Luke_Wilbur

November 2, 2005 White House Press Briefing by Scott McClellan ********************************************** Q Scott, a question about the leak case: The President has made various statements about he would handle anyone who was involved in this, so what standard is the President using for whether he would dismiss any member of his staff for involvement in this affair? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that question has already come up, and I think, again, that I would go back to what I said yesterday. The expectations of everybody here in the White House are well known. We all understand what the expectations are of each of us as individuals. We are all part of a team to help the President advance his agenda and to focus on the American people's business. We also have an expectation on behalf of the President and the American people to adhere to the highest ethical standards. Q And everyone who is currently working here has done that in this affair, is that the President's position? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the nature of the investigation is that is it ongoing, and there is a legal proceeding that is ongoing as part of that investigation. And as part of that ongoing legal proceeding, we're just not having any further comment on it from this podium. Q Everyone who is working at the White House currently, in the President's mind, has acted appropriately in this matter. Is that -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're asking about this matter. This matter is ongoing. Q Wait, wait, wait a second. Right, it's ongoing, but that's not the point. The legal aspect of this is now outside the White House, as you've made abundantly clear. MR. McCLELLAN: The legal proceeding, but there's also an -- there's also an investigation that the special counsel indicated was continuing. So it's two parts. There's an investigation he said that continues, and there's also a legal proceeding that is moving forward on one individual. And under our system of the law, people are presumed innocent unless otherwise proven. Q But whether or not it was a crime, does the President feel that Karl Rove acted appropriately in this matter, given what he knows about his involvement? MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're asking that context -- asking that question in the context of an ongoing investigation and an ongoing legal proceeding. And as I indicated to you all on Friday, our Counsel's Office has directed us not to discuss any issues related to that, whether they're factual circumstances or legal issues relating to the investigation. That's the policy that's been in place for some time, and that's the policy that we're following.

I bet that would be fun to go to. I am going to ask my wife if she is interested.

Thanks Human, I will include the link on DCpages.com Directory as well. On Tuesday, President Bush announced an aggressive $7.1 billion national strategy to safeguard against the danger of pandemic influenza. The request included $6.7 billion in additional 2006 appropriations for HHS. Approximately $4.7 billion would go toward investments in creating vaccine production capacity and stockpiles, $1.4 billion to stockpile antiviral drugs, and $555 for surveillance, public health infrastructure, and communications, including $100 million for state and local preparedness.

To clear the record... any District resident can obtain a declaration of candidacy for a open position before the primary. A candidate like Sam Brooks who lives in Ward 2 may run for an open position in Ward 3. If Sam Brooks gets nominated by his party, then he would be required to move to Ward 3 prior to the the election. The only way Sam Brooks is breaking any law is if he was not living in the District during the time he last ran for a council position.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate calling for a secret session of the Senate. Remarks as prepared: ######################################## “This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. “This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant. “The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. “The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. “As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies. “And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues. “Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. “The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq. “There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. “The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. “Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false. “The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.” “The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims. “What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No. “Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration. “Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why. “There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. “For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent. “Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq. “This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made. “The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better. “They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include: How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore? How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people? What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions? Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements? “Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing. “At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration. “We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.”

Senior White House official I. Lewis Libby was indicted today on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency. Libby was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in a five-count indictment returned today by a federal grand jury and its term expired, announced Justice Department Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The defendant, also known as "Scooter" Libby, has served since January 20, 2001, as Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. Libby, 55, will be arraigned at a later date in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The charges allege that Libby lied to FBI agents who interviewed him on October 14 and November 26, 2003; committed perjury while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004; and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury’s investigation into the unauthorized disclosure – or “leaking” – of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003. Beginning in late May 2003, Libby allegedly began acquiring information about a 2002 trip to the African country of Niger by Joseph Wilson, a former United States Ambassador and career State Department official, to investigate allegations concerning efforts by the former government of Iraq to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. The CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to Niger after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return. Subsequently, Libby allegedly lied about information he discussed about the CIA employment of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, in conversations Libbyhad in June and July2003 with threenews reporters – Tim Russert of NBC News, Matt Cooper of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states. “When citizens testify before grand juries theyarerequired to tell the truth,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. “Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson,” he added. Mr. Fitzgerald announced the charges with John C. Eckenrode, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and the lead agent in the investigation. The Washington Field Office and the Inspection Division of the FBI assisted in the investigation. The indictment alleges that Libby had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community and other government officials regarding sensitive national security matters. With his responsibilities for national security matters, Libby held security clearances giving him access to classified information. Libby was obligated by federal criminal statute, regulations, executive orders, and a written non-disclosure agreement not to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons, and to properly safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. According to the indictment, on September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. In January 2004, the grand jury investigation began examining possible violations of criminal laws prohibiting disclosing the identity of covert intelligence personnel (The Intelligence Identities Protection Act), improperly disclosing national defense information, making false statements to government agents, and perjury. A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson’s employment by the CIA was classified information. The over-arching obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA. The obstruction count alleges that Libby made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements: When Libby spoke with Tim Russert of NBC on or about July 10, 2003, Russert asked Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and told Libby that all the reporters knew it; and Libby was surprised to hear that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA; when, in fact, Libby knew Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Russert tell Libby that all the reporters knew it. And, at the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and Libby had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic. Libby advised Matt Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true; when, in fact, Libby did not advise Cooper during that conversation that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true. Rather, Libby confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Libby advised Judith Miller of The New York Times on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but Libby did not know whether that assertion was true; when, in fact, Libby did not advise Miller during that conversation that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise her that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true. Among the events leading up to these conversations, on January 28, 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union address which included sixteen words asserting that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” On May 6, 2003, The New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the “sixteen words” in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President’s office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents. According to the indictment, beginning in late May and throughout June, Libby participated in multiple conversations concerning Valerie Wilson’s employment by the CIA, including on the following occasions: • on or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, Libby asked an Undersecretary of State for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger. The Undersecretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Undersecretary provided Libby with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised Libby that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip; • on or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of Libby and another person in the Vice President’s office. The documents, which bore classification markings, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, Libby and one or more other persons in the Vice President’s office handwrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents; • on or about June 11 or 12, 2003, Libby was orally advised by the Undersecretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the organization of his trip; • on or about June 11, 2003, Libby was informed by a senior officer of the CIA that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip; • prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President about a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. Libby participated in discussions in the Vice President’s office concerning how to respond to Pincus; • on or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA; • on or about June 14, 2003, Libby met with a CIA briefer and expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger; • shortly after publication on or about June 19, 2003, of an article in The New Republic magazine online entitled “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War,” Libbyspoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line; and • on or about June 23, 2003, Libby met with Judith Miller of The New York Times. Libby was critical of the CIA and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, Libby informed Miller Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA. On July 6, 2003, The New York Times published an opinion article by Joseph Wilson entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” On the same day, the Washington Post published an article about Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger, which was based partially on an interview of Wilson, and he was a guest on the television program “Meet the Press.” In the article he wrote, as well as in the print and broadcast interviews of him, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq has sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson said that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Vice President’s office was advised of the results of his trip. Following Wilson’s July 6, 2003 statements, according to the indictment, Libby engaged in the following actions: • on or about July 7, 2003, Libby had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised that individual that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, noting that such information was not widely known; • on or about the morning of July 8, 2003, Libby met with Miller of The New York Times. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, Libby asked that the information he provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” ratherthan to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding regarding other information that Libby provided to Miller during this meeting. Libby then discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, Libby advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA; • also on or about July 8, 2003, Libby met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s office. During their brief conversation, Libby asked the individual what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip; • no earlier than June 2003 but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and advised Libby of this information; • on or about July 10, 2003, Libby spoke to NBC’s Russert to complain about press coverage of Libby by an MSNBC reporter. Libby did not discuss Wilson’s wife with Russert; • on or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, Libby spoke to a senior White House official (“Official A”)who advised Libbyof a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife; • on or about July 12, 2003, Libby flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Va., on Air Force Two. On his return trip, Libby discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time’s Cooper; • on or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. Libby confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too; and • on or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone with Miller and discussed Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA. The false statement charge in Count Two of the indictment alleges that Libby lied to FBI agents on October 14 and November 26, 2003, regarding the conversation with Russert on July 10, 2003. Count Three charges Libby with making false statements to FBI agents during the same FBI interviews in October and November 2003 relating to his July 12, 2003 conversation with Cooper. The perjury charge in Count Four alleges that Libby lied while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5, 2004, about his conversation with Russert on July 10, 2003, because, in fact, Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Russert tell Libby that all the reporters knew it, and at the time of their conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Count Five charges Libby with perjury before the grand juryfor allegedlylying when he said that he told reporters that he was telling them what other reporters were saying – first, on March 5, 2004, about his conversation with Cooper on or about July 12, 2003, and second, on March 24, 2004, regarding conversations with reporters. In fact, Libby well knew that he did not advise Cooper or other reporters that he had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise Cooper or other reporters that he did not know whether this assertion was true. If convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties on each count: obstruction of justice – 10 years in prison, and making false statements and perjury –5 years in prison, and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000, making the maximum penalty for conviction on all counts 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine. Note, however, that the Court would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said it would take two weeks for the government to present its case against Libby, and the timing would depend on pre-trial motions by his attorneys.

