FITZ!

FitzWeek!

Colbert!!

Gen Hayden has been named by the White House to head the CIA

Nice one Jane…and thanks for a big chuckle courtesy of monk and his graphics.

Anyone not reading this fitzblog is lost. Guaranteed.

Thanks for the heads up Pacha. Didn’t get the e-mail at my normal address but got it at the Yahoo one. I’m responding now.

How about an indictment on Friday!

Wow. Every time I’ve seen this Monk graphic it makes me laugh. Love it…

And what’s up with not sleeping, Jane? are you like a kid waiting for Santa to arrive? ;-)

OT – CNN reports official hayden announcement at 9:30 in oval office. followed by negroponte defending the pick in the briefing room.

Rove thought no WMD was bad for an election year? Turns out he could simply pull gay marriage out of his little bag of tricks and win anyway. Don’t underestimate yourself Karl.

maybe a typo at the end: ‘hey Karl, do YOU…’
But I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid quotes.
Funny how that Waas guy seems kinda like Max Headroom…
“MORE THAN twenty minutes into the future.”

Who had the 12th in the infamous FDL-indictmentday pool?

Given that there was so little in the WaPoo story I’m surprised it was A1 (or is that the priviledge of JimV?).

What I found interesting was the Friday statement (or was it Wednesday?) by Fitz that he didn’t know when the Libby leaked information was declassified. You would think he could just get on the blower to Goss and ask. Or that Libby would have had a date. Or that Cheney might have mentioned a date. Or that Bush might remember when he “told” Cheney.

October 15, 2004 (not 25). And Cooper’s denied quashing was reported on 10/14/04 (not 05) – also, there’s little question Rove would have known about it as soon as it happened on October 7.

And nobody has yet explained, as Swopa pointed out, how an email that made no mention of “Wilson’s wife” or “Valerie Wilson” or “Valerie Plame” or whatever hair Robert Luskin wants to split today caused Karl Rove to remember that yes, he’d outed her to Matt Cooper.

That’s a really good point, assuming we’ve seen all the relevant parts of the email, and it points to another obscurity in the case and a difficulty for Rove: what, exactly, did he testify to, and when? Reports have varied, from saying that the email jogged Rove’s memory to saying that Rove just testified it was possible they talked about the Wilsons, he still can’t remember. And note, as far as we can tell, the email doesn’t mention even Joe Wilson, though Vandehei makes it sound like it does.

I still like Swopa’s theory that Rove went off the reservation when talking with Cooper

I do too. But also this newest (non)explanation from Luskin (that if Rove wanted to nail Wilson, he would have talked to Isikoff, not Cooper) made me realize that in fact there is a pattern, though I don’t know if it was by design. It’s true that Rove was not trying to out Plame publicly with Cooper, he was rather trying to discredit Wilson with a reporter working on the story whom he could not trust to take a White House-friendly line. The aim was to get Cooper not to publish. And exactly the same thing can be said about the White House official – my guess remains Cathie Martin – who blew Plame’s cover with Walter Pincus on July 12. (And if it was Martin, why was she talking with Pincus after Cheney had apparently replaced her with Scooter for the day as press-contact on the 16 words and Wilson?) In contrast, of course, Libby was working the reporter I take to have been the preferred target – Judith Miller, almost uniquely friendly to the White House on wmd among reporters situated in the heart of the MSM beast – to discredit Wilson publicly, and out his wife in the process.

And as for Novak, it’s still unclear, especially since we don’t really know the substance of the Rove-Novak conversation, but it’s possible that Rove simply saw Novak’s knowledge of Plame as a lucky break, and he capitalized on the opportunity. In any case, I suspect that the knowledge – which Rove passed along to Libby – that Novak was going to be publishing on the Wilsons also played an important role in the likely Cheney-Libby decision to go wide(r) on July 12.

Superb post as usual, apparently written before daylight. This piece was one of Vandehei’s better ones but this time around, he didn’t bother to include a sentence about Rove being protected from Cooper coming forward by their confidentially agreement. And I couldn’t believe “8 months” turned into a “few” and that he failed to mention that the Hadley email should have been turned over to Fitz as he subpoenaed all documents relating to the Niger matter.

FITZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
This is the week, I can feel it. Thanks to FDL
we are all informed. Great post Jane.

Rove’s time is up this week. Massaging lies can take just so much friction. It has weared the veneer down to revealing another “throwing of sand in the umpires eyes” during this investigation. I hope there are more revelations in the indictment of Rove, for if ever there was scoundrel warranting poetic justice, it is he.

I think I know what caused Van der Hei to change his reporting style: the emasculation he got from Colbert last week at the White House Correspondent’s dinnner. Van der Hei’s voice may be higher but his “spin-reduced” accuracy is much improved.

These guys remind me more everyday of my kids and their friends when they get caught doing something they are not supposed to. Cover each other, make stuff up, lie, lie, lie. Fitz is like a good dad, just constantly finding out more and more to take them down.

That fucker needs frogmarchin’. If he goes, its every GOP cockroach for himself come November.

Jane,

Just a correction.

It’s merde….
Pronunciation: ‘merd, ‘mard
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Old French, from Latin merda; perhaps akin to Lithuanian smirdeti to stink
sometimes vulgar : crap

Hopefully we’ll see Rove in cuffs soon. Then in prison where they’ll call him “Perch” instead of “Fish”

OT – WaPoo:

“The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq,” the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began.

Another curiosity which has been discussed here and elsewhere is that email Rove wrote Hadley. We know from Cooper that Rove and him did NOT discuss welfare reform. Rove goes out of his way to mislead Hadley about the nature of the call and to make it seem that the Niger thing comes up only as an aside. To me, this suggests Rove did go off the reservation, said too much, and wrote the email as a CYA. I wonder what Hadley testifed to regarding his discussions with Rove about Plame.

