Jane wrote: "Or, we are in a situation like we were when the Dick Cheney leak got floated in the NYT four days before the Libby indictment: somebody may feel like indictment day is just around the corner and is trying to get information out there so its impact can dissipate...."
For the past few days I've come to believe that all the contradictory stories (which, even if each of them made internal sense, don't appear to help Rove much) are just a sign that Rove feels like he's in really deep doo-doo.
it feels like raw desperation to me.
riffle |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 9:06 pm | #
"the thing that argues against Hadley not being part of the campaign is that a search on his end did not turn up the document"
This is crucial, if true. What is your evidence for this?
the green lantern |
12.03.05 - 9:13 pm | #
Frank -- if you're still around, I banned the person who was impersonating you and deleted their comments.
Yes, the IP address WAS different. And they were using Frank's homepage as their own, so lest anyone get uptight about it this wasn't just a "two Franks" thing.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 9:14 pm | #
the green lantern -- it is an assumption. Fitzgerald's MO has been to ask someone about something, and if they say "gee don't remember," refresh their memory by showing them the relevant documentation. Doesn't fit that he already had it.
Then again, he wasn't going after Judy Miller, just wanted info from her. So maybe not.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 9:17 pm | #
"Why didn't the Rove e-mail surface earlier? The lawyer says it's because an electronic search conducted by the White House missed it because the right "search words" weren't used."
Well, again I have to wonder, what's with the single (I guess) "search words"???
HELLO??? You use phrases or multiple words when doing a search. That dog won't hunt.
So the fucker either forged the email or purposely didnt produce it. Either way thats one hell of a bus ride to obstruction.
wtm |
12.03.05 - 9:22 pm | #
"He [Rove] might just be diverting everyone's attention in 10 different directions and not even care about proving eventual innocence or guilt. He believes he can out bloviate anyone around, including Fitz, and will wait for his pardon."
Rove still doesn't seem to take this investigation completely seriously. He's been able to wriggle out of things in the past, and he figures his usual MO will eventually wear down Fitzgerald. And he believes he's going to get pardoned anyway.
marysz |
12.03.05 - 9:24 pm | #
This part confuses me:
Shortly before his client's second appearance before the grand jury in October, Luskin personally conducted a review of thousands of e-mails Rove had sent during the crucial weeks in 2003
Why was Luskin reviewing emails at that time? Because Rove was about to testify? If so, then why was Rove about to testify if the email hadn't been found yet?
Semblance |
12.03.05 - 9:26 pm | #
I think Mary is right. Rove doesn't take it seriously. Maybe he is cracking too.
marky |
12.03.05 - 9:26 pm | #
Jane,
I’ve been assuming all along that, if the e-mail truly exists (i.e. was actually received by Hadley), it must have become part of the information dump in the hands of Fitz, if not actually reported by Hadley himself. Simply because I trust that the early team of investigators were technically competent to do the proper search of the computer files.
Hence Rove and Luskin are just spinning like a top while Fitz sits ready to cook their goose.
Now, if the e-mail is a fake, that just makes matters simply worse for them.
the green lantern |
12.03.05 - 9:27 pm | #
And yes... Be very, very thankful I am not asking for money ;) (Don't worry) - Time and effort is something everybody can put in... It's only costs time and effort, it will not pick your pocket. The letter campaign believe it or not, has been _extremely_ effective... But the war has not been won yet, and we cannot give up, nor will we give up... Until we have won.
Unlike the preznot's war... We are actually winning this one, and it's not even violent. I would hate to think that people would neglect speaking out to save our democracy from what is clearly and organized fascist effort to take our freedoms and rights as citizens away from us by any available means.
I don't want this to end up in the streets where people will get hurt, and property will get damaged. It's best to work the government vocally, loudly, and often... As well as the media.
We are winning this, we are gonna win this... But it's not the time to slack off the effort. Please, write letters this weekend.
Thank you, I will now return you to your regular programming :)
Me3 |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 9:28 pm | #
Jane,
Let's remember that this is, at least, a two lane street.
Remember that Hadley received the email from Rove. So it should have turned up in Hadley's memory and/or email search.
a dumb question, considering the level of discourse and sleuthing here, but here goes:
how long would fitz have to wait for indictments, and then trials, before before bush could no longer issue pardons?
and can bush issue pardons before indictments are even handed out? there aren't just-in-case pardons, are there? or have i suddenly been hit with a wave of paranoia that all the bad guys WILL get away with it?
need to get outside and get some air!
medaka |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 9:30 pm | #
Stupid question about the Rove Hadley email: Couldn't they have avoided alot of trouble just by looking at Email from the dates involved?
Ron Russell |
12.03.05 - 9:32 pm | #
"Remember that Hadley received the email from Rove. So it should have turned up in Hadley's memory and/or email search."
Ahh, I think I did mention that. Nite (really this time).
Monk, that fact was already discussed in the previous thread.
the green lantern |
12.03.05 - 9:33 pm | #
I posted a longer rambling comment at the end of the previous thread. In it I suggested that the e-mail to Hadley was a coordination thing within the WHIG. The information operation dealing with the Wilson revelation (and others in the The New Republic article cited by Fritz) was probably many pronged.
I'm thinking, because of Hadley's special relationship to the Niger forgeries, he was the point man for blunting all things Niger.
There are other suppositions in that longer posted comment...
tryggth |
12.03.05 - 9:35 pm | #
medaka - I have a standing rule about pardons.
There is not one, but TWO "no-pardon" petitions on the Media Resources page. Have you signed both of them?
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime
YIKES!! (My money is on either the day after the 2006 elections or Bush's last day in office.)
wtm |
12.03.05 - 9:35 pm | #
Jane et al.,
I was trying to find out more about the Rove Hadley email and was late in posting on the last thread. FWIW, it's hard to believe that "Cooper" and "Niger" weren't included as search terms. Comment here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7209379/
#180892
I also pointed out that "Andrea Mitchell" and "Jeff Gannon" were on the same list. So shoot me.
-
Valley Girl |
12.03.05 - 9:37 pm | #
medaka - My understanding is that Bush can issue pardons-in-advance of any criminal charges, just as Ford did for Nixon. The trouble is, he can't do so now without all political hell breaking loose. That's why presidents usually wait until their term is almost up before waving this particular magic wand.
And the question for anyone in the legal hot seat is... "Can I trust Georgie to come through for me in three years?" I'm not alone in thinking this is a bet that Libby, for one, won't take. I think Scooter will flip before he accepts serious jail time (and that his hard decision is in his future.)
percy |
12.03.05 - 9:37 pm | #
Much of the time I just think Rove is trying to bring down the NY Time, Wa Post just like he did Dan Rather. He believes that he is still running a campaign but his every move is now documented. Bad. Bugs like Rove do not like it when the light shines on them. It exposes the soft underbelly of the stinking cesspool in which he swims.
patrick |
12.03.05 - 9:37 pm | #
---quote---
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime
YIKES!! (My money is on either the day after the 2006 elections or Bush's last day in office.)
wtm | 12.03.05 - 9:35 pm | #
---quote---
Just one reminder...
Impeachment doesn't require a crime at all. I think it's a situation just like this that the founding fathers envisioned when they made the threshold for impeachment deliberately vague.
IMHO, if Bush does this, esp while still in office, he risks a swift and violent impeachment and likely removal from office. I don't think the public would stand for it.
If it's his last day in office, perhaps though. But a civil suit can then be brought in which they must tell the truth, and if not, can be criminally prosecuted for purjury and obstruction etc. on those acts, which Bush then wouldn't be able to pardon because he wouldn't be in office any more.
Thus, we takes your money and your reputation if you tell the truth, if not we take your liberty.
OK, I'm not an IT professional, nor do I play one on TV, but forging an email is tricky business - there are logs, I.D. numbers, etc. It would probably have to involve an additional party with system admin capability - more risk. Not likely, but perhaps the email is forged and Fitz can prove it.
johno |
12.03.05 - 9:43 pm | #
So, what about the whole "welform reform" thing?
Man.
I have a new search term they should try out.
tryggth |
12.03.05 - 9:45 pm | #
I'm curious if any of this ties in with the 12-72 hour gap between the DoJ telling Abu G. to save all WH evidence and Abu telling the WH staff to do so.
I also wonder what other communications were "lost" during that period of time.
NYBri |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 9:46 pm | #
If Hadley is NOT part of the get-Wilson campaign, why did he tell friends that he thought he was going to be indicted?
meg |
12.03.05 - 9:47 pm | #
I think Rayne has a really good point in the last thread: the email wouldn't have shown up as sent or received if it was only in the draft file. Does anybody know if a search would produce a draft email?
I differ with Billmon's theory slightly: I think the email was written because Hadley was the coordinator of the conspiracy in my view.
My speculations about the email:
1. Matt calls earlier and leaves a msg about welfare reform.
2. After the phone conversation, Karl remembers that and uses welfare reform as a guise.
3. He writes the email leaving out the part about discussing Valerie, instead emphasizing what was clearly in the news that week -- Niger uranium and the SOTU speech. The latter would clearly be in Hadley purview.
4. He saves it as a draft.
So, Mrs. K8, I don't think it was magical that the news story was out there that Rove and Cooper talked about welfare reform. Who put that story out? I think that was the intended planted story. He knew what he had written, so it's no mystery that what came out later was, paboom, a story about welfare reform.
Maggie |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 9:52 pm | #
This is a ^ MUST READ ^ - Please vote on this on ;)
Me3 |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 10:02 pm | #
P&L - 1) The sentence you attribute to Jane is actually her quote from WaPo.
2) Whatever you feel about the content of this site, a value held in high esteem by most of the posters here is courtesy.
percy |
12.03.05 - 10:13 pm | #
Hey, Poncho, you're behind in your assessment of the facts. Luskin has been a busy little beaver leaking Rover's testimony. Even Josh knows that.
Maggie |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 10:14 pm | #
More pondering on Hadley ... anyone know how to get in touch with Murray Waas?
Swopa |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 10:16 pm | #
WTF has Poncho & Lefty ever published? No blog? No books?
trolls are like bedbugs or ticks. they engorge themselves with blood. don't feed them...
Wilson46201 |
12.03.05 - 10:24 pm | #
You're right, Wilson. And they're tiresome. On that note, good night all.
percy |
12.03.05 - 10:27 pm | #
True Wilson, the Great Goddess of Trex will get a third shot off today it appears. Heh
Shez |
12.03.05 - 10:28 pm | #
IMO, the whole email thing is bogus - the email either had to have been withheld or faked. It should have come up on a search of both Rove and Hadley's emails. They say the right search words weren't used. Does this mean that of all of the “thousands” of Rove's emails that Luskin claims he was reviewing, the one to Hadley was the only one in which the word "Niger" appeared? Or the only one that somehow was excluded?
