Frogmarch?

“Published on Friday, March 5, 2004 by the Long Island, NY Newsday

Air Force One Phone Records Subpoenaed

Grand jury to review call logs from Bush’s jet in probe of how a CIA agent’s cover was blown

by Tom Brune

WASHINGTON -- The federal grand jury probing the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity has subpoenaed records of Air Force One telephone calls in the week before the officer's name was published in a column in July, according to documents obtained by Newsday.

Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

And the subpoenas asked for a transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing in Nigeria, a list of those attending a birthday reception for a former president, and, casting a much wider net than previously reported, records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets.

The three subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22, three weeks after Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed special counsel in the probe and during the first wave of appearances by White House staffers before the grand jury.

The investigation seeks to determine if anyone violated federal law that prohibits officials with security clearances from intentionally or knowingly disclosing the identity of an undercover agent.

White House implicated

The subpoenas underscore indications that the initial stages of the investigation have focused largely on the White House staff members most involved in shaping the administration's message on Iraq, and appear to be based in part on specific information already gathered by investigators, attorneys said Thursday.

Fitzgerald's spokesman declined to comment.

The investigation arose in part out of concerns that Bush administration officials had called reporters to circulate the name of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, in an attempt to discredit the criticism of the administration's Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

In 2002, Wilson went to Niger at the behest of the CIA to check out reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium "yellow cake" to develop nuclear weapons. He reported that Iraq sought commercial ties but that businessmen said the Iraqis didn't try to buy uranium.

All three subpoenas were sent to employees of the Executive Office of the President under a Jan. 26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the documents, which include phone messages, e-mails and handwritten notes, was "mandatory" and setting a Jan. 29 deadline.

"The president has always said we would fully comply with the investigation, and the White House counsel's office has directed the staff to fully comply," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday.

The Novak column

Two of the subpoenas focus mainly on White House records, events and contacts in July, both before and after the July 14 column by Robert Novak that said "two senior administration officials" told him Plame was a CIA officer.

The third subpoena repeats an informal Justice Department document request to the White House last fall seeking records about staff contacts with Novak and two Newsday reporters, Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, who reported on July 22 that Plame was a covert agent and Novak had blown her cover.

The subpoena added journalists such as Mike Allen and Dana Priest of the Washington Post, Michael Duffy of Time magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC's "Meet the Press," Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball," and reporters from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press. There have been no reports of journalists being subpoeaned.

The subpoenas required the White House to produce the documents in three stages -- the first on Jan. 30, a second on Feb. 4 and the third on Feb. 6 -- even as White House aides began appearing before the grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C.

The subpoena with the first production deadline sought three sets of documents.

It requested records of telephone calls to and from Air Force One from July 7 to 12, while Bush was visting several nations in Africa. The White House declined Thursday to release a list of those on the trip.

That subpoena also sought a complete transcript of a July 12 press "gaggle," or informal briefing, by then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer while at the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria.

That transcript is missing from the White House Web site containing transcripts of other press briefings. In a transcript the White House released at the time to Federal News Service, Fleischer discusses Wilson and his CIA report.

Finally, the subpoena requested a list of those in attendance at the White House reception on July 16 for former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday.

The White House at the time announced the reception would honor Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, but said the event was closed to the press.

The White House Thursday declined to release the list and the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, which paid for the event, did not return phone calls.

The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.

What about Karl Rove?

It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Wilson alleged in September that Rove was involved in the leak but a day later pulled back from that, asserting that Rove had "condoned" it.

Hughes left the White House in the summer of 2002. Matalin, who left at the end of 2002, did not return a call for comment. Matalin appeared before the grand jury Jan. 23, the day after the subpoenas were issued.

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.

Current White House press secretary Scott McClellan, press aide Claire Buchan and former press aide Adam Levine have told reporters they appeared before the grand jury Feb. 6. At least five others have reportedly been questioned.

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.”

“Holy Moley!”

“This goes all the way to the top.”

“close but no cigar.”

“Again, I say, just becasue a mess like this and what Cheany is involved in, Bush should NOT get elected, for no other eason other than it will bog down the President and make him ineffective in his second term. Remember how much time Clinton had to deal with things during Monica?”

“FROGMARCH FROGMARCH FROGMARCH!”

“FROGMARCH FROGMARCH FROGMARCH!”

“Help me to read between the lines???????????????????”

“Just wait. When the frogmarch comes, i'll be on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.”

“Where's my picture of Cheney in the orange prison jump suit?”

“I'm going to be a star with my Cheney frgomarch impression. I'll be on Leno!”

“Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: April 2, 2004

ASHINGTON, April 1 — Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself.

The expansion of the inquiry's scope comes at a time when prosecutors, after a hiatus of about a month, appear to be preparing to seek additional testimony before a federal grand jury, lawyers with clients in the case said. It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment.

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.

Republican lawyers worried that the leak case, in the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, might grow into an unwieldy, time-consuming and politically charged inquiry, like the sprawling independent counsel inquiries of the 1990's, which distracted and damaged the Clinton administration.

