[Ninong]

TONY SNOW, WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU

With the resignation of Scott McClellan and the appointment of Tony Snow as the new White House Press Secretary, perhaps the American people will get answers to the questions Mr. McClellan refused to answer. Amid record low poll numbers, changing the face of the Bush White House won’t be enough to change course. The American people deserve answers to these crucial questions.

On The White House Leak Investigation:

McClellan Assuring the American People that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove were not Involved.

Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals — I talked — I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that’s where it stands. [White House Press Briefing, 10/10/03]

Once that Explanation Didn’t Pan Out, McClellan said he Wouldn’t Comment on an Ongoing Investigation.

Q The President made his decision to declassify and release the NIE at a time when he was fighting the perception that the intelligence leading up to the war was wrong, at a time shortly prior to Mr. Libby's identification of the CIA agent as the wife of someone who was sent there in an effort to discredit the value of the trip. Why should we not believe that the timing of the President's decision was connected to the decision only days later to out the CIA agent?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, now you're getting into questions about an ongoing legal proceeding and investigation --

Q No, it's a timing question.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- you know that we've had a policy in place going back to October 2003 that we are not going to comment on it while it's ongoing. It's a very serious matter, and --

Q I'm not asking about the investigation, I'm asking you to talk about the question of the President's timing.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I would encourage you not to make assumptions that are not based on the facts. I would encourage you to wait for the facts to be known. Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing this legal proceeding and pursuing the investigation, and we need to let it proceed. We're not going to do anything that would jeopardize an ongoing matter like that. [White House Press Briefing, 4/10/06]

Question for the Tony Snow: The President has said that he deplores leaks yet he himself instructed Scooter Libby to leak classified information. Can you explain these contradictory statements?

McClellan Said that Anyone Involved in the White House Leak Would No Longer Be a Part of the Administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” [White House Press Briefing, 9/29/03]

But Karl Rove is Still a Member of the Administration.

Question for Tony Snow: Whether or not Karl Rove is ultimately indicted for his role in the Plame leak investigation, it seems clear that he was at the very least “involved in” the Plame leak. Why is the President not holding Karl Rove to this high standard?

On Iraq Intelligence:

McClellan Refused to Say When the Administration Learned of a Pentagon Report Discrediting the Claim that Mobile Trailers in Iraq Were Producing Biological Weapons.

QUESTION: When did the administration become aware of the Pentagon report that talks about mobile trailers?

MCCLELLAN: The only update I have on that matter is what the Pentagon said yesterday.

The Pentagon put out a statement and talked about how that was a preliminary report from a DIA — would mean Defense Intelligence Agency — sponsored technical exploitation team. And that information was sent to the DIA. And then they said that the CIA-DIA joint white paper that was released publicly on May 28th reflected the position of the intelligence community at the time, and that the findings that you’re bringing up were vetted with other intelligence analysts during the summer of 2003.

So that’s a statement from the Pentagon, and that’s the only update I have at this point. [White House Press Briefing, 4/13/06]

The New York Times Reported Doubts About the Mobile Trailers in June of 2003. “American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that the mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment. ‘Everyone has wanted to find the 'smoking gun' so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion,’ said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers and, like some others, spoke on condition that he not be identified. He added, ‘I am very upset with the process.’” [New York Times, 6/7/03]

Question for Tony Snow: Why was the Vice President repeating the discredited claims as late as January of 2004?

McClellan Said the Congress Had Access to the Same Intelligence as the White House in the Lead Up to the Iraq War.

MR. McCLELLAN: “We provide the Congress a lot of intelligence information, and they did have access to the same intelligence that we saw prior to making the decision to go into Iraq. [White House Press Briefing, 12/16/05]

But the Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service Found that the Bush Administration Had Access “To a Far Greater Overall Volume of Intelligence and to More Sensitive Intelligence Information, Including Information Regarding Intelligence Sources and Methods.” [CRS, Congress as a Consumer of Intelligence Information, 12/14/05]

Questions for Tony Snow: With the recent troubling news coming out of Iran, how can Americans be sure that the United States does not again have its best intelligence ignored? Can Americans be sure that the Bush Administration is using intelligence responsibly?

