No one stripped of security clearances over Plame leak case

From The Hindu News Update Service ...

"No one in the Bush administration has been stripped of security clearances over the leak of former CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to reporters three years ago.

In a letter to Senator Frank Lautenberg, the Central Intelligence Agency said it had no record of anyone in the administration who is no longer privy to the most sensitive US secrets because of the Plame leak.

The CIA also disclosed it has not yet completed a formal assessment of the damage to national security that may have been caused by Plame's outing in 2003.

The assessment won't be completed until a criminal investigation of the leak has been concluded, Christopher J Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said in the July 19, 2006 letter to Lautenberg.

For more than a year, Lautenberg and other Democrats have been calling on President George W Bush to fire presidential adviser Karl Rove and any other aides who discussed Plame's CIA status with reporters -- or, at the least, to revoke their security clearances. ..."

Nice .. not like we wanna punish people for leaking sensistive info or anything!

House committee investigates Abramoff-White House links

RAW STORY
Published: Thursday July 20, 2006

Members of the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives have initiated an investigation into connections between executive branch officials and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, RAW STORY has learned.

A story in today's Roll Call reported that Reps. Tom Davis (R - VA) and Henry Waxman (D - CA) issued a subpoena that sought e-mails, billing records and other documents from several firms linked to the former lobbyist. The members of Congress seek to explore "all documents that reflect contacts by Mr. Abramoff or his associates" with President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and other White House and broad range of other current and former executive branch officials.

Rep. Davis indicated that hearings related to the contents of the investigation are not currently schedulded.

An excerpt of the subscription-only story is available below.

#
The committee, according to a copy of a March 2 letter sent to Kevin Downey, an attorney who is representing Greenberg Traurig in the investigation, is seeking “to understand the nature and extent of Jack Abramoff’s interactions with public officials in the executive branch, including the White House, and the legislative branch.” Government Reform’s jurisdiction includes the White House and executive branch agencies, but it does not extend to the legislative branch.

Davis and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member on Government Reform, are seeking “all documents that reflect contacts by Mr. Abramoff or his associates” with a number of White House officials, starting with Bush and Rove, and extending into the political, legislative, and intergovernmental affairs offices at the White House, according to a copy of the subpoena reviewed by Roll Call. The committee is seeking information on contacts beginning in 1998 and running until the present date.

Records recently released by the Secret Service under pressure from watchdog groups indicate that Abramoff attended at least a half-dozen meetings or social events at the White House, including at least one with Bush himself.

Other current or former White House aides from whom the committee wants information on any Abramoff-related contacts include: Ken Mehlman, now Republican National Committee chairman; Susan Ralston, Rove’s assistant who had worked for Abramoff before going to the White House; Nick Calio and David Hobbs, both former heads of the White House legislative affairs shop; Jack Oliver, one of Bush’s top fundraisers; Jack Howard, a former deputy assistant to the president for legislative affairs; Barry Jackson, one of Rove’s top aides; Eric Pelletier, deputy assistant to president for legislative affairs; Ziad Ojakli and Matt Kirk, both of whom worked in the legislative affairs office; and dozens of others.

LINK

Debra J. Saunders: Valerie Plame's lawsuit takes a page from Paula Jones

Thought I would post this here .. so folks can see what Valerie is up against. Mind you, this broad is part of "Creator's Syndicate" .. a Neo Con manufacturing facility for "writers." Ha. Ha. (They also have Novak .. so .. that'll tell ya about all you need to know!!)

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune ...

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame is Paula Jones -- if with national security credentials and Beltway savoir-faire. Both women filed iffy lawsuits that seemed more designed to discredit a president than to prevail in a court of law.

Jones never could prove that then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton hurt her career as a state worker after he allegedly sexually harassed her. Hence, there were no economic damages, as Judge Susan Webber Wright noted when she ruled against Jones.

The suit filed last week by Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, against Bush biggies -- Veep Dick Cheney, Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby and Bush guru Karl Rove -- is equally nonsensical.

"She wasn't fired," said attorney Victoria Toensing, who served in the Reagan administration. "She worked for 2½ years [at the CIA] after the revelation. Nobody fired her. She's got a book deal she would not have had."

At least Plame emerges with a deal to write her memoirs for Simon & Schuster, whereas Jones' contribution to publishing was posing for Penthouse -- an odd choice for a woman who claimed to be suing Clinton to restore her reputation. Then again, Plame's photo spread in Vanity Fair didn't quite fit with her alleged desire to stay under the radar while she worked at the CIA.

