Rove, others were warned to save e-mails

By Tom Hamburger
Times Staff Writer

April 14, 2007

WASHINGTON — Karl Rove and other White House employees were cautioned in employee manuals, memos and briefings to carefully save any e-mails that might discuss official matters even if those messages came from private e-mail accounts, the White House disclosed Friday.

Despite these cautions, e-mails from Rove and others discussing official business may have been deleted and are now missing.

White House officials spent much of Friday reiterating that the missing e-mails were the result of an innocent mistake. About 50 aides in the executive office of the Bush administration have used e-mail accounts provided by the Republican National Committee to keep campaign-related communication separate from their official White House business.

However, some of those RNC accounts were used to discuss official matters, including the firing of eight federal prosecutors, which has triggered investigations on Capitol Hill. Democrats contend that politics was improperly inserted into Justice Department decision-making about which attorneys should leave.

Though official White House e-mail is automatically preserved in accord with the Presidential Records Act, e-mail that was used by the employees with RNC accounts was not always saved. White House officials this week said the lost e-mails resulted from a failure to clearly communicate Presidential Records Act rules to staffers and to see that the rules were followed.

"That is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to fix," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said earlier in the week.

The White House has recently provided guidance to each of the 22 staffers who currently have RNC e-mail accounts. Each person receiving such an account is required to sign a statement acknowledging that he understands the rules.

White House employee manuals distributed in early 2001 made it clear that any e-mails containing discussion of official matters should be preserved.

Redacted copies of White House employee manuals were shown to reporters late Friday at the White House press office on condition that they not be removed from the premises.

The documents included a memorandum from then-White House General Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, who is now attorney general, cautioning employees that "any e-mail relating to official business … qualifies as a presidential record."

The instructions dwell on the importance of separating political from official acts. But they also explain that all e-mail sent "to your official account is automatically archived as if it were a presidential record." The manual adds: "If you happen to receive an e-mail on a personal account which otherwise qualifies as a presidential record, it is your duty to insure that it is saved as such by printing it out and saving it or by forwarding it to your White House e-mail account," the manual said.

The manual was updated and expanded through the years, and the most recent iteration dwells on preserving official records. Despite the instructions, many employees did not save their e-mails, creating the latest controversy to dog the Bush White House.

Democrats have suggested Rove and others may have deliberately deleted e-mails from his RNC account, which he used heavily.

Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, denied any attempt to evade record-keeping rules, telling the Associated Press on Friday that Rove's "understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived."

But Robert K. Kelner, a lawyer for the RNC, said in an interview with The Times that the RNC had a policy of automatically deleting e-mails through middle or late 2004 and that there was not an understanding that White House-generated documents would be preserved.

"The RNC is not directed by law to administer the Presidential Records Act," Kelner said. "That's an authority given to the president. The treatment of these e-mail accounts by the RNC has been based on the RNC's own internal document preservation policies."

---

tom.hamburger@latimes.com

Fitzgerald Post-Trial Press Conference: No Further Investigation, Indictments Planned

In Other News Reid Demands Bush Not Pardon Libby, Cheney Is Mum, Dean Says Pardon Would Shut Libby Up.

The Clock is Ticking on Cheney.
---
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 9:57 am

The jury worked very long and hard and deliberated to find a verdict of guilty on four of five counts

The prosecutors behind me logged in a lot of hours on this case, and with that I'll take questions.

What is now clear, we knew that Mr. Libby had told a story. What is now public is that the FBI had learned that Russert did not and could not have told Libby the information regarding Mrs. Wilson. As prosecutors, we could not walk away from the fact that Libby was lying to federal investigators and the grand jury. Seems to me that no responsible prosecutor could walk away from that — the facts justify themselves.

The role of the Vice President? Any lie under oath is serious. We cannot tolerate perjury. The truth is what drives our judicial system. If someone tells a lie under oath, it is every prosecutor's duty to pursue that case. It is obviously a serious matter when a high level official does that under a national security investigation — it should never be tolerated.

Is there still information about the Vice President that you do not know? No one is above the law, no one gets less protection under the law. And we do not talk about someone who is not in the legal system in the case at bar. All we'll say is that Mr. Libby by lying and obstructing justice harmed the process.

Cloud over Vice President and over WH? Does it remain? Fitzgerald says that what he argued in court stands. Says he was responding to the defense argument, says he responded fairly and honestly — and that cloud was caused by Libby lying to the investigators and the grand jury. It was aggravated by Mr. Libby telling falsehoods.

Is your investigation over now? Fitzgerald says that he does not expect to file any further charges. If information comes to light or if new information comes forward that warrants further investigation, we will do that. The case is now inactive. We are going back to our day jobs.

Now discussing the independent counsel statue — different from independent prosecutor.

Bound by the laws of grand jury secrecy — not opening up our file drawers to write newspaper articles or books. If you want people to come in and tell the truth — if you tell them that the is grand jury secrecy, then we have to keep our word.

If we are required to retry the case, I will not be happy, obviously. We feel confident that the trial was a fair trial, and we think it was appropriate, and that the jury's verdict should stand. Not going to predict on what 3 judges not yet selected, will decide

Downward departure? If they wish to pursue any options, they can contact us — and we aren't going to comment on that, just as we don't comment on any other case.

Did you get worried when the verdict takes a while? Of course you do. All lawyers do.

CIPA hearings predicated on that Libby would testify and that Cheney might testify — can you tell us what you thought in terms of its impact on jury selection and on the case? There was extensive questioning during jury selection, yes. Lawyers make decisions as the trial goes forward, if the witness shows up, you try the case with them — if they don't, you move up to the next witness.