On Jack Abramoff:

McClellan Said the President Doesn’t Know Jack Abramoff; Cannot Recall Meeting Jack Abramoff. “As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few "staff-level meetings" that were not worth describing further. ‘The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him,’ McClellan said.” [Time, 1/30/06]

But Photos Show Bush and Abramoff Together. “The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. . . .” [Time, 1/30/06]

Question for Tony Snow: What was the extent of Jack Abramoff’s ties to the White House?

On Vice President Cheney:

McClellan on Cheney’s Shooting of a Fellow Hunter: “It is what it is.” “As the briefing proceeded, the spokesman became snippier. ‘It is what it is,’ he said of the shooting, "and I think it's time to move on for the American people." By the time ABC's Ann Compton rose with the last question, McClellan was suppressing a grin. ‘It's time to focus on the priorities of the American people,’ he said one final time.” [Washington Post, 2/15/06]

"This is our briefing; we get to ask the questions," David Sanger of the New York Times fired back. NBC's David Gregory lectured: "Don't tell us that you're giving us complete answers when you're not actually answering the questions." [Washington Post, 2/15/06]

Question for Tony Snow: Will there be increased transparency from the White House about the Vice President’s actions and role in the Administration?

[Ninong]

You can stick a fork in Karl Rove, his goose is cooked!

Don't forget, Scooter Libby wasn't advised that he was a "target" of the investigation until a few hours before his indictment was announced. Rove's own attorney acknowledged in a court filing that his client is a "subject" of the investigation and Rove has already been mentioned in previous court documents as "Official A." Patrick Fitzgerald has indicted everyone he has ever named as "Official A." Look for that string to continue.

The grand jury meets Friday morning. It may be a little late, but it would still be Fitzmas!

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

The grand jury meets Friday morning. It may be a little late, but it would still be Fitzmas!

They need to hurry! That "what me worry" fake smile of Karla's is looking more forced with every trip before the grand jury.

[Ninong]

I have a feeling it won't be long now. The press is estimating two to three weeks but I think it could come in a matter of days. I think the fifth appearance before the grand jury was just a courtesy visit arranged by Fitzgerald to allow Rove every opportunity to talk his way out of something this is a done deal.

I'm guessing the indictment will be announced around the end of next week.

P.S. -- If Rove is indicted and if several Republican Congressmen (including a certain former Congressman whose initials are Porter Goss) are named in the Hookergate scandal, it will make for a very interesting election night come November.

[Ninong]

Karl Rove's lawyers said this morning that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has told them there will be "no announcement" in the next ten days.

[Ninong]

It's 15 days since Rove made his fifth appearance before the grand jury. If Fitzgerald was going to clear him, it would have happened by now. He's preparing the indictment.

Tomorrow would be nice but it may not come until the end of next week. In any event, it won't be long now.

[schrocat]

Once indicted, will he resign?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Once indicted, will he resign?

No, of course not. That was the whole point of "freeing" him from his duties as Domestic Policy advisor to the President. He's strictly the GOP's Principal Hatchet Man again.

I guess he will have to put some public distance between himself and Bush but that will be just for show.

[Ninong]

When will Jerry Lewis resign as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee? He's being investigated now.
Bob Ney resigned as Chairman of the House Administration Committee in January when the heat got a bit too hot. He could be indicted any day now, especially since his chief of staff has already pleaded guilty.

Tom DeLay not only resigned as House Majority Leader, he even announced his retirement from Congress, but only after he conned his supporters into contributing to his reelection campaign. Money that he now says he intends to use to pay his lawyers. His legal fees are already in the millions.

[Ninong]

In the latest court filing, we learned that Libby was present when the legal counsel to the Vice President (probably Addington) was told by the CIA that any disclosure of a CIA operative's connection to the agency would be harmful in a number of ways. The reason Fitzgerald made that filing was to refute Libby's claims that he had no reason to lie about his conversations with reporters because he didn't think he had done anything wrong.

