Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

State Dept Mum On Wilson INR Memo - Mclellanitis Spreading

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 07:48 PM
Original message
State Dept Mum On Wilson INR Memo - Mclellanitis Spreading
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0507/S00317.htm
Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
July 18, 2005

QUESTION: Over the weekend, there's been talk about a State Department memo from INR regarding Ambassador Joe Wilson and his trip to Niger. Can you confirm the existence of this memo and talk about its path, how it got to the White House or what its contents might be? Whatever you can talk about.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. This is a question that relates to an ongoing investigation. And as such, I am not going to offer any comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Can you confirm the existence of the memo?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not going to. Not going to offer any comment on the investigation.

QUESTION: Can I ask you -- has the Secretary ever appeared before the grand jury or has she ever been interviewed by investigators in this case?

MR. MCCORMACK: The Secretary has cooperated with the investigation.

QUESTION: Could you expand on that and tell us how --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's as far as I'm prepared to go.

QUESTION: Was she interviewed here on premises? Or was she --

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, the Secretary has cooperated with the investigation.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: As have other members of the White House staff.

QUESTION: Can we go back to the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this? Okay? No. Yes, sir.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Another government agency takes the fifth. What have we come to?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. we've come to they know they are under investigation too
And also remember the Martha Stewart prosecution, which stated that when she continued to proclaim her innocence in an effort to prop up her stock price, that was also considered to be part of her crime.
I think their current silence is very telling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Or more directly, the Starr persecution
where he argued that Clinton's statements to his own cabinet and the public could be obstruction of justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. "What have we come to?" you ask
We have come to -- finally -- a respect for the rights and protections of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First and Fifth Amendments :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Ah, yes. The right of the accused to govern us.
The government's lawyered up, and we are going to have to get the government to prosecute itself and convict itself or they are never going to tell us what they did and why they did it.

If you want to know what the government is doing on your behalf, you are going to have to be a US attorney and have a subpoena.

Thanks, Bush, for bringing us to that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. why are they still allowed to make decisions while accused?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ya got me. The entire State and WH are possibly a criminal conspiracy
have lawyered up and are taking the fifth, and they are still the boss of us because we haven't proved their guilt yet.

Some job security, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. normally people are jailed in such situations pending trial
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Once indicted or charged. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Because of that other great American tradition the GOP like to trash
The principle that accusations are not evidence of guilt, and that one is innocent until proven otherwise.

Funny, isn't it, how the Republicans don't give a snake's fart about this principle until they can use it to their own advantage. Isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Rush out there pushing the envelope for the rights of the accused
drug fiend. Wish he would discuss his new respect for civil liberties for criminal defendants on the air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. bush had the unmitigated gall...........
to call for complete transparency in the White House at one time. :eyes: Apparently in Texas, complete transparency has something to do with a pile of bullshit in one's eyes. :crazy:

This entire administration is diseased, from the top to the bottom. It's decaying before our eyes, getting more rotten every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. more like unprecedented secrecy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catabryna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. McClellanitis... Classic!
And, yes, it seems that everyone has caught this illness. It's symptoms include constant lying, no-speak answers, and an unexpected case of amnesia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. The first time I read this I thought it was a joke.
Thanks for posting this, althecat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
13. Boy, these people sure are getting a lot of mileage out of that
"ongoing investigation" excuse, aren't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
17. full damage control mode--so much for cooperating with the US public
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KelleyKramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
18. Now THATS restoring honor and integrity!

I'm sure the wingnuts just feel great about all this.

They must be proud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
19. Have you heard the stir about 2 memos existing?
Josh Marshall touched on this yesterday:

This point is admittedly very deep in the weeds. But if you're playing the Rove/Plame/Niger sleuth game like many of the rest of us, it's a significant point.

Much now turns, you'll remember, on this classified State Department memo, which seems likely to have been the source of the information about Joe Wilson and his wife that was circulating between reporters and White House staffers in early July 2003.

A couple days ago the Times reported that "the memorandum was dated June 10, 2003." That squares with what we know about the administration's concerns (or 'interest' if you're the gullible type) dating more than a month before his Times oped.

Today, however, Bloomberg reports that it was "prepared by the State Department on July 7, 2003."

Big difference.

Now, I guess you could say that a document needn't be prepared at the time it was dated. But had the memo been backdated a month I assume we'd have heard about this already, since that would be pretty big news in itself.

Bloomberg follows up with these grafs ...

On the same day the memo was prepared, White House phone logs show Novak placed a call to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, according to lawyers familiar with the case and a witness who has testified before the grand jury. Those people say it is not clear whether Fleischer returned the call, and Fleischer has refused to comment.

The Novak call may loom large in the investigation because Fleischer was among a group of administration officials who left Washington later that day on a presidential trip to Africa. On the flight to Africa, Fleischer was seen perusing the State Department memo on Wilson and his wife, according to a former administration official who was also on the trip.


At first I assumed that the discrepancy was simply the result of an editorial error from the Times or Bloomberg. But as you can see, both articles hang a significant theory of the case on the date. So it seems unlikely that June has simply been transposed for July, or vice versa.

The answer comes down deep in the Bloomberg article ...

The July 7 memo was largely a reproduction of an earlier State Department report prepared around June 12. Another key question that Fitzgerald is interested in, according to the grand jury witness and the lawyers familiar with the case, is whether Rove or Libby learned of this earlier report and, if so, shared its content with reporters.

Now, presumably, this second version of the memo is what is referenced in this portion of the article in the Times ...

When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell.

I suppose this is where I venture some theory as to what it all means. But I'm not sure what it does mean. Let me add a few more details though and ask a couple questions.

(more)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC