New National Journal Story on Plame investigation: What Karl Rove told the President

The National Journal just posted this story of mine online about presidential advisor Karl Rove's private conversations with President Bush regarding Valerie Plame. Since not many bloggers have yet noticed the story, or worse– found it worthy– I am going to exercise my blogger's perogative to blog myself. I am going to blog more about this over this weekend. And below is an excerpt:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors.

During the same conversation in the White House two years ago-occurring just days after the Justice Department launched a criminal probe into the unmasking of Plame as a covert agency operative-Rove also assured the president that he had not leaked any information to the media in an effort to discredit Plame's husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. Rove also did not tell the president about his July 2003 a phone call with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, a conversation that touched on the issue of Wilson and Plame.

But some 22 months later, Cooper's testimony to the federal grand jury investigating the Plame leak has directly contradicted Rove's assertions to the president. Cooper has testified that Rove was the person who first told him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, although Rove did not name her. Cooper has also testified that Rove told him that Plame helped arrange for Wilson to make a fact-finding trip for the CIA to the African nation of Niger to investigate allegations that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium with which to build a nuclear bomb.In his first interview with FBI agents working on the leak probe, Rove similarly did not disclose that he had spoken to Cooper, according to sources close to the investigation.

But in subsequent interviews with federal investigators and in his testimony to the grand jury, Rove changed his account, asserting that when the FBI first questioned him, he had simply forgotten about his phone conversation with Cooper. Rove also told prosecutors that he had forgotten about the Cooper conversation when he talked to the president about the matter in the fall of 2003...

Sources close to the leak investigation being run by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald say it was the discovery of one of Rove's White House e-mails-in which the senior Bush adviser referred to his July 2003 conversation with Cooper- that prompted Rove to contact prosecutors and to revise his account to include the Cooper conversation.

The rest of the story can be read here.

Rove before grand jury in the morning

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove will testify tomorrow morning for a fourth time before the federal grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame matter, according to sources close to the investigation.

Rove will appear voluntarily, but during tomorrow's session, Rove will be pressed about issues as to why his accounts to the FBI and grand jury have changed, or evolved, over time. He will also be questioned regarding contacts with other senior administration officials, such as then-deputy National Security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney in the critical week before the publication of columnist Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, which outed Plame as a covert CIA operative.

Rove is also likely to be asked more detailed questions about his conversation with Time magazine Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, in which Cooper himself has testified to the grand jury that Rove had told him that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA, and had played a role in having her husband, ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, selected to go on his controversial fact-finding mission on behalf of the CIA. Rove's previous grand jury appearances had occurred prior to Cooper's own testimony to the grand jury.

Miller released from jail; to testify regarding Libby very soon... Fitz to make his decision soon on whether to bring charges

After having spent more than 12 weeks in jail, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was freed today. The news of her release aside, she will soon be debriefed by federal investigators, and then testify before a federal grand jury, perhaps as early as tomorrow morning.

What is perhaps left out of news accounts tonight is that Miller's testimony is central to whether special counsel Fitzgerald brings criminal charges against I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Libby was unwavering in telling prosecutors and the FBI that he knew nothing of Plame's covert work for the CIA, even though he spoke to Miller about at length about her and her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Whether that account is truthful is something only both Miller and Libby know. Miller's testimony on that issue will be central to any final disposition of the criminal probe, sources close to the investigation have told me for some time now.

As to Miller's release earlier today, her own newspaper reports tonight:

Her decision to testify came after she obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. She said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation.

Actually, for those very few readers who read this blog and my reporting on this subject, that is sort of old news... I first reported in the American Prospect last August 8 that Miller had met with Libby on July 8, 2003; further, that Libby was one of her sources; and the main reason that she was in jail was because Libby had not provided her a personalized waiver to testify.

Here is what I reported at the time:

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has told federal investigators that he met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to legal sources familiar with Libby's account.

The meeting between Libby and Miller has been a central focus of the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald as to whether any Bush administration official broke the law by unmasking Plame's identity or relied on classified information to discredit former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, according to sources close to the case as well as documents filed in federal court by Fitzgerald.

The meeting took place in Washington, D.C., six days before columnist Robert Novak wrote his now-infamous column unmasking Plame as a "CIA operative." Although little noticed at the time, Novak's column would cause the appointment of a special prosecutor, ultimately place in potential legal jeopardy senior advisers to the president of the United States, and lead to the jailing of a New York Times reporter.

