How One Republican Congressman is Spending His Summer Vacation

Unchallenged.

Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq hosted a Town Hall Meeting with Representative Tom Davis (R-VA, and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform) and Rand Beers (former Counterterrorism Adviser in the Bush administration, 2002-03) on Thursday, August 23, 2007.

Unfortunately, the meeting turned out to be something of a personal platform for the representative of the organization that was hosting the Town Hall (a young veteran of the war in Iraq), who tightly controlled the event, spoke more than anyone else at the event, chose which of the audience's questions the Congressman was asked, and allowed Davis a fast and easy face-off with his constituents (and an even faster getaway).

Videos of the meeting:

Part 1
In this segment: Comments by Sister Marie Lucey, Religious-Associate Director of the Leadership Conference of Women; Bob Petrusak, Progressive Democrats of America, Virginia Chapter, introduces Congressman Tom Davis.

Part 2
In this segment, comments by Congressman Tom Davis.

Part 3
In this segment: Comments by Iraq war veteran John Bruhns.

Part 4
In this segment: Iraq war veteran John Bruhns introduces Rand Beers, former Counterterrorism Adviser in the Bush administration, 2002-03, and Beers speaks.

Part 5
In this segment, John Bruhn reads a question from the audience: "Can you say there is progress, when the surge, designed to create political space, hasn't made any political progress? This is the bloodiest summer since the surge began; this isn't progress." Both Congressman Tom Davis and Rand Beers respond.

Part 6
In this segment, the questioning starts going south, by John Bruhn becoming confused, mixing up an audience member's question and replacing it with one of his own, about U.S. policy in Anbar province of giving amnesty to insurgents and the Pentagon's loss of 190,000 weapons in Iraq. Both Congressman Tom Davis and Rand Beers respond.

Part 7
In this segment, the meeting continues going south with John Bruhns offers a critique of Tom Davis' comments, and then Bruhns gives his own opinion on the question. Bruhns then asks another question from the audience: "How has the cost of the Iraq occupation affected services such as infrastructure, transportation and human services in your district?"

Part 8
In this segment, Bruhns asks this question from someone in the audience: "Every combat brigade in the army and marine corps is committed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Where will units come from if we are attacked again or suffer another catastrophe on American soil?" Congressman Tom Davis and Rand Beers respond.

Part 9
In this segment, Bruhns reads a question from one of the panelists, Bob Petrusak: "Why can't Congress pressure the administration to follow the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and seriously engage Iran and Syria?" Congressman Tom Davis and Rand Beers respond. John Bruhns thanks Tom Davis profusely. Members of the audience express their outrage over Bruhns' control over the Town Hall meeting and over the focus of the discussion about Iraq, and Bruhns' control over which questions were asked of Congressman Davis.


The position of the host group, Americans Against the Escalation of the War in Iraq, is "the safe redeployment of the troops." That should leave room for many different points of view. However, Bruhns (in his comments in part 3) takes options off the table, seemingly leaving only a draft.

Rhetorically, mystifyingly, throughout the meeting Bruhns expresses his failure to understand what's going on and what we're doing in Iraq. And yet, like the Commander-in-Chief whose call to arms he followed into battle, Bruhns stubbornly held to a point of view that allowed no contradiction. Bruhns' influence over the meeting allowed for the continued false and deceptive Bush/neoconservative narrative about the reasons for the invasion and occupation. That limits policy considerations to an American occupation of Iraq without end or "cut and run."

Cheney says, "Records' Law Doesn't Apply To My Office"

Arguing that it does not apply to his office, Vice President Dick Cheney has refused to comply with a new classified document security law -- angering congressional Democrats.

The Miami Herald reports:

Vice President Dick Cheney and congressional Democrats are sparring over the vice president's refusal to comply with a 2003 presidential executive order that requires all agencies and the executive branch to protect classified material.

The skirmish is the latest in a long battle between Congress and the Bush White House -- particularly Cheney's office -- over the administration's campaign to expand the powers of the executive branch and increase the amount of information labeled as classified.

In a letter to Cheney on Thursday, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., questioned ''both the legality and wisdom'' of the vice president claiming an exemption from the order, noting recent controversies involving members of Cheney's staff and classified information.

Former Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby was convicted in March of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with a federal investigation into the identification, in a leak to the media, of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame.

