Nov 20, 2005 at 11:42 PM by Political Chase
First, let me say I think Fitzgerald has done an outstanding job. That said, I have to agree with John Dean (former Special Counsel to Richard Nixon). On Friday, Dean wrote a scathing letter to Fitzgerald admonishing him for not employing his plenary powers. Dean questions why Fitzgerald has not cast a broader net in his investigation and cites sufficient precedent for Fitzgerald to do so.
On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that “A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson’s employment by the CIA was classified information.”
If, indeed, that is the major focus of your investigation, then your investigation is strikingly limited, given your plenary powers. To be a bit more blunt, in historical context, it is certainly less vigorous an investigation than those of your predecessors who have served as special counsel — men appointed to undertake sensitive high-level investigations when the Attorney General of the United States had a conflict of interest. (Here, it was, of course, the conflict of Attorney General John Ashcroft that led to the chain of events that resulted in your appointment.)
Dean takes issue with a question I have had since this investigation started. Why has Fitzgerald not taken action against the many individuals that broke the law or at minimum breached their contract allowing them to hold a classified status - specifically, form SF-312 and Title 18 Section 793 of the United States Criminal Code? Previously, I wrote about the provisions of these statutes and their applicability, but Dean places considerable emphasis on them.
To summarize, in order to receive a security clearance each person is required to sign SF-312, which states that the signer agrees not to violate Title 18 (and other laws). Title 18 specifies that an individual cannot provide classified information to anyone that does not have clearance, and even if they do, information can be conveyed on a need-to-know basis only. Therefore, just because someone has a security clearance, it does not mean they have carte blanche to classified information (at their defined level). Furthermore, it is incumbent upon anyone that signs SF-312 to insure any information they pass to another is not classified, or if classified, is the recipient eligible to receive it. In other words, ignorance does not apply — no cop outs with, “I didn’t know…” There has been an abundance of “I did not know…” stated over the past few months.
Your investigation also relates to the dissipation — if not the irreparable destruction — of a government asset: Valerie Plame Wilson. As you no doubt know, the U.S. Government invested a great deal of money in her special education and training, as well as other aspects of her covert status. Then, either intentionally, or with gross negligence, senior Bush administration officials blew Valerie Wilson’s cover. (Prior to the disclosure, her status was not, as some have claimed, an “open secret”: Rather, as you yourself have said, the fact that she was a CIA asset was not previously well-known outside the intelligence community.)
Yet there is no evidence that you have made any effort whatsoever to undertake any civil remedies dealing with this either intentional or grossly careless destruction of a government asset. As acting Attorney General for this matter, you have even more authority than did Special Counsels Roberts and Pomerene.
Those who leaked the information about Valerie Wilson breached signed contracts they had made with the government. These contracts, moreover, were not to be taken lightly: They enforced profoundly important obligations to national security, on the part of the very people who were supposed to be serving that end.
Dean refers to Watergate and how the Nixon administration knowingly and purposefully tried to limit the scope of those investigating them, which is exactly what the Bush administration is doing today.
Even more troubling, from an historical point of view, is the fact that the narrowness of your investigation, which apparently is focusing on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (making it a crime to uncover the covert status of a CIA agent), plays right into the hands of perpetrators in the Administration.
Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration’s crimes, and keep criminals in office.
The plan was to keep the investigation focused on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters — and away from the atmosphere in which such an action was undertaken. Toward this end, I was directed by superiors to get the Department of Justice to keep its focus on the break-in, and nothing else.
That was done. And had Congress not undertaken its own investigation (since it was a Democratically-controlled Congress with a Republican President) it is very likely that Watergate would have ended with the conviction of those caught in the bungled burglary and wiretapping attempt at the Democratic headquarters.
Now, with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President, you (a Republican appointee) are the last bulwark of protection for the American people.
After pleading his legal position, Dean fires Fitzgerald up. Dean knows enough about Fitzgerald, that if he asserts Ftizgerald has fallen short of perfection, Fitzgerald will come out swinging.
While I have no reason to believe you are easily intimidated, all I can say is that your investigation, thus far, is falling precisely within the narrow confines — the formula procedure — that was relied upon in the first phase of the Watergate cover-up by the Nixon administration.
So narrow was your investigation that it appears that you failed to learn that Bob Woodward had been told of Valerie Wilson’s CIA post until after you had indicted Scooter Libby. While I have no doubt you know your way around the Southern District of New York, and the Northern District of Illinois, Washington DC is a very different place.
With all due respect, Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe you are being had. I believe that you were selected with the expectation that you would conduct the narrowest of investigations, and it seems you have done just that.
In closing, Dean goes for the jugular vein, but does so with all the charm one can muster — he waves the American flag, which he knows will settle at the core of Fitzgerald’s personal beliefs and convictions.
To right-minded Americans, the idea that Administration officials have betrayed their national security obligations, yet remain in their jobs, is nothing short of appalling. Beyond politics is patriotism: Patriotic Americans want to see you not only prosecute those who compromised and endangered Valerie Plame Wilson, but also force the Administration to clean house with respect to those who did this, which you can accomplish through appropriate civil action.
Read the entire letter.
Nov 20, 2005 at 9:45 PM by Political Chase
I missed this yesterday. I read the article, but must have skimmed it too quickly. [Emphasis added.]
Woodward, who was questioned by Fitzgerald on Monday, has refused to reveal the source’s name publicly, but a person familiar with the investigation said the source had testified earlier in the case.
Nov 20, 2005 at 9:09 PM by Political Chase
The following is from an external source to this site.
