Special Analysis Report:
The Valerie Plame Scandal, Part Three
Seven hundred thirty-five days have now passed since Mr. Novak published the status of Valerie Plame as an NOC operative.
Five hundred fifty-six days have now passed since Mr. Comey appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing in the matter.
To date, only Judith Millera pro-Bush Administration journalist who did not publish information, but who was provided information by others that she then conveyed to journalists and White House staffhas been jailed. Other journalists have been threatened with jail for similarly resisting compulsion to testify before the federal grand jury convened at Mr. Fitzgerald's behest.
Mr. Novak has not been pressured in the same public and aggressive manner, possibly because he elected early on to provide the grand jury with everything he knew.
President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney were not compelled to testify under oath before the grand jury; instead, Mr. Fitzgerald informally interviewed them, with Mr. Bush being allowed, according to the account in the Washington Post, to have his personal attorney, James E. Sharp, present during the entire session. This has the practical consequence of removing all possibility that either of these men could be charged with perjury.
In recent days, Matt Cooper, who had been provided information about Ms. Plame's status an an NOC operative, finally testified before the grand jury concerning whom he had contacted within the Administration as he sought verification and background on the information in his possession about Ms. Plame. He named both White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, and the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby; but in both cases, he reports that they only confirmed to a greater or lesser degree what he recounted to them as his facts under journalistic investigation. This does not mean that they were not already far more versed than he in the entire matter, but what Mr. Cooper claims he told the grand jury does not portray them as the original sources of the disclosures about Valerie Plame.
The mainstream media and the Blogosphere are now, and once again, talking roundly about indictments that may soon be forthcoming based upon the recent testimony by Mr. Cooper, as well as upon other recent revelations. This current excitement is reminiscent of a flurry of journalistic speculation that occurred late in the Summer last year, when articles appeared in The Washington Post and elsewhere speculating that the investigation had reached some kind of "critical stage," and indictments were imminent. As it turned out, no indictments occurred, and there was no critical stage that set the world inside the Beltway on its ear about the whole scandal. This makes the current round of speculation appear to be one more instance either of the journalistic community whipping itself into a speculative frenzy or of interests aligned with the federal prosecutor crafting yet another watershed of speculation that will prove unwarranted. In support of this latter possibility are surprising leaks coming from attorneys and others close to the grand jury and witnesses: Mr. Fitzgerald has demonstrated that, when he wants to, he can maintain an iron curtain around his investigations, so any information now trickling out is most likely arriving in the public domain, if not by his direct efforts, at least with his tacit permission.
Below are the principal parties involved in the investigation, along with an analysis, in part factual and in part forensic, of the role of each.
Patrick Fitzgerald
Named to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame by a political appointee of the Bush Administration, Mr. Fitzgerald operates without direct oversight by the Congress or by any other independent authority. Expenditures on the investigation are drawn from the pool of funds of the Justice Department, headed as it is by another political appointee. There exists no separate, clear, readily auditable trail of expenditures by Mr. Fitzgerald pursuant to the investigation, and he reports to no one outside the Justice Department. No means exist even to determine how much money Mr. Fitzgerald has spent to the end of having judicial imprimatur on the termination of what remained of journalistic source confidentiality.
Regardless, then, of any indictments or other actions that might or might not please opponents of the Bush Administration, results of the special counsel's investigation are prima facie fruits of a poison tree. No amount of prosecutorial gravity and assurances of integrity and trustworthiness overcomes the closed and interlocked relationship this prosecutor has to the Bush Administration, whether or not, in the end, he successfully obtains indictments against one or more unelected members of Mr. Bush's group.
Judith Miller
Although the news media in general, and The New York Times reporter Judith Miller in particular, have successfully framed her resistance to disclosing her sources as a First Amendment press freedom issue, revelations this week point clearly to Ms. Miller, herself, being a substantive source of the information about Ms. Plame's identity. Whether or not Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, and others knew all about Valerie Plame before being contacted by journalists, it was Judith Miller who seems to have had all the information any journalistMr. Cooper includedwould need to confuse the situation of where the ball actually began to roll. This is eerily similar to a disinformation tactic used in the run-up to the war in Iraq, when Ms. Miller reported bogus information fed to her by exiled Iraqis, who then used her articles to "prove" to Congress that their claims were being independently verified by American investigative journalists.
Judith Miller, whom Norman Solomon accuses of seeking to vault her flagging career with her minimum security prison stay, is instrumentalizing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as a foil for what is actually a Fifth Amendment issue. She had come into possession of potentially classified information, and she passed that information to others. Her refusal to testify before the grand jury, and to thereby expose herself to questions regarding not only from whom she obtained the information, but also her motives and justifications for conveying the information, is an exercise in the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. By testifying fully and truthfully, Ms. Miller could very well have described to an indictable level acts on her part in violation of relevant federal laws.
Matt Cooper
After testifying before the grand jury last week, Mr. Cooper hit the talk show circuit to reveal what he had said behind the jury's closed doors. This in itself is stunning because of the prosecutor's previous, nearly absolute lock-down on the grand jury proceedings; it gives further evidence, as suggested above, that the current spate of information coming out about the investigation is being at least permitted and perhaps orchestrated by or on behalf of Mr. Fitzgerald, himself. Mr. Cooper's Time magazine article describing what he told the grand jury and his interviews on Sunday television news shows could have been unwitting aid to a prosecutor seeking to rattle investigative targets or, less charitably to Mr. Fitzgerald, a sack of red meat he wanted to toss to journalists to keep Congressional Democrats and other liberal interests worked up while he lets the grand jury run out its clock.
One way or the other, strikingly absent from all of Mr. Cooper's post-testimony statements was a long-winded, unambiguous, and forthright disclosure of exactly where, how, and when he got his information. His detailed memories of whom he used within the Administration to confirm what he had obtained were on explicit display; his detailed memories of what story he abandoned so that he could pursue the leads about Valerie Plame were pounded out; the precision of his recollection that neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Libby told him Valerie Plame's name was remarkably sharp.
But at least in his post-testimony article and interviews, he was oblique or silent on the details of his original source. This does not mean he didn't disclose it to the grand jury: Mr. Cooper did not leave the grand jury room bound for jail, and that could mean Mr. Fitzgerald got what he wanted but is not allowing the public to be privy to material facts and allegations revealed in Mr. Cooper's testimony.