A short time after that story appeared (indeed a very, very short time-- about a week later), Miller's attorneys and Libby's attorney, Joseph A. Tate, began prolonged negotiations that would lead to Libby finally providing her a personal waiver that would lead to her release and testimony. There is quite a backstory there, and my then unnoticed Prospect story paved the way, in large part, I am told for those negotiations. I am going to write a lot about this, on my blog, and long reporting pieces elsewhere.

A footnote: Although the Times is now confirming my story that Miller did meet Libby on July 8, and Libby was Miller's source, here is what the Times had to publicly say back when I first broke the news:

In response to questions for this article, Catherine J. Mathis, a spokesperson for the Times, said, "We don't have any comment regarding Ms. Miller's whereabouts on July 8, 2003." She also added, "Ms. Miller has not received a waiver that she believes to be freely given."

Gray confirmation hearing, another Plame vote, and misc. other news

Stop the presses! State Department Appointee to use his "position" to "advance freedom"!... At least that was the headline of sorts in yesterday's Winston-Salem Journal. The news that C. Boyden Gray, former legal counsel to the first President Bush, lobbyist, and conservative political activist had his confirmation hearing to advance as ambassador to the European Union was hardly front page news for most newspapers. The fact that his nomination currently faces no opposition hardly was either. But it was important news, perhaps, for the Winston-Salem Journal, because Gray is a native of the area.

But what was a little out of the ordinary was the headline and tone of the story. The headline read: "Gray gives first goal: "Freedom agenda is No. 1, he says".

And here was the lede to the story:

C. Boyden Gray, a native of Winston-Salem, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday during his nomination hearing that he would use the post of European Union ambassador to advance freedom.

As a result of the $3.7 trillion worth of trade the United States does with the region, he would be in a good position to do that should he be confirmed, he said.

"This provides an enormously good platform for spreading the global-freedom agenda," Gray said.

The tone of much of the rest of the story is not all that different:

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., introduced Gray to the committee and said he should be confirmed immediately.

"Those of us who have watched Boyden over the years know that he is someone who works well with people on opposite ends of an issue, and finds areas of commonality that all sides can embrace," she said.

If one wonders this particular news story reads less like a newspaper story than a press release from a public relations agency, one only finally learns why at the very end of the story:

Gray is on the board of directors of Media General, the parent company of the Winston-Salem Journal. His father, Gordon Gray, was a lawyer, the publisher of the Journal, and the national security adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In the meantime, freedom-loving peoples of the world can rejoice!

In other news:

The House Armed Services Committee became the fourth House committee yesterday to adversely report a resolution of inquiry for an independent congressional inquiry of the Bush administration's role in the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In recent days, the House Judiciary, International Relations, and Intelligence committees have rejected similar resolutions of inquiry regarding the Plame affair.

The earlier committee votes were along straight party lines. Armed Services, however, rejected the resolution simply on a voice vote. The debate within the committee was over in a few short minutes. And no Democrat objected to the voice vote-- instead of demanding that members vote for the record-- apparently because the outcome was all but preordained.

For more about the congressional action (or inaction), one can read this article which I wrote on the earlier votes for the Village Voice, or scroll down below and read this post and others on this very blog over the last several days.

Which one is the pornographer? "Apparently us."

Which one is the pornographer? Tim Grieve, who often writes and edits the War Room column/blog at Salon.com does so in an intelligent and thoughtful way. His voice is distinctive-- and while this blogger does not think well of most blogging-- I read Grieve not only for his links, but for his critical analysis of the media he covers.

In a post today, entitled, "Which one is the pornographer?", Grieve writes:

We're all for finding creative ways to support the troops in Iraq. Bringing them home, sooner rather than later, sits right up at the top of our list. But as Andrew Sullivan notes, the folks at a Web site called Now That's F------ Up have another idea: They're offering U.S. troops free access to amateur porn in exchange for soldiers' photos from the war.

We checked out the site this morning. Some of the photos we saw there were about what you'd expect to see: Soldiers goofing off and looking tough with their guns; troops hanging out pool side at the former home of Uday Hussein; a soldier standing with an Iraqi kid.

But then there was the section called "gory." It's not the only place on the Web to see gruesome images from Iraq; a lot of sites offer pictures posted by soldiers, and Salon itself recently ran a gallery of grim shots from photojournalists in Iraq. The photographs in that gallery were graphic and disturbing, but -- in our minds, at least -- categorically different from the close-up, gore-for-gore's-sake photos of body parts posted at Now That's F----- Up. And Salon ran the photos alongside an essay on the ways in which the government has kept the horrors of war hidden from its citizens. NTFU offers a picture depicting what's left of the head of a man shot with a .50-caliber weapon next to the words "I'm just here to masturbate" and above an ad for a Web site offering video of a mother and her daughter in a three-way sex act.