There was some truth in both women's stories. Whatever did or did not follow, Jones did establish that Clinton invited her to a hotel room. As for Plame, she had a legitimate beef in complaining that Bushies outed her identity as a CIA employee -- even if the leak was not illegal. (Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's failure to prosecute the man who first leaked Plame's identity suggests the leak was not illegal.)

And there is an element of fiction in both stories. Jones' tale about Clinton's retaliation never held water. If Plame's job depended on anonymity, her hubby shouldn't have penned an op-ed for the New York Times.

The biggest similarity between Plame and Jones, however, is that both the Clinton and Bush administrations could have spared themselves a long legal nightmare if either one had not tried to make itself seem more virtuous than it was. Clinton should have refused to allow Jones' attorneys to depose him. If he had not lied to Jones' attorneys, Ken Starr would have had no cause to question Monica Lewinsky.

If Bush had not promised to fire anyone who illegally leaked Plame's info, or if staffers had told the media, that, yes, they'd talked about Plame, but they did not realize her job was classified -- then, as one insider told me, it could've been a one-day story. Well, maybe not a one-day story, but surely not a three-year story.

That said, Bush haters are mistaken in putting Wilson on a pedestal as his lawsuit is misleading. To wit, it cited a May 2003 New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Africa: "According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents."

That's what Kristof wrote, but the column was off. As the Senate Intelligence Committee reported, the CIA did not find Wilson's oral report to unequivocally come down against Saddam Hussein trying to procure uranium in Niger. And Wilson could not have known about the forged documents when he made the report.

Like Paula Jones with the anti-Clinton crowd, Wilson always has been happy to mislead Bush haters. From the start, Joe Wilson was Paula Jones. Now Valerie Plame is, too.

Joe Wilson on the Bob Novak CYA Reputation Tour…

The Bob Novak CYA Reputation Renewal Tour continues. Yesterday, Novak had an exclusive with those hard-hitting journalists Hannity and Colmes. (Well, Colmes actually asked questions that went beyond the "that’s a great suit Bob, tell us where you had it tailored," anyway…Hannity, not so much.) Crooks and Liars has Novak in all his ass-covering smarminess.

I got an e-mail from Joe Wilson a little while ago with his response to Novak, and let’s just say that Amb. Wilson is not at all pleased with the continuing saga of Novak failing to take any responsibility for acting as a political hatchet job tool-of-the-day. Thought you all would be interested in what Amb. Wilson had to say:

Robert Novak, some other commentators and the Administration continue to try to completely distort the role that Valerie Wilson played with respect to Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger. The facts are beyond dispute. The Office of the Vice President requested that the CIA investigate reports of alleged uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger. The CIA set up a meeting to respond to the Vice President’s inquiry. Another CIA official, not Valerie Wilson, suggested to Valerie Wilson’s supervisor that the Ambassador attend that meeting. That other CIA official made the recommendation because that official was familiar with the Ambassador’s vast experience in Niger and knew of a previous trip to Africa concerning uranium matters that had been undertaken by the Ambassador on behalf of the CIA in 1999. Valerie Wilson’s supervisor subsequently asked her to relay a request from him to the Ambassador that he would like the Ambassador to attend the meeting at the CIA. Valerie Wilson did not participate in the meeting.

I’m still waiting for someone to ask Bob Novak Swopa’s questions: "Who was the first person to tell him that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA? Did he know this when he spoke to his supposed "primary source"?"

Was Bob already fishing with a fully loaded line? If so, who handed him the bait?

Wouldn’t we all like to know that one…but we sure as hell didn’t get it from Hannity and Colmes last night, despite Alan Colmes asking some pretty good questions about the…erm…discrepancies in Novak’s various statements, interviews, and rantings. Here’s a snippet of the interview (via C&L):

COLMES: Help me understand something, because you said in your piece today that you found out Valerie Plame’s name originally by reading a "Who’s Who." And you’re quoted in "Newsday" by Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce a while back as saying, "I didn’t dig it out. It was given to me," meaning her name. "They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."

That sounds like contradictory statements.

NOVAK: Well, that was a misstatement. That was an interview I did on the telephone with "Newsday" shortly after it appeared. Some of the things that they said that quoted me that are not in quotes are paraphrases, and they’re incorrect, such as the whole idea that they planted this story with me. I never told that to the "Newsday" reporters.

