One mystery solved.
It was Richard Armitage, when he was deputy secretary of state in July 2003, who first disclosed to conservative columnist Robert Novak that the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson was a CIA employee.
A Newsweek article--based on the new book I cowrote with Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War--discloses that Armitage passed this classified information to Novak during a July 8, 2003 interview. Though Armitage's role as Novak's primary source has been a subject of speculation, the case is now closed. Our sources for this are three government officials who spoke to us confidentially and who had direct knowledge of Armitage's conversation with Novak. Carl Ford Jr., who was head of the State Department's intelligence branch at the time, told us--on the record--that after Armitage testified before the grand jury investigating the leak case, he told Ford, "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused the whole thing."
Ford recalls Armitage said he had "slipped up" and had told Novak more that he should have. According to Ford, Armitage was upset that "he was the guy that fucked up."
The unnamed government sources also told us about what happened three months later when Novak wrote a column noting that his original source was "no partisan gunslinger." After reading that October 1 column, Armitage called his boss and long-time friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and acknowledged he was Novak's source. Powell, Armitage and William Taft IV, the State Department's top lawyer, frantically conferred about what to do. As Taft told us (on the record), "We decided we were going to tell [the investigators] what we thought had happened." Taft notified the criminal division of the Justice Department--which was then handling the investigation--and FBI agents interviewed Armitage the next day. In that interview, Armitage admitted he had told Novak about Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA. The Newsweek piece lays all this out.
Colleagues of Armitage told us that Armitage--who is known to be an inveterate gossip--was only conveying a hot tidbit, not aiming to do Joe Wilson harm. Ford says, "My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat." (When Armitage testified before the Iran-contra grand jury many years earlier, he had described himself as "a terrible gossip." Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh subsequently accused him of providing "false testimony" to investigators but said that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armitage's misstatements had been "deliberate.")
The Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about the prewar intelligence. The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework. He and Powell were not the leading advocates of war in the administration (even though Powell became the chief pitchman for the case for war when he delivered a high-profile speech at the UN). They were not the political hitmen of the Bush gang. Armitage might have mentioned Wilson's wife merely as gossip. But--as Hubris notes--he also had a bureaucratic interest in passing this information to Novak.
On July 6--two days before Armitage's meeting with Novak--Wilson published an op-ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that revealed that he had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate the charge that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in that impoverished African nation. Wilson wrote that his mission had been triggered by an inquiry to the CIA from Vice President Dick Cheney, who had read an intelligence report about the Niger allegation, and that he (Wilson) had reported back to the CIA that the charge was highly unlikely. Noting that President George W. Bush had referred to this allegation in his 2003 State of the Union speech, Wilson maintained that the administration had used a phoney claim to lead the country to war. His article ignited a firestorm. That meant that the State Department had good reason (political reason, that is) to distance itself from Wilson, a former State Department official. Armitage may well have referred to Wilson's wife and her CIA connection to make the point that State officials--already suspected by the White House of not being team players--had nothing to do with Wilson and his trip.
Whether he had purposefully mentioned this information to Novak or had slipped up, Armitage got the ball rolling--and abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson. At the time, top White House aides--including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--were trying to do in Wilson. And they saw his wife's position at the CIA as a piece of ammunition. As John Dickerson wrote in Slate, senior White House aides that week were encouraging him to investigate who had sent Joe Wilson on his trip. They did not tell him they believed Wilson's wife had been involved. But they clearly were trying to push him toward that information.
Shortly after Novak spoke with Armitage, he told Rove that he had heard that Valerie Wilson had been behind her husband's trip to Niger, and Rove said that he knew that, too. So a leak from Armitage (a war skeptic not bent on revenge against Wilson) was confirmed by Rove (a Bush defender trying to take down Wilson). And days later--before the Novak column came out--Rove told Time magazine's Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and involved in his trip.
Bush critics have long depicted the Plame leak as a sign of White House thuggery. I happened to be the first journalist to report that the leak in the Novak column might be evidence of a White House crime--a violation of the little-known Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime for a government official to disclose information about an undercover CIA officer (if that government official knew the covert officer was undercover and had obtained information about the officer through official channels). Two days after the leak appeared, I wrote:
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
And I stated,
Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score.
The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.
The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife.
Armitage's role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson's wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
As Hubris also reveals--and is reported in the Newsweek story--Armitage was also the source who told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003 that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Woodward did not reveal he had learned about Wilson's wife until last November, when he released a statement recounting a conversation with a source (whom he did not name). Woodward acknowledged at that time that he had not told his editors about this interview--and that he had recently given a deposition to Fitzgerald about this conversation.
Speculation regarding Woodward's source quickly focused on Armitage. Last week, the Associated Press disclosed State Department records indicating that Woodward had met with Armitage at the State Department on June 13, 2003. In pegging Armitage as Woodward's source, Hubris cites five confidential sources--including government officials and an Armitage confidant.