You can see that one here, if you must, but you ought to think twice before clicking through. There are simply no words adequate to describe the awfulness of what you'd see.

Obviously, this is a legitimate story for Grieve to cover, which he did with some taste and good judgment. The same can't be said for Salon's editor Joan Walsh. She ran the item as the cover story this morning on Salon.com... along with an extraordinarily lurid picture on the cover as well. Perhaps it was a slow news day. Perhaps her readers have read too much of late about the John Roberts hearing, the bureaucratic bungling at FEMA, or the war in Iraq. Perhaps Sidney Blumenthal had the day off.

Or perhaps there is another explanation for her news judgment: The words "Porn" and the tasteless picture atop the webzine this morning has everything to do with attracting unique visitors, causing a sensation, and profit motive.

The placement of Tim Grieve's otherwise legitimate news item as the cover of Salon this morning was nothing less than an exploitation of American troops in harm's way. It was also a further exploitation of many of the women who were exploited in the first place on the pornographic website described in the War Room posting.

The play of the story has also generated some controversy of sorts within Salon's offices, including emails circulated among staffers and editors of the magazine, some of which have been forwarded here.

One Salon staffer told me today that the prominent display of the story reflected editor Joan Walsh's predisposed belief that "anyone in the military is a violent killer who in their spare time surfs for pornography over the Internet. She doesn't believe that some in the military actually be that they are serving their country or have solid family lives. This plays to her stereotype of someone who serves" in the military.

The same staffer said in an email to others at the magazine: "I don't know what is gained here, except we are driving traffic to a website that traffics in violent and pornographic images. Andrew Sullivan did exactly that, when he wrote about... and linked to them. It raises the obvious question as to whether we are doing the same, and why we are doing so."

One thing that might be gained, obviously, is that the prominent play of the story-- with Salon's own links to such violent and pornographic images-- also drives traffic to Salon itself.

Walsh declined to comment for this post via an email inquiry.

For his part, Grieve included much nuance in his column, noting, for example, that "even some of the site's customers seem to have qualms about what's going on there." And Salon's Mark Benjamin has displayed great enterprise in his writing and reporting about the woes of Gulf War vets.

But the play of this particular story led one of Salon's own editors this morning to circulate an email this morning to other Salon editors, staffers, and contributors (one of whom, again, was kind enough to send it along to me), asking: "Which one is the pornographer? Apparently us."

Update and correction, 3:05 EST, May 18, 2006: In the original of this post, we misspelled Tim Grieve's name, referring to him once as Tom Grieve. The post has been now been changed. We apologize to Tim.

House Intelligence committee votes down Plame "resolution of inquiry"

The House Intelligence Committee earlier today became the third congressional committee to derail a "resolution of inquiry" that would have required the Bush administration to turn over to Congress sensitive information and records relating to the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The 11-9 vote by the committee earlier today to adversely report H. Res. 418 follows similar votes yesterday (see post immediately below) by the House Judiciary and House International Relations Committee.

Had the resolutions of inquiry been adopted, they would have lead to the first independent congressional inquiries of the Plame affair, and perhaps even the public testimony of senior Bush administration aides, such as Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, about their personal roles.

Republicans argued that any vote in favor of the resolution might impair the ongoing federal grand jury probe by special prosecutor Fitzgerald. In the case of the House Intelligence Committee, they were aided, when at the very last minute, the Justice Department informed the committee that Fitzgerald himself opposed any independent inquiry at this time by Congress.

In a letter to the committee, dated Sept. 14, William E. Moschella, an assistant Attorney General for legislative affairs, wrote: "Mr. Fitzgerald has advised that production at this time of the documents responsive to H. Res.418 and the other resolutions, and any attendant hearings, would interfere with his investigation. According, we request that the committee report adversely H. Res. 418."

Democrats, however, pointed out that Congress engaged in its own extensive formal investigations of Watergate and Whitewater while special prosecutors conducted criminal inquiries.

Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, and former chairman, of the Judiciary committee made just that point during the debate, telling his colleagues:

"Let us not forget the endless hearings in this Committee and others on alleged Clinton-Gore campaign finance violations, the Whitewater claims, and Clinton White House Travel Office firings. These were matters all under Justice Department review at the time of our hearings.

