Bolton's role in CIA leak is one of the largest questions!

[skip fox]

In the CIA leak case, people talk about Judith Miller's source and the fact that Novak didn't go to jail as major quandaries in the case, but I'd like to pose one just as vibrantly interesting as the others:

Why HASN'T John Bolton been interviewed by the FBI or gone before the grand jury? He would seem to be one of the primary suspects.

1.) he was loyal to the administration that forced him on Powell's State Department (to keep an eye on Powell and report back . . . that was the speculation at the time);

2.) as an undersecretary in charge of arms control and national security his charge overlapped that of Plame's in the CIA (he even gave an interview to State's inspector about the Saddam-Niger-yellow cake affair);

3.) the State Department created a memo which contained the secret ("S/NF") information about the Plame-Wilson-Niger connection in 2003 in response to Wilson's article;


When Rove is interviewed by the FBI twice and then testifies in front of the grand jury three times, when all others have been called, when even the president himself has been interview, what the heck is going on with Bolton? Something is way out of whack here, and it ain't the prosecutor.

Could Bolton be a target?

Could Bolton be cooperating? (That way he could truthfully say he has not testified since he only gave a deposition.)


We should start asking before Bush makes Bolton an interim appointee as American Ambassador to the United Nations. At least that's what I think.

You?

[McCamy Taylor]

1. Cant interview him until someone names him. This aint fishin'

[skip fox]

2. But they can and do. Many ways to be a suspect. Get named, or be

suspecious (have time, place, motive).

[peacetalksforall]

3. I believe he was interviewed. That is what is behind the letters Biden

sent to Rice. He told the Senators that he had not appeared before any law enforcement official in the last five years and he had. He lied. Rice lied in reply to the first letter to Biden, then fessed up in the second letter to Biden.

Someone can help with the correct terminology.

That is why the vileness of a recess appointment is way out of line - he won't turn over papers - the State Dept says no, they are not going to cooperate. His candidacy is the worst of anyone they could have selected. He has insulted the people he would be working with if he went there. He doesn't want the UN to exist.

His nomination should be withdrawn, but this regime doesn't give one sxxx about we citizens.

THEY WANT TO RULE! You are nothing. I am nothing.

They value us as a zero as shown by the theft of our vote - our most precious right under our constitution. However, they do like our tax dollars, especially those stolen for the operation of their secret sub-government agenda.

[skip fox]

4. He was interviewed by the top State Department investigator, NOT

by Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Plame case or by the FBI under Fitzgerald's direction.

[hang a left]

10. Here is what I think happened.....for what it's worth.

After Plame's name was leaked the CIA and the State Department launched an investigation. Subsequently Bolton was questioned, interrogated, or whatever on July 18, 2003. I think the word interview just doen't fit in here. Remember now this investigation went on until sometime in the beginning of September 2003. That is when the CIA sent it's report and the criminal referral to the Department of Justice.

See letter from Biden to Rice:

*************************************************


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

***********************************************************

I think that as a result of the "interview" Bolton got himself busted. He also lied to the investigators. Then in the following 2 months their investigation turned up alot of the evidence. So from the beginning of Fitzgerald's investigation he was a target. Not the only one, but one of them.

So that's my buck fifty.

[tsuki]

5. Remember when Voinovich said if he knew what he now knows, he

would have never passed him out of committee? He was almost crying. So, what does Voinovich know?

[meg]

6. Why hasn't Bolton been interviewed?

First off, we don't know for sure whether he was or wasn't interviewed.

Secondly, Bolton may have the lack of ethics to leak a CIA agents name and he is part of the Neocon cabal and a likely WHIG cohort, BUT just being in the State Department and carrying a Neocon card doesn't necessarily give him the opportunity to get Plame's name and leak it. I admit that his job at State makes him more likely to be familiar with Plame's work if not familiar with Plame. Although, if he knew Plame, there is no guarantee that he knew she was married to Wilson.

We don't know what Fitzerald knows. Maybe there is a more straight forward case for a different leaker.

I'm placing my bet on Condi Rice over Bolton. As the NSA chief she is in a better position to get personnel data on a WMD operative. She is placed on AF1 with the memo. She is placed on AF1 with a top secret briefing book with material for her to use on the Sunday talk shows against Wilson. Could she be considered to be the 'not a partisan gunslinger?' Actually, I can't imagine ANY SINGLE Bushie who isn't a partisan gunslinger, including Condi.

[skip fox]

7. We know he claims he wasn't interviewed in the forms

he filled out and filed for Senate Confirmation.

[meg]

8. We now know he lied

at least about the Niger state dept investigation. Do we know that he didn't lie about a Fitzgerald probe interview? If we do know for a fact that he was not interviewed for the Fitzgerald probe, can we infer that there have been no pointers to Bolton for leaking, lying or conspiring?

[skip fox]

9. I agree. In fact I think there are pointers all over (without

having the knoledge of Fitzgerald . . . who is extradorinarily thorough).

[meg]

12. Roger Morris fingers Rice, too

She alone among senior officials was knowing and complicitous at every successive stage of the great half-baked yellow cake fraud. She alone was the White House peer-and in national security matters the superior-to Rove and Libby, who never could have acted without her collusion in peddling Plame's identity. She as much as anyone had a stake in smearing Wilson by any and all means at hand. If Rove and Libby are to be held criminally or at least politically accountable for a breach of national security, our "mushroom cloud" secretary of state should certainly be in the dock with them.

link

[hang a left]

11. In answer to one of your questions in your original post

IMO IF Bolton was cooperating he would have testified. He would have to be on the record.

[meg]

13. Pelosi hints Bolton is the Plame leaker

in her press release on the Bolton recess appointment.

There are serious unanswered questions about whether Mr. Bolton improperly used sensitive intelligence information for political purposes, which contributed to the lack of support he had in the Senate.

link