Author: emmajoe

Cheney mentions him as being in the hunting party (he found the second covey), but there is no further mention of him being interviewed or providing an affadavit.

From here:

Mr. Cheney told me that on Saturday, February 11, 2006 at approximately 5:30 pm on the Armstrong Ranch that there was a three vehicle hunting party that consisted of himself, Bo Hubert, Pam Willeford, <u>Jerry Medellin</u&gt, Katharine Armstrong, Sarita Armstrong Hixon, Harry Whittington, and <u>Oscar Medellin</u&gt.

So there were eight people in the hunting party (well, eight people at the scene anyway…)

So, there are 3 Medellin’s involved:

1. Jerry (Gerardo) Medellin who was identified in one of the reports as the “hunting guide”. But so was Bo Hubert! Can a hunting party with 8 people have two hunting giudes? I guess…

2. Oscar Medellin who Cheney mentions as being with Bo Hubert and having identified the second covey and never mentioned again…

3. Ramiro Medellin, the guy who used to be a sheriff, now works at the ranch and was the guy who the current Sheriff called to find out what happened. It was Ramiro Medellin who called the Sheriff back and said it was an accident. That was when he made the decision not to go out until the next morning (sounds like, anyway…)

Also, if you read all of the accounts, it sounds like Jerry Medellin, Kathering Armstrong and Sarita Hixon were hanging out in the vehicles while the other “group of 5” were hunting! But how does that jive with one of the reports indicating that Jerry (Gerardo) Medellin was the hunting guide?

So what happened to Oscar? Why no mention of him from anyone else doing the investigation?

(FYI, I found an Oscar Medellin who graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1999 from Texas A&M. If this is the guy, he sounds young – mid to late 20’s?)

Anyway, it’s all kind of bizarre, I think…

Cross-posted at my blog.

So, yes, I did the four hour vigil again last night in front of the telly. It was a little more entertaining than the previous night. And, yes, I enjoyed it. Here are some of my random thoughts:
Is it just me or was Jack Layton the only one whose microphone ever got cut off? Wait, let me put it another way. The only speaker whose micrphone NEVER got cut off was Paul Martin. I kind of thought he talked too long at least a couple of times. So why didn’t he get cut off? I could be wrong, but it did seem a little suspicious to me.

I really chuckled at one point when Stephen Harper actually started a comment off with the word “Notwithstanding”! Priceless… I think an ad should be made of that.

Also, did that spaz really call Martin a flip-flopper??? How HILARIOUS is that? I swear, Harper really needs to hire campaign advisors who DIDN’T work for Bush. It’s ridiculous.

As much as the pundits think Martin’s tirade on Duceppe was “staged”, I thought it was pretty powerful myself. That’s a clip I could watch again and again and, at the end, still go “Yeah!”

I’m usually never that impressed with Paul Martin, but he held his own pretty well last night considering he was being constantly bashed from three sides. Maybe the other leaders should consider that it could get him a sympathy vote? I don’t think people really feel comfortable watching that kind of incessant bashing. They said as much when the topic of the behaviour during Question Period on the floor came up. But I’m female, so maybe it’s just my nature to want to defend the person being attacked…

I’m glad Martin got the dig in on Harper’s speech from 1997 about the country in theory and in practice. Too bad most people wouldn’t have understood it.

I did pick up on something though, and I’ll make a prediction right now that the Martin people have uncovered something juicy about who has donated to Harper’s leadership campaign. Did you catch that part? When Martin asked Harper to tell who contributed? It sounded to me very much like a warning that they’ve got something on him. I wonder when they’ll let that information “leak” out. I can’t wait to find out, I’ve been convinced for a while now that American money is making it’s way to Harper somehow. If the Liberals have something like THAT? Well, say goodbye to Mr. Harper and hello to a Liberal majority.

You know, this could make for a juicy campaign after all… Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

Cross-posted at my blog.

Well, last night I sat in front on my TV for 4 hours. The first hour watching Duffy’s show on CTV NewsNet, the next two watching the french debate (which, by the way, I actually enjoyed) and the last hour watching the commentary on Duffy’s show.

I have a few random thoughts:

Why does Mike Duffy have partisans on to “discuss” the debate? I mean, come on. I think we ALL know what their comments will be. I find it very annoying. And then Duffy himself has the audacity to be rude to the NDP guy! He asked him what he thought of the debate, the guy responded with, “I think the NDP did great.” and Duffy snidely replies, “Of COURSE you do!” and rolls his eyes! Well that goes for the two partisans sitting beside you too Mike. If you know what they are going to say, why bother having them on? I much prefer listening to real political analysts with some bit of independent thought.