What’s up with Nancy Pelosi saying the Dems won’t impeach if they win the House back this fall? Is she for real? Why put the Dems back in charge if they aren’t serious about fulfilling their duty to protect and defend the Constitution? How many more high crimes does this administration have to commit before Nancy is ready to push for impeachment?

I had to drink a vente latte with a Red Bull chaser after reading the Post article. As of late, the Washington Post so often disappoints me by just regurgitating the obvious…

“its every GOP cockroach for himself come November”

Not if they use Karl’s playbook (with or without him) and turn illegal immigration into this year’s gay marriage.

I’m already seeing it in California in every local and state race.

lina

The thing is with immigration, if you really think about it, legislation along the lines of the McCain-Kennedy bill is the only feasible option.

lina 25,

They’ll use his playbook, no doubt, but the most vital ingredient will be missing: centralized lockstep orders. Look at the Goss replacement debacle to see what happens when they don’t have their ducks in a row.

I got in real late on the previous post, so I’ll ask the question here, also. Is the graphic you used for GOP Bogeymen a still from the 1944 film “The Uninvited,” in which Ray Milland was the starring actor?

Chuck–let me first say, I hesitate to defend Pelosi b/c I thought she did a terrible job with Russert (who I think a chimp should be able to outwit) but I think what she said was something along the lines of, you see what the facts are (investigations, subpoenas) and then you decide the remedy. That isn’t really taking “impeachment” off the table; it is just a talking point so that Ken Melhmen doesn’t burst a blood vessel telling his base that those nasty dems are going to try to impeach us.

OT -Bush at Hayden’s nomination speech live on tv now. It’s sad that our president has the diction of a fifth grader giving a book report.

[O]ne former government official said he testified that Rove talked with White House colleagues about the political importance of defending the prewar intelligence and countering Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Hmmm. Guess that was plan A until Tenet offered up his rectum.

The Deciderer escorts his new nominee from NSA headquarters:

http://www.bgladd.com/wewontfindbinladen.JPG

I DON’T BUY IT:

1. Rove “goes off the plantation?” This is a guy who RUNS THE PLANTATION — he is running the country. He doesn’t do things spontaneously.

2. It was to put out the Wilson fire. Nope. This motive makes no sense. It’s too petty, small.

Try this: Valerie and her group were experts in WMD in the Mideast and were exposing the fact that they were getting ready to plant WMDs in Iraq. That explains how they could be so confident that they would find them there.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4939

Did the White House plan to ‘find’ WMD in Iraq until Brewster-Jennings intercepted their shipment? Was that why Plame was in their crosshairs long before Wilson’s editorial?

Buried in a TPM Nov 18 blog about what the WH was really thinking when it invaded Iraq, Joshua Micah Marshall writes “This even leads to a sort of inverted conspiracy theorizing when people ask, ‘If he knew there was no WMD, why didn’t they at least try to plant some to avoid the catastrophic embarrassment which ensued after the war….The real answer, I think, is as banal as it is devastating: I don’t think they ever gave it much thought — not in the sense of trying to get to the heart of the matter.”

This WH may be diabolical, but it’s not stupid. Apparently, they gave it a lot of thought if the following is true. As Wayne Madsen reports (Nov 11):

“According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Valerie Plame and her Brewster Jennings & Associates was intended to retaliate against the CIA’s work in limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. WMR has reported in the past on this aspect of the scandal. In addition to identifying the involvement of individuals in the White House who were close to key players in nuclear proliferation, the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002. The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network.”

OR THIS: It blinds us to Iran’s nuclear stuff so they can get away with lying about it:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0213.html

The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame’s work. Their accounts suggest that Plame’s outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran’s burgeoning nuclear program

SNIP

Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame’s work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in “severe” damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA’s ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.

Plame’s team, they added, would have come in contact with A.Q. Khan’s network in the course of her work on Iran.

tryggth says at May 8th, 2006 at 6:14 am: “What I found interesting was the Friday statement (or was it Wednesday?) by Fitz that he didn’t know when the Libby leaked information was declassified. You would think he could just get on the blower to Goss and ask. Or that Libby would have had a date. Or that Cheney might have mentioned a date. Or that Bush might remember when he “told†Cheney.”
Please consider this: is it possible that the leaked information that you mentioned wasn’t really declassified at all? Even if it were informally declassified, is it possible that it was never formally declassified?

Doran 28,

The picture is of “The Brown Lady of Raynham Hall,” one of the most famous spook pictures ever, taken sometime in the mid-to-late 30s. Probably faked, but isn’t it evocative?

Don’t you think we should all start practicing some major meta with Karl? After all, does he not also have two legs, two arms, one head? We should not be basking in the suffering of others, but completely without any polluting stain of joy sympathize with his suffering and that of his family, his young son, his poor wife, but mostly, his poor friend still in the White House who will feel completely alone and lost without his longtime buddy’s advice and counsel. I would wager that with Karl gone, Bush will want to go fishing perch again, permanently, and that is why he mentioned that nostalgic catch to that German reporter… Poor Baby! This World is such an awful place, full of smoke and mirrors and ultimate (karmic) disappointments! I bow my head in prayer.

in a new york times article rove claims he isn’t worried about the democrats carrying either house

givent the fact that there isgenuine disgust for what the republicans have done to this ocuntry, the only way kark could be without concern is if he had an ace up his sleeve.

this means any of a few things, most frightening

1) an event to rally support for tee preisent, like 9/11 did or like our unprovoked aggresion in Iraq did

2) confidence electronic voting will rule the day once again

3)just spin

Speaking of “merde” there is an amusing novel A Year in the Merde by a British author talking about Paris between September 2002 and September 2003, with references to the Iraq war. Some day, when the history of the Bush administration is written, perhaps one book will be titled “Eight Years in the Merde”.