Woodward came in for some harsh criticism when he and the Post revealed that he had been the first reporter told about Wilson's wife by a Bush administration official. During Fitzgerald's investigation, Woodward had repeatedly appeared on television and radio talk shows and dismissed the CIA leak probe without noting that he had a keen personal interest in the matter: his good source, Richard Armitage, was likely a target of Fitzgerald. Woodward was under no obligation to disclose a confidential source and what that source had told him. But he also was under no obligation to go on television and criticize an investigation while withholding relevant information about his involvement in the affair.
Fitzgerald, as Hubris notes, investigated Armitage twice--once for the Novak leak; then again for not initially telling investigators about his conversation with Woodward. Each time, Fitzgerald decided not to prosecute Armitage. Abiding by the rules governing grand jury investigations, Fitzgerald said nothing publicly about Armitage's role in the leak.
The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic. Afterward, the White House falsely insisted that neither Rove nor Libby had been involved in the leak and vowed that anyone who had participated in it would be bounced from the administration. Yet when Isikoff and Newsweek in July 2005 revealed a Matt Cooper email showing that Rove had leaked to Cooper, the White House refused to acknowledge this damning evidence, declined to comment on the case, and did not dismiss Rove. To date, the president has not addressed Rove's role in the leak. It remains a story of ugly and unethical politics, stonewalling, and lies.
LINK
Monday, August 28, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Calendars show Armitage met reporter
Calendars show Armitage met reporter By MATT APUZZO and JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writers
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.
Armitage's official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has investigated whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as a one-time CIA covert operative to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the administration's march to war with Iraq.
When contacted at home Monday night, Woodward declined to discuss his meeting with Armitage or the identity of his source in the CIA leak case. Instead, he referred to his statement last year that he had a "casual and offhand" discussion about Plame with an unidentified administration official in mid-June 2003.
A person familiar with the information prosecutors have gathered, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the material remains sealed, said Woodward's meeting with the confidential source was June 13, 2003.
The calendar released to the AP is the first confirmation that Woodward and Armitage met during the key time in the CIA leak case that was the focus of Fitzgerald's probe.
The identity of Woodward's source remains one of the big mysteries in the case because the Post reporter is the first member of the news media known to have discussed Plame's CIA employment with an administration official.
Woodward's former Post editor, Ben Bradlee, has speculated publicly that Armitage was the reporter's "likely source."
And defense attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the lone administration official charged in the CIA leak case, also have suggested Armitage could have been Woodward's source when they unsuccessfully tried to persuade a court to order the release of State Department documents.
Fitzgerald's office declined comment Monday. Reached at his home in Virginia, Armitage said he could not discuss his cooperation with Fitzgerald's office, the meeting with Woodward or any details of the case.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.
Libby's lawyer, William Jeffress, said Monday that Armitage's calendar only bolsters the defense's argument that information about the State Department official's role in the CIA leak affair should be released.
"I would hope that the facts on that would come out," Jeffress said. "We have asked for information as to Woodward's source in discovery but that has been denied."
Woodward's current boss, Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., said Monday, "We are not going to disclose the identity of a confidential source."
Woodward has said he received a written release from his confidentiality obligation to the source and was even asked by his source to tell prosecutors about their conversation. But he has refused to publicly identify the person.
Woodward has said Plame came up incidentally during an interview he was conducting for a book he wrote on the Iraq war. He said the source told him that Plame was a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and no evidence has emerged in public that Woodward's source actually knew she had been a covert agent. Fitzgerald has signaled there are no plans — beyond the Libby indictment — to prosecute any other officials for releasing Plame's identity.
Armitage's calendar also shows that a week before Woodward's meeting with Armitage, the deputy secretary of state met for 15 minutes with Libby.
That meeting occurred as State officials were about to prepare a report outlining how Plame's husband was sent to Niger before the Iraq war to check unverified intelligence that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials from Africa.
Wilson reported back to the Bush administration that he was unable to verify the claim, but the administration continued to use the information to bolster its argument for war. Wilson has cited the decision to rely on the bad intelligence in his criticisms of the administration.
Two people familiar with the meeting, however, said the Libby-Armitage meeting dealt with issues involving Pakistan and said the subject of the CIA leak case wasn't raised. Both spoke only on condition of anonymity because some information about the meeting remains classified.
Link
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.
Armitage's official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has investigated whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as a one-time CIA covert operative to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the administration's march to war with Iraq.
When contacted at home Monday night, Woodward declined to discuss his meeting with Armitage or the identity of his source in the CIA leak case. Instead, he referred to his statement last year that he had a "casual and offhand" discussion about Plame with an unidentified administration official in mid-June 2003.