"Finally, I must remind my colleagues of the numerous House and Senate hearings on Watergate that were simultaneous with the Justice Department's own investigation."

A senior congressional staffer told me last night that the refusal to turn over information regarding Plame also stands in stark contrast to the manner in which the Justice Department dealt with a recent criminal investigation of former Clinton NSC advisor Sandy Berger. During the course of the criminal probe of Berger, the staffer pointed out, both Intelligence Committee chairman Pete Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, and the ranking Democrat on the panel, Jane Harmon, of California, received regular briefings from the Department of Justice while the investigation was ongoing. (Berger pled guilty earlier this month to misdemeanor allegations that he illegally removed classified documents from the National Archives regarding his tenure as NSC advisor. He was sentenced to probation, community service, and a $50,000 fine.)

House Republicans beat back Plame resolution of inquiry

Not too surprisingly, Republicans today beat back formal "resolutions of inquiry" by Democrats on the House Judiciary and House International Relations Committees that would have required the Bush administration to turn over to Congress information and records relating to the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Votes in both committees were along party lines. The House Judiciary Committee voted 15-11 to adversely report H. Res. 420 to open a formal congressional inquiry into the Plame affair. The House International Relations Committee voted 26-21 against the resolution of inquiry. The House Intelligence Committee is to scheduled to hold a vote tomorrow in a closed door session. But it also appears doubtful that any Republican on that committee will vote to open an inquiry.

Republicans argued today that any vote in favor of the resolution might impair the ongoing federal grand jury probe by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Democrats pointed out that Congress engaged in its own extensive formal investigations of Watergate and Whitewater while special prosecutors conducted criminal inquiries.

Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, and former chairman, of the Judiciary committee made just that point during the debate today, telling his colleagues:

"Let us not forget the endless hearings in this Committee and others on alleged Clinton-Gore campaign finance violations, the Whitewater claims, and Clinton White House Travel Office firings. These were matters all under Justice Department review at the time of our hearings.

"Finally, I must remind my colleagues of the numerous House and Senate hearings on Watergate that were simultaneous with the Justice Department's own investigation."

The House Armed Services Committee will be the fourth congressional committee to consider the matter. Their vote is scheduled for Sept. 20. But it's similarly unlikely that any Republicans will break ranks and vote for an inquiry.

Interestingly, the House Intelligence Committee is going to meet in closed session tomorrow for its consideration of the resolution of inquiry, as well as for the vote itself. Since there is no classified information to consider (the committee has received no classified briefings from the Bush administration or Fitzgerald regarding Plame), Democrats are privately charging that Republicans are conducting the session in secret to diminish press attention. With Katrina, the Roberts confirmation hearings (and the hearings' jaw dropping disclosures-- Roberts has told the Senators which are his favorite movies, and that he favors the Windsor knot while tying his tie!), and Brittany Spears having given birth, the closing of the session appears to be overkill.

A senior Democratic aide told me tonight, regarding the closing of the House Intelligence Committee hearing: "That they [the Republicans] are going to do the mark up in a closed session just reflects that this is another effort to bury this thing."

A spokesman for the Republican majority did not return a phone call tonight, but if he does, I will update my post with his comments at that time. (Additionally, if any committee Republican comments for the record anywhere, I will update this post with their comments as well.)

Some comments: Republicans have largely made the argument in opposing the resolutions of inquiry that they do not want to impede Fitzgerald's probe. But it is quite possible that at some point-- perhaps not that far off in the distant future-- his criminal investigation will come to some conclusion. It also should be interesting to see what the same Republicans who voted against the resolution say or do when Fitzgerald is done, and Democrats introduce the resolutions of inquiry once again.

I am going to update this post later tonight with some more original reporting, or later posts.

What FEMA and the government have apparently been incapable of doing, a relatively small number of private citizens with good will and some Web expertise (and financial assistance from a couple of small foundations) have succeeded at doing. At Katrinalist.net, people have gathered together online to assist victims of Katrina in reuniting with family members, finding shelter, and community. Thanks to their efforts, many victims of Katrina were able to find out for the very first time that their loved ones had not drowned or died, but were simply like them, looking for a way to connect. And at this page on the same website is perhaps the most worthwhile compendium anywhere on the Internet of the best local blogs as to what is actually going on in New Orleans and Mississippi.