Matt O. and Tommy:

These are single issue voters who will come out to vote for the candidate who makes the most noise about the brown horde coming over the border. When they get into the voting booth, do you think they’re going to push the button for a “D”? They’re not familiar with McCain-Kennedy or any substantitive matter. They are uneducated xenophobes, and so far I’m not seeing the Dems coming up with any answer to this problem (a la gay marriage in 04).

“The debate in the Senate may end up being about the terrorist surveillance program and not about the future of the CIA or the intelligence community, which is exactly where the debate needs to be,†Mr. Hoekstra said on CBS’s The Early Show.

“This is about whether we still have alignment and agreement between the executive branch and Congress as to where intelligence reform needs to go,†he said.

Mr. Hoekstra’s sentiment was echoed by Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss, who said that Gen. Hayden’s military background would be a “major problem,†and by several Democrats who made the rounds of the Sunday television talk shows. Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said Gen. Hayden could leave agents with the impression that the CIA has been “just gobbled up by the Defence Department.â€
http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..ional/home

lina

Good point.

I love the eyebrow in the Fitz pic. Is that for real or photoshop wit?

Chicago Tom, #33, I’ve speculated even further. Suppose someone in the administration put the CIA up to sending Wilson to Niger in the first place. I don’t think it such a stretch to have a tidy package worked out from the beginning.

Matt O.:

The only answer I can come up with, in my limited imagination, is to counter the xenophobe vote with the Latino vote. We need to use Karl Rove’s divide and conquer strategy against him. There needs to be a massive voter registration and GOTV effort in the Latino communities in order to overtake the red neck vote.

lina 39

I totally agree that there are single issue voters, but suspect many of them, disgusted by scandal, corruption, gay hookers, Dubai Ports, porous borders, Katrina, the deficit, &c. will sit this one out.

The Dems have a golden opportunity to hang the boat anchor that is the Bush administration around the neck of every Republican candidate. Of course, the Dems have had lots of golden opportunities, but I’m optimistic.

French spelling gendarme, s/b “unmitigated piece of MERDE.” :-)

just saw this at mydd:

Congress shaping telecom law in private
Real work will be done in conference committee, where the public has no influence but lobbyists do.
By Marilyn Geewax
WASHINGTON BUREAU
Sunday, May 07, 2006

WASHINGTON — The House and Senate are preparing to vote on telecommunications legislation that could affect every American who surfs the Internet, watches cable TV or uses a phone.

But no one should waste much time watching the floor debates on C-SPAN. The lawmakers admit their goal is not to pass definitive legislation in public in the coming weeks.

Instead, they want to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee.

The Senate just needs to pass “anything to get us into conference,” where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal’s Technology Daily.

“It’s not supposed to work like this,” said Celia Wexler, vice president for advocacy for Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “It’s appalling that you can hear a member (of Congress) say that in public.”

While most conference negotiations are closed to public view, lobbyists continue to influence the members and their staffers.

In the case of telecom, the groups say, so many well-financed lobbyists are involved that they may battle themselves to a standstill, leaving Congress flush with campaign contributions but unable to agreeon a final bill before adjournment.

http://www.statesman.com/busin…..lecom.html

Rush’s gal helpfully just pointed out that Hayden is a big Pittsburgh Steeler’s fan so why should such a folksy guy cause so much opposition? She belongs on faux.

Ensore just said Hayden has the trust of the preznit and Negroponte, so the CIA will be ok with having a smart boss with access. He should be in the WH.

What about the trust of the American people…

OT, but fait accompli. This is how CNN reports on their site:

Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Hayden is the principal deputy to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. His nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

Tommy Yum:

I hope you’re right. But I fear most of these voters equate corruption and scandal with politicians in general, regardless of party affiliation. Of course, in the past, the “throw the bums out” phenomenom has prevailed. Let’s hope that holds this time.

Speaking of the WaPo: Sometimes it takes the print version to give you the full flavor of just how pervasive and insidious their “liberalâ€-bashing is. For instance, the front page of today’s supposedly fluffy Style sectio has a story by John F. Harris, national political editor, who played so prominent a role in the effort to trash Froomkin under ombudman Deb Howell’s helpful auspices.

Harris writes a generally laudatory piece about the decades-long friendship between economist Kenneth Galbraith, who died last week at 97, and historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., now 88. His premise is that there are no examples today of public intellectuals who similarly loom “over American politics and ideas†and have such enormous influence on discourse. But here’s the kicker: Harris begins his article: “There was a time—it’s been decades now—when politicians or pundits would call people ‘liberal intellectuals’ and not mean it as an insult. The phrase carried no sarcasm or disdain.†Obviously, Harris himself means it as an insult and assumes everyone else does too.

On the same page, we have Howie Kurtz, writing about the Patrick Kennedy incident. The “media critic’s†premise? Not that the press overplayed the story of the car crash involving someone Howie concedes “hasn’t been a very important House member.†Au contraire. What does he find “the only lingering mystery….?†He wants to know “why national news organizations didn’t pounce earlier on the Rhode Island Democrat’s long history of alcohol and drug abuse, depression and a series of downright embarrassing incidents.†Howie thinks Kennedy has gotten “an easy ride†and helpfully chronicles incident after incident involving the Congressman and repeats a slur by Boston Dem-bashing columnist/radio talker Howie Carr. The media, Kurtz says, has given Kennedy “plenty of chances†to get his act together, so too bad….

Yes, no doubt the Post needs a “conservative blogger” for balance….

—-

Do we know the identity of the “former government official” who leaked to Vandehei and testified that Karl was talking-up the political importance of pushback against Wilson in the summer of 2003?