If the Vice President were passing on a reported rumor, and not an official channel, thatwould be different in terms of decisionmaking for the prosecutor? We tried to ascertain how this was done.

If Congress does something on this, we will do what is appropriate.

Do you believe this investigation changes the relationship with reporters? What Libby was doing was not whistleblowing — the reporters were a witness to a potential crime. There is a difference. By placing the information in this case behind reporters, there was no other way to proceed in this case but to talk with the reporters in question. (CHS notes: They cannot be used as shields for guilt or innocence of conduct, in other words.)

Trial evidence? The judge made a ruling that the case would not be tried based on Valerie Plame Wilson's status. her relationship with the CIA was classified — I have 100% confidence in this information.

If reporters were eyewitnesses to a potential crime — we could not have gotten to the bottom of this without some discussion with those reporters.

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Fitzgerald Targets Cheney in Libby Tapes

Tuesday February 6, 2007 1:01 AM

By MATT APUZZO

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in tapes played Monday in the CIA leak trial, pressed Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff on whether Cheney had directed him to leak the identity of a CIA operative to reporters.

The audiotapes showed that Fitzgerald, just two months into his leak investigation, was asking pointed questions about the highest levels of government.

The first 90 minutes of audiotapes, recorded during the 2003 grand jury testimony of top Cheney aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, were played for jurors in Libby's perjury and obstruction trial. More than six hours of additional tapes were to be played Tuesday.

Fitzgerald began his questioning by determining what he already knew to be true - that Libby was not the source of syndicated columnist Robert Novak's story revealing that the wife of an outspoken Bush administration critic worked for the CIA.

Almost immediately after that, however, Fitzgerald steered the discussion toward Cheney and how his office responded to the growing criticism from former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who claimed to have led a fact-finding mission that refuted some prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Cheney's former spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, has testified that Cheney's office viewed Wilson's criticism as a direct attack on the president's credibility and was focused on beating it back.

During that effort, Libby said, Cheney mentioned in an offhand way in June 2003 that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Fitzgerald asked whether Cheney was upset by the apparent ``nepotism'' in the fact Plame may have arranged the trip. Libby said he did not recall.

Fitzgerald, who questioned Libby in a non-confrontational, sometimes even casual manner, also asked whether Cheney expected Libby to share that with reporters, specifically Walter Pincus of The Washington Post. Libby said he did not.

Fitzgerald asked four times and in four different ways whether Libby could be absolutely sure he did not disclose the information to Pincus. Pincus never revealed Plame's identity.

``The vice president obviously thought it was important enough to share with you or interesting enough to color the background, correct?'' Fitzgerald said.

``Yes,'' Libby replied.

Fitzgerald never brought a leak charge. Libby, who is accused of lying about his conversations with reporters regarding Plame, is the only person charged in the case. Fitzgerald believes Libby lied to protect his job and reputation. Fitzgerald has never accused Libby of lying to protect Cheney.

Prosecutors say Libby learned about Plame from Cheney, passed it on to reporters, then concocted a story about learning her identity from NBC reporter Tim Russert. Defense attorneys say Libby forgot the information after hearing it from Cheney and learned it again from Russert as if it were new.

Fitzgerald has presented several witnesses, including former State Department Undersecretary Marc Grossman and CIA official Robert Grenier, who say they spoke to Libby about Plame well before he could have learned about her from Russert. In his grand jury testimony, Libby said he had no recollection of such conversations.

``Do you recall any conversation at any time when Secretary Grossman told you that the former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA?''

``I don't recall,'' Libby said.

``You have no memory of that whatsoever?'' Fitzgerald responded.

``I'm sorry sir, I don't,'' Libby replied.

Jurors followed along in their transcripts as Libby's testimony was played through the court speakers. Libby sat expressionless at the defense table, occasionally following along himself.

It is unusual for the government to make such extensive use of a defendant's taped grand jury testimony. The federal government did so 17 years ago in another high-profile criminal case in Washington, D.C., the drug trial of Washington Mayor Marion Barry.

^---

Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.

The CIA Got the Niger Documents!!!

by emptywheel

Here's the holy shit no one has noticed from yesterday. Here's the version of the INR memo introduced in court yesterday.

You'll note in the last paragraph of the second page--it says, "These documents, which were sent to Washington via both CIA and [State] Department channels..."

This is really big news. The CIA got the forgeries. But all this time, they've been saying CIA only got the forgeries through State.

Nope. They had their own copies. And still didn't analyze them until after it was too late.

Also note that it says that INR "may" have concluded the forgeries were forgeries earlier than January 12. This is totally disingenuous--they say they've looked at emails, but they clearly are ignoring the email the INR analyst sent back in October 2002. Huh. Still reading this, but it's time to go to the Court House.

