![]()
With new details arriving daily about the history of Karl Rove's testimony before the grand jury there have been many corrections to the known narrative. Thanks to everyone in the comments sections both here and at The Next Hurrah, there is a new timeline emerging that makes it look very much like Rove kept altering his testimony to keep up with what Fitzgerald was learning about his involvement, hence the five trips before the grand jury.
2003:
July 9 -- Robert Novak and Karl Rove speak about Valerie Wilson, according to Murray Waas (12/16/05). Accounts of this call differ, per Novak (10/1/03) and a Rove-friendly Washington Post story (7/15/05).
July 10 or 11 -- Libby speaks with "Official A" in the White House, presumably Karl Rove (per Libby indictment).
July 11 -- Rove speaks with Matt Cooper (per Time Magazine) and then emails Stephen Hadley (per AP).
July 17 -- Cooper et. al. publish "A War on Wilson?" in Time.
July 21 -- Rove calls Chris Matthews and says Wilson's wife is "fair game" (Per Joe Wilson, Politics of Truth).
September 29 -- ABC News producer Andrea Owen asks Rove he has any knowledge of or if he leaked the name of the CIA agent to the press. Rove says "no." (The Note).
September 30 -- Alberto Gonzales notifies White House officials to preserve and maintain all documents related to Joseph Wilson, his wife, his trip to Niger and her role in the CIA.
October (date unknown) -- Rove interviewed by the FBI, at which time he claimed that he only circulated information regarding Plame to journalists after it appeared in Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003.( Waas 3/8/04). He did not mention that he ever spoke with Matt Cooper and claimed he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist, though he could not remember who. (Waas 7/19/05)
December 30 -- Ashcroft recuses himself from the investigation; Comey appoints Fitzgerald (Washington Post).
2004:
January -- Fitzgerald's grand jury subpoenas the White House for all "records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets," including Matt Cooper (Newsday, per Just One Minute)
Feburary (date unknown) -- Rove testifies twice before the grand jury:
-- "In February 2004, when Mr. Rove testified about his conversations with reporters, he recalled the [Robert] Novak conversation, but no other interviews with reporters" (NYT, 11/4/05)
-- "He told of speaking briefly to columnist Bob Novak about the Wilson trip. But Rove never mentioned any conversation with Time's Cooper." (Newsweek).
March 1 (possibly, but date unknown): Viveca Novak tells Robert Luskin that Matt Cooper considers Karl Rove to be his source. Luskin says the conversation took place between October and January (Newsweek); V. Novak says it took place between January and May, but Fitzgerald seems to have independent corroboration that it happened on March 1 (Time).
May 21 -- Matt Cooper is subpoenaed for the first time (opinion).
June 3 -- Cooper moved to quash the subpoena (opinion).
July 6 -- District court denied Cooper's motion to quash (opinion).
July 20 -- District court issued a written opinion and order (opinion).
August 9 -- Cooper held in contempt (per Judge Hogan)
August 23 -- Cooper deposed about his contacts with Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald is surprised to learn that Libby was not Cooper's original source. (Washington Post)
August 31 -- Rove tells CNN at the Republican Convention:
-- "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name."
September 13 -- Cooper is subpoenaed again (opinion).
October 7 -- District court denies Cooper's motion to quash subpoenas (opinion).
October 13 -- Cooper held in contempt. (opinion).
October (date unknown) -- Luskin hands Hadley email over to Fitzgerald.
October 15 -- Rove testifies for the third time before the grand jury (Time).
-- "Reappearing before the grand jury that month, Rove acknowledged that he must have spoken to Cooper, but he still didn't remember doing so." (Newsweek)
-- "Rove said he believed that he had spoken to Cooper about Plame, but still had little independent recollection of what was said." (Waas 4/28/06)
-- "White House adviser Karl Rove told the grand jury in the CIA leak case that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, may have told him that CIA operative Valerie Plame worked for the intelligence agency before her identity was revealed...Rove has also testified that he also heard about Plame from someone else outside the White House, but could not recall who." (WaPo, 10/20/05)
October 19 -- District court consolidates the appeals of Miller and Cooper.
December 8 -- District court hears arguments on the appeals of Miller and Cooper (Special Counsel brief)
2005
February 15 -- Federal appeals court rules that Miler and Cooper may have witnessed a federal crime and may not claim journalistic privilege. (In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller)
June 27 -- Supreme Court refuses to hear Miller and Cooper's appeal.
June 30 -- Time Magazine agrees to hand over Matt Cooper's notes.
July 1 -- Lawrence O'Donnell appears on the McLaughlin Group and claims that the primary Plame leaker was Karl Rove (he blogs about it on the HuffPo the next day).
July 2 -- Luskin admits to Newsweek that Rove spoke with Cooper, but says he “did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA":
-- "The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove" (Newsweek, 7/11/2005 issue)
July 4 -- Luskin told CNN:
-- "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else ... Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."
July 6 -- Article appears in the Wall Street Journal (via Froomkin) which says: "If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting." Accounts differ as to what happen, but Cooper's lawyer Dick Sauber said he called Luskin and asked him if the general waiver already executed by Rove covers Cooper, and Luskin said it did.
Sauber, in Editor and Publisher (via Digby):
-- "There was no indication that we had that Mr. Rove or his lawyer were interested in receiving such a request. And it was really only in the last few days, when Mr. Luskin started making some of hiscomments, especially the one that I just quoted to you that was in the Wall Street Journal that led us to feel that we were on firm footing picking up the phone and calling and saying, "Based on your public comments, we would ask for an express and personal...," and that's what we did."
But according to the New York Times :
In court shortly after 2, [Cooper] told Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court in Washington that he had received "an express personal release from my source."
That statement surprised Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer. Mr. Luskin said he had only reaffirmed the blanket waiver, in response to a request from Mr. Fitzgerald.
July 9 -- Luskin confirms to Newsweek that Rove was Cooper's source:
"Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify." (Newsweek, 7/18/05 issue)
The article reports that the email sent by Cooper to his editor indicated Rove said "Wilson’s wife" worked for the CIA and authorized his trip. It’s clear that when Luskin asserted on July 2nd that Rove never said "Valerie Plame" worked for the CIA he was being legalistic and intentionally deceptive.
July 11 -- Luskin tells the Washington Post that Rove discussed Plame with Cooper but did not name her:
-- "Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true." (WaPo 7/11/05)
July 12 -- Luskin appears to be telegraphing to Matt Cooper what Rove testified to, potentially coaching Cooper's testimony. From Cooper's account:
-- "A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter....To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can’t find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don’t recall doing so.
July 13 -- Matt Cooper testifies before the grand jury (Time Magazine).
July 15 -- AP's John Solomon is shown a copy of the Hadley email:
"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the message, disclosed to The Associated Press. In the memo, Rove recounted how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been making.
[]
"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote Hadley, who has since risen to the top job of national security adviser.
"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
July 16 -- As PollyUSA notes at TNH, Luskin (or someone speaking for Rove) begins telling the press that in his October 2004 grand jury appeareance Rove had disclosed that he discussed Plame's CIA work with Cooper (when in fact Rove had told the grand jury he couldn't remember):
-- "[T]he White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove told a grand jury about it last year during testimony in which he also acknowledged discussing Plame's covert work for the CIA with Cooper and syndicated columnist Robert Novak" (AP 7/16/2005)
-- "Rove has at some point testified that he passed on information about Plame to Cooper, according to two lawyers involved in the case. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say when Rove gave this testimony" (WaPo 7/23/05)
-- "On Oct. 14, 2004, Mr. Rove went before the grand jury again to alter his earlier account, by saying he had also discussed the C.I.A. officer with Mr. Cooper" (NYT 12/2/05)
July 17 -- Matt Cooper wrote "What I Told the Grand Jury" in Time.
July unknown -- Rove offers "to come back and answer any questions that might arise from Cooper's testimony," according to Luskin (Washington Post).
July 29 -- Rove aides Susan B. Ralston and Israel Hernandez testify before the grand jury (NYT)
-- "Rove’s secretary was questioned about why a phone call from Cooper to Rove in 2003 was not recorded in White House phone logs, according to sources familiar with the probe. She reportedly explained that Cooper called the main switchboard and his call was not logged because it was rerouted to Rove’s office." (WaPo)
October 14 -- Karl Rove testifies for a fourth time before the grand jury.
-- "Summoned back to the grand jury last October for a fourth time, Rove said it was "possible" that he had told Cooper about Wilson's wife, but he had simply forgotten it" (Newsweek)
October 24 (week of) -- Luskin calls Viveca Novak and tells her he's going to tell Fitzgerald about their conversation (Time).
October 26 -- Adam Levine is interviewed about his conversations with Rove on the day Cooper spoke to him (WaPo).
