As Sam Beckett used to say, “oh boy”.
Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Notes Show
I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.
Speculation: Cheney told Libby/Rove about Plame, Libby/Rove leak it to the press (Novak, etc.) then when the investigation gets instigated they freak, start lying to keep their stories straight and conspire to keep it quiet. But then the notes unravel the whole thing for Fitzgerald.
Or not.
Addendum: Even if no specific law was broken, shouldn’t it be cause for removal or resignation if the vice president used the power of his office to uncover classified data as fuel for a political vendetta? Spiro Agnew, anyone?
Questions
Have the president or the vice-president been aware that either they or their top staff were the leakers of Mrs. Wilson’s identity, yet have claimed otherwise for two years?
Are the vice president and his subordinates in the business of using classified data to fuel personal attacks on citizens? Is the president aware of this practice and does he condone it? If the president is unaware, why and for how long?
Of the following people and their families, have any of them been investigated by the president and vice president using national security assets to fuel political attacks – John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean…?
Which other journalists and pundits have been the recepients of classified leaks from the president’s or vice-president’s office?
Since January 21, 2001, please detail each and every instance of the president, vice president or other White House staff that has given out data gleaned from classified sources to attack political opponents.
Oh, Scooter. You crazy knucklehead! Couldn’t you keep your damn story to the grand jury straight?
Do you right wingers STILL not understand why perjury and obstruction of justice are considered crimes?
You all DO know what will happen if conviction follows indictment, don t you?
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm
>
(Champagne uncorking!)
This is what happens when the political arm of the Office gets a permanent desk. Those guys are really only needed twice, to get you (re)elected and to place in the new appointees into the ranks of the bureaucracy every four years. It was a bad idea to make Rove and Co. part of the policy process. Over time, their machinations became part and parcel of WH output. Everything was –managed–. Eventually, all the skilled people with some ability to govern got tired of all the games and returned to the private sector. If you have already changed their regs, why not score that golden parachute and retire? Since Texas never had too deep a bench to begin with (no matter how big they tell you the state is), no one was left to replace them around that table with W.
The average appointee lasts two years–three, tops.
We’ll eventually know who was smarter, Dad or Son.
I’m bettin’ it was Dad. As for the level of integrity, I rate them even.
And yet, the country seems numb to corruption.
At what point do people become outraged?
Could this be the straw?
I always wondered exactly how one would go about returning honor and dignity to the White House. Heckuva Dick, job.
But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson s undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent s undercover status.
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration.
So we’re down to Libby possibly having mistated, deliberately or otherwise, where he learned her name first? Down from the President and VP “outing” her as retaliation against her husband? Sounds like one of those “home runs” that hit the pole and bounce foul.
Matty: I’m glad we finally all agree that perjury IS a crime.
Of course the White House has been forthright in co-operating with the investigation:
“Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.”
Cheney does look a little like a journalist.
Scratch, do you think Libby knowingly lied when he said he initially learned about Valerie Wilson from journalists?
I am being completely serious here. If we are to accept the premise that Vice President Cheney revealed this information to Libby, is that a crime?
Scratch –
It is precisely because the vp and his chief of staff have jobs “involving powerful people and a myriad of important and interesting things going on” that their time is so carefully managed and the events of the day — every phone call, meeting, voice memo, email — carefully logged. These people live on information, connections and contacts. Conversations and who gave them what information don’t just slip their minds because there’s so much else in the daily infrastructure of their jobs that’s designed to help them remember — precisely because such conversations and information are the lifeblood of their work. They’re politicians. But all that aside, this was not just one thing of many at the time. Joe Wilson’s op-ed cut to the core of the case for war, a case established and argued vehemently for by the VP and his chief of staff. You make it sound like, oh hum, just another work day in the VPs office. Not buying it. These guys knew the gravity of the situation as it was unfolding. This wasn’t something truly trivial like, say, ensuring that FEMA could respond to an emergency.
If the vice president told him to give the information to the press, I believe so. Or if the vice president told him to lie under oath about where he got the information. It’s still unclear. What’s clear is that the White House has known the source of this information and has been stonewalling for a while now.