January 24, 2007 at 08:01 in Bush/Republican Scandals, Contributor--emptywheel | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

The Trial of Dick Cheney

January 24, 2007

Scooter's in the dock – but his boss is the one being accused

by Justin Raimondo

The opening statements in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby struck official Washington like twin thunderbolts, opening up a huge fissure in the Bush administration at the same time that everything else – the security situation in Iraq, the Republican Party, the president's approval rating – is falling apart at the seams. With Scooter under fire from federal prosecutors and caught in a furious fusillade of mutual recriminations, what it all augurs is the final collapse of the War Party. The defense fired off its big guns on the first day, with Libby's lawyer, Ted Wells, rebutting Patrick J. Fitzgerald's contention that Libby had a motive to lie because the president had declared that anyone who leaked would be fired. (I note here that I'm citing not the "mainstream" media's account of the proceedings, but that of a blogger who has gained entry to the trial as a reporter, the anonymous "Emptywheel," whose reportage on the background of this case is surely one of the investigative wonders of the blogging world): "Mr. Libby was not concerned about losing his job. He was concerned about being set up. He was concerned about being the scapegoat. "Mr. Libby said to the VP, 'I think the White House people are trying to set me up, people want me to be the scapegoat. People in the White House want me to protect Karl Rove.' … "Cheney made notes of what Libby said. Notes show Libby telling the Vice President that he was not involved in leak. … "Cheney's note: 'Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.' "The person who was to be protected was Karl Rove. Karl Rove was President Bush's right hand person. Karl Rove was the person most responsible for making sure Bush stayed in office. He had to be protected…." But who, exactly, is being set up here? Surely not just Libby, but also Libby's boss. Libby is named in the indictment, yet it is the vice president who is really on trial here, as the prosecutor's pretrial tactics and opening statement make clear. After all, it wasn't just Scooter out there on his own planting stories in the media discrediting Ambassador Joe Wilson, implying that he'd been sent to the African nation of Niger on a "junket" at the behest of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. Behind Libby stood the shadowy figure of the vice president, directing the action from an undisclosed location. Yet the trial of his former chief of staff threatens to disclose his location at the very center of the conspiracy to "out" Plame. Libby's defense is (1) Rove did it, and he, Libby, is a "sacrificial lamb," the fall guy for the White House, and (2) he had no reason to lie about the Plame matter, that this was at the extreme periphery of his concerns, and, in "recalling" how he came upon the information that Plame was in fact a CIA agent, he simply failed to remember with any degree of accuracy because of all the weighty matters that he had to deal with in his capacity as chief of staff at the OVP. Fitzgerald, for his part, will show that this is simply not the case, that the Plame matter was one of Libby's central concerns, and that both he and Cheney could almost be said to be obsessed with Wilson's accusations that the administration was cooking the intelligence to fit a preordained conclusion. In his opening statement, Fitzgerald drew a portrait of an administration under increasing pressure to explain the provenance of the intelligence that fooled Congress and the American people into going along with the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. One key part of this intelligence was contained in the infamous "16 words" of Bush's 2003 State of the Union address: shortly after the address was delivered, however, it came out that the story about Saddam seeking uranium in Niger was completely bogus and the documents supposedly backing up this tale had been forged. Yet the White House had been stuck with this tar baby and couldn't get rid of it. Questions about the "16 words" were being asked, uncomfortable questions, and the White House was having a hard time answering them: finally, they issued a statement admitting – for the first time ever! – that they had been wrong. In the end, George Tenet took the fall – but, then again, he hadn't been the source of the "16 words." So where did these allegations come from? In the meantime, however, other questions began to be raised, such as: who forged the Niger uranium documents? The forgeries, after all, were fairly crude, which is what enabled IAEA scientists to quickly debunk them using Google. Who was trying to lie us into war using such transparently dubious methods? Someone had pulled a fast one on the president – but who? It had to have been someone fairly high up. Or else how had such garbage made it onto the president's desk? The CIA triggered the investigation into how and by whom Plame and her operation were exposed, but it seems likely the probe might have been an outgrowth of a broader counterintelligence investigation into the entire affair, including the provenance of the Niger uranium allegations. If this could be traced back to the OVP, where so much of the bad "intelligence" originated, then that would explain the peculiar intensity of Scooter's determined campaign against the Wilsons. This president went to war on the strength of allegations that later turned out to be completely wrong. There were no WMD, no links to al-Qaeda, and no real chance that anything remotely approaching a liberal democracy could take root in the country once it had been "liberated" from the Ba'athist grip. They knew all this, yet they went ahead and did it anyway – or, at least, that's the strong impression the American public is getting. A full 58 percent believe the Bush administration deliberately misled Congress and the people on the WMD question. Yet the great bulk of the ersatz intelligence came from the vice president and his cronies. Scooter's trial is payback time for the Bush loyalists, who – rightly – feel betrayed. Feelings of betrayal are not limited, however, to the president's camp, as Libby's lawyer made clear in his opening statement. Poor Scooter, the "sacrificial lamb" – he's taking the fall for his boss, who is really the one on trial here. Cheney is appearing as a witness for the defense, and his cross-examination by Fitzgerald promises to be one of those epic moments when truth is spoken to power. Cheney's role in all this, as the behind-the-scenes manipulator of intelligence and master leaker of classified information, is going to be exposed for all the world to see. What remains to be seen is whether this classic confrontation will result in yet more indictments, and investigations, into matters not covered in this trial. Fitzgerald, you'll remember, once compared Libby's obstruction of the investigation to throwing sand in the investigators' faces so that they couldn't see who had exposed Plame or why. Yet this trial may go a long way toward clearing the air, so that finally investigators – perhaps Fitzgerald himself – can see their way to filing new charges, and not only against Libby. This trial goes to the very heart of key questions now vexing the American public, the answers to which threaten – or promise – to change the face of our politics: how did we wind up in the middle of a civil war in Iraq? Who lied us into war? How did they do it – and why did they do it? Before this trial is over, we may well have some pretty strong clues as to the answers. Now that the Middle East democratization-by-force-of-arms project is sinking fast, the rats are deserting the ship with unseemly speed, and it's every rodent for himself. The neocons, if they aren't repudiating their past views, à la Fukuyama, are repudiating Bush. He didn't put enough troops in, his "surge" isn't big enough, he's holding back from attacking Syria and Iran – instead of going "faster, please!" as one neocon ideologue puts it. To hear the neocons tell it, the president's crusade to "liberate" the Middle East from itself has stalled, due not to the limitations of American military power, but to a lack of presidential will. Their strategy of preemptive aggression didn't fail, the neocons claim: this president failed. I hate to say I told you so, but I did tell you so: "The neocons who ginned up this war and committed crimes in the process have no loyalty to party, or even to ideology. Always single-minded in pursuit of their objective – war in the Middle East – they latched onto the GOP solely as a matter of convenience, and never bet all their chips on one party or the other. They have no more personal loyalty to George W. Bush than an intestinal worm has to its host. Less, as a worm infestation rarely leads to death, while this plague of neocons spells real trouble – both legal and political – for the Bushies and the Republican Party, both of which stand to be discredited in the eyes of the voters – and of history – for a long time to come." Oh, and one more thing: all that pretrial talk about a presidential pardon for Scooter seems pretty silly now that his lawyers are aiming their main fire at the White House. It seems the Libby defense team is employing what I have called the "Samson option" – and that means the beginning of a vicious civil war within the War Party, with the Bush loyalists on one side and the neocons – nested in the OVP – on the other, with each trying to blame the other for the various debacles that have befallen this administration and now seem to be culminating in a veritable tsunami of ill tidings for the GOP. With the defection of Sen. John Warner and several other GOP big-hitters from the ranks of the pro-surge Republicans, the civil war inside the GOP – and the conservative movement – is going full blast. The neocons are desperately fighting to retain control over policy – particularly Iran policy – but their grip is loosening, and this trial may pry their fingers from the big prize, i.e., the vice president's office. When this scandal first came to light, I asked the following: "If Libby is implicated as having anything to do with Plame's 'outing,' then that, in turn, implicates Cheney, who must take responsibility. The vice president's resignation, under these circumstances, is a distinct possibility. Will we soon hear an announcement that he's retiring 'for health reasons'?" The only problem with this quasi-prediction was the word "soon" – we've had to wait over three years to come to the point where Cheney himself has come under increasing scrutiny, yet finally the day of reckoning approaches. In answer to all those who have written me, over the years, disdaining my hope that this trial would ever reveal anything about the inner workings of the War Party and their crimes, claiming that "they" would put a stop to it before anything of value saw the light of day, I have to say: you were wrong. The republic is not doomed: its defense mechanism is working, even if it took a while to rev it up. So pull up a chair, kick back, and get out the refreshments: it's not just Scooter and his boss who are in the dock. The War Party is on trial in Judge Walton's courtroom, and the odds are damn good that they'll get the verdict they so richly deserve.