And look at the spin on the claim that "Luskin personally conducted a review of thousands of e-mails Rove had sent during the crucial weeks in 2003." Poor Luskin, burning the midnight oil, poring over these thousands of emails – no wonder it took so long to find it. (And by implication, how could Rove remember this one email out of the thousands he sent.)
I've worked on numerous discovery efforts where the productions ranged from hundreds of thousand to over a million pages. Productions this size may be either in hard-copy or electronic format (usually a combination of both). Even if the entire production was produced in hard-copy, it would have been immediately scanned into a searchable database, and queries would have been conducted for important relevant terms (such as Wilson, Plame, Niger, etc.). All of the hits for a particular query (like "Niger") would have been given to Luskin to review as one file. Also, the same email should have shown up not just once, but at least three times, in queries: for Cooper, Time, and Niger. (More if anyone was copied on the email, or if both sent and received copies were produced.)
blythetdm |
12.03.05 - 10:29 pm | #
I had to speed-read these comments, so if this has been covered, I'm sorry.
Two questions are rattling around in the back of my mind regarding the email.
First, is it possible that the search was conducted entirely by the White House IS staff, searching only the servers? That is, they didn't search the hard drives of the individual work stations (is it possible they don't even have hard drives)? This would explain why we get the same results from searching the emails of Rove as of Hadley.
Second, is it possible that the search was formulated and conducted before Fitzgerald came on board? Remember, at this time, Ashcroft was getting regular reports of the investigation, and I don't believe Comey had been brought in either. It was only when FBI investigators reported that they thought Rove was lying that DoJ attorneys pressed for Ashcroft to step back and appoint a special prosecutor. Is it possible that under Ashcroft's direction, the search terms were formulated too narrowly?
I don't think either of these explanations is plausible, but I don't see anything else either.
Grampa |
12.03.05 - 10:31 pm | #
Here's a happy thought: Regardless of how this e-mail turned up, it immediately raises the question of whether or not there were other e-mails that Rove--and others--forgot to turn over. I'm willing to bet that Fitz asked that question. I wondered what he turned up.
Frank Probst |
12.03.05 - 10:34 pm | #
One question that anyone who knows the White House Email would be able to answer. How long are the backups of all the email held for or are they permanent?
As I recall, the great power of the Tower comission in terms of Iran/Contra was that they got a tech to restring a tape and we had North's Prof's notes recreated. If that backup media was permanent (write once), then the records would still be recoverable--as would any material that the Administration failed to surrender to the Investigators.
Ron Russell |
12.03.05 - 10:36 pm | #
in modern office Email systems, all Email is kept on central servers and merely displayed to users. Even drafts are kept on the server. This database is also replicated and backedup thoroughly. Faking this Email is next to impossible.
A 2-tier search makes sense. The first search might have been poorly designed. As the investigation heated up, a more thorough and in-depth Email scan would be done.
Wilson46201 |
12.03.05 - 10:39 pm | #
I understand about email databases being backed up. In my office we use media that is recycled every 90 days. However, I would think that the White House would preserve the data for posterity. I agree with Wilson about it including drafts, as I can access my drafts on our Lotus Notes system from any computer in the domain. Does anyone know about the structure of the White House Email system? This would answer alot of the questions I see here. Of course, in addition to the officiial govt email, Rove, Hadley, etc would probably have had Hotmail or Yahoo type of email accounts.
Ron Russell |
12.03.05 - 10:45 pm | #
The facts count Jane. Just give the facts.
Poncho & Lefty | 12.03.05 - 10:04 pm | #
Hey Andrea - isn't it past your bed time? Need your beauty sleep don'cha? After all, it's hard work carrying water for BushCo.
dab |
12.03.05 - 10:46 pm | #
Grandpa - I think even the most narrowly formulated search terms would have had to include "Niger," don't you? It's really the only word in Rove's email that specifically ties into the Plame story, and I don't see how it could have been excluded.
blythetdm |
12.03.05 - 10:46 pm | #
Grampa, just to modify VG's response slightly, there were two document requests, one by Ashcroft and a second one by Fitzy. Can't address your first question.
Ron, there was a court decision in the early 90s that all WH/admin. emails must be permanently preserved. Of course, Bushie Boy et al. could choose to ignore that.
Frank, I've no doubt that there are lots of documents that have not made the public domain.
Maggie |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 10:52 pm | #
Woo hoo!
The email discussion has made it to the front burner and the shills are hitting the fan. You heard it first here folks. Rover’s email story stinks and were talking about it! Why? It is called Free Speech and everyone loves it. No fake MSM vomit. Just Plame truth.
But first, a little philosophy…
Oklahoma KiddoAm I alone in some sort of tedious solipsistic dreamscape on this?
Thanks for the opening. It is [was-ed] 5:37 pm left coast time. I’ll bet it will be much later before my post hits whatever thread is current. Your comment and soooooo many others I’ve been perusing since early afternoon have been riveting. If and when I catch up with the gust front and blow my wad in sequence, I’ll expect no response. When one appears it’s like a shock. A connection! I get mushy and rush to respond. Like now – a receptor has fired and wants feedback. But there is a delay. Thinking is slow. Life is fast. Blogs approximate life in that they are chaotic and self organizing. We are cells, quantizing, polarizing and pulsing with energy. We assemble and connect intellectually. We form a metaphysical entity which is a hierarchical implementation of the arrayed members.
Solipsism betrays the limits to consciousness. Pantheistic solipsism posits an array of dimensions, each owned by the author/entity. The Noosphere is the broadest entanglement of this set of notions. An earlier post of mine alludes to the paradox of right and wrong in such an overworld. Our thoughts are noospheric butterflies with fluttering wings of inference. Sometimes they get smacked and spill all over the floor. (Like my drink just did…oops.) Sometimes they start hurricanes. Like this one now.
By the way…”Immaculate email” is perfect. Sooooo descriptive.
Now: How did Luskin get permission to dig through a government enterprise server chock full of classified goodies. A “need to know” one piece of information is quite different than license to search a database full of national security secrets. What if Luskin is really a spy and now knows the subjects of all of Roves emails? Talk about leverage! I’ll bet they wouldn’t have let him near anything that sensitive.
justwondering saw that about Fitz going in. Luskin may not have been welcome either especially if the other players were nervous about Rover’s guy sniffing around. Jane sensed that in the thread comments I see.
Whoever “found” the Immaculate Email is the Tinfoil Virgin.
neokneme |
12.03.05 - 10:53 pm | #
Now, I'll attempt to respond to posts from the last thread addressed to me:
justwondering - Thanks for your good words.
Frank (if you're still here) - I apologize. I should have used a smiley face also, because I was also kidding. You said "I never said anyone should be shot seriously," and I asked whether you wanted them to be shot while giggling. I was poking you because of a misplaced adverb, not because of your views on punishment for improper blogging.
blythetdm - Thanks for your thoughts. I'll put something in about the gold bars later (perhaps when Redd is back, because I'd like a lawyer's view on this subject). No, I'm not connected to GrandmaJ, but there's always hope. :>)
Jane S. - If Rove was questioned about Cooper and answered, "I don't remember any such conversation," he was lying ONLY if he in fact did remember the conversation. If someone claims not to remember, you can't nail him for perjury unless you can show by external evidence that he must have remembered.
GrandmaJ - Yes, I did see your comments, and responded to them. Thanks very much. My hair would be gray if I had any left.
When I bring up the Haloscan window, my browser does not have a "search" button. I have to go to "Properties," get the window's URL, and paste it into a new browser in order to search. Is there an easier way (other than getting Firefox)?
Grampa |
12.03.05 - 10:54 pm | #
at the current price of Firefox, it's a bargain. Go for it! It's the only civilized way to fly...
Wilson46201 |
12.03.05 - 10:59 pm | #
Grampa | 12.03.05 - 10:54 pm
Get Firefox. http://www.mozilla.com/
---Join the millions of people worldwide enjoying a better Web experience.--
-
Valley Girl |
12.03.05 - 11:01 pm | #
blythetdm - regarding the narrowness of the search, I was being kind to Ashcroft. I was suggesting that if the search was rigged, perhaps it was done before Fitz came on board. You and others have noted that Fitz did his own search, so that blows that theory.
Grampa |
12.03.05 - 11:03 pm | #
Grampa, in IE press: ctrl + f
a small search box will pop up for the haloscan window.
Shez |
12.03.05 - 11:07 pm | #
Ah! Thanks Shez. Now what do I have to press to call up all of Karl Rove's emails?
Grampa |
12.03.05 - 11:09 pm | #
Ahem . . .
Go to a couple of parties, and all hell breaks loose at FDL . . .
Anyway -- my two cents.
V Novak is not in any legal jeopardy (beyond lying to the GJ, which no one has asserted) -- she can talk to her editors, fellow reporters, and lawyers for White House perps about anything anytime -- she is not legally obliged to keep state secrets. (At least, not obliged to keep Valerie Flame related secrets, post B Novak outing.)
Now, as for journalistic ethics -- that is another matter entirely. We can convene a either a blogger or streetwalker ethics panel to discuss the issues; but unlike certain WH officials, Ms V. N. is legally in the clear . . .
ck |
12.03.05 - 11:10 pm | #
Wilson - you've got me thinking. probably not a good thing.... notice the difference in the reporting between Isikoff and the WaPo article today. Issy describes an "electronic search". this seems to be something that was done on a users computer using their email program. since Rover has deleted the email from his computer after Abu's heads-up and since he feels that Cooper will never testify against him he feels that he is in the clear. The WaPo mentions that Lusker "reviewed" the emails that Rover had sent. this would be the info straight off of the server logs. why would he be "reviewing" this info if his boy was in the clear? perhaps it was because Cooper was now being compelled to testify and fitz asked Lusker why his client had failed to mention the conversation with Cooper in his previous trip to the GJ.......FWIW, i usually avoid the hard-core theorizing but this one is killing me.
rusty |
12.03.05 - 11:14 pm | #
Grampa | 12.03.05 - 10:54 pm
not because of your views on punishment for improper blogging.
Frank singled me out for his latest attack on improper blogging. Please go back and decide whether or not I am an "improper" blogger and deserve to be shot, or at the very least, discouraged from posting at FDL ;)
-
Valley Girl |
12.03.05 - 11:19 pm | #
One other thought about email. I have no knowledge of how White House email is stored and searched, but if they are simply using search terms in Outlook or something similar, they are stuck in the 20th century.