I find particularly annoying the Conservative partisans that get on these shows nowadays. Haven’t they figured out yet that the FOX model won’t work in Canada? We are for the most part literate here, we aren’t sheeple Americans who fall for simple words and divisive phrases. Have these new Conservatives gone to the same school Ann Coulter and JimmyJeff went to? I partly blame CTV News for this. If I wanted to watch conservative Republicans, I’d watch FOX News, not CTV. (And this goes double for Mr. David “Axis of Evil” Frum, he’s just an American pretending to be Canadian as far as I’m concerned. But wait… So is Stephen Harper! Are they friends, I wonder??? Hmmm….)

Now I know I’m probably going to upset some people with my next beef, but whatever. What the HELL is the Bloc even in the debate for? Seriously? I get absolutely infuriated with this separatist bullshit. It reminds me of my 28 year old nephew who stays at home playing video games, whining about how he deserves better in life, while his parents continually foot the bill and allow him to stay. He won’t leave and his parents won’t kick him out. But guess what? He’s still family and I love him to death. But either shit or get off the pot. Figure it out one way or another and then STFU.

On a more polite note, Gilles Duceppe is REALLY good… I probably agreed with about 70% of what he said! He is intelligent, comfortable in his own skin, speaks with confidence. I can’t really blame Quebecers for voting for a Party this guy leads. It’s just the principle of the thing. They are very clear in the fact they are a Separatist Pary. If you are a French Canadian in Quebec who loves Canada and believes, as I do, that Canada isn’t Canada without Quebec, why on earth would you vote for the Bloc? Do you really hate the Liberals THAT much? I dunno, something seems a little wanky to me here…

On to the NDP. I like the NDP. I’d probably vote NDP if Stephen Harper wasn’t the leader of the Conservative Party. (Heck, I might even vote Conservative is Stephen Harper wasn’t the leader of the Conservative Party!) But the negativity that comes out of Layton’s mouth just doesn’t feel NDP’ish to me. Maybe it’s my problem with my perception of the NDP as the party of nice people who act like grown ups. The moderators, if you will. The “Miss Congeniality’s” of the race. So when Layton starts off a comment with negative attacks, it kind of makes me a little queasy and I lose a little bit of respect for the Party as a whole.

And finally, how long is it going to take before these guys realize that the Gomery thing is OLD NEWS! Yes, it happened. It would happen to ANY Party with too much power. That kind of corrupt behaviour due to too much power is not strictly limited to the Liberals. And EVERYBODY knows it! The other parties are beating a dead horse with that one, Canadians don’t much care about that scandal anymore… Face it. This is what I hear from EVERYONE I know. They don’t give a shit.

It’s the bread and butter issues people care about and most Canadians haven’t been forced to switch to margarine just yet, so the status quo is just fine. If it ain’t broke… and all that. Trying to convince a Canadian that this country is broke and needs change is just going to piss them off because it’s simply not true. It just makes you sound like a trouble-maker who is forcing the average Joe to go vote in the dead of winter for what? No good reason. Well guess what? THIS voter is going to vote Liberal just for spite! (Even though I’d vote Liberal anyway. But this IS what I’m hearing…)

All right, that’s enough for now. I’ll be back tomorrow with thoughts on the English debate being held tonight. Ta ta!

OK, so this speech from 1997 that Stephen Harper gave to a right-wing US think tank, called the National Citizens Coalition, has made it’s way into the media here in Canada. The current response of the Conservative Party is that Harper isn’t the same person he was then, but I doubt it. Yes, people can change, but I’d bet money that this leopard hasn’t changed ANY spots, he just got a good dye job to cover the spots up!
However, I did find the speech a very interesting read. I did get more of a sense of Harper and what he may be like. I think he is obviously a very smart man, brilliant even. But have you ever met a brilliant person who is secretly an extremist? They’re a little scary. They are also able to hide their real views very, very well because they know their views aren’t popular and will expose the secret beliefs they really have. How do I know this? I grew up in a fundamentalist religious environment. I can spot a fraud a mile away. And the truly committed who pretend they are like you and me are just as much a fraud as the cult leader who doesn’t believe a thing he spouts, he’s just in it for the money.

