Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon
Did Rove lie to Bush?
The AP has just reported that, back in the fall of 2003, Rove denied to Bush that he (Rove) had any connection to outing Joseph Wilson’s wife. So far, we don’t know just who gave the Grand Jury that piece of information.
We now know, of course, that Rove discussed the matter with Matt Cooper. So Rove’s report to Bush was fraudulent. Unless…unless someone has lied to the Grand Jury in order to cover W’s farthole.
Or was W covering his own farthole?
From an under-appreciated piece by Murray Waas, which the AP story has now largely confirmed:
I suspect this means Waas got word from Bush’s counsel. (Prosecution lawyers aren’t allowed to talk to the press about Grand Jury proceedings, but witnesses — and their lawyers — may do so if they wish.)
Did Rove lie to the FBI?
More from Murray Waas:
“Sources close to the leak investigation being run by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald say it was the discovery of one of Rove’s White House e-mails — in which the senior Bush adviser referred to his July 2003 conversation with Cooper — that prompted Rove to contact prosecutors and to revise his account to include the Cooper conversation,” Waas writes.
Lying to the FBI…? Isn’t that how Martha Stewart ended up in the slammer?
The Great Judy:
Judith Miller just now discovered notes of a June, 2003 meeting she had with Libby. We should presume that these notes are relevant to the outing of Valerie Plame/Wilson.
The chronology has suddenly become very strange — June, 2003 was before Wilson publicly criticized the administration.
My take on this won’t be popular.
I’ve hinted at it in previous posts: I think the neocon cabal had reason to expect Wilson to “confirm” the Niger forgeries. For some reason, they trusted him to go along with their plans — and they felt double-crossed when he did not. So they cobbled together a “get Wilson” strategy even before he published his piece.
I admire Wilson, but I suspect that he has not told all.
What did the President know and when did he know it?
In light of all of the above, the following grab from Jason Leopold’s latest column on The Huffington Post has profound implications:
Presuming that this evidence holds up: Does this mean that the “Rove-denied-it-to-Bush” testimony (discussed above) was fraudulent? Lying to a Grand Jury can get one impeached — and imprisoned.
Isn’t it possible that the neocons actually believed the Niger "evidence," and thus took for granted that Wilson would confirm their validity?
The neocons are idealists. They see what they want to see, and hear only what fits into their worldview. It would have been laughably easy for Ledeen to dangle the yellowcake bait and get them to lunge at it.
And it infuriated them when Wilson slapped them upside the head by disparaging their "evidence." They may have even suspected he was lying to thwart their plans… and so they lashed back at him.
Why would Libby leak Plame to Miller before the yellowcake confirmation?
Great post Joseph! Thank you!
And so the plot continues to thicken… I wouldn’t be surprised if Jr. wasn’t in on things, both for his own protection and because he’s not the brightest bulb in the pack. (I believe this was true of the ’04 election. I don’t think he knew until that night that he was going to win no matter what.)
Part of me feels fairly certain the regime has had in place since day one a "plan" to cover their tracks…
But then, they don’t really do "plans" very well. This is painfully obvious from the multiple blundering failures we’ve seen from this regime… not so good at planning but very very expert at sticking to their story (lies). They map out a scenario (as unirealist says they’re idealists – they see and hear what they want…) and assume in their arrogance and with their power and money that whatever they set out to do will be so.
(btw – does anyone else think Miller was a "plant" at the Times?)
I do have a horrid feeling that there are few enough of them in on the lies that it may be impossible for Fitz to break through the wall and get to the truth of what happened. The fact that the MSM is complacently complicit makes this even more likely. I pray I’m wrong…
Thanks, Joseph! I love your blog, and your contributions here are invaluable. I myself can’t imagine that duhbaya wasn’t in on it all, that, in fact, he didn’t initiate the whole thing himself in one of his notorious outbursts. In my view, their hubris is the root of their ultimate undoing, along with their lack of understanding of the power of the blogs and the integrity and inquisitiveness and persistence of people like the mighty Brad, yourself, Larisa, and on and on. The old "out of the loop" alibi simply won’t cut the mustard in this case, because if he wasn’t aware of that notorious memo they were all buzzing over on the flight to Africa, well. he damn well should have been. Take your pick: an incompetent boob or a conniving traitor – either way he’s unfit for his office! Just my view from Prague, Bob
I believe that Bush and Cheney,as well as the whole gang set out to get even with Wilson!This is a vicious bunch,and they will stop at Nothing to achieve their evil pursuits.I remember very well,watching Bush make the remarks that he doubted the truth would ever come out!The whole administration are so self assured that they are Above the law,and they will get away with whatever they want!!So far,everything has worked for them,they slash and burn,intimidate and destroy to have it their way.When someone disagrees with Bush,you can see the vindictiveness in his face!!Bush is definately at the bottom of this,but we may never get the real truth!!