A person familiar with the information prosecutors have gathered, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the material remains sealed, said Woodward's meeting with the confidential source was June 13, 2003.
The calendar released to the AP is the first confirmation that Woodward and Armitage met during the key time in the CIA leak case that was the focus of Fitzgerald's probe.
The identity of Woodward's source remains one of the big mysteries in the case because the Post reporter is the first member of the news media known to have discussed Plame's CIA employment with an administration official.
Woodward's former Post editor, Ben Bradlee, has speculated publicly that Armitage was the reporter's "likely source."
And defense attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the lone administration official charged in the CIA leak case, also have suggested Armitage could have been Woodward's source when they unsuccessfully tried to persuade a court to order the release of State Department documents.
Fitzgerald's office declined comment Monday. Reached at his home in Virginia, Armitage said he could not discuss his cooperation with Fitzgerald's office, the meeting with Woodward or any details of the case.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.
Libby's lawyer, William Jeffress, said Monday that Armitage's calendar only bolsters the defense's argument that information about the State Department official's role in the CIA leak affair should be released.
"I would hope that the facts on that would come out," Jeffress said. "We have asked for information as to Woodward's source in discovery but that has been denied."
Woodward's current boss, Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., said Monday, "We are not going to disclose the identity of a confidential source."
Woodward has said he received a written release from his confidentiality obligation to the source and was even asked by his source to tell prosecutors about their conversation. But he has refused to publicly identify the person.
Woodward has said Plame came up incidentally during an interview he was conducting for a book he wrote on the Iraq war. He said the source told him that Plame was a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and no evidence has emerged in public that Woodward's source actually knew she had been a covert agent. Fitzgerald has signaled there are no plans — beyond the Libby indictment — to prosecute any other officials for releasing Plame's identity.
Armitage's calendar also shows that a week before Woodward's meeting with Armitage, the deputy secretary of state met for 15 minutes with Libby.
That meeting occurred as State officials were about to prepare a report outlining how Plame's husband was sent to Niger before the Iraq war to check unverified intelligence that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials from Africa.
Wilson reported back to the Bush administration that he was unable to verify the claim, but the administration continued to use the information to bolster its argument for war. Wilson has cited the decision to rely on the bad intelligence in his criticisms of the administration.
Two people familiar with the meeting, however, said the Libby-Armitage meeting dealt with issues involving Pakistan and said the subject of the CIA leak case wasn't raised. Both spoke only on condition of anonymity because some information about the meeting remains classified.
Link
Indictment Still Sealed, Fitzgerald Still Busy
By Jason Leopold and Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Report
Monday 21 August 2006
An indictment first reported by Truthout said to be connected to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Plame investigation remains sealed, and Fitzgerald continues to work on the leak case.
The indictment, 06 cr 128, was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case between May 10 and May 17 - right around the time that Truthout reported, based on sources close to the investigation, that Karl Rove had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
However, that indictment remains under seal more than three months after it was filed - an unusually lengthy period of time, according to experts in the field of federal law. The indictment could be dismissed down the road, meaning the public may never get the opportunity to learn the identity of the defendant or the substance of the criminal case.
These experts said the length of time the indictment has been under seal suggests that the defendant named in the complaint is cooperating with an ongoing investigation and may have accepted a plea agreement.
Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said it's very likely that the indictment was sealed in the first place because the "defendant is cooperating with an investigation and the government wants to keep that person's identity secret" to protect the integrity of the investigation.
"It would be extraordinary to keep it sealed as the process goes on," said Levenson, now a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
A two-month investigation undertaken by Truthout into the circumstances that led to Karl Rove's alleged exoneration in the leak probe has once again put the spotlight back on Sealed vs. Sealed, the heading under which 06 cr 128 was filed in US District Court between May 10 and May 17.
During numerous interviews with Truthout, sources with direct knowledge of the behind-the-scenes legal wrangling in the CIA leak case said the indictment specifically relates to the 2½-year-old leak probe. Other sources who have also been involved in the investigation confirmed this information.
The sources said that it was Karl Rove who led Fitzgerald's office to additional documentary evidence that was not turned over to the Special Prosecutor's staff in the early days of the investigation.
With Rove cooperating, the probe has once again shifted, and the focus now is on another high-level official in the executive branch: Vice President Dick Cheney.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a figure of keen interest to investigators working on the outing of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, former undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Sources directly familiar with the investigation said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his closest confidants suspect that Cheney was "involved in orchestrating a plot to discredit former ambassador Wilson."