In May 2006, Leandro Aragoncillo, an aide in the vice president's office, admitted in federal court that he stole classified U.S. intelligence information and passed it on to officials plotting a coup in the Philippines.

`SECURITY BREACHES'

''This record does not inspire confidence in how your office handles the nation's most sensitive security information,'' Waxman wrote. ``Indeed, it would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials.''

Cheney's office says it is exempt from Bush's executive order because it's not an entity within the executive branch. The order, issued in March 2003, directed all agencies and executive branch offices to report on their classified and nonclassified files to the National Archives and Records Administration.

Cheney says his office is ''unique'' because it has dual responsibilities in the executive branch and legislative branches. In addition to serving as vice president, Cheney is president of the U.S. Senate.

National Archives officials and Waxman disagree.

They say Cheney and his staff fall under the executive order because of their executive branch business. The Archive's Information Security Oversight Office has been trying to get Cheney to comply with the order since it was denied access to the vice president's office for a routine inspection in 2004.

COMPLIANCE SOUGHT

'According to a letter that the National Archives sent to your staff in June 2006, you asserted that the Office of the Vice President is not an `entity within the executive branch,' and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders,'' Waxman wrote. ``To my knowledge, this was the first time in the nearly 30-year history of the Information Security Oversight Office that a request for access to conduct a security inspection was denied by a White House office.''

Archives officials fired off letters to Cheney's office in June and August 2006 seeking compliance to Bush's order but to no avail.

In January 2007, they wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in hopes of getting Cheney to comply.

Gonzales has not responded to the letter, according to Waxman's office. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told McClatchy that the matter is under review.

Cheney's refusal has a familiar ring to it:

Lest anyone forget, Cheney (and Donald Rumsfeld) got his start in Nixon's White House.

The founders of the nation counted on men of good will not to push the ambiguity in the Constitution, which was necessary in order to have the three co-equal branches of government of, by and for all equal people. The founders did not anticipate the likes of a Richard M. Nixon and crowd, a group that has spent more than thirty years brooding and plotting to erode the checks and balances within the Constitution.

RNC Destroyed Rove's & Others' E-Mails

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reports:

The Oversight Committee has been investigating whether White House officials violated the Presidential Records Act by using e-mail accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee and the Bush Cheney ‘04 campaign for official White House communications. This interim staff report provides a summary of the evidence the Committee has received to date, along with recommendations for next steps in the investigation.

The information the Committee has received in the investigation reveals:
The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed. In March 2007, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said that only a “handful of officials” had RNC e-mail accounts. In later statements, her estimate rose to “50 over the course of the administration.” In fact, the Committee has learned from the RNC that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. The officials with RNC e-mail accounts include Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC has preserved 140,216 e-mails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these e-mails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official “.gov” e-mail accounts. Other heavy users of RNC e-mail accounts include former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC e-mail accounts, the RNC has preserved no e-mails for 51 officials. In a deposition, Susan Ralston, Mr. Rove’s former executive assistant, testified that many of the White House officials for whom the RNC has no e-mail records were regular users of their RNC e-mail accounts. Although the RNC has preserved no e-mail records for Ken Mehlman, the former Director of Political Affairs, Ms. Ralston testified that Mr. Mehlman used his account “frequently, daily.” In addition, there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Mr. Rove during President Bush’s first term and no e-mails sent by Mr. Rove prior to November 2003. For many other White House officials, the RNC has no e-mails from before the fall of 2006.

There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records. In her deposition, Ms. Ralston testified that she searched Mr. Rove’s RNC e-mail account in response to an Enron-related investigation in 2001 and the investigation of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later in the Administration. According to Ms. Ralston, the White House Counsel’s office knew about these e-mails because “all of the documents we collected were then turned over to the White House Counsel’s office.” There is no evidence, however, that White House Counsel Gonzales initiated any action to ensure the preservation of the e-mail records that were destroyed by the RNC.

The Presidential Records Act requires the President to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented … and maintained as Presidential records.” To implement this legal requirement, the White House Counsel issued clear written policies in February 2001 instructing White House staff to use only the official White House e-mail system for official communications and to retain any official e-mails they received on a nongovernmental account.

