Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET updated 1:00 PM Saturday
NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:
"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.
"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow." </snip>
RE: virus: The game's afoot
« Reply #1 on: 2005-07-03 14:22:57 »
he doesnt work for the CIA, so he isnt the leak. *someone* from the Big C must have leaked it to him. who is that? that is the question. why the Rove front?
something smells fishy.
btw, I think that Times turning over the material is a bloody shame.
Jul 6, 2005, 05:55 White House Scrambles to Stop Criminal Indictment of Rove By DOUG THOMPSON Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue <snip> The Bush Administration is scrambling behind the scenes to stop a criminal indictment against Presidential advisor Karl Rove for disclosing classified information to reporters in an attempt to discredit a White House critic. </snip>
All eyes on Turd Blossom <snip> O'Donnell is standing by his statement, which set off a flurry of "Is it Rove?" stories and blog posts over the weekend. On Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post, O'Donnell has continued to blog about "breaking" the story that Rove was Cooper's source, and likely Novak's as well. After naming Rove on the PBS program "Friday," O'Donnell proceeded to say, "When [Bush] finds out it's Karl Rove, the question becomes, What does the president do then?"
"It was a deliberate act that I was planning for months," O'Donnell told Salon. "What I've been doing with the HuffingtonPost is simply staying abreast of the story while it was evolving, and it turns out that a blog is an absolutely perfect way to do that," he said. When asked about his sourcing, O'Donnell replied: "I will not characterize my sourcing in anyway." Then he added, "After my public revelation of it, I obtained yet another highly authoritative source on this matter, on the same thing. That Rove is the person Matt Cooper is protecting -- had been protecting up until today." </snip>
Court jails N.Y. Times reporter Refuses to name source: No right to promise confidentiality, prosecutor says
Sheldon Alberts CanWest News Service Thursday, July 07, 2005 <snip> WASHINGTON - In a court ruling that has cast a chill over the White House press corps, a U.S. judge ordered a New York Times reporter jailed yesterday for refusing to reveal the Bush administration source who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent. </snip>
By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 12, 2005; 7:57 AM
The liberal blogosphere is aflame with animosity toward Karl Rove, now that he's been sucked deeper into the Plame probe.
Some folks out there think he should just be thrown in the jail cell next to Judy Miller's, no indictment or trial necessary. [..] Chicago Tribune : "Sensing vulnerability on the part of a formidable political adversary, Democrats on Monday urged hearings into the conduct of presidential adviser Karl Rove and demanded his security clearance be revoked as the White House grew close-mouthed about allegations that Rove played a role in revealing a CIA employee's identity."
WP columnist Dana Milbank captures the tone:
"'This is ridiculous!'
"'You're in a bad spot here, Scott.'
"'Have you consulted a personal attorney?'
"The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an 'ongoing' investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts."
The Wall Street Journal notes: "In an email message to supporters, Mr. Bush's defeated 2004 election rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, wrote: 'It's perfectly clear that Rove -- the person at the center of the slash-and-burn, smear-and-divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush administration -- has to go.'"
NEW YORK At numerous press briefings last week, not a single reporter asked White House Press Secretary about emerging allegations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was a source, or the source, for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case. Then on Sunday, Newsweek revealed a Cooper e-mail from July 2003 that showed that Rove indeed had talked to him about Plame and her CIA employment, although he apparently did not mention that she worked under cover.
This development apparently freed the journalists to hit McClellan hard at this afternoon's briefing. In September and October 2003, McClellan had rejected as "ridiculous" any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak. Today, Rove didn't quite get off "Scott free."
Here is a full transcript of the Rove-related queries today.
***
Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.
And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.
The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q: I actually wasn't talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.
The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....
Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?
MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be - or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?
MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.
Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...
Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.
Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....
And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.
MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.
Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?
MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.
Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.
Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?
MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.
Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...
MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.
Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?
MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.
Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?
MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.
Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?
MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.
Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?
MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.
Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?
MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....
***
Q: There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there's an investigation or not.
So are you saying that he's not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.
This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we're just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.
*** Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?
MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.
Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open.
MCCLELLAN: It's the same type of question. You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I'm not going to do that.
Q: I'd like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.
MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what he expects people in the White House to do.
Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with.
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've already responded.
Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?
MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who's involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing.
Based on the last several post, I vote Blunderov number one in the Cov clip and paste category. The last two are perfect examples. It's like he works, so I don't have to, very much. I thank you for your effort. Don't stop. Not much action on this list these days.