If not for Katrina, surely this would surely be big news:

Elizabeth Reyes, an attorney in the elections division of the Texas secretary of state's office, has been fired by her bosses for talking to the Washington Post about whether ownership of property in Kerr County, Texas qualifies him to vote in the state. As this account in the San Antonio Express-News explains it, Reyes feels "twice burned": not only by her employers, but also from talking to a newspaper that apparently (by their own admission) took her quotes out of context and not very carefully or even accurately reporting their story.

INGRAM-— A state agency lawyer quoted in a nationally-circulated news story as questioning Karl Rove's eligibility to vote in Kerr County is out of a job and feeling twice burned.

Elizabeth Reyes said she was fired Tuesday as an attorney in the elections division of the Texas secretary of state's office because she appeared in a Washington Post story Saturday about the presidential adviser.

The article, which was reprinted in papers across the country, quoted Reyes as saying Rove's ownership of Kerr County property may not qualify him to vote there.

Reyes, a 30-year-old San Antonio native, is seeking reinstatement to the job she'd held since May.

She said she was dismissed on grounds of violating an agency policy that allows staff to respond to routine questions but directs them to refer controversial, sensitive or legal inquiries to their supervisors or a press officer.

Reyes said the fateful phone call she fielded last week from an unknown party involved answering a hypothetical question:— "If someone had a rental cottage and it's really old and shabby looking and it looks like no one lives there, could that be a residence for voting?" is how she remembers the question.

"I said if it's falling down and its uninhabitable I don't think it would be anyone's fixed place of habitation," Reyes said Friday. "I also said whether you rent or own doesn't determine residency. It's largely based on intentions. If you intend to return, (you can register to vote there)."

Reyes said she didn't know she was speaking to a reporter and that Rove never was mentioned.

In a letter sent Friday to her former bosses asking to be rehired, Reyes wrote, "The fact that you will hold me responsible for someone else's misleading statements is unjustifiable."

The Post's assistant managing editor for metropolitan news, Robert McCartney, on Friday confirmed Rove's name didn't arise during two interviews by reporter Lori Montgomery. He said a correction would appear today.

McCartney also said the correction would say articles on Rove printed Sept. 3 and Wednesday "should have included Reyes' statement that a person's intent to return to Texas is a primary factor in qualifying for residency."

However, he said Montgomery identified herself to Reyes as a reporter and told Reyes the subject of the story was a presidential adviser who'd moved from Austin to Washington and claimed a Kerr County cottage as his residence for voting.

"We're sorry to hear that Elizabeth Reyes lost her job. We regret that," McCartney said. "We erred and we are running a correction to set the record straight."

McCartney said Montgomery had not seen Rove's cottages but used information provided by the appraisal district for Kerr County. He denied Montgomery described them as "run-down" or "uninhabitable" in her talks with Reyes.

The residences are, in fact, quite habitable.

The two small stone cottages owned by Rove and wife Darby are part of a bed and breakfast complex overlooking the Guadalupe River outside Ingram.

When the Roves aren't there — which locals say is most of the time — they are rented to guests of nearby River Oaks Lodge, which the Roves once owned as well.

The nearest neighbor, Bill Petty, estimated he'd seen Karl Rove there about five times since 2000, mostly near holidays.

"We see him out walking around getting a signal on the cell phone more than anything," said Petty, 65.

Former lodge manager Linda Day said Rove had visited "infrequently" in the past year but declined to be more specific.

Attempts to reach Rove were unsuccessful. Kerr County officials said he registered to vote here May 26, 2004, and voted in the 2004 presidential election by mail from Washington, where he owns a home reportedly valued at more than $1 million.

The cottages and 0.39 acres are appraised at $57,258. The 494-square-foot "Ivy House" has two bedrooms, a kitchen, living room, porch and two baths. Furnished, it has rented for up to $120 a night.

It costs $200 a night to stay at the 814-square-foot "River House," which has screened porches on two sides, two bedrooms, a dining room, kitchen and bath.

"The feeling at the River House is pure relaxation," says the Web page for River Oaks Lodge, which appraisal records show the Roves bought in 1997.

Records indicate the Roves divided the site and sold the main lodge, a 3,863-square-foot structure, and 0.72 acres in 2003. The new owner is listed in county tax records as Estadio Partners LLC, of which Darby T. Rove is listed as a director.

Kathie Thomas, one of the lodge's new owners, declined comment when asked how often the Roves stayed there.

"I'm not going to discuss anything," she said.

The Post story prompted a government watchdog group in the nation's capital to file a complaint Monday with the Texas secretary of state's office about Rove's voter eligibility.

