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

Anatomy of a White House Smear, 3.7

This post comes from emptywheel that has been doing a great job explaining Plamegate. Please go to the link and read his "Anatomy of a White House Smear for a complete understanding of what is going on.

Anatomy of a White House Smear, 3.7
by emptywheel

(Previous parts 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6)

This is the last of my Anatomy of a White House Smear series. We've seen some of the post-indictment events already, in reviewing the ways that Rove capitalized on the behavior of Woodward and Viveca Novak to evade charges. In this post, I examine the indictment and what we've learned since the indictment, with an eye toward speculating where this might go.


The Indictment

IANAL, so my thoughts on Scooter Libby's indictment come from an awareness of the case rather than lawyerly analysis. That said, there are several aspects of the indictment that stick out:

Fitzgerald lays the ground work for charging IIPA, by establishing Libby's security clearance and responsibility to comply with the IIPA law, but he doesn't attempt to make the case that Libby knew Plame's status was covert, even though several details (of Cheney's description of Plame as CPD, or the conversation with Ari) suggest Libby did know it.
Fitzgerald names a lot of witnesses, almost of all whom (save probably Cheney, Addington, Edelman, and Judy) have either obtained a cooperation agreement or will be friendly witnesses to Fitzgerald. We don't see the names of other people (like most WHIG members of Hadley or John Hannah) who have an awareness of these events, but who might present problems on the witness stand--or might be under investigation. The big exception, of course, is Karl Rove, named as Official A.

Fitzgerald reveals he knows of Dick Cheney's involvement (in telling Libby of Plame's identity, in consulting with Libby on July 12, and possibly in annotating the CIA files on Wilson's trip).
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

But at times, he downplays Dick's centrality to the action, as when he describes a conversation between Libby, Cathie Martin, and Dick Cheney on Air Force 2 this way:

On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.


Further, Fitzgerald leaves other key details (such as Cheney's involvement in the NIE leak) out of the indictment.

In other words, Fitzgerald doesn't hint at what he knows about a larger conspiracy, if there is one. But he does include clear threats to three people--Rove (in the form of designation as Official A), Libby (in the form of a potential IIPA violation), and Cheney (in the form of hints that Fitzgerald knows of his deep involvement in the leak)--without revealing all the details he knows. I believe the subsequent events, whatever they might be, were overshadowed by those three threats.

Libby's Legal and Fundraising Team

Even before the indictment was announced, Libby's allies began to set up his defense team. Note this VandeHei description: "intermediaries" for Libby make this effort.

But intermediaries for Libby have in recent days contacted several law firms with extensive white-collar criminal defense experience about possibly representing Libby in the near future, according to legal sources.

That is, I think, consistent with the nature of Libby's defense effort. His defense team and his defense fund--sponsored by all the leading lights of the Neocon project--serve not just to defend Libby, but to defend the larger project from exposure through this case. And so, at times, Libby's lawyers go to great length to reassure the public that they intend a full and antagonistic defense of Libby, and that they take misrepresentations about Dick's involvement seriously.

That shows in the team's choice of lawyers. While Ted Wells has successfully defended a number of indicted politicians, he has worked for more Democrats than Republicans.

Not so the other two lawyers added to the team (Joseph Tate, with whom Libby used to work, also remains on the team). The team's retention of John Cline, one of Ollie North's lawyers in Iran-Contra, reveals that it hoped to use a graymail strategy, to muck up the case by requesting highly classified documents which the White House might refuse to turn over, thereby forcing the government to dismiss the charges. (It appears that this strategy has largely failed, partly because the indictment's limitation to perjury and obstruction charges makes the most expansive requests irrelevant. At the most recent trial hearing, apparently, it also was announced that the White House had not objected to turning over the requested documents).

The inclusion of William Jeffress on the team serves two purposes. First, Jeffress manages the strategy for using journalists as witnesses. In particular, Jeffress' victory before SCOTUS in Nixon v. Warner Communications (in which the release of the Nixon tapes was postponed until after appeal), served to limit the press' right in trials. From the decision:

Nor is release of the tapes required by the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial. While public understanding of the highly publicized trial may remain incomplete in the absence of the ability to listen to the tapes and form judgments as to their meaning, the same could be said of a live witness' testimony, yet there is no constitutional right to have such testimony recorded and broadcast. The guarantee of a public trial confers no special benefit on the press... [my emphasis]

Already, Jeffress has argued for expansive discovery of journalists' notes. But the Nixon decision may become pertinent as the defense introduces Judy's notes, which may implicate other members of the cabal. But that's not all. Jeffress also happens to be a partner in the TX law firm Baker Botts, which means he can somewhat legally share information with his law partner and Bush family fixer James A. Baker III. How about that! He can seek to prevent sharing of information with the press, but facilitate sharing information back to the cabal!

So two of Libby's three big name lawyers were instrumental at limiting one individual trial from bringing down entire Republican conspiracies in the past. That, in and of itself, indicates the understanding Libby's team brings to his trial: as the burglars tried to on Watergate and North tried to with Iran-Contra, Libby's trial must limit the damage to the larger conspiracy.

What better person to manage the PR and fund raising side of this, then, than Barbara Comstock, who (with Mark Corallo) seems to be the RNC's designated gal in charge of limiting the damage one obscenely corrupt Republican's trial can have on the rest of the obscenely corrupt Republican project.

More hereand there are links to go back to the start of his Anatomy.

Another Abramoff Associate to Plead Guilty

By Emma Schwartz
The Legal Times

Wednesday 28 June 2006

Roger Stillwell, the desk officer for the Mariana Islands at the U.S. Department of the Interior who dealt closely with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is expected to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of false certification, his attorney confirmed Wednesday.