Could it be Ari? And does the timing of this leak to Vandehei have any meaning? Is the leaker finally coming forward now to take a parting shot at Karl in the press b/c it’s just plain fun, and he knows that Rove is damaged goods and no longer a threat?

And BTW, Photoshopping Fitz’s face onto noted bowling enthusiast Jesus Quintana is just plain wrong… Dude, the guy is a pederast.

it is just a talking point so that Ken Melhmen doesn’t burst a blood vessel telling his base that those nasty dems are going to try to impeach us.

The Republicans are going to say that regardless of what Democrats say. They know them some Democrats, and they know that, when they say “Democrats will try to impeach the president”, the Leiberman faction will jump through hoops trying to deny it, trying to distance itself from “partisan nastiness”. This makes Democrats look divided and wimpy.

The rest of us ought to embrace what the Republicans fear. Impeach the president? Damn right!

They have so much money and bandwidth that they can inundate the American people with whatever message they want. We can’t counter that with equal money or equal TV-time to counteract their message. Instead, we need to hijack their message and turn it against them — to redirect its emotional power in the opposite direction to what they intended.

What I love is the fact that the (public) defense of Rove is more and more “it would have been really stupid for him to do that.”

Yes, Karl, it was really stupid. You can be really smart and still do something really stupid. And if stupidity was a defense, our prisons wouldn’t be full of people who did really stupid things and thought they’d get away with it.

tom__chicago @#33.

Your post ties in nicely with the allegations of Sibel Edmonds concerning the black market in WMD. Anyone remember this Kos diary?:

found here

i’m convinced hayden is a done deal. the republicans currently expressing ’skepticism’ to hayden is all a cynical manipulation — have a couple of members express these concerns (which echo democratic concerns) — which gives the white house the opportunity to stand strong on the issue of national security, where the perception is republicans still dominate. in a couple of days hoekstra, et al following consultations and reassurances from the white house, will loudly proclaim their support.

just a quick flip thru the dials this a.m. and hadley was all over the channels and the questions to him were half-hearted at best. for chrissakes, soledad obrien was the cnn questioner — and she has a remarkable ability to deflate any substantial question she poses to a muddled, whiney plea.

WILSON ‘08!!

You’re up awfully early, Jane. Too excited about Fitzmas to sleep in?

Near the bottom of the first page of the WaPo story, we see :
“Fitzgerald has not charged anyone for the crime he initially set out to prove. “

I don’t really like to quibble over every single word, but wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it “the crime he initially set out to INVESTIGATE”. For example, if Fitzgerald was harmed or intimidated during his investigation, I don’t think that we would accept that those crimes don’t count because “the underlying crime was not proven”. Rule of Law, and all that rot.

Oh, and from Jay’s inspiration yesterday:

DIEBOLD!!

This promises to be a breach through which we might enter the Castle Wolfenstein
So do we head for the central keep or roll up the walls? Or both?
I don’t think we can’t rule out some desperate ‘ Battle-of-the-bulge’ scenario. We already heard the ‘ Nuts’ from Bastogne in Britain. ( Jack the Strawman ) This may not even include the widely expected ‘ wag-the-dog’, counter-attack on terrorist Alban…Irania.
So we must never underestimate the Rovesputin. He is hard to kill and may surprise us yet.
Anyway the next few weeks look red hot – then comes operation Divine Strake. The quagmire is not looking good for the Orc’s either. Do they have vengeance weapons?
I know some of my friends are working on contigency plans in case something the Grinch steals Fitzmas.
One thing could be advised against and that is a late assassination attempt. The der leader is doing a bang-up job of playing old-king-log. His ‘ what-me-worry’ attitude is a huge plus for the allies. So we won’t kill him…just yet.
We have RICO charges and the 25th ammendment still in our quiver and things are generally progressing very well. I suggest the real challenge will be to end Euro-colonialism in the world before it leads into any more shooting wars.
That will require a new UN – a United Networks.
I nominate Jane Hamsher for secretary-general of the 1st postwar UN.

tom – chicago (33) — now that I buy, have suggested that before, having read WMR’s 11-NOV post about “salting”. Makes perfect sense to me that this was not only a flimsy attempt to defend the pre-war; there was too much behind the curtain that went up in smoke at the same time when Plame’s status was illegally disclosed. Especially after reading Ret. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski’s observations about the pre-war; there were too many cooks in the kitchen and they weren’t all of U.S. origin.

So here’s my question: is the press today regarding a letter from Iran’s Ahmadinejad NOT really a letter from the state source, but an administration walkback to cover their asses in light of the potential for their Iran work to be disclosed in a trial???

He argued that he hardly knew Cooper, who had recently started on the White House beat — one reason the conversation slipped his mind, the source close to Rove said.

What’s the best way to keep a new reporter on the White House beat reporting what you want? Dazzle them with access.

“Whoops, I’ve said too much,” indeed.

And BTW, Photoshopping Fitz’s face onto noted bowling enthusiast Jesus Quintana is just plain wrong… Dude, the guy is a pederast.

I really have no idea who Jesus Quintana is or if or why he is a pederast…

But who is the “Dude” you are writing to?

Fine, post, Jane. Jim Vand- article may not be new, but it is still enlightening. Are the essential facts of the underlying crime staring us in the face?

According to the JV article,

“Fitzgeral presented previously undisclosed information alleging that Libby had hounded CIA, State Department and other officials for information about Wilson and Plame, then leaked it.”

So the WH knows who Plame is, and what she does.

We already know that Cheney had told (or discussed with) Libby where Plame worked, even if Libby did not already know this. Cheney also knows.