"The Texas Election Code requires you to reside in the place where you're voting," Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Friday. "Apparently, he's never lived there."

Scott Haywood, spokesman for Secretary of State Roger Williams, said the District of Columbia group lacks legal standing and that any such complaint must come from a Kerr County resident and be handled by local authorities.

Haywood also took issue with the "inference" by Reyes in the Post report "that Karl Rove was committing voter fraud."

"Our office does not agree with that or stand by that assessment," he said. "We feel that because Mr. Rove has expressed the intent to return to Texas, that he is covered under the residency requirements."

Haywood declined comment on Reyes' employment status.

Kerr County Voter Registrar Paula Rector said she fielded a few inquiries this week about Rove's voting status, but no complaints.

"He's followed all the necessary steps to be a qualified voter," she said. "At this point, we have no reason to investigate."

Texas Election Code provisions state an otherwise qualified voter does not lose eligibility by leaving home "for temporary purposes."

It continues, "A person does not acquire a residence in a place to which the person has come for temporary purposes only and without the intention of making that place the person's home."

For election law purposes, a residence means "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence."

Some comments of my own: If it were not for Katrina and the Roberts hearings, this story ordinarily would be playing bigtime among bloggers. For those on the left, it has Karl Rove. For those on the right, this was a major instance of the Washington Post making some very foolish mistakes in their reporting, with some very serious consequences-- at least for Elizabeth Reyes.

The many, many reasons Katrina victims can now feel reassured

Tom Delay as Roberto Benigni

No worries: Tom Delay is now on the scene!... According to this blog entry on the Houston Post website, headlined, "Delay to evacuees: `Is this kind of fun?'", House Majority Leader Tom Delay has descended on Houston to provide solace and comfort for Katrina victims:

U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's visit to Reliant Park this morning offered him a glimpse of what it's like to be living in shelter.

While on the tour with top administration officials from Washington, including U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and U.S. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, DeLay stopped to chat with three young boys resting on cots.

The congressman likened their stay to being at camp and asked, "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

They nodded yes, but looked perplexed.

And it's not entirely all that bad for the grown-ups either!... according to former First Lady Barbara Bush, who noted that many of the evacuees who she has visited with "were underprivileged anyway."

According to this NYT report:

As President Bush battled criticism over the response to Hurricane Katrina, his mother declared it a success for evacuees who "were underprivileged anyway," saying on Monday that many of the poor people she had seen while touring a Houston relocation site were faring better than before the storm hit.

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas," Barbara Bush said in an interview on Monday with the radio program "Marketplace." "Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality."

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them."

Mrs. Bush toured the Astrodome complex with her husband, former President George Bush, as part of an administration campaign throughout the Gulf Coast region to counter criticism of the response to the storm.

And even though he has been ordered out of New Orleans, and back to Washington D.C., embattled FEMA director (at least for the time being) Michael Brown told the A.P.: "I'm going to go home and walk my dog and hug my wife, and maybe get a good Mexican meal and a stiff magarita and a full night's sleep. And then I'm going to go right back to FEMA and continue to do all I can to help these victims."

And this particular factoid buried in this NYT story:

President Bush noted... that Afghanistan has offered to send $100,000 to aid victims, and that Kuwait had volunteered to provide $400 million in oil and $100 million in humanitarian aid.

Bone chilling.... CNN is reporting this afternoon that shrimp fisherman have taken out fourteen bodies from New Orleans Parkland hospital. Nobody knows just as now as to whether the deceased were patients, physicians, or simply people who simply were at the hospital at the wrong time.

Meanwhile, on its website, CNN is also reporting that authorities removed the bodies of more than 30 people from a nursing home in a suburban New Orleans parish.

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- In a grim indicator of what may lie ahead, authorities were removing the remains of more than 30 people from a flooded nursing home in a suburban New Orleans parish.

The discovery at St. Rita's Nursing Home in lower St. Bernard Parish came as 25,000 body bags arrived at the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

Early Thursday, the official death toll along from Hurricane Katrina stood at 294, but that number is expected to rise dramatically.

Mortuary teams with refrigerated trucks began arriving Wednesday at the nursing home, where St. Bernard Parish Sheriff Jack Stevens said "30-plus" bodies were found. Between 40 and 50 other people were rescued from the facility, Stevens said. (See video on the gruesome discovery -- 2:02)

The parish is east of New Orleans, where between 10,000 and 15,000 people are believed to remain in the flooded city, and thousands are feared dead.

