“Mr. Cheney, tell us what happened. If you’re afraid to say what you knew, and when you knew it, then you should resign.”
During today’s press conference, McClellan generally declined to discuss the leak scandal, including his assertion that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove weren’t involved. That was expected. More surprising was his explanation why:
I think I’ve indicated to you all that I would be glad to talk about this once this process is complete. And I look forward to that opportunity. But, again, we have been directed by the White House Counsel’s Office not to discuss this matter and respond to questions about it.
So McClellan can’t comment because Harriet Miers told him not to?
During a press conference this afternoon White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeatedly declined to comment on the leak scandal, citing on an ongoing investigation. Yet, Scooter Libby has been charged by the special prosecutor with obstruction of justice, and McClellan just said this:
The president directed everybody in the White House to cooperate fully with the special counsel…The White House has been cooperating fully with the special counsel, and we will continue to do so.
That is an explicit comment on the investigation. He is saying that everyone is cooperating and that would include Libby. The clear implication is that, despite the mountain of evidence Fitzgerald presented, his indictment is not well-founded.
The White House continues to comment on the investigation. They are just limiting their comments to denials.
The White House announced today that it is elevating two members of Cheney’s staff who are named in the Scooter Libby indictment. The White House announced:
The Vice President today appointed David S. Addington of Virginia to be the chief of staff to the Vice President. The Vice President also appointed John P. Hannah of the District of Columbia as the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.
Both Addington and Hannah are named in the indictment. Hannah was intimately involved in the strategy of leaking Plame’s identity. From the indictment:
13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
Addington provided legal counsel to Libby in helping to divulge Plame’s identity.
18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip.
So much for a fresh start.
UPDATE: Contrary to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the “Principal Deputy” referred to in the indictment is not John Hannah. According to The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza, who stuck around after the Fitzgerald press conference to sort out the unidentified names in the indictment, the “Principal Deputy” is in fact Eric Edelman.
Today on NPR’s Morning Edition, Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg discussed the impact of the Alito nomination:
Steve Inskeep:
How high are the stakes now for this nomination to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court?
Nina Totenberg:
Well, if Judge Alito is confirmed, the court will move dramatically, dramatically to the right. There are conservatives who are less conservative than he, and I guess one could’ve said that with Harriet Miers you didn’t know, so liberals could hope that she would be a little more to the left. There’s no question where he is.
(You can listen to the segment here.)
Earlier today on Fox News, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a member of the Judiciary Committee, followed Matt Drudge’s lead and implied that opponents of Samuel Alito’s nomination may be motivated by Alito’s ethnicity. He warned senators “to be very careful here,” because a vote against Alito would be “held against them” by Italian-Americans:
[They] think they own the Italian-American vote all up and down the East Coast. They don’t, but they think they do. If they become offensive against somebody with the qualifications of Sam Alito, Judge Alito, then I think it’s going to be held against them. They’re going to have to be very careful how they handle this, and frankly what bothers me if 22 — in other words, half of the Democrats in the Senate — could vote against John Roberts, can you imagine what this nomination is going to be like? There’s no reason they should have voted against Roberts. And I think Alito’s going to be just fine but we’re all going to have to work really hard to make sure that’s so.
Conservatives could have picked any number of topics to distract Americans from the real issues of Alito’s nomination. This is among the most cynical and crass.
Supreme Court nominee Samuel J. Alito and Justice Antonin Scalia share more than just ideology; they also share a resistance to removing themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest.
In 2002, Alito dismissed a case in favor of a company where he was heavily invested [Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/15/03]:
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, has been accused of a conflict of interest by a woman whose suit he and two other appeals judges dismissed…. According to Alito’s 2002 financial-disclosure statement, the judge held investments worth $390,000 to $930,000 in 11 Vanguard funds in July 2002, when he ruled on a lawsuit filed by Shantee Maharaj of Wayne against Vanguard.
Alito argued that he didn’t need to recuse himself because the case was so small that it wouldn’t even affect Vanguard:
They have $600 billion invested with them. The idea that a case like this would affect [their investments] is just ludicrous.
Despite his own arguments, Alito eventually recused himself but continued to insist he had done nothing wrong.
(HT: AMERICABlog)
Drudge reports that the right-wing is pushing back on the nickname “Scalito” given to Samuel Alito because they see it as “ethnically insensitive”:
One outraged Republican strategist claimed, “If Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washington’s media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America.”