But, as a matter of fact, let me assure you that neither my primary source gave — mentioned Valerie Plame’s name to me, nor did Karl Rove mention the name to me, nor did the CIA spokesman. They just talked about Joe Wilson’s wife. I got her name from "Who’s Who"…

COLMES: You said that Bill Harlow asked you not to go with this. Are there others who urged, "Don’t go with this story. Don’t print it. Don’t use the name. Don’t talk about Valerie Plame"? Why didn’t you listen to them, if that’s the case?

NOVAK: If I — Alan, if I adhered to — if I bowed to somebody who asked me not to write stories all the time who are in government, about half the columns I write would not be written, or a great number would not be written.

If he had said to me at any time that she was — that she was — her life was in danger, she was involved in undercover activities…

Well, isn’t that interesting.

Two things: (1) I sure hope to hell that Newsday recorded the conversation with Bob Novak. Because he just called them sloppy journalists and basically accused them of fabricating his quotes. If they have a tape, and a transcript of said tape, now would be the time to publish it. (And I mean the entire transcript, start to weaselly finish.) (2) According to Bill Harlow, the conversation with Novak went something like this:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson’s wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak’s call, he checked Plame’s status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame’s name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

So, let’s see, the spokesperson for the CIA checks out your journalistic call and gets back to you saying Valerie’s name is NOT to be used…and you blow it off because he doesn’t give you every detail of her covert status, her driver’s license number and do a tap dance to Mr. Bojangles while playing the tune on a kazoo? What, are you a journalistic moron (yeah, don’t bother to answer that…)? Harlow could not, under his SF-312 requirements, disclose any details because it was…wait for it…about covert status. (btw, see Emptywheel’s fantastic dissection of this WaPo Pincus article. Great read.)

That Novak could not understand the flat out "Hello, Bob. Do not publish her name. There are consequences involved." when speaking to someone at the C…I…freaking…A, well…words fail me. Of course, when you are looking for a loophole that allows you to get the dirt out and never take responsibility for being the WHIG tool, you don’t exactly want to have listening comprehension at the top of your journalist kit bag, do you?

There is a reason that Novak is on a reputation rehabilitation tour — it’s because his reputation is in the crapper, and no one trusts him.

Not his fellow journalists. Not the political operatives who used to leak to him, especially now that everyone knows he spilled his guts early and often to Fitzgerald and the grand jury and the FBI.

And FOX has a contract with this weasel and is pimping his rehab like there is no tomorrow because…wait for it…they can’t use him as a propaganda tool if everyone still thinks of him as a weaselly liar who would sell out anyone, including a covert CIA agent working on nuclear nonproliferation issues during a time when our nation is threatened by this very issue, if he was asked to do so — because Bob Novak has never, ever apologized to the Wilsons for being the tool by which the WHIG exacted its political revenge on Joe Wilson.

And I have news for Bob Novak, that’s going to be the first line of his obituary, no matter how much rehab PR he and his Murdoch masters try to spin out. It’s too late for reputation rehab for Mr. Novak, I’m afraid.

Oh, and Murray Waas is likely off the Novak Christmas card list. But I bet he’s not losing any sleep over it. I know I’m not.

UPDATE: Reader smass has a good question in the comments:

You know, I have a question here. From H&C:


NOVAK: If I — Alan, if I adhered to — if I bowed to somebody who asked me not to write stories all the time who are in government, about half the columns I write would not be written, or a great number would not be written.

So, then, Bob admits that he was asked not to run with that part of the story. Does this mean, then, that the right-wing is going to call for Bob to be prosecuted for treason? I mean, one of their arguments against the NYT is that they were asked not to run the story.

Maybe Novak falls under the WSJ exception: if someone from the Administration asks you to print national security information for any reason whatsoever, including CYA for Dick Cheney and his peeps, you are on base and can’t be tagged. (Doesn’t that pretty much sum up the wingnut position in a nutshell?)

UPDATE #2: Justin Rood at the Muck has even more on this, including all the ways in which Novak was inaccurate about Murray Waas. Well worth a read. (Hat tip to lotus for the find.)

Go to this link for more links to more information

GQ: Reed, Abramoff Discussed "Mortgaging Old Black People"

By Paul Kiel - July 13, 2006, 12:26 PM
Ralph Reed's primary is only a week away and things are heating up.

