Who did it?

[Ninong]

It's not Robert McCallum, it's David Margolis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050812/...a_leak_probe_1

[Ninong]

Schrocat,

Remember when you posted a link to this story about Tony Blair and the Carlyle Group? http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/f...e_page.html%22

The investigative reporter for the London Sunday Times who broke the Downing Street Memos story has a new article about U.S. and U.K. intelligence during the runup to the invasion of Iraq: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Downin...adup_0824.html

It's a very interesting read.

OK, so why am I linking to these two articles in the Who-Did-It thread? What if the Plame affair is much, much bigger than it seems on its face?

If you start collecting all the dots and throwing them on a piece of paper, they almost begin to connect themselves and the picture that is taking shape is something much larger than just the outing of a covert CIA agent by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

Let me throw out a few dots:

• Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have been planning for the day they could invade Iraq for more than a decade. Long before they found a pony to ride back into the White House.

• Six days after 9/11, Bush ordered the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq.

• Conventional wisdom has been that they were over zealous in their efforts to tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 -- that they selectively accepted intelligence that fit in with their plans and discarded anything that was inconvenient and didn't contribute to their goal. But what if it was more than that?

• Why would they get so worked up over Joe Wilson's article accusing them of falsely claiming that Saddam tried to to acquire uranium from Niger? Why would so many heavy-hitters (as we now know) get involved in a petty campaign to get even with him? All he was really saying was that the documents we relied on were forgeries and that his investigation had already uncovered that. What if it goes much deeper?

• What if our government (or at least the three individuals named above) knew all along that the Niger docs were forgeries? What if they knew that for several months? What if they also knew that much of the other intelligence that we were using was equally phony? What if they had some hand in it? Remember that it was Cheney who had Rumsfeld set up the Office of Special Plans in the DOD to report directly to him and Rummy. And it was Cheney (with Libby at his side) who paid personal visits to the CIA analysts working on Iraqi intel to push them to find stuff that he could "use."

• If that were true, then it would have been extremely important to discredit Wilson before too much attention was focused on the other intel that was "fixed" round the plans to invade.

• I already linked somewhere in this forum to that article published by Colin Powell's former chief of staff saying that the day Powell gave his speech in the U.N. was the worst day of his life. And then he goes on to say that Powell was stunned to learn a day or two later in a call from George Tenet that one of the claims he had made was false and that they had known it was false before he gave his speech. He then says that after three or four additional such phone calls from Tenet over the ensuing weeks, Powell's relationship with Tenet deteriorated.

• What does Patrick Fitzgerald know? Is it possible he's onto something? In particular, does he have something on Cheney? And I'm not talking about just the leaking of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA covert agent. Does he have evidence of a conspiracy to fix the intelligence to support an invasion of Iraq? This is where we come full circle to your original story about Tony Blair and the Carlyle Group.

There are all sorts of possibilities here. Just throw the dots around a few times and see what emerges.

[schrocat]

Fitzgerald = Santa
...and I just can't wait to see what he brings me this year!



Ho Ho Ho!!!

[Ninong]

Fitzgerald = Santa
...and I just can't wait to see what he brings me this year

You may not have to wait too much longer!

Judy Miller was released from jail this afternoon. That means she's about to tell Fitzgerald what Scooter Libby told her.

Pretty soon the President will finally find out who leaked that information. It's been bothering him for a long time now. Nobody tells him anything. He sure would like to find out who he's supposed to fire. He did promise to fire the leaker, remember? But then after Karl Rove's name came up, he modified that by saying that he would fire anyone who committed a crime. Pretty soon it will be that he will fire anyone who committed a crime provided it was captured on videotape.

This should be interesting. Libby will probably say that he heard it from Rove and Rove will probably continue to claim that he heard it from a reporter whose name he forgot. Maybe JimmyJeff will be back in the news again. Who knows!

[almostdiva]

It ought to be a pretty interesting day!

Her grand jury was going to run out next week some time (I think -- 10/9 or around there). She would have been released then anyway, as I understand it. Wonder what she's gonna tell Santa?

Rebecca

[Ninong]

Wonder what she's gonna tell Santa?

I don't know what she's going to tell the grand jury other than the fact that Scooter Libby was her source. Her attorneys and the NYT's attorneys negotiated with Fitzgerald in advance to set limits on her testimony. According to the Times, her testimony will be severely restricted.

My hunch is that Fitzgerald doesn't really need all that much out of her except to get her on the record as to exactly what Libby told her and when.

I wonder what the Times will say now on their editorial page. They have been playing the martyr card for the past several weeks, saying that she would never talk under any conditions.

I don't like her anyway, so I hope Fitzgerald gives her a hard time.

