.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Plame Gossip - theory of the coverup

This post at Talk Left sums up my "theory of the coverup" in the Plame matter. This is all about the coverup, not the outing of Valerie Plame.

Short version, the Justice Department notified Al Gonzales about the investigation. He immediately called Andy Card, and then the two of them, so their story goes, didn't issue any notification to anybody for twelve hours.

But, there are 250 emails and documents which were "improperly archived" as was disclosed in one of the Libby filings. That awkward phrase has always implied to me an amateurish attempt to destroy them by someone without the technical knowledge of the White House email system. Maybe someone operating in that 12 hour gap. There's also less solid reporting of erased hard drives, and, as yet, we don't know whose computers were involved.

I'm under the impression that these emails and documents were not just one exchange between two people, but instead conversations off a number of desks meaning the deleter would have to be someone with huge security clearances and the ability to access all these systems. Or, it could have been a coordinated effort among several individuals.

The recent key revelation that unlocks this theory was that Rove was aware a month ago that he would be forced to testify again. This would have been a couple days before the Card resignation. Circumstantial, but the possibility does merit a reexamination? I, like others, theorized at the time that this could be the case.

The questions spawning in this interpretation: Has Rove been cooperating against Card? Who coordinated the purging? How complicit is Al Gonzales? Did anyone else know of the original document request during the 12 hour gap?

Is the reporting regarding these missing documents "Rove was able to chart a path for Fitzgerald directly into the office of the Vice President" true?

All of this, all of this, from Libby to Rove to Hadley to Card, all involves the coverup. Once it is broken, then perhaps we can get back to talking about the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame.

Those emails are the key to this case. They will show who knew about Plame's NOC status, roughly when, and the general nature of the discussion surrounding her outing. And Fitzgerald, as well as the Libby defense, apparently now has them.

One More Note: Almost every major break on this story has come from three sources: Jason Leopold, formerly Rawstory, now at Truthout, Larisa Alexandrovna at Rawstory, and Murray Waas at the National Journal. When the history of this case that rocked the Bush White House is written, I really do hope that their roles are properly represented and that the credit goes to them.

12 Comments:

  • I tend to forget about Andy Card's role in Plamegate. I have been thinking along these lines: if Rove cooperates, it will either be against Hadley or Cheney. You're right that Rove could either already be cooperating or about to cooperate against Card. I suppose Rove could also be cooperating against Gonzales too. Wouldn't that be an interesting development?

    One more thing about the cover-up. In a way, John Ashcroft enabled the whole cover-up to go forward. When Rove and Libby are busy lying to the FBI, Ashcroft is still running the investigation. I'm sure they figured the A.G. would just make the whole messy thing go away (just the way other GOP party functionaries had made other messy investigations go away in the past for them), so they half-assed their lies and their e-mail destruction figuring the investigation would come to a halt soon enough anyway (as even the preznit had said it probably would for lack of evidence.) Of course when Ashcroft is forced to recuse himself and Comey tabs Fitzgerald for the investigation, the whole thing snowballs on Libby, Rove, Cheney et al. But what about Ashcroft's role in all of this? I wonder if Fitz has asked any questions about his former boss and how he ran the investiation before Fitz got on the scene?

    By Blogger Reality-Based Educator, at 6:33 PM  

  • Honestly, there's been no visible movement towards Gonzales yet, so I would guess his role is minimal. He passed on the request to Card and washed his hands of it.

    And, Rove's attorney keeps insisting that Rove is cooperating fully which could be code for cooperating to try to gain some sort of deal. We'll see what you give us Karl, then we'll finalize the terms.

    That's a really good point about Ashcroft, but again, since there have been no ripples towards him, I would guess that no matter how unethical his actions might have been, they may not be chargable.

    Last, I think you hit a big point on the, they never expected to be really investigated. Around the same time as the coverup they had been conducting torture and NSA warrantless spying, and the furor over the intel had seemed to have died down without an investigation. They probably did have an overinflated sense of what they could get away with.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:45 PM  

  • I happen to think that Rove has no love of Cheney. Untill Cheney declared himself Bushs running mate, Rove was the man in charge. Cheney was a loose cannon he tipped Roves apple cart.

    By Blogger Yukkione, at 7:17 PM  

  • Dammit LOC, I am not Dick Cheney!

    By Blogger Lew Scannon, at 9:28 PM  

  • LOC, I agree, but I would argue the dislike is because Cheney ruined Rove's life work.