Deputies reported that floodwaters had reached a height of eight feet in some parts of St. Bernard. The nursing home was still surrounded by about three feet of water on Wednesday, as authorities began removing bodies.

Throughout New Orleans and its surrounding parishes, National Guard troops were going house to house to search for survivors and recover the dead -- marking the houses they searched with an "X" to avoid duplication, said Brig. Gen. Michael Fleming, commander of a Florida unit dispatched to New Orleans. (See video of soldiers aiding recovery -- 3:16)

FEMA set up a temporary morgue in the town of St. Gabriel, about 70 miles west of New Orleans...

Now come the grifters...

If the loss of love ones, their homes, and everything else in their lives was not enough, the vulnerable now face an influx of grifters. At least the grifters made it to the scene more quickly than FEMA, or Vice President Cheney, who finally agreed to cut short his vacation. Perhaps New Orleans took on a new importance of sorts for the V.P. after former Louisiana Senator John Breaux referred to the city as "Baghdad under water." Anything Iraqi, rather than domestic, always draws Cheney's attention.

And Michael Brown, the ever intrepid director of FEMA, is now also apparently on the case! He announced that a "temporary mortuary been set up in St. Gabriel, La, was prepared to receive 500 to 1,000 bodies a day, with refrigeration on site to hold the corpses." He was quoted by the New York Times as saying: "They will be processed as rapidly as possible."

If Brown couldn't display leadership of any kind to save lives, at least he can make sure there is an orderly process in place to assure the handling of the corpses! It is time for all the carping and criticism to end!

Meanwhile, a Washington Post reporter critiques his newspaper's own coverage of Katrina, telling Eric Wemple and Jason Cherkis of the Washington City Paper: "We were late to realize how unbelievably catastrophic this was. We were the FEMA of newspapers on this one."

The Judith Miller/Valerie Plame theory of immaculate conception: The cover story on Salon.com today is a piece on Judith Miller by Joe Strupp, a careful and meticulous senior editor with Editor & Publisher. Linking to my recent story which first disclosed a July 8, 2003 meeting between Miller and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Strupp writes:

More prominently, a recent report that Miller met with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, less than a week before Robert Novak outed former CIA agent Valerie Plame in a 2003 column, has added to the speculation over what role Miller may have played in the leak of Plame's identity. The theory being peddled on the Huffington Post and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere has Miller not on the receiving end of information from an administration leaker about Plame's identity, but as the one disseminating information about Plame to administration officials. This is just a theory, of course, with no known evidence supporting it. But it's fair to say that many Times staffers want Miller's role in the Plame affair clarified, and some of her Times colleagues are downright angry about what is known, and unknown, about her involvement.

Some long overdue comments on my part: Whatever one thinks of Judith Miller's reporting on Iraq and WMD, it is patently unfair for so many bloggers, Times colleagues (who while condeming her, BTW, who never speak for the record), and others to conclude without any evidence whatsoever that she was "not on the receiving end of information from an administration leaker", but rather "the one disseminating information about Plame to administration officials."

And if "some of her Times colleagues are downright angry about what is known, and unknown, about her involvement," as Strupp reports, it is hardly her fault. She has an obligation to protect a confidential source– one that she is keeping– and which quite likely is the only reason that we do not know as much as we would like to otherwise. But simply the fact that there are "unanswered questions" should not be cause to condemn a woman who is now spending her 44th night in jail.

It is obviously quite possible that as journalists and Bush administration officials spoke to one another in the days just prior to Robert Novak's now infamous column outing Valerie Plame that there was a "circular" flow of information, whereby information and rumors about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson flowed both ways.

But it is has also been virtually a universal talking point of both those under investigation and the RNC that nobody in the White House could have been guilty of leaking any classified information regarding Valerie Plame because the leakers, quite possibly-- if not likely– originally learned about Plame's work for the CIA from journalists in the first place.

Those on the left who despise Miller because of her WMD reporting, and want to think the very worst of her are playing right into the hands of those who actually leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, and are now covering up how that occurred.

But whatever we ultimately find happened here (and it is unclear that we ever will, despite the dogged efforts of Patrick Fitzgerald) somebody, somewhere in the U.S. government or the Bush administration had to have been the original source of information that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The information had to originally have come from somewhere!

The baby Jesus may have been born of immaculate conception. The information leaked to Robert Novak and Matthew Cooper and others that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA had a more earthly origin.

