Comments on: Plame Investigation and Missing Emails Timeline http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:35:13 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46751 emptywheel Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:23:57 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46751 <p>Congress is the one that passes FOIA laws. Conveniently, it means they get to exempt themselves. And with the Jefferson ruling, they apparently now believe they can shield accepting bribes from us too.</p> Congress is the one that passes FOIA laws. Conveniently, it means they get to exempt themselves. And with the Jefferson ruling, they apparently now believe they can shield accepting bribes from us too.

]]> By: Rayne http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46748 Rayne Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:04:22 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46748 <p>Thanks, bmaz. I think it’s imperative that the query process is more fully detailed, the backup and archiving process is more fully detailed, as is the network and who has access. That last bit is a huge problem, but it’s hard to rule out malicious intent — and the ISOO situation already makes it clear that the Cheneyites had no concern for established security processes.</p> <p>EW — thanks, I really thought we would be able to obtain documents submitted to Congress.</p> Thanks, bmaz. I think it’s imperative that the query process is more fully detailed, the backup and archiving process is more fully detailed, as is the network and who has access. That last bit is a huge problem, but it’s hard to rule out malicious intent — and the ISOO situation already makes it clear that the Cheneyites had no concern for established security processes.

EW — thanks, I really thought we would be able to obtain documents submitted to Congress.

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46681 bmaz Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:13:31 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46681 <p>Boy, and I don’t want to tack one bummer on top of another, but in response to your comment @118, I have no idea what application my little theory has on congressional document acquisition like by Waxman. I simply don’t have the knowledge or experience with the congressional process the way I do traditional civil litigation and criminal litigation process. Usually in civil litigation, the custodian of records is identified and makes the certification of thorough and complete production by countersigning the discovery response or, alternatively, by executing a certification or affidavit to that effect that is attached to the discovery response. Very rarely are they ever seen or heard from (like almost never). Even in cases where the requesting party feels that discovery has been withheld, or is otherwise incomplete, the standard response is to file a motion to compel. I believe you mentioned working in corporate law, so you probably know all this. I had the pleasure (pain?) of working on several unusual civil rights cases against governmental entities that are really animals of a different nature though. There were a couple of instances where my partner and I were absolutely convinced the adverse party was not producing things they should be. In one instance, in a false arrest litigation, we asked the sheriff’s office and county attorney’s office for all cases that had similar fact patterns within the last ten years. They produced next to nothing. Problem was that we had ourselves represented a criminal defendant in a case exactly like the underlying case at issue and knew there were others too; when they didn’t even produce our own case, we knew something was dishonest about their search and production, so we noticed their custodian for a full deposition. They fought it, but the court permitted the depo. We learned all kinds of good stuff, and that was just from a county records clerk; my mind spins on what Addington could be asked. Now you would not be able to ask substantive questions about the documents themselves, but just the ability to ask chain of custody questions, foundational questions, and, most importantly, questions about how they searched, who was involved, what the parameters were, who set the parameters etc. It could be a treasure trove of good stuff. Bottom line is I don’t know about Waxman, but any of these civil plaintiffs sure are in a position to try this. Hard to see how it is not a good faith discovery attempt; the worst that can happen is that it is challenged by a motion to quash and the court agrees.</p> Boy, and I don’t want to tack one bummer on top of another, but in response to your comment @118, I have no idea what application my little theory has on congressional document acquisition like by Waxman. I simply don’t have the knowledge or experience with the congressional process the way I do traditional civil litigation and criminal litigation process. Usually in civil litigation, the custodian of records is identified and makes the certification of thorough and complete production by countersigning the discovery response or, alternatively, by executing a certification or affidavit to that effect that is attached to the discovery response. Very rarely are they ever seen or heard from (like almost never). Even in cases where the requesting party feels that discovery has been withheld, or is otherwise incomplete, the standard response is to file a motion to compel. I believe you mentioned working in corporate law, so you probably know all this. I had the pleasure (pain?) of working on several unusual civil rights cases against governmental entities that are really animals of a different nature though. There were a couple of instances where my partner and I were absolutely convinced the adverse party was not producing things they should be. In one instance, in a false arrest litigation, we asked the sheriff’s office and county attorney’s office for all cases that had similar fact patterns within the last ten years. They produced next to nothing. Problem was that we had ourselves represented a criminal defendant in a case exactly like the underlying case at issue and knew there were others too; when they didn’t even produce our own case, we knew something was dishonest about their search and production, so we noticed their custodian for a full deposition. They fought it, but the court permitted the depo. We learned all kinds of good stuff, and that was just from a county records clerk; my mind spins on what Addington could be asked. Now you would not be able to ask substantive questions about the documents themselves, but just the ability to ask chain of custody questions, foundational questions, and, most importantly, questions about how they searched, who was involved, what the parameters were, who set the parameters etc. It could be a treasure trove of good stuff. Bottom line is I don’t know about Waxman, but any of these civil plaintiffs sure are in a position to try this. Hard to see how it is not a good faith discovery attempt; the worst that can happen is that it is challenged by a motion to quash and the court agrees.