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. had much to say about this last night.
Here
I will post another link here when I complete my mission. (Relating to the link above)
Jen #3
Judith Miller is a real piece of art. Stays in jail for 12 weeks claiming martyrdom to her source who had already released her to testify. Then after testifying finds more notes.
Rove and Libby claim they didn’t tell her. Rumors abound she told them. She is all tangled up in it but never wrote a story about it. Come on………WTF
Thanks for the post, Joseph. My only comment is one I have had to make every time someone mentions impeachment: the lock-step GOP majority in Congress will never allow it, no matter how high the crime. These folks have no sense of right and wrong at all. They still see the persecution of Nixon as a political vendetta, and their impeachment of Clinton was based strictly on vengeance over it.
Ray #8
I don’t know – I think that there are a number of the repugs who may be starting to look out for their own skin.
The 90 to 9 vote on the torture bill and the initial vote – the one which should have been final, but that’s another story – seem to be signs of a weakening in Busco’s support.
If these folks are indicted I’m hoping they will get dropped like a hot potato.
That should have read "initial vote on the energy bill"
Jeff Gannon now implicated
Hmmmmmmmm Getting Verrrrry Interesting.
#12 I’ve seen this picture before. Is it real or photoshop? Just curious.
Jo
I suspect it’s photo shop. I think I’ve seen the same thing with a different message.
It’s good for a laugh though.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr.s Letter to George Bush
Item: Bush says "truth will never be known."
Item: McClellan refuses to comment on Rove’s lawyer’s admission that Rove spoke to Novak about Valerie Plame, on the grounds of an "ongoing investigation."
Question: If the truth will never be known, what is still being investigated?
Answer: Bush knows who leaked what, but we’re not supposed to know. It’s up to Fitzgerald to make sure we do. If enough people are indicted, at least one of them will sing to save face. Then the world will know that Bush is a scheming liar…instead of just the "6 or 7" of us and most of Europe.
Oh do get a grip Joe Wilson’s going to jail. Plame’s identity wasn’t a secret. No crime – no time.
Thanks Carson-
Now we can put the issue aside since you obviously know more than all of us, the CIA, Fitzgerald and all the people who are investigating this.
Yeah sure Carson….Carson Daly or whatever the hell you call yourself.
Bush no matter what obstructed justice….Even if he didn’t know everything about the plan to leak the CIA…Knowing that guy, he probably laughed when Rove said "We’re going to get Wilson" but he also may not have known about the espionage…
I get the sense when he found out what Rove really did he got really pissed off….Bush the dumb scapegoat, as they say. Even still he obstructed investigations.
Doug E.
Daly?? Anyway. Other than fevered speculations and fantasies, you’ve no proof any crime occurred. Unless you have access to the secret grand jury testimony in which case y’all are leaking. No crime – no obstruction. Don’t confuse what you want to be true with what you suspect is true or can prove is true. It’s lack of apprehension of such distinctions that led John Kerry to think he was a war hero.
Yeah I’m sure Carson….
If "no crime happened", why did the CIA force the reporter to be jailed and filed charges and why has this been investigated for two years?
If no crime occurred, this would have been over with. They’re cutting down all the trees Carson, and you know it, just like in Texas…
Crimes and CIA agents After Downing Street
Doug E.
Rove’s lawyer admitted to the press that Rove spoke to Novak about Valerie Plame. That is not speculation. No one is leaking anything to recognize that.
Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to reveal her source, even though the source had given her a waiver to do so from the beginning…meaning that unless Miller is stupid or wanted to go to jail for some reason, this goes beyond speculation about crime into actual crime. No one is leaking anything to recognize that.
Robert Novak has refused to talk, citing an ongoing investigation. Scotty McClellan first talked, was proven wrong, now refuses to talk, citing the same ongoing investigation. That is not speculation, and no one is leaking anything to recognize it.
Bush changed his story. He first said he’d fired anyone who was "involved" in Plamegate. Then he said he’d fire anyone "convicted of a crime." Why the distinction? Is participating in a criminal act, but not being indicted or convicted for it, acceptable for a Bush administration official? To ask that question is not speculation, and not a leak.
