The Political Chase

Sen. Schumer Writes President Bush

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wrote a letter to President Bush regarding Tom DeFrank’s article. I referenced DeFrank’s article when I wrote about the President allegedly having prior knowledge of the Plame-Wilson matter.

Schumer’s letter has been added to the document library and is available here.

A Very Special Scandal - New York Times

I did not read John Tierney’s column (sub. req.) until today. I don’t know what kind of gyrations the Times are going through, but at the moment tailspin and nosedive come to my mind.

Tierney must have joined the Judy “Run-a-Muck” fan club — protect the Times and the Bush administration. Moreover, he likens Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation to Ken Starr’s attempted coupe d’etat.

This case, if you can remember that far back, began with accusations that White House officials violated a law protecting undercover agents who could be harmed or killed if their identities were revealed. But it now seems doubtful that there was a violation of that law, much less any danger to the outed agent, Valerie Wilson.

The case originally aroused indignation because the White House appeared to be outing Wilson as part of a campaign to unfairly discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of ignoring his 2002 report debunking evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire material for nuclear weapons. But a Senate investigation found that his report not only failed to reach the White House but also failed to debunk the nuclear-material evidence - in fact, most analysts concluded the report added to the evidence.

So now the original justifications for the investigation have vanished, which is why I think of this as the Nadagate scandal. But the prosecutor has kept at it for two years. Besides switching to the vague law against disclosing classified information, he might indict Libby or Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice - crimes that occurred only because of the investigation. [Emphasis added.]

It sounds as if Tierny knows exactly what Fitzgerald has or doesn’t have. Maybe he should share that with his editors, and publish it. That may help heal the reputation the Times has earned by not publishing items that should have been made available to its readers.

Tierny goes on to imply that the public didn’t buy into Starr’s quest for anything he could come up with, and thereby the same principle will apply to the Plame-Wilson matter.

Perjury, of course, was the charge that Kenneth Starr accurately pinned on Bill Clinton, but the public didn’t buy it. People realized that whatever the affair and the cover-up said about Clinton’s character and judgment, the scandal was not a crime.

Hello, John — Clinton’s case was about his winky-pop and evolved to Starr looking under every rock he could turn over, just to see if something might be there; any rock would do, there wasn’t a prerequisite of a lead. Furthemore, no one was part of the Clinton team, from the cigar to the grand jury. The man stood alone, except for a few times iin the Oval Office.

This Valerie Wilson matter was initiated by a group of ill-intended, unethical and possibly criminal conspirators with an objective to (1) maliciously ruin people’s lives and (2) cover up an American president’s illegitimate claims to invade a soverign nation. And by the way, the killing of almost 2,000 American soldiers, tens of thousands of civilians, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in sight. But, those are just trivial matters to be put aside I suppose.

Unless Fitzgerald comes up with something unexpected, neither is Nadagate. For now, it looks as if the outing of Valerie Wilson was done by officials who didn’t think it was illegal and believed they were replying truthfully to a partisan who had smeared them. Hardball politics isn’t pretty, but it’s not criminal, either. [Emphasis added.]

Tierney and Richard Cohen at the Washington Post obviously attended some of the same classes.

Plame Investigation Hits the Oval Office

President Bush approved the campaign to discredit Valerie Plame Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson. The Daily News reports that Bush reprimanded Rove in 2003 not for the act itself, but for botching the smear campaign. While Bush made life tough for Rove covertly, he publicly remained loyal to Rove.

“Karl is fighting for his life,” the official added, “but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that.”

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush’s claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way,” the source said.

Apparently, the White House is preparing for its personal Katrina to blow the place down.

[Asking the source] if he believed indictments were forthcoming, a key Bush official said he did not know, then added: “I’m very concerned it could go very, very badly.”

Stay tuned…

Earthquake Death Toll Rises to 79,000

Earthquake Death Toll Rises to 79,000…so extremely hard to fathom.

Murray Waas on Miller and Libby

In an October 18 National Journal article, Murray Waas focuses on the discrepancies between the grand jury testimonies of Judy Miller, New York Times, and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby Miller. The grand jury, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald are investigating the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Furthermore, Waas also highlights the substantial conflicting activities and statements provided by the attorney’s representing Miller and Libby.

Murray recently published a revealing article in The National Journal on October 11, which alleged Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, did not tell the grand jury about key conversation(s) between Miller and Libby.

It appears Waas did his homework, as he cites key sources, which often can be interpreted to be Miller and Libby’s attorneys or other very similar authoritative sources.

As federal prosecutors in the CIA leak investigation reach the critical stage of deciding whether to bring criminal charges, they are zeroing in on contradictions between the testimony of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, and that of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, according to sources close to the investigation and attorneys for individuals enmeshed in the probe.