ABC News just reported... Vice President Dick Cheney's chief advisor I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will be indicted today in the CIA leak investigation, sources close to the case told ABC News. Top White House strategist Karl Rove will evade charges for now. A source close to the White House told ABC News that Libby's "boxes are packed" and that he will resign from his post after the indictment. Papers containing information pertaining to the investigation will be made public this afternoon while Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor appointed to lead the investigation, will make remarks on the case at 2 p.m. ET. Rove, deputy White House chief of staff and Bush's closest adviser, appears to have escaped indictment, but Fitzgerald is expected to continue his investigation. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/CIALeak...tory?id=1259169

So you are stating that you are not the same Jonathan Rees as the one listed. You think the source which did not give me his/her name is working with Sam Brooks. And finally a clerk witnessed Sam Brooks trying to get information about this case. Do you remember the name of the clerk you spoke with?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFRIDAY OCTOBER 28, 2005 www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc PRESS CONTACTS: DOJ Public Affairs (202) 514-2007 TDD (202) 514-1888 *******MEDIA ADVISORY******* SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK J. FITZGERALD TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald will hold a press conference at 2:00 P.M. EDT today, Friday October 28, 2005, regarding the status of the Special Counsel's criminal investigations. WHO: Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald FBI Special Agent-in-Charge John C. Eckenrode WHAT: Release of public information and press conference WHERE: Department of Justice 7th Floor Conference Center 950 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 NOTE: 7th floor access to reporters at 11 A.M. EDT Cameras allowed access at noon EDT Cameras must pre-set by 1:00 P.M. EDT NO LIVE SHOTS INSIDE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNTIL 1:45 P.M. DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS NOTE: ALL MEDIA MUST PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED PHOTO ID (such as driver’s license) as well as VALID MEDIA CREDENTIALS. ONCE MEDIA ARE ESCORTED TO THE 7th FLOOR, THEY MUST REMAIN UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE. Press inquiries regarding logistics should be directed to the Department of Justice at (202) 514-2007.

Grossman and Ford, the final pieces to the puzzle As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, a memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, who was acting secretary at the time since both Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage were out of the country. Grossman asked to be brought up to date on why the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) opposed President Bush's allegation that Hussein had been seeking uranium from Niger in his January State of the Union speech. The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA. On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell. It was then that senior administration officials began their campaign to discredit Wilson to counter his criticisms of them. On July 7 the memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. On July 7 Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak. It is still publicly unknown who was Novak's first source, whom Novak described as "not a partisan gunslinger". Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. He now on vacation in Arkansas. Grossman has refused to answer questions about the letter, and it is not clear whether he talked about it at the White House meeting he was said to have attended, according to the former State official.

