For better or for worse, I am back. I went on vacation a September 25, 2005 through October 1, 2005. It was great, a cruise aboard the Norwegian Dawn out of New York City, down to two stops in Florida, two stops in the Bahamas and then back home to New York City. It was absolutely wonderful, too bad it went as quick as a blink of the Punctured Eye.:) At the bottom of this issue you will find a review of the vacation.

Of course I have been in vacation mode for a few weeks absorbing current events.

The big story is the Valerie Plame case. I have a regular Joe Blow understanding of this case. I would never be able to give it any justice trying to explain it. I did come upon article from Human Events Online,(The National Security and Dense section), written by Victoria Toensing.



The White House’s Legal Katrina

by Victoria Toensing
Posted Oct 18, 2005
There now appears to be consensus that no one violated the 1982 Agent Identities Protection Act in publishing the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame.

It’s a hard law to violate. Its high threshold requires that the person whose identity is revealed must actually be covert (which requires at the least a foreign assignment within five years of the revelation), that the government must be taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the person’s identity, and that the revealer must know that the government is taking those measures.

So why didn’t Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel investigating the “leak,” close up shop long ago?

One possible answer is that someone lied about a material fact when testifying before the grand jury or obstructed justice in some other way. If that is the case, the prosecutor should indict.

However, recent reporting, attributable to “lawyers familiar with the investigation,” points to a different prosecutorial tactic: Fitzgerald may be taking a “creative” approach to finding a legal violation. In other words, he may be trying to find a law other than the Agent Identities Protection Act that he might be able to apply to the factual scenario in this case even though it was never intended to cover such conduct.

Those lawyers “familiar” with what is going on in Fitzgerald’s investigation have likely based their opinions on the types of questions the prosecution team has asked their own clients, who are presumably only witnesses. One theory is that Fitzgerald is looking at a general espionage law, 18 USC §793. But that law prohibits a person from revealing national defense information such as ship movements or submarine base locations. It was never intended to criminalize the mere act of disclosing a CIA agent’s name. Why? Because when Congress considered prohibiting revealing a covert person’s identity, it stated in the accompanying report that such disclosure should only be prohibited under limited circumstances to “exclude the possibility that casual discussion, political debate, the journalistic pursuit of a story on intelligence, or the disclosure of illegality or impropriety in government” would be chilled by the law.

Congress intended to criminalize only disclosures that “clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States….”

Similarly, a conspiracy “to discredit Wilson for his statements critical of the White House’s use of intelligence,” another reported possible Fitzgerald approach, does not violate any law. If it did, every administration since George Washington would be guilty of a crime.

How did we get here--over two years after Bob Novak’s July 14, 2003 column publishing Plame’s name—with a reporter jailed for refusing to reveal a source and numerous government employees, from a low level White House employee to the President of the United States, testifying before a grand jury when the law addressing the disclosure does not even apply? How did we reach the point where there is widespread speculation that the President’s and Vice President’s top staffers might be indicted? Let’s return to the summer of 2003 and trace the factual, legal, and political routing of the “CIA leak.”

In May and June of 2003 there were newspaper articles hinting that George W. Bush’s State of the Union address was wrong in claiming an African country was approached by Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium, an ingredient necessary for making a nuclear weapon. The stories did not name the source but referred to him variously as “a person involved in the Niger caper” and “the CIA’s envoy.”

On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an op-ed by former Amb. Joseph Wilson, who not only revealed he had been sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate the uranium purchase, but also continued the theme that ran through the unnamed source articles, that the trip was at Vice President Dick Cheney’s request. Wilson claimed he had reported to the CIA that such a purchase was “highly doubtful” and accused the Bush Administration of having “twisted” intelligence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”

Savvy Washington journalists scratched their collective heads, questioning, “Why Wilson?” Why would the Vice President send a person to Niger on a mission about WMD who was not an expert in that subject, had never served in a senior capacity in Niger, had not worked for the CIA, and was known to oppose the White House Iraq policy? Wilson, in addition to all that, was known around town as a grandstander and a bit of a flake.