October 28 -- Scooter Libby indicted (Fitzgerald press conference)
November 10 -- Viveca Novak questioned by Fitzgerald for the first time in his office (Time).
December 2 -- Luskin gives sworn testimony to Fitzgerald (CNN).
December 8 -- Viveca Novak meets with Fitzgerald for the second time (Time).
December 16 -- George Bush nominates Viveca Novak's husband, Robert Lenhard, to the Federal Election Commission.
2006:
January 5 -- George Bush grants Viveca Novak's husband, Robert Lenhard, a recess appointment to the FEC, thus circumenting Senate hearings and uncomfortable questions (WaPo)
January 23 -- A Fitzgerald letter in the Libby case indicates:
In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.
April 26 -- Rove appears for the fifth time before the grand jury (AP).
-- "Rove... testified to the grand jury that when he told Cooper that Plame worked at the agency, he was only passing along unverified gossip.
"In contrast, Cooper has testified that Rove told him in a phone conversation on July 11, 2003, that Plame worked for the CIA and played a role in having the agency select her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, to make a fact-finding trip to Niger in 2002." (Waas)
-- "Rove testified that he would have had no motive to deliberately conceal his conversation with Cooper. "It would have been crazy" of Rove "to testify about [his conversations with Bob Novak] but not testify about the Cooper conversation," says this source, who adds that Rove would have known he would be "stepping into a perjury trap." (Newsweek 4/30/2006)
Much gratitude is owed to the DKosopedia entry on Plame. I'm sure there will be numerous additions and corrections to this so if you notice any errors or think there should be any other entries, please let me know.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FITZ!!!
Fitz
everythingseemssofitz
Fitz?
Man, ya gotta be quick…
Props to *ilson46201
;)
Oh, right, get beaten by a bunch of lurkers!
I’m sorry, but who’s hot and who’s not. Joe and Valerie, or Braindead Drunken Impotent Overcompensational Chimp & Xanax Boyfriend Killa?
“…Rove kept altering his testimony to keep up with what Fitzgerald was learning about his involvement…”
Yep. Oh, what a tangled web we weave…
This pigboy is goin’ DOWN!
the full quote is: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Later on, it gets easier!”
I think Rove gets indicted on 5/11. He has to resign at that point, no? W’s ratings hit Keyes territory.
(be wary - cornered rats and all that)
Do we get an indictment this week? :)
scarecrow -
LOL!
I had a 2nd browser window open at FDL main page, kept doin’ Alt-tab around from my other window and Ctrl-R.
Then I had to go stir my linguine, and missed my chance.
Silly, I know.
Thanks for posting the timeline, Jane. It’s really amazing that Rove is so arrogant (or is it just plain desperation on his part?) to think he could jerk around the Grand Jury and Fitzgerald they way he has.
just wait until Risen or Dana Priest corroborates the Schuster story about Plame/Iran - that’s when the Preznit hits 27%
Jon Steward on Colbert “ballsolicious”
Ol’ Fish Story Karl, telling us about the one that got away, I guess. Why didn’t he know that Snap-On Tools weren’t meant to be permanently attached?
Jon Stewart calls SC’s performance ‘balls-o-licious.’
John Stewart said he is so proud of Stephen Colbert — it was ballzalicious ! (his wording)
“corroborates the Schuster story about Plame/Iran”
We must help keep the pressure on about that shit.
http://tinyurl.com/a6erq
IMPEACH!!!
Rove has evidently confused the Grand Jury with the Court of Public Opinion (where his tactics have served him well, and the public poorly)
A Fitz-led Grand Jury is in the process of measuring the rope with which he will hang himself.
The timeline and summary is terrific. Thanks.
scarecrow, who you callin a lurker? well, actually I have been the last few days - non-computer stuff to do and when I’ve been here got nothing to possibly add to brilliance of posts & comments.
Anyway, god & fitz, please smite this evilest bastard ever seen in my lifetime.
the first DC GJ that indicted Libby included 9 African-American women. Not exactly Karl Rove’s usual political base, eh?
*ilson
We haven’t heard much if anything about this GJ. At least if we have, I missed it. Anyone got info on who all we are counting on to save the country?
*ilson46201,
I believe it’s
O, what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive.
But, when we’ve practiced for a while,
how vastly we improve our style.
Don’t know who said it.
Fitz vs. Rove - boy, is that our situation in a nutshell or what.