In advance of its August publication date, GQ has released a big piece on Ralph Reed today, with one gem in particular: a plan hatched by Reed and Jack Abramoff which sounds suspiciously like "mortgaging old black people," as a former Reed associate told the magazine.

In July of 2003, Abramoff and Reed considered launching something called the Black Churches Insurance Program.

We know how this scheme would have gone, because Abramoff pitched something similar to a cash-strapped Texas tribe, the Tigua. Basically, since the tribe couldn't pay Abramoff, he offered to arrange "a life-insurance policy for every Tigua 75 or older." When those elders died, the death benefits would have gone to Abramoff through one of his non-profits. The Tigua didn't take Abramoff up on the offer, but it was too good of an idea to let go.

So Abramoff apparently thought black churches were a good target. This would have been the same thing, according to GQ's Sean Flynn, except that it was African-Americans. Or as "a former associate of Reed's" told GQ, "Yeah... it sounds like Jack approached Reed about mortgaging old black people.”

According to Abramoff's email exchange (under the subject line "Black Churches insurance program") with Reed in July of 2003 pitching the idea, it would have been huge:

Per our previous discussion, Abramoff wrote. Let me know how we can move forward to chat with folks who can set this up with African American elders. It can be huge. Thanks.
A file called “Charity Elder Program2.doc” was attached.

Three days later, Reed replied: Yes, it looks interesting. I assume you’ll set up a meeting in DC as a next step, or whatever we should do next, let me know.


Reed would have been the point man with the church leaders, one assumes, ushering them through the sticky process of getting all of their elders to sign up for life insurance policies payable to Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed.

Reed's flack's response to the story was as off-point as always:

Reed’s communications director, Lisa Baron, initially said, “Your sources are wrong,” but not how or in what way. A day later, she notably did not say those sources were wrong. Ralph receives unsolicited requests of a political or business nature all the time, she wrote in an e-mail. Our records show no meeting took place to discuss the proposed project. Ralph had no involvement whatsoever in marketing such policies to African-American churches.

Link

Texas tribe names Abramoff, Reed in civil suit

First federal civil suit filed in influence peddling scandal
By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News

Updated: 1:06 p.m. CT July 12, 2006
WASHINGTON - A Texas Native American tribe filed suit Wednesday alleging that ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and their associates engaged in fraud and racketeering to shut down the tribe’s casino.

The Alabama-Coushatta tribe, which contributed $50,000 to Jack Abramoff's non-profit, the Capitol Athletic Foundation (CAF), filed the first civil lawsuit in federal court in the influence peddling scandal, in Austin, Texas.

The lawsuit alleges Abramoff, former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and their associates engaged in fraud and racketeering to shut down the tribe's casino and alleges the defendants defrauded the tribe, the people of Texas and the Legislature to benefit another of Abramoff’s clients — the Louisiana Coushatta tribe — and “line their pockets with money.”

“Ultimately, the defendants’ greed and corruption led to the Alabama-Coushatta tribe permanently shutting its casino. The funding for economic programs evaporated, over 300 jobs were lost in Polk County and the Alabama-Coushatta tribe has spent years struggling to recover and revitalize its economy through other means,” the tribe said in its lawsuit.

The court filing also names Abramoff's ex-business partner Michael Scanlon, a former aide to former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-TX; Neil Volz, a former aide to Rep. Bob Ney, R-OH; and Jon Van Horne, Abramoff's former colleague at his law and lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig. Although the tribe alleges Greenberg Traurig was part of the scheme, it did not name the firm as a defendant.


Lawsuit charges
The tribe did not specify how much it was seeking, but asked for triple damages.

The Alabama-Coushatta said Abramoff and others conspired to defeat a bill in the 2001 Legislature that would have allowed it to operate gaming on its reservation. Reed helped to rally Christians against the bill with a group he formed, Committee Against Gambling, the tribe alleged.

The tribe, which says it has strong Christian values, alleges Reed’s group called state legislators, sent targeted mailings to voters and ran radio ads against the bill without revealing their true origins, preventing the tribe from fighting back.

“They pitted Christian against Christian, tribe against tribe and cousin against cousin,” the tribe said.

Lobbying connections
The $50,000 contributed by the tribe from Livingston, Texas, actually paid for a portion of an August 2002 golf junket to Scotland which included Abramoff, Rep Bob Ney, R-OH, Ralph Reed and recently convicted former White House procurement officer, David Safavian.