Libby talks to Rove about Plame:

“Two days later [July 8, 2003], columnist Robert D. Novak called Rove and told him that he had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and helped arrange his Niger mission. Rove testified that he told Novak, ‘I heard that too,’ according to a source close to Rove.”

“A few days later, Rove told Libby about Novak’s plan to write a column about Wilson and his wife, according to court filings by Fitzgerald. . . “

This means the WH knows a reporter is about to reveal Plame’s identity. We also know that just before Novak publishes his July 14 article outting Plame, he calls the CIA for comment, and they try to warn him off, without revealing her secret status (which they can’t by law do. Given the warnings, does Novak call his sources back? It seems reasonable to assume that just before this article, Novak would have called Rove and/or Libby to comment on the article before it went to print. Reporters always do this.

So the knowledge that Plame is covert, and that the CIA objects to having her name/status revealed are about to be published; this is known to the WH and to Novak.

We also know that when the WH thinks a reporter is off base (or about to publish something embarrassing), they try to ward off the reporter. That’s what Rove did to Cooper, according to the Rove to Hadley e-mail. But here, when the WH sources for Plame’s identy learn that Novak is about the print a story leaking Plame’s employment, which the WH now knows is secret/senstive (and let’s not forget the memo floating around AF1 on the Africa trip, with ‘S’ stamped all over it), they do nothing to stop the article from being published. Remember this is the same WH that did everything they could to stop the NYT from publishing the Risen story and to stop the WaPo from publishing the Priest stories.

Seems to me we have a prima facie case for conspiracy to violate the underlying statute. And the lying/deception/can’t recall dance afterwards is further evidence of obstruction of justice. Why wouldn’t a prosecutor put that story in front of a jury? You don’t even need to prove lying to get there.

Let’s see what w does with the letter from Iran.
Oh Rayne # 60– your ? gives me goosebumps…

http://abcnews.go.com/Business…..id=1936029

#42 – the eyebrow is real, all right, but the photo is flipped. A mirror image, and the face superimposed on somebody else’s head. Very funny!

City Girl 51:

This was the last election results 2004:

David W. Rogers, Republican 69,819
Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat 124,923
Write-in Nonpartisan 268
—–
Message to Howie(s):scoreboard.
With RI showing lowest Bush/JAR I’d venture that the ‘06 results will be better for our wayward representative.

scarecrow –

Wow – if Bob Novak CALLED BACK Libby and/or Rove after receiving vague warnings not to publish, and Libby and/or Rove said to go forward with publication regardless…

Well, that pretty much shows intent. The case for violation of the underlying law becomes quite strong in this scenario. And this scenario sounds realistic to me.

We shall see, won’t we?

WTF??? Bush’s Job Approval Rating

In the same period, Fox/Opinion Dynamics reports Bush’s Job approval/disapproval at 38/53 while AP-Ipsos reports at 33/65. How can there be such a discrepancy?

Jane, great post. Always love a dose of Fitzmas cheer at the beginning of the week.

Oh, and thanks for that lovingly positioned Well halle-fuckin’-lulia !!
and for reminding how Mink Stole has so many of the best lines in Female Trouble *g* !

Oh wait, it’s a Fox News poll. I think I answered my own question.

#68 mortal says:
May 8th, 2006 at 8:01 am

WTF??? Bush’s Job Approval Rating

i think: a couple of weeks ago FAUX poll was at 33%. they were IMO creating a false bottom — now they can say 38%!!!! going back up!!

all bs . . . those goppers do know how to poll! ask the perch that chimpy landed or gannon. they have both been on the end of a gop poll or two!

New thread

Immanentize @62

I really have no idea who Jesus Quintana is or if or why he is a pederast…

But who is the “Dude†you are writing to?

This is from the Coen Brothers film “The Big Lebowski”. The Dude is the main character played by Jeff Bridges. Jesus Quintana is a member of a rival bowling team and played by John Turturro. Check it out…

Jeff 13 — That’s a really good point, assuming we’ve seen all the relevant parts of the email, and it points to another obscurity in the case and a difficulty for Rove: what, exactly, did he testify to, and when? Reports have varied, from saying that the email jogged Rove’s memory to saying that Rove just testified it was possible they talked about the Wilsons, he still can’t remember. And note, as far as we can tell, the email doesn’t mention even Joe Wilson, though Vandehei makes it sound like it does.

I have tried to reconstruct that so many times I’m cross-eyed. My best guess:

February 2004 (2x) — Heard about Plame through the grapevine, doesn’t remember who it came from, but did confirm for Novak. Testified that there was a plan to discredit Wilson, but that was just politics as usual an didn’t include anything about his wife. No mention of Cooper at all.

October 2004 — (following discovery of Hadley email) Testified to contents of the email re: welfare reform, still doesn’t remember the Cooper conversation but “might” have mentioned Plame. (Since Luskin was trying to coach Cooper’s testimony with various journalists regarding email contents the night before he testified, I think it’s likely). Now says he “may have heard from someone outside the White House, but still can’t remember who”.

October 2005 — (following Cooper’s testimony) Does he claim to now remember the Cooper conversation? Reports vary; some say he still claimed not to remember but says he must have, other say his memory was jogged. Also says he might have heard it from Libby.

April 2006 — this seems to be all about making excuses for his former memory lapses, i.e., if I really wanted to do some damage I would’ve talked to more reporters, and trying to make sense of the Viveca Novak nonsense excuse.

Obviously there are large chunks missing from this; nobody still has done any reporting on how Rove actually found out about Plame. I’m quite certain Fitzgerald has asked, and the responses he’s gotten probably play a large part in his case I’m guessing.