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46652 emptywheel Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:15:32 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46652 <p>Nothing internal. So we get stuff that Waxman releases, but not his internal discussions between him and his staffers.</p> Nothing internal. So we get stuff that Waxman releases, but not his internal discussions between him and his staffers.

]]> By: Rayne http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46647 Rayne Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:53:34 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46647 <p>None of the legislative dox? including those submitted by others outside of the legislature?</p> None of the legislative dox? including those submitted by others outside of the legislature?

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46637 emptywheel Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:02:24 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46637 <p>RFW</p> <p>Ask and <a href="http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/evidence-that-l.html" rel="nofollow">you shall receive</a>.</p> RFW

Ask and you shall receive.

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46635 emptywheel Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:52:01 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46635 <p>Yeah. I’d have to look, but it was shortly after the trial ended. Actually, I did several, hte most interesting of which showed that the three documents Libby had marked as “TS/SCI” all implicated Bush or Cheney in some fashion. Also note tehre was a fight in the trial over whether Mayfield had stamped the documents or Libby, with Deb Bonamici arguing that Libby had done so himself.</p> <p>But this particular document was the note recording Cheney telling him that Plame worked at CP. What’s most remarkable about it is that it probably comes from an entire day’s note, but was rewritten onto its own note. The first versin of those that was turned in was stamped “Treated as Secret/SCI.” But when the gov’t came back for the original, it was stamped as “Treated as TS/SCI.” That stamp had to have happened sometime between October 21 and December 24.</p> Yeah. I’d have to look, but it was shortly after the trial ended. Actually, I did several, hte most interesting of which showed that the three documents Libby had marked as “TS/SCI” all implicated Bush or Cheney in some fashion. Also note tehre was a fight in the trial over whether Mayfield had stamped the documents or Libby, with Deb Bonamici arguing that Libby had done so himself.

But this particular document was the note recording Cheney telling him that Plame worked at CP. What’s most remarkable about it is that it probably comes from an entire day’s note, but was rewritten onto its own note. The first versin of those that was turned in was stamped “Treated as Secret/SCI.” But when the gov’t came back for the original, it was stamped as “Treated as TS/SCI.” That stamp had to have happened sometime between October 21 and December 24.

]]> By: radiofreewill http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46632 radiofreewill Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:23:59 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46632 <p>EW - Have you done any articles on That One Document with “Treated as Top Secret/SCI” on the Original?</p> <p>Late in the Bond testimony (Bond 5,6 or 7), Jeffress does a ‘blurt-out’ along the lines of “Jenny Mayfield says that they (Jenny and Scooter?) just stamped everything.”</p> <p>So, is the implication here that Scooter had an original note, that HE (or Jenny) then stamped “Treated as Top Secret/SCI” and put in his files?</p> <p>Do we know what that original document is? Can we tell who De-classified it?</p> EW – Have you done any articles on That One Document with “Treated as Top Secret/SCI” on the Original?

Late in the Bond testimony (Bond 5,6 or 7), Jeffress does a ‘blurt-out’ along the lines of “Jenny Mayfield says that they (Jenny and Scooter?) just stamped everything.”

So, is the implication here that Scooter had an original note, that HE (or Jenny) then stamped “Treated as Top Secret/SCI” and put in his files?

Do we know what that original document is? Can we tell who De-classified it?

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46630 emptywheel Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:00:40 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46630 <p>Legislative documents aren’t FOIAble.</p> Legislative documents aren’t FOIAble.

]]> By: jdmckay http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/comment-page-1/#comment-46629 jdmckay Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:47:17 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/19/plame-investigation-and-missing-emails-timeline/#comment-46629 <p>Any idea if Hossein Safavian’s email ever subpoenaed and if there’s an archive?</p> Any idea if Hossein Safavian’s email ever subpoenaed and if there’s an archive?

]]>