Both law firms and governments can and do use much more sophisticated techniques in responding to discovery requests and subpoenas. Rather than thinking of particular words, modern software uses complex algorithms, relational analysis, and pattern matching to find all documents that bear on a particular topic. Some have visual tools to group documents based on concepts rather than just words. I've seen demonstrations, and the stuff is amazing (take a look at Attenex Patterns, for example -- disclosure: I have an interest in it).
In any event, I agree with those who say there is simply no excuse for the email not being found initially. I don't know who bears responsibility for missing it -- whether it's Rove, Luskin, the White House, or someone else -- but none of the explanations to date make any sense.
Grampa |
12.03.05 - 11:30 pm | #
VG - At least he didn't recommend torture. :>)
Grampa |
12.03.05 - 11:33 pm | #
Jane- Thanks
Grampa- Actually that was one of the imposter's posts. No worries.
Valley Girl- I certainly intended no offence. I think there were a couple of those; don't feel like reading the thread comments back there, I was trying for light hearted and apparently missed.
When I start to see that posters to a thread aren't bothering to read what other people have to say I figure the conversation has started to die, but obviously everyone here disagrees. I promise not to bother y'all about it any more.
Frank |
Homepage |
12.03.05 - 11:40 pm | #
Valley Girl, yea that was strange and set off a bunch of shit. Jane says above that there were two IP addies using his name so she banned the one. Two things strike me about it.
1) Odd two days in a row he complains that we should limit posters or we're asking for problems, then he gets it himself.
2) Weird someone would impersonate someone with a homepage listed.
Either someone did get mad at his original remarks, or else he's down to one puter in here. ;)
Shez |
12.03.05 - 11:42 pm | #
Of course I'm teasing.. hate it when I forget my [/snark] tag. LOL
Shez |
12.03.05 - 11:44 pm | #
didn't cooper debunk the the issue of welfare in his recollection of his conversation w/rove? i would think this in itself would lead fitz to think the email was bogus. i also assume whatever advancements in tech are available the wh would have access to them. can one disappear or create an email? this is the numero uno question. and can fitz find a trail.the wording of the email seems so strange to me it is hard to imagine it is original. billmons idea of the concept behind the meaning of the content seems likely, but it would also be plausible that the intention of the email was to lead us down this path of subterfuge after the fact.
annie |
12.03.05 - 11:50 pm | #
So which "Frank" said Valley Girl should be shot? That wasn't funny!
karen allen |
12.03.05 - 11:56 pm | #
franK, the MO of using someone elses id happened to me here a few days ago. then they reappeared as annien. then disappeared.bs as far as i am concerned. i have my own ideas about who it is but didn't want to make a stink here about it and cause much concern. but it is a curious form of trolling, using a regulars name, and then opening by dishing another regular. just something we have to look out for , they aren't going away most likely
annie |
12.03.05 - 11:57 pm | #
The thing is, annie, that erasing or creating an email on any WH computer would leave footprints. For example, if the email is genuine, Fitz should be able to go back to the WH, reproduce Luskin's search, and come up with both the one Rove sent and the one Hadley received. If Fitz can't do that, Rove is in big trouble. Similarly, it is unlikely that he could have deleted it off the server.
If, as some suggest, Rove used a non-standard system (e.g., Hotmail), that would be VERY suspicious. And even Hotmail can be subpoenaed.
To me, it remains a mystery.
Grampa |
12.03.05 - 11:58 pm | #
if anyone wants to hear my theory on who it is, i can post here about them, but otherwise i won't .it is a little OT
annie |
12.04.05 - 12:00 am | #
I didn't use her handle but I said it. shot :), or at least discouraged.
(anyone, like Grampa above (sorry) for instance who comments to a thread without reading it.)
(ok he didn't quite say that, and I wasn't calling for anyone to be banned. I just feel like its bad form. But I've gotten enough abuse by now to shut up about it even if I dont change my mind.)
I gotta go to sleep now. Later
Frank |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 12:01 am | #
neokneme, you bring up a great point about security clearances for the emails. Did Luskin have to get one way back when he was hired by Rove to be able to view potential sensitive material?
Grampa, a little while ago I tried googling the WH email system. Apparently not many are happy with the new system, but it seemed more to do with web forms, stuff like that. I saw things about Israeli's hacked into it back in 2000 or 2001? (of course National Security parts they were after)
Congressional hearings were held about the new system put in place. I gave up and came back to see what's up here.
Shez |
12.04.05 - 12:01 am | #
grampa, i thought there wasn't a record of it from hadley's end??
always follow the most likely scenario, follow the money so to speak. the most obvious is the unlikeliness of the email being realtime
annie |
12.04.05 - 12:03 am | #
OT--North Carolina told Diebold they had to provide the state with their codes in order to be recommended. Goold ole Diebold, true to form, said they would withdraw from consideration. Whereupon North Carolina apparently certified Diebold. Kinda like the reporters we have been discussing.
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 12:04 am | #
back in after a long bikeride the ended in a sudden downpour....
many thanks for all the great answers to my question about pardons....youse guys are the rockinest....
medaka |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 12:05 am | #
Shez, you make me swoon. Me butterfly. Me flap wings.
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 12:06 am | #
karen, did the cirtification go thru!! i know the deadline was 12/1 and they only had like a week or so notice to jump ship. the diebold thing pisses TFOOM. have you been following new mexico? jeez, court case, they friggin refuse to let them see the trail! go to votersunite.org ellen T and john gideon are angels
annie |
12.04.05 - 12:11 am | #
I am not sure of the final details re North Carolina. Makes one think money passed hands, doesn't it?
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 12:12 am | #
annie - I don't think we know whether there is a record of this email from Hadley's end. I believe it has been reported that the original searches did not turn up the email from either Rove's end or Hadley's end. However, once they found it, I've not seen anything to indicate one way or the other whether they found both a sender's and a recipient's copy.
Shez - The search tools I was referring to are not part of any particular email system. It is separate software capable of searching text, PDF, and many other formats.
Frank - Actually I did read the comments, if hurriedly. However, in the spirit of Bob Woodward, I'll volunteer to take a shot for Valley Girl.
Grampa |
12.04.05 - 12:12 am | #
the most obvious is the unlikeliness of the email being realtime
Fake email is out of the question, for numerous reasons. The main one being that the risk of faking an email far outweighs the benefit it gives him. It would be easier to fake a set of notes, for example. Or he could come up with some better excuse for why he remembered the conversation.
Semblance |
12.04.05 - 12:13 am | #
And neokneme, if Luskin does have a security clearance now, just think about how many secrets he's sitting on. As opposed to Libby's lawyers who are basically defending his lies and coverups, at this point that is. On the other hand, we've brought up 'need to know' parameters and it would seem Luskin if full of shit about seeing thousands of them. Alas I'm tired and don't want to go back and see what we've said on this previously.
Shez |
12.04.05 - 12:20 am | #
I have a question about the Rove- Hadley email. Where did this information come from? What are the sources for the email text?
One article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar.../
w161250D87.DTL says thus---"The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove told a grand jury about it last year during testimony in which he also acknowledged discussing Plame's covert work for the CIA with Cooper and syndicated columnist Robert Novak."
Okay, I agree with Jane that it would be difficult to forge an email- at least I think this is what she meant by the comment "and it has lead many to presume it (the email) might have been forged ex-post-facto. I'm not of this theory, but understand why many are"
Many FDLers have commented as to whether or not it would be possible to forge an email. Maybe yes, maybe no, according to the techies. Okay, let's assume, counter Jane, that there was forgery. But, who's to say that any such "forgery" was actually "successful" to serve the purpose? Operative word here being "successful". As far as I can tell, all the sources that we have re: the email come from the White House (see above) or Rove or Luskin & co. But, who's to say that Fitz hasn't already figured out that the email in question doesn't "fit the parameters"? We haven't heard Fitz' side of it yet, and, based on his work so far, he ain't talking.
-
Valley Girl |
12.04.05 - 12:27 am | #
I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this.
So in other words, Karl threatened Cooper that if he did much investigative reporting on the matter he might become the target of vicious personal attack?
Shez, you and Grampa could make music. His little disclosure is pretty cool.
Valley Girl. We're gaggin with a spoon over the MSM fact base. Fitz facts are our fantasies.
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 12:33 am | #
This is probably way more than anyone wants to know, but here is the scoop on the document requests and the Hadley email.
1. The original document request (9/30/03) does not mention Cooper , but it does mention Niger twice. The word Niger does appear in the Hadley/Rove email and a search for that term in the time period under consideration should have turned up the email.
The known contents of the Hadley/Rove email do not mention Wilson or Plame.
2. The second document request (1/22/04) does specify Cooper. Newsday says the subpoena requests "records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists". The Hadley/Rove email is not a contact with Cooper, the phone call itself is the contact, but the email is a record of the contact.
Newsday also says that this subpoena "repeated the Justice Department's informal request to the White House last fall for documents from Feb. 1, 2002, through 2003 related to Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger, to Plame and to contacts with journalists"
If the second subpoena is a repeat of the first document request, this phrase from the first document request whould make the Hadley/Rove email responsive regarding Cooper.
telephone records of any kind (including but not limited to any records that memorialize telephone calls having been made)
Background:
There were two document requests:
First
Issued on 9/30/03, the subpoenas requested the following:
"[F]or the time period February 1, 2002 to the present, all documents, including without limitation all electronic records, telephone records of any kind (including but not limited to any records that memorialize telephone calls having been made), correspondence, computer records, storage devices, notes, memoranda, and diary and calendar entries, that relate in any way to:
1. Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, and/or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency;
2. Contacts with any member or representative of the news media about Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, and/or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency; and
3. Contacts with reporters Knut Royce, Timothy M. Phelps, or Robert D. Novak, or any individual(s) acting directly or indirectly, on behalf of these reporters."
Second
Issued on January 22, 2004, the subpoenas required the White House to produce the documents in three stages -- the first on Jan. 30, 2004, a second on Feb. 4, 2004, and the third on Feb. 6, 2004.
The subpoena with the last production date repeated the Justice Department's informal request to the White House last fall for documents from Feb. 1, 2002, through 2003 related to Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger, to Plame and to contacts with journalists. Newsday 4/5/04
Newsday added more information about the subpoenas the next day and Cooper was on the expanded list referred to in the Newsday article. FWIW Viveca Novak did not appear among the 5 Time journalists on the expanded list.
The grand jury also subpoenaed White House records of staff contacts with an expanded list of more than two dozen reporters who wrote or broadcast about administration concerns over Plame, Wilson and his CIA report that rejected rumors Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger. Newsday 4/6/04
Newsday has this language regarding the subpoena
A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July.
Newsday 4/6/04
The existence of this email was first revealed in the 7/16/05 AP story, the sources for this article appear to be from Rove's side of the story. Hadley issued a standard will not comment.