Exclusive: House Democrats ask Justice Inspector General to investigate Ashcroft role in Plame probe

The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers, of Michigan, and Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Democrat of New York, will tomorrow formally request that the Inspector General of the Justice Department, Glenn A. Fine, investigate whether then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft "violated explicit rules on conflicts of interest when he failed to recuse himself from, and in fact was briefed on, the CIA name leak investigation despite his personal connection to Karl Rove, a person of interest to investigators."

The letter to the Justice Department's Inspector General quotes new information from this story which I wrote, and that was posted yesterday on the Village Voice, disclosing new information regarding Ashcroft's role in overseeing the Plame probe, before it was taken over by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The article disclosed that Ashcroft continued to oversee a probe into the Plame matter even after learning that Karl Rove, who had been a consultant to various Ashcroft political campaigns, was a focus of investigators.

Below is a long excerpt from the letter, which will be made public tomorrow:

[W]e write to request that your Office immediately investigate whether then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft violated explicit rules on conflicts of interest when he failed to recuse himself from, and in fact was briefed on, the CIA name leak investigation despite his personal connection to Karl Rove, a person of interest to investigators. This investigation would not conflict with the investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald into the actual leak; instead, it would focus on Mr. Ashcroft's failure to recuse himself at the appropriate time in the case. Furthermore, the investigation into the recusal delay would be a logical extension of the request that you also investigate the Department's failure to comply with proper procedures by not ensuring the preservation of document and other evidence connected with the leak.

Early in the Department's investigation of who had leaked a covert CIA operative's identity to the media, it became clear that Karl Rove, a senior advisor to the President, was receiving public attention as someone who may have been involved in the crime. We have now learned that, according to law enforcement officials close to the investigation, Mr. Rove failed to disclose to the FBI that he had ever spoken with Time's Matthew Cooper, a reporter involved in the case. These officials also have indicated that then-Attorney General Ashcroft was personally and privately briefed on the Rove interview.

These new disclosures are troubling because, at the time of these events, Mr. Ashcroft had known personal and political connections to Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove was an adviser to Mr. Ashcroft during the latter's political campaigns, earning almost $750,000 for his services. Mr. Rove also had urged the President to nominate Mr. Ashcroft to be Attorney General after Mr. Ashcroft lost his Senate re-election campaign to the deceased Mel Carnahan. The fact that Mr. Ashcroft eventually recused himself demonstrates that there in fact were conflicts of interest with his continued involvement in the investigation. The fact that he did not recuse himself early on and was briefed on the matter may well have violated ethical rules and guidelines.

Existing law and rules of professional conduct govern when Department attorneys must recuse themselves from particular investigations. Federal law requires the Attorney General to promulgate rules mandating the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Justice Department "from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof." Pursuant to this requirement, the Department has promulgated regulations stating that:

no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1) any person . . . substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) any person . . . which he knows or has a specific and substantial interest that would be affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

In this case, Mr. Ashcroft would have been prohibited from involvement in the leak investigation under both provisions. His relationships with the President and Mr. Rove consists of both personal and political connections with individuals who might have been the investigation's subjects. At a minimum, his friend, Mr. Rove, had a "specific and substantial interest that would be affected by the outcome" in that his entire political legacy would be tarnished if he were implicated in the leak.

To reiterate the importance of preventing conflicts of interest, the Justice Department has further explicated the guidelines in its U.S. Attorneys' Manual. The Attorneys' Manual provides that:

When United States Attorneys, or their offices, become aware of an issue that could require a recusal in a criminal or civil matter or case as a result of a personal interest or professional relationship with parties involved in the matter, they must contact General Counsel's Office... The requirement of recusal does not arise in every instance, but only where a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality.

In the leak investigation, Mr. Ashcroft clearly had a professional relationship with a party involved the matter. His failure to have recused himself earlier may have been an instance of "too little, too late," as the conflict may have impeded the investigation.

Furthermore, rules of professional conduct bar lawyers such as Mr. Ashcroft from matters in which they have conflicts of interest. Because Department attorneys must follow the ethical rules of the bar in which they practice, as an official at Main Justice he would have been obligated to comply with the District of Columbia Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct. These Rules state that, without consent, a lawyer shall not represent a client if "the lawyer's professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer's responsibilities to or interests in a third party or the lawyer's own financial, business, property, or personal interests." In the instant situation, Mr. Ashcroft clearly had a personal connection to Mr. Rove that would have interfered with proper oversight of the case.

We look forward to hearing whether you will open such an investigation and, if not, the reason for your decision.