The “Why Wilson” question was being asked by the Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine, and columnists such as Novak. Reporters were not the only ones asking. Cheney was surprised that Wilson had claimed the mission was at his request since it was not true. It probably was not a pleasant call that went from Cheney’s office to then CIA Director George Tenet.

Perhaps Tenet was also asked why a person sent on such a sensitive mission, unlike the rest of us, did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement and was permitted to publish an account of that mission. Was the CIA trying to put the blame on the White House for the State of the Union misstep?

Thus, Novak, pursuing his “Why Wilson” quest, asked the question when talking to a variety of persons in the Administration. Novak has stated when he learned Wilson’s wife recommended him for the mission it was in response to a question he had asked at the end of an interview about another issue. The person clearly was not shopping the story. Novak has also said this person was not a “political operative,” a term that aptly describes Karl Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the two administration officials named by Judith Miller (New York Times) and Matt Cooper (Time Magazine) as confirming the general information that Wilson’s wife recommended him for the trip, but not as having revealed her name or covert status.

Click. Take a photograph in time of the July 2003 moment Novak published his column. Here was a journalist exposing incompetence: a mission to verify an important fact cited for going to war was made “at a low level without …Tenet’s knowledge.” Novak continues his attack on the CIA, writing that it was “doubtful” Tenet ever saw Wilson’s “less than definitive” report. Not until the sixth paragraph does Novak state that Plame “is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction” who, according to two “senior administration officials,” suggested sending her husband to Niger. The word “nepotism” readily comes to mind in answering the question “Why Wilson.” This type of reporting is exactly what Congress did not want to criminalize.

Novak has stated that he learned Plame’s name from Wilson’s Who’s Who bio, not from any official. No facts have surfaced in either Miller’s or Cooper’s public statements about their sources (Libby and Rove) that indicate either one knew any more than being told Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in WMD, and recommended him for the trip. Miller didn’t even have the name correct, writing “Flame,” not Plame, in her notes and said she did not get it from Libby. On these facts, no law—either the 1982 Act or the general espionage law—was violated.
How did an article about CIA incompetence and administration in-fighting become a cause celebre resulting in a misplaced criminal investigation that looks like it will culminate in an indictment? Wilson spun it well and the media collaborated to bash the Bush Administration. No one knew or understood the underlying law, the Agent Identities Protection Act—not the White House or the media. Moreover, the special counsel has an expansive view of criminal law as he is reported to be searching under every rock to match certain conduct, even “creatively,” with some criminal statute. To quote Justice Robert Jackson when he was Attorney General, “With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone."

The Wilson Spin: There’s a legal maxim that he who frames the issue wins the case. After the Novak article, Wilson came out of his corner with the issue framed: The White House was trying to punish him for his op-ed and did so by “outing” his wife. This is a tough White House. Why would anyone think that making Plame’s name public could be punishment to her husband? First, it is too obtuse an action for the tough, direct Bush team. Second, she was not covert. Plame was an analyst at the time of Novak’s article. Any “outing” was not going to, nor did it, effect her position at the CIA. Where is the punishment?

However, the premise fit nicely into the anti-Bush agenda of the liberal media.

White House ignorance of the law: The White House’s ignorance of the law played into the media agenda. Whoever allowed the President to appear before the camera saying, “If there’s a leak, I want to know who it is,” should be fired. The prohibited conduct is not a simple leak. The law, as described above, is complex. Moreover, explaining that nepotism was the answer to “Why Wilson” is a more logical explanation for the conduct than that someone was trying to punish a person by pursing the spouse. Yet, the White House never put a counter position out there.
Lawyers representing subpoenaed journalists, including Novak’s counsel, scrupulously avoided providing any public defense of their clients, preferring to lie low. So the prism of “punishment,” not “exposing nepotism,” became embedded as the basis for Novak’s column. Like the $600 toilet seats, it will not go away. As recently as this past Sunday, every journalist on ABC’s “This Week” exhibited this pack mentality by accepting the premise that the only explanation for someone talking about Wilson’s wife was that it was retribution.