I should say the American situation in a nutshell.
Sharkbabe says:
May 1st, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Fitz vs. Rove - boy, is that our situation in a nutshell or what.
_____
Yeah, For now. And, my money’s on Fitz.
Karl Rove is like the involutionary eagle — it flies around in ever diminishing circles till it flies up its own rectum
Ah, Jon giving props to Colbert. Good on him.
This is an OLD clip.
OT — This is amazing. But it takes a little explanation first if you’re not familiar with Bittorrent. Those who already know it can skip to the last three paragraphs.
I often use a Bittorrent client for downloading films, music, etc. For those unfamiliar with BT, it creates a decentralized network such that a single client can download a file from multiple peers, thereby maximizing bandwidth.
The BT clients that have finished downloading a particular file and are sharing it woth others are called ‘Seeds’.
Those who are still downloading are called ‘leechers’.
Typically, you’ll see tens of seeds for a file, and tens of leechers. The most I’ve ever seen is 200-300 seeds and/or 400-500 leechers.
Anyway, Colbert’s speech in hi-res avi is available via Bittorent (or any other Bittorrent client, I recommend utorrent). The download address for the torrent is: http://www.mininova.org/tor/296239 (h/t A Liberal Dose). The file is about 396 MB in size.
At the time of writing this, there are 3,395 seeds and 981 leechers. It was even larger earlier. There a *lot* of people eager to see this, or see it again. Word is getting out, despite the MSM near blackout on information about the speech.
OT,but I just finished Crashing the Gate.All I can say is wow,really cuts through the B/S,what we’re up against, and what we need to do i.e. drag our Party kicking and screaming back into the light.So in this spirit;to get involved in the roots project in Maryland e-mail me at
paradox65@comcast.net
hope to hear from you.
Jane OT but I have found many on your site and similar blogs don’t have a working knowlege of propaganda. I have made up a 1-1/2 page pdf of the 8 points of propaganda, with website references. I’d like to disseminate it. Can you contact me and I can send it along and see if you think it’s worthwhile putting it out on this site?
That Sept. 30 entry 2003 entry…
No snark about the WH getting 12 hours leeway to gather (*cough* SHRED/ERASE *cough*) data?
31 P. S.
Here’s a link to directly download the torrent:
http://www.mininova.org/get/296239
I’m up waaay past my bedtime,but I’ve got to see Colbert tonight.
Although why I feel compelled to share this I have no idea.
clio at 25
Sir Walter Scott
Thanks, Jane, for the timeline. It helps to keep it all straight or straighter anyway because it’s a pretty twisted tale.
OT on a pet peeve of mine:
John Snow the still Treasury Secretary announced today that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2040. Without changes, Social Security will be able to pay 74% of benefits after that date.
I like to point out as often as I can that the Social Security trust fund is a fiction. In 1983 a “reform†of Social Security took place which was sold as dealing with future shortfalls. As a result, Social Security taxes were increased. The system went into surplus and it is projected it will remain so until around 2018. The surpluses are what make up the trust fund.
So what happens to this money? Well, you may think it gets invested but, seriously, how can the US government realistically invest trillions of dollars? It can’t. It can spend it, however, and that is precisely what it does. It works like this. Non marketable bonds are written and interest is paid on them, kind of. The money for its part ends up in the budget just like your income taxes and gets spent just like your income taxes.
The difference between the two is that your income tax money the government owns free and clear. The Social Security surpluses, on the other hand, are still borrowed money which the government has promised to pay back later (just as it promises to pay interest on them). And although this money is debt, it is not part of the number which we erroneously refer to as the “deficitâ€. It is treated as revenue and so makes the real federal budget deficit appear smaller than it really is. How much, you might ask? This year the surplus amounts to $183 billion. So anytime you hear a number for the deficit like $334 (or $370 to $375 billion, but that’s another story), add $183 billion to it.
In 2018, Social Security is expected to no longer run a surplus. At this point, the government will have to start paying back the money it borrowed from the trust fund and the interest. Can you guess how this will be done? There are 3 ways:
1) Taxes (income,corporate, etc.) can be raised.
2) Increased spending on Social Security can be offset by reducing spending in other areas.
3) Benefits can reduced
In this way, we will pass from 2018 to 2040. After 2040, the trust fund which is really just a set of obligations will be exhausted. At this point, 74% of benefits can still be paid on the basis of incoming revenues from Social Security taxes but for anything more we must return to some combination of the 3 alternatives listed above.
