Posts

Fitzgerald’s Successful Argument to Keep the Bush and Cheney Reports Out of Discovery

/16 Comments/in /by

Back in the discovery period leading up to Scooter Libby’s trial, Ted Wells made a valiant attempt–based on Fitzgerald’s notice that he was going to include reference to the insta-declassification of the NIE–to get Bush and Cheney’s interview reports in discovery. But, as far as I can tell from the available record, Wells failed. Fitzgerald argued that, so long as he was willing to stipulate that the leak of the NIE on July 8 was not illegal, then any discovery of the Bush and Cheney reports would count as Jencks, and therefore he would only be obligated to turn them over if the government called Bush or Cheney to testify.

Given the fact that Mukasey appears to have claimed he can’t reveal the reports for some crazy reason, I thought I’d lay out this argument. Nowhere does Fitzgerald explain that he couldn’t turn over the reports–only that he doesn’t think he has to, unless Judge Walton orders him to do so.

MR. WELLS: Your Honor, with respect to the issue of the NIE, as Your Honor knows, Mr. Libby testified that he had discussions with Ms. Miller concerning the NIE based on expressed instructions from the vice president and with the understanding that President Bush had declassified the document. This is a case that concerns unauthorized disclosure of classified material. To the extent that Mr. Fitzgerald is in possession of documents or grand jury material or interviews that establish that, in fact, the vice president and the president were aware that those documents had been declassified, he should turn them over because I do not want to be in a position during this trial that there is some question that Mr. Libby, in disclosing that material to Ms. Miller, did anything wrong.

THE COURT: But the government is not alleging any violation of the law regarding that.

[snip]

THE COURT: You are not challenging whether there was a declassification of that information at the time it was produced?

MR. FITZGERALD: We’re not challenging the declassification authority as of July 8. What he is asking now is Jencks. And that’s what we kept writing in our briefs, we don’t turn over Jencks material before trial. Now we’re asking for grand jury testimony. It is not an issue. The NIE is not mentioned in the indictment. Read more →

Share this entry

Those Democratic Committee Chairs Aren’t COORDINATING, Are They?

/35 Comments/in /by

Here’s a little timeline, just for fun.

May 30: Conyers troubled by McClellan’s revelations

June 3: Waxman writes to Mukasey, demanding Bush Cheney reports by June 10

June 9: Conyers schedules McClellan testimony for June 20

June 11: Mukasey has his underling reply to Waxman

June 16, 2008: Oversight subpoenas Mukasey for Bush Cheney reports

June 20, 2008: During McClellan hearing, Conyers announces he’s going to request the Bush Cheney reports

June 23, 2008: Due date on Oversight subpoena

June 24, 2008: DOJ tells Oversight to fuck off

June 26, 2008: HJC votes to subpoena Mukasey for a laundry list of documents

June 27, 2008: HJC delivers subpoena, including demand that Mukasey turn over the FBI reports on the Bush and Cheney interviews

June 27, 2008: Oversight requests documents from Fitzgerald

July 3, 2008: Due date for documents from Fitzgerald

July 7, 2008: Due date on HJC subpoena

Now, far be it for me to suggest that Henry Waxman and John Conyers–members of the same political party (!)–are in cahoots. In fact, all my experience with the Democrats since they’ve been in the majority makes me believe that the chances they’re working in tandem here are extremely small.

But still. Look at the dates. HJC only voted to subpoena Mukasey for the Bush and Cheney interview reports (and a laundry list of over materials) after Mukasey had already told Waxman to fuck off. And conveniently, Waxman has given Fitzgerald a deadline that comes before Mukasey’s deadline to hand over the reports to HJC.

You see, I can’t help but think that Oversight has a relatively weak claim to those interview reports. Ostensibly, they have asked for the reports to answer the following questions:

(l) How did such a serious violation of our national security occur? (2) Did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred? ‘ And (3) what changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of our national security from continuing?

In other words, Waxman has described the rationale of his request in terms of strict oversight roles–ostensibly to prevent someone else–besides the Barnacle, I guess–from outing CIA spy with impunity. DOJ has allowed Oversight to see (but not keep) interview reports showing clearly that Bush and Cheney not only didn’t launch an investigation into the leak. They obstructed justice, by exonerating Rove and Libby publicly. But if, given what Mukasey has seen and we haven’t seen, Bush and Cheney can claim they had declassified Plame’s identity before Libby and everyone else leaked it, well, then, the whole question of why they didn’t do an investigation is moot. Read more →

Share this entry

What Is Michael Mukasey Helping Dick Cheney to Cover Up?

/94 Comments/in /by

Never mind. I know the answer. Attorney General Mukasey is helping Cheney and Bush hide the fact that they played insta-declassification games that may have–though they’ll never tell–included leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity.

