8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 04:32 am
Dusty Springfield...that's funny.

But I'd rather have the pretty girls (if unqualified) turning up in pornography (if qualified) and not the news.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 07:25 am
I looked but I didn't see if anyone said anything about the new grand jury.

Quote:
Another Grand Jury for Leak Case
Move Follows Woodward Talks

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 19, 2005; Page A01

The prosecutor in the CIA leak case said yesterday that he plans to present evidence to another federal grand jury, signaling a new and potentially significant turn in the investigation into the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Three weeks after indicting I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and declaring the investigation nearly complete, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald announced a new phase in the investigation after the disclosure this week that a senior administration official revealed Plame's CIA connection to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003.


Quote:
The source's situation appears not unlike Rove's. In his initial testimony, Rove did not reveal his conversation about Plame with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Only after an e-mail surfaced showing that Rove had discussed the issue with Cooper did the top Bush aide tell the grand jury about it. Sources close to Rove said he is under investigation for possibly providing misleading statements about the Cooper conversation.

Lawyers in the case say Woodward's source must not have initially mentioned the 2003 contact with him and told Fitzgerald about it only after talking to Woodward last month.

"None of this would be a news flash if this person had previously been interviewed or testified and had previously disclosed this information to investigators," Barcella said. "You have to assume they didn't disclose this interview with Woodward. Now the prosecutor has to investigate why they didn't."




sorce
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 07:41 am
It ain't over until it's over.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 07:47 am
Yup, it was verified on various news outlets last night that he will be seating a new GJ.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 10:16 am
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 10:23 am
Quote:
Another Grand Jury for Leak Case
Move Follows Woodward Talks

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 19, 2005; Page A01

The prosecutor in the CIA leak case said yesterday that he plans to present evidence to another federal grand jury, signaling a new and potentially significant turn in the investigation into the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Three weeks after indicting I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and declaring the investigation nearly complete, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald announced a new phase in the investigation after the disclosure this week that a senior administration official revealed Plame's CIA connection to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003.


ost Blogged About Articles
Legal experts said Fitzgerald's decision to call upon a new grand jury is all but certainly because he is considering additional criminal charges in the case.

Two sources close to Karl Rove, the top Bush aide still under investigation in the case, said they have reason to believe Fitzgerald does not anticipate presenting additional evidence against the White House deputy chief of staff. Instead, lawyers involved in the case expect the prosecutor to focus on Woodward's admission that an official other than Libby told him about Plame one month before her identity was publicly disclosed in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.

Woodward, who was questioned by Fitzgerald on Monday, has refused to reveal the source's name publicly, but a person familiar with the investigation said the source had testified earlier in the case. The source came forward to the prosecutor again after Woodward started asking questions for an article on the CIA leak late last month and reminded the person of their 2003 conversation, Woodward said yesterday. That raises the possibility that the source faces legal problems if he or she provided false or incomplete information during previous testimony, according to legal experts.

Fitzgerald's decision to present information to a new grand jury, contained in a court filing and announced publicly at a court hearing on the Libby case yesterday, is the latest twist in an investigation that has rattled the White House and threatens top administration officials. "The investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury" from the one that indicted Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, on perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges, Fitzgerald said. "The investigation is continuing."

The most innocuous explanation for the new grand jury is that Fitzgerald simply wants to complete his probe and to put information on the record, perhaps about Woodward's source or Rove, according to several legal experts, including some involved in the case.

But most lawyers interviewed for this article said Fitzgerald would not go through the trouble of calling upon a new grand jury -- after gathering so much testimony from and about Rove -- unless he is exploring new territory uncovered since the Oct. 28 Libby indictment.

"Whoever's Woodward's source probably feels terribly uncomfortable right now," said E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., a Washington defense lawyer and former prosecutor.

Randall D. Eliason, a law professor who formerly ran the public corruption section of the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said Fitzgerald is clearly "looking at new defendants or new charges." That is not good news for anybody concerned about their role in Plame's identity being leaked, Eliason added.

For nearly two years, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior Bush administration officials illegally leaked classified information -- Plame's identity as a CIA operative -- to the news media to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Plame's name was revealed in Novak's column eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

Libby, who was forced to resign from Cheney's office, was charged with committing perjury, providing false statements and obstructing justice and has denied wrongdoing. Libby's attorneys have called Woodward's disclosure a "bombshell" that could bolster Libby's defense.

