From the AP:

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame is trying to resurrect a lawsuit against those in the Bush administration she says illegally disclosed her identity.

A federal judge dismissed Plame's lawsuit last year, saying there was no basis to bring a case. Plame's lawyers asked a federal appeals court Friday to send the case back before the judge and force him to consider its merits....

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case, saying the law requires Plame's complaints be raised under the Privacy Act. Plame's attorneys say that law is insufficient. They asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to send the case back to Bates for reconsideration.

Details about the suit here, which was originally filed way back in July of 2006.

It's the burning question of the Bush Administration: malfeasance or incompetence? Did the White House just lose an untold number of emails because of their "primitive" archiving setup? Or is there something worse at play -- something criminal?

CREW, which has been pursuing a lawsuit over the lost emails, wants to know. And today the group wrote (pdf) FBI Director Robert Mueller to request that he investigate whether White House officials deleted emails relevant to the Valerie Plame investigation.

The complaint is based on evidence that "for the period September 30 through October 6, 2003, there were no e-mails for the entire Office of the Vice President on either the White House servers or on a back-up tape created on October 21, 2003, with the exception of e-mails that had not yet been erased from individual OVP employee mailboxes." Then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales had notified all White House employees that the Department of Justice was investigating the Plame outing on September 30th.

In its release, CREW says that it doesn't have all that much confidence that the FBI will follow up. That's because of their experience with ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL): months before the scandal exploded, the group brought evidence to the FBI of Foley's inappropriate advances toward male House pages. The FBI did not open an investigation, but when the scandal broke, unnamed FBI officials were quoted claiming that was because CREW had withheld key evidence -- a claim that was later shown to be untrue.

Maybe his last letter got lost in the mail?

In a bit of epistolary throat-clearing, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey today to reiterate his request two weeks ago. The White House has arbitrarily blocked former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from turning over records of his interviews during the Valerie Plame leak investigation of White House officials, including the President, Waxman wrote then, but it's your call, Mikey, not theirs, on whether to fork it over. Apparently Waxman got no response.

Waxman adds helpfully in his letter today (which you can read below) that since Scooter Libby has dropped his appeal, "there remains no further pending litigation associated with the Fitzgerald investigation."

He concludes: "I urge you to cooperate with Congress’ investigation into these unanswered questions."

Read more »

Another test for Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

In a letter to Mukasey today, House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) said that the White House has prevented former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from turning over records of his interviews during the Valeria Plame leak investigation of White House officials, including the President.

In July, Waxman said, Fitzgerald agreed to turn over the documents to Waxman's House oversight committee, along with documents from his interviews with State Department and CIA officials. But though he's turned those other documents over to the committee, the White House has prevented the release of his records of the White House interviews.

In the letter, Waxman urges Mukasey to ignore the White House's position, saying that "the role of the Attorney General is to administer the laws with impartiality." During the Clinton Administration, he writes, Janet Reno "made an independent judgment and provided numerous FBI interview reports to the Committee, including reports of interviews with President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and three White House Chiefs of Staff." Apparently the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales had agreed to the White House's request to keep the documents from Congress. Waxman wants to know if things will change now that there's a new boss.

Waxman had requested transcripts or other documents relating to Fitzgerald's interviews of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Andrew Card, Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Scott McClellan. Fitzgerald is prepared to turn over at least some of these, Waxman writes, though it's unclear which.

Outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson held a senior position in the CIA's intelligence-gathering group tasked with nailing down the details of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, a new book says.

From spring 2001 until Bush Administration officials leaked her identity to reporters, Plame -- her maiden name, which was used to out her -- was an undercover operative placed in charge of the operations group for the agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq. She oversaw clandestine programs to acquire inside knowledge of the Hussein regime's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, report David Corn and Michael Isikoff in their new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War."

Some, including the National Review's Jonah Goldberg, claimed Plame had been "a desk jockey" before her outing. Bob Novak, who played a key role in revealing her identity, called her an "analyst."

Corn and Isikoff note that at the time of the outing Plame was "in the process of changing her clandestine status. . . to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management," Corn writes on the Nation Web site today. "Official cover" means an operative acknowledges they work for the U.S. government, although not necessarily the CIA. The book says she planned to return eventually to undercover work.

Read more »

"[Former secretary of state Richard] Armitage's central role as the primary source on [former undercover CIA officer Valerie] Plame is detailed for the first time in "Hubris," which recounts the leak case and the inside battles at the CIA and White House in the run-up to the war," Newsweek says this week, teasing an upcoming book co-authored by one of its star investigators, Michael Isikoff.

The book confirms that Armitage was one of the initial sources of the Plame leak, for both conservative columnist Robert Novak and the Washington Post's Bob Woodward. Last week, AP reported that Armitage met with Woodward in June, on the same day Woodward had said he spoke with a source about Plame's identity.

"The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation," Newsweek says:

that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

Update: "Hubris" co-author David Corn has more.

AP reports that outed CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame is mulling whether to add a former Deputy Secretary of State to her suit against Bush administration figures involved in leaking her identity.