You have a good winter, I'll have a good summer. Bill MacKinnon
[Blunderov] Memes get a big platform. (Kudos to the congregation for being at the bleeding edge of an idea whose time has come Best Regards.
<snip> Universe 'too queer' to grasp By Jo Twist BBC News science and technology reporter
On Jul 12, 2005, at 3:04 PM, Blunderov wrote:
> [Blunderov] Now that's what I call disassembly! > Best Regards. > > http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp? > vnu_con > tent_id=1000977098 > > Press Batters McClellan on Rove/Plame Link > > By E&P Staff > > Published: July 11, 2005 3:30 PM ET > > NEW YORK At numerous press briefings last week, not a single reporter > asked White House Press Secretary about emerging allegations that top > presidential aide Karl Rove was a source, or the source, for Time > magazine's Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case. Then on Sunday, > Newsweek revealed a Cooper e-mail from July 2003 that showed that Rove > indeed had talked to him about Plame and her CIA employment, > although he > apparently did not mention that she worked under cover.
A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.
Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA official.
Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for "negligently" disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity.
KARL ROVE'S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it.2
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "CONFIRMING" CLASSIFIED INFORMATION Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.
One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements: Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.3
THE INDEPENDENT DUTY TO VERIFY THE CLASSIFIED STATUS OF INFORMATION
Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."4
Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified."5
"NEGLIGENT" DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information.6 The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions."7
THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information.
The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."9
There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.
ENDNOTES
1 Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information (as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_12958_amendment.h tml). 2 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312 (Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958) (online at http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/ 0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf). 3 Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf). 4 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(b). 5 Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73. 6 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5(b) (emphasis added). 7 Id. at 5.5(c). 8 Id. at 5.5(e)(1). 9 Id. at 5.5(b).
[Blunderov] Tom Delay, Frist, Jack Abramoff; the first rotten apples are dropping as the cradle begins to rock. And now the Miller will tell her tale. Arianna Huffington wonders: why now? Best Regards.
Arianna Huffington
09.30.2005 Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens It's time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking points.
The claim that Miller "has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver" is laughable. and, indeed, has already been laughed at by 1) my increasingly frustrated sources within the Times 2) a chorus of voices in the blogosphere (see here, here, and here) and 3) (and much more significantly) Joseph Tate, Scooter Libby's lawyer, who told the Washington Post yesterday that he informed Miller's attorney, Floyd Abrams, a year ago that Libby's waiver "was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify".
So it defies credulity for Miller, Sulzberger, and Bill Keller to keep insisting that Libby's earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it wasn't. I don't have much good to say about the vice president's chief of staff, but I don't doubt that he knows the difference between being coerced and acting on his own free will. How deep is the Times' contempt for its readers that they really think they'll buy the "Oh, Judy finally has the right waiver" line?
The truth of the matter is there is no way that the New York Times editorial claiming "it should be clear.that Ms. Miller is not going to change her mind" can be squared with Ms. Miller changing her mind. And there is no way to accept at face value Miller's grandstanding about "fighting for the cause of the free flow of information." Who is she still trying to convince? Herself?
After she answers Patrick Fitzgerald's questions today, Judy Miller needs to start answering some of the obvious questions raised by her head-scratching stance:
What made her refuse Libby's waiver when it was first offered but accept it now? (Especially since Judge Hogan had told Miller that "she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she 'alleges she is protecting' had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.")
Was Miller's sudden eagerness to find a get-out-of-jail excuse prompted by Fitzgerald's planning to ask for an extension of the grand jury?
Or was it prompted by Fitzgerald's gearing up to charge her with criminal contempt?
If all it took for Miller to feel properly released was a phone call, why did she wait 85 days to make it?
And so we don't forget what this story is really about, and given that the aluminum tubes crap that Miller put on the front page of the New York Times was being heavily promoted by Cheney, how much of that bogus information came to Miller via Libby?
And here are a few questions for the Times:
Had a Plame/Wilson story been assigned to Miller or not?
What, if anything, did she say about the story to anyone at the paper at the time. and what did they say back?
Why did the Times hold back the story about Miller's release and let multiple other news sources scoop them? Were they trying to miss the evening news cycle and avoid the overnight thrashing their spin has rightly received?
So, as the image of Judy as a principled, conscience-driven defender of the First Amendment gives way to the image of Judy wearing her "new" waiver as a fig leaf allowing her to get out and sing, the big question remains: What is she hiding?
[Blunderov] Tom Delay, Frist, Jack Abramoff; the first rotten apples are dropping as the cradle begins to rock. And now the Miller will tell her tale. Arianna Huffington wonders: why now? Best Regards.
