SPECIAL REPORT: TRAITORS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
- George H.W. Bush
Russert: "For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?"
Cooper: "That's correct."
- Matthew Cooper
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
1. On This Week, McCain was confronted with video of the following statement from Larry Johnson at Friday's hearing:
I wish there was a Republican of some courage and conviction that would stand up and call the ugly dog the ugly dog that it is.
But instead, you know, I watched last night, John McCain on Chris Matthews' "Hardball," making excuses, being an apologist.
Where are these men and women over there with any integrity to stand up and speak out against this?
McCain's response:
[nervous smile] Thank you, Larry . . . Rove was trying to knock down what he thought were some inaccuracies.
There's lot's of things I don't understand . . . I trust the President's judgment. . .
[asked about the non-disclosure agreement, which explicitly prohibits negligent disclosures] I don't know what the definition of negligent is. . . .
I think [the President] is under constraints from his lawyer that he can't do anything . . . .
I'd love to see everybody involved come out and say exactly what they did . . . but that isn't how the system works.
- Apologist making excuses for Rove? Check.
- Courage, conviction, and integrity? Depends on the definition of negligent . . . . That's not how the system works.
The straight talk express, indeed.
Video available at
Crooks and Liars.
2. Excerpts from the
Meet the Press rountable discussion of Traitor-Gate, including Safire's statement that a violation of the IIPA would constitute "treason":
MR. RUSSERT: David Gregory, you've been asking question after question in the White House briefing room as to why the inconsistency of saying that Libby and Rove were not involved in this and as to the White House saying, "We're not going to comment." What's the current thinking of the White House on this?
MR. GREGORY: That they've got a big political problem at the very least. They were happy to change the subject to talk about Judge Roberts when they could this past week. There's a political problem and then potentially a legal problem because I think what the special prosecutor is looking at right now is who might have actually blown Valerie Plame's cover, or did somebody lie, in their testimony, about their conversations with reporters? The White House defense has been that they learned about Valerie Plame from reporters. There is now information, including a classified State Department memo, that may contradict that. There at least is the potential that White House officials were aware of who she was, what she did and her role in sending her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger to investigate this uranium-Iraq thing.
MS. TOTENBERG: . . . what you have to remember is Valerie Plame- -it's not just Valerie Plame. It's her whole network. She was a person who had a network of people who dealt with her about weapons of mass destruction, and her whole network was put in jeopardy by the revelation of her identity. . . .
MR. SAFIRE: I disagree.
MR. GREGORY: I do think that one--well, one point I disagree with Bill on is I agree that there should be a shield law, and this is an important conversation. But I think what has to accompany that is the debate we have within journalistic circles about when we promise confidentiality and whether it is to put a check on government or whether it is to be a vehicle for what may have been an egregious abuse of power here in smearing someone who's part of our national security apparatus, and I think journalists have to be very careful about this idea of confidentiality . . . .
[Safire repeats the GOP line that she may not be covert, Russert responds]
MR. RUSSERT: But, Bill, she had an unofficial cover. She was described by her neighbors as an energy analyst. I don't think we're in a position of saying whether someone's covert or not. That's up for the agency to decide.
MR. SAFIRE: Take the next one. I don't grant that, but take the next one. There has to be a knowing attempt of a pattern of action to undermine American intelligence. That's a huge charge. That's charging treason and...
MR. RUSSERT: Stuart, do you expect any indictments?
MR. TAYLOR: You never know. It would be awfully odd for a prosecutor to go to put as many people through as long an ordeal as this one has and then come up and said, "Well, I couldn't find anything." Maybe that's one reason he's carrying it to this point. If you look at all the signs, it appears the theory he may be pursuing, or one theory, is that people in the White House leaked this based on official information. And by the way, there's another law that everybody's forgotten, that says you intentionally leak a classified document, you've committed a felony, bang; 1917 espionage law that's been used in the past to prosecute someone for doing that and for only doing that.
- Gonzales admitted on Face the Nation that he gave advance warning to Andrew Card of the special prosecutor's "preserve all materials" request several hours before formally notifying White House officials of the request. Full discussion at Think Progress.
- Isikoff's latest, which addresses the import of Russert's testimony, confrims the Top Secret nature of the state department memo, and reports that:
[T]he CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law [the IIPA], says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice.
5. Knight Ridder's latest on the importance of Rove to Bush.