Karl Rove
Despite the burning desire of liberals to see Mr. Rove imprisoned for the better part of Eternity, his role in the Valerie Plame scandal will earn him far less punishment. In Part One of this series, the case was made that the disclosure of Valerie Plame as an NOC operative did not rise to a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Although conservative and Right-wing pundits have made this claim all along, it has been echoed even from progressive quarters. Long-time Bush Administration critic John Dean agreed, re-iterating in a Findlaw article published Friday that, "There is no solid information that Rove, or anyone else, violated this law..." Mr. Dean goes on to make the case that, despite Mr. Rove's relatively clear escape from prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, his actions might be the subject of indictments pursuant to other statutes, not the least of which would be those relating to interference with or frustration of on-going intelligence activities. Unfortunately, Mr. Cooper's testimony apparently offers independent verification that Mr. Rove seemingly made his answers to Mr. Cooper's inquiries without mens rea, anyway. That Mr. Rove would claim he acted without criminal mind might very well serve to send into transcendent apoplexy those on the Left who assign him only slightly lesser status than Satan; but seeking and possibly even seeing the wrong charges brought against Mr. Rove will not only result in his exoneration, but also turn him into a far more politically powerful and dangerous man than he already is. Should Mr. Fitzgerald actually obtain an indictment against Mr. Rove for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the prosecutor will have revealed far more about his own desire to see Mr. Rove exonerated than he will have offered a federal district court in cause for a finding of guilt.
Richard Cheney
Leaks from the investigation reported last week by The New York Times and other papers describe high-level interest in the Administration about Mr. Wilson and his wife possibly as much as several months before Mr. Wilson wrote his op-ed piece refuting Mr. Bush's and others' statements about Saddam Hussein trying to buy yellowcake in Africa. Apparently, Colin Powell or another senior Administration official had ordered a report on Mr. Wilson, and that report was shared among the members of President Bush's inner circle. It is now claimed that Mr. Powell, himself, was hand-carrying a copy of it while in the company of other top Administration officials while they were on a trip in Africa several days after Mr. Wilson had gone public with his charges against Mr. Bush's representations. The order for the report coming before Mr. Wilson went public runs unquestionably counter to the claim by some that the entire scandal arose from an act of revenge by the Bush Administration against a critic. Even though outing his wife had the effect of revenge, the initial interest in Mr. Wilson by the Vice President and the Secretary of State has a far more troubling implication, one having to do with a seemingly unrelated cause of concern about the Bush Administration.
The Downing Street Memo is the name given in the press to what has actually come to be a series of documents from the British government during the run-up to the Iraqi War: these documents summarize remarks made by officials of the Blair government as they openly and rather glibly discussed the Bush Administration's "fixing" of intelligence to fit its claim that war against Saddam Hussein was necessary. This comports tightly with claims made within the United States, itself, notably those of now-retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski concerning systematic activities at the Department of Defense to shape and distort information to be issued to public officials and the press. Similar claims have been made about how Vice President Richard Cheney personally oversaw and possibly bullied Central Intelligence Agency analysts to come up with results that fit the Bush Administration's desire to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Should Mr. Cheney, having himself already publicly invoked images of "mushroom clouds," have learned of a group within the Central Intelligence Agency that was sending out non-CIA personnel to investigate what the Administration had featuredmost starkly in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union addressas clear and compelling cause for military action, then the Vice President would have had keen and highly prejudicial interest in finding out more, not just about Mr. Wilson, but also about the group within the Agency that had tasked Mr. Wilson to Africa in what was obviously a role not blindly seeking to prove everything the Administration was representing to the American public. It would be highly unlikely that Vice President Cheney, himself, would have passed information to outside sources; it would not be as unlikely for him to explicitly or indirectly do so through his chief of staff.
I. Lewis Libby
Named by Mr. Cooper this week as one of the individuals he contacted to confirm his information about Valerie Plame, Vice President Richard Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, is now directly in the finger-pointing sights of those seeking indictments against Bush Administration officials. Again, however, as is the case with Karl Rove, Mr. Cooper clearly states that he told the grand jury that Mr. Libby did nothing more than confirm elements of Mr. Cooper's information. And again, whether or not these men were involved in the original dissemination of that information to outside parties, Mr. Cooper's representations do nothing to confirm that. Mr. Libby, therefore, at worst will not be indicted on high charges arising from violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But even if he were to be so charged, the question remains one of who within the Bush Administration put the information into Judith Miller's hands in the first place.
Other Suspects
Although Bush Administration neo-conservatives like Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz have been suggested from time to time, a somewhat more pointed focus, at least in the Blogosphere, has turned to an individual largely unknown outside Washington circles: David Wurmser, who is described by writer Mark Perelman as a neo-conservative scholar with deep ties to Right-wing political interests in Israel. During the period in which the information about Mr. Wilson and his wife was passed to outsiders, Mr. Wurmser was the senior advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, an office held at the time by none other than John Bolton, now the controversial and stalled nominee for United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Should Mr. Wurmser turn out to be the original leaker, Democratic opposition to Mr. Bolton's proposed appointment to the U.N. would become virtually insurmountable. Perhaps less obvious would be the damage done to certain Israeli interests, which have been among the Bush Administration's staunchest allies, were one of their policy conduits to be convicted of charges involving national security breaches. But the greatest fallout could come because of the choice appointment Mr. Wurmser was awarded subsequent to his work for John Bolton. In September of 2003, having burnished his credentials as a neo-conservative war hawk and advocate of destabilizing the existing regime in Syria, Mr. Wurmser was tapped by Dick Cheney to serve on the Vice President's national security advisory council, headed by none other than I. Lewis Libby. The stench of a political reward for a dirty deed well done is palpable.
This would not, of course, be the first time that a little-known and therefore little-noticed underling had carried water for better known and more visible government officials; and it is not difficult to imagine that nailing the heaviest indictment on Mr. Wurmser's hide would, in the long run, be a relief to the Bush Administration, provided it could spin Mr. Wurmser to look like an unsanctioned rogue who violated sacred trust vested in him by well-meaning Administration officials.
