Casual Lawbreaking at the White House

"Q. Do you have any information about how Mr. Rove learned that Valerie Wilson was an employee of the CIA?

"A. I don't remember. I think I recall he heard it through gossip.

"Q. Gossip from whom?

"A. I don't know.

"Q. Do you know who else at the Whìte House was aware of this fact that Valerie Wilson was an employee of the CIA?

"A. Well, from the press accounts I know that Scooter Libby did."

And it appears that after the investigation was launched, Rove was willing to lie about his role -- or at least issue a carefully parsed denial --- even to his confidential assistant.

"Q. Were you aware of any discussions between Karl Rove and any others about a plan to disclose information about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment to the press?

"A. Um, I don't think -- I think I have a vague recollection of it being discussed but not until after the story.

"Q. And who discussed this issue?

"A. Karl -- well, Karl may have talked about it with us in his office.

"Q. And what did he say?

"A. Well, to me personally he said that he never knew her name, and it wasn't him who disclosed it.

"Q. Do you remember when he told you that?

"A. It was sometime during the investigation."

Odds and Ends

As attached as Rove was to his BlackBerry, he apparently lost it at least once. One can only imagine what was on it at the time.

This came up as Ralston was explaining that Rove might have thought his e-mail was being backed up because of how long it took IT people to restore his mail folders: "It may have been four or five times. I can't say specifically, but it seemed to be a number of times. Karl would get a new computer. He would lose a BlackBerry. Whenever this happened, there would be some conversation with the [Information Services and Technology] people about his mail file."

And Ralston notes that Rove owns the Rove.com domain.

Justice Watch

Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev write for McClatchy Newspapers: "The investigations into the Bush administration's decision to fire nine U.S. attorneys have exposed how the administration has eroded the firewall between partisan politics and the Justice Department and compromised the independence of the nation's top law enforcement agency.

"As early as 2002, administration policymakers, Republican legislators and GOP party officials began injecting politics into criminal investigations and civil and voting rights enforcement and applying political litmus tests to judges and career lawyers at the Justice Department."

Among their conclusions: That the administration "[a]llowed political adviser Karl Rove and the White House Office of Political Affairs to become conduits for complaints about politically sensitive prosecutions. Elected officials and even lobbyists took their frustrations about individual cases or prosecutors to Rove, or to the attorney general and his aides."

Caging Watch

Lara Jakes Jordan writes for the Associated Press: "Senate Democrats urged the Justice Department on Monday to investigate whether one of its former prosecutors led attempts to suppress Florida voter turnout during the 2004 presidential election.

"The request by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island is the latest facet of Congress' ongoing inquiry into whether politics played a role in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

"One of the fired prosecutors, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark., was replaced on an interim basis by Tim Griffin -- a protege of presidential political adviser Karl Rove who worked at the Republican National Committee in 2004. The two senators Monday pointed to two e-mails to Griffin -- titled 'caging' and dated August 2004 -- listing nearly 2,000 potential voters in Jacksonville, Fla. . . .

"'Caging' refers to efforts to disqualify voters who fail to sign for registered campaign mail sent to their houses."

No More Fear?

David Paul Kuhn and Jonathan Martin write in the Politico about how Republican candidates are increasingly turning on Bush to save their own skins: "The change, say GOP operatives, is the absence of fear about being perceived as something less than an ardent Bush backer. 'What's the penalty now, Karl being mad at you?' Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio asked with a laugh, referring to Bush political adviser Karl Rove. 'Who cares? Even his former chief strategist (Matthew Dowd) walked away from him and pissed all over him.'"

Next Job?

Paul Bedard writes for U.S. News: "President Bush isn't leaving it to strangers to take care of his legacy project, the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum. Playing key roles are political aide Karl Rove, first lady Laura Bush, and former Chief of Staff Andy Card. The trio has been interviewing architects and touring similar research campuses for tips. We hear that some are urging Bush to put Rove in charge once it's built."

Signing Statements Watch

The big question that has long been hovering over the debate about Bush's unprecedented use of signing statement is this: Did he actually act on his assertion that he could ignore the law?

The first study aimed at answering that question suggests that the answer is yes -- it wasn't just empty rhetoric.

Charlie Savage writes in the Boston Globe: "Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers.

"In a report to Congress, the non partisan Government Accountability Office studied a small sample of the bill provisions that Bush has signed into law but also challenged with signing statements. The GAO found that agencies disobeyed six such laws, while enforcing 10 others as written even though Bush had challenged them. . . .

"'The administration is thumbing its nose at the law,' said [House Judiciary Committee chairman John] Conyers, one of the lawmakers who commissioned the GAO study."

Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "The instances of noncompliance were not as dramatic as some of the signing statements that have caused the most stir, such as Bush's suggestion that he was not bound by a ban on torture in U.S. military detention facilities. But congressional aides said they were significant.

"For example, Congress directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to relocate its checkpoints around Tucson every seven days to improve efforts to combat illegal immigration. But the agency took the law as an 'advisory provision' that was 'not always consistent with CBP's mission requirements.' Instead, the agency periodically shut down its checkpoints for short periods of time, believing that would comply with congressional demands."

Jim Abrams writes for the Associated Press: "The White House defends the [signing] statements, saying presidents have the prerogative to address matters of national security and express reservations about the constitutionality of legislation.

"'We expect to continue to use statements where appropriate, on a bill-by-bill basis,' White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. 'The opportunities in this Congress have been limited since we've mostly only received bills to name post offices and federal buildings.'"