Wilson's editorial, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which was published in the New York Times, raised direct questions about the administration's willingness to manipulate intelligence to facilitate its march to war. In addition, Wilson raised specific questions regarding an alleged attempt by the Hussein government to acquire uranium yellowcake, a component that could be used in the construction of nuclear weapons, from the African nation of Niger. Directly contradicting statements made by George W. Bush only months earlier in his State of the Union address, Wilson not only contended that the statements by Bush regarding the Niger claims were based on highly flawed intelligence, but questioned how the administration could have allowed the debunked claims to be included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address at all.
In the case of Vice President Cheney there are, according to the sources familiar with the case, "Constitutional issues that must be researched." Sources familiar with the ongoing probe said that Constitutional experts are deliberating with the Plame investigators, and that the vice president views his status as shielded, to some extent, by executive privilege.
Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame matter is still active and ongoing, sources said, and will be for some time. Fitzgerald has long considered bringing additional charges against other individuals in the administration. However, it's unknown whether Fitzgerald's strategy will change as the investigation moves forward. Fitzgerald has yet to comment on the status of the probe or specifically on high profile figures his investigators have focused on. The only public comments that have surfaced thus far on the direction of the investigation have come from Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and syndicated columnist Bob Novak, who revealed Plame's CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column.
Attempting to gain a clearer picture of the events leading up to the June 12 letter sent by Patrick Fitzgerald to Luskin, our two-month investigation led to several interesting revelations that were communicated to us by well-placed sources. The letter is constructed in a manner consistent with what would be expected when a federal prosecutor writes a letter to a subject's attorney. The letter, we are told, spelled out what was expected of Rove, and made clear the ramifications should he fail to honor the terms of his verbal cooperation agreement with Fitzgerald. According to experts in federal criminal law, that approach is fairly standard given the circumstances.
It was Luskin, sources said, who seized on the single phrase from Fitzgerald's letter that gave the appearance of exoneration trumpeted by the US commercial press. In fact, the letter, taken as a whole, paints no such picture. According to those familiar with the letter sent to Luskin, it details the obligations of a subject, Karl Rove, who must choose between cooperation and further prosecution. If the document were made public it would indicate those obligations, the sources said.
Michael Clark, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Houston, Texas, said that he has never heard of a sealed indictment referred to as "Sealed vs. Sealed" despite the fact that more than two dozen cases are filed under that heading in US District Court.
"Two dozen out of hundreds of cases that are filed under 'US vs. [blank]' are still unusual," Clark said. "If this sealed indictment involves a government official, you wouldn't expect that to happen unless you're talking about a high level official and there has been a fair amount of behind the scenes negotiating going on. To have a federal indictment sealed for three months is very unusual."
When told that the federal indictment was returned by the same grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Clark said, "There is a good chance there is some linkage there. There aren't any other high profile cases coming out of that court that we know of, so chances are that the indictment involves someone important, and that keeping the identity of the case under seal has to do with the fact that the investigation is ongoing. It's entirely likely that if the person in the indictment is cooperating, the indictment could be dismissed down the road. It's not unheard of."
Clark added that if the indictment continues to remain under seal in the weeks ahead it begins to raise important questions about the transparency of the judicial process.
"If it's still under seal at the end of next month it will start pushing the envelope a bit," he said. "Two months is starting to get unusual. But three months is very unusual."
Loyola's Laurie Levenson agreed, saying that it was unusual to keep federal indictments sealed for a lengthy period of time, such as three months. She added that under the current administration there has been an upswing in keeping federal dockets under seal because of the so-called threat to national security.
However, Levenson added that it also appears as though that line of reasoning has been abused by some officials in order to maintain a level of secrecy
"You now get the sense that it is happening more frequently with the current administration," she said. "We live in interesting times. We do have secret dockets going on in the federal courts, and I never heard of it until this war on terrorism. The longer something is sealed the more curious it is."
John Moustakas, another former federal prosecutor in private practice in Washington, DC, said an indictment could be returned by a grand jury even if the prosecutor did not intend on seeking one.
"The grand jury could have said 'We want to vote,' and they are allowed to return an indictment over the US attorney's objections," Moustakas said. As far as keeping an indictment under seal, he said "it may be that the parties were negotiating a disposition of the case and the defendant and the prosecutor are happy not to have the defendant's name in the press."
Moustakas described a hypothetical scenario that federal prosecutors often use when convincing a defendant under investigation to cooperate:
"Typically what I would do is get evidence of wrongdoing and develop it sufficiently to get an indictment," Moustakas said. "Then I would send a target letter to the defendant. Then you put on a dog and pony show. I would bring him into my office and say, 'Here's the case, here's what you did.' Lay out main evidence against him. I would encourage a pre-indictment plea, which essentially means that it took the indictment to get him to cooperate. It wouldn't be surprising. If the sealed indictment is Karl Rove, there is a really big story there. But my view, generally, is if it's Rove, it smells bad that it's under seal still. It feels like it's intended to benefit the administration. I think the truth is, if he is cooperating against [Scooter] Libby, there is going to come a time soon that the government will have to disclose that fact to Libby's attorneys."
Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Fordham University in New York, had a somewhat different view. He said that he didn't find it "spectacularly strange" that 06 cr 128 has been under seal for nearly three months.
But, he added that indictments are sealed because if they're made public, "Someone is going to be shocked and upset," and that can hurt the integrity of an ongoing investigation.
LINK
t r u t h o u t | Report
Monday 21 August 2006
An indictment first reported by Truthout said to be connected to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Plame investigation remains sealed, and Fitzgerald continues to work on the leak case.
The indictment, 06 cr 128, was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case between May 10 and May 17 - right around the time that Truthout reported, based on sources close to the investigation, that Karl Rove had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
However, that indictment remains under seal more than three months after it was filed - an unusually lengthy period of time, according to experts in the field of federal law. The indictment could be dismissed down the road, meaning the public may never get the opportunity to learn the identity of the defendant or the substance of the criminal case.
These experts said the length of time the indictment has been under seal suggests that the defendant named in the complaint is cooperating with an ongoing investigation and may have accepted a plea agreement.
Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said it's very likely that the indictment was sealed in the first place because the "defendant is cooperating with an investigation and the government wants to keep that person's identity secret" to protect the integrity of the investigation.
"It would be extraordinary to keep it sealed as the process goes on," said Levenson, now a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
A two-month investigation undertaken by Truthout into the circumstances that led to Karl Rove's alleged exoneration in the leak probe has once again put the spotlight back on Sealed vs. Sealed, the heading under which 06 cr 128 was filed in US District Court between May 10 and May 17.
During numerous interviews with Truthout, sources with direct knowledge of the behind-the-scenes legal wrangling in the CIA leak case said the indictment specifically relates to the 2½-year-old leak probe. Other sources who have also been involved in the investigation confirmed this information.
The sources said that it was Karl Rove who led Fitzgerald's office to additional documentary evidence that was not turned over to the Special Prosecutor's staff in the early days of the investigation.
With Rove cooperating, the probe has once again shifted, and the focus now is on another high-level official in the executive branch: Vice President Dick Cheney.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a figure of keen interest to investigators working on the outing of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, former undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Sources directly familiar with the investigation said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his closest confidants suspect that Cheney was "involved in orchestrating a plot to discredit former ambassador Wilson."
Wilson's editorial, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which was published in the New York Times, raised direct questions about the administration's willingness to manipulate intelligence to facilitate its march to war. In addition, Wilson raised specific questions regarding an alleged attempt by the Hussein government to acquire uranium yellowcake, a component that could be used in the construction of nuclear weapons, from the African nation of Niger. Directly contradicting statements made by George W. Bush only months earlier in his State of the Union address, Wilson not only contended that the statements by Bush regarding the Niger claims were based on highly flawed intelligence, but questioned how the administration could have allowed the debunked claims to be included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address at all.
In the case of Vice President Cheney there are, according to the sources familiar with the case, "Constitutional issues that must be researched." Sources familiar with the ongoing probe said that Constitutional experts are deliberating with the Plame investigators, and that the vice president views his status as shielded, to some extent, by executive privilege.
Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame matter is still active and ongoing, sources said, and will be for some time. Fitzgerald has long considered bringing additional charges against other individuals in the administration. However, it's unknown whether Fitzgerald's strategy will change as the investigation moves forward. Fitzgerald has yet to comment on the status of the probe or specifically on high profile figures his investigators have focused on. The only public comments that have surfaced thus far on the direction of the investigation have come from Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and syndicated columnist Bob Novak, who revealed Plame's CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column.
Attempting to gain a clearer picture of the events leading up to the June 12 letter sent by Patrick Fitzgerald to Luskin, our two-month investigation led to several interesting revelations that were communicated to us by well-placed sources. The letter is constructed in a manner consistent with what would be expected when a federal prosecutor writes a letter to a subject's attorney. The letter, we are told, spelled out what was expected of Rove, and made clear the ramifications should he fail to honor the terms of his verbal cooperation agreement with Fitzgerald. According to experts in federal criminal law, that approach is fairly standard given the circumstances.
It was Luskin, sources said, who seized on the single phrase from Fitzgerald's letter that gave the appearance of exoneration trumpeted by the US commercial press. In fact, the letter, taken as a whole, paints no such picture. According to those familiar with the letter sent to Luskin, it details the obligations of a subject, Karl Rove, who must choose between cooperation and further prosecution. If the document were made public it would indicate those obligations, the sources said.
Michael Clark, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Houston, Texas, said that he has never heard of a sealed indictment referred to as "Sealed vs. Sealed" despite the fact that more than two dozen cases are filed under that heading in US District Court.
