The Note: Lawyers Involved in the Case Out West, Where You Vacation, the Aspens Will Already Be Turning
By MARK HALPERIN, DAVID CHALIAN, TEDDY DAVIS, IMTIYAZ DELAWALA, SARAH BAKER, KELLEY PREMO, and EMILY O'DONNELL
12 hours and 1,759 phone calls and e-mail messages later, no other news organization in America has matched the New York Times' historic lede: "I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday." LINK
12 hours and 1,759 phone calls and e-mail messages later, no one has said the story is wrong. 12 hours and 1,759 phone calls and e-mail messages later, no one has figured out if the Times' source was Libby's lawyer, someone within Fitzgerald's office, someone within Cheney's operation, or Cheney's lawyer. (Or someone else.)
(Although we would Note that there is no mention of Cheney's lawyer, Terrence O'Donnell of Williams and Connolly in the Times story. ABC News has been told that Mr. O'Donnell is out of the country currently. Could the Times really not have tried to reach Mr. Cheney's lawyer or not Note that they did try? Any Note reader not familiar with Williams and Connolly's fabled history of last-minute strategic leaking to one single news organization on behalf of political clients needs to spend the day on Nexis.)
(On the other hand, the Gang of 500 is very focused on the specificity of what Libby lawyer Tate would not comment on within the Times story. Some see it as quite different from the usual construction that "he could not be reached" or "would not comment." But the Times story says, "ŠMr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby's legal status." (Italics added by a over-excited Googling monkey.) For some, that makes Tate, quite simply, the Gang's number one suspect.)
12 hours and 1,759 phone calls and e-mail messages later, no one has figured out definitively what motive the Times source(s) had in giving them the story.
(Although the Gang of 500 has guesses.)
(Libby's lawyer: get it out pre-indictment to soften the blow and try to protect the boss - although if that was the goal, it doesn't seem to have worked.)
(Someone within Fitzgerald's office: a dissident trying to force a reluctant Fitzgerald into an indictment or a cheerleader trying to build a pre-indictment frenzy.)
(Someone within Cheney's operation: a dissident trying to force a reluctant Fitzgerald into an indictment or a protector trying to shield the boss -although if that was the goal, it doesn't seem to have worked, for now.)
(Cheney's lawyer: get it out pre-indictment to isolate the cancer and throw Scooter from the scooter.)
12 hours and 1,759 phone calls and e-mail messages later, no one has figured out the cosmic significance of Johnston-Stevenson-Jehl byline.
"Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said."
"The notes (sic), taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war."
A Republican close to the Vice President provides this reaction to ABC News' Jonathan Karl: "Nobody should fall out of their chair if they hear the Vice President discussed classified information with his national security advisor. The issue is if somebody disclosed classified information improperly or was not truthful to a grand jury." The Republican says, emphatically, nothing in the New York Times account suggests the VP did anything wrong.
That is true, but it certainly allows every television reporter standing on the North Lawn today to place Vice President Cheney squarely in the middle of Plamegate for the first time.
And that guarantees that all eyes will be trained on the federal courthouse in Washington, DC today, even though ABC News' Jason Ryan reports that the grand jury investigating the CIA leak case is not meeting. As you read this, stakeouts have already been stuck out, although the whereabouts of Fitzgerald and what might occur today is very much up in the air. Also, the Notion that target letters have already been sent out is something that we can't even be Cindy Adamsesque about.
Out in Wyoming, where he flew last night after some Western fundraising, Vice President Cheney has his regular intelligence briefing, a Hurricane Wilma briefing, and other meetings. Tonight, he attends an event at the University of Wyoming. He will travel back to Washington, DC tomorrow after regular briefings and will attend the tribute to Rep. John Dingell's (D-MI) 50 years in the House Wednesday evening.
ABC News' Karen Travers reports that Cheney will be in Washington, DC on Thursday and receive his regular schedule of briefings and will attend an evening closed press reception for Rep. Barbara Cubin. On Friday, Cheney travels to Georgia for fundraisers for former Reps. Max Burns and Mac Collins and meets with troops at Robins Air Force Base. The fundraisers are open press. Details for the Robins Air Force Base event are TBA.
