Fitzgerald Court Papers: Bush Was Briefed on Joe Wilson

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-waas/fitzgerald-court-papers-_b_15078.html

<snip>

The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, has indicated in correspondence unsealed in federal court in recent days that President Bush might have been briefed regarding former ambassador Joseph Wilson's February 2002 CIA-sponsored mission to Niger during a regular morning intelligence briefing.

The information provided to Bush occurred in the form of one of the "President's Daily Briefs," a typically 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing.

They are a compilation of that day's most closely held and highly classified intelligence -- and written specifically for the "First Customer," meaning the President of the United States. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services.

The information about Bush having been briefed about Wilson's mission to Niger is contained in court papers filed in federal court. Attorneys for I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, President Bush's former chief of staff and national security advisors were seeking information about PDBs from the special prosecutor, as part of a discovery effort to defend their client.

<snip>

[Greeby]

1. A "historical document"?

Come on, Fitz, this proves nothing. We know Bush doesn't read those

[Virginia Dare]

2. Drip Drip Drip....PLOP! EOM

[rodeodance]

3. "Bush might have been briefed"--seems like scepulation at this point.

[rodeodance]

4. I just do not understand why it says 'might have been"--the says 'was"

The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, has indicated in correspondence unsealed in federal court in recent days that President Bush might have been briefed regarding former ambassador Joseph Wilson's February 2002 CIA-sponsored mission to Niger during a regular morning intelligence briefing.

The information provided to Bush occurred in the form of one of the "President's Daily Briefs," a typically 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing.
They are a compilation of that day's most closely held and highly classified intelligence -- and written specifically for the "First Customer," meaning the President of the United States. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services.

The information about Bush having been briefed about Wilson's mission to Niger is contained in court papers filed in federal court. Attorneys for I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, President Bush's former chief of staff and national security advisors were seeking information about PDBs from the special prosecutor, as part of a discovery effort to defend their client.

[orleans]

5. so....even tho the liar says he doesn't do email (cause he doesn't

want anyone reading any of his personal "stuff"), his emails were deleted too--not just cheney's. so who was he emailing about plame? (gotta wipe off all those plame emails but especially the ones about jeff gannon!!! "jeffy-jeff-a-roonie, tomorrow at ten is no good--laura and i have a prayer breakfast i have to go to. stop by the house around six in the evening--she'll be taking her nap then")

[mrcheerful]

6. Didn't they forget about one small little item?

The hard drive still has those things on it if my PC knowledge is right, after all don't the police and FBI take peoples hard drives and find useful information on them no matter how much was deleted or scrubbed? I'm not all that smart about PC's, but I do know that theres been a lot of cases where the feds got information off a suspects hard drive that was used in their conviction.

[orleans]

8. yes indeed, and you've got to see this thread talking about

that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2437261

[McKenzie]

10. Hard drives CAN be scrubbed

The normal "secure delete" is seven passes which renders it very difficult to recover deleted data. The "Guttman" method employs 29 passes and that makes it well-nigh impossible to get the data back. Sure, bits of files can sometimes be be pulled up thereafter but only by using very expensive, and very rare, technology. If the data is REALLY important the magnetic layers of the drive are scanned by electron microscope but even then the data might be so over-written nothing of value can be recovered. And that is exceedingly expensive. Even forensic utilities such as ENCASE can't get hold of data deleted in this way.

Even in normal use deleted files get over-written which makes it difficult to pull them back. Deleting a file means that the OS simply marks the file as unoccupied space that is then available for new data to be written to that space on the HDD. The longer the time period after deletion the more disk activity there is likely to be. Consequently, the possibility of recovering deleted files decreases accordingly with PC use.

There are clues though. Sometimes it is possible to tell when a deleted file was created and when it was deleted even if only a fragment can be recovered. Forensic analysts can sometimes use that sort of information to build circumstantial evidence. But, to all intents and purposes, a HDD CAN be "scrubbed" as we say.

On a network there are other sources of information, of course, such as the e-mail server(s). Depending on how they are configured back-ups are sometimes made of e-mails for business continuity reasons. Now that is an interesting possibility...do they employ a back-up system?

Another way is to examine the "swap file" assuming Windows is the OS. When a PC runs out of RAM it utilises the HDD to shift data around. The swap file contains a record of what has been done on a PC and it cannot be scrubbed unless one has a proggie that will scrub the swap file when it is temporarily "unlocked". So even if the HDD has been over-written it's sometimes possible to get data off the swap file. I run 2 Gb of RAM and turn my swap file off...

[renate]

7. sorry if this is a dumb question

I don't understand the significance of this. I don't want to get my hopes up thinking that this is evidence that the outing was necessarily on *'s orders.

Was he asked about this when he and Cheney testified together? 'Cause that would be exciting. I remember reading that even if he wasn't under oath, lying to a special prosecutor is very legally uncool, as in indictable.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. We know he lied to the press about it

so he probably lied to Fitzgerald about it too.

Both he and Cheney claimed that they had never been briefed about Wilson's trip, that's why this could be important.

[Doctor_J]

9. He doesn't read PDB's

If he did, he might have done something between 08/06/01 and 09/11/01 to save 3000 American lives.