Actually, if Alito were a moderate, he wouldn’t be given the nickname because his judicial philosophy would not invite comparisons to Antonin Scalia. As the media has been clear in indicating, the nickname given to Alito is meant to draw comparisons to Scalia’s ideology, not his ethnicity:
“So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed ‘Scalito’ or ‘Scalia-lite’ by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” [AP, 10/31/05]
“Often called ‘Scalito’ because he closely adheres to Justice Antonin Scalia’s legal philosophy, Alito, 55, has sat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the past 15 years, where he has been a consistently dissenting conservative voice.” [Austin American-Statesman, 10/28/05]
“A strong conservative voice in his 15 years on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been dubbed ‘Scalito’ because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/28/05]
“He has been dubbed ‘Scalito’ or ‘Scalia-lite’ by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” [AP, 9/4/05]
“Judge Samuel Alito Jr., 50, of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Alito, of Newark, N.J., has been called ‘Scalito’ for a judicial philosophy akin to that of Justice Antonin Scalia, whom the Texas governor has praised.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/26/00]
When Harriet Miers’ nomination was first announced, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley called her an “amazingly bad choice.” This morning, he weighed in Samuel Alito:
JONATHAN TURLEY: He’s the top choice for particularly pro-life people. Sam Alito is viewed as someone who is likely to join the hard right in likely narrowing Roe and possibly voting to overturn Roe.
KATIE COURIC: So he is a strict constructionist in every since of the word? I know President Bush is looking for a conservative jurist, so he fits the bill in terms of someone who will interpret the Constitution literally and may disagree with the right to privacy, which is the foundation of Roe v. Wade?
TURLEY: Oh absolutely. There will be no one to the right of Sam Alito on this Court. This is a pretty hardcore fellow on abortion issues.
COURIC: Not even Antonin Scalia?
TURLEY: They’ll have to make a race to the right, but I think it will be by a nose, if at all. …
COURIC: And ideology trumped gender in this case, right?
TURLEY: I think so. I think the president wanted, first of all, to show he could pick someone who was clearly qualified and has the resume, but he also wanted to rally his base. He’s done both with Sam Alito. No one on the conservative base can be unhappy with Sam Alito. The question is whether they can weather this storm that will be coming, I think, and whether there will be a filibuster.
UPDATE: Crooks & Liars has the video.
UPDATE: Check out our new campaign, Alito’s America.
CNN reports that “President Bush will nominate 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Who is Samuel Alito? ThinkProgress has the facts:
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.†[Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.†[Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000] More »
Staurt Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, delivered his quarterly report to Congress today. It’s 114 pages and it’s not pretty. Some of the lowlights –
Planning for post-hostilities reconstruction was woefully inadequate (pg. 80):
In Iraq, however, systematic planning for the post-hostilities period was insufficient in both scope and implementation. With respect to human capital, no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines were in place for staffing the management of post-war Iraq.
Security problems continue to hamper reconstruction efforts (pg. 1):
Nearly two years ago, the U.S. developed a reconstruction plan that specified a target number of projects that would be executed using the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. That target number was revised downward during last year’s reprogrammings. Now it appears that the actual number of projects completed will be even lower. The reasons for the shortfall are many, security being the most salient.
Contractor deaths are on the rise (pg. 16):
The number of insurance death-claims filed this quarter by contractors from all countries rose by 82 (70%) from the previous quarter, bringing the total number of non-Iraqi contractor deaths to 412 for the period March 11, 2003 through September 30, 2005.
Political milestones are great, but reconstruction is what really makes an impact in the day-to-day lives of Iraqis. That’s why successful reconstruction is essential to creating longterm stability.
In an earlier post we criticized Powerline’s John Hinderacker for arguing that Fitzgerald “appears to have concluded that Plame was not, in fact, a covert agent.†We noted that the indictment concludes “her employment status was classified,†which suggests she was a covert agent.
Hinderacker maturely responds to the “ignoramus†website who dared criticize his analysis. His point is that the definition of a “covert agent†under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires the employee’s identity to be classified and travel outside of the United States within the last five years.
Hinderacker doesn’t provide any information that suggests Ms. Wilson didn’t travel overseas in the five years prior to her outing. There’s probably a good reason. On October 8, 2003 the Washington Post reported her neighbors, prior to her outing, “knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas.†More »
From Fox News Sunday this morning:
JUAN WILLIAMS: You can try to minimize it, but the fact that you have Scooter Libby, so involved in justifying going to war, and in the posture of trying to smear a critic of that justification. I think is pretty revealing and pretty damaging to the Bush White House. I think they’re going to have to rebuild a sense of trust with the American People. And that’s why when Brit asked this question, why did he have to lie, he felt the need to lie if he did lie, but by all indications he’s going to say I didn’t remember it quite the way this person remembered and all the like. That’s not very strong in my book, and I think Fitzgerald did a terrific job on Friday. But the reason he felt the need was to make it clear that he was not involved in what really was a conspiracy to defame Joe Wilson.