In anticipation of a lengthy and expensive court fight, a number of Republican former senators, former ambassadors and fundraisers are planning to raise $250,000 each and a total of $5 million for Libby's legal fund, according to people familiar with the plan. In a private conversation earlier this week, Republicans such as former ambassadors Melvin Sembler and Howard Leach promised to raise at least $250,000. Former senators Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and Alan K. Simpson (Wyo.) and former congressman Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) are also part of the fundraising campaign, the sources said.

"Good lawyers are expensive," said Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for the Libby legal team. A few Democrats, including R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, are also involved.

At the very least, Woodward's disclosure has put the spotlight on someone other than Libby for the moment. In his deposition, Woodward testified that he spoke with Libby twice in late June 2003 and does not recall Libby raising the subject of Plame. Woodward said it is possible he mentioned Plame to Libby because he had included her name on a list of questions he planned to ask, but he testified that he does not recall doing so, according to a statement he released on Tuesday.

Experts said that Fitzgerald is not trying to shore up his case on Libby. Under court rules, Fitzgerald cannot use a new grand jury to gather additional evidence for an indictment he has already brought, or to wrap up unanswered questions in preparation for Libby's trial. He can only call on a grand jury to hear evidence if he is considering new charges against another person or additional charges against Libby.

One mystery for the public -- but not for Fitzgerald -- is the identity of Woodward's source. Woodward said he contacted the source late last month for an article on the CIA leak case and discussed notes showing that the source had mentioned Plame in mid-June 2003. The source then went to Fitzgerald.

The source's situation appears not unlike Rove's. In his initial testimony, Rove did not reveal his conversation about Plame with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Only after an e-mail surfaced showing that Rove had discussed the issue with Cooper did the top Bush aide tell the grand jury about it. Sources close to Rove said he is under investigation for possibly providing misleading statements about the Cooper conversation.

Lawyers in the case say Woodward's source must not have initially mentioned the 2003 contact with him and told Fitzgerald about it only after talking to Woodward last month.

"None of this would be a news flash if this person had previously been interviewed or testified and had previously disclosed this information to investigators," Barcella said. "You have to assume they didn't disclose this interview with Woodward. Now the prosecutor has to investigate why they didn't."

Barcella said it may be difficult for the source to claim he did not recall talking to Woodward. "But, really, could anybody forget a conversation with the icon?" he asked.

At yesterday's hearing, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton told Libby's attorneys that he had read their recent comments about the Woodward matter in media accounts and urged them to hold their tongues until the trial, to avoid prejudicing future jurors. He said he has never issued a gag order in a case and hopes not to have to do so.

"I do have a very strong proclivity on cases being decided based on evidence presented in trial . . . not in the press," he said. "I assume . . . a word to the wise to be sufficient."

At the hearing, Fitzgerald reached a compromise with Dow Jones and Co. and the Associated Press to ensure that some evidence gathered in the Libby prosecution could be revealed publicly. The two sides agreed that classified material, private personal information and secret grand jury testimony will be kept secret from the public and the news media, but that other information can be revealed in court filings.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 10:30 am
Hadley Refuses to Deny He Is Woodward's Source
The manner in which Hadley phrased his response appears to indicate he is, in fact, Woodward's source. Why else would he say that? ---BBB

Hadley Refuses to Deny He Is Woodward's Source
Published: November 18, 2005 12:30 PM ET
E&P

BUSAN, South Korea-- National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley won't say if he was the source who told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. But Hadley volunteered on Friday that some administration officials say he's not the leaker.

Accompanying President Bush at a summit here, Hadley was asked at a news briefing whether he was Woodward's source.

Referring to news accounts about the case, Hadley said with a smile, "I've also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources." He said he would not comment further because the CIA leak case remains under investigation.

Leaving the room, Hadley was asked if his answer amounted to a yes or a no. "It is what it is," he said.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 10:35 am
Woodward's Firecracker, the Second Coming of Judy's Notebook
Bob Woodward's 'Firecracker,' the Second Coming of Judy's Notebook?
Arianna Huffington
11.18.2005

So Patrick Fitzgerald is going to impanel a new Plamegate grand jury. Meaning this thing is far from over. And that Bob Woodward, among others, is going to continue to have some more explaining to do.

Yesterday, I had some questions for Mr. W, including #4: "Why did you come forward to Len Downie in late October to reveal your source? This was supposedly before your source approached Fitzgerald, so what motivated you? Did the source call you or did you have sudden pangs of conscience? Why didn't this occur to you in 2003 or 2004?"

I've been checking my e-mail, my voicemail, and my BlackBerry but, so far, he hasn't gotten back to me.