CIA leak case figures reject Cheney immunity

NBC: CIA leak case figures reject Cheney immunity

Wilson, Plame claim that vice president is not shielded from civil lawsuit

By Joel Seidman

Producer

NBC News

Updated: 9:05 p.m. MT Jan 16, 2007

As jury selection began Tuesday in the criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, claim that the vice president cannot assert immunity from their complaint.

The Wilsons have sued Libby, Cheney, senior White House adviser Karl Rove, former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and nine unnamed government officials, accusing them of conspiring to destroy Plame's career at the CIA.

The Wilsons claim they were seriously injured by "retaliatory revelation" in revealing Plame's CIA employment. The court filing states the Wilsons' "fear for their safety and for the safety of their children." And, the filing says, "disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's covert identity makes her and her family a target for those persons and groups who bear hostility to the United States and/or its intelligence officers."

Attorneys for the Wilsons write that, "No case ever has accorded the Vice President absolute immunity." The court filing states that the fact that Cheney is a part of the executive branch "does not warrant according him absolute immunity."

The Wilsons allege that Plame's name was leaked to reporters in retaliation for a July 2003 op-ed column published in The New York Times by Wilson, refuting U.S. pre-war intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program.

The Wilsons' attorney, Melanie Sloan, writes they are seeking "money damages as compensation for the substantial harms they have suffered from the violation of constitutional and common right laws."

Statements to 'Hardball'
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who is presiding over Libby's criminal trial, strongly admonished Sloan on Dec. 20 for her appearance on the MSNBC program "Hardball," where she predicted a jury could find Libby guilty of making false statements.

Sloan told MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "I think a jury could easily still find him guilty without being the first to leak because that's not what he's been charged with. He's not charged with leaking. He's charged with making false statements."

Walton wrote in an opinion that "The Court would not tolerate this case being tried in the media."

Walton added that “making disparaging comments in a television interview about a criminal defendant in a highly publicized case on the eve of trial could cause potential members of the jury pool to engender negative attitudes about the defendant.”

In Tuesday's filing, Sloan writes that after syndicated columnist Robert Novak published Plame's name, Rove called Matthews and told him that Plame was "fair game."

Sloan adds, "Rove attempted to make this statement targeting Mrs. Wilson off the record and on the condition that he not be identified as its source, so as to avoid detection for the wrongdoing."

Motions to dismiss
Lawyers for Cheney and Libby have filed motions to dismiss the civil complaint. Cheney's attorneys argue that the suit should be dismissed on various grounds including that, "the Vice President is entitled to qualified immunity," and that Cheney is "absolutely immune from suits for civil damages."

The lawyers for the Vice President, who is expected to be a witness for Libby, also contend that the Wilsons' civil action arose after the statute of limitations for such filings had passed. Cheney's attorneys write that the Wilsons "have not pled that the Vice President ever made any public disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's alleged CIA employment status. The sole pertinent factual allegation is that the Vice President communicated the fact of her CIA employment to his national security advisor and chief of staff."