At the time of the trip, Ney was seeking a legislative solution to assist the Alabama-Coushatta and another Texas tribe, the Tigua of El Paso re-open their shut-down casinos. The legislation was never enacted.

Less than a week after the Scotland trip, representatives of the Tigua met with Ney at his office on Capitol Hill on August 14th.

Evidence obtained by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee indicates that Abramoff treated CAF as his own personal slush fund, using CAF for a number of activities wholly unrelated to its charitable mission and tax-exempt status.

Tribe against tribe
Abramoff and Scanlon said that if the Tigua succeeded in its efforts to keep open its casino, the State of Texas would have no choice but to allow the Alabama Coushatta to have a casino. But unknown to the two Texas tribes, Scanlon and Abramoff were representing another tribe in Louisiana pursuing anti-gaming efforts in Texas against the Tigua and the Alabama Coushatta.

Those anti-gambling efforts were spearheaded by Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition and a leading Republican Party strategist. The Senate Committee portrays Reed as a central figure in the Abramoff scheme. Reed received more than $5 million in payments on behalf of Indian tribe casinos - clients of Abramoff.

Abramoff, Scanlon and Volz have pleaded guilty in a public corruption probe involving Abramoff's former tribal clients and possibly members of Congress. David Safavian was convicted by a jury last month in Washington. The Alabama-Coushatta never hired Abramoff.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court’s western district of Texas in Austin.

LINK

Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.

Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Novak's secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The White House denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity and Novak, with his decision to talk to prosecutors, steered clear of potentially being held in contempt of court and jailed. Novak said he had declined to go public at Fitzgerald's request.

In a syndicated column to be released Wednesday, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.

Contacted Tuesday night, Harlow declined to comment. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

In his column, Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with information about Plame. Novak said he cannot publicly reveal the identity of that source even now.

"I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves," Novak said in his statement. "I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue."

Rove's role in the scandal wasn't revealed until last summer when Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper disclosed that Rove had leaked him the CIA identity of Wilson's wife. Cooper cooperated with prosecutors only after all his legal appeals were exhausted and he faced jail.

While Rove escaped indictment, Libby has been charged with lying about how he learned of the covert CIA officer's identity and what he told reporters about it.

LINK

Novak discusses role in CIA Plame leak case investigation

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday July 11, 2006

Columnist Robert Novak is "breaking his silence" about his role in the investigation of the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, the Website Drudge Report broke early Tuesday evening.

"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded," writes Novak in his latest column "My Leak Testimony."

"That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret," Novak continues.

The "primary source" for his July 10, 2003 article "Mission To Niger" won't "come forward to identify himself," but Novak does reveal that in his testimony he spoke of President George W. Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

"I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source," writes Novak.

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak writes.

"Novak said he and Rove had differing recollections of what happened when he asked about Plame," writes Howard Kurz for the Washington Post.

"Novak recalls Rove saying, 'Oh, you know that, too?'" writes Kurtz. "Rove, according to Corallo, has said he responded, 'I've heard that, too.'"

According to the Drudge Report, Novak will be making two appearances on the FOX News Channel tomorrow evening to talk about his role in the probe, on "Special Report with Brit Hume" and "Hannity & Colmes."

Excerpts from Novak's column:

#
I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

#
FULL NOVAK COLUMN HERE

GOP columnist Bob Novak confirms that White House staffer Karl Rove leaked CIA agents name

by John in DC - 7/11/2006 11:42:00 PM


So when is Bush planning on firing Karl as he promised? There's no longer any investigating dealing with Karl, so why doesn't he speak? Why doesn't Bush speak? Why does this guy still have a security clearance in a time of war? Are our war secrets of so little value to George Bush that a major security leak is now no big deal? Or is it only no big deal when it's Bush's own people doing the leaking?

LINK

Bush told Cheney on Wilson: "Get it out," or "Let's get this out"

by Joe in DC - 7/03/2006 05:04:00 PM


Bush was a key player in the campaign to trash Joseph Wilson, according to the latest from Murray Waas:

One senior government official familiar with the discussions between Bush and Cheney -- but who does not have firsthand knowledge of Bush's interview with prosecutors -- said that Bush told the vice president to "Get it out," or "Let's get this out," regarding information that administration officials believed would rebut Wilson's allegations and would discredit him.