Apparently, DOJ responded to Waxman’s subpoena for the Bush and Cheney interview reports by telling Waxman to go fuck himself (h/t WO).

On June 16,2008, having been informed in writing by the Justice Department that it would not produce the interview reports of the President and Vice President, the Committee issued a subpoena for those interview reports, as well as other responsive documents not previously produced, with a return date of June23,2008. On June 24,2008, the Justice Department informed the Committee by letter that it would not comply with the subpoena and would not "provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or the Vice President from the leak investigation."

Waxman appears to be calling DOJ on whatever grounds DOJ invoked when refusing to comply with the subpoena, because he’s asking Fitz for clarification on whether or not there was an agreement between him and the Barnacle Branch that would shield the FBI reports from any exposure.

To assist the Committee in evaluating the Department’s position, I request that you produce the following information to the Committee no later than July 3, 2008:

1. Documents sufficient to show the date and terms of all agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the President of the United States, regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews of the President conducted as part of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation.

2. Documents sufficient to show the date and terms of all agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Offrce of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Vice President of the United States, regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews of the Vice President conducted as part of the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation.

I’m guessing, but it appears that Mukasey has claimed that Fitz made some kind of agreement with Bush and Cheney, and that agreement prevents him from turning over their interview reports. But, as Waxman notes, these reports were among those that Fitzgerald determined "were not protected by Rule 6(e)."

Read more →

Share this entry

A Response to Dean: The Failure, So Far, Has Been Congress’

/155 Comments/in /by

John Dean thinks Patrick Fitzgerald may have gone soft on the White House.

If McClellan’s testimony suggests that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, for any reason, gave Karl Rove and Dick Cheney a pass when, in fact, there was a conspiracy – which is still ongoing – to obstruct justice, then these hearings could trigger the reopening of the case. But this is a pretty large “If.”

[snip]

As experienced a prosecutor as Fitzgerald is, he was playing in a very different league when investigating the Bush White House. These folks make Nixon’s White House look like Little Leaguers – and based on what is known about the Plame investigation, I have long suspected that Fitzgerald was playing out of his league. (See, for example, here and here.)

I would counter Dean and suggest it was not Fitzgerald, but Congress, which dropped the ball.

Dean suggests that we don’t know what Fitzgerald found.

Yet since no one knows what Fitzgerald learned, except those who cannot speak of what they know, it is not possible to determine whether he might have been outfoxed by the White House.

Um, not quite. While it is true we don’t know the contents of Rove’s grand jury appearances nor those of many other key players, we do know quite a bit beyond the details surrounding Libby’s narrow perjury charge. With the caveat that some of the following can only be supported with circumstantial evidence, here’s what we do know:

  • Dick Cheney declassified Valerie Wilson’s identity (either with Bush’s implicit or explicit approval) and told Libby to leak it to Judy Miller. He may have instructed Libby to leak details about her name and status to Novak during his July 9 conversation as well. But since he declassified Valerie’s identity, the legal status of that leak is–at best–unclear. After that leak, those in the White House who knew about it operated as if it was a legal leak of non-classified information.
  • The stories of Rove, Armitage, Novak, and Libby have significant discrepancies, meaning (in spite of what the Administration’s backers claim) we don’t yet have an adequate explanation for the leak to Novak. Probably, some of Rove’s testimony was perjurious, but there is no credible witness to that fact (since Armitage was himself either lying or a terrible witness), so it would be difficult to charge. Read more →
Share this entry

Fitzgerald to Conyers: “Okay, Now I’m Ready to Talk”

/192 Comments/in /by

Thanks to BayStateLibrul for pointing out this provocative comment from Patrick Fitzgerald after yesterday’s Rezko verdict:

The White House Rasputin, Karl "The Architect" Rove, also was mentioned in the trial, as was former House Speaker Dennis "Don’t Ask Me About My Land Deal" Hastert, alleged to have been part of an effort by the bipartisan Illinois Combine to get rid of Fitzgerald. To demonstrate their kinship, Cellini and Rezko flew out to Washington on a play date and visited a White House reception with President Bush, where Kjellander joined them.

Later in the Rezko trial, two witnesses said that Rezko told them not to worry about the criminal investigation, because the Republicans—Rove and Kjellander—would get rid of Fitzgerald. Hastert would install a friendly federal puppy who wouldn’t bother the Combine, according to the testimony. "The federal prosecutor will no longer be the same federal prosecutor," testified Elie Maloof, a Rezko associate who is now a cooperating witness.

And a state pension board lawyer who has already pleaded guilty told grand jurors that Cellini told him "Bob Kjellander’s job is to take care of the U.S. attorney."

The Illinois Republican Party holds its own convention this week in Decatur. The party establishment, which has long been cozy with the Daley Democrats at City Hall, has done little or nothing to rid the Illinois GOP of Kjellander and Cellini influence.