Department of Justice officials charged Stillwell, 65, with filing a financial-disclosure report for fiscal year 2003 that "falsely certified that he did not receive reportable gifts from a prohibited source," according to a document filed June 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The charges against Stillwell are the first connected to the Abramoff scandal to touch the Interior Department, and they mark an expansion of the government's ongoing investigation into public corruption involving the convicted lobbyist. So far five people - Abramoff and former associates Michael Scanlon, Tony Rudy, Neil Volz, and Adam Kidan - have pleaded guilty. Earlier this month, David Safavian, the former top procurement officer at the Office of Management and Budget, was convicted on four charges of making false statements and obstructing justice stemming from his dealings with Abramoff.

Reached at his office, Stillwell referred questions about the charges to his attorney, Justin Murphy of Crowell & Moring. Murphy confirmed that Stillwell, who started working at the Interior Department in 2001, has been cooperating with government officials, but he declined to name the "prohibited source" of the gifts cited in the government filing. A hearing is set for July 21 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson.

Stillwell told The Washington Post late last year that he accepted free dinners at Abramoff's restaurant, Signatures, and complimentary tickets to Washington Redskins games. But he told the Post that those activities "occurred while he was a contract employee at Interior, not a federal worker."

Stillwell told Legal Times Wednesday that the Post misquoted him, but he would not elaborate.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was a major client of Abramoff, hiring him to lobby against proposed federal legislation that would have restricted immigration and imposed a minimum wage for the islands.

During the late 1990s, congressional leaders raised concerns over what they considered lax labor laws in the U.S.-controlled territory. The low-wage labor in the Northern Mariana Islands allowed it to become something of a free-trade haven for textile manufacturers.

Between 1998 and 2001, the commonwealth, a group of 14 islands between Hawaii and the Philippines, paid Abramoff's firms - first Preston, Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds and later Greenberg Traurig - a total of $3.56 million in lobbying fees, according to Senate records.

In 2001 the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association also hired Abramoff and paid Greenberg Traurig $620,000. Saipan is one of the largest of islands in the commonwealth.

Abramoff arranged numerous congressional trips to the islands and in 2001 persuaded enough lawmakers to defeat the legislation.

As the desk officer at Interior with responsibility for the area, Stillwell would have had considerable involvement in any policy or legislation dealing with the Northern Mariana Islands, though his particular role in any of the proposed legislation remains unclear.

LINK

Nonprofit Groups Funneled Money For Abramoff

Funds Flowed to Lobbying Campaigns

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 25, 2006; A01

Newly released documents in the Jack Abramoff investigation shed light on how the lobbyist secretly routed his clients' funds through tax-exempt organizations with the acquiescence of those in charge, including prominent conservative activist Grover Norquist.

The federal probe has brought a string of bribery-related charges and plea deals. The possible misuse of tax-exempt groups is also receiving investigators' attention, sources familiar with the matter said.

Among the organizations used by Abramoff was Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. According to an investigative report on Abramoff's lobbying released last week by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Americans for Tax Reform served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns. As the money passed through, Norquist's organization kept a small cut, e-mails show.

A second group Norquist was involved with, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received about $500,000 in Abramoff client funds; the council's president has told Senate investigators that Abramoff often asked her to lobby a senior Interior Department official on his behalf. The committee report said the Justice Department should further investigate the organization's dealings with the department and its former deputy secretary, J. Steven Griles.

Norquist has long been an architect of tax-cutting policies and political strategies that have boosted the Republican Party. He and Abramoff have been close since their days as young conservative leaders of the College Republicans more than two decades ago.

The Senate committee report also details Abramoff's dealings with two others from the College Republicans crowd: Ralph Reed, former Christian Coalition executive director; and Amy Moritz Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which sponsored a golf trip in 2000 to Scotland for then-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

"Call Ralph re Grover doing pass through," Abramoff wrote in a stark e-mail reminder to himself in 1999, a year in which Norquist moved more than $1 million in Abramoff client money to Reed and Christian anti-gambling groups. Reed was working to defeat lotteries and casinos that would have competed with Abramoff's tribal and Internet gambling clients.

In a recent interview at The Washington Post, Norquist said that Americans for Tax Reform and Abramoff's gambling clients worked together because they shared anti-tax, anti-regulatory views. He denied that Americans for Tax Reform was used to conceal the source of funds sent to Reed.

Reed reiterated in a statement last week that he did not know the money he received originated as the proceeds of gambling at Indian casinos.

Ridenour, appearing before the Indian Affairs Committee last year, acknowledged that her organization had accepted grants lined up by Abramoff and disbursed funds at his suggestion. She insisted that she told Abramoff that the National Center for Public Policy Research would be willing to finance only programs consistent with the group's tax-exempt purpose, listed in tax records as "nonpartisan analysis, study and research."

But dozens of e-mails show that Abramoff and his team considered the national center and other tax-exempt groups a ready resource in their efforts to influence Congress.

In one instance, Abramoff's team wanted to send two lawmakers on a trip to the Mississippi Choctaw reservation in 2001, but one congressman's office had concerns about accepting such a trip from a gaming tribe.

"How about getting National Center for Public Policy Research to sponsor the trip?" Abramoff suggested. "Works for me," replied a lobbying colleague.

E-mails suggest Ridenour was well aware that Abramoff viewed her organization as a convenient pass-through.

In September 2002, Abramoff suggested to one of his associates placing $500,000 in client funds with the national center because the group "can direct money at our discretion, anywhere if you know what I mean."