Maybe you know this already and if you do, sorry for being repetitious but I have found that many people simply never consider how this system operates or how it has been exploited by politicians of both parties since 1983.
DMM — I too am staying up for Colbert and I have to be up at 5am to work the polls at 6am for Indiana’s Primary Election Day. It’s 11:20pm already…it’s gonna be a loooong day !
JGabriell 31
I read somewhere that the C&L website got 5,000,000 hits on the Colbert video, more than for any other, I think. That was a couple of hours ago at least.
People are paying attention, yeah, you betcha.
I’ve got it on my ipod and can’t wait to share it with everyone I can.
But, when we’ve practiced for a while,
how vastly we improve our style.
Now see, they never tell you them two lines.
Ahhh…the wisdom of Fitzgerald.
Give any one man too much rope and they will fuck it up!
In poker, they call this a trap.
oops, that was 500,000 (half million) hits on C&L. Typing without glasses bites. It’s all a blurr . . .
This is a great timeline, that deserves a permalink on your sidebar.
But am I not understanding something about your format? It looks like a blockquote from some other source, but I cannot find a link pointing to that source.
RevDeb, 5,000,000?
That’s fantastic. I just hope some of these are US citizens. I suspect many of the downloads are from outside America.
I’m sure most of the world outside our borders is eager to see W get his comeuppance.
JGabriel, corrected above—half a million. But that was several hours ago.
Also there are many other sites hosting it. Salon has theirs, UTube has another. I’ve seen links to at least 5. BUt I think C&L is probably the Go To web site for most of us.
It is getting around and will not be lost to history.
Oh well, 500,000 is still pretty good too.
RevDeb,
how did you get the Colbert clip onto your ipod??
JGabriel, she corrected herself. It’s 500,000 (half million).
Again, the “welfare reform” story sounds preposterous as ever. Is it known if Cooper ever wrote such a story. I believe Cooper wrote that he didn’t say such a thing to Rove. Rove wants us to believe he wasn’t cold calling reporters, but within days he’s telling Tweety Wilson’s wife is “fair game.”
I don’ believe the Hadley email is authentic, that is to say I think it was fabricated and back dated. A lot seems to be hinging on the inherent value of that email, which renders it that much more suspicious.
Hang in there *ilson,plenty of time to sleep after the dust settles.Ooops,gotta go,Steve’s on
Great timeline Jane; thanks much for the effort. Strikes me there are two timelines. The First is when something actually happened; the second is when a particular actor — e.g., Rove — found out it happened. The latter would also be relevant in revealing Rove’s motivations. Are all the dates the same, or are key dates different wrt to Rove? It’s a “what did he know, and when did he know it” thingy.
and how many thank you(s) to Stephen Colbert now you ask?
17308 Responses to “Thank You.â€
OT, but its that time of night…
Is Biden really calling for a partitioning of Iraq? I have so many mixed feeling about this. Saw Juan Cole’s modified parititioning plan. On the one hand partitioning makes sense. I thought (having spent a tiny bit of time there) that the EU should reparition. On the other hand, I hate the idea such a clean break would be imposed from outside rather than as a democratic decision from within the Iraqi government.
And then I wonder how people here (well, the lower 48) would feel if, for example, we would allow Alaska to succeed.
Since Biden (if the report I read is true) is hawking this, it has a good chance of happening since it is the Cheney/others wet dream.
All Hail Jane!
This is the best, and probably the only definitive timeline on Karl Going Down. It must’ve taken a hell of a lot of time to put together. What a public service!
Thanks again, Jane. You and Christy just keep outdoing yourselves. You Rock!
haven’t seen any links to Gilliard re Colbert. It is masterful.
Rove is the evilest queen since J. Edgar.
MarcLord 48
Downloaded the file (I’m on a mac- control click to download) then dragged it into itunes and dragged it into video file. Works like a charm. I’m building quite a collection thanks to C&L.
It’s really amazing that Rove is so arrogant (or is it just plain desperation on his part?) to think he could jerk around the Grand Jury and Fitzgerald they way he has.
I think it’s a combination of arrogance and ignorance. Karl seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of how various tyrants throughout history have seized power, but an equally encyclopedic ignorance of how history has almost invariably dealt with these men when the populace finally gets wise.
It started with Caesar and the Roman Senate and runs all the way up through the downfall of Saddam Hussein. And Rover’s boss is next.