It would, however, put Judith Miller in a very difficult position: having had her original sources outed, she would find it quite difficult to retain her status as a martyr for First Amendment freedom of the press. As a result, she would have to scurry from the noble cover of suffering for the public good to the wholly selfish, but equally useful, cover of her own, personal right against self-incrimination. That, however, wouldn't be much of a deterrent to a dedicated prosecutor: even though she has shown her will not to incriminate herself, plenty of people within the Bush Administration would be more than happy to hang her out to dry right along with Mr. Wurmser.
And special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would have quite a bit of incentive to wrap up his investigation with successful indictments and convictions of a minor Administration player and a pro-Administration journalist, both of whom had done their duty and thereby had outlived their usefulness.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.
Part One Part Two
of this series.
<< 45 Comments Total
mr wraith--thanks for the recap. it does seem possible that rove or libby may be criminally liable for confirming the identity of a cia operative, as they are responsible, according to something called CINA, which they signed, for determining whether info is classified before confirming it.
also, the language used by the judge, who has seen all the testimony given to the grand jury, affirming the civil contempt citation against miller and cooper includes the phrase "the plot against wilson."
judge tatel (i think i have that name correct) also included in his decision affirming the contempt citation that if this was not such a serious matter to national security he would not order journalists to testify.
and let us not forget that joe wilson is the whitleblower here, not rove. i think it ill-serves journalists to defend the confidentaility of rumor mongers. rove was lying about both wilson's report and mrs. wilson's role in sending him to niger.
small wonder that so many have such a low opinion of both politicians and "reporters." the politician whispers in the reporters ear and the reporter treats that as fact.
the ny times has already had to apologize publicly for miller's role in pimping the war by relying on "confidential sources."
Thank you for the information post Mr. Wraith. Very detailed. I believe Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rove should all go to jail but I realize they will not. I don't think they should go to jail over the Plame case but they should go to jail for lying to the American Public, getting us into war with Iraq leading to the deaths of 1800 service men/women and 26,000 Iraqis, and the blatant corruption that is taking place ($9 Billion lost, Halliburton no-bid contracts etc).
These are just a few reasons why I feel the United States is in the twilight of its civlization as I wrote on my website:
The Twilight of Our Civilization
Eight Signs The End May Be Near
Scadapaly
Good Afternoon, Dark Wraith.
Thanks for the explanation/recap of the Plame Scandal.
It seems the only one to go to jail, at this point, will be Judith Miller, and perhaps, this Mr. Wurmser. That doesn't seem fair to the people of the US. It's pretty sad that all these people owe their "loyalty" to the current admin so the needed prosecutions may not be accomplished!
In all three parts of this series, I argued that the Justice Department was taking advantage of the outing of Valerie Plame to use public funds to put the last nail in the coffin of journalistic source confidentiality.
Now we can see their true colors on full display: according to The Washington Post, the DoJ is weighing in against a bill before Congress to shield reporters. And who of all people just wrote the statement to Congress opposing the shield law, calling it "bad public policy"?
Why, it's James Comey. The name might ring a bell from pointed comments I made in Parts Two and Three of this series. Remember? He's the Acting Attorney General overseeing Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame scandal!
Will coincidences never cease?
The Dark Wraith wonders if the Bush Administration's lackeys will ever stop using outrageous crimes against Americans just to pursue the neo-con agenda.
Good evening, Dark Wraith.
You said: The Dark Wraith wonders if the Bush Administration's lackeys will ever stop using outrageous crimes against Americans just to pursue the neo-con agenda.
Wonder no more. The answer is a big, "Hell No!" Why stop when it works SO well?
ok. i'm back. not understanding why more folks haven't commented here. also not understanding why anyone with an honest conscience would grant a promise of confidentiality to rove. or scooter libby.
seems to me that the big story here is the lying, er misrepresentation of facts, about iraq.
i am curious, DW, about what you mean by "results of the special counsel's investigation are prima facie fruits of a poison tree." do you mean that in the legalistic sense, that no indictments or trials or convictions can result? do you suggest that fitzgerald is deliberately screwing up?
i admit quite mixed feelings about granting "reporters" special status not accorded other citizens in regard to testimony before a grand jury investigating possible crimes. how does "just doing my job" absolve novak or miller from merely repeating administration spin without checking facts? it seems to me that rove's assertions about both wilson's report and his wife's role in assiging him the mission have been shown to be false, and that that was easily ascertainable at the time.
dpr asked
"...do you suggest that fitzgerald is deliberately screwing up"?
My own response, not speaking for the Wraith, is that he is perhaps not going FAR ENOUGH with his investigation. Whether that's a form of "screwing up" is better left to legal analysts. Is Fitzgerald investigating the persecution of a whistleblower or, the manipulation of intelligence that led to war? I suppose only HE can answer those questions.
Have you read Justin Raimondo's analysis at http://antiwar.com/justin/ ?
OT, but since it's gotten so quiet here I don't know where else to put it:
China begins to de-link yuan from greenback.
It will be interesting to see how real this is and what impact (if any) it has on the US economy.
- oddjob
oddjob--oh yeah. china and money. where is that going?
peter---whether fitzgerald is going after the larger or smaller story, at least more people seem interested now in both.
peter--thanks for the link to justin raimondo. what an interesting view he has!!! as we say in clicheland----the usual suspects. a bubbling civil war within the executive branch. puppetmaster cheney. a presidential puppet? one can only hope that fitzgerald is after the big picture.
Also OT, but well worth the read. (Hat tip, Blondsense.)
- oddjob
Good morning, Dread Pirate Roberts. I am so glad that you and several others wrote comments on this article. Perhaps it should go without saying that my views on this matter are unpopular. The oblique, negative references elsewhere in the Blogosphere to my expositions and logic notwithstanding, I choose to frame this matter in a manner different from what has become the rigid orthodoxy of the Left.