Buma…i wouldn’t be surprised either way. I’m open to the possibility that he lied to save his butt and those of his bosses. Are you open to the possibility that he just plain forgot? The discussions in question would only seem big and important now that we know what all the implications are; it’s quite possible that at the time, he was just talking to several people about one of many, many things that were going on at the time. In hindsite, it’s always easy to pick out the Big Important Event that happened three years ago. Imagine if you had a job involving powerful people and a myriad of important and interesting things going on…at the end of each day, would you be able to identify the single event that day that would be in the headlines in three years? Would you remember the details three years later?
I just went and read the statute in question here, and I failed to see anything about a chain of custody prior to the information being revealed to somebody without a clearance.
Oliver : I would grant you the scenarios you describe may constitute a crime, however, nothing I have read indicates anything even remotely close to the scenarios you outlined.
JD;
Not in or of itself. They both had security clearance. But it establishes a chain of custody for the ultimate outing to non-clearanced persons
Scratch:
A ball that hits the foul pole is a home run. Much like this clear home run. Let’s break it down like an attorney.
Note that this is a leak from one of the attorneys in the case, probably Libby’s. That attorney will set conditions on the story in exchange for the leak. The fact that the document doesn’t indicate that doesn’t mean anything. Note what the story doesn’t say–that Cheney did not say she was undercover. It says the notes “contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified.” Not a single word on whether or not either party was actually aware of her covert status or whether her covert status was discussed by the parties to the conversation. Thus they could have planned to do a ‘work up’ on Wilson without mentioning it on the notes.
Plus it goes directly to statements made by Cheney on his Sept. 14, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press where he said that he had no idea who sent Joe Wilson to Africa. Cheney had a damn good idea months before.
Finally, if Cheney did not disclose in either his early interview, or an apparent under oath session with Fitzgerald, its lights out baby. 18 U.S.C. s 1001 does not allow a person being questioned by a federal employee in conjuction with government activities to make a material omission. No chance to hide behind the definition of what “is” is for Cheney. This is the big one. Hell, Howard Fineman was on MSNBC saying Cheney was done. Somebody like that who has thrived on White House access just doesn’t blurt that out–its for real. He’s done.
Now what about those Niger docs?
Case in point, how could Libby have just plain forgot about where he first learned about Valerie Wilson when Libby’s own notes from his previously undisclosed meeting with the VP say that Wilson’s name came up and that Cheney first heard it from Tenet? See, busy and important people take notes, they keep records. All the mroe reason why they shouldn’t turn around and lie to a grand jury.
Ironmouth;
” it goes directly to statements made by Cheney on his Sept. 14, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press ”
Ah, but he was not under oath was he?
Ironmouth:
A ball that hits the foul pole is a home run.
Quite possibly the clearest rebuttal I’ve ever seen on this site! Thanks for the correction. Now that last Orioles game I went to makes more sense.
Ironmouth:
You make a decent case, but I had to re-read this a few times:
Not a single word on whether or not either party was actually aware of her covert status…Thus they could have planned to do a work up on Wilson without mentioning it on the notes.
Obviously the knowledge of her covert status is a key point. If they didn’t know, it wouldn’t have appeared in the notes. And the ABSENCE of mention of this detail suggests to you that they knew, and may have planned something against Wilson on the sly? So you’ve set it up so you can draw the worst-case conclusion whether the notes mention the critical information or not. You’re right: you broke it down like an attorney.
This administration has proven time and time again that they are willing to spout falsehoods to a national audience, news show or not. After awhile, the excuses “I didn’t know” or “I forgot” fails to be exculpatory and instead speaks to somebody not taking their job responsibilities seriously.
Semanticleo…
Ah, but he was not under oath was he?
No excuse.
By the way, I find many of my arguments rebutted with explanations about how these clever pros know exactly what they are doing, and are not subject to common failings such as mis-remembering or even forgetting important details. I think that savvy also applies to the knowledge that an out-and-out lie almost never works. If Cheney was indeed knowingly up to something, I find it far more likely that he was/is using wordplay and semantics to stay within the confines of the law (though I have yet to see proof that he has either lied or done those other things.) I mean, earlier in this thread it was suggested that Libby went so far as to deliberately leave things out of his personal notes to avoid detection…then it’s suggested that Cheney lies on a news show with a national audience? I don’t think so.