And I'm not the only one who's been left wondering. "Exactly what triggered Woodward's disclosure to [his editor] remains unclear," wrote Howard Kurtz.

In his spin, Woodward is trying to put a positive face on things by making it sound as if he decided to come forward and disclose his Plamegate involvement to Len Downie of his own free will (a claim Downie seemed to back up when he told the Post that Woodward told him about the contact to alert him to a possible story). But a tell-tale excerpt from Woodward's appearance on Larry King the night before the Libby indictment indicates that he had to be prodded into coming clean.

It reminds me of how Judy Miller suddenly and magically remembered the notes from that other meeting with Scooter Libby following her first grand jury visit. Jane Hamsher didn't buy Judy's claim, blogging: "It implies they all woke up one morning and spontaneously pulled the notebook out of their collective hindquarters, with no prosecutorial prodding. I'm not convinced..."

And I'm not convinced about the nature of Woodward's disclosure.

Let's go to the tape:

It's October 27. Woodward is part of the Larry King panel discussing the anticipated indictments. Coming back from a commercial break, King dramatically announces that Newsweek's Michael Isikoff (also on the panel) had whispered to him during the commercial that he had "a key question" for Woodward. Isikoff then pops the question, triggering an exchange that in hindsight is very revealing.

Isikoff announces that a White House source has told him that Woodward has information about Plamegate that he has not yet revealed. Excited, King prompts Woodward to "come clean," but Woodward denies that he has anything to offer. In fact, he doesn't just deny it, he scoffs at the notion. "I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker." Come on, Bob, being perhaps the first recipient of the Plame leak isn't even a firecracker? Just a touch misleading, don't you think?

Then Woodward helpfully provides the rope with which he will eventually hang himself.

WOODWARD: I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best New York Times reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell. Finally, this went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the "Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it?"

So this wasn't something that Woodward suddenly decided to do. Instead, the cat was already out of the bag and Downie was pressing him for answers. At that point Woodward realized he needed to fess up to Downie. Lying to the public on national TV is one thing, but directly lying to your editor when confronted is apparently quite another in Woodward's ethics book.

It's hard not to surmise that Woodward finally came clean only because he was forced to.

Yesterday, the Washington Post said of its assistant managing editor: "Woodward has periodically faced criticism for holding back scoops for his Simon & Schuster-published books..." So here's one more question for Mr. Woodward: Was this another scoop you were saving for your next book? And was the no doubt sizable advance worth the price of your reputation?

Here is the money exchange from the King CNN transcript.

We display, you decide:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're in Washington where things are hopping and we're going to follow up again tomorrow night. We're going to lead this round with Bob Woodward as we turn to tomorrow.

KING:... Michael Isikoff whispered to me during the break that he has a key question he'd like to ask Mr. Woodward, so I don't know what this is about.

ISIKOFF: No, look, this is the biggest mystery in Washington, has been really for two years and now as we come down to the deadline of tomorrow the city is awash with rumors. There's a new one every 15 minutes and nobody really knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Nobody knows what Fitzgerald's got.

I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob [Woodward] is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who is behind the whole thing. So, I don't know, maybe this is Bob's opportunity.

KING: Come clean.

WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell. Finally, this went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the "Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it?"

KING: So now the rumors are about you.

WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.


But, in fact, you did, and didn't admit it. And that is very disappointing indeed.

P.S. TiVo Alert: Woodward will be back on Larry King on Monday. HuffPost readers should call in and ask him about this (unless, like Judy Miller, he refuses to take calls).
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 10:51 am
Why Woodward's Source Came Clean
Friday, Nov. 18, 2005
Why Woodward's Source Came Clean
By VIVECA NOVAK
TIME Magazine

The famed Washington Post journalist describes the series of events that lead him and his source to Fitzgerald

As reporters keep scrambling to find out who told Bob Woodward about Joe Wilson's wife, Woodward himself has told TIME about a related mystery: what made the source finally come forward. When the Washington Post reporter went public with his involvement in the CIA leak case earlier this week, he failed to explain why his source waited silently for two years before coming clean to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In an interview today, Woodward described the sequence of conversations with his source and Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr. that led to the latest twist in Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of administration critic Wilson.

In the final weeks before the grand jury indicted vice presidential aide I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby on Oct. 28 for perjury and obstruction of justice, Woodward says he was asked by Downie to help report on the status of the probe. In the course of his reporting, Woodward says, "I learned something more" about the disclosure of Plame's identity, which prompted him to admit to Downie for the first time that he had been told of Plame's CIA job by a senior administration official in mid June 2003.