The wire service revealed yesterday that Richard Armitage, who served under former Secretary of State Colin Powell, met with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward in June. That's "the same day Woodward met with a confidential source who spoke to him about Plame," AP reports, surmising that Armitage is likely Woodward's leaker.

Vice President Dick Cheney has hired a lawyer to defend him against the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson civil suit, court documents reveal.

The lawyer, Emmet T. Flood of Williams & Connolly, certainly has White House experience: he was a member of former president Bill Clinton's impeachment defense team. Despite that, he appears to be a reliable Republican: a check of campaign donor records shows he has given solely to GOP candidates.

Cheney is being sued for unspecified damages by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for revealing her identity and profession.

Outed CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, have swapped lawyers in their suit against three Bush administration officials. The non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, headed by former Justice Department prosecutor Melanie Sloan, is now representing the couple, according to a news release from the group.

Plame and Wilson are suing White House adviser Karl Rove, vice president Dick Cheney and former Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby for unspecified damages for revealing Plame's identity.

Columnist and budding legal expert Bob Novak on why he believes the newly-filed Plame civil suit probably won't fly, from FishBowlDC.

Over at TPMCafe, Greg Sargent talks with constitutional expert Jonathan Turley on the merits and impact of the Plame civil suit against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Good stuff -- check it out.

The media love Valerie Plame Wilson.

Scratch that. Everybody loved Valerie Plame Wilson at the National Press Club this morning, where Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, announced their civil suit against Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And where Valerie herself spoke, walked, and smiled for a grateful media audience, for perhaps the first time since the scandal broke.

"She's pretty," commented a desk clerk after a large scrum of camerafolk and reporters followed the infamous outed former CIA operative to the exit of the club. A fellow employee nodded his agreement.

"She looks great -- they both do," one reporter said to another, as they waited for the Valerie and Joe Wilson to emerge from a huddle with their lawyers after the announcement.

Read more »

Justin will be back soon with his impressions, but until then, here's the AP's write-up.

The world famous TPMm Reader DK writes in, concerning the unknown defendants in the suit, "John Does No. 1-10":

One thing caught my eye in paragraph 12 the Complaint. The suspected John Does include "political operatives with close ties to" senior government officials. That's the first time I've seen anyone suggest the Republican Party itself may be implicated in this scandal.

Here's the entire passage he's talking about:

Defendants John Does No. 1-10 are persons whose identities currently are unknown but who are believed to be persons who were either employed by the United States Government in senior positions at all times relevant to this Complaint or who were political operatives with close ties to such persons.

We've posted a copy of Joseph and Valerie Wilson's suit against Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and VP Cheney here, but here are the basic details.

As the suit reads, it "arises out of a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House and actions taken by and on behalf of those officials in 2003 to violate the constitutional and other legal rights" of Valerie and Joseph Wilson.

Because of the administration's "whispering campaign" against the Wilsons, they say that they've suffered "gross invasions of privacy," that they "fear of their safety and for the safety of their children," that Valerie Wilson's career was ended, and that both of them "have been impaired in pursuing professional opportunities."

The Wilsons don't specify what damages they're seeking.

The complaint details eight causes of action, all surrounding the trio's involvement in outing Valerie Wilson as a CIA agent:

Read more »

Here's the complete, 23-page lawsuit filed by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame-Wilson against Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby, seeking unspecified damages.

A press conference is scheduled for tomorrow at 10 AM.

So far, here's all we know, via a press release:

Valerie Plame Wilson, Ambassador Joseph Wilson and their counsel, Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose LLP, will hold a news conference at 10 AM EDT on Friday, July 14 at 10:00 AM at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, to announce the filing of a civil lawsuit against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Karl Rove.

Trying to dodge criticism for his role in outing Valerie Plame, columnist Bob Novak last night attacked a National Journal story by Murray Waas on Fox's Hannity & Colmes. "I know that the Murray Waas piece in the National Journal, which interestingly was not picked up by anybody, was totally wrong and a total lie," he said.

As Novak -- a seasoned journalist and opinionator -- surely knows all too well, it's dangerous to throw around accusations like "totally wrong" and "a total lie," particularly in sentences in which oneself is totally wrong. (Which he'd have known, if he read TPMmuckraker.)

In truth, two major news outlets confirmed the National Journal story the same day it was published, May 25.

Here's MSNBC confirming Waas' story:

[S]ources close to [Karl Rove] are now confirming a story first reported in the National Journal that Rove, who was a source for columnist Bob Novak, later had a separate conversation with Novak after the investigation began.

Former federal prosecutors are convinced Fitzgerald has explored whether Rove and Novak coordinated their testimony.

And here's Bloomberg confirming Waas' story with its own sources, on the same day:

Syndicated columnist Robert Novak assured presidential adviser Karl Rove that he wouldn't identify him to prosecutors investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's name, a person familiar with the matter said.

Rove told a grand jury that Novak called him shortly after the Central Intelligence Agency asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of operative Valerie Plame to Novak and other reporters, the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. Novak revealed Plame's name in a July 14, 2003, column, citing unnamed administration officials.