The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC e-mail accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

There are several next steps that should be pursued in the investigation into the use of RNC e-mail accounts by White House officials. First, the records of federal agencies should be examined to assess whether they may contain some of the White House e-mails that have been destroyed by the RNC. The Committee has already written to 25 federal agencies to inquire about the e-mail records they may have retained from White House officials who used RNC and Bush Cheney ’04 e-mail accounts. Preliminary responses from the agencies indicate that they may have preserved official communications that were destroyed by the RNC.

Second, the Committee should investigate what former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales knew about the use of political e-mail accounts by White House officials. If Susan Ralston’s testimony to the Committee is accurate, there is evidence that Mr. Gonzales or counsels working in his office knew in 2001 that Karl Rove was using his RNC e-mail account to communicate about official business, but took no action to preserve Mr. Rove’s official communications.

Third, the Committee may need to issue compulsory process to obtain the cooperation of the Bush Cheney ’04 campaign. The campaign has informed the Committee that it provided e-mail accounts to 11 White House officials, but the campaign has unjustifiably refused to provide the Committee with basic information about these accounts, such as the identity of the White House officials and the number of e-mails that have been preserved.

Documents and Links
• Investigation of Possible Violations of the Presidential Records Act [.pdf]
• Deposition of Susan Ralston [.pdf]
• Errata Sheet for Deposition of Susan Ralston [.pdf]

It's time (long past) for both the Senate and House Judiciary and Oversight Committees to petition the court for a special master, subpoena and impound the machines before any Republican officials do anymore tinkering with the machines in their effort to find more emails.

I don't know what is taking Democrats so long to have done this. They should have instantly gone to court back in March when it was first discovered that the White House was using a "double-bookkeeping system" for their communications.

Why Conservants Make Lousy Elected Representatives

Because they don't believe they should be anybody's servants, much less the public's.

I don't know how anyone can say that Conservatives are good for America or the American people after the last twenty-six years of watching what Conservatives do when they get into positions of power within the U.S. government. No matter what their political party affiliation (Republican, Libertarian or Democrat), once they get into office, Conservatives work to destroy government and siphon as much of Americans' money into their own pockets as they can get their grubby little hands on.

The Washington Post reports:

Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.

With GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan and up to 40 regional administrators on hand, J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Jan. 26 of polling data about the 2006 elections.

When Jennings concluded his presentation to the GSA political appointees, Doan allegedly asked them how they could "help 'our candidates' in the next elections," according to a March 6 letter to Doan from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman said in the letter that one method suggested was using "targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country."

On Wednesday, Doan is scheduled to appear before Waxman's committee to answer questions about the videoconference and other issues. The committee is investigating whether remarks made during the videoconference violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes. Those found in violation of the act do not face criminal penalties but can be removed from their jobs.

Waxman said in the letter that the remarks made during the videoconference have been confirmed by "multiple sources." Congressional investigators have taken statements from GSA employees and others in recent weeks.

The planned hearing is part of an expanding examination by Waxman's committee of Doan's tumultuous 10-month tenure as administrator of the GSA. The government's leading procurement agency annually handles about $56 billion worth of federal contracts.

The committee is also expected to question Doan about her attempt to give a no-bid job to a friend and professional associate last summer. In addition, the committee plans to look at Waxman's charge that Doan "intervened" in a troubled technology contract with Sun Microsystems that could cost taxpayers millions more than necessary.

In the Senate, Doan is facing a similar line of questioning in letters from Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). Also examining Doan are the GSA's Office of Inspector General and the independent federal Office of Special Counsel, which investigates allegations of Hatch Act violations.

In several recent statements, Doan has said she did nothing wrong. She said her troubles are the result of retaliation by the inspector general over her efforts to rein in spending and balance the GSA budget. Doan, a wealthy former government contractor who sold her company before taking over the GSA last May, has hired three law firms and two media relations companies at her own expense to handle inquiries from the federal investigators and the news media.

"Ever since I made the decision to restore fiscal discipline to all divisions within GSA, I have had to face a series of personal attacks and charges," Doan said in a March 7 statement.

Doan did not respond to questions for this article. She said in the statement that she looks forward to facing the oversight committee.

"I am eager to have the chance to set the record straight and provide a full and complete record to Congressman Waxman and the Committee and refute these allegations," Doan said.

Waxman's investigation began in response to a Jan. 19 story in The Washington Post about a no-bid job Doan tried to give to firms run by Edie Fraser, a veteran Washington public relations executive who had served as a paid consultant to Doan. Waxman's investigators concluded that the two women had "a long-standing business relationship" that was not "previously disclosed," according to Waxman's letter.