I think Harper is the former type of fraud. Just read the speech. His true colours shine through.

I have to admit, his description of the Canadian political landscape is quite accurate. If someone asked me to describe it to them, I would probably have the same take (except that I would demonize the right, not the left :)). But it’s his description of those on the left where his real thoughts come through. The Harper spokesperson mentioned the speech was in jest, but often humour shows us the truth in people.

Here are some quotes related to the NDP (New Democratic Party for those non-Canadians out there reading this):

The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it’s actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.

This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it’s explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that’s a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.

Its main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums.

OK then! He also describes the Liberal Party, the former PC Party (of which he is now the leader since the Reform Party and PC Party essentially combined to become the current Conservative Party), the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois (the separatist party from Quebec).

His comments on the Liberal Party:

It’s not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that’s a disappearing kind of breed. But it’s certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It’s moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.

His comments on the former PC Party:

But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.

In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late ’80s, early ’90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially — what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.

At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.

And his views of the Reform Party (HIS party):

The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican…

So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It’s the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense.

It’s also the most conservative socially, but it’s not a theocon party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.

He discusses the Bloc, but he really displays a fair amount of disdain for the French overall. He insists that Canada is NOT a bilingual country, it is a country with two languages. He tells the audience explicitly that Canada IS an english speaking nation, if you exclude Quebec, etc..

Finally, he talks about social “problems” with Canada, comments I found quite distasteful. Here, see for yourself what he thinks of Canadians:

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don’t feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don’t feel bad about it themselves, as long as they’re receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

Nice, huh? Ok, there are some who abuse the unemployment system, but to lump everyone on social assistance into some group that should be sneered upon is truly disgusting and clearly shows his complete lack of empathy with those less fortunate than himself.

And what, exactly, does this mean???

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it’s legendary that if you’re like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

Ummm… is he saying Canadians are stupid, or am I missing something?

So, in closing, this guy is a fraud who is clearly pissed that he is stuck being a Canadian rather than an American. Poor him. So, why is it again that there are those is this country that actually want this guy to lead a country he doesn’t even like? Beats me… The Conservative Party would do well to get rid of this guy if they want to be taken seriously as a Canadian political party.

Yes, I’m speculating, but please consider what I have to say…

I listened to Woodward last night on Larry King. I admit to already believing that Bush was his source so I could be guilty of seeing things that aren’t there, but I don’t think I’m wrong here.

I’m going to lay it out for you. I apologize for not having the transcript from last night to reference, I’m going on memory. If someone can tell me where to find it, I will update the diary with actual quotes.

I found a transcript and just spent an hour updating the version of this on Kos.

Rather than do it here as well, I’ll put the link to the Kos diary here: It was Bush.

First, things that relate to the source, from last night (November 22) on Larry King:

1. It’s a male. Bob actually said “he” in an unguarded moment.
2. It came from someone he had a formal interview with, in casual conversation at the end of the interview and the question wasn’t on the datailed list of questions because it was related to a recent story by Pincus. This tells me that the “list” of questions was sent well in advance of the interview so the “source’s” people could review it. (See point 4).
3. The only two people he had formal interviews with (i.e. “not on background”) were Bush and Rumsfeld.
4. The only two people he had sent detailed questions to prior to speaking with them were Bush and Cheney.
5. He said that Cheney was not interviewed “during the time in question”.
6. The source told Woodward sometime between June 15 and June 18, 2003. Woodward said that when he read that Libby told Miller on June 23rd, that’s when he realized he had been told “a week to 10 days prior”. Combine that with his comment about the June 12 Pincus article coming out “a few days” before his interview with the source and you can nail down the timing of the interview a little better.
7. During a discussion about Bush himself and Woodward’s interviews with him, it looked like Woodward got a little confused and uncomfortable at one point. I need the transcript for this, but I got the sense in that exchange that his comments were in relation to the “source” based on his apparent confusion.
8. Woodward may have indicated to Libby that he knew about Wilson’s wife. Libby would know there was likely only one person who could have told him.
9. It sounded like the “source” forgot about the conversation until Woodward called him up and reminded him. Who in the administration is that stupid? (I think you know the answer to that…)

From the following on-line interview with Len Downie:

Post Executive Editor Discusses Woodward Reporter’s Silence in CIA Leak Case Scrutinized

Well, I read through this and what struck me were his very specific references to the blanket waiver surrounding the confidentiality between Woodward and his secret “source”. Below are both references from the article:

Leonard Downie Jr.: This casual part of a long interview for Bob’s book was part of an overall confidential source agreement that cannot be broken or taken apart in any way without the source’s permission. So far, the source has agreed only to Bob testifying about their conversation in the Fitzgerald investigation.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Excellent question. The interview that was taking place when the gossipy exchange took place was entirely covered by a confidential source agreement. Therefore, the gossipy exchange was, too. It wasn’t as though it had occurred in some other casual conversation outside the confidential source agreement.