Maybe I’m missing something, but Vandehei’s piece was an excellent example of “no news makes good news.” What he missed ENTIRELY was what happened in the courtroom last week, as reported by David Shuster of MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Friday, that Libby’s lawyers disclosed he had been warned by the CIA NOT to reveal Plame’s identity, as a result of which (according to Shuster) prosecutors are reconsidering whether to indict Libby for the underlying crime of outing Plame (which they have the option of doing if they decide to issue a “superceding” indictment).

Now THAT would have been news, rather than the pablum Vandehei keeps spewing at us.

Jane at 74 — I’m hoping we get some answers on how Rove found out about Plame in the form of a big, fat, juicy Rove indictment. *g* Hope springs eternal…

“What’s the best way to keep a new reporter on the White House beat reporting what you want? Dazzle them with access.

“Whoops, I’ve said too much,†indeed.”

That’s Karl, too smart by half. And that’s what will bring him down.

xyz — We know Novak talked to Rove, we just don’t know when/how many times. But there are hints, from Vande–

“Two days later [July 8] columnist Robert D. Novak called Rove . . .” That’s call #1. Then, “A few days later [ie later than “two days later” after Wilson’s July 6, 2003 article]Rove told Libby about Novak’s plan to write a column about Wilson and his wife. . . “

A “few days later” than July 8 sounds pretty close to July 14, the date of Novak’s article, or better yet, July 13, the day before publication, which is when a reporter would be calling officials back for comments. I think this suggests Novak called Rove or someone in the WH again. Otherwise, we’re asked to believe that Rove talks to Novak only on July, then waits “a few days later” before he tells Libby, with whom he’s planning/coordinating the anti-Wilson defense, the critical information about Novak’s plan to publish — i.e., Mission Accomplished.

And I would also assume that when Novak calls the CIA for comment, just before his story is published, the CIA would immediately call the WH as a heads up. I think it’s safe to assume that Fitz already has testimony from the CIA official(s) who (1) took the Novak call and (2) then called the WH, including the name of the WH person(s) to whom the CIA official gave this information. Since this is the topic that Rove/Libby are “focused on,” it seems reasonable to believe that this heads up information goes straight to Rove/Libby.

Again, there appears to be more than enough circumstantial and direct evidence to charge the underlying crime and a conspiracy to commit it, as well as all of the obstruction, lying stuff in the coverup.

Jane/Christy have talked many times about litigation tactics — start on the edges with the litty Perch, and work your way in to the biggest fish in the Bush pond. But from a legal standpoint, what’s missing to able to charge these crimes?

Jane: “I still like Swopa’s theory that Rove went off the reservation when talking with Cooper, just couldn’t help himself…”

Hmm, Karl certainly is the type for that. But I suspect he was a little more calculated about it in the Plame Wilson leak. I’m assuming that Karl knew her name, knew she was under NOC, and knew it was illegal to out her — mainly because most of his actions don’t make much sense otherwise.

Like not telling Cooper her name directly. Why wouldn’t Karl use her name, unlees he thought that not using her name could prevent comlications later on. And I’m pretty damn sure Karl did know her name; it was all over those memos.

Karl maybe gave Cooper the information about Plame Wilson *because* Karl hadn’t any prior relationship with him. He probably figured it would be would be harder to trace back to him that way.

Scattered thoughts:

Looks like Clusterfuck would like a fight on his nominee for CIA- would change the subject for him. Goopers would like it cause it gives em a chance to fight the “rubber stamp” image at low risk. Dems may not be as enthusiastic. “What’s in this for us?”

On party spin. We are at the fundraising part of the campaigns right now. Goopers are saying “dems could win if you don’t send money”.

Dems are saying “we could win if you send money.” In SOME cases, the message is going to the SAME donors- and they will cough up for both sides. Dems have a strong enough chance to win at least one house of congress that they can’t be ignored this season. We’ll see some big donors go 55% gooper 45% dem in their contributions as they “lay it off at the track”.

I agree that this is likely the week that Rove gets his indictment enema- Friday sounds right. Clusterfuck’s first sub 30% Jar should occur about 10 days thereafter- say the 24th.

angie (64) — I hope like hell the full extent of damage gets exposed, and that we get a chance to follow the entire thread all the way back to the day after the Nov. 2004 election.

We need to win a majority of seats to make this happen. Get at it, folks, contact your local DFA or Dem organization and ask how you can help. We are now making phonecalls, updating voter databases and dropping literature for candidates in all 50 states. You have a direct impact on whether we’ll have subpoena power to investigate this RICO outfit now running the country into the ground.

Six months to go till D-day. Primary season goes on through September. Official “election fever” where the campaigns roll out the big guns and show what they’ve got- starts after Labor Day.

We’ve got a long way to go.

Nobody fucks with the Jesus. Is that the point?

you just keep thinking…thats what you are good at. ‘Butch Cassidy …….’ My favorite just like fdl.

What’s intriguing about this article is that we’re seeing it at all. Everything seems to be coming from the Rove camp, and there’s really nothing new here. My guess: Rove’s people (or Rove himself) called the story in. And the only reason I can see for doing that is that Rove is desperately trying to hold on to his job. The underlying theme of the story is that Fitz is just weighing charges against Rove, and we should have an answer one way or the other some time soon. It is implied that, if Rove isn’t indicted, Fitz will clear him. I’m not sure what Fitz is up to, but it seems foolish to assume that Rove is the only person in the crosshairs right now. I also don’t think Fitz is planning on “clearing” anyone. He’ll either indict or he won’t, but I don’t think he’s ever going to come out and say that Karl Rove is guilty of any wrongdoing.

my favorite:

(Strother Martin at Newman and Redford): I’ve got morons on mah team!

According to the JV article,

“Fitzgeral presented previously undisclosed information alleging that Libby had hounded CIA, State Department and other officials for information about Wilson and Plame, then leaked it.â€

If Vandehei is *not* referring to the Libby indictment in that passage, I will print this comments thread and eat it.

