With what Feinstein knows she went ahead and voted for Mukasey. disgusting

### So if Waxman reduces his request for documents does Mukasey’s argument fall apart?

Yesterday
“WilliamOckham July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
13

I almost agree with Mukasey. Here’s the crux of his argument:

The only subpoenaed document that the Committee addresses with any particularity is the Vice President’s interview report, which the Department has not made available for review because of heightened separation of powers concerns. Despite repeatedly referencing the report, however, the Committee never articulates any legitimate legislative interest in the document that might outweigh an executive privilege claim. Instead, the Comminee simply reiterates its general interest in White House procedures for handling classified information, July 8 Committee Letter at 6, and broadly asserts that “this Committee and the American people are entitled to know” about the Vice President’s conduct in the Plame matter, id. at 2.

These general assertions fall well short of the “demonstrably critical” particularized need required to overcome an executive privilege claim.

By not using impeachment as the lever, the Congress has weakened its case for getting these documents.”

## I still don’t get how you can push for impeachment hearings if you do not remove the “clouds” first?

## Why did Ari Fleisher get immunity?

## Is this possible?

“AlbertFall July 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am
22

Subpoena Fitz for a full week discussion session on camera on everything he knows about Plame, including any details he can recall on the Cheney interview.

If Cheney wants to refute the testimony, he can turn over the interview.”

DOES FITZ HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION YET? HE SAID THAT HE COULD RE-OPEN THE INVESTIGATION BASED ON “NEW INFORMATION”

Sanger, we don’t know exactly, bc that part of the interview notes is redacted. But the implication (since, at the time Fitz asked the questions he didn’t know about Woodward and he was incredulous when Libby asserted it was “vigorously,” and he asked him if that was the only time he used vigorously) is that he used the same phrase with Sanger.

In other words, the standard kind of interview in DC. But you’re going to establish a propaganda case because the Administration leaked an actual document (albeit cherry picked) in the course of a standard interview.

The whole point is to emasculate Joe Wilson

Oh, I agree completely.
It’s just that — as you point out — their efforts actually simply make those of us watching kind of shrug and wonder if their Viagra needs a higher dosage.

They definitely Have Some Issues.
So why they air them via Joe Wilson seems totally bizarre.

…Some of the subpoenaed documents also contain information about communications between you and senior White House officials….

EW wrote:

First, as LS astutely points out, Mukasey mis-characterizes the entire investigation, claiming it was about “the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.” No, AG Mukasey, the investigation was into the disclosure of Valerie’s identity as a covert operative. Your guess why Mukasey does this is as good as mine…

Wondering about who the “WH officials” might be, I hit Wikipedia, which led to the entry for “Marc Grossman” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Grossman
This part’s worth noting on this thread:

Grossman played a peripheral role in the Plame Affair, …
On 10 June 2003, an analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) sent a memo to Ambassador Grossman outlining Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger and mentioning that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Reportedly, Grossman wanted the memo as background to use at a White House meeting on criticism of President Bush for using the Niger claim in his State of the Union speech.

This establishes Marc Grossman in WH meetings, which means that he should be included in Waxman’s requested info, particularly around June 10, 200. (I tried to click on EW’s ‘Ghorbanifar Timeline’ link to see whether Larry Franklin or Harold Rhodes did anything spectacularly odd in that timeframe, but that timeline link is still not working 8((

FWIW, I’d kind of forgotten that it was Grossman who probably tipped off Hadley to Plame’s identity. I’d not thought of Grossman as someone who’d be in meetings at the WH, but it does put him in the range of Waxman’s requests. (Well, Grossman and probably hundreds of others, but I digress…)

EW @50 points out a very odd dichotomy:
Why would Libby leak the NIE in the usual, run-of-the-mill Beltway fashion, yet try to hide and cloak himself about anything related to Plame?
That sure makes it appear that the NIE was the collateral damage.
Plame would have been the real target, following EW’s point at 50. And if Plame were the real target, that could lead right back to the Wikipedia entry on “Grossman”.

At the bottom of the Grossman Wikipedia page, it mentions that Grossman has been accused of being involved in selling secrets about nukes. And that he’s a former Amb. to Turkey. And has served in Pakistan (1976 – 83). And NATO 83, 86.

After reading EW’s comment at 50, and considering that Plame (not the NIE) was the real target, that sure raises more questions about Marc Grossman, and his activities following his discovery of Plame’s identity on June 10th.
After that date, all hell broke loose; Cheney and Libby seem to have gone into hyperdrive trying to ‘out’ Plame.

If it didn’t sound bizarre and nutso, I’d say that as I read this thread, it was a bit spooky to think that Sibyl Edmonds seems to look more credible when you start looking at:
– the dates
– Grossman’s likely ability to circumvent Powell, connect to Hadley (and the Pentagon neocons via Hadley and OVP), while remaining publicly invisible
– the intense focus on destroying a US intel agent (and her group) who were tracking nukes (including, one presumes, black market nukes)
–the idea that Plame and her group were regarded (by Grossman, Hadley, Libby, Cheney, and who else…?!) as a bigger threat than the NIE (!)
–the fact that Grossman has served in Turkey, as well as Pakistan (both implicated in black market nukes, and both targets of Israel, and both areas in which Plame also worked)
– the note at the bottom of the Grossman Wikipedia page mentioning that he’s been accused of involvement with selling black market nukes***
the kinds of euphenisms that Grossman could have used.

On the other hand, Grossman and Joe Wilson’s paths must have crossed many times. Which makes it seem quite odd if Grossman didn’t know about Plame and her activities. So maybe Sibyl Edmonds is full of nonsense…?

No answers. But more questions — esp. after the likelihood that Mukasey is signaling someone(s), and also after EW’s comment @50.

*** It’s an accusation, not a verified fact. Also, for all I know the guy is a double-secret-super-duper agent. But for the US? Or for Israel? Or for a black market entity…? I got no answers.

And the whole point of emasculating Joe Wilson – he of the rope necktie in Baghdad during Gulf War I – is so that people won’t realize that Joe’s is bigger than Dick’s.

And the whole point of Dick telling Pat Leahy to “Go F yourself” is because Dick can’t actually F Pat; old Dick is too tired and can only talk about it. Apparently one side effect of having your heart surgically removed is that one can’t generate sufficient blood pressure to perform the manly act.

And consequently, our congress-critters don’t realize that if they would just stand up something stronger than a letter or two, Dick would just wilt. But we’ll never know.

Jeebuz.
Wilson: career diplomat, multi-lingual, served in (ahem) Baghdad…

Well, jumpin’ Jehosaphat!
I guess it really wouldn’t sound too smart of Bu$hCo to reference, ‘The former Amb to Iraq under Bush I, the French-speaking career servant…’

So, yeah. The only way that The Former Hill Staffer, the Barnacle, and the rest of the asshats will ever refer to Joe Wilson is as “Valerie Plame’s husband”. He is allowed no other identity, expertise, or history.

I can only assume that these clowns don’t grasp how incredibly mean-spirited it makes them look every time they continue to reference Joe Wilson as “the husband”. It might be funny if it weren’t so sad and pathetic.

EW, the first thing I read and followed this AM was Waxman’s overview to the HJC in response to Mukasey. You’ve been on this all day. Thank you for the cogent analysis. Thank you for digging between the lines of the text and putting subtleties in context.

As for the Oversight report for contempt…Many questions are coming to my mind as I read…I’ll try to post a few here soon.