The same morning Abramoff messaged Ridenour: "I might have $500K for you to run through NCPPR. Is this still something you want to do?" Ridenour was enthusiastic: "Yes, we would love to do it."

Ridenour did not respond to requests for comment on the Senate committee report or the e-mails released with it.

Earlier this year, after Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiring to ply lawmakers with gifts in exchange for favors, IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson said, "One of the most disturbing elements of this whole sordid story is the blatant misuse of charities in a scheme to peddle political influence."

Tax experts said it is impermissible for a tax-exempt organization to act as a pass-through for money destined for private business purposes.

"It's not a tax-exempt activity to act as a bag man for Jack Abramoff," said Marcus S. Owens, a tax lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale and a former Internal Revenue Service official.

'Hole in My Budget'

Norquist's relationship with Abramoff's gambling clients began in 1995 when Congress was considering taxing tribal casinos.

Abramoff, then a newly registered lobbyist with Preston Gates & Ellis, e-mailed a colleague that Norquist was willing to fight a tax opposed by another of his clients -- a beverage company -- if the firm became "a major player with ATR." Abramoff suggested the firm donate $50,000 to the group.

"What is most important however is that this matter is kept discreet," Abramoff said in an e-mail on Oct. 24, 1995. "We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement." He promised that Norquist would be "very active" on the issue.

The following year, according to the Senate committee report, the Choctaw tribe donated $60,000 to Americans for Tax Reform to oppose a tax on Indian casinos. By 1999, ATR was getting large sums of Choctaw money. "What is the status of the Choctaw stuff?" Norquist asked Abramoff in an e-mail that May. "I have a 75g hole in my budget from last year. ouch."

All told in 1999, the Choctaws gave Americans for Tax Reform $1.15 million, most of which ATR passed on to Reed's for-profit political consulting company, Century Strategies, and Christian anti-gambling groups working to defeat a state lottery in Alabama.

Norquist said in The Post interview that the Choctaw tribe originally wanted ATR to direct the anti-lottery campaign, but his organization decided that it would be better to assist Christian groups already fighting the lottery.

"When we looked at it, we said they have an actual ongoing effort, we don't need to run it and [could instead] just contribute there, which was a continuation of the previous coalition," Norquist said. "They said fine."

But Choctaw representative Nell Rogers told Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigators that ATR "was not involved and was not considering getting involved in any efforts the Choctaw ultimately paid Reed and others to oppose," the committee reported. "Rogers told the committee staff that she understood from Abramoff that ATR was willing to serve as a conduit, provided it received a fee," the report said.

Rogers said the tribe had a long relationship with Americans for Tax Reform and assumed that the fee "would simply be used to support the overall activity of ATR."

Abramoff, however, grew annoyed at the amount that Norquist took off the top before sending the money on, e-mails show. "Grover kept another $25 k!" Abramoff wrote in a February 2000 note to himself.

John Kartch, a spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform, said Friday that the group was not involved in Abramoff's lobbying business. The Choctaw tribe, he said, "was a longtime supporter of ATR. They had no business dealings with Grover Norquist, nor did Jack Abramoff."

E-mails show that Abramoff also moved client money through a conservative Jewish foundation called Toward Tradition, run by longtime Abramoff friend Rabbi Daniel Lapin. In January 2000, when Reed sent Abramoff an $867,000 invoice to be billed to a Choctaw official, Abramoff responded: "Ok, thanks. Please get me the groups we are using, since I want to give this to her all at once." Reed responded: "Amy, Grover, Lapin and one other I will get you."

Abramoff tapped the same cluster of tax-exempt groups in 2000 to help defeat legislation to ban gambling on the Internet. Abramoff's client, an online gambling services company called eLottery, donated money to ATR, the policy research center and Toward Tradition.

In May 2000, just before a key vote on the anti-gambling bill, the research center paid for the Scotland trip for then-House Majority Whip DeLay. Toward Tradition hired the wife of DeLay aide Tony C. Rudy, who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to corrupt public officials, saying his wife was paid in exchange for his official actions. Lapin has said his hiring of Lisa Rudy was not connected to any eLottery donations.

Americans for Tax Reform received $160,000 from eLottery, and Norquist immediately sent most of the money to a state nonprofit group, which in turn sent the money to another Ralph Reed company to fund attack ads on Republicans who supported the gambling ban.

In the interview, Norquist denied that the purpose of the transfer was to hide the money's origin.

"Someone from eLottery talked to me or somebody on our staff and said, 'Will you help us with this campaign?' and we said, 'We're certainly supportive of it,' and they gave us resources and asked if we would contribute to the state group," Norquist said.

Norquist said he could not remember if he knew at the time that eLottery was an Abramoff client, but he said it would not have made any difference.

Trip to the Marianas

As far back as 1996, Abramoff was using Ridenour's National Center for Public Policy Research to hide the source of funding for trips and other ventures intended to boost the interests of his lobbying clients, e-mails show.

Douglas Bandow, a think-tank scholar and former Copley News Service columnist, received $10,000 that year from Abramoff clients through the center, according to an Abramoff e-mail. Bandow has acknowledged that he accepted money from Abramoff in exchange for writing articles supporting the lobbyist's clients in the 1990s.

Abramoff used the center to hide his sponsorship of an all-expenses-paid trip in 2000 for three congressional staffers to the Northern Mariana Islands that now figures in the investigation. The trip is listed as an illicit activity in the plea agreements of Abramoff and three associates.

The congressional staffers on the Marianas trip worked on the campaign of a Marianas politician who pushed through a $100,000-a-month government lobbying contract for Abramoff.