And, as further proof that Libby had been instructed by the Vice President to look into the matter, Fitzgerald filed a copy of the newspaper article with Cheney's handwritten questions at the top and interesting passages underlined. It certainly looks like the Vice President was immediately aware of the article and interested in having his chief of staff look into it.

Cheney's notes on the margins of Wilson's opinion column in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, reflect "the contemporaneous reaction of the vice president," Fitzgerald said in the court filing late Friday.

Wilson's column "is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had 'sent him on a junket,'" the court papers say.

The notes, Fitzgerald said in his filing, show that Cheney and Libby were "acutely focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence.

In the margins of the op-ed, Cheney jotted out a series of questions that seemed to challenge many of Wilson's assertions as well as the legitimacy of his CIA sponsored trip to Africa: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"



Of course, all of those statements from Dick Cheney and George W. Bush that they had no idea what was going on are still operative. It's truly amazing that staff people would take it upon themselves to discuss such sensitive national security information with reporters. Shocking! They both hope the Special Prosecutor can find out who did this because they want to know. And if anybody did anything wrong, they won't work in this administration.

I can't wait to see what Bush will say next week when Rove is indicted. No doubt we will be reminded that in our system of justice, everyone is presumed innocent, and therefore the President will withhold further comment until after the trial.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Once indicted, will he resign?

Dept. of Corrections:

I take back my previous reply. I didn't realize that Karl Rove had retained his title as Deputy Chief of Staff. Somehow I was thinking that since they had removed all of his Domestic Policy Advisor responsibilities, he would revert to his previous status.

Yes, when he is indicted, he will resign immediately.

[almostdiva]

I can't wait to see what Bush will say next week when Rove is indicted. No doubt we will be reminded that in our system of justice, everyone is presumed innocent, and therefore the President will withhold further comment until after the trial.

Do you think that's ever going to happen at this point? Karl keeps going back, but Fitzgerald lets him revise his memory (or whatever...) and nothing happens beyond the appearance. I know the guy is super thorough... but c'mon already.
Either indict him or clear him at this point.
Rebecca

[Ninong]

Rebecca,

I do believe Karl Rove will be indicted. It Fitzgerald intended to clear him, he would have done so by now. It looks like it won't be today but that doesn't change my opinion about him being indicted sooner or later.

What is less certain at this point is whether Fitzgerald will indict any others after Rove. It is quite possible that Libby and Rove are the only two who lied to the FBI and to the grand jury. Cheney and Bush did not appear before the grand jury. I know they were "interviewed" by the Special Counsel but I don't believe either of them were questioned by the FBI.

The filing that Fitzgerald made last Friday evening revealed more details about Cheney's involvement. I have no idea where that might lead. The filings made by Libby's lawyers seem to indicate that his defense will be very embarrassing to the administration. I think they're threatening to bring up a lot of stuff that they know the administration will try to supress based on national security issues just to mess up the proceedings.

Getting back to Rove. It's highly unlikely that he would be called back that many times (FIVE!) before the grand jury if Fitzgerald was leaning in favor of not charging him with anything and if he had successfully beat the rap with his last appearance, we would have heard something by now.

[almostdiva]

OK, so Rove is still dangling..

BUT -- Patrick Fitzgerald has announced (or his office has) that he might call Dick Cheney to testify (under OATH) at Scooter's trial. Something along the lines that the VP's "state of mind" would be crucial to know as it pertains to Libby's actions with the press.

Rebecca

[Ninong]

Maybe Fitz can ask Cheney who saw his annotated copy of Joe Wilson's op ed piece? Libby has testified that he doesn't remember seeing it.

[almostdiva]

Amazingly enough...

I guess Fitz felt he couldn't get anything solid enough to indict/charge. So Scooter is the fall guy and now we wait to see if Cheney is called to testify at his trial.

[Steven Pro]

I am surprised that none of the regular posters to this forum revisited this thread to clear up the many false accusations here. We all now know that Richard Armitage of the State Department was the original source and that there was no administration conspiracy to out Valerie Plame.