In his press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald noted that, "Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson." Woodward realized, given that the indictment stated Libby disclosed the information to New York Times reporter Miller on June 23, that Libby was not the first official to talk about Wilson's wife to a reporter. Woodward himself had received the information earlier.

According to Woodward, that triggered a call to his source. "I said it was clear to me that the source had told me [about Wilson's wife] in mid-June," says Woodward, "and this person could check his or her records and see that it was mid-June. My source said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor. I said, 'If you do, am I released?'", referring to the confidentiality agreement between the two. The source said yes, but only for purposes of discussing it with Fitzgerald, not for publication.

Woodward said he had tried twice before, once in 2004 and once earlier this year, to persuade the source to remove the confidentiality restriction, but with no success.

Asked if this was the first time his source had spoken with Fitzgerald in the investigation, Woodward said "I'm not sure. It's quite possibly not the first time." But it is the first time Woodward had contact with Fitzgerald, even though Woodward's name shows up on various White House officials' calendars, phone logs and other records during June and July, 2003, the time frame that is critical to determining whether a crime was committed when information about Plame's employment was shared with reporters. Those White House records were turned over to Fitzgerald long ago.

Woodward expressed some surprise that Fitzgerald hadn't contacted him earlier in the probe, but had high praise for the prosecutor whose investigation he has openly criticized on television. During his time with the prosecutor, Woodward said, he found Fitzgerald "incredibly sensitive to what we do. He didn't infringe on my other reporting, which frankly surprised me. He said 'This is what I need, I don't need any more.'"
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 11:03 am
Woodward Ho!
Woodward Ho!
Harry Shearer
11.18.2005

Woodward did talk to a major publication about his doings in the runup to this week's revelation -- it just wasn't the Washington Post. Slate's Jack Shafer was the first to point out this oddity about Bob Woodward's late arrival at the CIA leak investigation table:

What sort of journalist publishes a "statement" in his paper as opposed to writing a story? What sort of journalist refuses to talk to his own newspaper when making such a revelation, as Woodward did?

Today's story reads, "Woodward declined to elaborate on the statement he released to the Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night. He would not answer any questions, including those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with source."

But today the story gets weirder. Because Woodward did talk to a major publication about his doings in the runup to this week's revelation--only it wasn't the Washington Post. It was Time Magazine.

This is double weird, because Time's arch-competitor in the weekly newsmagazine biz, Newsweek, is owned by--class?--the Washington Post.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 11:12 am
John Dean Open Letter to Special Counsel Fitzgerald
An Open Letter to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald
From Former White House Counsel John W. Dean
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com
Friday 18 November 2005

The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Special Counsel
Bond Federal Building
1400 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Special Counsel Fitzgerald:

Excuse my being so presumptuous as to send you this open letter, but the latest revelation of the testimony, before the grand jury, by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has raised some fundamental questions for me.

In your post as Special Counsel, you now have nothing less than authority of the Attorney General of the United States, for purposes of the investigation and prosecution of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." (The employee, of course, is Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee with classified status, and the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.) On December 30, 2003, you received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General regarding your powers. On February 6, 2004 you received a letter of further clarification, stating without reservation, that in this matter your powers are "plenary." In effect, then, you act with the power of the Attorney General of the United States.

In light of your broad powers, the limits and narrow focus of your investigation are surprising. On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that "A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information."

If, indeed, that is the major focus of your investigation, then your investigation is strikingly limited, given your plenary powers. To be a bit more blunt, in historical context, it is certainly less vigorous an investigation than those of your predecessors who have served as special counsel - men appointed to undertake sensitive high-level investigations when the Attorney General of the United States had a conflict of interest. (Here, it was, of course, the conflict of Attorney General John Ashcroft that led to the chain of events that resulted in your appointment.)

The Teapot Dome Precedent

As I am sure you are aware, President Calvin Coolidge appointed Owen J. Roberts, a Philadelphia attorney at the time, and former U.S. Senator Atlee Pomerene, then practicing law in Ohio, as special counsels to investigate and prosecute on behalf of the government any wrongdoing related to the so-called Teapot Dome inquiry. That investigation related to the improper dissipation of government assets - dubious oil leases to Edward L. Doheny and Harry F. Sinclair.

Several years ago, I had an opportunity to spend several weeks at the National Archives going through the files of Special Counsels Roberts and Pomerene. I urge you to send a member of your staff to do the same, for they are highly revealing as to the aggressive - yet appropriate - nature of their investigation and actions.