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has spent nearly three years investigating who revealed Plame's identity to Novak and Washington Post editor Bob Woodward in 2003, but no one was ever charged with that leak. Armitage last summer revealed that he was the first source of Plame to both reporters.

Joel Seidman is an NBC producer based in Washington, D.C.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

As Trial Begins, Cheney’s Ex-Aide Is Still a Puzzle

January 17, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 — Paradox seems to define I. Lewis Libby Jr., who remains a bit mysterious even to close colleagues. He is the White House policy enforcer who also wrote a literary novel; a buttoned-down Washington lawyer who likes knocking back tequila shots in cowboy bars and hurtling down mountains on skis and bikes; and a 56-year-old intellectual known to all by his childhood nickname, Scooter.

But now comes the most baffling paradox of all, as Mr. Libby, former chief of staff and alter ego to Vice President Dick Cheney, began his trial in federal court here on Tuesday on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. By all accounts a first-rate legal mind and a hypercautious aide whose discretion frustrated reporters, he is charged with repeatedly lying to a grand jury and to the F.B.I. about his leaks to the news media in the battle over Iraq war intelligence.

“I don’t often use the word ‘incomprehensible,’ but this is incomprehensible to me,” said Dennis Ross, the veteran Middle East troubleshooter who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “He’s a lawyer who’s as professional and competent as anyone I know. He’s a friend, and when he says he’s innocent, I believe him. I just can’t account for this case.”

Among Mr. Libby’s friends and former colleagues, the case brought by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, is considered not only unjust, but also a terrible irony.

By SCOTT SHANE

--MORE--

CIA Leak Probe: Inside The Grand Jury

ONLINE EXCLUSIVE

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Jan. 12, 2007

Late in the morning of July 12, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney stood atop a pier at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia awaiting the commissioning of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, a ship 20 stories high that took eight years to construct. More than 15,000 people stood under clear skies to watch the pomp and ceremony. As she christened the carrier by breaking a bottle of champagne over its bow, Nancy Reagan told the crowd: "I only have one line. Man the ship and bring her alive."

A Washington Post reporter recounted what happened next: "With those time-hallowed words, hundreds of crew members wearing dress whites ran aboard the 20-story Reagan and lined the flight deck while four fighter jets flew overhead and every crane, radar, whistle, and alarm aboard was turned on simultaneously."

Cheney himself later took the podium, and as he spoke, the spirit of the crowd turned somber: "The Ronald Reagan sets sail in a world with new dangers," he said, "The outcome is certain. There will be victory for the United States."

The moment of triumph would prove to be illusory. Americans had no idea that the war in Iraq, then not even four months old, would take a turn for the worse, that more than 3,000 American servicemen would die in the line of duty; that "liberated" Iraq would spiral down into sectarian violence; and that the war would not only divide the Iraqi nation but the American one as well.

On the flight back to Washington, Cheney huddled with two of his top aides -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his then-chief of staff, and Catherine Martin, then assistant to the vice president for pubic affairs. According to federal court records, the three discussed how to counter and discredit the allegations made by a former U.S. ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the Bush administration had manipulated and distorted intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.

On January 16, Libby will go on trial in the federal courthouse in Washington D.C. on five counts of lying to federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice. He is accused of attempting to conceal his role, and possibly that of others, in leaking to the media that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA officer, and that she might have played a role in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger in 2002 to determine whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon.

In attempting to determine Libby's motives for allegedly lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about his leaking of Plame's CIA identity to journalists, federal investigators theorized from the very earliest stages of the case that Libby may have been trying to hide Cheney's own role in encouraging Libby to discredit Wilson, according to attorneys involved in the case.

Cheney is scheduled to be a defense witness in the Libby trial. Regarding this, a spokesperson for the Vice President says: "We've cooperated fully in this matter and will continue to do so in fairness to the parties involved."

Both Cheney and Libby have repeatedly denied -- both publicly and to federal investigators -- that Cheney ever encouraged Libby specifically to leak information to the press about Plame. But since the early days of the leak probe in fall 2003, even before it was taken over by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, investigators have maintained that Libby devised an elaborate cover story even though he must have known that contemporaneous records and the testimony of others was very likely to show that he was lying. Other than the motive to protect himself, the only other driving force behind Libby's actions, federal investigators have theorized, was to protect Cheney or other superiors, according to attorneys who have been involved in the CIA leak probe.

On July 6, six days before Cheney's trip to Norfolk, Wilson had charged in an op-ed piece in The New York Times that during a March 2002 CIA-sponsored trip to Niger he found no evidence to substantiate Bush administration claims that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium from that African country. Despite Wilson's report, and other warnings to administration officials that the Niger information might have been untrue, it was cited in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech as evidence of an Iraqi program to build an atomic weapon, a major argument in the case to go to war.

Cheney was incensed as Wilson's allegations gained public currency in the days following the op-ed, his top aides would recall later.

The vice president had apparently first learned in June 2003, according to the indictment, that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, and that she might have been responsible for her husband being sent to Niger. He scribbled in the margins of Wilson's New York Times op-ed: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. [sic] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

During testimony before the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case, a federal prosecutor approached Libby with a copy of the marked-up column and asked if he recalled the Vice President expressly raising the same issues with him. A small amount of grand jury testimony has been made public in court filings by the special prosecutor. Additional accounts of what occurred in the grand jury were provided by sources with first-hand knowledge of the testimony.

"Do you recall ever discussing those issues with Vice President Cheney?"