Karl Rove is drawing fire. He is a tactician, not a strategician; and tactics will always win the day as long as long as they shape the response of an opposing force. Although some may see clear and compelling evidence against Rove in this matter, "clear and compelling" is not the threshold for conviction; neither even is a "preponderance of evidence." The evidence must make it all the way to being "beyond reasonable doubt." To those not familiar with legal concepts, these may all seem like words on a page, but I can assure you that they will be instruments Rove will use like weapons against any prosecutor who actually seeks conviction. Put that in the context of the Intelligence Identities Protection act, with its very high hurdles for criminal violation thereunder, and it's going to do no good to chant mantras of "He's guilty, he's guilty, he's guilty" any more than it has done a shred of good to stand around outside of police barriers haranguing, "Hey-hey, ho-ho, George Bush must go!" Others are free to do this at will; others are also free to damn me to the eternal fires of Hell for insisting upon a rigorous and wholly cynical approach to the prospects for indictments and convictions. But I've never been one to jump on bandwagons just so people will like me. The Bush Administration's neo-cons and their allies out in the think tanks, in the corporations, in academia, in the military, and in Congress are bad guys on a scale that makes me pine for the days of Nixon and Reagan, when our opponents were either complete amateurs or at least played by old rules. These new cats aren't amateurs, and they play by the old rules only when it suits their needs: they have no fundamental moral affinity to preserving the battlefields for a time when policy wars are not in session.
The term "fruit of a poison tree" is used in its legal sense to describe evidence, albeit perhaps immensely important, arising from an act or process that was unlawful. An unwarranted search may yield what is clearly a murder weapon, but that weapon in the place that it was found is the fruit of a poison tree of an unlawful search and seizure. Prosecutors can twist and turn quite impressively seeking to allow it into evidence at trial, and a compliant judge might buy into some well-crafted argument; but the court does so at risk of having a resulting conviction overturned at appeal, thus wasting the time and resources of his court and getting a repudiation at the appellate level. In the context of the investigation of the Valerie Plame scandal, Patrick Fitzgerald as the investigator is the product of a political process. After all of the assurances and recusals and gravity slathered onto this investigation, nothing can change the fact that no outside authority has any oversight—nor does any independent authority have any right to oversight—whatsoever in this investigation. Period.
Fitzgerald could frogmarch George W. Bush out the front gates of the White House, and I would still want to know what charges were being filed, what evidence existed, what precedents stand, and what defenses exist, particularly under Executive Privilege.
Now, about Valerie Plame. Terms like "CIA agent," "NOC operative," and "blown cover" are hollow without context and in the absence of understanding of how the world of intelligence gathering works. "Non-official cover" (NOC) operatives come in several different flavors. In a somewhat oversimplified analogy, they are like "market makers" on the New York Stock Exchange, who work for their own penny, posting bids and asks on a certain grouping of stocks. Market makers are crucial to the function of many exchanges because they provide the breach of imbalances between demand and supply for a given stock not only with the paper, itself, but also with the prices that will clear the amount being supplied with that being demanded. NOCs provide other consumers within the intelligence community with information to fill breaches where the need for information exceeds the supply that more traditional intelligence-gathering operations can provide. This was precisely what was going on when a group within the CIA sought the help of Valerie Plame concerning the now-infamous Iraqi-Niger document: there was a need for intelligence information to fill a gap created by a document that had come in from left field. The document on its face was suspicious, not so much because of material flaws in its appearance, but rather because it indicated a transaction process in Niger that simply seemed impossible: yellowcake in Niger is under the iron-fist control of an entity overseen by France. This document was cut from a whole cloth of intent to circumvent that sovereign and long-standing monopoly. Could such a back channel be possible? If so, it would have important implications, most specifically in the on-going investigation of the sales of nuclear weapons fuel processing equipment by the Pakistani, Dr. A.Q. Khan: it's one thing for that merchant of tools for death to be selling the hardware, but if the yellowcake that goes into the centrifuges and comes out weapons grade were also available, the global situation with respect to nuclear arms proliferation would be far worse than anyone had suspected. It is highly doubtful, though, that the CIA group that solicited Ms. Plame's assistance in getting to the bottom of the document believed for a minute that there was a high probability of authenticity for that document. More likely, they knew it was a forgery, and they wanted to know who had done it.
Now, before I complete that thought and this exposition, let me make a small point, here, about the world of intelligence operatives. Pounding the pulpit about what heroic figures they are is fine in the abstract; but make no mistake about what they are. In their highest and most professional roles, they are at once the hunters and the hunted, liars and truth-seekers, bright-white lions of a nation's security and pitch-black agents of harm and mayhem. A few of them live in a world of action and adventure that common people think only exists in the movies; others of them spend endless days and nights poring over masses of noise looking for meaning in the madness of documents, words, rumors, objects, pictures, and numbers. Idolizing or otherwising romanticizing them is nice; but if you ever get in the gunsights of a spy, you will find that the world of rules, human dignity, and mercy are simply not there. Admire a skilled predator all you want; but unless you have a really strong stomach, don't look too closely at its teeth, for there you will see the flesh of animals both great and small, both cruel and innocent, who have been its past meals.
Now, returning to the main point, in the end, I shall be more than happy to see Karl Rove take a fall. I am thrilled to see a wild pack of dogs now chasing that man over hill and dale, even as I hear him giggling with glee, taunting the hounds as they close in on him.
Yes, I am glad for that because, as he runs hither and yon, capturing the attention of creatures far too long denied the taste of real blood, Mr. Rove might not notice that a few dogs are foregoing the thrill of that chase to keep walking down the trail, even as it gets cold, that leads to the answer to a question far, far more important than the one about who outed an NOC operative.
While Fitzgerald, bloggers, and even now the mainstream media race to bring down the mad dog, the mad dog will not have time to protect those who forged the document that set this entire, complicated, exhilerating chase in motion.
At the end of the hunt, as Mr. Rove meets his end in a festival of much-deserved legal carnage, perhaps those few dogs who forestalled having their dinner will find a much more satisfying meal at the end of the black trail of national betrayal upon which might wait, one after the other, men like Wurmser, Bolton, Abrams, and finally, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney.
Patience might be its own reward; but the bounteous feast at the end of a long and lonely hunt is pretty darned satisfying, too.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.