"If I owe a response [about the putsch to remove him from his job], I owe it to Congress, first," Fitzgerald said when asked about all this after the verdict. [my emphasis]

Well, now that you mention it, Fitz, I seem to recall that Congress did ask you questions about this issue–questions that you obliquely passed on because of an ongoing criminal trial.

But that’s not the version of the "what if you got fired" question that I find most interesting. Rather, there’s a question that asks specifically if Fitzgerald became aware of efforts to fire him during the course of the CIA Leak investigation. Fizgerald refuses to answer … because of the ongoing Rezko case.

[snip]

During the CIA leak investigation, were you aware of any conversations that you might be asked to resign? If so please describe all such conversations, including the substance of the conversations, when they occurred, and the names of those who participated.

Read more →

Share this entry

Now This IS Interesting Scottie McClellan News

/129 Comments/in /by

Back in November, when Scottie McClellan’s publisher first started to pitch Scottie’s book, he made a stir when he posted the following blurb about the book.

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.

That set off a minor firestorm, as people misread the plain language of the blurb to mean that Bush had knowingly asked Scottie McC to lie about Libby’s and Rove’s involvement in the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity. As I pointed out then, the firestorm probably contributed to making little Scottie rich.

Scottie McC’s publisher has pulled off quite the coup–taken a detail that was, largely, already known, and used it to cause a stir about a book that will not yet be published for another 6 months. Already, Dodd is calling for an investigation, folks are calling for HJC or Waxman to hold a hearing. What the left has done is read one publishing blurb designed to generate this kind of buzz, and played right into the plan. Congratulations. You’re all making Scottie McC rich.

And while I still don’t advocate that you all go out and buy Scottie’s book (tell you what–I’ll buy it and tell you the interesting bits), this little revelation is interesting news.

McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case.

Read more →

Share this entry

Rove Once Again Saying Things on Teevee He Claims He Can’t Say to Congress

/88 Comments/in , /by

Thanks to TPM’s reader GB for watching Rove on Stephanopoulos so I don’t have to. Rove claims he shouldn’t have to appear before Congress because–in a different subpoena–the White House invoked executive privilege.

Rove: Congress–the House Judiciary Committee wants to be able to call Presidential Aides on its whim up to testify, violating the separation of powers. Executive Privilege has been asserted by the White House in a similar instance in the Senate. It’ll be, probably be asserted very shortly in the House. Third, the White House has agreed–I’m not asserting any personal privilege, the White House has offered and my lawyer has offered several different ways, if the House wants to find out information about this, they can find out information about this and they’ve refused to avail themselves of those opportunities.

Two things here.

First, the circumstances between this and the Senate subpoena are actually somewhat different. Rove’s documented involvement in the USA firings is actually much more minor than that in the USA purge. In the USA purge, he briefly attended on meeting at the White House strategizing how they would respond to Congress’ investigation and instructed the DOJ folks to come up with one story about what they said had happened. And some Republicans have said they asked Rove to fire Iglesias and later–in December 2007–that Rove told them Iglesias was gone. The discussions of what Rove did subsequent to those requests is based on anonymous sources claiming that Rove intervened directly. Those same anonymous sources, though, say that Rove had to get Bush involved personally, which would implicate the President and then–except insofar as someone was arguing that the firing constituted obstruction–executive privilege.

Here, though, we’ve got a sworn source saying she heard references to Rove directly contacting DOJ, bypassing the President and therefore bypassing executive privilege.

Also, given Rove’s involvement in Alabama politics, it’s hard to say whether his activities were those of a presidential aide or a powerful GOP operative.

In any case, the White House has not yet invoked executive privilege here. And a few things are going to make that harder to do. First, who will provide the legal review to justify it? Paul Clement did the heavy lifting the last time the White House invoked executive privilege here–but it pertained solely to the hiring and firing of USAs. Read more →

Share this entry

Conyers to Rove: No, It’s Not an Open Book Test…

/27 Comments/in /by

(Updated with Conyers video–did I mention he seems cranky of late?) 

…And, besides, we want to see you sweat.

Karl Rove, still trying to back out of Robert Luskin’s taunt that Rove would be happy to testify, tried to get John Conyers to settle on written responses to questions. Conyers, who’s finally beginning to lose his temper, said no.

Our position remains, however, that since your client has made a number of on-the-record comments on these subjects to the media, and in light of your (now modified) statement that Mr. Rove would be willing to testify, we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee. Please contact Committee counsel or respond in writing no later than May 21 as to whether your client will make himself available to the Committee for questioning.