"Two dozen out of hundreds of cases that are filed under 'US vs. [blank]' are still unusual," Clark said. "If this sealed indictment involves a government official, you wouldn't expect that to happen unless you're talking about a high level official and there has been a fair amount of behind the scenes negotiating going on. To have a federal indictment sealed for three months is very unusual."
When told that the federal indictment was returned by the same grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Clark said, "There is a good chance there is some linkage there. There aren't any other high profile cases coming out of that court that we know of, so chances are that the indictment involves someone important, and that keeping the identity of the case under seal has to do with the fact that the investigation is ongoing. It's entirely likely that if the person in the indictment is cooperating, the indictment could be dismissed down the road. It's not unheard of."
Clark added that if the indictment continues to remain under seal in the weeks ahead it begins to raise important questions about the transparency of the judicial process.
"If it's still under seal at the end of next month it will start pushing the envelope a bit," he said. "Two months is starting to get unusual. But three months is very unusual."
Loyola's Laurie Levenson agreed, saying that it was unusual to keep federal indictments sealed for a lengthy period of time, such as three months. She added that under the current administration there has been an upswing in keeping federal dockets under seal because of the so-called threat to national security.
However, Levenson added that it also appears as though that line of reasoning has been abused by some officials in order to maintain a level of secrecy
"You now get the sense that it is happening more frequently with the current administration," she said. "We live in interesting times. We do have secret dockets going on in the federal courts, and I never heard of it until this war on terrorism. The longer something is sealed the more curious it is."
John Moustakas, another former federal prosecutor in private practice in Washington, DC, said an indictment could be returned by a grand jury even if the prosecutor did not intend on seeking one.
"The grand jury could have said 'We want to vote,' and they are allowed to return an indictment over the US attorney's objections," Moustakas said. As far as keeping an indictment under seal, he said "it may be that the parties were negotiating a disposition of the case and the defendant and the prosecutor are happy not to have the defendant's name in the press."
Moustakas described a hypothetical scenario that federal prosecutors often use when convincing a defendant under investigation to cooperate:
"Typically what I would do is get evidence of wrongdoing and develop it sufficiently to get an indictment," Moustakas said. "Then I would send a target letter to the defendant. Then you put on a dog and pony show. I would bring him into my office and say, 'Here's the case, here's what you did.' Lay out main evidence against him. I would encourage a pre-indictment plea, which essentially means that it took the indictment to get him to cooperate. It wouldn't be surprising. If the sealed indictment is Karl Rove, there is a really big story there. But my view, generally, is if it's Rove, it smells bad that it's under seal still. It feels like it's intended to benefit the administration. I think the truth is, if he is cooperating against [Scooter] Libby, there is going to come a time soon that the government will have to disclose that fact to Libby's attorneys."
Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Fordham University in New York, had a somewhat different view. He said that he didn't find it "spectacularly strange" that 06 cr 128 has been under seal for nearly three months.
But, he added that indictments are sealed because if they're made public, "Someone is going to be shocked and upset," and that can hurt the integrity of an ongoing investigation.
LINK
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Judge withholds classified docs from Libby
Disclosure could cause 'grave damage' to the national security
By Joel Seidman
NBC Nightly News Producer
Updated: 12:29 a.m. CT Aug 18, 2006
WASHINGTON - A federal judge today ordered that certain "extremely sensitive" classified documents be withheld from Vice President Cheney's former top aide, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Judge Reggie Walton, writes in a court filing, that he has "carefully reviewed" the requests to withhold the documents from Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and from the CIA, which were provided to him ex parte, in camera, and found that the documents should be omitted from the classified materials requested by Libby's attorneys.
Judge Walton writes that the documents he has withheld are, "extremely sensitive and their disclosure could cause serious if not grave damage to the national security of the United States."
In previous weeks, the CIA has provided Libby, in two batches, classified documents which the judge court had ordered turned over to his defense team.
The CIA has provided to Libby documents which are either redacted versions of the classified papers which Libby viewed during his morning intelligence briefings with the Vice President, or summaries of the subject matter contained in those documents.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has said in recent months that he does not expect the White House to claim executive privilege to attempt to block Libby from using classified intelligence material in his defense against perjury charges.
But, Fitzgerald told Judge Walton in June that the White House has designated certain documents that it is concerned about being made public during a trial.
Workarounds expected
If those documents are among the ones that Libby wants to prepare his defense, Fitzgerald said, he and Libby's lawyers will work out solutions with the judge in secret, under the Classified Information Procedures Act -- (CIPA) a law designed to deal with defendants' access to classified government information.
The classified documents the CIA provided Libby are for the time periods: 7 June - 14 July 2003, 12-16 October 2003, 24-28 November 2003, 3-7 March 2004, and 22-26 March 2004.