"Yes, sir."

"And tell us what you recall about those conversations," the prosecutor pressed Libby.

"I recall that along the way he asked, 'Is this normal for them to just send somebody out like this uncompensated, as it says?' He was interested in how did that person come to be selected for this mission. And at some point, his wife worked at the Agency, you know, that was part of the question."

The extraordinary amount of time and energy that Cheney personally devoted to the issue, as well as his intensity of emotion regarding it is underscored by this exchange between a federal prosecutor and Libby when Libby testified before the grand jury:

"Was it a topic that was discussed on a daily basis?" a federal prosecutor asked.

"Yes, sir," answered Libby.

"And it was discussed on multiple occasions each day in fact?"

"Yes, sir."

"And during that time did the vice president indicate that he was upset that this article was out there which falsely in his view attacked his own credibility?"

"Yes, sir."

"And do you recall what it is the vice-president said?"

"I recall that he was very keen to get the truth out. He wanted to get all the facts out about what he [Cheney] had or hadn't done--what the facts were or were not. He was very keen on that and said it repeatedly. 'Let's get everything out.'"

On the plane ride back to Washington from Norfolk on July 12, Cheney strategized once again with Libby and Martin as to how to discredit Wilson's allegations, according to people familiar with the federal grand jury testimony of both Libby and Martin.

Cheney, then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, White House counselor Dan Bartlett, and Libby had over the course of the previous several days taken to reviewing classified records to reconstruct what occurred regarding Wilson's mission and to see what if anything in them might undercut his credibility. Working with then CIA-director George Tenet, they undertook a formal declassification process that would enable them to make public intelligence records that they thought would help them make the case.

"We were trying to figure out what happened and get the story out," said a senior official, involved in the process, "There was nothing nefarious as to what occurred."

But the same official confirmed in an interview what has also been said in federal grand jury testimony and public court filings: that Cheney and Libby often acted without the knowledge or approval and of other senior White House staff when it came to their efforts to discredit Wilson -- including leaking classified information to the press.

Aboard Air Force Two, Cheney, Libby, and Martin discussed a then-still highly classified CIA document that they believed had information in it that would undercut Wilson's credibility. The document was a March 8, 2002 debriefing of Wilson by the CIA's Directorate of Operations after his trip to Niger. The report did not name Wilson or even describe him as a former U.S. ambassador who had served time in the region, but rather as a "contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report made no mention of the fact that his wife was Valerie Plame, or that she may have played a role in having her husband sent to Niger.

Cheney told Libby that he wanted him to leak the report to the press, according to people with first-hand knowledge of federal grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case, and federal court records.

Cheney believed that this particular CIA debriefing report might undermine Wilson's claims because it showed that Wilson's Niger probe was far more inconclusive on the issues as to whether Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger. The report said that Wilson was restricted from interviewing any number of officials in Niger during the mission, and he was denied some intelligence information before undertaking the trip.

But other senior White House aides -- including Hadley and Bartlett -- later told federal investigators that they were unaware that Cheney had authorized the disclosure of the CIA report on Wilson's Niger mission.

According to a court filing by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby also testified to the federal grand jury "that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in the place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the National Intelligence Estimate [on Iraq] and Wilson. [Libby] was instructed... to [also] provide information contained in a document [he] understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson."

Four other people -- including a senior White House official involving in the effort to declassify Wilson's debriefing, a former senior CIA official, and two private attorneys involved in the CIA leak case -- had previously told National Journal the document in question was not a cable regarding the trip but rather the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report.

Almost immediately after disembarking Air Force Two, once back in Washington, D.C., Libby made three telephone calls to two journalists: Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times.

During both of those conversations, according to the federal grand jury testimony of both Cooper and Miller, Libby said absolutely nothing at all about the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report regarding Wilson.

Instead, both testified that Libby discussed the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband on his mission to Niger. The discussion between Libby and Cooper was the first that the then-vice presidential chief of staff and the Time correspondent spoke of Plame.

But Libby and Miller enjoyed a long professional relationship and also shared a personal friendship. Before the two telephone calls that Libby placed to Miller that day, both had spoken about Plame on two earlier occasions, on June 23, 2003 and July 8, 2003.

Telephone records presented to Miller during her grand jury appearance indicated that she twice spoke with Libby also on July 12.

The first phone call lasted three minutes, the phone records indicate. Miller testified that she believed she might have taken the call on her cell phone in a cab, and told Libby she would soon talk to him after she arrived home, although she was unsure of this, according to the sources familiar with her grand jury testimony.

The second telephone conversation between Libby and Miller lasted for 37 minutes, according to telephone records examined by attorneys familiar with her grand jury testimony. Miller told the grand jury that she believed that telephone conversation took place after she had arrived at her home in Sag Harbor, N.Y., although she was not entirely sure.

By the end of those two additional conversations, Miller testified that she felt confident that she could write a story saying Plame was a former CIA officer and that Plame had played a role in her husband being selected to go to Niger. During an earlier conversation with Libby, she had also agreed to identify Libby, not as a White House source, but as a former Capitol Hill staffer. By doing so, readers would be left in the dark that Libby or anyone in the White House was behind the effort to disclose Plame's covert status as a CIA officer.

What Miller herself did not know during her grand jury testimony was that a key issue for federal investigators was whether she would testify as to whether Libby had attempted to leak her anything about the CIA debriefing report of Wilson after his Niger trip. Prosecutors believed that Miller was perhaps attempting to protect Libby in her testimony.