So it looks to me that whoever this source is, he had a very complex confidentiality agreement with Woodward and he spent hours with him in an interview for the book which is when he spewed forth the interesting gossip about Wilson’s wife.

So my question is this, would all 75 of the offficials he interviewed (either officially or on background) have THAT complicated a confidentiality agreement? Or would that type of agreement fit more closely with a very important figure?

A few other bits of information:

1. Fitzgerald apparently met with Bush’s lawyer around the time of the Libby indictment.
2. One report stated that the source was never infront of the Grand Jury, another report indicated the source was interviewed. That scenario only applies to Bush and Cheney and Woodward basically said last night that it wasn’t Cheney.
3. Rumsfeld denied emphatically on a Sunday talk show that he was the source.

Now, to the question of Woodward’s earlier claim that this was nothing but harmless chatter and his revelation that he came upon another piece of information in his recent “reporter mode”. FYI, speculation from this point forward.

IF Bush were lied to about Plame’s status, he WOULD make an offhand remark to Woodward about Wilson’s wife working as an “analyst” at the CIA when asked about Wilson. Woodward would ASSUME that the President would have accurate information, so he ASSUMED that this was all just chatter.

BUT if Plame was indeed covert, as Fitzgerald said in the indictement, then either Bush lied to Woodward or someone lied to Bush. This was the new peice of information Woodward picked up that sent him into “reporter” mode. Woodward then called Bush. Bush, being the President, would be the only one I can think of who would run to Fitz with the Woodward news. He above all cannot be viewed as being complicit in this, especially if he was lied to by, say, Cheney or Rove. And he, above all, would not want his identity to be known at this stage of the game. Woodward agreed to keep his identity secret for now because he recognizes that Bush was likely lied to and didn’t knowingly out Plame. Bush (God forbid!) could actually be a whistleblower!

So that’s my theory. I’m telling you, it’s Bush. The big news in that, besides the obvious headlines and speculation it would generate? Someone lied to Bush about Plame’s status in the first place. Bush may finally get to play his pre-determined role of “patsy” for this pathetic, rogue administration run by neo-cons.

This morning at 10:00 am EST, the Executive Editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr., was on-line fielding questions about Bob Woodward’s source and the CIA leak case in general.

Here is the link to the story:

Post Executive Editor Discusses Woodward

Reporter’s Silence in CIA Leak Case Scrutinized
Well, I read through this and what struck me were his very specific references to the blanket waiver surrounding the confidentiality between Woodward and his secret “source”. Below are both references from the article:

Leonard Downie Jr.: This casual part of a long interview for Bob’s book was part of an overall confidential source agreement that cannot be broken or taken apart in any way without the source’s permission. So far, the source has agreed only to Bob testifying about their conversation in the Fitzgerald investigation.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Excellent question. The interview that was taking place when the gossipy exchange took place was entirely covered by a confidential source agreement. Therefore, the gossipy exchange was, too. It wasn’t as though it had occurred in some other casual conversation outside the confidential source agreement.

So it looks to me that whoever this source is, he had a very complex confidentiality agreement with Woodward and he spent hours with him in an interview for the book which is when he spewed forth the interesting gossip about Wilson’s wife.

So my question is this, would all 75 of the offficials he interviewed have THAT complicated a confidentiality agreement? Or would that type of agreement fit more closely with a very important figure?

I know most of you will think I’m being crazy, but my money is still on George himself being Woodward’s source.

[From the diaries by susanhu. This is a big catch by Emmajoe. Back in August, I wrote “Stakeout at the “CIA Leak” Grand Jury,” in good part about Susan Ralston’s history with Rove et al., and it was also true then that the Filipino press had the story long before it showed up in U.S. papers.]

I just caught this story from Philippine News Online:

Top Rove aide ‘critical’ in CIA probe, dated today.

Apparently because Susan Ralston is Filipino, the foreign news service likes to keep track of her.