Media ignorance of the law: Many major newspapers assumed a law had been broken, and editorialized for an investigation and for it to be carried out by a special counsel. Few checked with a lawyer for a legal analysis, or considered that a real investigation of a “leak” results in reporters being subpoenaed. Did the press know that a special prosecutor does not have to comply with any Department of Justice rules for subpoenaing journalists? Even worse, when it came time to retain legal representation for their reporters, they hired only First Amendment counsel, not criminal defense lawyers; so the issue of whether there was a threshold of evidence for violation of the 1982 Act was never brought before the trial court.

If you are confused about what is happening in this case it is because the media persists in interviewing journalists to opine on the law. They would never use a journalist to describe how to do brain surgery. Mostly, the reporters get it wrong because they have no law degree and usually are hyping their own story, which may contain a new fact or two but has no legal significance. The fact that Miller never published a story about her information means nothing under the law. The reporter is considered a witness to the crime, just as if he or she had been present during a bank robbery. Headline stories that Rove remembers discussing a specific subject, like welfare reform, during a conversation while a reporter does not, has no legal bearing if that subject is not material or relative to the “leak.” Besides, which person has the faulty memory?

Two of the most unsophisticated, yet often repeated, misunderstandings of the legal process in this case, are: 1) The President should have called his staff into a meeting and asked the perpetrator to confess, and 2) Fitzgerald will (or should) write a report to explain what he found during the investigation.

No good defense counsel would ever permit any client, let alone the President, to carry out such a foolhardy act. The prosecutor would accuse the President of interfering with a criminal investigation by tampering with witnesses.

Fitzgerald cannot write a report. It is forbidden by law as the information he has accumulated is grand jury material prohibited by law from disclosure. There is no longer an Independent Counsel statute, which permitted this type of report. I have never heard of a federal judge ordering a prosecutor to write a report of a grand jury investigation and then make it public. A court does not have the authority to do so.

A perfect storm has gathered. It is the administration’s legal Katrina. The dark clouds are filled with Wilson’s spin spurred on by a media frenzy, a White House that did not have federal criminal law expertise, and a dogged prosecutor who appears willing to stretch the criminal law to get an indictment. The White House better get prepared for the aftermath.


Ms. Toensing, a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, is an internationally known expert on white-collar crime, terrorism, national security and intelligence matters, and helped write the Agent Identities Protection Act.



Judge John Roberts has been confirmed.
Harriet Miers has been nominated.
Hariet Miers withdrew her nomination.


Doug Forrester and John Corzine are battling for New Jersey's Governorship.
John Corzine loves giving his money out to people. Too bad its not the middle class regular Joe Blows but rather somebody like the head of the AFL-CIO.

Another article from NationalReview Online. This is the last article reprint for today, I promise.:)

August 12, 2005, 8:08 a.m.
State of Corruption
Yet another Garden State Democratic scandal.

Are there Democrats in New Jersey without ethical problems?

On Monday, August 15, it will have been exactly one year since former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey announced his resignation from office. McGreevey’s resignation was inevitable after it was revealed he had placed an unqualified, former love interest as head of the state’s homeland-security department. It was another political embarrassment with serious repercussions for New Jersey Democrats following former Senator Robert Torricelli, who was caught in a financial scandal of his own and decided against running for reelection in 2002. And now there is growing evidence current senator and gubernatorial candidate Jon Corzine can be added to this dubious list.

Over the past week, a number of financial dealings have come to light that question Corzine's judgment and place him in a serious conflict of interest as he embarks on a campaign to further his political ambitions. Last week it was reported by several news outlets that Corzine had made an undisclosed loan of $470,000 to former girlfriend Carla Katz. That would be no one's business except that Katz happens to be head of New Jersey’s largest union, the Communications Workers of America.

Corzine failed to report the loan on his Senate expense reports. Six months after Corzine made the loan to Katz, the Communications Workers of America endorsed his 2000 Senate campaign. Katz has refused to speak with reporters, but maintains her residence in a Corzine-rented apartment in Hoboken.