From Jane H her bad self:

…nobody still has done any reporting on how Rove actually found out about Plame. I’m quite certain Fitzgerald has asked, and the responses he’s gotten probably play a large part in his case I’m guessing.

Unless/until Polly contradicts that, it looks unanimous. But Emptywheel pointed out recently that Rove was working with Tenet and his crew to get Tenet’s sword-falling statement out and declassify the CIA/Wilson report – the CIA was not the obvious source for the spousal link (although the Libby indictment says otherwise); certainly the CIA/Wilson report does not mention Valerie.

As to the Vandehei article, it is what is left out that is surprising – either Fitzgerald has the goods on the missing emails and Cooper’s non-entry in the phone logs, or he doesn’t.

Either way, that will be a key point for one side or the other.

And what about Libby’s testimony (contradicted by Cooper) that he leaked to Cooper, which obscured Rove’s role for months? Worth a mention? Worth scalding Vandehei for skipping past it?

I am predicting an indictment, BTW. Or would, if I ever took time to post it.

You know, I think we’re giving all these guys too much credit.

At the point they were smearing Wilson and outing his wife, they had no reason to believe anyone would ever call them on it.

And even if they thought about it, they had to view their chances of jealous prosecution as next to zero.

So they got sloppy and made a bunch of mistakes. Big, stupid mistakes. And now Fitzgerald has got the goods on all of them.

The whole lot of them (maybe including Cheney) are going down.

Err…”zealous” prosecution.

Tom Maguire: “If Vandehei is *not* referring to the Libby indictment in that passage, I will print this comments thread and eat it.”

When I first read it I thought the same thing — “what’s he got that he hasn’t already told us in the idictment, he’s got quite a bit” — but the “previously undisclosed” bit is certainly intriguing.

And yes, your catch (which I think I’ve now written about and credited 3x) regarding the Libby/Rove pact (?) to cover each other’s Cooper stories is a good one. I know you’re no fan of David Schuster, but he *HAS* been the only MSM-er to report on it.

#86 brings tears to muy eyes…

I’m sure this will be epu’d but…

If Rove didn’t know Cooper well enough to give him sensitive information, then why the double-super-secret-backgroud?

Wasn’t that Rove’s cover when talking with Cooper?

Who would talk about “welfare reform” on that kind of background! Obviously Rove knew he was leaking bombshells to Cooper.

Jane – I bet that’s about right on Rove’s testimony. The reporting on Rove’s original source of information on Plame seems to be that he testified he heard it from reporters he can’t remember which and/or he heard it a couple of times in social settings he can’t remember where or from whom. The report about hearing it from Libby was, I think, a little misleading, insofar as it fudged the dates, and Rove appears to have been talking about his conversation with Libby on July 10 or 11, well after Rove had talked with Novak. But that episode raises another interesting question: what exactly did Rove testify to about that conversation with Libby? There are reports that Rove was shown Libby’s testimony and his recollection matched Libby’s generally, insofar as they talked about what they’d heard from reporters. However, while that is what Rove told Libby, such general recollection is consistent both with Libby not telling Rove what he’d heard from reporters and Libby telling Rove what he’d heard from reporters. The trouble is that Fitzgerald is evidently convinced that Libby lied about his conversation with Russert, and therefore that Libby was also lying about telling Rove that he’d heard about Plame from Russert. Two possibilities here: 1)Rove failed to confirm Libby’s version of their conversation, which is part of the basis of Fitzgerald’s conviction that Libby was lying, it’s just not a usable part of the case since Rove will not be a prosecution witness for obvious reasons; 2)Rove confirmed Libby’s version of their conversation, and Fitzgerald is utterly convinced that that is evidence of conspired obstruction. For the moment, I’m going with 1). But note this tantalizing detail from Waas‘ most recent:

Rove also testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. But Rove testified that Libby told him that he only heard the information as rumors being passed on to him by journalists.

We need dates on that, and we would also need to eliminate the possibility (unlikely, if you ask me) that Libby lied to Rove at the time. But if this is a reference to the July 10 or 11 conversation, and it’s accurate, and Libby wasn’t lying to Rove at the time, Fitzgerald must be convinced there was a concerted cover-up.

And yes, your catch (which I think I’ve now written about and credited 3x) regarding the Libby/Rove pact (?) to cover each other’s Cooper stories is a good one.

You have been very generous, thanks. I’m just hoping my (former?) fans at Powerline don’t make it here too often…

Re Shuster: if folks are taking seriously his Friday report about Libby being advised to stop talking about Plame (per the AP, Libby was given a stop-go about the NIE), then I have a suggestion to get NBC to spring for a transcript of the May 5 hearing – let’s just whine that Shuster ought to put up or pipe down.

It won’t break their budget to buy a transcript and let us see just what was said.

Well, I haven’t contacted the court reporter to see what the price is, yet.

Patrick Fitzgerald is a hero.

The more I watch Team Libby writhe and try to change the subject, the more I see how it’s overwhelmingly likely that Rove/Libby DID intentionally out Valerie Plame, the more I believe that Fitz knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he indicted Libby for perjury.

Remember how they got Al Capone for tax evasion? It’s the same thing. We KNOW these jerks are guilty—but it might just be too hard to get them on the original charge without a replay of the Iran-Contra hearings. Instead, get them on the rock-solid charge of lying. That way they’re sure to pay the piper.

Good work, Fitz!!

Tom at 94 — I can’t wait to take a peek at that transcript. And I’d be all for NBC paying for an expedited copy so we can all give it a read.

Tom Maguire — let me know, we can split the cost of the transcript with you.

William D. McAllister, official court reporter: (202) 371-6446.

