Smearing the Wilsons
The Washington power elite, like sharks, smells blood in the water. The midterms may well be a political earthquake. If the Dems take the House, investigatory committeess are suddenly going to be subpoenaing documents on the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush adminstration. Traitor Rove's and Traitor Libby's outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to the press to punish Joe Wilson for blowing the whistle on the Bush administration's foreknowledge that Iraq had not brought yellowcake uranium from Niger is likely to be item number 1 on the indictment list. The recennt revelation that the first leaker to journalist Bob Novak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in a book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, is irrelevant to the facts of the case. It is possible for Armitage innocently to banter with Novak about something that Libby and Rove deliberately leaked to other reporters for more sinister reasons. Rove said that Plame was "fair game," which shows his malice.
Still, the Right (including an editor at the Washington Post) is using the revelation about Armitage to try to get Rove, Libby and Cheney off the hook. It is an illogical argument for the reason just stated.
Two responses:
Larry Johnson Smearing the Wilsons.
and this press release:
Response to Wash Post Editorial of 9/1/06
Allegation: It is untrue that the WH orchestrated leak of Plame’s identity to ruin her career and punish Joe Wilson
• According to Washington Post article of 10/12/03: “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists.” An administration source told the Post: “officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson . . . It was unsolicited . . . They were pushing back. They used everything they had.”
• After Novak’s column appeared Rove called Chris Matthews and told him Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game” (Newsweek 7/11/05)
• Mr. Fitzgerald, who has long been aware of Mr. Armitage’s role, stated in court filing: “there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14, “ and further that “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ [Mr.] Wilson.” (Washington Post 4/7/06)
Allegation: Mr. Wilson’s charge that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger is false
• The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment of Iraq describes Mr. Wilson’s role:
• The CIA’s decision to send Mr. Wilson to Niger was part of an effort to obtain responses to questions from the Vice President’s Office and State and Defense on “the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal” (p. 39)
• Two CIA staffers debriefed Mr. Wilson upon his return from Niger and wrote a draft intelligence report that was sent to the CIA Director of Operations (“DO”) reports officer. (p. 43)
• The intelligence report based on Mr. Wilson’s trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002, and was “widely distributed.” It did not identify Mr. Wilson by name to protect him as a source, which the CIA had promised Mr. Wilson. (p. 43)
• According to the report, the CIA’s DO gave Mr. Wilson’s information a grade of “good” “which means it added to the IC’s body of understanding on the issue.” (p. 46)
• After Mr. Wilson’s July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed, the Administration acted as if he had made a major revelation:
• The day after a spokesman for the President told The Washington Post: “the sixteen words [“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”] did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union.” (NY Times 7/8/03)
• On July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet said “These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.” (LA Times 7/12/03).
• According to a Washington Post article, the National Intelligence Council stated in a January 2003 memo that “the Niger story [that Iraq had been caught trying to buy uranium from Niger] was baseless and should be laid to rest.” (Washington Post 4/9/06)
• According to a Vanity Fair article of July 2006, there was a last-minute decision before the President’s State of the Union Address to attribute the Niger uranium deal to British intelligence even though “the CIA had told the White House again and again that it didn’t trust the British reports.”
• On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, publicly disclosed that the Niger documents which formed the basis for reports of a Iraq-Niger uranium transaction were false. He stated that “the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”
Allegation: Mr. Wilson “ought to have expected . . . that the answer [to why he was sent to Niger] would point to his wife.”
• A July 22, 2003 Newsday article cites a senior intelligence officer who confirmed that “she [Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.”
• Joe Wilson’s July 15, 2005 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence explains that Valerie Wilson was not at the meeting at which the subject of him traveling to Niger was raised for the first time and then only after a discussion of what the participants at the meeting did not did not know about Niger. This is confirmed by SSCI report at p. 40.