As National Journal first reported, during her first grand jury appearance Miller did not even tell prosecutors about a June 23, 2003 meeting with Libby about Plame and prewar intelligence about Iraq that took place at Libby's office at the Old Executive Office Building which adjoins the White House.

Prosecutors did not want to tip Miller as to why it was so crucial to them to learn whether Libby had ever mentioned the March 2002 Wilson debriefing report to her or Cooper shortly after he disembarked Air Force Two.

The reason was that Libby's failure to mention the March 2002 debriefing was one more piece of an ever increasing body of circumstantial evidence that led prosecutors to believe that Libby had devised a cover story to protect himself, and perhaps even the Vice President, to conceal the fact that his agenda was to leak information about Plame from the very start.

During one of his initial interviews with the FBI, Libby was shown copies of his own notes showing that as early as June 11 or June 12, 2003, Vice President Cheney was either the first or second person to tell him that Plame was a CIA officer and might have also played a role in sending her husband to Niger. At the time, Wilson had not yet written his New York Times op-ed or put a public face to his allegations, but press reports had already aired Wilson's account of his trip to Niger without naming him.

Cheney, Libby, Martin, and a score of other White House officials worked together from that point on to discredit Wilson's allegations, although Cheney and Libby frequently did things without the knowledge of other White House officials, according to the federal grand jury testimony of several of those officials. Those efforts intensified after Wilson's July 6, 2003 op-ed. The indictment of Libby charges that he lied to the FBI and a federal grand jury to conceal that he had leaked information to journalists that Plame was a CIA officer.

The federal grand jury indictment of Libby states: "A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media... information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson to the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and the purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information."

In his interviews by the FBI and testimony before the federal grand jury, Libby testified that it was the reporters who told him, and not the other way around, that Plame was a CIA officer. Prosecutors are expected to argue during the trial next week that Libby lied because to tell the truth Libby would have to admit that he leaked classified information and might politically embarrass the White House. But the prosecution may very well subtly make the case that another motive was for Libby to protect his then-boss, Cheney. In private, some federal investigators have asserted that Libby might have lied from the beginning to protect Cheney.

Two days after Wilson's July 6 column, on July 8, 2003, Libby had breakfast with Miller at the St. Regis hotel in Washington, D.C. Miller has testified, and the grand jury has alleged, that Libby provided Miller with information that Plame was a CIA officer and had played a role in sending Wilson to Niger.

On July 12, 2003, after returning from Norfolk, according to testimony by Miller and Time's former correspondent, Cooper, Libby told Cooper for the first time and Miller for the third time that Plame worked for the CIA.

Libby told the FBI and testified to the federal grand jury that when talking to Miller and Cooper he was not providing them with information that he learned from Cheney or other government officials, but merely repeating rumors about Plame's CIA employment that he heard from other journalists.

Libby claimed that he had heard from NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10, 2003 that Plame might have worked for the CIA, and that in talking to Cooper and Miller, he was simply repeating the gossip. Russert has testified that he and Libby never discussed Plame at all, and the indictment charges that Libby lied to investigators when he claimed that Russert and he had talked.

Russert is expected to be a crucial prosecution witness against Libby. Miller and Cooper are also likely to testify that Libby never said that he was merely passing along rumors heard from Russert and other journalists when he told them that Plame was a CIA officer, if their trial testimony is consistent to what they have already testified to the federal grand jury.

Libby also testified that when he told reporters that Plame was a CIA officer he had totally forgotten by then that that he might have been originally told that information by Cheney. Investigators are still attempting to determine whether he made the claim to protect Cheney.

In a further possible attempt to protect Cheney, Libby also testified to the grand jury that he did not believe he had discussed that Plame worked for the CIA with Cheney during the critical period that Libby was leaking such information to the press -- and didn't discuss it with the vice president until after syndicated columnist Robert Novak first disclosed on July 14 that Plame was a CIA "operative."

It would be significant that Cheney and Libby only discussed Plame's CIA employment after the July 14 Novak column because instead of discussing a highly classified secret, the information would then have been considered public information, and not illegal, because Novak had disclosed it in his column.

While questioning Libby during grand jury testimony, prosecutors were incredulous regarding Libby's claims that he and Cheney had not discussed Plame's CIA employment during the critical July 6 to July 14 period. They also expressed skepticism that Libby had supposedly forgotten -- even though Libby's own written notes indicated otherwise -- that Cheney had told him that Plame worked for the CIA much earlier, on either June 11 or June 12. They were also disbelieving of Libby's claims that even though Libby and Cheney met several times every day after Wilson's July 6 column appeared, the two men did not discuss Plame during the subsequent eight days, not until Novak's column appeared. And finally, prosecutors were disbelieving when Libby claimed that he was simply passing on a rumor to Cheney that he had purportedly learned from Tim Russert that Plame was a CIA officer.

Libby even mused before the grand jury that Cheney may have scribbled his comments about Plame working for the CIA and having been involved in selecting her husband for his "pro bono" mission to Niger only after Novak's column appeared on July 14, eight days after Wilson's own column appeared in the New York Times.

Exasperated prosecutors indicated during more than one of Libby's grand jury appearances that these claims by Libby seemed implausible.

On March 5, 2004, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald himself questioned Libby before the grand jury.

Asked by Fitzgerald if he recalled a conversation with Cheney during which they discussed Plame and that she sent her "husband on a junket," Libby replied:

"I don't recall the conversation until after the Novak piece. I don't recall it during the week of July 6. I recall it after the Novak…after the Novak article appeared..."

Fitzgerald then bore down on the witness: "And are you telling us under oath that from July 6th to July 14th you never discussed with Vice President Cheney whether Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?"