Welcome to DC Message Boards, Are you Panorama Productions?

I recieved this email from a source that wished to remain anonymous.

Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination In a statement, President Bush said he “reluctantly accepted” her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. Bush blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

This is a message I received from Dr. Jonathan Hall about Tamiflu ******************************************* Tamiflu is not a shot. The flu shot is an immunization that anyone can get (we all try and get it) that decreases your chance of getting the usual strains of flu. The Avian flu is not covered by the vaccination however. If a pandemic strikes and people are dying of influenza that has been confirmed to be the bird flu, then if you get the flu you start taking the Tamiflu (2 pills a day for 5 days) within 24 hours. This will lesson the severity of the avian flu and allow you to survive and develop immunity. Jon

Roddy, I can tell you that jtfrank, mshall77 are coming from different regional IP address. I can tell you that I have spoken to mshall77 and corresponded with jffrank by email. I have asked you several times to contact me. I would like to verify who you are as well.

Mr. Rees, Please contact me as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.

DCMessageBoards respects the rights of every poster on this forum. This is beginning to cross the lines of proper conduct for this forum. Further please refrain from person insults and stick to the topic issues posted.

Roddy, I was contacted by Eric Marshall and confirmed that he is who he states his is on these boards. Further, I have confirmed that he works where he stated he works.

Will this take down the Presidency? Newt Gingrich does not think so. Read his thoughts from a transcript excerpt from The World Today at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.

This topic was sent to me by a person who did not want his name or origin revealed. Due to other time constraints I posted this on the boards for the public to find out the facts to this story. ******************************************** Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but this man may be the main reason why United States troops are in Iraq. Prof Ledeen is also believed to be in regular contact with Karl Rove. "The two met after Bush's first election," the Washington Post reported, quoting Ledeen about Rove's request that "any time you have a good idea, tell me". "More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas, faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric," noted the newspaper. http://www.alternet.org/story/15860/ Michael Ledeen (born August 1, 1941) is an expert on U.S. foreign policy and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His political ideas, informed by his background in history and philosophy, have influenced or inspired the Bush administration. Ledeen is a contributing editor to the National Review and the Jewish World Review, and a resident scholar (Freedom Scholar) at the American Enterprise Institute. Ledeen was a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and he continues to serve on the JINSA Board of Advisors. Leeden is also considered by many to be a U.S. neoconservative. Ledeen was a major figure in the biggest foreign policy scandal of the Ronald Reagan administration. As a secret agent of National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, Ledeen vouched for Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, and along with Oliver North, met with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and officers of Mossad and the CIA to arrange the illegal weapons-for-hostages deal with Iran that would become known as the Iran-Contra scandal. He was a contract employee of the Office of Special Plans in Douglas Feith's "separate government" at the Pentagon, the "Lie Factory" where the talking points were put together to frighten the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq. His ties to SISMI, the Italian intelligence agency which gave the forged documents back to the US in 2002 go way back. In 2005, Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the CIA and the intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, when asked by Ian Masters if Ledeen was the source of the forged memo that claimed that Iraq had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger replied "you'd be very close."[2] In an interview on July 26, 2005, Cannistraro's business partner and columnist for the American Conservative magazine, former CIA counter terrorism officer Philip Giraldi, confirmed to Scott Horton that the forgeries were produced by "a couple of former CIA officers who are familiar with that part of the world who are associated with a certain well-known neoconservative who has close connections with Italy." When Horton guessed whether that was Ledeen, Giraldi confirmed it and added that the ex-CIA officers, "also had some equity interests, shall we say, with the operation. A lot of these people are in consulting positions, and they get various, shall we say, emoluments in overseas accounts, and that kind of thing."[3] He attended a series of meetings in Italy with Israeli spy Larry Franklin, Harold Rhode, who "practically lived out of Ahmad Chalabi's office," Ledeen's old Iran-Contra buddy, Manucher Ghorbanifar, and SISMI's director around the time that the information surfaced. Joshua Micah Marshall has written that all information about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger came from the forged documents, though the documents themselves weren't given to the US until October 2002, and that it's clear a SISMI asset at the Niger embassy in Rome was given the forgeries by SISMI people in the first place before she funneled them back to them and then us: The intelligence reports that came in to Washington in late 2001 were from Italian military intelligence, SISMI. The other detail is that those reports turned out to be text transcriptions of Niger forgeries that didn’t surface in Rome until almost a year later... From the very beginning, American suspicions about a Niger-Iraq trade in uranium were based on what turned out to be the forged documents. And the text transcriptions of those documents came in from Italian intelligence... Burba, the Italian journalist who eventually brought the forgeries to the U.S. Embassy in Rome, got them from an unnamed Italian “security consultant.” His name turns out to be Rocco Martino, a retired SISMI operative. And as I mentioned last week, last summer, my colleagues and I conducted a series of in-person interviews with him. It has sometimes been suggested in the Italian press that Martino himself is the forger. But he told us a different story — one that was corroborated by another participant in the handling of the documents. Martino told us that the documents came from a still-serving SISMI colonel, whom he named..." Former CIA agent Larry Johnson has strongly implied that Ledeen is the one. Another former CIA agent, former head of counter-terrorism under Reagan, Vincent Cannistraro, has answered the question of whether Ledeen was involved with, "You'd be very close." The Berlusconi weekly "Panorama" published an article by Elisabetta Burba in which she tells her version of how she got the Niger documents, realized they were false, and on advice from her editor-in-chief, turned copies over to the US Embassy in Rome in October 2002. She asserts that she received seventeen pages of documents and a Niger codebook from 1967 Attached are copies of the forged Nigerien documents published in Italy 27 July 2003. niger_docs.pdf