The National Journal, which reported earlier today on the Sept. 29, 2003, conversation between Rove and Novak, said Justice Department prosecutors were concerned that Rove and Novak may have been working on a cover story to protect Rove.

The story is particularly damaging to Novak because it raised concerns that Novak and Rove coordinated their grand jury testimony, even possibly developing a "cover story" for themselves. At the very least, the conversation was inadvisable and unethical -- and, if a false story was concocted, against the law.

Murray Waas' latest, from the National Journal: Bush threw Cheney under the train. Yes, I ordered the vice president to leak secret information, Bush told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in 2004. But I didn't know how he'd do it, or who he'd have do it, or when he'd do it.

Not the greatest defense, but it'll do in a pinch, I guess.

Waas writes:

Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes.

Waas traces the chain of command like a game of "Telephone":

One senior government official familiar with the discussions between Bush and Cheney -- but who does not have firsthand knowledge of Bush's interview with prosecutors -- said that Bush told the vice president to "Get it out," or "Let's get this out," regarding information that administration officials believed would rebut Wilson's allegations and would discredit him. . . .

A senior government official familiar with the matter said that in directing Libby to leak the classified information to Miller and other reporters, Cheney said words to the effect of, "The president wants this out," or "The president wants this done."

I spoke with Truthout editor Marc Ash this afternoon. His correspondent Jason Leopold wrote a number of stories involving Karl Rove's legal worries -- that the White House adviser had been indicted, and had informed the president of his pending resignation -- which have become increasingly difficult to reconcile with accounts in mainstream papers that Rove will not be indicted in the Plame affair.

Most recently, Leopold's reporting methods have been called into question by the Washington Post, which yesterday ran a piece questioning whether he had impersonated another journalist while covering Rove's troubles.

"We're suffering from hysteria here," Ash said of the reaction to the mainstream press accounts which appear to contradict Leopold's reporting. "And I don't find that attractive and I don't find it in the best interests of our readers. We are expressly endeavoring to mitigate hysteria," said Ash.

As part of that effort, last Friday Ash posted a statement to Truthout.org. "Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported" by other outlets, Ash wrote. Therefore, Truthout is "going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications."

Some might think that was a retraction -- but they would be wrong. Just two paragraphs later, Ash wrote, "There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically. . . we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold."

So does Truthout stand behind Leopold's reporting -- or does it "defer. . . to the nation's leading publications"?

Ash doesn't seem to think it's an either/or proposition. "There is a perception here that Jason misreported facts, didn't report facts accurately, wasn't candid with his editors. None of that is true," he told me. Right now, the publication is "reviewing all our sources. . . and trying to confirm, confirm, confirm."

Read more »

Responding to news that Karl Rove's lawyers say they've been notified the Bush adviser won't get charged in the Plame leak investigation, Reader AB asks, "is it reasonable for them to publish the letter from Fitzgerald to prove that their statement says is, in fact, true[?]"

We thought it was a good question -- noting, however, that news reports conflict on whether Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, received a letter from Fitzgerald. Luskin himself stated he was "formally advised," but does not state how.

I called Luskin at his office and told him I was interested to know precisely how Fitzgerald had notified him of his decision. "I'm really not going to add anything to what's in the statement," Luskin told me.

Why not? I asked. "The reason is, that's what we've decided to do." (There's a $500-an-hour answer for you.)

Luskin's office sent me a copy of his earlier statement. It reads -- in its entirety -- as follows:

Washington, DC-Robert Luskin, Attorney for Karl Rove today released the following statement:

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

So what's the deal? Is Luskin bluffing? If he got a letter, why won't he say so, and release it?

We don't know. It's extremely unlikely Luskin would fake something like this -- it would demand a wrathful retaliation from the prosecutor, something no defense lawyer in his right mind would do. Perhaps Fitzgerald sent a letter that, while letting Rove off the hook, catalogs a number of sins Luskin would rather not publicize. Perhaps Rove got the assurance as part of a cooperation deal. Who knows.

All we can say for sure is that for the moment, Rove's apparently in the clear. And Luskin's not talking.

Update: An earlier version of this post said that no news outlets had reported that Fitzgerald notified Luskin in writing; in fact, the New York Times reported Luskin received a letter from Fitzgerald, while others reported it was in a phone call.

Late Update: Rove's not cooperating with anybody or anything, spokesman tells Prospect.

So the lawyer for Bush adviser Karl Rove has released a letter to the media stating, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

While Fitzgerald's office is declining to confirm that information, the New York Times and others have enough faith in Luskin's veracity to report the assertion as fact: Rove's in the clear.

But Truthout.org -- the one publication to report, repeatedly, that Rove was definitely going to be indicted -- isn't buying it.

I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel phone this morning. "I wasn't aware that he had said that," he said of Luskin's announcement, but insisted that Truthout was "absolutely" standing by its earlier reporting.

"We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know."

So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."

ABC says:

New details on the government's case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former Chief of Staff for Vice President Cheney, and new clues in the ongoing investigation of Karl Rove may be revealed next week. A conference with presiding Judge Walton, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the Libby defense team is set for Monday afternoon to discuss issues in the case[.]