There is no mention of when she is expected to meet with Fitzgerald, but it makes it clear to me that Fitz isn’t done with Rove yet. … More below:
Here is a snip from the article:

WASHINGTON D.C. – Filipino American Susan Ralston, chief of-staff to presidential adviser Karl Rove, is one of nearly two dozen White House officials – including President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney – believed to have knowledge about the outing of Central Intelligence Agency operative agent Valerie Plame.

Ralston, Rove’s right-hand man, is scheduled to appear again before Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald who is investigating the circumstances surrounding the leak of Plame’s identity in the media.

Plame’s work in the CIA was revealed after her husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson challenged President Bush’s reasons for going to war in Iraq. Exposing an agent is a crime as it endangers the agent’s life as well as the security of his or her family.

Ralston appears to be a person of critical interest in the investigation, just like her boss Rove.

[ed] EmmaJoe’s story is linked at Raw Story.

I recall this being discussed some time ago, but there is so much analysis out there now, I can’t find reference to it. So I’ll post it for discussion.

Having read in detail everything on Fitz’s new website, I was struck by the differences in the subpoenas issued to Cooper and Time versus the one issued to Judith Miller and the NY Times. See below for the difference (I’ve bolded the relevant part included in Miller’s subpeona that was NOT included in Cooper’s and I wonder what it may mean…)

From the document Brief of the United States, Appellee, found on Fitz’s new website.
Subpoena issued to Cooper and Time:

On September 13, 2004, the grand jury issued subpoenas to Cooper and Time seeking: “testimony and documents relating to conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003, concerning in any way: former Ambassador Joseph Wilson; the 2002 trip by former Ambassador Wilson to Niger; Valerie Wilson Plame a/k/a Valerie Wilson a/k/a Valerie Plame (the wife of former Ambassador Wilson); and/or any affiliation between Valerie Wilson Plame and the CIA.” A-314, A-315.

Subpoena issued to Miller and the NY Times:

On August 12 and August 20, 2004, grand jury subpoenas were issued to reporter Judith Miller and her employer, the New York Times, seeking documents and testimony related to “conversations between Miller and a specified government official occurring between on or about July 6, 2003 and on or about July 13, 2003, concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.“

So, why the addition of “Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium” with respect to Miller? Could it be that Fitz was, in fact, investigating the Niger documents as far back as August of last year and somehow Miller’s name came up? Last night on Hardball, I nearly had an aneurism when David Shuster brought up the Niger forgeries AND connected Chalabi! And we all know how Miller was in bed with Chalabi on her pre-war “reporting”. Well, we’ve been saying that here for months, but to hear it on Hardball, well, you understand my surprise…

But could it be that Fitz really does have something on this aspect of the case? Do we perhaps really have a Category 5 heading for the White House?

According to what Miller says Libby told her.

Well, I finally read Judy Miller’s account of her testimony. The following three paragraphs struck me as odd when she is referring to her July 8, 2003 breakfast meeting with Libby:

Mr. Libby then proceeded through a lengthy and sharp critique of Mr. Wilson and what Mr. Libby viewed as the C.I.A.’s backpedaling on the intelligence leading to war. According to my notes, he began with a chronology of what he described as credible evidence of Iraq’s efforts to procure uranium. As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq’s uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium.

My notes indicate that Mr. Libby told me the report on the 1999 delegation had been attributed to Joe Wilson.

Mr. Libby also told me that <u>on the basis of these two reports</u&gt and other intelligence, his office had asked the C.I.A. for more analysis and investigation of Iraq’s dealings with Niger. According to my interview notes, Mr. Libby told me that the resulting cable – based on Mr. Wilson’s fact-finding mission, as it turned out – barely made it out of the bowels of the C.I.A. He asserted that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, had never even heard of Mr. Wilson.

Libby’s timeline is screwy:

1. Two Intelligence reports (one from 2002 and one from 1999 that Libby attributes to Wilson).
2. These reports prompted the VP office to ask the CIA for more info.
3. The CIA sent Wilson.
4. Wilson gave a report that “never left the bowels of the CIA”.

So what Intelligence report attributed to Wilson is Libby talking about in point 1? Did Wilson make 2 trips to Niger? I don’t think so…

So, I went to check (damn emptywheel for being on vacation!) and spent two hours reviewing information on this and I can’t find anywhere indicating that Wilson did a written report on his trip. Just that he was de-briefed by the CIA and that the “report” of his findings never made it to Cheney’s office. Libby even told Miller on the June 23 meeting that the CIA never delivered a report. So what 1999 report, attributed to Wilson, is Libby talking about????