DW--thanks for the reply.
i understand the rigorous requirement for a criminal conviction re rove. i also like the possibility, raised elsewhere, that conspiracy, that catchall, to commit something illegal may be a possible charge. and wouldn't i just love it if the douchebag of liberty (thank you jon stewart) novak were to be included.
even if rove is never charged i think it is salutary for the country to get a look beneath his rock.
i'm still not understanding your take on the "poison tree" thing. are you saying that the investigation was begun illegally and therefore that any charge could be challenged on that ground? my impression so far is that fitzgerald is not the sort to seek indictments and commence prosecution without being overprepared.
i do agree wholeheartedly that the bigger picture is the important one. i do suspect that there is a major disagreement, perhaps an understatement, perhaps more of an insider civil war, between the cia and fbi on one side and, roughly speaking, cheney's group, on the other.
somebody seems to have "lied us into war." so we are back to "what did the president know, and when did he know it?" the current situation does make nixon and reagan's stuff seem almost petty.
That's because in comparison it is petty.
- oddjob
Precisely, OddJob.
The Dark Wraith misses the old days.
Also OT, but this is worth a read, too. (Hat tip, Agitprop.)
- oddjob
Good evening, Dread Pirate Roberts.
Let me not be circumspect about my use of the term "fruit of a poison tree." There was nothing illegal or illicit in Assistant Attorney General James Comey's appointment of federal prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald to head the investigation of who leaked the name Valerie Plame to the press. Nothing within the law of the land or regulations within the Justice Department strikes me or any sane observer as indicating that Mr. Comey was acting other than entirely legally in the appointment.
The issue is that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald reports to a political appointee and has no oversight other than that of Mr. Comey, who serves with respect to this investigation as the Acting Attorney General in the absence by recusal of the United States Attorney General. Even if it were not the case that Attorney General Gonzales has three assistants who have not recused themselves in this investigation but who were at the White House providing counsel at the time that Mr. Gonzales was advising Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney about the Valerie Plame matter, anyone connected to the Justice Department would still have the taint of conflict of interest. It is irrelevant that Mr. Fitzgerald can represent to "uphold the law" without regard to political influence in this matter. Aside from the weak standards of the Bar regarding the general conduct of officers of the court, no means of oversight outside of, beyond, or independent of Mr. Comey exists. That expressly makes the process and results of any investigation permanently and materially subject to question and ultimate skepticism.
That Mr. Fitzgerald declined the opportunity to subpoena Mssrs. Bush and Cheney—and thereby subject them to the regular course of a federal grand jury's rules, scrutiny, and judicial oversight—serves only to confirm that the chief investigator is interested in a line of inquiry that cannot implicate certain individuals.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr called before a grand jury a sitting President of the United States and instrumentalized that grave and highly controversial forum of sworn testimony to trap that President in the humiliating position of either lying about a trivial, personal matter or disclosing the same. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, having precisely the same resource in a federal grand jury, chooses to conduct a non-custodial, "informal" interview with a sitting President, who was allowed counsel to be with him—something not available to a witness before a grand jury—in a criminal probe involving a possible breach of national security.
This is but one glaring example of how a tree seeded in politics and potted in the soil of conflict of interest bears a bitter and poison fruit indigestible by generations to come that will look back on the results of this investigation.
Perhaps indictments of high officials will be forthcoming. That does not mean, however, that the final outcome of this entire, sordid process rises to any level other than that of a political whitewash that has perhaps removed a tumor from the Administration, but has done nothing to deal with the cancer than has been from the very start the body of that Administration's stewardship of this nation.
The Dark Wraith has said his peace.
This does not mean that they were not already far more versed than he in the entire matter, but what Mr. Cooper claims he told the grand jury does not portray them as the original sources of the disclosures about Valerie Plame.
I can't understand how you came to this conclusion based on Cooper's article in Time about his testimony. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning here?
For those who don't have a subscription to Time the article can be found on Truthout.
I do agree that Rove is leading the dogs on a merry chase. The brouhaha about his recent comments comparing liberals to conservatives merely served as a bloody rag to draw the dogs' attention to him before all the latest Plame stuff broke.
Morning all!,
Thanks for staying on top of the "game" DW.
Would like to recommend some interesting reading published last year in the Middle East Policy Council magazine by Patrick Lang.
He is one of the retired CIA personnel ( served as an officer in the army then became part of the DIE), who testified yesterday before Waxman's panel on Disclosing Covert Intelligence Identities.
It is appropriately titled
"Drinking the Kool-Aid". A google search will pull it up.
In it he gives a pretty comprehensive timeline and background of many of the "distingished" members involved in the mixing of this libation.
Think I'll stick to my Manhattans!
p.s. wanted to also mention that I soooo agree with you..especially in regards to Judith Miller..what a piece of ...well, nevermind.
Brings to mind what one of my favorite characters on "Rescue Me" called the only female in their fire house..but I digress.
p.p.s.
ok sorry for not having all my thoughts in a row,
The Lang article I mention above helps to confirm your suspicions DW.
And Wurmser is mentioned in it..so there are others out there who are aware. The message is just effectively kept from most of the public.
Again it reminds me of the conversations I had with my brother who just refused to think anything like this was possible,,also my husband had his doubts at first..he always uses the Kennedy assassination as a starting point. No one can keep a secret for too long.
I for one wonder about that..quite possibly true, but they sure as heck can obfuscate the point!
Dark Wraith,
I should clarify my question. Are you saying that Cooper knew about Plame before he talked with Rove and then Scooter Libby? I'm confused as that isn't how I read it.
Elf - Lang's Drinking the Kool-Aid was very interesting reading. Since BushCo has been in charge I have come to the sad conclusion that Honor is no longer an American value.
DW---aaah yes. i see your point about the president's non-testimony.
It seems to me that people are complicating this issue beyond what it should be.
The issue (to me) is that GW Bush said he would fire anyone INVOLVED with the Valerie Plame leak.
We know for a fact that Rove and Libby were *involved* with the leak.
If the President were a man of his word he would fire these two clowns on principle. But Bush didn't. He changed the rules of the game in mid-stream (quite a common tactic for a NeoCon, bend rules to suit your needs).
Now Bush sayd "Anyone convicted of a crime" will be fired and as Dark Wraith has so eloquently, albeit long-windedly pointed out, proving a "crime" in this situation is going to be extremely difficult because of the language in the statute in question.
Back to my main point and focus:
Bush has said in the past he would fire *anyone involved* with the leak of Valerie Plame's name.
Now Bush changes his mind and phrasing.
This shows Bush is not a man of integrity or a man of his word.
This leads us to question Bush's honesty.
