Passing Odd: How could Bolton NOT be interviewed on Plame case????

[skip fox]

He was the neo-cons' plant in State Depertment. His title was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Securtiy. The informantion, as we heard last week, focused for a time on the 2003 State Department memo with the Plame-Wilson-Niger information given by Armitage to Powell on his Africa trip. That information was in the hands of administration officials within two days.

Now there are MANY ways they could have gotten the material, but doesn't it seem wildly out of characer for prosecutor Fitzgerald NOT TO CALL Bolton in front of the grand jury? OR AT LEAST TO HAVE HIM INTERVIEWED BY FBI?

Something seems "passing strange," as they say.

[babylonsister]

1. I agree; passing odd indeed. But no

one's disputed his assertion and Fitzgerald isn't talking, so???:shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

2. "Diplomatic immunity"? Bolton was interviews by State's Inspector General

on July 18, 2003, according to Senator Joe Biden's letter to Condi Rice below.

July 28, 2005

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State Washington, DC
20520

Dear Madam Secretary:

It has just come to my attention that then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General in connection with a joint State Department/CIA IG investigation related to the alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger. This information would appear to be inconsistent with information that Mr. Bolton provided to the Committee on Foreign Relations during the Committee's consideration of his pending nomination to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

The Committee on Foreign Relations expects all nominees to provide to it accurate and timely information. Indeed, in submitting the Committee's questionnaire, all nominees are required to swear out an affidavit stating that the information provided is "true and accurate." It now appears that Mr. Bolton's answers may not meet that standard. I write, therefore, to request that you review this matter to determine whether incomplete or inaccurate information was provided by Mr. Bolton.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Ranking Minority Member

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000824.html

[skip fox]

3. Right, and Fitzgerald has information about this interview, perhaps,

and is taking it as a legal deposition? Then he could be found guilty of perjury?

But he surely had to be aware of Bolton as a possible primary source. I can't figure it unless State is lying.

[flpoljunkie]

5. I would be very surprised if Fitzgerald did not have this Bolton interview

He strikes me as a very thorough fellow.

[skip fox]

4. The question remains.

Don't let them obscure the issue.

Fitzgerald HAS to be on to Bolton. No way around it.

[hang a left]

6. The reason is skip.....

Is because he is a TARGET of the investigation. I just figured it out. That is the reason he hasn't been called. It is my understanding that he must be notified that he is a target. In the letter to Condoleeza that question should have specifically asked. "Has Mr. Bolton been notified that HE IS A TARGET of Fitzgerald's investigation.

[Beetwasher]

8. Possible, But Even A Target I Would Think He Would Still Be Questioned

At least, if not called to testify. Now, he may refuse to testify, but that's another story and I would think he would have to reveal this to the Senate as well.

[hang a left]

10. What do they need to ask him?

How could he be a witness. He is a TARGET. It makes perfect sense. As a defendent he has the right to refuse to take the stand. There will be plenty of time for that. That is it Beetwasher. I am not saying he is the only target. But I betcha a 10$ donation to DU that is it.

[Beetwasher]

11. I Understand What You're Saying

But in criminal investigations you still need to at least interview the target and get their statments on the record. He doesn't have to answer, but any investigator would still interview and question a target.

If he's a target, and I don't doubt that, that's also something the Senate, I would think, would need to be notified of on the Qxnairre.

[hang a left]

13. Well if you noticed the statement that was released by the State

Department yesterday. In summary he says that Bolton inaccurately filled out his Senate questionaire. Bolton had a memory problem and couldn't recall being questioned by the State Dept. IG and the CIA about Niger uranium back in July 2003. But that Bolton had NOT testified before the GJ.

They asked the wrong questions. And I believe they KNOW the answers.

IMO These are the two questions that should have been asked.

1. Has Mr. Bolton retained outside Counsel in the matter of the State Department IG and the CIA's joint inquiry into the Niger uranium claim?

2. Has Mr. Bolton been notified by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's office that he is a target of the probe.

[skip fox]

14. Good ones! How 'bout another:

Has Mr. Bolton ever been interviewed by the FBI about the Plame leaks or anything to do with the case investigated by Prosecutor Fitzgerald?

[hang a left]

17. The bastards lie like a rug!

He is already busted in one lie. It all is becoming increasingly clear. That is why so much time was spent on his non-confirmation. And why everyone backed off at the end. The Senate knows. Why do you think all of a sudden Biden puts Rice on the spot the same day the WH releases a statement that Bolton will be recessed. They were trying to skirt him away to the UN with diplomatic immunity. Perjury, conspiracy,and obstruction are nothing compared to what he is going to be indicted for.