Mr. Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation last fall by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to F.B.I. agents with their lawyers present; others met informally with agents in their offices and even at bars near the White House.

<snip>
The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements by various witnesses in F.B.I. interviews, the lawyers and officials said. The conflicts are said to be buttressed by documents, including memos, e-mail messages and phone records turned over by the White House.

continued...”

“Then there is the memo

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.law.memo.pdf

that seems to indicate that Karl Rove is in some pretty deep doo-doo.”

“Damn shame. Scandals like this are bad for honest, hardworking conservatives who have innocently been duped into believing in this administration.”

“Oh yeah:

FROGMARCH!!!”

“From The Chris Matthews Show:

(Newsweek's) Mr. FINEMAN: Remember the leak investigation?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

Mr. FINEMAN: Who leaked that name? That's getting big behind the scenes, and I think it's going to be a bigger story than we know, because the question now is not just who leaked it but who lied to investigators about the leak.”

“The toads are becoming restless, LOL”

“Its a sign!”

“Do you think they'll....... croak?”

“FROGMARCH”

“news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department on Monday asked the new U.S. attorney in New York to investigate how Republicans got access to Democrats' computer memos in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A report by the Senate sergeant-at-arms earlier this year faulted two of committee chairman Orrin Hatch's former employees for the intrusion into the Democrats' computer documents. It says 4,670 files were found on a GOP aide's computer, "the majority of which appeared to be from folders belonging to Democratic staff."

Democrats have called for an outside investigation, and the Justice Department on Monday sent the case to David Kelley, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.”

“Hey this doesn't have anything to do with Plamegate!

Violin, you're a thread hijacker.”

“White House braced for latest assault by hardback

The Bush administration is bracing itself for the latest memoir by a former insider. Joe Wilson, a former ambassador, will this week reveal the name of the government official who "outed" his wife - revealing her identity as a CIA operative in apparent revenge for his role in proving the White House made false claims about Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

news.independent.co.uk”

“That's better. You're a reformed thread hijacker.”

“Scooter's name has been mentioned frequently in connection with Cheney's Office of Special Plans and pushing for the invasion of Iraq.

Abrams should've been imprisoned for his role in Iran-Contra. The only thing that spared many of Reagan's conspiritors was a deceased DCIA to catch the blame.

Ooooooooooooh, wouldn't it be tragic if Rove was indicted?”

“Ah yes, DCIA Casey!

He died very conveniently!”

“If I was Tenet I'd be riding in an armored car and hiring food tasters, LOL”

“matt - please reclassify this thread so that I may post to it without being banned.”

“Cheney accused of smear campaign by ambassador

By Andrew Buncombe

The former ambassador Joe Wilson yesterday accused Vice-President Dick Cheney and his senior officials of launching a smear campaign against him and of illegally identifying his wife as an undercover intelligence officer in an apparent act of revenge. In doing so they "betrayed America's national security".

Mr Wilson said that in the spring of 2003, officials gathered in Mr Cheney's office and a decision was taken to discredit him over his view that allegations that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium for nuclear weapons were false. His wife's identity and her position as a covert CIA operative were later leaked to a right-wing newspaper columnist.

"According to a number of sources there was a meeting held in the office of the Vice-President, chaired by either the Vice-President or more likely his chief of staff [Lewis] "Scooter" Libby in which the decision was made to do a 'work-up' on me," he said. "They clearly came across my wife's name and decided to put [her] name out on the street as part of a campaign to drag my wife into the public square to get at me. That's it."

The allegation by Mr Wilson has the potential to be extremely damaging to the Bush administration as the President and his deputy campaign for re-election. The leaking of an intelligence officer's identity is a criminal offence and the matter is currently being investigated by a team of FBI officers headed by an outside prosecutor.

Should an official as senior as Mr Libby be charged, let alone convicted, of leaking the identity of Mr Wilson's wife, it would be terribly damaging to the administration. Should Mr Cheney be personally implicated, the consequences would be politically devastating. Mr Wilson believes that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was also involved.

Mr Cheney's office said yesterday that no one was available to comment.

continued...”

“Newt Gingrich???

Maybe he could replace Cheney as running dog, I mean, running mate.”

“Gov't wants to interview press in CIA leak

BY TOM BRUNE
WASHINGTON BUREAU

May 18, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The special prosecutor probing whether the Bush administration illegally disclosed a CIA operative's name has asked at least three publications to allow him to interview journalists who have written about the leak.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has contacted Newsday, The Washington Post and Time magazine to talk to reporters about the leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak last summer.

"We were contacted," said Newsday editor Howard Schneider in a statement yesterday. "Our reporters have not spoken to the government."

Schneider declined to comment further.

On Friday, Fitzgerald told The Washington Post's lawyer, Eric Lieberman, that he wants to talk to reporters Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler. Lieberman told Fitzgerald he would respond this week. Neither Lieberman nor Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. would elaborate yesterday. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

In January, Fitzgerald issued a subpoena to the White House seeking staff contacts with more than two dozen journalists about Plame, Wilson or the leak.