A person with direct knowledge of Bush's interview refused to confirm that Bush used those words, but said that the first official's account was generally consistent with what Bush had told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Libby, in language strikingly similar to Bush's words, testified to the federal grand jury in the leak case that Cheney had told him to "get all the facts out" that would defend the administration and discredit Wilson. Portions of Libby's grand jury testimony were an exhibit in a recent court filing by Fitzgerald.
This was the same guy who last week said it was "disgraceful" for newspapers to print articles about national security. How can anyone take Bush seriously? The press should just laugh at him. Bush doesn't keep us safe and he leaks national security info. for poltiical reasons.

Murray Waas has done some amazing reporting on this issue.

LINK

Report: Abramoff Had FBI Data

The lobbyist improperly got and acted on a secret file about the Marianas, an inspector general says.

By Walter F. Roche Jr.

Times Staff Writer

July 1, 2006

WASHINGTON — Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff improperly obtained a top-secret FBI document and tried to use the information to aid his clients in the Pacific Island territories, according to a report released Friday by the Justice Department's inspector general.

The lobbyist feared information in the document could be damaging to his clients' interests, the inspector general said, and he used his knowledge of its contents to warn them and to devise a counterattack.

"Abramoff's e-mail records indicate that by late June 2002 he had obtained a copy of the report from an official of the Department of Interior," the report said.

The leak has been referred to the FBI and the Interior Department's inspector general for further investigation.

Abramoff earlier this year pleaded guilty to corruption charges, including conspiracy to bribe public officials and failure to pay taxes. He is cooperating in an investigation that has resulted in guilty pleas from top legislative aides and Abramoff's lobbying partners.

The revelation that Abramoff had obtained the secret document was just one finding in the 41-page report into allegations that he had improperly influenced President Bush's 2002 decision to oust the acting U.S. attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Frederick A. Black.

The inspector general's report concluded that Abramoff actively advocated the ouster of Black, who had launched an investigation of the lobbyist and requested the FBI report. But the inspector general said the decision to appoint a new U.S. attorney, Leonardo Rapadas, had been made before Abramoff became involved.

The allegations by Black that he was pushed out of office to end the Abramoff probe were unfounded, the report said.

"We found no evidence to support a conclusion that the selection of Rapadas was the result of any retaliation against Black for raising allegations against Abramoff," the report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said. Instead, Fine concluded, once Abramoff learned of the impending decision, he attempted to take credit for it.

Black declined to comment Friday.

The FBI report, which focused on security concerns in the Pacific, warned of possible terrorist threats against U.S. military assets on Guam and the Northern Marianas. It was completed in spring 2002 and recently made public.

Abramoff, according to e-mails cited by the inspector general, worried the FBI report would prompt Congress to restrict immigration in the Northern Marianas — cutting off a supply of low-wage labor for garment manufacturers who had hired Abramoff to protect their interests.

After seeing the FBI report, the lobbyist suggested an attack on Black. "We have to make sure that Black guy is smeared into the ground," Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to his clients.

The inspector general's investigation, which included an interview with Abramoff and a review of his e-mails, followed a Los Angles Times report on the circumstances surrounding Black's replacement.

According to Fine's report, Abramoff became actively involved in the efforts to oust Black at the behest of then-Guam Gov. Carl Gutierrez, a Democrat who was under investigation by Black's office. Abramoff told investigators that he met with Gutierrez in February 2002 in an effort to land a $1.3-million contract with the government of Guam.

Abramoff, the report said, told investigators that the two came up with a plan to smear Black by releasing copies of a letter Gutierrez had written in 1995 to President Clinton. The letter referred to Black as "a good Democrat" and recommended he be reappointed as U.S. attorney. Black was originally appointed as acting U.S. attorney by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.

In one e-mail to Abramoff, Gutierrez referred to Black as "a total commie…. We need to get this guy sniped out of there."

In another e-mail, Abramoff wrote: "We are opposed to Black. He has been screwing us for years…. So this is good payback. I don't care if they appoint Bozo the clown, we need to get rid of Fred Black."

Although the inspector general's report said Abramoff had nothing to do with Black's ouster, it did find that the lobbyist had a pipeline into the White House through which he learned of Rapadas' impending nomination and other matters involving Guam.

Leonard Rodriguez, a Bush aide, told the inspector general's office that then-White House political director Ken Mehlman "recommended or suggested that I reach out to make Jack aware" on Guam issues.

Once informed of Rapadas' selection, Abramoff instructed his colleagues in an e-mail to take credit for the decision even though his favored candidate had lost out.

LINK