Which leads directly to the fact that Bush is a liar and should be impeached.
This all goes back to the downing street minutes, the manipulation of the pubic to engage in war with Iraq, and Bush's lying to the American People.
A lot of Republicans, some of them my friends, say "who cares if Bush lied, it was still the right thing to invade Iraq".
Well, Republicans, now its principle. Republicans have established that the Presidency should be an office of honesty and integrity by going after Clinton for lying over a blow job.
Now, Republicans MUST hold GW Bush to the same standard if they wish to maintain any credibility what so ever.
I can hear some now in the background..."But Clinton lied underoath, Bush has not".
Ah, but remember the cries about honesty, integrity, and truthfullness that came from the Republicans?
I find it fascinating that after a bunch of Republicans were outed for sexual infidelity during Clinton's impeachment that the argue shifted from Clinton's infidelity to "Clinton lied under oath".
Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword Republicans.
Yeah Yeah I have to plug my new website although it is still being built.
Scadapaly
Good evening, Auntie Roo. Thank you for posting a comment that asks me for more detail in what I have written to date. Believe it or not, I am most grateful for that opportunity and for your manner in posing the questions. As I have noted above, I've been taking some sideswipes of late, so I enjoy the discussion with folks who, like me, want to get to some semblance of truth rather than simply declare a position and not look at alternative views.
Let me quote Matthew Cooper from the article you cited above:
"As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her...
"So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No."
Moreover, Cooper makes the following statement: "Rove did, however, clearly indicate that [Valerie Plame, the unnamed person of their conversation] worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA..." (emphasis added)
Note here that Cooper does not tell the grand jury that he inquired of Rove whether or not the inference was accurate. Aside from sloppy investigative journalism, its a hole Rove could try to move his deep-background butt through.
That does not mean Cooper gave some kind of exculpatory testimony for Rove. It does mean that Cooper didn't go within a mile of handing Fitzgerald a smoking gun.
In a related matter, I've been seeing breathless commentaries about how there are "discrepancies" between Rove's and Cooper's accounts before the grand jury. There is nothing way, way out of the ordinary about this: pinning some "proof" of culpability on such is just nonsense. In fact, any prosecutor worth his salt is going to be very suspicious if two grand jury witnesses give precisely the same account of some event: that would smack of coördination of testimonies. The real issue is one of whether or not the discrepancies are material and attributable to some underlying intent to conceal the commission of a crime or knowledge thereof. It drives me mad when I see excitement building without the rigorous application of forensic standards. The discrepancies are not the issue; it is whether those Rove's and Cooper's points of differing account speak to an effort to hide something important to the disclosure of some important truth.
Does all of this let Rove off the hook? Absolutely not. Cooper is clear in stating that, "[It was] through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Look at the statement I quote preceding this one: Cooper inferred what Rove probably wanted him to infer, and Cooper's inference was correct.
Or was it? If you read the first two parts of my series on the Valerie Plame scandal, it is not entirely clear that Plame was in the "agency," at all. Somehow, somewhere in there, she had ended up in some kind of relationship with the Department of State. It is quite possible, by the way, that this is why it was Colin Powell who apparently ordered an investigation into Joe Wilson some time in the Spring of 2003. Valerie Plame was working with a group within the CIA that wanted to know about the veracity of the Iraqi-Niger document, but that does not mean she was "working for" the CIA. Rove put it in that configuration and so did Miller; then Cooper and Novak and others went down that path. But, Antie Roo, NOCs don't always work that way; and in Plame's situation, she was providing intelligence capabilities needed by both the "agency" and by the State Department.
The point I'm trying to make is that Rove is no genius when it comes to the world of spies. He had what looks to me to be a handle on information, but it wasn't entirely complete and accurate. Even the way Cooper is describing how he finally got a hold of Rove looks to me for all the world like Rove, initially avoiding such a direct role in the whole affair, decided at the last second to grab an opportunity to jump into the fray and talk to Cooper.
It was probably one of the stupidest mistakes he's ever made, and I'll bet you he knew it by the end of that conversation, when he grunted, "I've already said too much."
Now, some people might read that as Rove playing coy. I'm reading it that Rove knew he had moved himself into a vulnerable position: he, himself, had become a source, rather than the handler of sources.
Is Rove indictable? As Cooper notes (his favorable impressions of this particular grand jury notwithstanding), a federal grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if that's what the prosecutor asks them to do. Is he convictable? Maybe, but not necessarily, and without any alternatives, under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Is he the "big prize"? Absolutely not. Making him the focus of all the energy is ignoring the most important question: Who ordered the forgery of the Iraqi-Niger document?
Outing Valerie Plame was not a pretext for war; that document was. Outing Valerie Plame wasn't in any way a part of getting 1,700 American soldiers killed and tens of thousands wounded, many horribly; that document was. Outing Valerie Plame did not foment miserable, post-adolescent, Islamic nutjobs to become the bomb-toting packmule saps of hard-core Islamic terrorists pointing to American hegemony in Iraq; that document was part of what brought us to this unstoppable and monstrous place at the early morning of the 21st Century.
Here's what I think, Auntie Roo: Karl Rove blundered, and he blundered rather badly. He didn't have command of all the facts, and he had not properly configured tactics. Outing Plame didn't start with him, and his decision to jump in with a last-second decision to talk to Cooper "on background" has come back to bite him in the ass big-time. As I said in a previous comment, Rove is a tactician, not a strategician; he made a strategic error, but it is only as important as the stategicians in opposition to him can make use it as a weapon.
Rove has recovered from his strategic error by again, and aggressively, deploying tactical maneuvers; and he pressing tactics into the service of making his opponents believe that he is the evil that they want to hang as the proxy for an entire Administration corrupted to its very soul.
But I'll tell you this, right now: Karl Rove is George W. Bush's protector. Karl Rove adores and worships George W. Bush. If this spear of prosecutorial assault looks in any way, shape, or form like it's about to go through Karl Rove and on into the President, Karl Rove is going to turn that lance right into the path of every Tom, Dick, and Harry in that Administration; and he'll do so without a second thought. If it comes down to Bush or everyone else, Rove will hang Cheney, Powell, Tenet, Libby, Bolton, Wurmser, Abrams, and anyone else who looks like he could serve to satisfy a prosecutor's hunger for convictions.