But editors or representatives for some publications on the list, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek, said yesterday that they had not been contacted by Fitzgerald. Justice Department rules require prosecutors to exhaust all other sources before seeking to require reporters to produce information.

continued”

“FROGMARCH SCOOTER, FROGMARCH!”

“Interesting.

I'm all for protecting sources, but I'm wondering... If the evildoers in the administration shopped the story all over town (as has been alleged)... What might result from serving subpoenas on reporters to whom the information was leaked but who didn't publish it...?

Would the source still be a source without a story?

Oh, Lizs....

George?

Ynam?


What say?”

“Journalists subpeonaed in leak probe

BY ROBIN TOPPING
STAFF WRITER www.newsday.com


The special prosecutor investigating whether the Bush administration illegally disclosed a CIA operative's name to the media has subpoenaed NBC correspondent Tim Russert and a Time magazine reporter, seeking information about the leak.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald issued the subpoenas late yesterday, according to the media outlets. His spokesman, Randall Samborn, had no comment.

An NBC statement released last night confirmed Washington bureau chief Russert had received a subpoena to testify before a special grand jury investigating the leak, which disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame and her CIA association.

"NBC News is resisting the subpoena because of the potential chilling effect on its ability to report the news," the statement said. "The American public will be deprived of important information if the government can freely question journalists about their efforts to gather news."

A spokeswoman for Time magazine confirmed the publication received a subpoena specifically aimed at reporter Matt Cooper, who did two magazine articles on the topic, which appeared online and in the magazine. "We'll make a motion to quash" the subpoena, she said.

Earlier this week, Fitzgerald asked at least three publications to allow him to interview journalists who had written about the leak. Newsday editor Howard Schneider said the paper had been contacted by Fitzgerald, and the reporters who worked on the story had not spoken to the government.

It is highly unusual for a prosecutor to issue a subpoena seeking reporters' testimony because a high standard must be met for a judge to compel the journalist to testify. In addition, prosecutors must follow intricate guidelines at the Department of Justice before resorting to subpoenas, and approval generally must come from senior prosecutors.

Media outlets usually move to quash such subpoenas and then a judge must rule on whether reporters should be compelled to testify. Some of the variables to consider include whether there are alternative sources for the information and whether it is highly relevant and critical to the case.

But the government could argue that journalists are not protected from testifying when they are witness to a crime, which in this case would be the leak itself.”

“Sounds like an endgame.”

“Does this mean the reporter could go to jail if he refuses to name his source?

Bonus!”

“From the AP:

Justice Department guidelines for criminal prosecutions state that all avenues should be explored before reporters are subpoenaed or approached in an investigation. The issuing of new subpoenas for reporters may indicate that the investigation is nearing an end.”

“capitolhillblue.com

Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq.

Their damning testimony has prompted Bush to contact an outside lawyer for legal advice because evidence increasingly points to his involvement in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.
The move suggests the president anticipates being questioned by prosecutors. Sources say grand jury witnesses have implicated the President and his top advisor, Karl Rove.

White House spokesmen, however, dismiss the hiring of outside counsel as a routine precaution.

"The president has made it very clear he wants everyone to cooperate fully with the investigation and that would include himself," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday night.

He confirmed that Bush had contacted Washington attorney Jim Sharp. "In the event the president needs his advice, I expect he probably would retain him," McClellan said. There is no indication Bush has been questioned yet.”

“I heard he'd retained Jim Sharp (Richard Secord's lawyer, of Iran-Contra fame), but they didn't say why... other than the fact that the President would have no expectation of attorney-client priviledge if he consulted White House Counsel. So private council was retained.”

“John W. Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon and a man who knows a thing or two about White House scandals, has an analysis of Bush's lawyering up at FindLaw that lends some credence to the Capitol Hill Blue story and sheds some light on the attorney-client priviledge angle that Tilt brought up.”

“Now, if Bush was to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights...”

“Not that any of our right-wing pundits willread this, but:

It is possible that Bush is consulting Sharp only out of an excess of caution - despite the fact that he knows nothing of the leak, or of any possible coverup of the leak. But that's not likely.

On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.
”

“Maybe he's just straterigizing? Maybe he doesn't trust his memry?”

“Add a new term to your vocabulary:"misprision of a felony"”

“What numbskull wrote that?
The very first thing you do when you're told you might be questioned by a grand jury, whether you had anything to do with the case or not, is consult an attorney. If the President hadn't THEN I would think he was stupid.”

“That's a typo, right? And:

"shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both"

Doesn't that mean that nothing may be done?"”

“Did you read the John Dean piece, Bison?”

“That's a fairly interesting piece with some interesting speculation. The problem with it is that Dean uses a completely benign fact (That Bush consulted an attorney) to bolster his speculation. The only reason to do this is to influence the opinion of suckers who don't know any better. You might as well write "This is a hack job" in big bold letters above the article.”