    Ever since Rove was running corrupt local campaigns in the college Republicans, his dream had been a permanent republican majority. And, arguably, all the pieces were in place until Cheney hijacked Bush after 9-11 filling his head with things like Bush's legacy, torture, and Iraq.

    It is Cheney's influencethat has led Bush into his most unpopular actions destroying Rove's life work.

    I would guess that's why Rove doesn't like him.

    The question to me is if he can find a way to tank Cheney and make Bush look innocent or at least like a victim.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:34 PM  

  • If Rove does cop a deal with the prosecution (and the consensus seems to be that he will as long as he doesn't have to rat out Bush), will there be any sort of indication that it has happened or will it fall under the radar?

    I wouldn't think Fitzgerald would make any announcement and I doubt Rove or Luskin plan on holding a press conference to announce Rove's cooperation. So the deal could happen this week and we could be none the wiser about it, right?

    What should we watch for this week? Mike, I think you said in an earlier commment on the case that if Rove does deal with the prosecution, he'll likely leave the administration. But would he do it the same week that he makes the deal or would he wait until the scuttlebutt dies down in the case a bit?

    Also, if Rove does deal and rats out Cheney (or anybody else in the administration), doesn't that finish him as prime Republican strategist/political guru (at least once the cooperation is revealed publicly)? How can anybody in GOP circles hire a guy who ratted out Cheney or somebody else in the administration to save his own ass from jail time?

    Out of all the people involved in the leak case, the guy I really wanted to see go to jail and/or be completely discredited by the case was Rove. I have always thought that getting rid of Rove would significantly decrease the slime factor/potential criminality in the next half dozen election cycles. And boy would that be good for the country.

    By Blogger Reality-Based Educator, at 8:33 AM  

  • I agree that a Rove plea deal might involve some political face saving maneuvers. Those don't cost Fitzgerald anything and they may buy cooperation.

    It is possible that Rove would agree to a deal filed in a sealed information and some sort of deal to soften his exit.

    In that case, there would be no official sourcing for the news, but I find it impossible to believe that if that information was likely to later come to light that the Whitehouse could manage to keep that quiet.

    They would have to look at restructuring and I think the news of a restructuring would be leaking out in rumor form. And once that blood is in the water, reporters would be all over it. They couldn't keep Rove in an active role if such a deal was done for political reasons, so you would also have him suddenly with reduced work hours or absent altogether.

    Frankly, though, I don't see that happening at all. I think more likely would be that if Rove agrees to a deal, he would try to get it released on a Friday to try and minimize it(right) and the Whitehouse would just take the hit.

    Again, I think the most likely outcome is for Rove to either be indicted with eventual charges and sentence to be affected by the degree of his cooperation, or admit to far lesser charges signalling an outright deal..

    What to look for?

    I think the best spots right now are Rawstory and Truthout. Those two have generally been a bit ahead of everybody else.

    And the one that I want to see go down is Dick Cheney. He is the individual most responsible for Iraq, from the bad intel to staffing the administration with like minded individuals. He is the one who has pushed for NSA spying and Torture and Secret Prisons. He is the real criminal driving most of the illegal activities out of the whitehouse.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:55 PM  

  • I thought all those blogs are x intelligence?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:56 PM  

  • Anonymous, I don't know.

    National journal certainly isn't, but truthout and Rawstory may well have connections of some type. If you read the Rawstory reporting and some of Jason't truthout stuff, a fair number of the leaks on their Plame case reporting have come from CIA and DoD(which could also be intel.)

    So, I definitely wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. I know next to nothing about the two people in question except that the majority of their reporting has turned out to be true, but I have asked myself on a number of occasions how these outside reporters are gaining the class of information they're getting.

    I have had a working theory for awhile that Fitzgerald's not as leak proof as presented, and that maybe information is being passed to some of these outside reporters. Again nothing concrete, but it seems that when pressure needs to be applied in the case, there's suddenly a story from off the beaten path that certainly the participants in the investigation are aware of, yet doesn't make the papers..

    So, I wouldn't rule anything out, although I've seen no hard evidence to indicate it. The key is the sourcing and from where we sit it is almost impossible to discern.

    That's a good question, though.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:16 PM  

  • By Blogger 1111141414, at 4:41 AM  

  • By Blogger raybanoutlet001, at 8:53 PM  

  • By Blogger zzyytt, at 1:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home