In other words, Auntie Roo, if Karl Rove sees Bush going down, Karl Rove will become the John Dean of the Bush Administration. And one day—and I swear to the Lord God in Heaven that saying this makes me ill—just like John Dean, who was once reviled for his role in a previous Administration, now preaches a gospel that liberals like, so too may Karl Rove one day far in the future become some greybreard fountain of political talk from an armchair of experience and legal punishment.
That's how the Dark Wraith sees it, anway, and the Dark Wraith wants to just lie down with a cold, wet cloth on his head for thinking such an awful thing.
you are indeed troubled by dark thoughts. but then......you are a dark wraith. great analysis of the situation. i'm not so sure myself about rove's late participation in the event, but i certainly agree about what is more important.
i won't mind if rove throws them all overboard (and don't they all deserve to walk the plank) because that would, IMHO, rather cripple the lame duck. i'll accept rove as dean redux (uuuggghh) if we get a politically disabled bush.
Good evening, Dread Pirate Roberts.
You and I are both old enough to remember John Dean the Nixon White House Counsel, who became John Dean the whistleblower, who became John Dean the convicted felon, who finally became John Dean the champion of legal liberalism.
And by the way, for those who aren't into Watergate trivia, John Dean was convicted of the following: conspiracy to obstruct justice and to defraud the government.
So help me God, if an indictment against Rove includes counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy to defraud the government, the Dark Wraith will run out of the room screaming.
Good morning, Dread Pirate Roberts.
And here we have it. The Los Angeles Times is now reporting the Rove investigation with this headline:
"CIA Leak Investigation Turns to Possible Perjury, Obstruction"
That's as in 'Obstruction of Justice'.
The first paragraph reads:
"The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus from determining whether White House officials violated a law against exposing undercover agents to determining whether evidence exists to bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges, according to people briefed in recent days on the inquiry's status."
(emphasis added)
The Dark Wraith will leave it at that.
Hi,
I was reading your answer to Auntie Roos's inquiry and just have to jump in.
I really don't see Rove as thinking at all about any legal consequences in this. In other words he feels the law is in his back pocket.
Seems to me it was another case of the enemy spoke against Rove's side and must now be annihilated. At all costs.
That is how he and others in this group seem to operate. With impunity. And their track record is pretty good.
They all act as they wish and the hell with anyone who steps in their way.
You mention how they have put their people into the DOJ.
They put Goss in to clean house at the CIA.
Will the revolution be televised? lol.
Unfortunately, elf, the revolution already occurred.*
*Our side lost.
DW---are you done screaming? keep breathing. even tho he was kinda reconstituted later, nixon did leave office in disgrace. i wouldn't mind the disgrace part for dubya.
so far, even a supreme nomination hasn't knocked the story off the news.
Good evening, Dread Pirate Roberts.
I shan't be finished with my rant until the counter-revolution against the neo-cons has mounted a couple of serious trophies on the wall of reason and justice.
You are correct, I should note: the Supreme Court nomination has turned out to be a real snoozer, so far. It may yet heat up; but if it does at the right time, it will only add fuel to a fire of growing discontent with the entire mind-set of Bush Administration lackeys.
I still contend that the big fires aren't going to ignite until next year, but what's happening in the here and now is setting the stage for the revelations down the road to go through the Republicans like a seige engine through walls already degraded by previous hammerings.
We'll have to see, though. I could be wrong.
The Dark Wraith must occasionally acknowlege his stupendous fallibility.
[Curse the written record that follows a political analyst like a mangey dog.]
DW - are you sure that cheney and bush 'met with' fitzgerald together? i was never quite sure - the articles that i have read seem a little ambiguous. have you got a link on that one please? thnx.
If they wanted the SCOTUS nominee to really take the public eye off Rove's involvement in L'Affaire Plame they should have nominated a real ideological nutcase. That way their would have been weeks of thunderous howling from the left, causing exactly the right kind of spectacle to make the media change its focus of attention.
Instead they've nominated someone who, while quite possibly doctrinaire enough to wreck the country as we know it, hasn't created a big enough paper trail to make that very obvious, and beyond that he's appealingly bland.
A perfect choice to make the court, but not a perfect choice to keep the latest developments in the Plame affair out of the spotlight.
- oddjob
Wholly OT, but you may find this interesting political reading (I did):
Howard Dean - Rebel With a Cause.
It was in yesterday's Boston Sunday Globe Magazine.
- oddjob
Good morning, lukery.
Thank you so much for pointing that error out to me. I have corrected the relevant sentence in the article, now. Bush was interviewed in the Oval Office with his private attorney, James Sharp. Cheney was interviewed separately. As far as I can tell, Fitzgerald conducted the interview with Cheney under the same ground rules as he did with Bush. In other words, neither man was under oath, and each was allowed counsel during the interview.
Now, as it turns out, correcting the error you found in my article brought me to a small but rather stunning revelation.
When I went back to get these facts straight, a small facet occurred to me: apparently, Cheney was interviewed before Bush. That is far more significant, in my judgment, than if Bush and Cheney had been interviewed together. Cheney is a much, much brighter man than Bush; he would be much more capable of handling himself well during a grilling, and he would then be able to craft all kinds of tutorials for Bush on what to say to different questions and lines of inquiries the prosecutor might put to Bush. Effectively, Fitzgerald telegraphed in advance just about his entire interview with Bush through Cheney.
And moreover, this makes me even more curious about the role that Alberto Gonzales would have played in this crucial period. Did Cheney brief Gonzales on what had happened during his interview with the prosecutor? If so, documents should be demanded pursuant to any such communications. As Chief White House Counsel, it would have been almost necessary for Gonzales to have wanted at least some information from Cheney about what happened during the interview, if for no other reason than that it was Gonzales' job to advise the White House staff.
Did Fitzgerald order Cheney not to disclose anything about what had occurred during the interview, and would Cheney have abided by any such order, anyway?
So many questions. So many neo-cons. Lord knows where it all ends.
Anyway, thank you, lukery.
The Dark Wraith needs to put this man on his research staff.
Good morning, OddJob.