P.S. -- Don't forget, the White House said repeatedly in the early stages of this investigation that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had "nothing to do with this leak." So I'm sure that Fitzgerald will now be able to wrap up his investigation and issue a report stating that he found no evidence of wrongdoing. Yeah, right!

I mean, after all, you don't expect indictments, do you?

Fitzgerald is a conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush himself early in his first term. Surely he wouldn't indict anyone, not after the White House assured us that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with this leak and the President said he was determined to find out who did it and fire them. :eek3:

What would Nixon do? He ordered the Attorney General to fire Archibald Cox. The AG refused and resigned. Then he ordered the Deputy AG to fire Cox. He refused and resigned. Finally Nixon called Robert Bork, the Solicitor General, and ordered him to fire Cox. He did. Years later the GOP tried to reward Bork with a Supreme Court seat. He was NOT confirmed.

[Ninong]

Any day now Fitzgerald will wrap up his investigation and issue indictments or at least release a report on his findings. I think Monday, October 31st. would be an appropriate date. :eek3:

The President's wish may finally be granted because, as we have been told repeatedly by Scott McClellan, "No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States."

Here are a few things I wonder about:

• We now know that Karl Rove, who is EXTREMELY close to the President, discussed L'affaire Plame with at least two reporters -- probably three.

• We now know that Scooter Libby, who is VERY close to the Vice President, discussed Plame with at least two reporters.

• We now know that a classified State Department memo naming Plame was circulated aboard Air Force One and that it was almost certainly viewed by Ari Fleisher, among others.

• We know that Scott McClellan said that he had talked to both Rove and Libby before making his statement to get their personal assurances that they had not discussed Plame with any reporters.

What's it all about, Alfie?

Rove and Libby lied to McClellan. Why would they do that? Perhaps they were protecting more than just themselves?

What are the odds that Rove and Libby were both involved in this without the knowledge and consent of their bosses? Slim to none in my opinion. It is far more likely that both Cheney and Bush were in on this from the very beginning. Was a crime committed? I don't know. Chances are that it started out with Cheney telling Libby to get with Rove to "do something" about discrediting Wilson's claim that the administration had "twisted" the intelligence to justify the war.

What are the odds that neither Cheney nor Bush was aware of what was being done? Slim to none.

P.S. added 10/8/05: Right now I'm leaning more in the direction that Bush may not have been aware of what was actually going on at the time that it happened. Not only that, it's seems quite likely that Rove misled him in the early stages of the investigation.

[Ninong]

Ninong,
When do you think the prosecutor will release his findings...
I'm thinking of throwing a "Watergate" themed party.

...I hope to have time to get a caterer.

I think it's time to put the champagne on ice!



P.S. -- Do you think they have any more of those leftover "Mission Accomplished" banners at the Army-Navy surplus stores?

[schrocat]

I think it's time to put the champagne on ice!



P.S. -- Do you think they have any more of those leftover "Mission Accomplished" banners at the Army-Navy surplus stores?

Dude, I think you're right.
Fat lady sighted.

A "mission accomplished" banner would be a riot...

[Ninong]

I think the Plame Game is almost over. I think there will be indictments. The only uncertainty at this late stage in the game is how farreaching those indictments will be.

Here is an interesting tidbit I had previously overlooked: During the first three months of this investigation, John Ashcroft was in charge. It was during this time that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were both interviewed by the FBI. It was also during this time that Karl Rove reportedly assured the President that he had nothing to do with leaking Valerie Plame Wilson's name to the press. The President made a public statement that he doubted that the name(s) of the leaker(s) would ever be known.

Remember that it was back in July 2003 that the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate what they felt were possible criminal violations of the law forbidding the disclosure of the identity of a covert agent. Attorney General John Ashcroft did nothing for several weeks despite repeated requests from the CIA that he open an investigation. Finally, after about two months and after the CIA informed him that their own investigation of the facts was complete, Ashcroft opened an investigation. He was in charge of this investigation for the first three months in spite of the fact that Karl Rove was considered a possible suspect and that this could be seen as a conflict of interest given his very close personal relationship with Rove. Rove managed Ashcroft's unsuccessful campaign for the Senate from Missouri. Ashcroft was defeated in that race by a dead man.

It was only after repeated calls by Democrats, and even many Republicans, that Ashcroft recuse himself and turn over the investigation to an independent counsel, that Patrick Fitzgerald was selected.

Anyway, here is what I'm getting at: Rove and Libby (and probably many others) were interviewed by the FBI during the early months of the investigation when Ashcroft was in charge of things and Scott McClellan was assuring the world that neither of them was involved in any way in this matter because he had spoken to them personally. Lying to the White House Press Secretary may not be a crime but lying to a federal law enforcement officer is a felony. I wonder if anyone was less than truthful in the early interviews?