What you will find is that Roberts and Pomerene, before figuring out exactly who was to blame and going after them, first sought to protect the interest of the United States by ending the further dissipation of the nation's oil reserves to Doheny and Sinclair, and seek restitution.

In brief, they started by taking protective civil measures. Only with that accomplished did they move on to criminal prosecutions. Why have you not done the same?

Your investigation also relates to the dissipation - if not the irreparable destruction - of a government asset: Valerie Plame Wilson. As you no doubt know, the U.S. Government invested a great deal of money in her special education and training, as well as other aspects of her covert status. Then, either intentionally, or with gross negligence, senior Bush administration officials blew Valerie Wilson's cover. (Prior to the disclosure, her status was not, as some have claimed, an "open secret": Rather, as you yourself have said, the fact that she was a CIA asset was not previously well-known outside the intelligence community.)

Yet there is no evidence that you have made any effort whatsoever to undertake any civil remedies dealing with this either intentional or grossly careless destruction of a government asset. As acting Attorney General for this matter, you have even more authority than did Special Counsels Roberts and Pomerene.

Those who leaked the information about Valerie Wilson breached signed contracts they had made with the government. These contracts, moreover, were not to be taken lightly: They enforced profoundly important obligations to national security, on the part of the very people who were supposed to be serving that end.

Why are you not enforcing those contracts? Why have you not urged the president to sanction those who have released national security information? The president has said he would fire those who committed crimes - but breach of such profoundly important contracts, even if it does not rise to the level of a crime, is surely cause for dismissal, as well.

You should so urge the President. And if he is not willing to take appropriate action with those who have dishonored their offices, and broken their contracts, you ought to go to court and get an injunction to remove their security clearances.

Again, their agreement with the government was the very understanding upon which they were (and continue to be) given classified information. Now that they have breached it, the vital predicate for those clearances is gone.

The Watergate Precedent

Even more troubling, from an historical point of view, is the fact that the narrowness of your investigation, which apparently is focusing on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (making it a crime to uncover the covert status of a CIA agent), plays right into the hands of perpetrators in the Administration.

Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration's crimes, and keep criminals in office.

The plan was to keep the investigation focused on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters - and away from the atmosphere in which such an action was undertaken. Toward this end, I was directed by superiors to get the Department of Justice to keep its focus on the break-in, and nothing else.

That was done. And had Congress not undertaken its own investigation (since it was a Democratically-controlled Congress with a Republican President) it is very likely that Watergate would have ended with the conviction of those caught in the bungled burglary and wiretapping attempt at the Democratic headquarters.

Now, with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President, you (a Republican appointee) are the last bulwark of protection for the American people. We must hope you will keep faith with them.

It was well understood at the Nixon White House, and it surely is at the Bush White House, that government attorneys do not look to prosecute those for whom they work. We knew that career government lawyers simply were not going to be looking for crimes at the White House - not because they acted with corrupt intent, but simply because it is no one's instinct to bite the hand that feeds them.

When Archibald Cox was appointed special counsel - under pressure from the U.S. Senate as a condition to confirm Attorney General Elliot Richards - he immediately recognized what had occurred. While no Department of Justice lawyer was found to have engaged in the cover up, their timidity had facilitated it. Cox was fired because he refused to be intimidated. His firing became a badge of honor for all those who do the right thing, regardless of the consequences.

While I have no reason to believe you are easily intimidated, all I can say is that your investigation, thus far, is falling precisely within the narrow confines - the formula procedure - that was relied upon in the first phase of the Watergate cover-up by the Nixon administration.

So narrow was your investigation that it appears that you failed to learn that Bob Woodward had been told of Valerie Wilson's CIA post until after you had indicted Scooter Libby. While I have no doubt you know your way around the Southern District of New York, and the Northern District of Illinois, Washington DC is a very different place.

With all due respect, Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe you are being had. I believe that you were selected with the expectation that you would conduct the narrowest of investigations, and it seems you have done just that.

The leak of Valerie Wilson's status did not occur in a vacuum. Republicans in Congress do not want to know what truly happened. You are the last, best hope of the American people in this regard.

I can tell you, as someone who travels about the country, that Americans - regardless of their political disposition - are deeply troubled by this case. And, increasingly so, by the limits you have apparently placed on your investigation.