Abramoff e-mailed instructions to his assistant, Susan Ralston, and others to conceal the true source of funding for the "very important" trip. "The tickets should not in any way say my name or our firm's name," Abramoff wrote. "They should, if possible, say 'National Center for Public Policy Research.' We should pay using my Visa."

Ridenour readily agreed to help, e-mails show. A Marianas client wired about $25,000 to the center's bank account. Abramoff instructed Ridenour to write checks to cover the travel costs of the congressional staffers and Edwin A. Buckham, a former DeLay top aide and lobbyist.

"We'll call the bank first thing in the a.m. and confirm that the money has arrived, and then I will get checks out to you and Ed," Ridenour wrote.

"Yes, we should get invoices for these. This is not only good for us, but if the IRS should later inquire, it is proof for you and Ed that you do not owe income tax on this money. The invoices need not be fancy. Thanks, Amy."

Last year, Ridenour told the Senate committee that she thought the DeLay trip she agreed to sponsor in 2000 was "an educational trip" to Britain, not a golfing junket to Scotland. "The trip I believed I was approving -- and indeed the trip that I invited the member of Congress on . . . was simply to be a trip to London, meet with some members of Parliament and fly home," she said.

By this time, Abramoff was routinely juggling money among various groups. Months after the Scotland trip, Buckham complained to Abramoff that he was still awaiting reimbursement for costs incurred on the trip by DeLay and DeLay's chief of staff, Susan Hirschmann.

"Jack, I hate to bother you on this note, but I am still carrying the DeLay/Hirschmann etc. bills on my American Express Sign and Travel and the interest keeps adding up. Any hope on reimbursement by Amy's group?"

Abramoff replied: "Sorry about this Ed. How much is it again? Would it be alright to get the payment from somewhere other than Amy's group?"

LINK

E-mails reveal Abramoff requests, contacts

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago

Wanted: Face time with President Bush or top adviser Karl Rove. Suggested donation: $100,000. The middleman: lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Blunt e-mails that connect money and access in Washington show that prominent Republican activist Grover Norquist facilitated some administration contacts for Abramoff's clients while the lobbyist simultaneously solicited those clients for large donations to Norquist's tax-exempt group.

Those who were solicited or landed administration introductions included foreign figures and American Indian tribes, according to e-mails gathered by Senate investigators and federal prosecutors or obtained independently by The Associated Press.

"Can the tribes contribute $100,000 for the effort to bring state legislatures and those tribal leaders who have passed Bush resolutions to Washington?" Norquist wrote Abramoff in one such e-mail in July 2002.

"When I have funding, I will ask Karl Rove for a date with the president. Karl has already said 'yes' in principle and knows you organized this last time and hope to this year," Norquist wrote in the e-mail.

A Senate committee that investigated Abramoff previously aired evidence showing Bush met briefly in 2001 at the White House with some of Abramoff's tribal clients after they donated money to Norquist's group.

The 2002 e-mail about a second White House meeting and donations, however, was not disclosed. The AP obtained the text from people with access to the document.

The tribes got to meet Bush at the White House in 2002 again and then donated to Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, or ATR.

Though Norquist's own e-mail connects the $100,000 donation and the White House visit, ATR spokesman John Kartch said Norquist never offered to arrange meetings in exchange for money.

Instead, Norquist simply wanted Abramoff's tribes to help pay for a conference where lawmakers and tribal leaders passed resolutions supporting the Bush agenda, ultimately securing a brief encounter with Bush, Kartch said.

"No one from Americans for Tax Reform ever assisted Jack Abramoff in getting meetings or introductions with the White House or congressional leaders in exchange for contributions," Kartch said, suggesting some of the e-mails might be misleading.

"If you look at some of Abramoff's e-mails to third parties, they might be misread to suggest that he was misrepresenting or confusing support for a project with a specific meeting," Kartch said. "This could have been deliberate or just unclear."

Kartch said: "People were invited to ATR's conference and to the White House only if they worked on pro-tax-cut resolutions. Nobody was invited because they made a contribution to ATR."

Lawyers for Abramoff declined comment.

The White House said Rove was unaware that Norquist solicited any money in connection with ATR events in both 2001 and 2002 that brought Abramoff's tribal clients and others to the White House.

"We do not solicit donations in exchange for meetings or events at the White House, and we don't have any knowledge of this activity taking place," said a White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy.

After the tribes' 2002 event with Bush, Norquist pressed Abramoff anew for tribal donations — this time for a political action committee. "Jack, a few months ago you said you could get each of your Indian tribes to make a contribution. ... Is this still possible?" Norquist asked in an October 2002 e-mail.

Abramoff responded that "everyone is tapped out having given directly to the campaigns. After the election, we'll be able to get this moving."

The e-mails show Abramoff delivered on his original promise to get tribal money for the event that included the Bush visit, sending one check from the Mississippi Choctaw tribe in October and one in November from the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan. Kartch said Abramoff didn't deliver on PAC contributions.

Norquist and Abramoff were longtime associates who went back decades to their days in the Young Republicans movement. Norquist founded ATR to advocate lower taxes and less government. He built it into a major force in the Republican Party as the GOP seized control of Congress and the White House.

Abramoff became one of Washington's rainmaker lobbyists before allegations that he defrauded Indian tribes led to his downfall and a prison sentence. He is cooperating with prosecutors.

At the time ATR dealt with Abramoff, Kartch said, "he was a longtime and respected Republican activist in Washington. There was no reason to suspect any of the problems that later came up."

The e-mails show Abramoff, on multiple occasions, asked clients for large donations to Norquist's group while Norquist invited them to ATR events that brought them face to face with top administration officials.