Even after Fitzgerald was placed in charge of the investigation and people began testifying before a grand jury, is it possible that their early testimony was incomplete? Isn't it strange that Karl Rove will be appearing before the grand jury again next week after having already made three appearances?

I think this latest statement from Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, says it all: He responded to a reporter's questions by saying that his client "has always attempted to be honest and fully forthcoming" to anyone "he has spoken to about this matter, whether that be the special prosecutor or the president of the United States."

Luskin also asserted that any misstatements that his client might have made to the president, the FBI, or other public officials, were not purposeful and were due to incomplete records and faulty memories.

This is the same attorney who previously stated that his client did not knowingly do anything unlawful.

[Ninong]

Here is what JimmyJeff wrote on his website on June 30, 2005: "I acquired knowledge of the memo and the Wall Street Journal reported on it, but no other media outlet mentioned it. I confronted Wilson about it in a September 2003 interview, for which I was rewarded by a visit from two FBI agents."

Here is the exact question that Gannon asked Amb. Wilson in that interview:
"An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

Here is the WSJ article that was published on October 17, 2003.

Here is what JimmyJeff told CNN's Anderson Cooper on February 18, 2005:

COOPER: How did you know about that memo?

GANNON: Well, this memo was referred to in a Wall Street Journal article a week earlier.

COOPER: So that wasn't based on any information that you had been given by the White House?

GANNON: I was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else, for that matter.


JimmyJeff seems to have his dates mixed up. There is no way that he can claim that he first learned of Wilson's trip in the WSJ article because it appeared weeks after his interview with Amb. Wilson. Also, in that interview, neither he nor Wilson referred to any WSJ article.

In prior statements on the issue, Gannon alternately:

• States he is bound to keep his sources confidential.
• Refuses to divulge if he has seen the memo.
• Does not dispute questions implying that he has seen the memo.
• Denies seeing the memo.
• Claims he implied he saw the memo only as an interviewing technique.
• Claims he never implied he saw the memo.
• States that if there was a meeting, he assumed there would be a memo documenting it.
• Implies he learned of the memo through the Wall Street Journal.
• Asserts he was the first news source to report on how Wilson was selected for the Niger mission.

From: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/6/95341/90908

I still think that JimmyJeff actually did see the memo or at least was told of its contents by his special friend in the White House. Boy, I sure hope that JimmyJeff is somehow implicated in this whole mess because that would sure add an entirely new dimension to its entertainment value.

[schrocat]

Check it out.

[Ninong]

Check it out.

Interesting but it still validates my point that JimmyJeff has some 'splaining to do. The claim that he now says that he began the interview in September and concluded it in October doesn't hold water. The question at the heart of the whole thing was asked on JimmyJeff's radio program. There seems to be some confusion as to exactly when that took place. JimmyJeff seems to be just as confused as anyone else on this point. Amb. Wilson says that he doesn't remember the date. Others claim that it was around Oct. 13, 2003.

The fact remains that JimmyJeff did take credit for being the first to report on this matter at one time. There are so many lies coming from him that it's hard to figure out what is true and what is just boasting. I do remember when he claimed that his source was an administration official that he would not identify. I guess he's backtracking on that now.

The interesting thing about all of this, and that includes JimmyJeff, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and perhaps a few others, is that when they gave their early interviews with the FBI, they had no reason to believe that this investigation was going anywhere or that it would be aggressively pursued. All of that changed a few months later when John Ashcroft relinquished control and turned it over to Patrick Fitzgerald.

Maybe they all thought they were entitled to the same privileges that are accorded United States Senators? Maybe they thought they had the right to "revise and extend their remarks" at a later date?

The only explanation for repeated trips before the grand jury would be if the previous appearances were incomplete or less than forthcoming. Does this constitute perjury or obstruction of justice? We shall see.

[Ninong]

So...

Who did it?

(1) Karl Rove

(2) Lewis "Scooter" Libby

(3) Elliott Abrams

(4) None of the above

That was my opening post in this thread. I guess I could have saved myself a lot of trouble by just doing a news search. It turns out that the White House answered this question two years ago.

Copyright 2003 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
The Houston Chronicle

October 08, 2003, Wednesday 3 STAR EDITION

SECTION: A; Pg. 2

LENGTH: 587 words

HEADLINE: Bush: 'No idea' if sources of leak will be identified

SOURCE: Hearst News Service

BYLINE: STEWART M. POWELL

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
WASHINGTON - President Bush voiced doubts Tuesday that Justice Department investigators would track down two senior administration officials who illegally identified undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in an alleged scheme to silence her husband, Iraq policy critic Joseph Wilson IV.