To right-minded Americans, the idea that Administration officials have betrayed their national security obligations, yet remain in their jobs, is nothing short of appalling. Beyond politics is patriotism: Patriotic Americans want to see you not only prosecute those who compromised and endangered Valerie Plame Wilson, but also force the Administration to clean house with respect to those who did this, which you can accomplish through appropriate civil action.

As one who does know something about the way Washington works, I hope you will actually use the plenary powers you have been granted to implement what I understood to be the announced policy of the Department of Justice for which you work - a zero tolerance policy for leaks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 11:35 am
National Security spokeperson denial of Hadley role on Plame
National Security spokeperson hones denial of Hadley role on Plame
RAW STORY
Originally published on Friday November 18, 2005

A National Security Council spokesperson RAW STORY called earlier today to ask whether National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had leaked the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame to Bob Woodward stated that Hadley had told his staff he did not meet Woodward on the dates in question.

She could not say whether they met on other days.

The spokesperson added that Hadley categorically denied to his staff that he was Woodward's source on Plame, declining to go on the record by name or to provide a direct quote.

The spokesperson asked that RAW STORY attribute denials of Hadley's role in the leak case to a White House official instead of a National Security Council spokesperson.

RAW STORY refused, telling the official that our policy does not allow the attribution of quotes to sources in a way that might be considered as misconstruing the source's identity.

Despite news reports Thursday asserting National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was not the source who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA agent, sources with direct knowledge of the case still maintain that Hadley was the "senior administration official" who met with Woodward.

Asked Friday if he was the source, Hadley remarked, "I've also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources." Leaving the room, he refused to answer directly.

"It is what it is," he quipped.

Earlier this week, Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter whose investigative stories on the Watergate scandal forced the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said he had first learned about Plame's identity in June 2003. The name was divulged in a period when Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides had sought to find out who she was in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who had called into question the veracity of the administration's prewar intelligence.

Attorneys close to the CIA leak investigation reasserted late Thursday that Hadley approached Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment and alerted him to the June 2003 conversation he had with Woodward, and that he subsequently told Woodward he could testify.

When pressed further, the sources told RAW STORY there is a record at the National Security Council of Hadley's meeting with Woodward.

Lawyers familiar with the case said that Hadley spoke to Woodward in June 2003 about Plame and had revealed her identity in an off-handed manner during an interview Woodward was conducting for his book, "Plan of Attack."

The sources did not, however, have information as to what prompted Hadley to suddenly come forward.

The individuals said Hadley was the senior Bush official who met with Woodward Wednesday. They previously identified Cheney aides John Hannah and David Wurmser as individuals cooperating in Fitzgerald's probe; said that Libby and senior Bush advisor Karl Rove were targets; and were the first to reveal that the grand jury was probing Cheney's role.

Hadley was privy to a June 10, 2003 Intelligence and Research memo prepared by INR head Carl Ford for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements related to his role in the leak.

Leonard Downie, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, declined to comment on the Hadley report.

"There's no discussion of confidential sources," he said.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 11:52 am
Does anybody remember Gerald Lechliter?
Gerald Lechliter, the retired officer who traced Bush's military record, has assigned himself a new task -- deciphering the Plame investigation.
By Greg Sargent
Web Exclusive: 11.16.05
American Prospect

Does anybody remember Gerald Lechliter?

In the home stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign, Lechliter, a retired army colonel from Delaware with a bit of spare time on his hands, wrote a 32-page analysis of George W. Bush's military records that showed that Bush had shirked his duty. Lechliter sent it to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, who wrote a column, "Missing in Action," that called Lechliter's missive "the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records." Lechliter helped revive the story, and his analysis was subsequently cited in publications all over the country.

Well, it turns out that Lechliter has done it again. And this time, he has trained his sights on the outing of Valerie Plame.

Lechliter -- who claims 25 years experience in the intelligence field -- has penned a detailed analysis of the Plame affair, and Patrick Fitzgerald's duty as special counsel, that he has sent to Fitzgerald. He also sent a copy to the Prospect. Lechliter -- operating on his own time again -- did a close reading of the regulations governing both the proper treatment of classified information and the authority delegated to Fitzgerald. And what he came up with is worth a look -- after all, the credibility he earned when he broke ground on the story of Bush's records last year has earned him the right to another hearing.

Lechliter's most interesting conclusion is this: Contrary to what some pundits have said, it may in fact have been a violation of federal regulations for senior administration officials -- even those who did not disclose her identity -- to privately discuss Plame's identity among themselves. Intriguingly, Lechliter also concludes that Fitzgerald could, if he chose to, recommend administrative disciplinary measures against those officials, even if they have not done anything clearly illegal. Such recommended measures, he says, might include firing such officials or revoking their security clearances.