BRIT HUME: Juan, somebody needs to hose you down.
Good to know that Hume has so many thoughtful arguments at his disposal to defend the Bush White House.
UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the video.
[This is the third part of a Think Progress series breaking down the significance of the Libby indictment.]
At various points in the indictments, evidence is put forth to suggest that a broad, collaborative effort was undertaken in the Bush administration to smear Joe Wilson.
1. Libby “participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond†to Walter Pincus’s story in the Washington Post suggesting that the Bush administration was aware of bad intelligence on uranium prior to the war (see #8).
2. Libby had “a conversation†with Official A [Rove] in which the identity of Wilson’s wife was discussed (see #21).
3. Libby had discussions aboard Air Force 2 with officials in the Vice President’s office regarding how best to respond “to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper,†about Wilson’s claims (see #22).
4. After Libby asked the Under Secretary of State to investigate Wilson’s trip, the State Department official told Libby that his wife worked at the CIA (see #4 and 6).
5. Libby had lunch with White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in which they discussed the fact that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA (see #16) [comment: Ari seems to have flipped]
“If Mr. Cheney can’t address the questions about his conduct, if he can’t be forthcoming about the activities in his office that gave rise to the investigation, then he should resign. And if he won’t resign, Mr. Bush should demand his resignation.”
[This is the second part of a Think Progress series breaking down the significance of the Libby indictment.]
In at least three instances, it appears from the facts outlined in the indictments that Libby was aware that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
1. Libby spoke to his Principal Deputy [John Hannah] about an article in The New Republic and discussed whether they could share information about the role of Wilson’s wife in sending him to Niger. “Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.†(see #14) [comment: Hannah appears to have flipped]
CORRECTION: TRN’s Ryan Lizza says the “Principal Deputy” is in fact Eric Edelman.
2. In a lunch with Ari Fleischer, Libby tells him that Wilson’s wife works at the CIA and “noted that such information was not widely known.â€
3. In a conversation with Judith Miller, Libby specifically asked that the information on Plame’s identity be attributed to a “former Hill staffer†rather than to a “‘senior administration official,’ as had been the understanding with respect to other information that Libby provided to Miller during this meeting.†(see #17)
UPDATE:
A reader points out a crucial piece of information from the indictment strongly indicates that Libby knew Plame worked undercover and then misrepresented that knowledge. More »
[This is the first part of a Think Progress series breaking down the significance of the Libby indictment.]
There are a few instances in the indictments that point to a larger role that Dick Cheney may have played in the leak. Here are some examples:
1. Libby was “advised by the Vice President†that “Wilson’s wife worked†at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division (see #9). The verb “advised by†is oddly-placed and echoes language from fact #16 when Libby “advises†Ari Fleischer about Plame’s identity. The verb seems to be synonymous with “instructed.†This discussion, referenced in fact #9, follows a staff meeting in the VP’s office the preceding day (see #8) in which Wilson was discussed. Was Cheney trying to emphasize what he saw as the most strategic attack to Pincus’s column?
2. While onboard Air Force Two with Cheney, Libby is reported to have “discussed with other officials aboard the plane†what to say in response to media inquires about Wilson (see #22). See Talking Points Memo for more about Cheney’s role on this flight.
3. On p.21 of the indictment, a transcript of Libby’s grand jury testimony is provided. The prosecutors ask Libby why he was telling reporters that his source of knowledge for Plame’s identity was “a reporter rather than the Vice-President.â€
Rush Limbaugh, yesterday:
We finally have the press release which has been made public here by the independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald — who, by the way, the liberals…are all calling him “Eliot Ness.” He’s an Eliot Ness out there. What does that mean? It means that Al Capone is in the White House. These terms here are not accidentally chosen.
One minor kink in Rush’s theory: it wasn’t “liberals” who first noted the Ness/Fitzgerald link — it was a Bush administration official. From USA Today, 12/30/03, the day after Fitzgerald was appointed to lead the leak probe:
Acting in Ashcroft’s place, Deputy Attorney General James Comey appointed the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald, to lead the investigation as special prosecutor. …
Comey described Fitzgerald, who also is a Bush appointee, as “Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor.”
We presume Comey doesn’t liken anyone in the White House to Al Capone, but maybe Rush knows something we don’t.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