Perhaps naive question:
If Rove is indicted, what compels him to resign? There’s no legal requirement, is there? Could they simply stonewall and refuse to have him resign? (W could do some sort of charade about refusing to accept Rove’s resignation or something.)
From what I can see, the resignation would only be forced politically, with the administration suffering scandal and loss of credibility if Rove stays on. With Bush’s JAR where it is there isn’t that much more damage that could happen.
It seems to me they might decide that the damage caused by losing Rove’s political expertise would be worse than whatever they will suffer from keeping him in place, and as a result there might be no resignation. Am I crazy? Anyone care to weigh in?
dunno if you guys have seen this “Thank You, Steven Colbert” site. It only has about 17,000 thank-yous so far:
http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org/
Let’s get our butts over there and thank the man.
Tuesday’s Boston Globe -
Kennedy, Leahy, Reid set to condemn Bush on signing statements and 750 . . .
Raw Story
Developing
What MarcLord 56 said. And Marc you’ve done some serious excellence around here yourself.
‘I’d perp walk a million miles for one of your smiles….STRIP SEARCH SAAAAA-MMY!’
Ah–thanks RevDeb. =) Colbert’s act was living history and deserves preservation for posterity. It’s kinda like “The Reichsfuhrer Meets Hamlet.” Intense. Surreal. Genuinely dangerous. Bravest thing I’ve ever seen.
Yeah,I already did the’Thank you’thing.
finally some senators speak out against the signing statements
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0501.html
Three leading Democratic senators attack Bush over ’signing statements’
RAW STORY
Published: Monday May 1, 2006
Print This | Email This
Three leading Democratic senators blasted President Bush Monday for having claimed he has the authority to defy more than 750 statutes enacted since he took office, saying that the president’s legal theories are wrong and that he must obey the law, the BOSTON GLOBE will report in Tuesday papers, RAW STORY has learned.
#
“We’re a government of laws, not men,” Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in a statement. “It is not for George W. Bush to disregard the Constitution and decide that he is above the law.”
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of attempting to concentrate ever more government power in their own hands.
“The Bush-Cheney administration has cultivated an insidious brand of unilateralism that regularly crosses into an arrogance of power,” Leahy said in a statement. “The scope of the administration’s assertions of power is stunning, and it is chilling.”
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, also warned that the Bush administration, abetted by “a compliant Republican Congress,” was undermining the checks and balances that “guard against abuses of power by any single branch of government.”
The senators were responding to a report in Sunday’s Boston Globe which revealed that Bush had sidestepped some 750 laws (Read the report here
The ‘Two W’s’ at the WHCD (one being Bush’s alter ego), original? No.
Colbert does it four nights a week. “Word” ; )
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0605/S00026.htm
I’m curious to hear more details about the “250 pages of emails that resurfaced February 6 from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and the Office of President Bush.”
can’t stay up any longer. signing off to watch the last segment of our newly crowned hero’s show.
I am the Lord Thy Bush; thou shalt have no other gods before me, thou shalt Adore Me with all thine heart, for only I protecteth thee…
http://www.bgladd.com/The_Disgracer_in_Chief.jpg
RE: the timeline but sorta OT
I am still wondering about Woodward’s role in all of this, and I’m not sure I’ve seen a definitive statement about who his 3 ? sources were. I once thought that Rove might have been one of Woodward’s sources, but I can’t back that up. So, short question, does Woodward fit into this timeline in any definitive way?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01829.html
===Text of Woodward’s Statement
Testifying in the CIA Leak Case
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
[]All three persons provided written statements waiving the previous agreements of confidentiality on the issues being investigated by Fitzgerald. Each confirmed those releases verbally this month, and requested that I testify.
[]I was first contacted by Fitzgerald’s office on Nov. 3 after one of these officials went to Fitzgerald to discuss an interview with me in mid-June 2003 during which the person told me Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst.
I have not been released to disclose the source’s name publicly.===
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....857_2.html
===It is unclear what prompted Woodward’s original unnamed source to alert Fitzgerald to the mid-June 2003 mention of Plame to Woodward. Once he did, Fitzgerald sought Woodward’s testimony, and three officials released him to testify about conversations he had with them. Downie, Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month.===
Stephen Parrish — left you something end of last thread. Ex: Committee for the Preservation of Capitalism (includes MANY big corporations) > 5K to Eagle Forum PAC (only 3 donors) > 7K to Tom Coburn
Rosebud . . .