For instance, several months after donating $25,000 to Norquist's group, Saginaw officials attended a reception in the summer of 2003 at Norquist's home. They posed for a photo with Norquist and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

A few weeks earlier, then-Saginaw tribal chief Maynard Kahgegab Jr. had been appointed by Chao to a federal commission, according Labor Department and tribal documents obtained by the AP.

The Saginaw used the Chao photo, the commission appointment and photos they took with Bush at the White House to boast on their internal Web site about the high-level Washington access that Abramoff's team had won.

Labor officials confirmed that Chao attended the reception at Norquist's home. But they said they do not know who recommended Kahgegab to be appointed in May 2003 to the U.S. Native American Employment and Training Council. The department sought to remove the chief a year later after he lost a tribal election, documents show.

"This is one of hundreds of advisory appointments that are sent forward by agencies within the department for front office signoff," said a department spokesman, David James.

ATR's Kartch suggested Chao's contact with the Saginaw at Norquist's home was incidental. "ATR does many receptions for supporters. There were dozens of people in attendance that evening. This event was not organized specifically for any person, but was rather a widely attended general event," he said.

Norquist did make a special effort — at Abramoff's request — to introduce a British businessman and an African dignitary to Rove at another ATR event in summer 2002.

Abramoff bluntly told Norquist he was asking the African dignitary for a $100,000 donation to ATR and suggested the introduction to Rove might help secure the money.

"I have asked them for $100K for ATR," Abramoff wrote Norquist in July 2002. "If they come I'll think we'll get it. If he is there, please go up to him (he'll be African) and welcome him."

Norquist obliged.

"I am assuming this is very important and therefore we are making it happen," the GOP activist wrote back, promising to introduce the two foreigners as well as a Saginaw tribal official to Rove that night.

A day later, an ecstatic Abramoff sent an e-mail thanking Norquist for "accommodating" the introductions. "I spoke with the ambassador today and he is moving my ATR request forward," the lobbyist wrote, referring to the donation.

Kartch confirmed Norquist invited the foreigners to the ATR event, but Kartch said the group never asked for, expected or received the $100,000.

It was not the first time that Abramoff sought ATR donations in connection with lobbying business. E-mails dating to 1995 show Abramoff solicited donations from clients to Norquist's group as part of lobbying efforts.

"I spoke this evening with Grover," Abramoff wrote in an October 1995 e-mail outlining how Norquist and his group could help a client on a matter before Congress.

Abramoff wrote that the lobbying help he was seeking from Norquist's group was "perfectly consistent" with ATR's position but that Norquist nonetheless wanted a donation to be made.

"He said that if they want the taxpayer movement, including him, involved on this issue and anything else which will come over the course of the year or so, they need to become a major player with ATR. He recommended that they make a $50,000 contribution to ATR," the lobbyist wrote.

Abramoff cautioned one of his colleagues that the donation needed to be "kept discreet."

"We don't want opponents to think that we are trying buy the taxpayer movement," he said.

Kartch denied that anyone at ATR asked Abramoff for the money. "ATR is not responsible for comments by Jack Abramoff to third parties," he said.

LINK

My Take on the Rove Announcement

by emptywheel
Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:33:09 AM PDT
I know there is a full diary on this already, but I wanted to present the following to explain my own speculations about what the Luskin announcement--that Rove will not face charges--means. And I wanted to share a snippet of the statement Joe Wilson's lawyer sent out this morning, a statement that captures my sentiment in this as well:


While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.

The NYT announces today that Karl Rove will not be charged in the Valerie Plame case. I'm still looking for a copy of Luskin's statement, but it includes the following:

On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised
us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.



[snip]



In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public
statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe
that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless
speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct.

Karl Rove won't be frog-marched. But I'm not sure this means the case will end with Libby.



Now I don't want to raise hopes too high. This may well be the fizzle Murray warned of on the Plame panel over the weekend. But here are my thoughts:



When those of us on the Plame panel got to know each other over the weekend, sitting at the pool so Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson could smoke their stogies, someone (it was probably me, but my sleep-deprived memories of this weekend are hazy) asked who thought Karl Rove was cooperating with the investigation. Two and two halves of us raised our hands. (And I'm not sure whether the last member of the panel had shown up yet, so that may well have been half of us.)



I was one of those who raised her hand halfway. My logic is this:



Dick Cheney is dragging down the White House. He is largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. He is trying to sabotage any attempts to negotiate honestly with Iran. And he is exposing everyone in the Administration to some serious legal jeopardy, in the event they ever lose control of courts. At some point, Dick Cheney's authoritarianism will doom Bush's legacy.



But you can't make him quit. His is a Constitutional office, he was elected along with Bush, so you can't make him resign like you can with your Treasury Secretary or your Environmental Secretary. What better way to get rid of him, then, than to expose him to legal proceedings? It gives you the ability (farcical, but no matter) to say that you have severed all ties with his policies and legacies.



Now here are some data points:



There is clear evidence (for example, in the White House's reluctance to publicly exonerate Libby in Fall 2003) that the White House holds OVP responsible for this mess.


Patrick Fitzgerald received a large new chunk of evidence recently, a bunch of emails.


In March leaks suggested that Rove was helping Fitzgerald understand those emails.


Not long ago, the guy who coordinated the cover-up in Fall 2003 (April 14) and the guy who covered it up with the public (April 20) left the White House.


In an appearance on April 19 Novak denied taking the Fifth--but he did not deny cooperating with the investigation.


After Rove's grand jury appearance on April 25, Luskin gave a somewhat tortured denial of Rove's jeopardy.