Rove's version of the Cooper conversation and the the email are also found in the 7/16/05 AP.
Rove, Bush's closest adviser, told a grand jury the e-mail was consistent with his recollection that his intention in talking with Cooper wasn't to divulge Plame's identity but to caution the reporter against certain allegations Plame's husband was making, according to legal professionals familiar with Rove's testimony. AP 7/16/05
Wow, Polly, impressive!
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 12:35 am | #
This just in from SNL:
Seattle is the most literate city in the USA.
Hooray for Ecotopia!
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 12:40 am | #
Yeah thanks, Polly. That's excellent.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 12:42 am | #
Seattle is the most literate city in the USA.
And as a product of the Seattle education system, I still can't spell :)
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 12:43 am | #
I have a different take on this.
Let us assume that the agreed on plan was to toss it out there to reporters about Wilsons wife sending him to Niger. Who would bite? They had to make it "casual," or as Woodward putit lie gossip, as they would not want to alert these journalists of her NOC status for fear the reporters would not want to be part of outing a covert agent. So they spun it that she was "just a desk jockey" like they fif to Novak, and to Judith Miller mislead her to believe Plame worked in the non-covert part of the CIA. Then they would sit back and see who took the "Bait."
What if Roves E-Mail to Hadley was inessence telling him that Rove had tossed the bait out there? Sort of code. It wouldn't be the first time we have seen that!
Kathi |
12.04.05 - 12:46 am | #
Kathi,
I read it as "I didn't take Cooper's bait to say anything that might sound like we are on the defensive. Instead, I followed our offensive plan (wink wink - personally attacking the messenger, once again) and warned him that if he didn't play on my side he'd be next on the list."
P |
12.04.05 - 12:53 am | #
And as a product of the Seattle education system, I still can't spell :)
A product of said educational system has made it so that you don’t have to. Thanks Bill and Paul. Many, many thanks for that bit of software.
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 12:56 am | #
Do we know if Hadley's email was researched to see if the email was found there as well once Rove "found" it so conveniently?
Other thought - all of this was happening at a time when the WH crew was still invincible - the MSM was buying everything they said, etc so Rove and friends may well have thought that they could get away with faking this email as they've gotten away with all sorts of things ...
and while we know that any faked email would show in server logs, etc - I still think that a crew willing to forge the clearly fake niger docs would have no qualms about faking a little email if there was a chance they could use it to get off - or, again, to stir enough public doubt that pardons cause less public outrage
than again, it's very late and I may be missing important points ... OT, finally saw Motorcycle Diaries tonight - good stuff if you also missed it (cc - put it on your netflix queue!) (second OT - my son had me watch Brazil which I also had missed - wow - eerily relevant to our world at this moment)
siun |
12.04.05 - 1:02 am | #
I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this.
maybe this is a stretch but i am going under the assumption the email is fraudulent. cooper used just these words re/rove in his supersecret memo to kelly "don't get too far out on this "
so the email to hadley uses these words only w/a different spin,when i first heard it from cooper i interpreted it to mean not to present the slant on the story w/a bang. to slide it in. they were trying to slime plame but w/ subtlety .
obviously rove is slipping info to copper but wants it "not too far out. that was my impression anyway. that is a dangerous discloser from cooper rove needs to address so he presents it in a light that works for him.
Semblance, thank you for addressing the issue of fake email. the only reason i can even go down this road is that i am a clueless about computers. but, if anyone could do it, rove/WH could. of course my entire theory is shot to shit if the email is original. and why?? would rove tell cooper not to get too far out on welfare? just the idea of rove addressing welfare seems absurd.
also, when i am checking for past email i ALWAYS check by date first if i have any recollection of the date. so it just seems natural during those days aroung the africa trip/novak article, everything would be checked. wouldn't it?
and karen, about nc, it wasn't clean.
imho
annie |
12.04.05 - 1:06 am | #
Jane--spelling is a skill that can not be taught. Some words can be memorized, but it is a brain thing. Yes, thanks for speelcheck.
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 1:08 am | #
(Misspelling of spelling intended)
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 1:09 am | #
I've started to dig into this question of the email policy of the White House.
As it turns out, this email retention thing is a very complex issue. Some emails should not be archived at all (for example, because of issues surrounding attorney-client privilege when they're talking through the White House email system). At the same time, many emails constitute public documents of the same type as official memos, and need to be preserved indefinitely.
I haven't read it yes, but it looks like more legalese than I can understand anyway. Maybe someone here will find use in it.
fdlurker |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 1:11 am | #
egg on face. ahh. its late , my memory, i should have followed pollyusa's posts more clearly. the welfare remarks i referenced, strike them, i'll shut up now. sorry.
annie |
12.04.05 - 1:18 am | #
SCORE!fdrlurker gets kudos!
Conclusion
After nearly a decade of litigation the U.S. federal government is still attempting to
manage its electronic records in a manner compatible with federal recordkeeping law. The
issues raised by the various legal battles point out salient features of electronic records
management and electronic archiving that are relevant to any institution seeking to effectively
manage its computer generated information resources. The most salient to policy lessons
from the PROFS-related litigation include the following salient points:
•Electronic mail software can produce official government records.
•Computer systems need to accommodate an electronic recordkeeping functionality at the
front end during systems design if back end archival processing and digital preservation is
to be accomplished in a timely and economical manner.
•This electronic recordkeeping functionality needs to be able to create and/or capture
metadata that identify record status and provide for appropriate subject, function, and
genre classification.
•Policies that rely on print to paper can strip out critical systems metadata and also can
violate the law if the printout is used as a justification for deleting electronic versions.
•Backup tapes are not a suitable format for archival preservation.
•Archival management of electronic records needs to explore strategies and tactics that
retain original systems functionalities as hardware and software independent
environments may decontextualize records and harm their evidential value and
authenticity
•Attempts at salvage archiving of computer-generated data are likely to require resources
that are beyond what is available in most institutions and will likely be unsuccessful.
Thanks for the sunshine…we need that at this time of year!
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 1:23 am | #
Jane,
Now that the Frank-ly stuff has been put to bed, and me too, soon, because it's really really late here--- the main motivation for my "offensive" post was to point out that you had gotten major kudos from Froomkin http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8687330/
#180643
-
Valley Girl |
12.04.05 - 1:29 am | #
Rendition gone bad... Leaves evidence trail plus witness testimony... Civil suit to be filed.
It looks like a criminal offense too, from my point of view... Plain old kidnapping. This is gonna raise eyebrows.
Me3 |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 1:31 am | #
I decided to put off sleep and read a little deeper into the document. It's not really legalesey at all, and the history is really fascinating. You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll be reminded of aspects of Iran-Contra that you'd forgotten about and would never have guessed would become relevant again. I'm still not quite sure what the applicable policy over the emails in question is, but I have to leave something for tomorrow. Now, I sleep.
fdlurker |
12.04.05 - 1:31 am | #
Hey Me aka Me3, looks like you're still online.
Now that I've had the time to read back, I see that you referenced the Froomkin column, with kudos to Jane, before I did. Man, I could'a saved myself some s**t by being as alert as you are. xxoo
-
Valley Girl |
12.04.05 - 1:38 am | #
Me3 - thank you for that link - this is a very important article! War crimes clearly - clearly...
will write more letters as soon as I get a few hours sleep ...
siun |
12.04.05 - 1:49 am | #
The original document request...does mention Niger twice.
Another reason to discount the fake email idea. A faked email created later would purposely not have the word 'Niger' in it.
Semblance |
12.04.05 - 1:55 am | #
Semblance
Do you have any idea what set of circumstances would allow the lack of response to the original search(s)? And how subsequent action(s) were productive?
What changed?
Will Hadley answer the simple question, “did you get Rove's email when it was alleged to have been sent”? If so, can you explain why it was not discovered?
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 2:05 am | #
Me3 | Homepage | 12.04.05 - 1:31 am |
Me- just read the article you linked. Your comments are pretty mild, considering the information in the article.
Jane- I urge you write something about this article and about this case. Never mind plameology, this is torture, in the most graphic and brutal terms. Seems like they were enjoying it, too.
"It was the Camelot of counterterrorism," a former counterterrorism official said. "We didn't have to mess with others -- and it was fun."
-
Valley Girl |
12.04.05 - 2:15 am | #
If so, can you explain why it was not discovered?
I'm not sure I'm clear on the question, but my theory is that Rove/Hadley knew about the email but kept it hidden. Rove only produced it when the Cooper conversation was about to be exposed and he needed an excuse for why he suddenly remembered it.
Semblance |
12.04.05 - 2:28 am | #
...my theory is that Rove/Hadley knew about the email but kept it hidden.
My question is how could it be "hidden" during the initial search effort. More curiously how could it be un-hidden? Very tricky in both directions. A case of fool me once, fool me twice.
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 2:39 am | #
Quick comment apropos the article me linked to about rendition, because, alas, I have a lot of real life things to do. Rice seems to think that she can tell the Europeans to STFU about torture, kidnapping, and abuse of sovereignty she's in for a very rude surprize.
Condi in case you hadn't noticed constantly stabbing your allies in the back is the way to make a whole set of very angry and determined enemies. How would you like for example the Germans to restrict US military flights? ALL military flights. Ever heard of Landsthul military hospital? How do you think the patients get transported there?
Folks I'm being deadly serious here. A lot of people here HATE torture and unlike in the US people here aren't politically passive. For the US to go trampling all over their country for a war that most Europeans oppose anyway is really stupidly arrogant and is guaranteed to make life very difficult for the US government and for US business. The countries that allow it chief supsects Poland and Romania are already facing boycotts of their produce because of this.
dubhaltach |
12.04.05 - 2:57 am | #
My question is how could it be "hidden" during the initial search effort.
My theory proposes that Rove was in charge of the search. He suppressed any meaningful finds. I believe he thought that Cooper wouldn't testify, so he'd never have to expose the email.
Semblance |
12.04.05 - 3:04 am | #
"It was the Camelot of counterterrorism," a former counterterrorism official said. "We didn't have to mess with others -- and it was fun."
valley girl, can you reference the souce of this quote? did i miss it in the thread?
Me3, are you ME? any reason you chose such a similiar name ?
annie |
12.04.05 - 3:04 am | #
He suppressed any meaningful finds.
That subterfuge would likely entangle other pertinent documents. Which suggests possible new revelations. My goodness, who knows how deep the rabbit hole goes!
The rabbit at the bottom of this hole is a killer rabbit.