Sherry Sylvester, campaign and communications director for Corzine’s election opponent Doug Forrester, tells National Review Online that the loan calls into question Corzine’s integrity: “There is no question there’s a conflict. A half-million-dollar loan to the state’s largest labor union is a conflict. Imagine the outrage if Tom DeLay gave half a million dollars to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. What’s more, Corzine did not disclose his loans on his Senate reports. He’s the richest man in the U.S. Senate in his own right, but won’t even reveal his financial partnerships that he promised to dissolve when taking office. All of New Jersey’s big print outlets agree Corzine’s conflicts are serious.”

Corzine has tried his best to play down the incident. First, he forgave the loan to Katz. Then, when questioned by reporters during a press conference last week, Corzine responded, "I don't think there's a conflict, the relationship has ended."

But it’s not just Corzine’s political opponents who are calling the “loan” into question. Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle said, "Any time that you have a sitting member of Congress giving half a million dollars to a union president, even if it’s personal to a girlfriend, it’s going to raise questions.”

So, what is the conflict of interest seen by both the Forrester campaign and Common Cause? If elected governor Corzine would oversee salary negotiations for 9,000 state workers, would help facilitate state pension benefits and could influence the level of accountability demanded from New Jersey's child-welfare workers. Corzine’s critics question whether he could be an honest negotiator after maintaining a romantic relationship with the state’s largest union boss and giving her half a million dollars. To those critics, the assertion that his relationship with Katz has supposedly ended is irrelevant.

New Jersey GOP Chair Tom Wilson said in a statement, “This is Jim McGreevey all over again. When the private affairs of an elected official impact his public duties, the public has a right to know all the relevant details. The nature, timing and extent of the financial relationship between Carla Katz and Jon Corzine are relevant details that Mr. Corzine seems afraid to share.”

Corzine has also come into question for maintaining lucrative financial dealings since he entered the Senate. When Corzine took office, he promised to put his Goldman Sachs holdings into a blind trust. However, it has been reported that Corzine has been an active participant in the so-called “blind trust,” continuing to make changes to his economic portfolio when his personal involvement was to have been liquidated. As the Republican National Committee's Danny Diaz tells NRO, “Corzine is a guy a lot of Democrats tried to look to as their golden boy. But there are still questions about his $470,000 gift to ex-girlfriend Carla Katz, his financial connections to the largest union in the state and his hedge-fund investment.”

Corzine’s hedge-fund investment is with Carl Icahn, head of Ichan Partners LP, a state casino operator. Despite repeated requests, Corzine is refusing to answer questions about who his financial partners are in the deal. What is known is that Corzine has $7 million invested with Ichan but has promised to dissolve his interests if elected governor. Which brings up the question: Will any of Corzine’s conflicts of interest have a negative impact on his gubernatorial campaign?

A new poll released by Quinnipiac University shows Corzine leading Doug Forrester 50 to 40 percent. Amongst independent voters, Corzine leads by only one point, 43 to 42 percent. And the two are tied on the question of who could better handle state property taxes, the most pressing issue cited by respondents in the Quinnipiac poll. However, near the bottom of concern for voters are questions related to political corruption and personal accountability, which each measured in only three percent of voters’ concerns.

At this point, Corzine still has to be considered the favorite to win New Jersey’s gubernatorial race. After all, the conflict-of-interest accusations surrounding his personal investments are not likely to be resolved before the election. If Corzine remains free to spend independent of the restrictions placed on other candidates he will have an even greater financial advantage over Forrester in an already Democrat-leaning state. But for New Jersey Democrats, it’s yet another political embarrassment that could have significant repercussions not just for their party, but for the financial future of thousands of New Jersey voters.

— Eric Pfeiffer writes the daily political "Buzz" column on NRO.



Are you shocked, I'm not. Corzine is going to negotiate for New Jersey non-union taxpayers. Yeah, right and I am going to fly to the moon without a spaceship.

Democrats I know seem to think only Republicans are rich, guess what, so are Democrats. Members of both parties payoff for support but can't Corzine sem a little apolegetic? I mean try to hide it. Do you really have to showboat your payoffs?


Hurricanes, hurricanes and more hurricanes. The doomsayers are out and about. If you are foolish enough to give them money, you deserve to be taken for a ride.
Beautiful mug shot Mr. Delay. Mr. Rove, are you answering the honestly before the grand jury or are you pulling a B.J. Clinton. You know, what is the meaning of is?