Libby replied: "No, no, I'm not saying that. On July 10 or 11 I learned, I thought anew, that the wife—that the reporters were telling us that the wife worked at the CIA. And I may have had a conversation with the Vice President either late on the 11th or on the 12th in which I relayed that reporters were saying that." As Libby further told it, if he discussed with Cheney that Plame was a CIA officer, he had only done so in the context of saying that the information was only an unsubstantiated rumor that he had heard from Tim Russert.

In a subsequent grand jury appearance, a skeptical prosecutor indicated that he found it hard to believe that Cheney would have written the notations he did in the margins of former Ambassador Wilson's July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed only after Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column appeared saying that Valerie Plame was a CIA "operative."

"OK," the prosecutor said, before asking, "And can you tell us why it would be that the Vice President read the Novak column and had questions, some of which apparently seem to be answered by the Novak column, would go back and pull out an original July 6th op-ed piece and write on that?"

"I'm not sure...," Libby answered, "He often kept these columns for awhile and keeps columns and will think on them. And I think what may have happened here is what he may have -- I don't know if he wrote, he wrote the points down. He might have pulled out the column to think about the problem and written on it, but I don't know."

Libby then added: "You'll have to ask him."

-- Previous coverage of pre-war intelligence and the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas. Brian Beutler provided research assistance for this report.

Murray Waas

Cheney to be witness in Libby CIA leak trial

Would be first sitting vice president called to testify in court
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:12 p.m. MT Dec 19, 2006

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney will be called as a defense witness in the CIA leak case, an attorney for Cheney's former chief of staff told a federal judge Tuesday.

"We're calling the vice president," attorney Ted Wells said in court. Wells represents defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is charged with perjury and obstruction.

Early last week, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he did not expect the White House to resist if Cheney or other administration officials are called to testify in Libby's trial, expected to begin in January.

First vice presidential witness?Libby is accused of lying to investigators about what he told reporters regarding former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was leaked to reporters around the time that her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Sitting presidents, including Clinton and Ford, have testified in criminal cases, but presidential historians and separation-of-powers experts said they knew of no vice president who has done so. The first President Bush was subpoenaed to testify in the Iran-Contra trial of Oliver North. At the time, Bush was Reagan's vice president, but Bush was president by the time a judge ruled he did not need to testify.

In addition to Cheney, other government officials and journalists are expected to be key witnesses in the trial, which is scheduled to start next month.

Additional witnessesFormer New York Times reporter Judith Miller and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert are expected to be prosecution witnesses. Libby's lawyers said in court papers that several reporters will testify on Libby's behalf.
(MSNBC.com is partly owned by NBC News)

Two unidentified reporters may resist testifying, Libby's attorneys said, but they expect to resolve that issue before trial.

Libby also has sought a subpoena for the tape of Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's interview with former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Armitage has admitted he discussed Plame's job with Woodward in 2003 but said it was a passing, inadvertent comment.
If admitted into evidence, the tape could be played at trial. The tape has been turned over to prosecutors, and Libby's attorneys said they expect no objection to their subpoena.

White House response at issueCheney, who would be the trial's most anticipated witness, has said he may be called to testify. If so, prosecutors could ask how the White House responded to Wilson's criticisms. Cheney was upset by Wilson's comments, Fitzgerald has said, and told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA.

That conversation is a key to Fitzgerald's perjury case. Libby testified that he learned about Plame's job from a reporter.

Cheney could also help prosecutors undermine Libby's defense that he was so preoccupied with national security matters, he forgot details about the less-important Plame issue. Prosecutors argue that Plame was a key concern of the vice president, and thus would have been important to Libby.

Cheney and Libby got to know each other when Cheney was defense secretary under the first President Bush. Libby has been extremely loyal to Cheney and, in return, had the vice president's unwavering trust.

By 2000, Libby was working as a top adviser to Cheney in the presidential campaign and then followed him to the White House. In the White House, he was known as "Cheney's Cheney" for being as trusted a problem solver for the vice president as Cheney was for Bush.

Even after Libby's indictment, Cheney called him "one of the finest men I've ever known."

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Judge Settles Fight Over Classified Info

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Monday, December 11, 2006; 1:06 PM

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge all but resolved the protracted legal fight over classified information in the CIA leak case Monday, helping ensure the dispute would not derail former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury and obstruction trial.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding a CIA operative. He says he had more pressing issues on his mind and wants to discuss classified intelligence about terrorist threats and foreign nuclear programs to bolster that argument.

Prosecutors had accused Libby of demanding so much sensitive information that the government could not safely release it _ leading to a dismissal _ but U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton appears to have resolved that dispute.

Walton, who rankled Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald last month by ruling that Libby must be allowed to discuss intelligence on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, terrorism and other issues at trial, accepted Fitzgerald's proposal to limit the details Libby and his attorneys can discuss.

The details of those limitations are sealed but, because it was Fitzgerald's proposal, it's unlikely he would come back to court later this month and argue that the limitations did not go far enough to protect government secrecy.

Neither Fitzgerald's office not Libby's attorneys would comment Monday.

The ruling helps keep the trial on track for next month. That could still be delayed, however, if Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush aide Karl Rove claim they cannot testify because of separation-of-powers issues.

While the case hinges on whether Libby knowingly lied about his conversation regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame, testimony could offer a behind-the-scenes look at how the Bush administration handled intelligence and criticism in its march to war.

Plame believes the administration leaked her name to reporters as retribution for her husband's criticism of prewar intelligence. Nobody has been charged with the leak.

© 2006 The Associated Press