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 3:14 am | #
Annie "Me" is well capapble of answering for himself. But in a thread downstream I proposed a vote of thanks for our hostesses. Shez?? I think it was shez said "me2" and "Me" loled and said "Me3". nothing sinister
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime
YIKES!! (My money is on either the day after the 2006 elections or Bush's last day in office.)
wtm |
12.04.05 - 5:03 am | #
drat I've sketched out a response and plan on writing it up during the week hey ho time to hit Ctrl F key combo.
dubhaltach |
12.04.05 - 5:07 am | #
Here's a thought RonK had over at TNH. We impeach all those people Bush would be tempted to pardon.
Libby gets convicted? We raise articles of impeachment in Congress.
Rove gets indicted and it begins to look like Shrub is going to give him the old Cap Weinburger pardon? We indict Karl.
If I'm understanding RonK right, it's a great way to make the GOP go on the record as supporting or opposing crime. And it is the ONLY thing that can prevent presidential pardons all around.
emptywheel |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 5:23 am | #
more on topic
1st - Can the date on an email be forged?
Certainly. Depending on the system, either very easily, or with a little code.
2nd - Could the manipulation be detected?
Again, certainly. Most easilly by auditing system backups of the target date of the forgery. These would not reflect the changes without modification.
3rd - Could system backups be manipulated?
Again - yes. But with significantly greater effort. And most likely not at all if the backups are written on 'write once' media
(i say 'most likely' because I do not personally know of any hacks for WORM (write once read many) media.
So, the quick conclusion is that the email date could have been faked but it would take some really dynamite computer hacking skills to defeat standard audit trails.
Of course, this is the US Government, so all bets on 'best practices are off'
I suspect that the details of the technical implimentation of WH communications is properly classified.
But magnetic media is magnetic media. A disc is a disc, and a tape is a tape. And either can be modified in raw format, so long as the modifier has physical access and knows what they want to change.
Optical (CD/DVD) write once is (to my knowledge) immutable.
As to where things are stored/backed up. This is a system administration issue. Generally one configures everything to default to the server so that backups can be the responsibility of the admin.
On an earlier point, I highly doubt that any Executive staff have Sysadmin priviledges. If nothing else, the other staff probably don't trust Rove any more than you or I.
Another point, not discussed.
This was a Draft email.
Meaning it had not been sent.
In Outlook drafts do not exist once the email is sent. In Evolution, the same applies. I have no experience with Notes, but would expect this to be consistant in email clients.
I don't know about you, but I don't keep unsent drafts for months and months. I send them or delete them eventually.
This does answer the question about Hadley's copy - he had none.
Mack |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 5:43 am | #
I have been rolling the pardon scenareo around in my head.
Greg suggested a civil suit.
My first thought was that the expense would be prohibitive.
But then I thought of a class-action for all the fallen and wounded.
There might be enough money there after all.
Mack |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 5:47 am | #
Regarding the email, I laid out some technical facts vis a vis the email residing in more than one place, and then I postulated some questions, and Pachacutec helpfully added his insight. This was in the “Let the Frogmarch Begin” thread.
Something in the back of my mind remembers reading something (here) about not repeating whole portions of comments, so I’d say that you might want to go back and search that thread for some good analysis by Pachacutec, which I think will answer many questions here.
Another question for all the analysts and slueths: whether or not the email was discovered and by whom, and whether or not Fitzgerald already had it (which is my own assumption) or not - if Hadley wasn’t the point man on all things Niger and Plame, what reason would Rove have had to send Hadley an email about welfare reform? Hadley was Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor.
What? Are welfare recipients considered terrorists nowadays?
Therefore, I vote for email as CYA.
ExcuseMeExcuseMe |
12.04.05 - 5:55 am | #
Jane,
JSYI -- Steven Hadley is also on ABC,'s This Week with George S.
How stupid of me. The failure of the search to find the e-mail was the Democrats fault. Wilson? The search term should have been "ilson".
There are still no W keys on the WH keyboards because Clinton's staffers stole them all.
fred |
12.04.05 - 6:17 am | #
makes sense to me...
ilson46201 |
12.04.05 - 6:23 am | #
A couple of things. I could discuss the issues of a possible forgery from a technical perspective, but that's been covered. Basically, you could easily forge the email but you couldn't tamper with the logs. So, I don't think that happened. (I'm making a huge assumption that the logs covering the emails in question are also produced to the DoJ?)
Also, from a behaviorial perpective: If you were going to forge the email, and gave it any thought at all you would ask the question, "So how are we going to explain that this didnt' show up in the orginal search?" The easiest explanation would be to spell any potential search terms wrong in the forged document. Then you've got that explained away. Typos happen in emails so you just introduce a "Coooper" or "Nigsr". Then you have a more plausible explanation for why the search engines might have missed it. (Although, even that would be a stretch IMO.)
Finally, I'm going with the thinking that Hadley was involved from the get-go. He got a promotion didn't he?
Kevin |
12.04.05 - 6:33 am | #
Kevin: Your explanation seems consistent with all the facts that we know. However, Rove would have had to have misspelled "Cooper," "Niger" and "Wilson" in a very short e-mail, which would make him a much worse speller than Jane!
Notwithstanding, I can't think of any explanation that is more consistent than yours.
sonate |
12.04.05 - 6:42 am | #
There have been observations made that email is a two-way street involving the sender and the receiver(s). So copies should have been found on Rove's as well as Hadley's hard drive(s).
But don't forget, there is an electronic trace of every email that is sent in the archives of the mail servers that handled the mail. A search can be made by account name or number, even if not by keyword. It may require a subpoena to get them to cough up all of the email sent or received by a particular email account during a certain period. I don't know how long email servers keep their mail before expunging, but in this case it would be well within the probable time period of a couple of years.
This is something to remember in the age of email. When you send a physical letter, there is typically just that one copy. But an email gets replicated many times and ends up being archived in lots of places. Folks with criminal minds seem not to have learned this yet.
suntzu |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 6:43 am | #
But why would TWO searches (around September, '03 and January, '04) not have turned up this e-mail? If the e-mail is a complete fabrication Fitz could have checked his copy of the server log (he must have one, right?) and found it absent, in which case Rove is toast and Fitz would not have waited to indict. If the e-mail is genuine it would have had to have been sent (and received) from a 3rd party account (like hotmail, as suggested earlier by Grandpa). But that is too suspicious, and conflicts with the reports that this e-mail was on Rove's government account.
sonate |
12.04.05 - 6:50 am | #
Keven,
You wrote: Finally, I'm going with the thinking that Hadley was involved from the get-go. He got a promotion didn't he?
Exactly on point, sir!
Mount an attack on the Constitution of the United States and receive, in turn, a promotion, more status with the other admin crooks into it up to their chinny-chin-chins, and face-time on Sunday morning chat shows.
Yep. There's nothing like early morning treason to get my circulation going, that's fer sure.
OK, now where did I put that blood-pressure thingy? I feel a personal best coming on.
My humble two bits on the lost and found Hadley email.
Back in Iran-Contra days, Ollie North got pinched on his incriminating emails because of the bulit in redundancy of the governments email system. It goes something like this:
Each time you send an email in a high level government agancy, especially the Whitehouse, your email has 10 ( I don't know the precise number, it's probably classified) copies made of it.
Nine of the copies are send off to nine Different servers all through the government computer system in encrypted form. Relevent info on the nine copies are 'stripped' from the outgoing email logs so you don't know exactly where they went.
The nine emails are now 'just out there'. Know one except the uber geeks locked in the deepest, darkest government cellar know how to retreive them.
This is so they NEVER get lost, for real security reasons. There are somethings the government never ever wants to lose, say for instance, a record of generated nuclear launch codes.
The email system NEVER forgets because it was designed by true paranoids, trust me on this.
One last tidbit is that the 9 'hidden' copies of your email periodically send out a secret encrypted message once a year (or even at shorter intervals) and they actually do a 'head count' amoungst themselves to be sure all 9 of them still exist. If for example one of the nine emails has been erased or corrupted, the others will Generate a replacement! Cool. Nothing 'disappears' from these systems.
Ollie North did not know about this and got nailed. Even if he did know, it takes an ultra uber geek to hack the email system to tamper with it. Something that would require several layers of supervisiors.
Hadley's email was Always there or an almost unbelievible computer hack was accomplished
Smoke is being blown up someone's ass on this folks
Gentleman Jim |
12.04.05 - 6:58 am | #
Fox News Sunday: The panel was just giggling over Bush's
"checkbook journalism" in Iraq.
It would seem to me that everytime Fitzgerald is about to indict, Luskin comes up with something new. It would seem, in fact, that that is his strategy.
So far it looks really, really effective.
arbogast |
12.04.05 - 7:05 am | #
I love all the insightful commenters here (even when y'all squabble!)
My personal obsession is with Big Time's role in this, which my intuition tells me is that of ringleader. I'm aware that Fitz works his way up from the bottom, so I'll just have to be patient.
I just ran across this interesting quote, where Dick clearly and bald-facedly defends a leak of classified, stove-piped information when it suits his own ends. Could this kind of example be germane to (i.e. in the sense of undermining) a future defense Dick might present to charges of violating the Espionage Act?
Following Rumsfeld's admission that he had created his own parallel intelligence and analysis team, the SSCI demanded that Feith submit a classified report, detailing the findings of the unit. Feith stalled for months, but finally produced a 16-page memo, citing 50 itemized instances where the PCTEG had found intelligence citations of the Saddam/al-Qaeda links.
...Hayes virtually supercopied the classified document, and published it in the Nov. 24, 2003 issue of the Weekly Standard, with annotated comments. The article was brashly titled "Case Closed," implying that there was no longer any question that the Saddam/al-Qaeda connection was real.
...Six weeks after the Hayes story hit the newsstands, and well after the Defense Department refutation, Dick Cheney gave an interview, on Jan. 9, 2004, to the Rocky Mountain News, in which he regurgitated the contents of the Feith memo, and commended Hayes and the Weekly Standard by name, for setting the record straight on the Saddam/al-Qaeda links. "One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard a few weeks ago, that goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee. That's your best source of information," Cheney told the paper.
And why does there seem to be no investigation of this leak?
melior in France |
12.04.05 - 7:06 am | #
Gentleman Jim writes "Smoke is being blown up someone's ass on this folks."
I agree completely. The "facts" that have been reported are contradictory. It is impossible that two searches could have missed this e-mail if it existed (unless they were "psuedo" searches which were intended NOT to find the e-mail). If the e-mail did not exist, then Fitz has Rove COLD on both obstruction and perjury and would not have waited to indict. We have an impossibility here. One or more of the "facts" must be wrong.
sonate |
12.04.05 - 7:07 am | #
This may be off the wall BUT - if it is next to impossible that said email was faked, and also next to impossible that it was missed, is it possible that it does not exist at all?
The only place where I have read a text of the email states that it is a construction based on what people have said about it, not on seeing the actual document.