Jim Preston at #58:

Near the bottom of the first page of the WaPo story, we see :
“Fitzgerald has not charged anyone for the crime he initially set out to prove. â€

I don’t really like to quibble over every single word, but wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it “the crime he initially set out to INVESTIGATEâ€. For example, if Fitzgerald was harmed or intimidated during his investigation, I don’t think that we would accept that those crimes don’t count because “the underlying crime was not provenâ€. Rule of Law, and all that rot.

Jim, excellent point. The subtle misuse of language now seems to be part of the press’ everyday strategy. When approachig some topics, an almost adolescent carelessness rules. Funny how such “mistakes” are always in support of the right-wing line.

Forgot to turn off italics, there, sorry….

jane h
rove knew the wilsons from church. (don’t forget) also, i just love your tale about wilson being qhwb long lost son. (the one he wished he had) can you please link that post for old times sake? since it is almost Fitzmas?

I see a concerted effort with the ‘ Flame’ clue.
Both Novack and Miller wrote down Plame as Flame in the first instance.
Rove was handling Novack and Libby, Miller.

‘ Their (Latin) roots connect them’

Then we have Libby testimony that Cheney told him Plames name and conspiracy is proven by ‘ Mens Rea’ or guilty mind. That’s when you go on deep, deep, DEEP background and/or quoted only as a ‘ former hill staffer’.

Hit them again Fitz. Hit them again.

RE: #93

“Rove also testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. But Rove testified that Libby told him that he only heard the information as rumors being passed on to him by journalists.

We need dates on that, and we would also need to eliminate the possibility (unlikely, if you ask me) that Libby lied to Rove at the time. But if this is a reference to the July 10 or 11 conversation, and it’s accurate, and Libby wasn’t lying to Rove at the time, Fitzgerald must be convinced there was a concerted cover-up.
**********************

Libby didn’t lie to Rove; Rove lied about what Libby said to him. The lie at the core of this conspiracy to out Plame is the, “Yeah, I heard that story from some reporters.” The conspirators had to lie about where they obtained the information about Plame’s CIA employment as a covert operative, which Libby obtained in a fax from Marc Grossman at the State Department around June 12th. He also talked to Grossman and Cheney confirmed what Grossman said.

We know that Rove was wise to the scheme because he said the same thing, eventually, when he “recalled kind of sort of” his conversation with Cooper some 7 – 10 months after his lawyer tipped him off to his Cooper problem, courtesy of Viveca Novak’s loose lips. Isn’t it an interesting coincidence that Rove’s email to Hadley doesn’t mention Plame by name, although Cooper and Novak told the grand jury that he did mention her name.

You can take this to the bank: Every time someone associated with Cheney’s office, or the WHIG said, “Yeah, I also heard that from a reporter whose name I can’t recall,” they might as well have hung a sign around their neck with the words, “I’m guilty,” tatooed all over it.

An apparent conundrum is presented by George Tenet’s mea culpa for not removing the infamous sixteen words in Bush’s SOTU speech. He fell on his sword on 7/11/2003 to save Bush, Cheney, and the WHIG from having to accept responsibility for lying us into war in Iraq. Rove supposedly helped him write the statement. Doesn’t it seem odd that he’s involved in arranging to have Tenet and the CIA accept responsibility for Bush’s FALSE statement about Saddam seeking to purchase uranium yellowcake in Niger when, at the same time, he’s supposedly attempting to discredit Wilson for accusing Bush of lying?

So, we know that Rove is nothing, if not devious and mean-spirited. We also know that he’s a liar. Did he out Plame because Wilson told the truth and embarassed the administration into persuading Tenet to be the fall guy in order to minimize the damage to Bush for lying in the SOTU? Or, did he out Plame as part of a longer range plan to eliminate the CIA’s ability to gather intelligence about Iran’s nuclear adventures?

Given Tenet’s willingness to be the fall guy and accept responsibility for Bush’s SOTU lie, there appears to have been little reason to roast Wilson. Unless, of course, the real target was Plame and Brewster Jennings.

Looks to me like the conspiracy included Cheney and Hadley.

I doubt that all of this happened without Bush’s knowledge and his promise to fire anyone who leaked Plame’s identity was nothing more than another lie calculated to direct attention away from the White House, and I doubt that he would have said anything if he wasn’t involved in the conspiracy.

The basics still hold true. Most people know that the administration has been telling lies about everything. The reason that they are forced to lie about so many things is because what its members have in mind is wrong to anyone who does not like being forced to bend over.

Its attempt to turn the U.S. into a plutocracy is anti-American, anti-democracy and anti-the American people. They bribed, bought and cheated their way into the White House. The imperial presidency does not exist because the current administration does not belong in the White House to begin with.

I did not realize that cheating successfully is the same as winning.

Things they have lied about:
the money
the war
Medicare
the prescription drug benefit
Social Security
their critics and opponents
fake news
fake science
fake environmental protection
fake education agenda
the tax cut
the election(s)
the deficit
the economy
NAFTA and CAFTA
moral values
religion
spying on Americans
civil liberties
torture
the money
Mission Accomplished
the last throws
minority and individual rights
speeches
press conferences
9/11
the estate tax cut
the capital gains tax cut
abstinence
faith based churches
vouchers
international relations
diplomacy or lack of
elitism
liberal philosophy
the unitary executive
the right to life
energy legislation
the money

If one listed the individuals, members of this administration have lied about, pro and con, the list remains finite, but an incredibly large number.
etc.

Busy, busy, busy. There are many things to lie about when an administration is attempting to bury democracy, break the middle class and create a two tiered economic system, while robbing the American people blind. The more corrupt this administration is, the greater its need for secrecy.

Does anyone recognize a pattern here?

The list is long, but it all boils down to two concepts, a deep unbridled disrespect for democracy and for the American people.