http://www.dailykos.com/commen…../293/55#55

• Changing Executive Order 12958 (none / 1)
I think we may have a smoking-gun on conspiracy against Joe Wilson. That and Bush is part of it, if not at the center.
Emails will most likely show direct evidence of this conspiracy
It has to do with the Executive Order 12958 http://www.fas.org/…. It is the timeline of when this draft was first initiated. When was it first proposed that the original [EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 http://www.fas.org/… ]dated April 17, 1995 be updated?
FAS Note: The following is a draft Bush Administration revision of Executive Order (EO) 12958 on national security information policy. When finalized, the new executive order will define information classification and declassification policy. This draft document was circulated among executive branch agencies for comment in March 2003. Deletions from EO 12958 are indicated in this way, while proposed new additions are underlined. The final executive order was signed by President Bush on March 25, 2003, and is posted here.
During March of 2003:
7 March 2003
“Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents – which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger – are in fact not authentic.
We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”
UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei’s report to the UN Security Council
In the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/…
WHO LIED TO WHOM?
Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraqâ€TMs nuclear program?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2003-03-31
Posted 2003-03-24
Joe Wilson himself stated in his book:
http://talkleft.com/…
Joseph Wilson wrote in his book and told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that the White House campaign to discredit him began in early March, 2003, after he had appeared on CNN and criticized the Niger documents as forgeries. In an earlier post, I quoted both:
Wilson’s Book:
…According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles.
….Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration.
The plan of the attacks on Joe started at this time. Here this EO update is Bush giving cover to Cheney, Libby, and other of the Iraq Survey Group.
Can we get a timeline of the events and some insider input on these events?
Demand the Truth in America
by EasyRider on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 06:33:32 AM PDT
[ Parent ]

I think comment 22 makes a reference to March meeting and Plame’s CIA status being discuss. I think the two events are related and only Fitz, President Bush, and the Grand Jury know for sure.

The WH must have SOMEHOW rubbed Ashcroft the wrong way back then, because he stopped carrying the torch for Bush. Indeed, he was the KEY crony to make sure all the illegal activity they did would never be investigated. Yet, he refused to sign an authorisation to allow the domestic warrantless wiretapping. Then he recused himself from investigating the Plame outing. Then he resigns. But the payback is starting to hit hard elsewhere. There are CIA and NSA whistleblowers that are uncovering the beacon of truth on illegal (and immoral) WH activities. Colin Powell and other former Generals are telling the world how our proud troops have been unnecessarily put in harm’s way because of Rumsfeld and Bush. And very importantly, the MSM has been screwed over enough times that now they are not holding back the leaks and the other damaging (but important) information like they have before.

— the late Bill Hicks, and a question thirty-some percent of America desperately needs to be asking itself right now.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/10345

IIRC, one of the legal eagles following Plamegate said that someone who’s been indicted does NOT testify before the GJ again, possibly because of evidentiary rules. It seems to me the same would apply even if someone (Rove) had been told “I’m indicting you in the next few weeks” – because, presumably, the same evidentiary and procedural cautions apply.

Also, I can’t think who Leopold’s source could be. Not anyone in Fitzgerald’s office, surely; that place has been leakproof.

That leaves Rove’s peeps, but what would it gain him to have his indictment announced beforehand?

He’s way out on a limb here, and I really doubt he’d be reporting all these details if he didn’t have solid sources. So will Fitz quietly file the indictments today, or will he wait till Monday and make a big announcement right before Bush goes on the air?