Melanie Sloan
Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
1400 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-408-5565
202-588-5020 (f)
www. citizensforethics. org '

|
Facebook





5 Comments:
If you wish to read more of the unadulterated variety read David Brooks' column in Herald Tribune of September 1. Those of your readers who remember the 60s will recall that it was quite the fashion to try to fit in many people into small spaces,phone booths, Volkswagens etc etc. It seems there is an updated version -- how many fibbers can be squeezed into Wsahington D.C.
I think the legacy of the Bush administration hinges on the fact that they criminally seized-power in this country, they took our government from us. The GOP-controlled Congress has simply provided a cocoon of extralegal-protection by obstructing justice the six-years. The Scalia's Supreme Court made it all possible in 2000, neutralizing the independence of the judiciary. It was an abdication of their role. Whether there is a way-out of this is unknown, I think. There will have to be prison-sentences for there to be any faith left in the office of the Executive, though it is hard to tell which branch is hated most.
Newsom Business Partner Takes Case Against Cheney (SF Chron 8/16)
Joe Cotchett, a top Democratic fundraiser, trial lawyer and longtime wine and restaurant partner of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, has just been named to lead ex-CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson's big lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove.
And with the ex-Army Special Forces Col. Cotchett's take-no-prisoners approach to lawyering, you can bet this case will be a doozy.
In the suit, Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, accuse Rove, Cheney and Libby of intentionally exposing Valerie Wilson's classified CIA status to reporters in retaliation for ex-envoy Joe Wilson publicly challenging President Bush's evidence justifying the war in Iraq.
"Money is not what this case is about," Cotchett said Tuesday. "It's (about) a little piece of paper -- sometimes known as our Constitution."
There is already speculation that Cheney, citing executive immunity, will go untouched -- and that the real target is Republican kingmaker Rove.
Still, Cotchett said he intends to pull Cheney into the fray, as well.
"I'm going to take his deposition," said Cotchett.
No sooner was it announced that Cotchett would be leading the case than word came that Cheney would be represented by no less than Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Washington lawyer Emmet T. Flood -- one of the attorneys who defended President Bill Clinton against impeachment charges.
Flood didn't return our call Tuesday, and the White House has been mum -- but Rove has called the lawsuit "absolutely and utterly without merit."
I can attest to Cotchett Pitre's rep as "take no prisoners" trial lawyers. Have appeared adverse to their clients in cases in whch they appeared as trial counsel. Trial work is all they do.
RE: the effect of Richard Armitage being confirmed as primary "Plame is CIA" Leak-to-Novak source on the Wilson's Civil Suit against Cheney, Libby, and Rove.
"...there is plenty of reason to believe that Cheney, Libby, and Rove's conduct in this affair was not entirely on the up-and-up...
...[however] in a Civil Suit, no matter what type, you have to establish a causal connection between the wrongful behavior you are alleging and the injury you claim to have suffered...
...assume for the moment that Bob Novak's disclosure of Plame's identity caused legally cognizable damages to the Wilsons. The person most directly responsible for those damages (other than Bob Novak) is Novak's original source. The problem... is that neither Cheney, Libby, nor Rove was Novak's original source; Rather... Novak's source was Richard Armitage.
While Libby appears to have leaked Plame's identity to a number of reporters, perhaps at the behest of Cheney, [and is alleged to have lied about this act / otherwise hindered the Federal investigation being led by Patrick Fitzgerald] these leaks did not lead to publication. So unless the Wilsons can establish that Cheney and Libby were somehow in cahoots [conspiracy] with Armitage ~ it will be very difficult to establish the necessary causal link [for the Civil Suit to have merit]."
Causation is not nearly as stringent an element to prove as M.Gonzo's post suggests. Indeed if the conduct of any of the named defendants can be proved, by a simple prepoderance of the evidence, to have been a contributing factor proximately causing a portion of the damage that defendant pays.
Causation is the very least of the obstacles to recovery and on these facts, no obstacle at all. I should add that who leaked first and why is irrelevant here. All that Wilsons need show is what they've alleged, a conspiracy to violate various constitutional and employment rights.
Post a Comment
<< Home