Also, July 8, 2003 was well before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report was issued that covered in detail Wilson’s testimony concerning the 1999 allegations. So Libby couldn’t have been referring to that. Was he then referring to the INR write-up that was done and circulated on Air Force 1? Well that wasn’t out BEFORE Wilson’s 2002 trip.

There is just something in here that is making my spidey sense tingle and I just can’t put my finger on it. Perhaps all of you Plamegate officionados here can provide some enlightenment.

Oh, and one final thing. Remember Novak’s original article? This quote inparticular:

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson’s advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency <u>never before has declassified that kind of information</u&gt, but the <u>White House would like it to do just that now</u&gt — in its and in the public’s interest.

Did the CIA ever declassify that summary? If there was a summary, then obviously it’s classified. So did Cheney’s office see that write-up about Wilson’s trip or not?

My theory? Cheney’s office DID get the CIA report about Wilson’s trip and shredded it… Libby practically admitted it to Judy Miller. And guess what else? Fitz knows it.

I have been wondering about the Grand Jurors in the CIA Leak investigation. I mean, we constantly hear about Fitzgerald, but there are also 23 other people in that room with him as well. Are they sequestered? No. Each of them can go home at night and do whatever it is that they do. What if they read BooTrib or DailyKos or The Next Hoorah on occasion? What if they came across information related to the case they are involved in? Can they do anything about it?

Yes.

According to what I have read in the Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors, these Jurors have a considerable amount of power. See the bolded part of the snip from the Handbook:
Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors

As stated above, the federal grand jury’s function is to determine whether a person shall betried for a serious federal crime alleged to have been committed within the district where it sits.Matters may be brought to its attention in three ways: (1) by the United States Attorney or anAssistant United States Attorney; (2) by the court that impaneled it; and (3) from the personal knowledge of a member of the grand jury or from matters properly brought to a member’s personal attention. In all these cases, the grand jury must hear evidence before taking action.

But do they check out the internet in their spare time? Let’s hope so… Why? Because of this:

Ordinarily, the attorney for the government questions the witness first, followed next by the foreperson of the grand jury. Then, the other members of the grand jury may question the witness.

This could also help to explain why Mr. Rove spent over four hours with the Grand Jury yesterday. Remember what Matt Cooper said about his appearance before the Grand Jury in What I Told the Grand Jury:

A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. But I didn’t get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia. The majority were African American and were disproportionately women. Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor’s, as is the custom. These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2 1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor’s, although he posed them on their behalf. I began to take notes but then was told I had to stop, so I’m reliant on memory.

Other snips from the Handbook I found interesting (all bolding mine):

As a result, a grand jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the recommendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person.

The United States Attorney must sign the indictment before one may be prosecuted. Thus, the government and the grand jury act as checks upon each other. This assures that neither may arbitrarily wield the awesome power to indict a person of a crime.

Occasionally, prior to answering a question, a witness may ask to leave the grand jury room to consult with his or her attorney. The grand jury is to draw no adverse inference from such conduct, for every witness has the right to confer with counsel even though counsel may not be present in the grand jury room. In fact, a witness may confer with counsel after each question, as long as he or she does not make a mockery of the proceedings or does not, by such, make an attempt to impede the orderly progress of the grand jury investigation.

This could be another reason it took Rove so long, perhaps he was constantly leaving the room to consult with Luskin!

Upon request, preferably in writing, an accused may be given the opportunity by the grand jury to appear before it…

…Even if the accused is willing to testify voluntarily, it is recommended that he or she first be warned of the right not to testify. Also, he or she may be required to sign a formal waiver of this right. The grand jury should be completely satisfied that the accused fully understands what he or she is doing.

Sounds like Rove is an “accused” to me…

Remember that the grand jury is not responsible for determining whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify bringing the accused to trial. Only the evidence presented to the grand jury in the grand jury room may be considered in determining whether to vote an indictment.

…but even attorneys for the government may not be informed of what took place during the grand jury’s deliberations and voting.

After reading all of this I have two thoughts:

1. I PRAY that these Grand Jurors understand what’s really going on with the Bush administration so they can ask the right questions in a very complicated case.

2. I would give my right arm to be a Grand Juror in this case!