Again, I likely missed something here (it seems I usually do, and this is all way more complex than my brain is used to) but I'm curious about what you all think.
jlr |
12.04.05 - 7:07 am | #
So jlr thinks, if I interpret correctly, that the whole e-mail story (and not the e-mail itself) is a fabrication. If so, Luskin did this. Is there a reason why he would do this? (I can't come up with a better explanation than this. Nothing seems to fit.)
sonate |
12.04.05 - 7:13 am | #
Yes, sonate, that is exactly what I was trying to say, and no, I can't figure out why Luskin would do this either.
jlr |
12.04.05 - 7:16 am | #
One more remote possibility - the email was sent between personal rather than government email accounts.
jlr |
12.04.05 - 7:20 am | #
Gentleman Jim | 12.04.05 - 6:58 am
Fascinating account of how the government archives email. If I were a paranoid president, I would also want to have a way I can defeat this system too. I am not going to be so rude as to ask you how you know this, but this system would surely give Fitz important leverage in discovery (as it would to the defense as well). Question is, how do you authorize a retrieval search?
suntzu |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 7:20 am | #
Mack: what is your source for a confirmation that the Hadley email was a draft?
I have not seen that definitively reported anywhere.
re: civil suit and pardons
The Wilsons have standing to bring civil suit for damages. There was no such party in Iran Contra.
A civil suit would involve discovery and public disclosure of malfeasace, hence political damage would come to those involved.
The motivations for a pardon include the desire to avoid criminal liability and to cut off further political damage pursuant to public disclosure of crimes.
To be sure, pardons carry their own political costs, but the threat of civil suit in this case meaningfully diminishes the potential value of a pardon, if the nasty truth will out anyway. The pardon could delay disclusore of the truth, but not irrevicably bury it.
Pachacutec |
12.04.05 - 7:24 am | #
jlr writes "One more remote possibility - the email was sent between personal rather than government email accounts."
This is possible, but is in conflict with the WaPo story yesterday that stated that this e-mail was on Rove's "government" account. (Or, at least, that's what I think I read.)
sonate |
12.04.05 - 7:26 am | #
Holy shit!
Andrew Sullivan just answered Chris Mathews' "Tell me something I don't know" question thusly: the reason Joementum Lieberman has been such a supporter of Bush is that he is going to ask that he (Joe) be appointed to SecDef when Rumsfeld steps down next year.
One more remote possibility - the email was sent between personal rather than government email accounts.
Definitely a possibility. My post above (12.04.05 - 6:43 am) covers this possibility. Every email contains a header which details the exact route of the email as it wends its way through the Internet. In the old days, you saw this header everytime you opened an email. Nowadays you can hide this stuff that you're not interested in anyway. But with a good email program, you can still look at it. So if the email was sent through private accounts the header would identify the sendng as well as the receiving mail service. Their archives can be searched if the government issues a subpoena.
suntzu |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 7:31 am | #
J i O: trust me, Andrew pulls this stuff out of his ass. He makes shit up to be provocative. He is not a journalist with sources.
Pachacutec |
12.04.05 - 7:33 am | #
Welfare Reform
On or about this time that Rove sends this email to Hadley regarding the heads up, how many other email at this time were sent regarding welfare reform? If rove is being so nice about not trampling on Hadley's turf (as if) one would think he'd play nicely in the sandbox with the domestice policy person. My guess is there is zero email traffic at this time that is substantive regarding welfare reform. I don't recall any policy the white house was persuing at the time about welfare reform - and these guys only work on a couple of projects at the time. W doesn't have a lot of bandwidth.
The whole welfare reform bit seems to be a rovian red herring - and maybe even a code word for the conspiracy to slime wilson. Rove knew he was doing something illegal and needed a cover story. The email proves intent, not an alibi. He must be cackling in glee that he was able to spin the email as an alibi.
Hadley was the control for the operation called "welfare reform" and coordinated leaks and confirmations - keeping his list and checking it twice. His reward = the promotion. He fell on his sword for George. Double plus good.
Future Fed Chairman |
12.04.05 - 7:34 am | #
The Rove Email to Hadley reads to me like your basic Cover Your Ass memo. The question is, if that was it intent, why not produce it immediately? One possibility is that it was thought that it would drag Hadley into the sights of Fitz.
Suntzu and jlr:
If private accounts were used for the e-mail (and both the sender and receiver had to be private for the e-mail to be missed in the search), then WaPo's report that this e-mail was on Rove's government account mus be wrong (certainly a possibility).
However, if this e-mail was both sent and received via private accounts it is more than a bit suspicious. Also, Fitz would have subpoenaed the private accounts (which he might have done), which should have been caught by someone in the MSM, if they still do any reporting.
sonate |
12.04.05 - 7:42 am | #
Speculation that I've been having for awhile: Fitz makes like he's going to indict Rove next, but goes for Hadley instead.
This makes sense to me because I think Fitz's present target is the White House Iraq Group as in "includes Cheney and the neocons." Rove is useful because he is somewhat tertiary to that group, hates it for screwing things up, and he has the dirt on it. Thus threatening Rove with indictment is inherently efficient; it yields evidence on WHIG, while leaving the possibility open to start up a different investigational chain.
Rove is really the consiglieri of the operation, the maestro at the center, but as someone here observed, he's paid (underappreciated) help. His invisible Niger email can be seen as an intentional, beautifully placed stilletto sticking perjury into Hadley, who had little choice but NOT disclose it. Plame was Hadley's turf as national security advisor, as the subtext of Rove's email confirms. Technically, Hadley is now the guy between Fitz and Cheney, and there's nothing but ominous silence about him. Just the way Fitz would want it.
The sequence of links in the chain leading to the top of a mob structure isn't nearly as important at the start as it is at the end. The Bush and Cheney clans are like two mafia families--and of the two, I'd pick Cheney as being a most vulnerable capo di tutti capi.
MarcLord |
12.04.05 - 7:43 am | #
ccmask -- what cracks me up about the "checkbook journalism": why didn't the Bushies simply hire Fox? or for that matter, any other "legitimate" outlet that already worked with DoD (CNN, for example)?
There's more here than meets the eye; this was either "payoff journalism" or a "shut-yo-mouf' journalism". Hope Billmon is all over this; he was the first and best on this story.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 7:47 am | #
Sonate writes in response to jlr:
>>jlr writes "One more remote possibility - the email was sent between personal rather than government email accounts."
>>>This is possible, but is in conflict with the WaPo story yesterday that stated that this e-mail was on Rove's "government" account. (Or, at least, that's what I think I read.)
I wondered about this when I saw it in the WaPo article, "e-mail was written from Rove's government account..." What a strange thing to say. It implies that another e-mail channel exists, but that Rove hadn't used it in this situation. WTF?
If I was sitting in one of those offices I would most certainly want another way to communicate confidendially. BUT, conducting official government business via a non-official system is against the law. The government records laws were written to cover just these sorts of situations.
Kevin |
12.04.05 - 7:50 am | #
pollyusa: great find!
Pachacutec |
12.04.05 - 7:51 am | #
I didn't see this linked anywhere in this neighborhood, and it should be:
Jeralyn's take on the latest bit of Viveca detritus:
even if Hadley & Rove were using Hotmail or Yahoo Email, those busy sysadmin squirrels keep copies (logs) of all web accesses -- not the contents but the time and addresses. It's truly fun to peek at employee web usage. I got somebody fired for lengthy viewing of www.coprophilia.com ;-)
Wilson46201 |
12.04.05 - 8:03 am | #
I have just read thru all of these really quickly. Some delicious insights.
But I guess that I have landed on believing that the FBI and Fitz had Rove's Hadley email all along. (I think PollyUSA's superb post proves this to a certain extent.) Let's remember that Fitz had Scooter's notes which clearly indicated that he first learns about Plame from Cheney. Even so, Fitz lets Scooter weave his deceptive little narrative without bringing it up.
And I have to believe Luskin is just an incompetent attorney--they must have a way to work out a clearance for attorneys representing high level government officials where the stakes are this high. It was Luskin's job to go through all the emails in the given time period to make sure there was nothing that would come back and bite his client in the ass.
And the forgery is too risky--Karl is smart enough to know that. It sounds manufactered b/c I do believe Karl knew he had overstepped and he wanted to cover himself. (Cooper has said he left messages for Rove earlier in the week saying that he wanted to talk about welfare reform so that is where that lie came from.) In fact, the tidbit that Rove remembers--in spite of the thousands of calls he gets daily--that Cooper had called earlier in the week to talk about welfare is a testament to Rove's amazing, as opposed to faulty, memory.
But I think that Fitz knows all this. I've noticed that all of us rejectionists have to a certain extent deified Fitz but in tough times, you have to believe in someone.
Jane S. |
12.04.05 - 8:04 am | #
My theory on the Hadley email:
1. Hadley was a point-guy on the Wilson smear
2. Rove DID send Hadley an email after speaking with Cooper, but the email is a smoking-gun with respect to the Plame investigation
3. Gonzales et al did not produce this smoking-gun email when responding to requests from Fitz
4. The FBI went around the Gonzales et al filter and got what they wanted anyway
5. Rove et al did not know what the FBI had
6. Rove was asked about this email when shown a log entry or some other 'memory trigger'
7. Rove decided to produce this 'email' as spin and forged the CONTENTS only keeping the character count the same so that the email log would match the email headers exactly
8. Rove could not figure out a way to forge all of the actual copies of the actual email, but figured that matching the log was good enough.
My theory does not explain why they left in Niger etc. unless Rove needed that for his spin of the day.
However, my theory does explain why the email was goofy in its wording - they had to keep the character count the same.
Meg |
12.04.05 - 8:07 am | #
MarcLord -- been wondering about this, think part of the challenge sifting through all the details has been that we are surveying at least (3) different factions whose agendas do not align entirely.
--CIA/"old guard" (uncertain what their exact orientation may be, most flexible from administration to administration except for their loyalty to their own)
--Cheney/PNAC (read their white paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"; they stand for rampant corporatism masked behind nationalism, including both US and Israeli nationalism)
--Bush/Rove/VRWC-types (includes anything to the far right that is non-PNAC but manipulatable by the PNAC; the "whackos" to which Scanlon referred; party loyalists and Norquistian Lib-types)
An Iraq War is the single issue they had in common, but their loyalties cause breaches in their unification. Rove will do anything to save the party and its "Brand Bush" label; will he sell-out the Cheney/PNAC including Libby & Hadley to do so? Will the PNAC faction sell out the weaker "Brand Bush"? And will the CIA undercut both if either cross them? Which of these groups may already have been using disinfo against the other two factions?