Fitzgerald's public comments have recently implicated Cheney more and more, first by revealing that Dick ordered Libby to leak Plame's identity the NIE (in late January), then by showing the world Dick's immediate response to Joe Wilson's op-ed (in May).


Yesterday at Libby's status hearing, Fitzgerald revealed the White House will not block Libby's access to any materials.


In his statement today, Luskin does not claim the investigation is over--he refers to it as a "pending case" and refuses to make further public statements.


This is an outtamyarse speculation, but I think it is possible that those emails revealed the Fall 2003 cover-up, and that Rove at first tried to bully his way through them (all the while recognizing his legal jeopardy increased). The people who were tangentially involved--Card and Scotty--decided to save their skin. And then Rove and Novak, presumably with Bush's blessing, traded real cooperation in exchange for Cheney's head.



I'm not trying to give people undue hope, or trying to cheer people up. But it has become clear that Cheney was the architect of this smear, from start to finish. It has been clear that Fitzgerald has Dick in his sights. If Fitzgerald got closer to being able to prove that case, I think it possible that the Texas mafia might sacrifice the person who caused all this difficulty (and who had become the White House's anvil dragging it down) in order to save its beloved Turdblossom.



When I introduced myself to Byron York over the weekend, he said something to the effect of "a lot of people here have high hopes that Rove would be indicted." I responded, "but don't all reasonable people have hopes that Rove will be indicted." York didn't respond. But as soon as I walked away, I wished that I had responded, "No Byron, many of us have even higher hopes that Dick Cheney will pay for his obvious involvement in this case." It's worth noting, by the way, that Byron York appears to have been one of the first, if not the first, to break the news that Rove will not face charges. It's also worth noting that, when we spoke, York tried to make the case that Rove has been cooperating all along. "No Byron," I patiently explained, "I mean Big-C cooperation. The other stuff was just Rove proving his testicular fortitude." York's attempts to downplay the possibility of Rove's cooperation may not mean anything, just 36 hours before he announced that Rove would not face charges. Then again, it might.



This case may be over--at least at the legal level. But until Patrick Fitzgerald reveals that he is done, we won't know what Rove's escape from justice really means.


UpdateI'd like to make something a bit more clear. The statement at the top of the diary came from Joe Wilson's lawyer, Christoper Wolf, the guy who will take a lawsuit against Karl Rove if the Wilsons decide to sue. So when he says, "The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons," he may have something specific in mind.

LINK

Dodging CIPA Graymail Bullets…And Other Legal Notes

By Christy Hardin Smith @ 5:15 am

I’ve been a bit busy the last few days (and still am, as well as being exhausted and missing my peanut…again), but after taking some time to do a brief roundabout on the legal news of the last coupla days, I am compelled to jot a few notes on the doings in a few courtrooms.

First, the NYTimes article from David Johnston this morning. (And a hat tip to Holden for the heads up on the article.) If Luskin is coming out and saying publicly that they got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald which says that Rove will not be charged, there are two things that I want to see and know: (1) what does the letter actually say, word for word; and (2) does it say something along the lines of "Please thank Karl for his cooperation in this matter."

Johnston has always seemed to have good sources within the Luskin/Rove camp (although, frankly, who didn’t last year when Luskin may have called every reporter in the universe). So it’s not surprising that Luskin would pick the NYTimes as his outlet for announcing news of a letter freeing-up Rove (if, indeed, that is what it fully does…although, I have to say, in all honesty, as an attorney you would never make an announcement like this without something in hand from the prosecutor which purports to say this — you’d never be taken seriously in any other case otherwise…).

Here’s what the article does say:

The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove’s lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer’s identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Well, that’s a bit of overhype, frankly. Rove was not the only person that Fitzgerald was looking at in the grand scheme of this investigation. And to spin this as the case being over is laziness on the part of David Johnston — and the media writ large, frankly — who have never dug into this case to realize that the players were larger than the Libby and Rove narrative frame that the corporate media types have conveniently used throughout the investigation. And that the be all and end all of the case was not the ultimate criminal charges, but the exposure of the smarmy underbelly of the Bush Administration and their standard MO of attacking, with a vengeance, anyone who dares to question them — even when those questions are not only appropriate but also expose them in a lie.

I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road, should the evidence (like handwritten marching orders on the Wilson op-ed in Dick Cheney’s handwriting) lead there.

And I’ve also said this, and it is worth a reminder: Patrick Fitzgerald and his team are career professionals. You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum. You have to have the evidence to back up any charges — not just that may indicate that something may have happened, but you must have evidence that criminal conduct occurred and that you can prove it. You charge the evidence you have, you try the case you can make, and you don’t go down a road that will ultimately be a waste of the public’s money and time once you have ascertained that the case is simply not there. It doesn’t mean that you don’t think the SOB that you can’t charge isn’t a weasel or guilty as hell, it just means that you can’t prove it. (And, fwiw, those times are the worst of your career, because you truly hate to let someone go when you know in your gut they’ve done something wrong.)

Jeralyn has been saying all along that she thinks that Rove cut some sort of cooperation deal. I really want to see whatever wording was in (Luskin’s words) the letter from Fitzgerald before I get too far down this road on the what’s going on speculation. And I’m hoping that some enterprising reporter…cough…Murray…cough…will get the scoop on just what IS going on with all of this.

In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct."

But it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Mr. Rove’s activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Mr. Libby was indicted, people close to Mr. Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Mr. Rove’s legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.

Hmmm…interesting that Luskin, who has blathered about town about every hangnail that he’s ever witnessed on any person involved in this matter suddenly clams up, isn’t it? And that he mentions the ongoing investigation…and that he limits his comment on speculation to Rove and Rove alone. (Although, he is Rove’s paid attorney, so that does make sense in a "you pay my hourly rate and the other guys don’t" sort of way.)