Doing his best not to let the background noise interfere with his job, today President Bush speaks to the Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' Luncheon, meets with the president of the Kurdistan regional government (whether or not he answers a question from the pool in the Rose Garden is still unclear), and attends an RNC dinner to celebrate the Eagles' 30th birthday celebration. The event will bring in at least $1 million for the RNC. Approximately 250 attendees are expected and each couple contributed $15,000.
The day's single other must-read comes from the Washington Post.
To deal with what they consider the "darkest days" of the Bush presidency, White House advisers are studying the ways in which Reagan and Clinton withstood second-term scandals and they are pursuing a "twofold strategy": confront "head-on" problems such as the Iraq death toll, while "shifting attention" to other areas such as conservative economic policies, the Washington Post's Baker and VandeHei report. LINK
This line from the Baker-VandeHei story has us wondering if RNC honcho Ken Mehlman is laying the rhetorical groundwork for the Bush legacy to be undimmed even if the Miers nomination doesn't make it through the Senate:
"'If you look at Reagan who had two [failed Supreme Court] nominees, who lost control of the Senate and had Iran-contra, did he still have a successful final three years? Absolutely,' Mehlman said in an interview. So, too, will Bush, he predicted."
[...]
The Fitzgerald investigation:
In the only story to semi-advance the Times exclusive, Bloomberg's Richard Keil and Holly Rosenkrantz look at the "opening fissure" between Cheney and Libby, and have "one lawyer intimately involved in the case" saying that "one reason Fitzgerald was willing to send Miller to jail to compel testimony was because he was pursuing evidence the Vice President may have been aware of the specifics of the anti-Wilson strategy." LINK
The Los Angeles Times rewrites the New York Times Cheney story with full, agonizing credit, but doesn't advance it. Unless this sentence about Fitzgerald was buried breaking news, as opposed to just sloppily written: "He is expected to announce indictments this week." LINK
Oh, the agony in the Washington Post newsroom last night must have been excruciating.
The Wall Street Journal's John McKinnon curtain raises the Democratic and Republican PR blitzes that are sure to come if and when Fitzgerald hands down indictments. ". . . A draft set of talking points for Senate Democrats shows that some members of the party plan to use the charges as the basis for a broader assault on how the Bush Administration mishandled the run-up to the Iraq war. Republicans, meanwhile, have started complaining about prosecutorial overreach."
Per Roll Call, House Democratic leaders have spent recent days devising a plan to highlight GOP ethical missteps and national security compromises should indictments happen this week.
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler takes critiques recently offered by Brent Scowcroft, Larry Wilkerson, and Robin Raphel to put the CIA leak controversy into the context of a larger dispute over the wisdom of President Bush's Iraq policy. LINK
New York Times Select-men Kristof and Tierney both question the validity of indictments in the Fitzgerald investigation.
The New York Daily News reports that "President Bush's damage-control handlers are plotting a sophisticated war room offensive to fight back against possible indictments in the CIA leak probe" as they work on "finalizing its campaign to discredit and undermine special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's conclusion." LINK
In a profile of the husband at the center of the leak controversy, the Washington Post's Milbank and Pincus write that "nobody disputes" that Amb. Joseph Wilson has been successful in turning an "arcane matter involving the Intelligence Identities Protection Act into a proxy fight over the Administration's credibility and its case for war in Iraq." LINK
James Carville and Laura Ingraham did the left/right thing on NBC's "Today" show this morning and agreed on two things. First, the CIA leak investigation is not currently on the radar of the American people, but should someone get indicted the story will land squarely on their kitchen tables. Second, neither Carville nor Ingraham believes Harriet Miers will become the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In fact, they both are placing their rhetorical wagers that she will withdraw her nomination.
The New York Sun's Josh Gerstein has Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor, saying of Fitzgerald, "If it's going to be a perjury case, he's got a hard case because his key witness is Judy Miller. She has some issues as a witness." LINK
The New York Post's editorial board says "Judith Miller deserves better than what she's gotten to date from The New York Times." LINK