Between 2003 and 2005, Fraser billed Doan as much as $20,000 a month in consulting fees to "generally promote attributes" of Doan and her company, New Technology Management Inc., according to invoices obtained by The Post. In all, Doan paid at least $417,500 to companies affiliated with Fraser before Doan took over the GSA, according to Waxman's investigators.

Last year, Fraser helped prepare Doan for her GSA confirmation and lined up political support for her, according to interviews and e-mails obtained by The Post.

On July 25, two months after Doan took office, she took the unusual step of personally signing the no-bid arrangement with Diversity Best Practices and Business Women's Network, firms then run by Fraser, to produce a report about GSA's use of businesses owned by minorities or women. The GSA's general counsel at the time, Alan R. Swendiman, told Waxman's investigators he was "alarmed" that the project was not competitively bid.

Last month, in a letter to Waxman's committee, a senior GSA official called the no-bid arrangement a "procedural mistake." Doan told The Post that she submitted a service order for the work through normal GSA contracting channels and did not focus on it afterward.

But Swendiman, now a special assistant to President Bush, told Waxman's investigators that he "immediately and repeatedly" advised Doan to terminate the arrangement. When he was unable to persuade her, Swendiman directed a GSA contracting officer to terminate the arrangement. The investigators found evidence indicating that Doan continued to try to find ways to award the project to her friend.

Alan R. Swendiman...Now where have I heard that name before?

I know!....

Representative Paul Hodes [D-NH] questions James Knodell, Director of the White House Security Office, during last week's House Oversight Committee hearing on the CIA leak (Valerie Plame).

In case you missed the hearing, you can catch the first panel (Valerie Plame's testimony) here, the second panel (James Knodell and Bill Leonard) here, and the third and last panel of the day (Victoria Toensing and Mark Zaid) here.

The committee's examination of the Jan. 26 videoconference could raise questions about the role of Jennings, the White House official who works for Rove.

Jennings's name has recently surfaced in investigations of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys around the country. He communicated with Justice Department officials concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released this month. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher.

Jennings is a longtime political operative from Kentucky. He served as political director for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2002 before joining the White House.

After Jennings and Doan spoke during the videoconference, one regional GSA administrator offered the suggestion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could be excluded from the opening of an environmentally efficient federal courthouse in San Francisco, which Pelosi represents, according to Waxman's letter. GSA manages the nation's federal courthouses.

The letter cited evidence that Doan then raised questions about "the upcoming opening of a courthouse in Florida," based on statements from participants in the videoconference. Doan noted that President Bill Clinton had suggested he might attend, and she "stated that an effort should be made to get Senator Mel Martinez, the General Chairman of the Republican National Committee, to attend," Waxman said in his letter to Doan.

"It would be an obvious abuse if you suggested to agency officials that the activities of the agency be manipulated to provide political advantages to Republican candidates," Waxman told her in the letter.

In a March 13 letter to Waxman, Doan wrote that "there were no improper political actions that occurred during or as a result of the January 26 teleconference."

Jennings declined to comment Friday and referred questions to the White House media affairs office. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Jennings did not ask GSA officials to help Republican candidates and described Jennings's presentation as "a factual assessment of the political landscape."

Waxman's committee also plans to question Doan about her alleged involvement last year in a technology contract with Sun Microsystems. The GSA, which collects a small percentage of the value of the contracts it handles, was at risk of losing substantial fees from the Sun contract if it was not renewed.

Two GSA contracting officers had balked at renewing the deal, citing findings by the GSA's inspector general that Sun was allegedly overcharging taxpayers, not giving discounts to the government that were made available to private companies.

Waxman's letter alleged that Doan "intervened" in the matter and that she suggested one of the contracting officers was too "stressed" and might be replaced. Days later, the agency brought in a new contracting officer, who approved the deal within two weeks.

That officer was later granted a previously denied transfer to an agency field office in Denver.

In a statement, Sun Microsystems said it cooperated with the audit.

"We are honored to be a government contractor, and our current contracts with GSA represent the culmination of over two years of very active negotiations," the statement said. "Any suggestion that GSA gave Sun special treatment during the negotiation process simply does not fit the facts."