Here’s what I do know: Karl Rove has been moved out of his palatial White House digs into a smaller, windowless room across the hall. Joshua Bolten has been wielding more and more influence with Bush of late, and Rove has slunk back into the background for the moment. In DC, loss of power and influence — even if it is only the perception of it — can be a painful thing. But for Rove, the most painful thing of all would be for the Democrats to re-take Congress. Guess what I’m going to be working on for the next few months? Help me mete out a little justice in the form of a Democratic victory this fall, won’t you?

And Dick Cheney? Well, his worst nightmare is anyone finding out about what he has been doing the last five years, hence all the secrecy and the selective classification and such. Won’t his time on the witness stand be precious? And wouldn’t he just looooove a Democratically-controlled House and Senate? Oh, if ever there were incentive to work your ass off for the Democratic candidate of your choice, this is it.

(And, yes, I will be working sources on this to see what I can find out. In the meantime, take a little while and think about what you can do to help the Dems re-take Congress. It’s a proactive step that all of us can take to give Karl and Dick and George and their posse of malignant cronies a nasty case of heartburn…)

On another front, Pat Fitzgerald and Team Libby (or Team Irving, as looseheadprop so lovingly named it) had another status conference in front of Judge Walton yesterday. The news pickings are sparse — with only an AP article to go on at the time of this writing, and no transcript for the forseeable future (since court reporters have lives and I’m not forking over a bazillion dollars for an expedited copy…). I will, of course, update this when I get more information, but the read on the AP article looks pretty reasonable.

Here is why I say that:

The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation said Monday he doesn’t expect the White House to attempt to block Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide from using classified intelligence material in his defense to perjury charges.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton that the White House has designated certain documents that it is concerned about being made public during a trial.

If those documents are among those that I. Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby wants to prepare his defense, Fitzgerald said, he and Libby’s lawyers will work out solutions with the judge in secret under a law designed to deal with defendants’ access to classified government information.

It seems that Fitz and John Cline, the Team Libby graymail legal expert, have already identified and narrowed some of the issues that are likely to be controversial for the White House in terms of classified information. And it sounds to me from the quotes that Tony Loci has put into his AP article, that Fitz and his team have already formulated some strategy to end-run a number of these problems in some fashion, so that the potential disputes between the two sides are narrower still.

We’ve known all along that the multiple requests for Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) were going to be not only controversial and unprecedented, but also a hot spot for potential graymail defense arguments. That these seem to have been undercut substantially by the summaries thereof (and good on Judge Walton for that stroke of genius) makes the remaining issues a bit easier to dispose of one at a time. (For those catching up on this case, I did a review of graymail and CIPA issues here.)

Some news in the article on a couple of fronts other than the CIPA/graymail issues. For starters, Fitzgerald has informed the WH of his proposed witness list and said the following:

Fitzgerald also said he doesn’t anticipate any fights with the White House over witnesses he plans to call at Libby’s trial in January. Fitzgerald has indicated that he might call witnesses ranging from Cheney to former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and former State Department official Marc Grossman.

“The White House is aware of the witnesses we intend to call … and the subject areas,'’ the prosecutor told Walton. “This is not a crisis that is looming. I want to assure you of that.'’

One has to wonder if the WH has said that Cheney will be expected to testify if subponaed. And, if so, one has to wonder further what Cheney thinks about that…and wouldn’t that have been a fun conversation to watch as Bush, Bolten, Cheney and Addington discussed whose political future and legacy was the more important one to protect in the grand scheme of things if, indeed, Cheney is on "the list."

Also, Team Libby may be wavering on the memory defense now. And it was already looking fuzzy before we even got to this point. Buried at the bottom of the AP article was this snippet:

Cline also told Walton the defense has not yet decided whether it will call an expert on memory to testify at trial.

A key to Libby’s defense is whether a jury should believe what NBC’s Tim Russert, Time magazines’s Matthew Cooper and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller remember about their conversations with Libby - or what Libby recalls telling them.

Perhaps Team Libby has been testing the theory on mock juries and found it wanting. Or perhaps Cline just got the full peek at all of the various means that Libby was using to track each and every thing that Joe Wilson said and did, and the means used to dig into Amb. Wilson’s background…and his wife’s as well.

I’d sure like to see what Fitz has but, if Team Libby is indeed wavering, it ought to be an awfully interesting trial. On to Libby Defense Theory 3.0 anyone?

In another case entirely, but one that I wanted to note because it is on an important set of issues, a federal appeals panel in Manhattan sharply quizzed lawyers for the CIA about their withholding of documents pertaining to authority given to the Agency to interrogate "detainees" in the aftermath of 9/11. The questions pertained to whether the government was using a "government secrets" designation for the information not so much to protect national security, but instead to cover their own asses and the asses all the way to the Oval Office, potentially.

In an Administration where secrecy has become the standard mode of operation, avoidance of political embarassment should never, ever be allowed as the motivation for governmental secrecy. There must be a compelling national interest to counterbalance the public’s right to sunshine in the dark nooks and crannies which are in sore need of oversight. But that accountability has been stymied again and again by selective classification.

This case bears watching…especially given that all of us, every single citizen in this nation of ours, is responsible for actions taken in our name. As such, we have a right to know if our government is taking actions which we would neither approve nor condone. And the Bush Administration has no right to maneuver the laws in order to play CYA because they got caught with their hands in the torture jar. Good for the appeals court for taking an interest in this.