The June-July time period is crucial to the charges brought against Libby. It is alleged by Fitzgerald that in mid June, 2003 Libby was first informed by the under secretary of state Marc Grossman that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife works for the C.I.A. and that she might have been involved with Wilson's Niger trip. On June 23rd, Libby had the first meeting with NYTimes reporter Judith Miller. Libby is alleged to have informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
On July 6th, in an Op-Ed article in Times, Wilson asserted that the White House ''twisted'' the intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material. Libby maintains that he believed he was learning about Wilson's wife's identity for the first time when he spoke with NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10 or 11 regarding coverage of the Niger issue by MSNBC correspondent Chris Matthews. On July 14th, a column by Robert Novak revealed that Mr. Wilson's wife, ''Valerie Plame, was an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction,'' prompting an investigation into whether government officials disclosed her identity.
(NBC is a parent company of MSNBC.com.)
Russert and Grossman will likely be called as government witnesses at Libby's trial which is scheduled to begin in January 2007.
Expected defense
Attorney's for Libby will argue that, in many cases, it is the government witnesses who have misremembered the facts, and that any errors Libby made in describing the events were the result of "confusion or faulty memory, not any intent to misrepresent the truth."
In fact, Libby has filed court papers to seek to admit the expert testimony of memory expert, Dr. Robert A Bjork, chairman of the psychology department at UCLA. Judge Walton has not yet decided if Bjork will be allowed to testify but said that Fitzgerald has until September 7th, to reply to Libby's motion on the memory expert.
Libby was charged in October, 2005 with lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame and when he subsequently told three reporters about her. He faces five counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.
Much of the classified material Libby was provided may be given to the jury in the form of summaries of the classified material.
Libby's trial is scheduled to begin in January 2007.
Joel Seidman is an NBC producer, based in Washington, DC
URL: LINK
By Joel Seidman
NBC Nightly News Producer
Updated: 12:29 a.m. CT Aug 18, 2006
WASHINGTON - A federal judge today ordered that certain "extremely sensitive" classified documents be withheld from Vice President Cheney's former top aide, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Judge Reggie Walton, writes in a court filing, that he has "carefully reviewed" the requests to withhold the documents from Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and from the CIA, which were provided to him ex parte, in camera, and found that the documents should be omitted from the classified materials requested by Libby's attorneys.
Judge Walton writes that the documents he has withheld are, "extremely sensitive and their disclosure could cause serious if not grave damage to the national security of the United States."
In previous weeks, the CIA has provided Libby, in two batches, classified documents which the judge court had ordered turned over to his defense team.
The CIA has provided to Libby documents which are either redacted versions of the classified papers which Libby viewed during his morning intelligence briefings with the Vice President, or summaries of the subject matter contained in those documents.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has said in recent months that he does not expect the White House to claim executive privilege to attempt to block Libby from using classified intelligence material in his defense against perjury charges.
But, Fitzgerald told Judge Walton in June that the White House has designated certain documents that it is concerned about being made public during a trial.
Workarounds expected
If those documents are among the ones that Libby wants to prepare his defense, Fitzgerald said, he and Libby's lawyers will work out solutions with the judge in secret, under the Classified Information Procedures Act -- (CIPA) a law designed to deal with defendants' access to classified government information.
The classified documents the CIA provided Libby are for the time periods: 7 June - 14 July 2003, 12-16 October 2003, 24-28 November 2003, 3-7 March 2004, and 22-26 March 2004.
The June-July time period is crucial to the charges brought against Libby. It is alleged by Fitzgerald that in mid June, 2003 Libby was first informed by the under secretary of state Marc Grossman that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife works for the C.I.A. and that she might have been involved with Wilson's Niger trip. On June 23rd, Libby had the first meeting with NYTimes reporter Judith Miller. Libby is alleged to have informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
On July 6th, in an Op-Ed article in Times, Wilson asserted that the White House ''twisted'' the intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material. Libby maintains that he believed he was learning about Wilson's wife's identity for the first time when he spoke with NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10 or 11 regarding coverage of the Niger issue by MSNBC correspondent Chris Matthews. On July 14th, a column by Robert Novak revealed that Mr. Wilson's wife, ''Valerie Plame, was an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction,'' prompting an investigation into whether government officials disclosed her identity.
(NBC is a parent company of MSNBC.com.)
Russert and Grossman will likely be called as government witnesses at Libby's trial which is scheduled to begin in January 2007.
Expected defense
Attorney's for Libby will argue that, in many cases, it is the government witnesses who have misremembered the facts, and that any errors Libby made in describing the events were the result of "confusion or faulty memory, not any intent to misrepresent the truth."
In fact, Libby has filed court papers to seek to admit the expert testimony of memory expert, Dr. Robert A Bjork, chairman of the psychology department at UCLA. Judge Walton has not yet decided if Bjork will be allowed to testify but said that Fitzgerald has until September 7th, to reply to Libby's motion on the memory expert.