[Ninong]

The revelation that Richard Armitage was the original source who "inadvertently" passed on the information that Wilson's wife "worked at the agency" to both Robert Woodward and Robert Novak makes this whole story MUCH MORE INTERESTING!

For starters, we now know that Novak did NOT reveal the identity of his original source to Karl Rove or anyone else at the White House or elsewhere as far as I can tell.

We also know that Armitage immediately "confessed" to his boss, Colin Powell, that he was almost certainly the source for Novak's column. He went to Powell immediately when Novak first mentioned it in his column.

We know that Colin Powell instructed him to keep that to himself for the time being. We know that Armitage even prepared a letter of resignation after the leak investigation was initiated but his offer of resignation was declined by Colin Powell. He resigned much later in 2004 and it had nothing to do with the leak investigation. Powell also resigned and was replaced by Condi Rice. These resignations are not directly related to L'Affaire Plame.

We know that Armitage admitted everything to Patrick Fitzgerald. Everything! He turned over all of his records, computers, his wife's computer, his emails, everything under the sun.

But here's where this story gets really interesting:

President Bush was NEVER told that Richard Armitage was the original source! The State Department deliberately withheld the identity of the original source. When the State Department's lawyer informed the Department of Justice that they had turned over relevant information to the Special Prosecutor, they did not inform Alberto Gonzales of the name of the State Department employee involved and Gonzales did not ask for that information.

The State Department claims that they decided it would be better for the investigation if they did NOT reveal to the White House that Richard Armitage was directly involved as the original source!!!

Now, where does that leave us:

It leaves us with Karl Rove and Scooter Libby both revealing (or confirming) the information that Valerie Plame Wilson (Wilson's wife) worked at the CIA and suggesting that Amb. Wilson's trip was a junket set up by his wife.

It leaves us with the knowledge that President Bush instructed Vice President Cheney to "get that information out there." The information in question was classified information from a CIA briefing that was known at the time to be FALSE! This was the famous retroactive declassification by the President himself, supposedly. No one else knew it was declassified until a week or two later but Bush has admitted that he personally "declassified" it. And the information was false.

We know from Patrict Fitzgerald's filings that Scooter Libby claims he was acting on instructions from Dick Cheney when he briefed Judy Miller and certain other reporters. We know that Scooter Libby deliberately revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA role to these reporters who did NOT learn of it from Robert Novak. Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa. This information was false and was known to be false at the time. Libby's point to the reporters was the Amb. Wilson's claims were partisan politics and not to be believed and that the administration had CIA reports proving that Saddam was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa. Bush and Cheney admit this part but they don't admit that either of them instructed Libby to reveal Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA connection. They are admitting asking him to call the reporters to tell them that Amb. Wilson's claims should not be believed and Bush has personally said that he authorized Cheney to "get that information out there" -- the information in the CIA classified document that said that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa -- even though this information had already been discredited. That's because they knew by this time that the Niger docs were amateurish forgeries.

We know that Patrick Fitzgerald alleges a concerted White House conspiracy to discredit Amb. Wilson by revealing his wife's identity and falsely claiming that the whole trip was her idea.

We know that Libby has been charged and will be tried in January 2007, assuming he is does not cut a plea deal or receive a presidential pardon between now and then. His charges involve lying to the FBI, perjury before the grand jury and obstruction of justice. These charges can and will stand on their own separate from the underlying original leak. In other words, it is possible that if Libby had cooperated and testified truthfully, he would be off the hook. Evidently that's what Karl Rove was able to pull off with the grand jury in spite of the fact that he had to appear five times to revise and extend his remarks as his faulty memory gradually returned. We also know that Rove "inadvertently" withheld certain emails for more than a year. The Office of the Vice President withheld hundreds of emails. Of course, all of that was simply inadvertent and not deliberate. Heavens sake, no one would think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had deliberately tried to conceal anything.

There are two separate stories here. The fact that Richard Armitage was the original source is one story. The actions of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are a separate story because it appears that neither of them knew that Armitage was the original source.

Another interesting bit of intrigue is the revelation that Colin Powell knew for a very long time who the original source was and he chose NOT to inform the president! He didn't want the State Department to be tarnished, I guess.