LINK

Lawyer: Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House senior adviser Karl Rove has been told by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that he will not be charged in the CIA leak case, according to Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in a written statement Tuesday. "We believe that the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

A grand jury has heard testimony from Rove in five appearances, most recently April 26.

After that appearance, Luskin issued a statement saying, "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation."

A Rove spokesman said there would be no statement from Rove on Tuesday concerning the matter.

The White House said President Bush had been informed of the decision and expressed satisfaction.

"We are pleased that the special counsel has concluded his deliberations," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "Karl is, as he has been throughout the process, fully focused on the task at handcrafting and building support for the president's agenda." (Watch how Rove announcement helps the White House -- 2:17)

Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, told The Associated Press there would be no comment.

At issue in the case has been how covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was disclosed to the media.

No one has been charged with actually leaking Plame's name.

On Monday, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, appeared in court to update a judge on preparations for his trial in the case.

Libby, who resigned in October as chief of staff to Cheney, is fighting charges he lied to investigators and a grand jury about his knowledge of Plame.

Plame's husband, U.S. diplomat Joe Wilson, had openly challenged part of the Bush administration's prewar rationale for waging war on Iraq. But Libby's defense counsel has asserted there was no sinister effort to punish the Wilsons by revealing the identity of his wife to several reporters.

Tuesday's announcement cheered Republicans and disappointed Democrats, according to Associated Press reports.

"The fact is this, I thought it was wrong when you had people like Howard Dean and (Sen.) Harry Reid presuming that he was guilty," Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman said on Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends."

"He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."

Plame's CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In 2002, the CIA dispatched Wilson to Africa to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Wilson alleges that the Bush administration leaked his wife's identity as a CIA employee in retaliation for his July 2003 op-ed in The New York Times disputing the claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.

Bush had cited the uranium claim in his 2003 State of the Union address as the invasion of Iraq loomed.

Fitzgerald was looking into why Rove initially did not disclose a conversation with Time magazine's Matt Cooper that included a discussion of the CIA job held by Plame.

Rove said he did not recall the conversation, and his team has noted repeatedly that he is the one who brought the information to the attention of prosecutors.

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.


LINK

Libby faces pre-trial status hearing Monday

Judge seeks clarity on CIA leak case
By Joel Seidman
NBC Nightly News Producer


Updated: 5:05 p.m. CT June 9, 2006
WASHINGTON - The federal district judge overseeing the CIA leak case against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby will hold a pre-trial status hearing Monday. Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, is facing five counts of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury in the investigation of who leaked CIA employee Valerie Plame’s name to the media.

Libby is alleged to have lied to a grand jury and to F.B.I. agents about his conversations with journalists concerning Plame. In his arraignment, Libby pleaded "not guilty" on all charges.

Judge Reggie Walton wants to discuss four issues:

1) The status of discovery.

2) Whether additional motions (other than motions already filed in other preliminary hearings) will be filed.

3) Whether the government will be asserting any claims of executive privilege.

4) Whether the parties believe it is necessary to issue early returnable trial subpoenas to resolve anticipated claims of testimonial privilege.

In each of the prior status hearings there has been a constant drip of clues to Libby's defense strategy and which players will likely be called as witnesses.

Judge Walton, as he has done in previous hearings, is likely to ponder whether Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is actually nearing conclusion. Because Fitzgerald has indicated that the investigation is ongoing, the judge has allowed the Special Counsel to withhold certain documents dealing with President George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, which Libby's attorneys contend are crucial to their preparing a defense.

At least two current defense strategies have come to light so far:

1) Libby simply forgot: Given the hectic nature of his job as the vice president's chief of staff, Libby's lawyers argue, it's understandable that their client might have failed to remember "snippets of conversation" he felt were unimportant.

2) Or, it might just be that the reporters who claim they talked to Libby about Plame are themselves confused. Judge Walton ordered Time Magazine to turn over documents, notes and drafts of articles for Libby to use in his defense.

The reason that Time must turn over some documents is, according to the Walton, "a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles" Time reporter Matt Cooper wrote about his conversations with Libby and the reporter's first-person account of his testimony before a federal grand jury.

Fitzgerald is expected to call a number of former and current government officials -- including Vice President Cheney and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer -- who allegedly had conversations with Libby about Plame's CIA status in the weeks before her identity was published in an article by reporter Bob Novak.

The backdrop to the case is that Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had gone to Niger in 2002 on assignment from the C.I.A. to investigate reports that Iraq had obtained uranium there to build a nuclear bomb. In July 2003, after the United States had already invaded Iraq, Wilson wrote an editorial in The New York Times doubting that Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger. He went on to suggest that the White House had misled the American public regarding the uranium evidence. Critics of the Bush Administration claim that the disclosure of Plame’s identity as a CIA employee was meant as retaliation for her husband’s editorial.

Other witnesses likely to be called by the prosecution include former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Cooper -- both of whom say they were told of Plame's CIA status by Libby -- as well as NBC's Tim Russert. (NBC is a parent company of MSNBC.com.)

Libby testified before the grand jury that it was Russert who first told him Plame worked for the CIA. Russert denies that claim.

Legal Times magazine, in its analysis this week, writes, "although it's common for perjury defendants to blame a faulty memory for any misstatements, that strategy is far from a sure thing. It's especially risky in a major political-corruption case, where there are dozens of witnesses ready to counter that claim."

The legal journal reached back in scandal history to find that, "during the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon advised aides to say "I don't remember" when they testified before the Senate Watergate Committee. Subsequently, John Mitchell, Nixon's attorney general, H.R. Haldeman, his chief of staff, and John Erlichman, a policy adviser, all were convicted of perjury."

Libby’s trial is currently scheduled to start in January of 2007.

LINK