Strangelove . . .
TCM is smokin’ tonight — Dr Strangelove just ended, and Citizen Kane is up next.
btw — “rosebud” was William Randolph Hearst’s nickname for Marion Davies . . . er, um — special little thingy . . .
Jane,
The timeline is great, but I have one important correction. The Newsweek article you have listed as July 18, 2005 actually came out around July 9 or 10. July 18 was just the publication date on the magazine. You can tell because the July 10 WaPo story actually references the Newsweek story.
This is important because the Newsweek article was the first to report the content of Cooper’s email. When Luskin confirms that Rove discussed Plame with Cooper in the July 10 WaPo article, he is presumably just spinning the contents of the Cooper email. If Rove is to be believe, he still had no recollection of having discussed Plame and had not testified to doing so at that point. So Luskin either made a damaging revelation in that article or he was simply acknowledging what Cooper’s email said, without necessarily vouching for its validity.
JimBOB 61 good Q. The entire Cheney admin M.O. is eff-you bitches, what you gonna do about it.
It is so crucial to have a semblance of an honest media, and we’re so past the graveyard of any such. They can make Rove’s treason into nothing.
I think Colbert was huge. I think they’re all still walking around stung as hell in their heart of hearts, including Dipshit Himself.
Your Q JimB is what we’ve all been asking forever - when will the point be reached that the cosmic shame of these criminals will be inescapable, will eat them alive of its own course. I think this is all that will stop them, since they have deliberately and systematically broken the entire political system and co-opted the media. I don’t think anything’s ever been seen like this. At this point my faith is in nothing but the truth of the old Greek playwrights.
Scracth that last comment. It was a different Newsweek article. This one was from the July 11 issue, but it must have been posted earlier because it was referenced in the July 10 WaPo article.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002764.htm
===VIDEO - MSNBC: Plame Leak Hurt Ability to Spy on Iran for WMD
Includes Newest Video of Valerie Plame-Wilson
Shuster attended the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. He was able to get a short interview with Joe Wilson. ===
I don’t know if this has been posted, or if it is available via C&L. Anyway, link has link to Shuster interview with Wilson at WHCD.
Reporter from the Globe was on Countdown talking about his article over the 750 broken laws.
btw — “rosebud†was William Randolph Hearst’s nickname for Marion Davies . . . er, um — special little thingy . . .
holy crap, ck! you’ve shaken my whole worldview! c’mon, it was a fuckin sled and innocence, dammit - right? My great granddad’s generation wasn’t really hip to girls’ actual thingies, were they? *head exploding* must go lay my thingy down
As with all dynasties, there are telling moments where the words of those in power, unbeknownst to the individual delivering the message, by comparison to those they have succeeded, predict the future mistakes that will spell their own demise. In identifying the wholesale errors of the vanquished opponent, they inoculate themselves with a righteous assuredness that is seemingly invincible…yet all too often blinded by the need for the type of power and authority that is seen to be virtually absolute.
Karl Rove may be waging his final campaign and it may be over well before November.
more observations here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Anonymous Liberal — thanks you’re right, I have it in my archives as July 10.
Thanks for the continuing coverage of Traitorgate! I think our collective watch of this is helping to hang the traitors. I am just glad patriots Joe and Valerie Wilson didn’t lose their lives over GWClusterfuck and Co’s treason! If some did, may they rest in peace with the fun loving Louisiana folks that died during Katrina.
I know I post this before but it was so uplifting! IMPEACH BUSH behind a plane at Jazz Fest thousands cheered spontaneously! Remember Shrub won because he was “more popular” when “IMPEACH BUSH” becomes popular he he it is all over. Drip Drip Drip.
FDL forever!
I like Susan Ralston being included in the timeline. I saw Mary’s comment earlier today on Ralston that was about, if I read it correctly, how trouble from the Abramoff end of things could be leverage to compel Ralston’s cooperation in the Rove investigation. The effect could be shattering. I can easily see how aspects of different charges of perjury, false statements, and obstruction form a ‘whole’ much stronger than the sum of its parts. If you have a witness to corroborate intent to obstruct, all those lies to the Grand Jury are a whole lot easier to illustrate.
By PETE YOST (Yahoo News)
Wed Apr 26, 7:45 PM ET
The only other time Fitzgerald was seen going before the new panel was Dec. 7. (2005)
FDL: thanks for timeline. Regardless of what Fitz does or when he does it, this and Plame’s work on WMD needs to be told to public so that they “get it.” I’m nost sure how to do that, though.