Freetospeak, You might be interested in reading Miller's Response to Byron Calame, the public editor for The New York Times.

RCN was formerly Star Power Communications. I spoke with RCN's Abuse department Barbe Henricks. Abuse@RCN.com Their corporate number is 609.734-3700

I am not sure it is Mr. Brooks. I cannot believe a person would commit political suicide. I think it is another person. I ran a trace on the IP and here is what I found. 11 ge-9-1.ipcolo1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.121.107) 19.546 ms ge-7-0.ipcolo1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.121.11) 19.389 ms ge-9-2.ipcolo1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.121.171) 19.413 ms 12 unknown.Level3.net (63.210.25.210) 20.070 ms 19.806 ms 19.940 ms 13 ge9-3-0.core3.lnh.md.rcn.net (207.172.19.65) 22.476 ms 21.137 ms 21.267 ms 14 ge5-1.aggr1.lnh.md.rcn.net (207.172.15.4) 21.931 ms 20.799 ms 20.970 ms 15 129-ubr1.lnh-129.md.cable.rcn.net (208.59.202.210) 24.120 ms 22.930 ms 22.679 ms The Spammer is using Residential Communications Network (RCN.NET) for the Internet Connnection. Administrative Contact : RCN abuse@RCN.COM 7921 WOODRUFF CT SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151-2108 US Phone: 703-321-8000 Fax: 703-321-8316 Technical Contact : RCN abuse@RCN.COM 105 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 US Phone: 800-746-4726 Fax: 999 999 9999 Record expires on 03-May-2011 Record created on 02-May-1995 Database last updated on 09-Dec-2004 Domain servers in listed order: Manage DNS AUTH1.DNS.RCN.NET 207.172.3.20 AUTH3.DNS.RCN.NET 207.172.3.21 AUTH4.DNS.RCN.NET 207.172.3.22 AUTH2.DNS.RCN.NET 207.172.11.14

All offensive posts have not been put on the SPAM forum of DCMessageBoards. The person impersonating Sam Brooks and other people IP location number is posted under the message. Go to this link. http://www.dcpages.com/forums/index.php?showforum=178

The person with the name Brooks2006 dialup-4.248.223.244.Dial1.Washington2.Level3.net (4.248.223.244) is located in Woburn, Massachusetts, United States.