Grassley, the senator questioning Doan, said in a statement Friday that Doan and her subordinates should have heeded warnings by the agency inspector general's office that problems with the Sun contract had been discussed with Justice Department officials.

"The allegations alone should have been a showstopper, but they instead chose to turn a blind eye, failed to take corrective action, and allowed a bad contract to move forward that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars," Grassley said. "It's unacceptable."

Doan has told Grassley and Waxman that she did nothing improper.

"There was no undue influence in the award of the Sun Microsystems renewal contract," she wrote to Waxman. "I had no role whatsoever in any personnel actions involving anyone involved in those contract negotiations."

Republicans End The Day's Hearing With A Little '3 Card Monte'

A shell game. "Hide the pea."

The third and final panel of witnesses of the day at the House Oversight Committee hearing were Victoria Toensing and Mark Zaid, "Managing Partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Krieger & Zaid, PLLC and specializes in litigation and lobbying on matters relating to international transactions, torts and crimes, national security, foreign sovereign and diplomatic immunity, defamation (plaintiff) and the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOI/PA)."

That's from his website, which looks like something he made himself after school, from a book report on James Madison (just turned in last week? -- I've eaten yogurt older than this guy). I'm being somewhat facetious about Zaid's age; what he lacks of it, he apparently makes up for in experience. In addition to founding the James Madison Project (an organization dedicated to reduce government secrecy, a laudable if not futile exercise during this period of our history), Zaid "also operates www.EsquireComics.com where he sells hi-grade or notable comic books primarily from 1930-1963."

Part 1 - Mark Zaid's opening statement

Part 2 - Victoria Toensing's opening statement

Highlight: "It's all the CIA's fault."

I see that she got the memo.

Part 3 - Representative Tom Davis [R-VA] questions Victoria Toensing and Mark Zaid

Highlight: Toensing tells Congress about "the Rule of 38," which means, "Leak classified information to enough (38) people, and because it's so difficult to trace, you won't be prosecuted."

Wasn't that Bush-Cheney modus operandi in leaking Plame's name?

Part 4 - Representative Henry Waxman [D-CA] questions Victoria Toensing

Part 5 - Representative Elijah Cummings [D-MD] questions Victoria Toensing

Part 6 - Representative Diane Watson [D-MD] questions Victoria Toensing

Part 7 - Representative Chris Van Hollen [D-MD] questions Victoria Toensing

Highlights: "Do you think White House officials, as stewards of our national security, when they find out someone works for the CIA and before telling the press about it, have any obligation to find out whether that disclosure would compromise sensitive information?"

Part 8 - Representative Henry Waxman [D-CA] wraps up this day's hearing with pointed words for Ms. Toensing

Highlights: "We are pleased to accommodate the request of the minority to have you as a witness, and some of the statements you've made without any doubt with great authority I understand may not be accurate so we're going to check the information and we're going to hold the record open to put in other things that might contradict some of what you had to say" and "When we heard from Mrs. Wilson, and we heard from Fitzgerald, and I talked personally to General Hayden, they have a different view as to what is a protected agent than you do, and your knowledge is based on writing the law thirty years ago."

CIA Leaks Hearing, Round 2

On Friday, March 16, 2007, the U.S. House Oversight Committee began hearings on the leaking of the identity of a covert, classified CIA agent (Valerie Plame Wilson).

After Valerie Plame Wilson's appearance before the committee, the second panel of witnesses, (James Knodell, White House Security Officer, and Bill Leonard, National Archives Information Security Oversight Office Director), showed up to testify. These two are eerily reminiscent of another past 'testifying team':



Check it out:

Part 1 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard deliver their opening statements

Part 2 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representative Henry Waxman [D-CA]

Highlights: "Rove, Libby and Fleischer are obligated by law to report any breaches, security violations, intentional or inadvertant, of classified information."

Part 3 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representative Tom Davis [R-VA]

Highlights: "Wouldn't you agree it's all the CIA's fault?"

Part 4 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representatives Elijah Cummings [D-MD], Henry Waxman [D-CA], Tom Davis [R-VA]

Highlights: "A report, an investigation, and sanctions, all REQUIRED BY LAW after this leak, never happened."

Part 5 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representative Diane Watson [D-CA]

Highlights: "How did Karl Rove learn Valerie Plame's status at CIA?"

That's still a mystery.