Hugh #38
Saw your comment on social security. This is OT, but you sounded alarmed. Well, here is consunsus view of normal economists.
The trust fund was never meant to be permanent. Most social security benefits are paid from the younger working generation to the older retired generation. That is a respectable way to run social insurance and many countries do it that way. Economically it is the same as investing in the total productive capacity of the country, a far safer and more stable investment than the stock market and one that has paid off over the long term about as well.
The trust fund was never meant to be permanent, it was supposed to supplement the current system with pre-paid benefits that would serve as a cushion while the bulk of the bably boomers retired.
The only problem in paying back the social security trust fund bonds are future deficits, which are mostly caused by the GW Bush tax cuts if made permanent or not repealed. In other words, the main problem with sailing through the years after the trust fund is exhausted is that BushCo does not want to. The Bush Sr. and Clinton tax increases that reduced the deficits were also great programs to keep social security solvent.
There may or may not be a long term problem with social security. There may be a short fall after baby boom, so that only 70%, or 75%, or 80-90% of scheduled benefits can be paid. Or, we may be able to go on forever paying 100% of the scheduled benefits with no problem at all. This depends on what we think the real per capita growth rate of the economy will be. Lower the real per capita growth rate, then there is a shortfall. That is main point of contention in recent social security trustees reports. Many mainstream economists say that Bush administration has been issuing overly pessimistic reports by 1) lowballing expected real per capita growth rate, 2) lowballing expected immigration, 2) low balling expected future real interest rate returns on trust fund bondfs.
I think there is some truth to these charges. New report came out today. The Bush administration has changed the way it calculates expected real per capita growth several times, in a way that coincidentially keeps it lower than recent history seems to indicate. The report issued today has some very low growth rates that are supposed to be based on new unpublished data, and economics blogs I checked today cannot figure out how they square with published numbers.
Some responsible links on social security:
http://bruceweb.blogspot.com/
http://economistsview.typepad.com/
http://economistsview.typepad......urity.html
http://economistsview.typepad......index.html
http://ecolanguage.net/
Social Security: The Real Connections
http://www.globalaging.org/pen...../index.htm
http://www.socsec.org/
Also chck out Angry Bear blog and Brad DeLong (respectable mainstream macroeconomists when not screaming to impeach GW Bush)
Also, there is nothing wrong with partial privatization if done right (eg, Sweden, Canada, Australia).
apologies for lengthy off topic.
re #86
“the main problem with sailing through the years after the trust fund is exhausted”
should read
“the main problem with sailing through the years after we start drawing on the trust fund and before it is exhausted”
FDL forever!
Yeah baby and you too!
KEEP THE NORSKE FAITH, WE ARE THE TRUE LOVERS AND KEEPERS OF EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY MEANS!
Night all (still reeling from thingy revelation)
Thanks for the comprehensive timeline, particularly the resources for each entry. It’s so frustrating, trying to wade through all the MSM muck to find the facts.
Question: Where does Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, and the other members of the fourth estate (such as it is) fit into the timeline? Were they questioned but not subpoenaed? Did they even testify, or were they just questioned by Fitz and his team? Am I just confused?
I only have one thing to say hang them as they deserve.
And no I’m not kidding.
Traitors need to be…they cry out to be…hung by their fat necks until they are dead.
Just as dead as the, as of this post 2,617, coalition troops who are. Along with tens of thousands of Iraqi’s who were guilty of nothing more than living in a country that The Face of Evil chose…that’s right chose to invade.
A question for yer…are we any different from the Germans who lived under Mr. Hitler?
The answer my friends is: No.
Unless…
We bring Mr. Bush and his crimnal crew to justice.
I’m for it. How about you?
I found this interesting link on another site re the back story to the damage done to Brewster-Jennings and other agents in outing Plame. The scope of B-J was much larger than I thought. This speaks to treason on a huge scale if true. Also gave best explanation of a NOC that I have seen.
http://shininglight.us/mt/ archiv…leaked_cia.html
NumberFour #89: I second. I would like to see a “media diva map.” Maybe more important things to do for the Plamology mavens. Perhaps Mr. Josh Marshall could open up another blog franchise devoted to that. It could be a companion to his Daily Muck blog -maybe, Media Muckers!
KOberman referred to Limbaugh as “comedian Rush Limbaugh” very good