[schrocat]

Yo Ninong!

Read any good Novak columns lately?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

Yo Ninong!

Read any good Novak columns lately?

Like this?

"Late in my hourlong interview with Armitage. I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson — lacking intelligence experience, nuclear policy or recent contact with Niger — on the African mission. He told the Washington Post last week that his answer was: 'I don’t know, but I think his wife worked out there.'

"Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission.

"As for his current implications that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson’s role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column — implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information." -- R. Novak, 9/13/06

Armitage claims it was inadvertent. Novak says it was deliberate and explicit. Woodward, the other informee, claims it was offhand and in passing rather than anything purposeful and deliberate. However, that makes two "inadvertent" slips!

Novak admits that the subject came up late in his hourlong interview and only after he asked the question.

My take: It was probably not pre-meditated but nonetheless more detailed than Armitage has admitted. At that time the State Department was convinced that Valerie Plame Wilson had "set up" her husband's trip to Niger. The CIA later said that the State Department memo that included that conclusion was incorrect. But at the time, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell probably both believed that Amb. Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who worked in the CPD at the CIA. The CIA has said that the memo she wrote on his qualifications was written by her at the specific request of her supervisor.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there was considerable infighting going on between State, Defense, CIA and the Office of the Vice President at the time over Iraq policy. Defense and OVP were determined to invade no matter what, State was convinced it would lead to a diplomatic disaster if we invaded without international support and CIA was being squeezed to come up with "useful" intel. George Tenet, trying to prove that he was now a reliable team player in a GOP administration, was more than willing to accomodate his new bosses' desire for a "slam dunk."

I still don't think the revelation that Richard Armitage was the original source for Novak changes anything in regards to the actions of Rove and Libby. We still have Rove confirming to Novak and we still have Libby calling three or more reporters on direct orders from Cheney (who was following Bush's instruction to "get that out there"). If all Rove did was reluctantly confirm what Novak told him he had heard from another source, then I can see why Patrick Fitzgerald did not proceed with an indictment against him even though he constantly "updated" his testimony as he "remembered" key facts and "found" missing emails is suspicious. We now know for a fact that Bush wanted a vociferous response from the White House to Joe Wilson's column. He instructed Cheney to "get that information out there" to counter the claims made by Wilson. It doesn't take too much imagination to assume that Bush and Cheney both wanted reporters to know that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that the whole "junket" was a boondoggle set up by the two of them to attack the administration. However, Patrick Fitzgerald is NOT charging that because he doesn't have sufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So forget about that part for now.

Libby, on the other hand, initiated contacts with reporters in which he revealed selected quotes from a classified CIA brief (Bush claims he personally declassified it without telling anyone at the time, including Tenet) AND passed on the conclusion that the whole trip to Niger was a partisan junket set up by Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA. Two things here: The revelation of the classified information that "Saddam was vigorously trying to get uranium from Africa" and the revelation that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA. You can't nail them on the release of the classified intel even though it had already been discredited at the time they released it and they knew it. There is no question that the President has the authority to declassify anything, even though he would normally go through official channels and have it done by the agency in question -- the CIA. So there is no illegal action there, just immoral action in twisting the truth to suit their agenda.

The second part, as far as Libby is concerned, is telling reporters that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA. Was he instructed by Cheney to specifically reveal that part? Cheney and Bush both deny that they intended for Libby to reveal the part about "Wilson's wife" working at "the agency." This in spite of the annotated newspaper column (see above) with Cheney's handwritten questions. Fitzgerald has decided that he doesn't have sufficient evidence to proceed against anybody for the underlying offense -- revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent. He says that this is because he was lied to and key evidence was either destroyed or withheld. This is why he has chosen to go after the person he alleges did the most lying and withholding of information: Scooter Libby.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are very serious offenses, even more serious if they involve extramarital sex. In which case they are most certainly impeachable offenses. If there is no sex involved, other than fantasized bestiality between bears and young virgin girls, then the perjury and obstruction of justice should not be taken seriously and a presidential pardon is almost certainly appropriate -- the sooner the better, but not until after the November elections.