Part 6 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representatives Chris Van Hollen [D-MD], Tom Davis [R-VA], Henry Waxman [D-CA]

Highlights: "Why aren't you conducting an investigation into the breach of classified information?"

It's a fair question. The answer is like trying to find an honest person in the Bush administration: Elusive.

Part 7 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representative Paul Hodes [D-NH]

Highlights: "If two or more persons agree to leak classified information, and one of them then leaks the information, that's a criminal conspiracy, isn't it?"

I don't think that was really a question, do you?

Part 8 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-District of Columbia]

Highlights: "Can you explain why Karl Rove still has a security clearance today?"

After that, perhaps he can explain how he got the job as head of White House Security.

Part 9 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representatives Diane Watson [D-CA], Henry Waxman [D-CA], Tom Davis [R-VA]

Highlights: "This leak of classified information by the White House is not unique."

Part 10 - James Knodell and Bill Leonard are questioned by Representative Elijah Cummings [D-MD]

Highlights: "Knowing, willful and NEGLIGENT disclosures of classified information are all prohibited by law."

Plamely Speaking

On Friday, March 16, 2007, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform examined the exposure of covert CIA agent's (Valerie Plame) identity:

The Oversight Committee held a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee received testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred.

Valerie Plame Wilson's appearance before the Committee:

Part 1 - Committee Chair Henry Waxman's opening statement

Highlights: "Today we'll be asking three questions:

1.) How did such a serious violation of our national security occur?

2.) Did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred?

3.) What changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of our national security from occurring?

For more than three years a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald has been investing the leak for its criminal implications. By definition, Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation had an extremely narrow criminal focus. it did not answer the broader policy questions raised by the release of Ms. Wilson's identity, nor did it seek to ascribe responsibility outside of the narrow confines of the criminal law. As the chief investigative committee of the House of Representatives, our role is fundamentally different than Mr. Fitzgerald's. It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is our job to understand what went wrong and to insist on accountability and to make recommendations to avoid future abuses, and we begin that process today."

Part 2 - Ranking Member Tom Davis' opening statement

Highlights: "It's all the CIA's fault."

Part 3 - Valerie Plame Wilson's opening statement

Part 4 - Congressman John Yarmuth [D-KY] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: For future CIA employees and future sources, the leak had a very negative effect, "If our government can't even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the CIA in providing needed intelligence would think twice, 'They can't even protect one of their own; how can they protect me?'"

Part 5 - Congressman Paul Hodes [D-NH] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights:

Part 6 - Congressman Tom Davis' [R-VA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: The latest Republican talking point: "It's all Bill Clinton's the CIA's fault!"

Part 7 - Congressman Elijah Cummings [D-MD] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: Wilson clarifies whether she worked covert, undercover, "I was a covert officer in the CIA. Just like a general is general, whether he is in the field (in Iraq or Afghanistan), when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for a temporary assignment in D.C., they, too, are still covert."

Part 8 - Congressman Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "The Bush administration blew my cover."

Part 9 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "I'm not aware of any leaks of a covert agent's identity by their own government."

Part 10 - Congresswoman Diane Watson [D-CA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "The CIA has confirmed your status was covert and classified."

Part 11 - Representative Stephen Lynch [D-MA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "Once or twice might be a careless disclosure, five or six times might be reckless, but 20 times is a deliberate attempt to destroy your status as a covert agent."

Part 12 - Representative Chris Van Hollen [D-MD] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "Are there any leakers still in the Bush administration?"

Part 13 - Representative John Sarbannes [D-MD] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "It paints a picture of an administration of bullies."

Part 14 - Representatives Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA] and Tom Davis [R-VA] question Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "Is your husband (Ambassador Joe Wilson) a Democrat or a Republican, and would you say whether you are a Democrat or a Republican?"

Part 15 - Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-District of Columbia] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlight: Executive Order #121958, and "Why did Karl Rove, with a 'need-to-know'-clearance, need to know your identity?"

Part 16 - Representative Tom Davis [R-VA] clarifies earlier testimony ("He did it!") with Valerie Plame

Highlights: "Outing a CIA agent is a very very serious business."

Part 17 - Chairman Henry Waxman wraps up the Valerie Plame Wilson portion of the hearing with comments by Representatives Watson, Davis and Hodes

Highlights: "Mrs. Wilson, facts are not 'Republican' or 'Democrat'."