what he was going to be asked about by the SSCI,(b) he certainly could and should have reviewed his files on this before testifying, and (c) this and the Bolton testimony indicate that perhaps he hasn't the kind of attention to detail one would expect of someone heading a key CIA analyst division.

[Sue]

Verner,

It won't open. What is the story?

[Jeff]

verner! Thank you very much for that bit from Foley in the Bolton hearings. That is super interesting.

[Sue]

Verner,

Do you think Foley confused Armstrong with Wilson?

[sad]

Jeff

It is likely that Clarice received a response from Foley because she is Clarice. Like Sue, my curiosity factor is skyrocketing.

[clarice]

Why was Fulton Armstrong, the NIO LA, talking to Foley about Niger?

Fulton Armstrong was at war with Bolton, too,claiming he should have vetted one of Bolton's speeches, not Folry, who did vet it.

[clarice]

***FolEy********

[verner]

Hmm..I've just started looking up Mr. Fulton Armstrong, so this is all sheer speculation, but I get a strong wiff of CIP.

To begin, Mr. Armstrong had very strong disagreements with Otto Reich over Castro's ability to produce biological WMDs. William Goodfellow led the charge against Reich's nomination. Wayne Smith is one of CIP's Cuba guys, who strongly denounced any implication that Castro was developing biological weapons.

And then we have this. Anybody read Spanish? (French here, but I can usually make out a sentence or two in Spanish.) Notice Fulton Armstrong and Wayne Smith together. Be sure and catch the last part too.

Opiniones sesgadas y grupos de estudio

En una historia de Nancy San Martín sobre Fulton Armstrong publicada por The Miami Herald el 13 de mayo, Bolton nomination figure known as expert on Cuba, se afirma que ''a menudo formaba parte de una reunión de académicos, funcionarios gubernamentales y algunos periodistas interesados en la cuestión cubana en la Universidad de Georgetown''. Lo que no se menciona es que ese grupo de Georgetown es el Cuba Study Group, del cual Ana Belén Montes, la analista de alto rango en la Agencia de Inteligencia para la Defensa y convicta por espiar para Cuba, también a menudo formaba parte. Ella fue la responsable del informe del Pentágono de 1999 acerca de que Cuba ya no constituía una amenaza para los Estados Unidos. Ese reporte influyó las actitudes en los círculos gubernamentales y políticos.

Tuve que reírme al leer que ''David Overton, un economista senior de la CIA ahora retirado, dijo que el sistema de chequeos e inspecciones de supervisión vigente en la comunidad de inteligencia impediría que la parcialización de cualquier analista alcanzara a quienes formulan las políticas''. Es evidente que el sistema no funcionó en el caso de Montes. Y no estoy sugiriendo que también Armstrong pudiera ser un espía, sino que sus opiniones parecen haber sido influidas por el trabajo de Montes. Como parece haber sido influenciado por Wayne Smith, del Centro para Política Universitaria de la Johns Hopkins University, quien formaba parte también de dicho grupo. El, lo mismo que Armstrong, opina que los Estados Unidos son el culpable en las malas relaciones con Cuba y Venezuela, no Fidel Castro y Hugo Chávez.

Teresa R. Herrero

Boca Raton

[verner]

Try doing a google on the Sue, and see if the whole thing doesn't pop up:

Who Forged the Niger Documents?
By Ian Masters, AlterNet
Posted on April 7, 2005, Printed on June 2, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/21704/
Editor’s Note: This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted by Ian Masters with Vincent Cannistaro, the former CIA head of counterterrorism operations and intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, which aired on the Los Angeles public radio KPFK on April 3, 2005.

[Syl]

Jeff

Have you read the excerpts from Libby's grand jury testimony that Fitzgerald attached to his 5-24-06 filing?

Of course I have. Where were you when we were quoting and discussing the words in the indictmenet?

and

...the sheer fact that Miller says that Libby told her that Plame worked at Winpac.

Sorry to shock you, but it's possible Libby inferred that info from what he had heard from Woodward.

Chew on that for a while.

[windansea]

I think you should issue a correction, frankly.

Jeff...have you ever issued a correction to your posts saying that the CIA maintains that Val had nothing to do with sending Joe on his tea sipping mission?

Kind of funny to see you prance in here demanding corrections when whenever you get caught in error you seem to ignore it or slink back to the hamster/wheels and work on a new theory.

[Jeff]

Where were you when we were quoting and discussing the words in the indictmenet?

I don't get the point of this. My point was, the newly disclosed grand jury testimony of Libby - which does not overlap with the grand jury testimony included in the indictment - makes it crystal clear that Libby's testimony is that he thought he was learning anew from Russert on July 10 or so about Plame, and that he had forgotten that Cheney had told him about Plame back in June 2003. So, again, Libby's grand jury testimony was not that he was feigning ignorance of Plame info when he spoke with Russert.

Sorry to shock you, but it's possible Libby inferred that info from what he had heard from Woodward.

This is neither here nor there with regard to what I objected to as clarice's mischaracterization of what Miller reported. Miller reported that Libby told her on July 8 that Plame worked at Winpac.

Jeff...have you ever issued a correction to your posts saying that the CIA maintains that Val had nothing to do with sending Joe on his tea sipping mission?

I'm sorry, but I do not believe I ever asserted that. I'll be happy to correct myself if you point out to me where I made such an assertion. Also, I think you're wrong: I try to be clear in acknowledging errors I've made. Obviously, there are going to be some cases where you may think I've made an error and I don't acknowledge one because, well, I think you're wrong. But in any case, even if that's true of me, evidently you object to the practice, so it's a nice evasion of the issue with regard to clarice to accuse me of hypocrisy.

[kate]

Byron York on Libby ruling
http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Can the legal types help me understand? Thanks.

[verner]

Hey, guess what. Some great comments on Fulton Armstrong right here in the comments from JOM:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/04/best_muddy_boot.html

[jwest]

Clarice,

I hope you didn’t interpret Mr. Foley’s “please don’t contact me again” as anything other than an invitation to do just that. As Sue pointed out, he could have sent your inquiry to the trash can more easily than replying, so it’s obvious he has been waiting 2 years for someone to ask the question.

Come on, you’re a lawyer.

This is a guy with a story to tell and no MSM “Woodward” types have given him the time of day. He needs you to give him a follow-up “thank you for replying to my email” phone call, with an accompanying assurance that you’re not going to one of those “nosey” types, but with a fawning appreciation of his importance and deep knowledge of the “truth”.

If he does anything other than hang up, invite him out for a drink.

If he really has some good information, sleep with him (take one for the team). These are tried and true methods practiced for years by the media, so it must work.

[Syl]

Jeff

I still thing there's wriggle room.

and re this:

This is neither here nor there with regard,

Stop trying to BS us, Jeff. You implied through a series of messages that Libby knew Val was CPD and told Miller she was WINPAC to make it more likely she'd go to print.

I suspect you know what you're doing as you write your little mistrals, but in case you don't, you are quite perspicuous.

[maryrose]

Val at WINPAC is false then. More evidence for Libby's lawyers to chew on. This case just keep improving for Libby as all the birds come home to roost.
Jeff:
you have some big disappointment coming your way. I don't believe we ever got your take on the Faux, fake Outright lie of Leopold's a few weekends ago. About Rove being indicted. What's your SPIN on that whopper?

[Cecil Turner]

The fact remains you mischaracterized what Miller said in her article. And you're still doing it. She asserts that Libby told her Plame worked for Winpac.

The passage doesn't say that (at least not in the sense that Libby brought it up, or that she claims it was verbatim). She is clearly relying on the notation, not memory. She says she has no clear recollection of context, and in another case has said a possible explanation for a boxed incorrect statement (Victoria Wilson) could be that she gave the wrong information to elicit a response. Another plausible explanation for the notation is that Libby mentioned counter- (or non-) proliferation, and she wrote the one she was familiar with. Extrapolating that to a theory that Libby was trying to misdirect to a less operational division on the off chance he would later be investigated, and yet forgot about it when the investigation actually happened and it was time to tell the story, borders on baroque.

[verner]

Tell you what. Alan Foley may be a bit of a space cadet, but I'm starting to think it's real real weird that Fulton "Mr. Cuba" Armstrong had anything to do with the Niger docs.

And in light of what we now know, that we didn't when his name popped up last year, I'd love to know if he had any relationship with Valerie Plame and/or the anti-Riech-Bolton and friend of Fidel think tank CIP.

Also, did he know MOM at Clinton's NSC? Didn't she have a Latin America portfolio as well?

One of the things that Bolton and Riech didn't like about him was the fact that he was a suspected leaker. And it appeared that he tried to pull the same crap on Bolton's speech that he did with Foley and the Niger docs--ignoring all other intelligence sources and agencies, and insisting on his own information.

Anybody know what Armstrong is doing now?

[verner]

Oh did I mention, some of the left wing blogs suggested that Armstrong was a source for Judy Miller?

[clarice]

jwest, I'm afraid I'd never make it as a newsie then. When someone says Don't contact me, again, I don't. And I wouldn't stick a microphone in the face of grieving relatives and ask them how they feel about the news that a loved one was horribly murdered. PHEH PTUI

[clarice]

Fulton does seem to be someone who could use another look, I think. Very odd that he was involved in the Niger stuff..It seems to me that Foley didn't realize what Fulton was pulling at the time-Or, for the Mission did someone at the Agency pull him off his LA responsibilities and work on this? Who? Why? Looks like very odd.

[Sue]

jwest,

I spit tea on my screen.

"sleep with him (take one for the team)"

Said so matter of factly...

::grin::