The thing is…Bush might have to fire himself if he suddenly discovered he had in fact ordered the outing. How embarassing would that be? LOL
When your head is so far up your a$$ it’s coming back out your mouth you don’t sweat the small stuff, I guess
coupla days guys, then we’ll know!
All your base are belonged to Limbaugh Rushski
Firedoglake
has been keeping close tabs on all the intricacies of this case and has quite the seenario figured out.
Oh, and one quibble with your post Joseph, Wilson’s first column blasting the Bush admin’s approach to Iraq came out October 2002 and was published in the San Jose Mercury News – How Saddam Thinks – He started pissing in their wheaties a lot earlier than Mar ’03 – so they had ample time to start the "work up" on Wilson before he published his oped that got the MSM tongues wagging.
Judy Miller is talking because there was enough evidence to indict "scooter" and he is on his way to jail. They must have found it from another source. No need for Judy to stay in jail if he is going anyway. Hope this shows the N.Y. Times for the sham of a paper it has become. CIA operative working openly to promote their unholy war. I quit buying it after the first pres. debate when bush was obviously high as a kite…they said there was a debate. I’ll never buy another times.
Grand jury proceedings often end with someone being declared an "unindicted co-conspirator." That seems likely to happen with the Fitzgerald panel.
If Rove or Bolton or Scottie McClellan or Libby or anyone else (other than Jeff Gannon, whom Bush has no jurisdiction over) becomes an unindicted co-conspirator, will he be fired? According to Bush’s original statement, "I’ll fire anyone connected with the leak," being an unindicted co-conspirator certainly qualifies. Under "I’ll fire anyone convicted of a crime," it doesn’t.
George W. Bush has therefore established a standard wherein an unindicted co-conspirator may hold a position of trust in his adminstration. I hope the constitutional lawyers among us will weigh in on whether that constitutes grounds for impeachment.
And so begins the inevitable backsliding(cue the paul simon record) of those who KNEW rover was going to jail. Now they’re trying to equate unindicted with convicted. That’s as stupid as back in the 60s when the klan equated unidicted with vindicated. Would the people on this board buy such a load of logical dung from the bush leaguers? As far as Bush threatening to fire anyone "involved" without evidence of wrongdoing – THAT was dumb. Jesus loves you but the rest of us think you need to retake freshman logic.
Nobody tried to equate unindicted with convicted. You just made that up.
What my post asked was: Im light of Bush’s original statement that anyone connected with the leak would be fired, and in light of his change of heart ("Anyone convicted of a crime will be fired"), does that not mean that an unindicted co-conspirator might be allowed to remain in the administration?
Nothing about equating unindicted with convicted. It’s a reasonable query: "If (Rove, for example) is named an unindicted co-conspirator by Fitzgerald, but not charged with a crime, will he be allowed to remain in his position?" Simple question. Nothing to do with the Ku Klux Klan. Nothing do with freshman logic. Just a question.
Yawn nice try putting bullshit there that wasn’t there, CARSON.
You wish they are "un-indicted" co-conspirators…..Watch the shoes drop as they shuffle.
Doug E.
The Judy/Libby meeting before Wilson’s op ed piece came out is not hard to figure out. There was lots of early warning to the WH that Wilson was a threat to blow the story on the 16 word SOTU lie. Wilson made repeated contacts with the Admin to get them to retract the story voluntarily, and had started talking to the press.
My theory of the Judy/Libby meeting: Wilson had been talking to the NYT editors, who invited him to submit a piece about the Niger story. It’s not unlikely that Judy found out in advance of Wilson’s piece being published, and alerted Libby to the coming storm.
Aw shucks y’all. Ya can’t have a discussion without slining words like "bullshit" and disigenously ignoring the fact that firing someone who hasn’t committed a crime is wrong if not criminal itself? Well, ok BLOW ME. I fart in your general direction. Am I one of the club now that I get scatalogical too?
Wondering when the new dictionary comes out for bushspeak.
I just have to say, for all the months reading this blog, the Bush supporters never have facts or even serious comments to back up the water pouring out of their heads. It truly is like talking to people with dementia. Or a bad blond joke.
Can’t you Bsupporters find something intelligent this administration has done to comment on?
Maybe the 8 trips to the Gulf area while we ARE CONSERVING ENERGY?
#35 the sales of the dictionary will be modest since they cant spell and will just look at the pictures.
Perhaps it wasn’t Wilson they were after all along. What was Plame’s team working on? Maybe her outing had more to do with something she or her team were about to uncover and hubby Wilson was decoy boy. Could explain why some were working on this before Wilson’s report…..
#38 if you stretch that logic any farther it will snap back an leave a bruise.