Bushism of the Year: Cast Your Vote
What was the dumbest thing President Bush said in 2005? Cast your vote and help us select the year’s single most idiotic Bushism from his five most embarrassing gaffes:
1) “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” —to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005 (Listen to audio)
VOTE
2) “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)
VOTE
3) “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table.” —Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
VOTE
4) “You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.” —to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 (Listen to audio)
VOTE
5) “I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?” —in a note to to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a U.N. Security Council meeting, September 14, 2005
VOTE
Nov 20, 2005 at 8:39 PM by Political Chase
Last week President Bush ridiculed Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) by comparing him to Michael Moore, but in a later speech he does an about face.
"Congressman Murtha is a fine man," Bush said, "a good man who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a U.S. congressman."
Flip-flop.
—–
Nov 20, 2005 at 8:29 PM by Political Chase
Asked on “Fox News Sunday” if he ever spoke to Woodward about Plame, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, “No, of course not.”
Nov 20, 2005 at 7:59 PM by Political Chase
Who’s right?
This morning on “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert said,
[A]ccording to our military experts, there are only 700 Iraqi troops who are fully independent and combat ready.
Reuter’s reports this statement from Joe Biden on today’s “Fox News Sunday.”
Biden estimated that about 25,000 to 30,000 Iraqi troops had been effectively trained so far, up 5,000 to 7,000 from a figure reported several months ago.
Nov 20, 2005 at 7:28 PM by Political Chase
If entering a contest to describe Iraq and the president’s management of it in 25 words or less, Jim DeMint (R-SC) would win the prize.
"I feel like every morning, I wake up, get a concrete block and have to walk around with it all day," said first-term Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who came to the Senate with an ambitious agenda to overhaul Social Security and the tax code. "We can’t even address the issues."
—–
Nov 20, 2005 at 9:28 AM by Political Chase
Friday, the Republicans threatened Rep. Murtha with an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, they verbally attacked him — one doing so almost to the point of requiring censure, and they have circled their wagons for strategy sessions to rebuke his expressed opinions.
They may want to start the investigation and formulate their strategic plans quickly, because soon there may be few remaining on the their side of the aisle to participate in the investigation.
Washington is about to come unglued.
From this morning’s New York Times:
The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.
The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff’s former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.
Scholars who specialize in the history and operations of Congress say that given the brazenness of Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying efforts, as measured by the huge fees he charged clients and the extravagant gifts he showered on friends on Capitol Hill, almost all of them Republicans, the investigation could end up costing several lawmakers their careers, if not their freedom.
The investigation threatens to ensnarl many outside Congress as well, including Interior Department officials and others in the Bush administration who were courted by Mr. Abramoff on behalf of the Indian tribe casinos that were his most lucrative clients.
“I think this has the potential to be the biggest scandal in Congress in over a century,” said Thomas E. Mann, a Congressional specialist at the Brookings Institution. “I’ve been around Washington for 35 years, watching Congress, and I’ve never seen anything approaching Abramoff for cynicism and chutzpah in proposing quid pro quos to members of Congress.”
And then there’s Mr. Ney.
The situation could be more serious for Mr. Ney, a five-term lawmaker whose position as chairman of the House Administration Committee gives him power over the operations of the Capitol building and allows him to divide up Congressional perks like office space and parking.
Mr. Ney was not identified by name in the documents filed against Mr. Scanlon on Friday. But the Ohio lawmaker’s lawyers acknowledged that Mr. Ney was the lawmaker identified as “Representative #1″ in the Justice Department papers, which charged Mr. Scanlon with conspiring to provide “Representative #1″ with a golfing trip to Scotland, meals at Mr. Abramoff’s Washington restaurant and campaign contributions.
On Friday, a TPC reader, who is a former Republican House staffer, was kind enough to give us a closer perspective of Mr. Ney. I greatly appreciate his/her input to TPC.
“Ney fancies, and even calls, himself the ‘Mayor of Capitol Hill’. This ‘Mayor’ often holds House staff at his mercy for the simplest things, like parking. He bases decisions on granting it on how his relationship is with the Member or House agency you happen to work for at the time.
“Even if you are a Republican staff member, but your boss is at odds with Ney over ANYTHING, forget parking or any other privilege he has control or influence over. (Sounds more like what I’d expect from Castro if I lived in Cuba)
“He, and most other House leadership for that matter, seem to have lost all ethical focus and now appear to have an acute case of the ivory tower syndrome.”
Hold on. Between the White House and the Capitol, America will soon have another virtual Ground Zero, but it will be self-inflicted and in Washington rather than New York.
What a mess.
(ed. note: the Scanlon criminal charges can be downloaded by clicking here.)
Nov 20, 2005 at 7:56 AM by Political Chase
I briefly mentioned in a previous post about the severity of our overall national environment (includes our international relations). To refresh your memory (and mine), following is an excerpt. [emphasis added]
Stop for a moment and just think about this. Torture, the brawl in the House of Representatives last night, the egregious personal attack on Rep. Murtha — a most honorable and respected man, scandalous smear strategies emanating from the White House, a vice president that advocates torture, a country — ours — polarized unlike it has been since possibly the Civil War (still weighing in on Vietnam era)…and more.
Systemic could be used to quickly pull all that together, but it is too simple to leave it at that. I plan to raise the level of discussion on this systemic problem.
This post is not the beginning or the end of the broader level of discussion; let’s call it a primer. I believe I can now quantitatively address the Vietnam era noted above.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey last week found that the percentage (52) of Americans who want to get out of Iraq fast, in 12 months or less, is even larger than the percentage (48) that favored a quick withdrawal from Vietnam when that war’s casualty toll neared 54,000 in the apocalyptic year of 1970.
It is so easy to postulate what you know to be true, but just can’t back it up. It’s far better to postulate with facts.
So, I’ll leave that with you to reflect and contemplate upon (they are different).
More to come.