(Been wondering about this in re: the Philippino connection...what exactly was that all about?)
Going to pick the brains of a former intel person this week to get his take on this, need more education on CIA loyalties. Although I admit to a knowledge gap in this area, I feel I can trust them far more than either of the other two factions. I trust the other two factions only to sell-out the American public.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 8:07 am | #
Future Fed Chairman,
excellent, excellent catch. We use project code names in my day job for security and to keep all the different projects straight, common practice in my industry, and duuhh, I should've seen "welfare reform" flashing in big red letters. Welfare Reform was the operational code name of the damage control project on the Wilsons. You hit it, and kudos to you.
PS--when you take over Bernanke's spot, assuming we still have a paper currency then, could you print up a few extra inflation-adjusted mill for me?
MarcLord |
12.04.05 - 8:08 am | #
Wilson46201:
I'm curious about that. If Rove e-mailed Hadley from, say, Yahoo Email, would the White House server indicate that he was using Yahoo Email, or would it just show that he was logged in at Yahoo.com?
Also, we have an opinion that even if this is what Rove did, he broke the law in doing so. This sounds correct to me, but I've not heard that before, so could someone confirm this?
sonate |
12.04.05 - 8:08 am | #
The more I think about it the less I like it, someone is blowing a lot of smoke up ours ...
Harry |
12.04.05 - 8:10 am | #
If the email was found on Rove's disk but not Hadley's Rove might have sent it via his gov't account to Hadley's personal, and the second if: Hadley did not retrieve it until he went home. Another possibility is if WH folks can access their official email from home. So, voila! No trace on his office puter. (Was there a search on home computers?) However, somebody upthread said it was illegal for WH employess to do gov't biz through personal email accts. OTOH, Rove may not have considered this government business, just keepin' in touch.
All this sounds bizarro, but in this scenario, anything is possible. That is why the definitive searches would be not on the parties' personal 'puters but on the archival servers, whether the WH or Internet. Anybody's guess as to whether this has, or is being, done?
suntzu |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 8:10 am | #
Wilson -- eeewww...
Makes me feel a little better, not the only one who's seen this stuff in work world. I left a company where the boss had been indulging fetishes in Catholic guilt, Japanese school girls and the color pink -- not necessarily independent of each other, either. Spent hours wiping viruses and spyware off his system, literally wiping schmutz off his machine, knowing he was doing this stuff; finally had enough. Wish I'd copied logs, in hindsight...
And I hope like hell that Fitz has had the wherewithal to get those same logs.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 8:12 am | #
But, here again, from WaPo...."The e-mail was written from Rove's GOVERNMENT account, which investigators searched early in the inquiry. It is unclear why the e-mail was not discovered at that time" (emphasis added).
This e-mail could have been generated via, say, Yahoo, only if WaPo is wrong on this very specific fact. (Certainly possible.) Is that where we are at here? (I can't think of anything better. Some of the "facts" must be wrong.)
sonate |
12.04.05 - 8:19 am | #
yes, the web access logs would show exactly which pages on the yahoo system were used. In a major govt computer office system, little is kept on the individual users PC: it's all on the servers. These are supposed to be highly secure and immune from users messing around...
Wilson46201 |
12.04.05 - 8:20 am | #
Jane S:
Your post makes me wonder something that has never occurred to me.
Is it possible or likely that Fitzy has interviewed Abu Gonzales? And - let's go all the way with this - since Fitzy has plenary power, could he potentially indict Gonzales on some conspiracy to obstruct charge?
Rayne: The CIA or some meanigful portion of it has been aligned against WHIG for some time. They are, in my belief, actively working to bring the administration down. See my back and forth with emptywheel in the comments to this diary here:
let us know what your ex-intel asset advises, and yep you got the picture right I think. Perhaps a fourth group in the mix is old-line beaurocrats who round up a "Posse," in which both the Old Guard Bush Brand, the CIA, DOJ are all included. The Pentagon stands on the sideline.
MarcLord |
12.04.05 - 8:22 am | #
Secret prisons haunt Rice's Euro tour
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice prepared Sunday to begin a tour of Europe, where the issue of secret CIA terror prisons was foremost in the news.
The Times of London said Rice feels the media, rather than political leaders, are making the biggest fuss about "black sites" housing top al-Qaida prisoners. Rice likely will brush off criticism of the United States' human rights record.
Rice has promised to respond to a letter from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, on behalf of the European Union about the reports, but she is not expected to go into detail about the existence of the alleged sites, the newspaper said.
In early November, the Washington Post reported the United States had operated secret prisons in eight countries. Human Rights Watch identified Poland and Romania as the most likely host nations.
Rice Monday will meet with new German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is determined to warm relations chilled by her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder.
Tuesday, Rice will travel to Bucharest to sign a deal opening U.S. facilities in Romania that will provide stopover points for U.S. missions in the Middle East and central Asia.
Wilson46201 |
12.04.05 - 8:27 am | #
Took me this long to notice that in the graphic for this post the mail is being delivered by Scooter, on one leg no less. But why is he smiling?
suntzu |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 8:29 am | #
My theory on the Hadley email:
1. Hadley was a point-guy on the Wilson smear
2. Rove DID send Hadley an email after speaking with Cooper, but the email is a smoking-gun with respect to the Plame investigation
3. Gonzales et al did not produce this smoking-gun email when responding to requests from Fitz
4. The FBI went around the Gonzales et al filter and got what they wanted anyway
5. Rove et al did not know what the FBI had
6. Rove was asked about this email when shown a log entry or some other 'memory trigger'
7. Rove decided to produce this 'email' as spin and forged the CONTENTS only keeping the character count the same so that the email log would match the email headers exactly
8. Rove could not figure out a way to forge all of the actual copies of the actual email, but figured that matching the log was good enough.
My theory does not explain why they left in Niger etc. unless Rove needed that for his spin of the day.
However, my theory does explain why the email was goofy in its wording - they had to keep the character count the same.
Meg |
12.04.05 - 8:32 am | #
Re: "Amid the e-mails, Luskin found one sent from Rove to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Rove mentioned his conversation with Cooper". What is bothersome is: wasn't Hadley's boss, Condileeza Rice, ( presently, Secretary of State), National Security Advisor to President Bush at the time of the e-mail sent by Rove to Hadely? In other words, Hadley reported directly to the big enchilada, Rice. Wouldn't she have known about the e-mail from her deputy? And probably most everthing else in this shabby episode?
It seems Rice is getting a free pass on all this. After all, she was an essential cog in the now infamous "WHIG" gang weal, wheel.
Oklahoma Kiddo |
12.04.05 - 8:33 am | #
OT --- McCain just said on Meet the Press that he expects "lots of 'em" [indictments] because this city [DC] has become so corrupt. Simple sentence. Direct man. MSM.
gottaknow |
12.04.05 - 8:38 am | #
Meg:
If I interpret your comment correctly, that makes Gonzalez guilty of obstruction. If that's where you're going, OK, but I just want to make sure I did not misunderstand you.
sonate |
12.04.05 - 8:39 am | #
suntzu -- oooh, good point. Nothing that Rove does is separate from the personal or the politic, whether at the office or at home.
I think the press would have mentioned it if home computers had been searched. Wonder if Fitz could use Patriot Act to monitor home use without getting into the actual machines?
Heh. The irony...
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 8:52 am | #
Sonate,
Yes, you are correct.
I believe that lots of stuff was deleted such as the log entry for Cooper in the Ralston phone log. The published spin says Rove told Ralston not to log Cooper's call. That doesn't make any sense. At the time, Rove thought he could skate through the Wilson smear. Afterwards, Rove et al found out that they had to cover up.
What was Card doing during that 12 hours he was given before freezing data? What was Gonzales doing when he was reviewing materials to handover? Yes, I do believe that there was obstruction of justice and I do believe that lots of stuff wasn't handed over like it was supposed to be. Yes, I do believe that Fitz and the FBI know.
meg |
12.04.05 - 8:52 am | #
Meg,Sonate,
You are correct...a lotta folks are in this for obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct and will go down in the larger conspiracy also. The only question (beyond pardons) is how Fitz gets 'em all before '08. It has become clear to the general public, and is jest beginnin' ta dawn on the main stream corporate media, that not only is the whole administration corrupt but that key institutions (read civil service) like the CIA and FBI and career justice dept. are out ta get 'em.
The corruption is SOOOO deep and extends so wide that I dispair of bein able ta detoxify ourselves before the Chinese get impatient and put us outta our misery.
Norske Flamethower |
12.04.05 - 9:03 am | #
Meg and Norske:
I wonder if THAT is why Gonzales was summoned to Fitz. (Did Gonzalez testify before the GJ or just in Fitz's office?)
sonate |
12.04.05 - 9:15 am | #
We have seen to what lengths BushCo and allies will go, murder included, a la Abramoff. Rove had at his disposal, either from large corporations or other entities, skilled computer experts, the world's best that money can supply. The corporate heads are eager and willing to supply the experts to Rove. And Rove is desperate, absolutely desperate.
He brings in the computer guys, tells them to eliminate emails A-W, which they do. Only snag is that a couple of guys on the White House staff, Hadley included, have started singing to Fitzgerald. Rove hears by whatever means that Hadley disclosed that one email to Fitzgerald, so he and Luskin come up with that stupid story of "recalling" the email Hadley has already revealed.
Rove operated in an atmosphere of nearly absolute power. Rules and laws mean nothing to him. The end justified the means.
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 9:28 am | #
MarcLord -- won't have feedback until later this week from ex-intel, though. Will be on pins and needles from suspense until then.
sonate -- think I implied that a couple of days ago, too, that Abu Gonzalez could be in for obstruction. The 12-hour delay isn't enough, but add flawed document requests and it starts to smell very badly. What I'm wondering as well: were there any phone calls to IT folks inside that 12-hour window from anyone inside the WH? Would love to check the logs for that...bloody personal disposable cell phones, though, would have to check the inbound call records.
gottaknow -- McCain is grandstanding for VP job or 2008; don't trust him for a second since he's the granddaddy of PNAC through his chairmanship of New Citizenship Project.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 9:37 am | #
Rayne--re your last paragraph. John McCain is no star, he's just a good grandstander. About his only claim to fame is his status as a prisoner of war during VietNam. He was and is an eager apologist in the Keating/Republican con game which took untold millions from trusting citizens in an complex investment scheme. McCain was the major Senator who cushioned Keating from any punishment.
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 9:43 am | #
karen -- yeah, McCain's track record is less than stellar. I confined my comments on him to his specific relationship to the current junta; he'll try to play it that he's somehow different and separate, as if not being a signatory to the PNAC absolves him of being a PNAC progenitor.