[snip]

Your letter also suggests that we address written questions to Mr. Rove, which may reflect a misunderstanding of Committee procedure. Although we do often address written questions to witnesses, that occurs after live testimony, which is critical in order to allow the follow up and give-and-take that is necessary to inquiries of this nature. Since you indicate Mr. Rove is now willing to submit written answers to questions, which by definition would be recorded in a manner similar to a transcript, we do not understand why he would not submit to providing transcribed answers to live questions, as he has done in media interviews. [my emphasis]

Actually, Conyers would even agree to an almost-open-book test, providing Rove the questions before he testified.

We are willing to consider other possible accommodations, such as providing a list of initial questions that may be asked.

I thought Turdblossom was smarter than this–why does he need so much help to pass a simple little test?

One answer may have to do with scope. Rove is on the hook, of course, for all his blabbing about the Siegelman affair. But he appears to want to limit all questions to that narrow subject, something Conyers is unwilling to let him do.

We are writing in response to your May 9 letter with respect to the invitation to Karl Rove to testify before the House Judiciary Committee concerning the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Because your letter appears to reflect several misunderstandings concerning the subjects we wish to question Mr. Rove about…

Read more →

Share this entry

Fitz on Firing

/54 Comments/in , , /by

In their Questions for the Record submitted after he testified, HJC managed to ask Patrick Fitzgerald one obvious question they didn’t manage to ask when he testified at their hearing on Special Counsels (h/t MadDog). What would have happened–or would happen to John Durham, investigating the torture tapes destruction–if a Special Counsel got fired during the course of the investigation? Actually, in the QFRs Fitzgerald got asked about 5 different versions of the question, only one of which elicited a really useful answer (at least as it might reflect on John Durham’s investigation):

13. If you had been fired as a U.S. Attorney, what impact would that have had on the CIA leak investigation? What impact would that have had on your appointment as Special Counsel?

During my tenure, this question did not present itself. It is not clear to me what the legal implications would have been had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while serving as Special Counsel. (This might be an issue that should be specifically addressed if there is a delegation of power to a sitting United States Attorney in the future as it is entirely possible that a United States Attorney could be asked to resign after a change in administration.) It would appear that unless the United States Attorney were specifically retained in some other capacit (such as a Special Assistant United States Attorney), he or she could no longer serve as a Special Counsel who was employed by the Department of Justice and whose authority had been delegated by the Attorney General. It would be possible that a new appointment could be made for such a former United States Attorney which would provide that he or she would serve as a Special Counsel from outside the Department of Justice pursuant to the appropriate regulations.

Had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while conducting the CIA leak investigation, even if a legal basis were established for me to continue as Special Counsel or in some other proper capacity, I would nevertheless have had to determine whether it would be appropriate for me to continue representing the government under all of the circumstances. Read more →

Share this entry

Is Isikoff Laundering Information for Karl Rove Again?

/70 Comments/in /by

As you’ll recall from the Plame case, Michael Isikoff helped Karl Rove stay out of jail in at least three ways:

  • After the WaPo published the damaging 1X2X6 article, Isikoff published an article appearing to–but not entirely–refuting it (Isikoff tried again in Hubris, claiming that the 1X2X6 story only got printed due to an editorial error, an attempt that Swopa quickly shredded).
  • When he called Luskin for comment on the fact that Rove was Matt Cooper’s source for Plame’s identity, Isikoff (by his own admission) read Luskin the entire email from Cooper to his editor, alerting Rove’s lawyer to everything that appeared in one of the main pieces of documentary evidence that incriminated Rove.
  • Just before the inquiry, Rove someone at the White House prodded Isikoff to ask Woodward about his "bombshell," probably forcing Woodward to come clean that Armitage had leaked Plame’s identity to him in June 2003, thereby ruining what little value Armitage would have had in a perjury case against Rove.

Laundering information through journalists is a common Rove tactic. For example, someone conveniently launched a false campaign insinuating Ari Fleischer was one of the Novak’s for Plame’s identity; by coincidence (ha!) that campaign was launched the day that Luskin attempted to manage the revelation that Rove was one of Novak’s sources. Even going way back to his days in Texas Rove laundered leaks through the press to attack Jim Hightower and Ronnie Earle.

But in recent years–certainly during the CIA Leak case–Isikoff has been one of Rove’s key information conduits.

In the last couple of months, Rove seems to have been attempting–with no apparent success–to goad reporters covering the Siegelman case to serve as similar information conduits. His surrogates in the AL GOP tried to demand information from CBS and MSNBC about what evidence there is implicating Karl, all while refusing to give up their own information. More recently, Rove has launched a pissing contest with Dan Abrams, attacking Abrams’ journalism, apparently in an attempt to force him to reveal information about evidence against him. Yet with Rove out of the White House, his ability to use journalists to his own ends seems to have diminished.

Except, perhaps, with Isikoff.

The other day, I noted that the news that the revelation of Bob Kjellander’s discussions about firing Patrick Fitzgerald with Rove was an unsurprising move from Fitzgerald. Read more →

Share this entry