Bush commented as presidential spokesman Scott McClellan announced that three top presidential aides had denied leaking the identity of the CIA officer - a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $ 50,000 in fines.

McClellan said he had obtained face-to-face denials from White House political director Karl Rove; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff; and Elliott Abrams, an official with the National Security Council.


The correct answer, according to the White House, is option number 4: None of the above.

I think I'll email this to Patrick Fitzgerald so that he can close up shop and issue a final report.

Yeah, right!

:eek3:

[schrocat]

If "Big Time" winds up getting swept up with the trash.


...No Dick.

...No Rove.

...No Libby.


I can only imagine the great administrative tack awaiting the SS Chimpy in light of all these keel issues.

If the "psyco-fan-t" base thought the recent SCOTUS pick appeared grounded in flawed strategery, they ain't seen nothing yet!

[schrocat]

Uh-oh!

[Ninong]

Uh-oh!

Boy, the rumors sure are flying hot and heavy this week. Is Cheney the new piñata del dia? :eek3:

If he is, then it can only mean that someone (John Hannah?) has flipped and cut a deal.

And what about Libby reportedly telling the grand jury that he asked his boss, the Vice President, for advice on how to respond to the press during the early stages of the investigation? And what about the reports that the "conspiracy" (if there actually was one) was hatched in the VP's office?

Is Fitzgerald going after a wide ranging conspiracy to fix the facts around the policy as claimed in the Downing Street memos? Or will he simply indict Libby, Rove, Stephen Hadley and maybe a few others for perjury and/or obstruction of justice? Hadley has been telling friends that he expects to be indicted. I wonder if he has "cooperated" with Fitzgerald and cut his own deal???

I have always felt that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did everything they could to manage the buildup to the war. They almost certainly disregarded anything that didn't suit their aims and hyped anything that they thought would further their plans to invade Iraq. But exactly how far did they go in this??? Were they merely overzealous in pushing their agenda or did they actively distort the intelligence? Is this even part of the Plame investigation? Indirectly, yes, in my opinion.

Will there be indictments? I think the only question now is how far-reaching they will be and when they will be announced.

[Ninong]

Now we're back to square one. The latest scoop is that those reports that Rove lied to the President were just White House leaks in an attempt to protect the President. The latest rumor is that Bush knew all along what Rove had done and was just angry that it had been bungled and was likely to cause political problems for everyone involved. Everyone!

And the other latest rumor is that a second Cheney aide has flipped and is providing testimony in support of John Hannah's version of what happened in the offices of the Vice President of the United States. I think this latest guy's name is Wurmser, or something like that. Anyway, it seems that he and Hannah were both original leak sources but they were acting on orders from "higher ups!" Word is they have both cut a deal with Fitzgerald. They weren't grant immunity but they will probably received a reduced sentence in exchange for telling everything they know, and they are reported to know plenty!

Looks like Fitzgerald is focusing in on a conspiracy to discredit Amb. Wilson by leaking the covert status of his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson. That would be a criminal offense. The "conspiracy" is thought to have originated in the "offices of the Vice President." Word is that the Vice President himself wanted something done to discredit Amb. Wilson so that his claims would not cast doubt on the basis for going to war in Iraq. It wasn't enough that they had Judy Miller wired, they needed to put out any fires that might question the foundation of her raison de guerre reporting. All of her WMD articles were pure crap and her sources were Chalabi and Scooter Libby, for sure, possibly a few other players from DoD.

That would bring us back to my original thinking that this whole thing was an attempt by the administration at the HIGHEST levels to protect their version of the reasons for invading Iraq and punish anyone who dared to contradict their distorted and misleading claims.

How about Harriet Miers for Vice President? They have to find some spot for her and that's a safe place. Then they could put Condi Rice on the Supreme Court instead. That would really tick off the right-wing because Condi is pro-choice! Of course, the buzz in D.C. is that Condi will become VP if Big Time resigns.

Nothing will happen this week and I doubt if anything will be announced next week until after Hurricane Wilma passes over Florida. I guess that means nothing will be announced until late next week, probably Wednesday or Thursday. The grand jury's term expires Friday of next week.

[almostdiva]

Nothing will happen this week and I doubt if anything will be announced next week until after Hurricane Wilma passes over Florida. I guess that means nothing will be announced until late next week, probably Wednesday or Thursday. The grand jury's term expires Friday of next week.

They have to indict before the grand jury's term expires, right? That's only a week and a day or so to get everything sorted...

Could be VERY interesting.

Rebecca

[Ninong]

They have to indict before the grand jury's term expires, right?

Rebecca

Yes, the indictments have to be handed up before the grand jury's term expires but I don't know if that means that they must be announced immediately or if the announcements can be delayed a few days.