I think that's Condi's play, too; she's not a PNAC signatory, just plays one on TV. This is the one thing that unites both McCain and Condi -- supporters of PNAC but not signatories, tried to leave no fingerprints there.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 9:49 am | #
Sonate,
I didn't know Gonzales was summoned to speak to Fitz. Interesting.
I really do think that having to choose between disclosing extremely damaging emails and trying to foist off a forgery, the Rove crowd would foist away. I think Gonzales is in on it up to his eyeballs.
meg |
12.04.05 - 9:51 am | #
Why did Rove write this to Hadley..
"When he [Cooper] finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger."
..because Hadley was the point man on the Niger forgeries, from inception through the ongoing coverup. And Rove knew it, and was in on it from the beginning, as with EVERYTHING this administration has done.
It's the crime AND the coverup, stupid!
Love,
News Nag
________
News Nag |
12.04.05 - 9:53 am | #
Rayne--So true. Condoliar alternates between "Hey, I'm not involved" and threats.
When Prince Charles was visiting she startled some people by appearing at a state dinner with a male date. Do you recall her Freudian slip months ago, when she referred to Bush as her husband?
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 9:58 am | #
Gonzales got where he is today, and where he has been for the last 20 years by being an absolute "Yes" man to Bush. Why would he change at this point?
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 10:00 am | #
pacha
I apologize
Sloppy reading of comments in this thread led me to think that the mail was established as a draft
There is already enough ink in the water.
As to establishing the bona fides of the email, I would expect the onus would be on Luskin?
Or am I blowin smoke on that as well?
Mack |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 10:01 am | #
[ Pachacutec | 12.04.05 - 8:21 am ]
Capische. I understand your discomfort with the factions in play. But I've no other hope than to believe there are elements in the intel community would actually use their powers for good and not evil; otherwise I'd have to believe we are all wearing a now-tattered blue dress, standing on the roof of a Katrina-flooded house, waiting for help that will never come.
There are so many little blurbs in the news that are puzzling these days, little more than info-incendiaries lobbed at targets we cannot fully discern; I'm certain we are in the middle of an "unrestricted war", some of the entities known and obvious, others shadowy and possibly using us even here in the bowels of blogs like FDL. The war will ultimately go to those that are conscious and aware, no matter the faction.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 10:11 am | #
Well, here's a thought. How about if Karl et al have more than one govt email account ... since it's common practice to have a set of cooked books as well as the "real" books, why not more than one email account per crook? M
Merrie |
12.04.05 - 10:14 am | #
Mack -- sorry, could have been my fault, the email-as-draft thing started from a speculation of mine as to why the email wasn't pulled up during a search. Depending on search parameters used, it wouldn't have come up or been furnished...not intended as ink, only as another rock we should look under.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 10:18 am | #
Merrie -- umm, yup, a second userid that's not "assigned" to anyone particular...could be highly possible. Not ethical or sound, above-board business, but hey, that's the nature of this beast.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 10:20 am | #
Merrie--How about if Rove emails on his handheld Blackberry. Would Fitzgerald even be aware of such an account?
karen allen |
12.04.05 - 10:21 am | #
Rayne said "But I've no other hope than to believe there are elements in the intel community would actually use their powers for good and not evil"
This seems an appropriate point to unnecessarily remind everyone that no matter how rotten any government is, there are always some people who take part in it because they fundamentally want to do good, and work hard to do so in an environment that doesn't appreciate such efforts.
Without question, there are intel folk (as well as politicians, military, etc.) who remember that their primary, rubber-meets-the-road duty is to the Constitution and the people.
fdlurker |
12.04.05 - 10:27 am | #
Morning, everyone.
There may be a good theory in Mack's error, i.e., thinking it was a draft email.
If it was only a draft and never sent (whether it was genuine or fabricated), could that explain the mystery of why it wasn't found on Hadley's end? Indeed, could that explain why it wasn't found by WH document clerks in the first place, but rather only through Luskin's own search?
Is it possible that drafts are NOT stored on the server? Is it likely that drafts were NOT searched? Someone may want to research whether a draft email constitutes a document under Federal public records laws, or whether there is some legal theory under which a draft email would be deemed non-responsive to the subpoena (I'll look upthread in a minute -- the document request language is laid out there).
Grampa |
12.04.05 - 10:34 am | #
I just looked at pollyusa's helpful material. It would be pretty difficult to argue that unsent emails fall outside the parameters of the documtne requests. They may not be "records" as that term is defined elsewhere, but they would certainly be in the nature of notes and memoranda.
However, if the draft were not stored on a central server, it is certainly possible that Rove might have withheld it, and that it therefore wouldn't have been found.
Grampa |
12.04.05 - 10:43 am | #
Rove's grammer was unusual - it looks like he sent a misleading CYA memo after he did something wrong.
Gotham Image |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 10:50 am | #
fdllurker -- having read the letters written, published, sent by V.I.P.S., I can only hope there are many folks still inside that feel as they do. Can only hope that Goss has not done permanent and serious damage to those folks who sincerely believe in what used to be truth, justice and the American way...
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 10:56 am | #
karen -- BlackBerry device only acts as a handheld PC; emails sent from that device still get routed to/from an email server. I do need to check on the personal email thing, though; if one reads/writes personal email external to a business/gov't account, would only the BlackBerry network show the transaction? Hmmm...I could drive a truck through that hole until I close it up...and would someone like Rove interpret BlackBerry as a phone and not a document-creating device? Really loose parsing, but possible.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 11:01 am | #
I too was thinking the whole welfare reform thing was a complete head fake or code for the Plame case. I just don't happen to think of Rove as the go-to, point person on welfare. So I did some searching, looking for issues in the news at that time and specifically for an article written by Cooper on welfare reform. I didn't find that but I did find this paragraph (truthout.org) from Cooper's own account of his testimony to the Grand Jury:
"A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.
So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has."
So our Fitz was of course just as curious as we were, and apparently Rove and Cooper did have, at least at some earlier point in time, a conversation about welfare reform. Whatever.
Hadley is for sure up to his neck in this.
meta |
12.04.05 - 11:04 am | #
And I keep coming back to the description on how Rove was just ending his busy week, getting ready to go on vacation and gets a call put through from the front desk from Cooper about Welfare Reform ... and it can't wait until his return??? Unless, of course, Rove felt it an important opportunity to get Cooper up to speed on Plame and then get his bragging rights across to Hadley.
Merrie |
12.04.05 - 12:12 pm | #
jlr presses the doorbell of truth. The resulting Ding-Dong is a tinfoil covered red herring ala Luskin.
The only explanation that doesn’t create jeopardy for Rove is that Luskin made up the whole ruse for public consumption. No email, no trace, no evidence ever submitted to Fitz. Just public disinformation to shore up Rove’s cover. Sure Rover talked about the façade but there is no reason to believe Luskin actually gave Fitz anything he didn’t have to. This explains everything and is consistent with the exploding hypothesis M.O. we are always forced to suck on when the truth is revealed. We won’t get verification from the investigation itself except if there is an indictment stating the evidence. No evidence, no statement, no exposure of the Luskin fabrication. Those stinkers learned from Ollie – don’t screw with emails. Luskin’s MSM shills bought the whole email fish story hook, line and sinker. They would fall for it if the whole thing was made for public consumption. A make-believe story for the faithful. Sure had me going!
And now that everyone has thought this thing through there isn’t any way to accept the BS story anymore.
neokneme |
12.04.05 - 12:24 pm | #
Rayne says: "Abu Gonzalez could be in for obstruction. The 12-hour delay isn't enough, but add flawed document requests and it starts to smell very badly."
How about a week, then? January 22, 2003 subpoenas, January 29 Gonzales memos staff about it.
Plus a March 5 gaggle where Scott clearly knows what the problem is, and definsively skirts it. When were White House employees told? "Immediately." What was the exact date? Oh I don't know, immediately. Then: "The latter part of January," that is, not immediately, but a full week later, January 29. ??
Garrett |
12.04.05 - 12:34 pm | #
Hmm. Interesting line, jlr & neokneme. I'm wondering, though, whether Fitz' next speaking indictment will cover this issue, though, preventing the public (read: wingers) from demanding his head because of this line. Believe it was speculated upthread that one attack on Fitz would be prosecutorial misconduct if the public perceived him to be too zealous or sloppy.
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 12:40 pm | #
Garrett -- I think it was 12-hours before Abu's missive went out to staff; the rest is obsfucation intended to mask any continuing efforts to query this issue or any obstructive work on-going in the background. Hell, they've been obstructing for 2+ years now...
Rayne |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 12:41 pm | #
I smell a red herring named Vivace and a fake "bad" seaarch.
Regardless of whether Rove gets nabbed for perjury or obstruction, which is pardonable by the Prez and forgivable by the base, it just so happens that this particular email has content that can be argued to prove that Rove was innocently trying to respond to scurrilous reports by Joe Wilson, and not trying to out a CIA operative.
Vivace and the "bad" search" are merely the vehicles by which Rove brings the email "proof" into the light as we all debate and discuss the meaning of the "gap" in time before the magic email was "found."
"Bad" searches happen all the time and they confuse judges. Search programs are constantly evolving and there are differing standards for what constitutes an adequate search to determine whether a given piece of evidence exists. Are searches of headers alone deemed adequate under DoJ guidelines? Many possibilities for sowing confusion.
The cover-up doesnt necessarily wait for the crime. Lets not forget the substantive matters underlying all this. Rove gives a rat's ass about perjury/obstruction, and cares only about spinning the public and avoiding legal jeopardy inder the espionage statutes. The Hadley email goes right to the underlying substantive crime, negating intent. That's why it's out front right now, yet hidden just beneath all the buzz about Vivace.
Jack O'Roses |
12.04.05 - 12:49 pm | #
The 12 hours between finding out and notifying was September 29, 2003. I really think they might have gotten away with a full week before employee notification for the January 22, 2004 subpoenas. And that the press was on to it, and Scott was hiding it, in that March 5, 2004 gaggle dance.
Garrett |
12.04.05 - 1:15 pm | #
if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I'm grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.
Lindy |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 6:37 pm | #
if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I'm grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.
Lindy |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 6:54 pm | #
What is the deal with Luskin? If Novak told him, Luskin becomes part of the case. If he told Rove, that is a crime - even with atty-client priveledge. So if Luskin is part of the case and has his own "piece of the acction", doesn't he have the ethical responsibility to recuse himself?
I don't care if he is a dem, 4-star general, or the pope -- if he bit the apple, he should be cast out of the garden. (then we all can watch him burn at the stake!)
KVS |
12.04.05 - 10:05 pm | #
if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I'm grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.
Lindy |
Homepage |
12.04.05 - 10:11 pm | #