Libby was charged in October, 2005 with lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame and when he subsequently told three reporters about her. He faces five counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.
Much of the classified material Libby was provided may be given to the jury in the form of summaries of the classified material.
Libby's trial is scheduled to begin in January 2007.
Joel Seidman is an NBC producer, based in Washington, DC
URL: LINK
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Abramoff probe looks to Nashville-based PAC
Group's records sought, paper reports
By KATE HOWARD
and ANITA WADHWANI
Staff Writer
An evangelical Christian political action group based in Nashville has been subpoenaed by federal investigators to produce records that may tie them to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
J. Thomas Smith, president of America 21, said Tuesday that he couldn't confirm reports that he or his records have been subpoenaed. A memo Abramoff wrote in 2001 to a Native American tribe telling them to contribute to America 21 was made public last year.
Reached by phone Tuesday, Smith said he could not confirm any subpoenas. In a statement issued later Tuesday, Smith denied any allegation of wrongdoing and said that no money from his organization ever paid anyone targeted in the Abramoff investigations.
The National Journal, a weekly political paper based in Washington, reported this week that the nonprofit civic lobbying organization was being scrutinized as part of the federal influence-peddling probe into Abramoff's dealings. It cited unnamed sources.
When asked if Abramoff had any connection to his organization, Smith said, "None that I know of. I really shouldn't be talking about that."
Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to charges he conspired to corrupt public officials and took millions from Native American tribes. At least four of Abramoff's associates have pleaded guilty to similar charges in the federal probe.
In a letter sent to the Coushatta Indian tribe in Louisiana in 2002, Abramoff wrote that a $10,000 check the tribe contributed to the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority needed to be canceled and the money reissued to America 21.
Abramoff directed the tribe to make tens of thousands of donations and once directed leaders to cancel $55,000 in checks to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and divert them to other groups.
The stated purpose of America 21 is to "educate, engage, and mobilize Christians to influence national policy at every level." The conservative, nonprofit lobbying organization was active in the 2002 elections that maintained a Republican majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. America 21 ran an outreach program in 2002 that targeted voters with conservative religious ties. The group maintains a public charity and a civic organization that is involved in political lobbying.
America 21 has been called a "critical friend" by Abramoff allies in e-mails obtained by the National Journal.
A report by a political action committee watchdog group, Public Citizen, said that America 21 raised more than $3 million from an anonymous donor in 2002, the only recent year the group was politically active. That year, the group sent direct mailings in at least 18 federal races but reported no political expenditures, according to the report. •
LINK
By KATE HOWARD
and ANITA WADHWANI
Staff Writer
An evangelical Christian political action group based in Nashville has been subpoenaed by federal investigators to produce records that may tie them to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
J. Thomas Smith, president of America 21, said Tuesday that he couldn't confirm reports that he or his records have been subpoenaed. A memo Abramoff wrote in 2001 to a Native American tribe telling them to contribute to America 21 was made public last year.
Reached by phone Tuesday, Smith said he could not confirm any subpoenas. In a statement issued later Tuesday, Smith denied any allegation of wrongdoing and said that no money from his organization ever paid anyone targeted in the Abramoff investigations.
The National Journal, a weekly political paper based in Washington, reported this week that the nonprofit civic lobbying organization was being scrutinized as part of the federal influence-peddling probe into Abramoff's dealings. It cited unnamed sources.
When asked if Abramoff had any connection to his organization, Smith said, "None that I know of. I really shouldn't be talking about that."
Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to charges he conspired to corrupt public officials and took millions from Native American tribes. At least four of Abramoff's associates have pleaded guilty to similar charges in the federal probe.
In a letter sent to the Coushatta Indian tribe in Louisiana in 2002, Abramoff wrote that a $10,000 check the tribe contributed to the political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority needed to be canceled and the money reissued to America 21.
Abramoff directed the tribe to make tens of thousands of donations and once directed leaders to cancel $55,000 in checks to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and divert them to other groups.
The stated purpose of America 21 is to "educate, engage, and mobilize Christians to influence national policy at every level." The conservative, nonprofit lobbying organization was active in the 2002 elections that maintained a Republican majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. America 21 ran an outreach program in 2002 that targeted voters with conservative religious ties. The group maintains a public charity and a civic organization that is involved in political lobbying.
America 21 has been called a "critical friend" by Abramoff allies in e-mails obtained by the National Journal.
A report by a political action committee watchdog group, Public Citizen, said that America 21 raised more than $3 million from an anonymous donor in 2002, the only recent year the group was politically active. That year, the group sent direct mailings in at least 18 federal races but reported no political expenditures, according to the report. •
LINK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)