Arianna Huffington 09.30.2005 Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens It's time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking points.
[rhinoceros] I can't solve the mystery, but something does smell funny with Judy Miller becoming a martyr of journalistic integrity after having published those stories about the... aluminum tubes of mass destruction.
[Blunderov] Some are saying that she didn't want to be questioned about 'other sources' and that this was part of the deal she has made with Fitzgerald. Why she should worry about being questioned about sources unrelated to the Plame affair is not clear to me. Or did yet other persons also inform her that Wilson's wife was a spook? Who else did she speak to in this connection I wonder?
Interestingly, John Bolton visited her in prison, twice I think, shortly before her release. A courier? From Libby? Why Bolton?
I'm wondering whether she wasn't, in part, attempting to aid the administrations attempts to slow march the whole business in the hope that other events would outrun it. It seems unlikely to me that a disgraced war pimpette should suddenly sprout actual journalistic principles in the middle of the night. Perhaps she was told that there was no further point in keeping her finger in the dike? Something must have changed. Maybe (Occam's razor) prison simply became too much for her?
Let the games begin.
Best regards.
rhinoceros Sent: 30 September 2005 23:43
[quote from: Blunderov on 2005-09-30 at 08:09:33] [Blunderov] Tom Delay, Frist, Jack Abramoff; the first rotten apples are dropping as the cradle begins to rock. And now the Miller will tell her tale. Arianna Huffington wonders: why now? Best Regards.
Arianna Huffington 09.30.2005 Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens It's time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking points.
[rhinoceros] I can't solve the mystery, but something does smell funny with Judy Miller becoming a martyr of journalistic integrity after having published those stories about the... aluminum tubes of mass destruction.
"Then came the surprise revelation from George Stephanopoulos that is guaranteed to make waves - and headlines on tonight's network news shows: "I wonder, George Will, do you think it's a manageable one for the White House, especially if we don't know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments, but if he is able to show - as a source close to this told me this week - that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions?"
Rove missing from White House events; Word on Hill is that he has been told he's target of probe RAW STORY
Update: Rove's lawyer will no longer deny client a target
President Bush's most trusted adviser, Karl Rove, has been absent from recent White House events, leading those close to a CIA outing case to speculate that he has been told he is the target of an investigation, RAW STORY can confirm.
The buzz on Capitol Hill is that Rove has received what sources called a "target letter," or a letter from the prosecutor investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson telling him that he is now a target in the investigation. To date, no reporters have been able to confirm this account. One lawyer says that at this point in the investigation it would be more likely any letters would normally be notifications of an indictment.
Late Wednesday, Reuters added a new element, saying Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by the prosecutor in the case.
"In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a target," Reuters notes.
Rove disappeared from the scene around the time he was diagnosed with kidney stones in mid-September, sources close to the White House tell RAW STORY. At first, the belief was that he was off the beat to recover from his illness.
But his absence at President Bush's press conference Monday where Bush announced that he had chosen Harriet Miers to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court raised eyebrows. Rove is usually present at such events.
President Bush has declined to say whether he would fire Rove if he were indicted. He has said that he would fire any White House staff that was found guilty in the case.
Others, noticing seeming Administration slip-ups -- the response to Katrina and the unexpected groundswell of discontent from conservatives over Miers -- suggest the White House may be distracted with something else.
[Blunderov] I'm curious about the picture of Rove on this page. He is looking toward the camera and waving, but his hand is not open with all the fingers extended as might usually be expected. Instead the pinky and thumb are held together at the tips and the other three fingers are extended forwards. (It could almost be described as the converse of the double-thumbed Gonzo fist.)
Plainly this signifies something. Would somebody please clue me in?
Best Regards.
<snip>"Regarding all the buzz about grand jury "target letters" supposedly making the rounds now, attorney and TalkLeft proprietor Jeralyn Merritt files this note of clarification. She concludes:
[I]t sounds like this grand jury is complete, and notifications are going out to various lawyers that their clients are being or have been indicted, and as a courtesy, they can bring their clients in rather than face the humiliation of an arrest at home or work. Posted by Steve Perry at October 6, 2005 08:25 AM</snip>
[Blunderov] Speculation is running at fever pitch about what the volunteering by Rove of additional testimony to the federal grand jury might mean. This is considered by some experts to be a risky move.
Attention is also converging on the Espionage Act which has amongst its provisions that:
"(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or"...
[Bl.](my personal favorite)
"(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy."
[Bl.] It seems telling to me that, in spite of the recent roosting of many nasty chickens, the Whitehouse appears to really have had eyes only for this one.