Also remember Fitzgerald has already made the comment that he knows who Miller's source is. He already has the goods on him. I have been so worried that Fitzgerald would need Miller's testimony to hand down indictments. I feel better already.

[skip fox]

9. Yes. A strrong possibility.

:toast:

[Beetwasher]

7. Not Strange, I Bet They're Lying and He Was At Least Interviewed

If not called to testify...Just a gut feeling...

So that would make two investigations he's involved in that he didn't put on the Qxnairre for the Senate.

Bolton may very well be a prime target or subject of the investigation, but I would still think even as such he would be questioned and asked to testify...No I think he could refuse to testify, but I still would think this would be something he would have to reveal to the Senate.

[KoKo]

15. He maybe was interviewed by Fitz...but he and Condi are "parsing" the

language in careful legal terms so that Chimp can appoint him at "Recess" and no one will be able to do a damned thing about it. Remember the reports are that Bushies are going after Fitz in a big way. They may be confident they can either shut Fitz down or impede his final report in a way that folks will forget about Bolton. Meanwhile Bolton is in...Fitz gets out...and Bush wins again.

It seems to be the way they work. I've always thought Fitz discovered that Bolton was Miller's stovepipe. Bolton and Chalabi were in the PNAC's pocket. But, Chimp/Rove/Cheney are thinking they can parse the language over whether Bolton was "interviewed, testified ...or whatever" and figure there's a legal loophole they can squeak through while they work on discrediting Fitz and maybe even removing him.

I would like to hope for the best...but it seems it always turns out the worst with these thugs. They are so criminal they can twist everything to their advantage. They wont beat us here on the "internets" but with the MSM in their pockets they figure they can win the game. :-(

[skip fox]

16. Then he needs asked the question better. "Have you been

interviewed by any US officials as to the matters under investigation by prosecutor Fitzgerald."

Or somesuch.

I posed my questions to Bloggerman.

[KoKo]

18. The more minds into this the better....because we are

up against terrible foe's with terrible power. No matter what we do it seems they have "anticipated it" and can thwart us.

We need to be scouring the nooks and crannies of law..but also be aware that they KNOW we will do this...and they will go for the "simple" while we are working hard on the "hard or undiscoverable."

It's a hard call...but my own opinion is that we have to throw at them EVER legal argument we can and try to beat them back or win in ways that only "creative legal talent" can do.

Just as the Repugs found a way to bring Paula Jones forward and make her case go to the Supremes so that a "Sitting President can be tried in Civil Court for crimes BEFORE his Presidency" (in Clinton's case..Sexual Crimes against America's Morality views) ..WE DEMS need to set PRECIDENT and find a way that those who were "appointed" by a sitting President can be held ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES...and that in "certain instances of NATIONAL SECURITY the Supremes MUST UPHOLd that the Joseph Wilson and his NOC wife Valerie Plame were serving in the National Interest and that their was a CRIME OF GREAT GREVIENCE committed against them.

That's all I'm trying to say here. I think that the "Wilsons" could go at this and set a new precidence for law and drive it up to the SUPREMES. :shrug:

[AirAmFan]

19. For a link to a very thought-provoking Plame affair timeline, put together

by a former senior NSC staffer, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4214093&mesg_id=4218398 .

[skip fox]

12. My letter to Tom Oliphant:

Tom,

You wrote about my work with Jack Gillis in 1998 on the Lewinsky "talking points" given to Tripp &c. I have never bothered you since (though have followed you and admired your work), but I'd like to pose a question which might be valuable to you.

Why was Bolton never called before Fitzgerald's grand jury? Why has he never even been interviewed by the FBI on the Plame leak? I don't have the answer, but the question is very "ripe."

We know Bolton was one of the officials administrative neo-cons forced upon the State Department in May 2001 (to watch Powell and report back) as the the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International and deal on WMD issues (therefore would have know about Plame or could easily have gotten the information after Wilson's article).

We know that a secret State Department memo given to Powell by Armitage just before his trip to Africa in 2003 contained the information (marked secret) to the effect that Wilson's wife (Plame) was instrumental in his visit to Niger.

We know that a number of "high ranking administration officials" knew this information within a day and leaked it (within 3 days) to the press to discredit Wilson and his criticism of the administration with respect to Saddam's desires for WMDs.

Yesterday the State Department tells us that Bolton never testified in front of Fitzgerald's grand jury or gave any testimony beyond answering the State Department chief inspector's questions about Niger and yellow cake (and perhaps Plame).

Fitzgerald called Rove three times. Yet he never called Bolton? And we are lead to believe the FBI hasn't even interviewed Bolton on this issue?

The issue is "passing strange," as they say.

Is something up?