I was taken somewhat aback by how in-depth that Boston Globe article was. I was also pleasantly surprised that at least some mainstream media seem to have laid off portraying Dean's entire character in terms of that sham about him "screaming" that night in Iowa. Although I am still troubled by rumors about Dean's violent temper, I cannot think of a man better for the chairmanship of the Democratic Party at this moment. Sometimes, I swear he's the only man in the Party who's not afraid to tell the unvarnished truth about Bush. I also think there was no small amount of involvement by Democratic milquetoast powerbrokers in bringing about Dean's demise in Iowa. The cowardly way the Democrats wanted to configure their fight against Bush for the Presidency just couldn't abide the hard-core attack style Dean was employing.
It sort of makes me wonder. Dean's temper is legendary. Perhaps his temper has a side that patiently waits for the opportunity to punish those within his own ranks, too.
The Dark Wraith hopes so.
next year, the time mr wraith predicts as the time of the "big fires," is also, as i'm sure he knows and has factored into his oracular wisdom, midterm elections. and we are starting to read rumors of a massive retreat, er, reduction in troop strength in iraq next year. so bush may try to claim victory there, in spite of all the obvious bad news.
i'm sure all of you politics junkies have by now read that AG gonzalez saw fit to notify WH chief of staff card immediately about the justice dept investigation of l'affair plame, and left out the part about "preserve all material" until the next day. i guess all those lawyers wouldn't know that destroying the paper trail is a no-no unless they got specific notice.
love the steady drip of info about bad behavior in bushco. maybe blind loyalty to a putz isn't enough to make everyone involved sell out the country.
maybe blind loyalty to a putz isn't enough to make everyone involved sell out the country.
Self-preservation is a wonderfully powerful motivator sometimes (although I think the Bush family has a history of searching for those willing to forego it).
Glad you liked the article, DW! I agree about Dean. When I first heard he was running for president I was thoroughly convinced he must be a fool. (The Governor of Vermont thinks he's ready for the big tent???) I rapidly underwent a change of heart as I saw & heard bits & snippets during the campaign. I will never forgot how viscerally thrilled I was when I heard on the radio his quote regarding the capture of Hussein. What he said was EXACTLY what I had been thinking - good to catch the butcher, but didn't do diddly squat to make America a safer place.
He was roundly ridiculed for that by the Repubs., but he was 100% correct.
If only he didn't run his mouth quite as much as he does..... I'm with Barney Frank on that. Dean's comments overreach too much and that will only get him in trouble.
What goes on in Dean's mind is, I believe, where most Americans of my generation (& I'm very late baby boom) want the country to be - fiscally sane, socially liberal. I don't know that I'd agree with him on everything he has in mind, but I like the perspective he brings to things.
In some ways it almost reminds one of Bobby Kennedy, no?
- oddjob
"Cheney is a much, much brighter man than Bush" - lol - night indeed does follow day. in fact your characterisation is absurd - its like saying a hill is much bigger than a turblossom.
that in a comment earlier today, you horse-whispered (in a vader kinda way) about london. is there anything particular? you can whisper me in private via email if you prefer. i thought id probably covered most theories already (not that im aiming to be comprehensive)
i am the light wraith. or the bright waif. or something.
I think the *censored* Dubya Bush has a more violent temper than the good Howard Dean.
Just saying....
Ah yes, the "scream". Here's a partial text to a reply I sent to a letter published in a university newspaper:
"Above all, the Iowa caucuses put the candidates in the spotlight. It's a test. It might not be what the campaigns want, because extended media attention often leads to gaffes or loud, obnoxious shrieks (i.e., Howard Dean)."
"So says Mark Simons.
But of course, serious students of politics, journalism, and economics will realize that in the case cited, the media caused the "loud, obnoxious shriek" by manipulating the audio (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/9224):
"Last year, a young cable news producer attended one of our twice-yearly Ethics Institutes at Washington and Lee University, in which students and journalists gather to discuss newsroom wrongdoing. He brought two clips.
"The first was the familiar pool footage of Dean in Iowa. The candidate filled the screen, no supporters were visible. Crowd noise was silenced by the microphone he held, which deadened ambient sounds. You saw only him and heard only his inexplicable screaming.
"The second clip was the same speech taped by a supporter on the floor of the hall. The difference was stunning. The place was packed. The noise was deafening. Dean was on the podium, but you couldn't hear him. The roar from his supporters was drowning him out.
"Dean was no longer scary, unhinged, volcanic, over the top. He was like the coach of a would-be championship NCAA football team at a pre-game rally, trying to be heard over a gym full of determined, wildly enthusiastic fans. I saw energy, not lunacy.
"The difference was context. As psychiatrist R.D. Laing once wrote: We see a woman on her knees, eyes closed, muttering to someone who isn't there. Of course, she's praying. But if we deny her that context, we naturally conclude she's insane.
"The Dean Scream footage that was repeatedly aired rests on a similar falsehood. It takes a man who in context was acting reasonably, and by stripping away that context transforms him into a lunatic.
"But that clip was aired an estimated 700 times on various cable and broadcast channels in the week after the Iowa caucus. The people who showed that clip are far more technically sophisticated than I and had to understand how tight visual framing and noise-suppression hardware can distort reality."
Good Evening Dark Wraith,
And Thank You, PoLT, for that explanation. I could never figure that one out - suspected it was a dirty trick, but, as I NEVER ONCE saw the footage, could not get it. (so you now know how often I watch cable and MSM!)
Dark Wraith,
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you but personal matters have kept me busy.
I thank you for giving more details of your reasoning. However I feel that you have not addressed the point that I was asking you about.
From your article:
One way or the other, strikingly absent from all of Mr. Cooper's post-testimony statements was a long-winded, unambiguous, and forthright disclosure of exactly where, how, and when he got his information. His detailed memories of whom he used within the Administration to confirm what he had obtained were on explicit display; his detailed memories of what story he abandoned so that he could pursue the leads about Valerie Plame were pounded out; the precision of his recollection that neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Libby told him Valerie Plame's name was remarkably sharp.
But at least in his post-testimony article and interviews, he was oblique or silent on the details of his original source.
I read this as saying that Cooper knew about Plame before talking with Rove and Libby. What is your source/line of reasoning for making this statement?
Peter of Lone Tree,
I read the TruthOut article about the Dean Scream earlier this year.
Funny, well not really, how that clip was used to present such a negative view of Dean to America...