BD:
This administration has proven time and time again that they are willing to spout falsehoods to a national audience, news show or not.
Mostly what I hear is people shouting “LIES, LIES” when they hear something they don’t like. They then use that conclusion, which they themselves have drawn, as evidence for the next charge of lying: “Well, we know they’ve lied in the past, so…” How many times do we have to hear the unfounded but oft-repeated “truth” that Bush “lied” about WMD in Iraq, because he said the same thing that governments and intelligence agencies around the world–and indeed his own intelligence director–were saying?
I agree that “I didn’t know” or “I forgot” are not generally exculpatory, but I, er, don’t recall hearing that on many occasions, if any. But when I assess a political situation, I generally look for an answer among the least sinister of explanation, on both sides of the aisle. That’s just my nature.
BD…
Exposed a covert operative? I didn t know she was covert.
Did you know that the CIA gift store sells ‘CIA’ t-shirts, along with a ton of other apparel? Plenty of employees of the CIA buy and wear that stuff. It may seem like a mystical, secret world to you, but the fact is that it’s not illegal to talk about someone who works there. Don’t forget that Plame had been at CIA headquarters for a few years at least. That’s exactly why the law SPECIFIED that the person doing the talking HAD TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE that the person was or had been undercover. Show me proof or evidence that they knew, and we can re-address that issue. Until then it’s speculation.
Heard the name Valerie Wilson? I forget who I heard it from.
I addressed it earlier, but when a case like this is in the headlines, of course it’s easy to say, “Oh my gosh, they should have remembered that conversation.” Knowing at the time what you’re going to have to discuss with a grand jury is not so easy. It’s quite possible that this was just a routine discussion…unless you ASSUME that they were up to something. I take a lot of notes at work…conversations and phone calls, etc. Sometimes when I’m going through old notes, I find information that I knew quite clearly when I wrote it down, but would have no way of recalling had I not run across it. Ask me whether I talked to person A or person B first, and I may not be able to tell you, and if I don’t recall taking notes about it, then I wouldn’t know where or when to look it up.
By the way, it just never made sense to me that “outing” an operative made sense as a means of retribution. I think a far more likely scenario, assuming for the sake of argument that there WAS an interest in retribution, is that they wanted to make Joe Wilson look weak by suggesting that his wife nominated him for the trip, to make it look like a family favor or the act of an official who nominated him solely on the basis of a spouse’s say-so.
“I didn’t know” and “I forgot” are the basis of the entire administration defense regarding the Plame affair. Exposed a covert operative? “I didn’t know she was covert.” Heard the name Valerie Wilson? “I forget who I heard it from.”
scratch – I agree that the motive behind said outing is most likely as you said it. However, in executing this maneuver, a covert operative was outed. Even if this was simply an egregious error, somebody should have been willing to accept the blame for it. Nobody did, which shows a severe lack of character on the part of whoever did it and in those who would defend that person’s actions.
As for Plame, how often does it need to be noted that the CIA itself asked for the investigation into the leak? Why would they have done this if her status was public domain? The argument that she wasn’t all that covert fails to hold water.
BD…
wasn’t all that covert…
I like that…sorta like “a little bit pregnant.”
Even if this was simply an egregious error, somebody should have been willing to accept the blame for it.
I’m willing to wait and find out what actually happened. Under some circumstances, but not all, I agree that an apology would be nice.
how often does it need to be noted that the CIA itself asked for the investigation into the leak? Why would they have done this if her status was public domain?
Well, for one, what do people on this site say when a Republican calls for an investigation involving the actions of any person or organization? What’s that guys name….Fitzgerald? What’s going on with him? They wouldn’t have said those thing if he wasn’t….? I don’t have a current roster of the CIA, but I’m certain there are plenty of people there who are no big fans of Bush and Cheney. It may be that Fitzgerald will make a finding about whether any rules were actually broken. Again, I’ll wait and see.
BD falls into that category of people that assert that she was in fact covert, which has simply not been shown. There are a variety of issues that have to be addressed to make that be the case, none of which have been shown. Was the CIA actively trying to conceal her identity? Then, he slips in that the CIA requested an investigation so there must be a crime, kind of logic. Nice work.