Here is the GAO report. Two other examples of noncompliance:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not submit a proposal and expenditure plan for housing as directed by Congress in the appropriations act because, according to FEMA, it does not normally produce such plans. . . .

"The Department of Defense (DOD) did not include as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget submission to Congress separate budget justification documents for the costs of all contingency operations for the Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance, and Procurement accounts. DOD did provide a separate justification document that included the costs of contingency operations in the Balkans and Guantanamo Bay but did not include costs for any other contingency operations, such as those in Iraq."

Reassured?

Lara Jakes Jordan writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush had a nearly hour-long secure video teleconference with Iraqi leaders on Monday and came away impressed and reassured by the progress they're making on political, security and economic reforms, the White House said."

Reassured? Alas, Tony Snow couldn't exactly say why.

"Q But, Tony, can you give us some sense of why he felt reassured, given that we've heard reassurances before?

"MR. SNOW: Well, again, it is clear that you've got an environment now where the key leaders are working together on these issues. And, yes, we have heard a lot of these things before, but without -- and I'm not in a position to go into the details and what they were saying, but there are reasons we think they're very serious in moving forward on the key items.

"Q But, Tony, we've heard that before, many times.

"MR. SNOW: I understand. I understand."

Interrogation Watch

Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post: "Eight months after President Bush signed a bill authorizing the CIA to resume using 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on terrorism suspects, the administration has been unable to agree on what constitutes 'humiliating and degrading treatment' of detainees.

"The CIA program remains in limbo, awaiting an executive order about the techniques that has become the subject of tense discussions within the administration and between the White House and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. . . .

"In a further complication, the Senate panel demanded that Bush obtain a Justice Department review of the interpretation and guidelines, and provide a copy of the review to the committee. The administration is believed to have already obtained the review but is unlikely to turn it over to Congress, the administration official said. Lawmakers will be asked to accept Bush's assurance in the executive order that the program has been deemed lawful. . . .

"The issue is expected to receive a rare public airing today as the committee holds a confirmation hearing for John A. Rizzo, nominated by Bush in March 2006 as the CIA's legal counsel. Senators plan to ask Rizzo, a 30-year CIA veteran who is serving as acting counsel, about his involvement in past interrogation policymaking as well as the pending guidelines."

Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane write in the New York Times: "In the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, at a time when the Central Intelligence Agency had long been out of the interrogation business, senior C.I.A. officers scrambled to build a program to question terror suspects in secret jails abroad.

"To check on the legality of the harsh interrogation techniques they proposed, they turned to John A. Rizzo, who was then acting as the agency's top lawyer. . . .

"John Radsan, who worked as a C.I.A. lawyer from 2002 to 2004 but is critical of the detention program, said Mr. Rizzo 'bears a share of responsibility' for the program and perhaps should have counseled against actions that were 'technically legal but wrongheaded.'

"But Mr. Radsan said top Bush administration officials deserved greater blame 'for asking to push things right to the point of illegality.'"

Mazzetti and Shane write that "approved options were first applied after the capture in March 2002 of Abu Zubaydah, a senior Qaeda figure. Mr. Rizzo was responsible for the legal advice to the officers holding him in Thailand as they escalated physical and mental pressure."

But as I noted in my June 20, 2006 column, author Ron Suskind reported in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," that Zubaydah was a minor al Qaeda player -- and a split-personality schizophrenic -- who 'confessed' under torture to many plots that never existed. I hope someone will ask Rizzo about that today.

Scooter Libby Watch

The Dallas Morning News editorial board writes that "letting Mr. Libby avoid paying for his crime would only increase cynicism about elite privilege in American public life."

DeWayne Wickham writes in his USA Today opinion column: "Libby's bad deeds apparently resulted from a plan hatched in Cheney's office to counter Wilson's criticism of the president. While no one else has been charged, it is not a stretch to suggest that Libby's crimes might have been committed in support of the White House effort to strike back at one of the president's enemies."

Wickham warns that "a pardon for Libby might cause the Democratic-controlled Congress and many other Americans to think he acted out of self-interest -- to bury the full truth. . . .

"There is no evidence to suggest that President Bush was involved in any illegal acts. But a pardon for Libby -- if it comes -- should cause congressional investigators to probe more deeply the White House plot to strike at one of the president's political enemies."

Richard Cohen, in his Washington Post op-ed column, gives voice to the media elite's contempt for an investigation that disturbed the cozy relationship between Washington journalists and politicians: "This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off. . . .

"The upshot was a train wreck -- mile after mile of shame, infamy, embarrassment and occasional farce. . . .

"I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath -- not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody. But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely."

In other words, says Cohen: Turn the lights back off.

Froomkin Watch

No column tomorrow -- I'm appearing on a panel about mainstream media political coverage at the Take Back America 2007 conference.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President

Laura Bush is asking people on the RNC e-mail list: "Please help me celebrate a very special birthday.

"On July 6, President Bush will turn 61 years old. In our family, birthdays are special occasions that always include family and close friends.

"I know George will appreciate receiving warm wishes from loyal supporters on his special day. Please take a moment to add your name to the RNC's e-card.

"And if you can, please consider commemorating President Bush's 61st birthday with a gift our entire Party can share. Your secure online gift of $61 or whatever you can afford -- $25, $75, $100, $500 or even $1,000 -- will go a long way toward helping the RNC lay the foundation for electing more Republicans in the 2007 state and 2008 national elections."

But guess what? Go to the Web page in question and it's impossible to add your name (and message) without making a contribution. At least I couldn't find a way.

Cartoon Watch

Ann Telnaes on Rove as greased pig.