If Lechliter is right, Fitzgerald's authority goes beyond simply bringing criminal charges. He can suggest punitive measures (administrative, not criminal) for top Bush administration officials who may not have broken any laws but who privately traded on Plame's identity (a group, of course, which includes Karl Rove and possibly Dick Cheney, though it's less clear what sort of measures could be taken against the Veep).

Lechliter's starting point is the Fitzerald press conference. The special counsel said: "Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby."

Many pundits have simply accepted that assertion to mean that Fitzgerald was saying that no rules of any kind were broken when the officials discussed Plame. But there's another possibility: Fitzgerald, a very precise, by-the-book prosecutor, may simply have meant that it wasn't illegal. That needn't preclude the possibility that federal regulations had still been broken, however.

As Lechliter points out, no one is disputing that the fact that Plame was a CIA officer was classified. Fitzgerald said so at the press conference and in the indictment.

Lechliter points to Executive Order 12968 which governs the access officials have to classified information. It says: "Employees shall not be granted access to classified information unless they ... have a demonstrated need-to-know."

At this point, we have been told by the indictment, at a minimum, that Cheney appears to have learned of Plame's employment status from the CIA; that I. Lewis Libby discussed it with Cheney; and also that a senior CIA officer and the under secretary of state discussed it with Libby, too.

We also know that Rove discussed it with Libby. There's much more, of course, but in sum these top officials -- Cheney included -- all appear to have been passing classified information back and forth.

The press -- and Fitzgerald -- has mostly focused on whether a criminal act occurred when one or more of these officials passed the info to reporters. But Lechliter argues that a perhaps more important question is this: Have the above officials violated federal rules by privately sharing classified information with each other? Lechliter argues, compellingly, that there's little doubt that the above officials had no "need-to-know" this information. Therefore, he continues, one or more of them may have violated the executive order simply by passing the information on to a colleague without a "need-to-know" it.

"Clearance does not entitle a government employee to access to all [classified] information, but only to that material necessary to perform his or her valid government function," Lechliter writes. "I cannot conceive of any plausible reason," he continues, for these senior officials to "have a need to know the status of Mrs. Wilson."

A violation of an executive order may not be a criminal act, Lechliter notes. But it is a violation of federal rules all the same. So what is supposed to be done about it? Federal regulations, he points out, require the Executive Office of the President to launch an internal inquiry and discipline any violators.

That, of course, appears not to have happened. And that, Lechliter argues, is where Fitzgerald comes in. Here's how: Lechliter points to a now well-known February 6, 2004 letter to Fitzgerald from Deputy Attorney General James Comey, in which Comey defines the special counsel's authority. The letter says that Fitzgerald's authority is "plenary and includes the authority" to investigate "violations of any federal laws." But it also says something that's gone pretty much unnoticed: that Fitzgerald has the authority to "pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions ... that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue."

That sentence is the key, Lechliter argues. Because it very clearly states that Fitzgerald, who for all practical purposes has been granted the powers of the attorney general, can do more than just prosecute criminal acts. He can also pursue "administrative remedies" within the attorney general's authority. In this case, Lechliter says, the administrative violations Fitzgerald could recommend "remedies" for include the improper -- though not illegal -- sharing of classified information.

"This shouldn't be just about criminal acts," Lechliter says in an interview. "It should also be about possible violations of administrative rules that have occurred. The Executive Office of the President evidently hasn't conducted a proper investigation into them. But somebody has to. And my argument is that it's clearly within the scope of Fitzgerald's authority to do it. He can also recommend administrative action against violators."

Fitzgerald is not required to pursue these violations, Lechliter allows. "I'm not saying that Fitzgerald has to do this," he says. "Just that he has the authority to do so if he wishes. And he should if no one else has."

"I took my obligation to protect classified information very seriously," he continues. "But these officials seemingly didn't -- and they haven't suffered any consequences. That's wrong. Fitzgerald could change that."

Is this simply legal theorizing? Of course it is, to some extent. And Fitzgerald's office declined to comment. But if Lechliter is right, a key issue is whether violations of administrative rules, as opposed to criminal statutes, are going unpunished. That question alone (not to mention whether Fitzgerald, whatever his inclination, could address it if he wanted to) at least deserves more attention.

Back in 2004, after Lechliter's analysis of Bush's military records appeared under Kristof's byline, Lechliter recalls that he spent many hours on the phone or in person with reporters from the Times, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. They all subsequently ran stories based partly on his findings.

Maybe the time has come again for a reporter or two to get in touch with Lechliter. He can be reached at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------

Greg Sargent, a contributing editor at New York magazine, writes a bi-weekly column for The American Prospect Online. He can be reached at [email protected].
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 11:55 am
John Dean and Gerald Lechliter on same page?
It looks like John Dean and Gerald Lechliter are on thinking the same page.

BBB
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 12:40 pm
Re: John Dean and Gerald Lechliter on same page?
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
It looks like John Dean and Gerald Lechliter are on thinking the same page.

BBB


I was just about to post the same thought, BBB. It seems Mr. Fitzgerald is getting a lot of mail these days. Let's hope he reads it.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2005 11:09 am
'L.A. Times' Report Adds Fuel to 'War Manipulation' Debate
'L.A. Times' Report Adds Fuel to 'War Manipulation' Debate
By E&P Staff
Published: November 20, 2005 10:30 AM ET
NEW YORK

A massive report in the Los Angeles Times today appears to add further evidence to critics charging the Bush administration with manipulating evidence to promote the Iraq invasion in 2003. Once again the Iraqi defector known as "Curveball" takes front and center.

"The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq," Bob Drogin and John Goetz write.

They also reveal: "An investigation by The Times based on interviews since May with about 30 current and former intelligence officials in the U.S., Germany, England, Iraq and the United Nations, as well as other experts, shows that U.S. bungling in the Curveball case was worse than official reports have disclosed."

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they had warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source known only as Curveball never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

"According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons," the reporters relate. "Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

"Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm."

A senior German intelligence official said, "This was not substantial evidence. We made clear we could not verify the things he said."

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year.

The Times notes: "The German account emerges as the White House is lashing out at domestic critics, particularly Senate Democrats, over allegations the administration manipulated intelligence to go to war. Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney called such claims reprehensible and pernicious."

The White House, the reporters charge, "ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball's account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq's biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years.

"At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball's account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion."

The senior BND officer who supervised Curveball's case said that watching Secretary of State Powell misstate Curveball's claims as a justification for war berfore the United Nations, "We were shocked. Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not provenÂ…. It was not hard intelligence."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525270
--------------------------------------------------------------

See complete report:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?coll=la-home-headlines
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2005 11:20 am
'Wash Post' Ombudsman Says Woodward Needs Watching
'Wash Post' Ombudsman Says Woodward Needs Watching
By E&P Staff
Published: November 20, 2005 8:05 AM ET

In a highly critical Sunday column, Deborah Howell, ombudsman at the Washington Post since just October, took the paper's star reporter to task for his behavior surrounding the Plame/CIA leak, accusing him of what she termed two journalistic "sins." She wrote that the Post "took a hit to its credibility with readers," and "disappointment was rife in The Post's newsroom."

Her conclusion: "He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff--even if he's rich and famous."

Earlier this week, Howell had told E&P's Joe Strupp that her reader mail was uniformly negative about Woodward, which is rare on any subject. Today she noted that many readers think Woodward ought to be fired or disciplined.

"Last week we found out that he kept the kind of information from Downie that is a deeply serious sin not to disclose to a boss -- the kind that can get even a very good reporter in the doghouse for a long time," Howell wrote. "He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and 'Larry King Live' about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge of Plame's identity.

"The Post's story Wednesday put the paper in a terrible light. Woodward refused to answer Post reporters' questions beyond a prepared statement about his deposition to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald -- even questions unrelated to his pledge of confidentiality to his source in the Plame case....

"Even admirers of Woodward in the newsroom wish he had done the right thing in the first place." Dan Balz, who has collaborated with Woodward, said he was "totally stunned" by Woodward's disclosure.

Howell asked Woodward if his source was the same as Robert Novak's. He answered, "That is a good question. I wish I could answer it." He added, "when it all comes out" readers will understand a lot more.

He repeated his earlier explanation that it was only after he watched the prosecutor's press conference that he realized that he knew about a Plame leak before other reporters, and his "news juices started."

Howell said that Woodward obviously needs "more oversight" and suggested the Post assign a "top-line editor" to watch over him more closely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001525268
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2005 11:34 am
It just gets worse and worse.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2005 11:42 am
Security adviser named as source in CIA scandal
Stephen Hadley worked for Condi Rice at the time. ---BBB
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2005 12:48 pm
When are heads going to begin to roll? Is everybody afraid of Bush that much?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/08/2025 at 09:55:20