The prosecutors and the federal grand jury are also scrutinizing whether Libby, or his attorney, tried to discourage Miller from giving testimony to the grand jury, or tried to improperly influence what Miller would say if she testified, according to the same sources.

Murray highlights six critical points:

First point – Libby and Miller met on June 23, 2003, where they discussed Joseph Wilson’s CIA sponsored trip to Niger. This was the first time Libby allegedly discussed Plame with Miller. Libby did not disclose this meeting in two grand jury testimonies nor previously with FBI agents investigating the case. Miller debunked Libby’s assertions through her testimony and meeting notes presented to the grand jury.

Second point – Libby and Miller had a two-hour breakfast meeting on July 8, 2003.

“Libby has told federal investigators, according to legal sources familiar with his testimony, that he told Miller at the meeting that he had heard that Wilson’s wife had played a role in Wilson’s being selected for the Niger assignment. But Libby also testified that he never named Plame nor told Miller that she worked for the CIA, because either he did not know that at the time, or, if he had heard that Plame was a CIA employee, he did not know whether it was true.”

Libby is still denying conveying any information related to Plame-Wilson in a July 8th meeting, where it was proven he did so as early as June 23. For the July 8 meeting, Miller’s notes specifically refered to Winpac (Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control), a classifed operation within the CIA.

Third point – This is primarily about exchanges between Miller’s former attorney (Floyd Abrams) and Libby’s attorney (Tate). This is lengthy with a lot of “he said” and “no I didn’t.” The salient point is, there is a plethora of actiivty and statements which clearly lead Fitzgerald (and anybody else for that matter) to have significant concern that Libby, via his lawyer attempted to persuade Miller, through her lawyer, to exonerate Libby in any testimony she may give to investigators or the grand jury.

“Abrams said in an interview with National Journal that Tate passed along extensive details of Libby’s grand jury testimony. Abrams also said that during those conversations, Tate inquired as to what Miller would testify to the grand jury, and whether her testimony might be potentially damaging to his client. Abrams said he responded by telling Tate he was new to the case and did not know. When pressed during a second conversation, Abrams said that he simply did not answer Tate and changed the subject.

“Abrams said that Tate told him that Libby testified to the grand jury that he had never disclosed Plame’s name to Miller and that he never told Miller that Plame had worked undercover at the CIA. “

Tate of course denies any allegations of coercion, obstrucion, or witness tampering. Remember, Abrams was Miller’s first attorney in this matter. Robert Bennett is Miller’s attorney of record. So, what’s in it for Abrams to lie?

Fourth point – an issue that Libby, through Tate, according to Abrams, Miller’s lawyer, clearly asserted his initial waiver to Miller was indeed coerced.

“You [Tate] compared the coercion to that inherent in the effective bar imposed upon the White House employees asserting the Fifth Amendment. A failure by your client to sign the written waiver, you explained, like any assertion of your client of the Fifth Amendment, would result in his dismissal. You persuasively mocked the notion that any waiver signed under such circumstances could be deemed voluntary.”

Of course, Tate boldly denies Abrams statements, Otherwise, this and the third point lead down the path of obstruction, witness tampering, and perjury.

Fifth point – Libby’s September 15 “sleeping with the fishes” letter to Miller. According to Waas, Fitzgerald gets pretty wrapped in one paragraph.

“Because, as I am sure will not be news to you,” Libby wrote to Miller, “the public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.”

I haven’t heard a lawyer yet, that wasn’t taken back by the sheer stupidity of that graf. Just a little more fuel to the fire for witness tampering, obstruction and perjury.

Sixth point – This sounds like desperation to me. In summary, Abrams purportedly rejected the various and sundry attempts by Libby and Tate to maneuver Miller. So what does he do? He attempts to enlist at least three media sources to leak his testimony to the grand jury, enabling Miller to read it and possibly be persuaded before she testifies. This last ditched effort was put in play the night before Miller was to testify the next day. Libby’s insatiable desire to be a “former Hill staffer” was not received positively by the media sources.

The Washington Post did publish an online account of Libby’s testimonty, but that did not fly with Miller either. She contradicted Libby’s testimony to the grand jury.

Murray cites several legal professionals that collectively don’t generate a positive conclusion surrounding these six points. In other words, based upon what is said and known, Scooter may find himself facing some very difficult situations. He’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

Murray Waas has buried himself in Plamegate for months and the results are obvious. I don’t envision Waas being on a White House “must invite” list for special events. If he is, he is probably seated with Maureen Dowd at a table adjacent to a bathroom or kitchen access door.

Even with Murray’s accounting, there is much we do not know. Miller’s credibility is questionable at best just based upon the accuracy of her reporting prior to and during the Iraq war.