Interesting point that no one has yet raised: this prosecutor seems to be doing just fine even without the 'special prosecutor' status that went out when that law expired. Wouldn't it be something if the D.C. federal bureaucracy bit this president in the ass?
Posted by Driveby at July 27, 2005 01:39 AMIf I had any doubts about Fitzgerald, they have dissipated. Why did they select Fitzgerald? It is difficult to understand his selection knowing how careful this WH has been in placing people of like mind in key positions. The Fitzgerald selection may be their undoing. Be safe Fitz.
Posted by Judith at July 27, 2005 04:24 AMI prefer to call it seeking "Justice and the Truth" rather than "revenge".
Posted by emal at July 27, 2005 05:32 AMWouldn't it be something if the D.C. federal bureaucracy bit this president in the ass?
Fitzgerald works in Chicago.
Check this out from the article:
In doing so, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, an assertion that was later disputed.
Just a couple of days ago, the White House was leaking the defense that they weren't looking for ways to smear Wilson, they were editing Tenet's explanation of the 16 words. But if the above paragraph is correct, that's part of the investigation.
These guys must be having trouble sleeping.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 27, 2005 05:34 AMHip, hip, hooray! Hang the traitor and impeach the chimp!
Posted by Oaklandq at July 27, 2005 05:38 AMThere is chaos on earth and his pulse is normal.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 27, 2005 06:46 AMBushco is about to find out the golden rule in Washington...."Don't f*ck over the spooks".
JFK learned this lesson the hard way in Dallas.
The CIA fights dirty because thats what they do best. They know where the bodies are buried. There is nvery little party loyalty within the CIA. They stick together, loyal only to their fellow agents. Rove's ruthlessness pales in comparison.
Shrub's daddy should have told him this.
The neocons need to watch their backs....
I never understood why the CIA didn't take Bush/Cheney out in the 2004 elections. If the CIA isn't competent enough to throw an election at home, what good are they? What kind of team only wins away games?
Granted, Tenet didn't want to overthrow the thugs; he only reluctantly referred the case to DOJ after much hounding. He is perfectly content with his Medal of Freedom; no accountability is necessary by him.
Did the spooks think if they did kick Top Gun out of office before the investigation was over that it would go no where & no one would ever be indicted? Out of sight; out of mind?
Or, did they think it would be more dramatic & fun to take down the admin while Bush was still sitting on his throne?
Or, is it that they simply couldn't get everything done in time to whack Bush before the election?
Or, they were pissed; they settled down, but the latest round of Wilson/CIA bashing renewed their anger?
Or, Porter Goss is in over his head & can't control anyone or anything at the CIA? Especially as he is constantly in turf wars with Negroponte & Chertoff (not to mention vying with them for the opportunity to kiss Bushes' ass.)
I was stunned that Harlow was able to give an interview & set out what he said to Novak & subsequently recounted to the GJ. Imagine if he had been at liberty to talk publicly 2 years ago when Novak was lying his ass off on CNN 24/7?
Even the Post is telling some truth, which is certainly uplifting...all the criminals must go. This is a great blog, I will post on Prissy.
Please read the "Coingate" article, bottom right on previous posts and pass it on. MSM here in OH will not touch it-I sent it to them weeks ago.
http://prissypatriot.blogspot.com
Jeb Bush...Shocking 'Coin Gate' Crimes and Murder Published on 02 July 2005 Florida Investigator Who Got Too Close to Florida "Coin Gate" Silenced by Jeb Bush's Gangsters-money laundering believed to happen from OH to FL during the 2004 Elections.
NOTE:
"Coingate" leader Tom Noe, will NOT BE prosecuted if the City Atty fails to file charges by July 31...and Bush Bros get away again.
This is from a professional Criminal Justice practitioners journal.
Hoosiercat:
Good to see your name again around these parts.
Yeah, one of the most notable things to me about this story is that Harlow got out there on the record without being stopped. And Goss definitely has his hands full with those above him, so I expect more to be coming out below him.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 27, 2005 08:56 AMwhat about sen robert's move to investigate plame situation but also Fitzgeral and his investigation. Is this being dictated from above by bush co. to discredit the investigation?
also, 'prissy patriot', how do find that article about ohio's coingate stuff? (am ex-ohioan)
Posted by dr rw at July 27, 2005 09:22 AMIn response to Hoosiercat's question:
I never understood why the CIA didn't take Bush/Cheney out in the 2004 elections. If the CIA isn't competent enough to throw an election at home, what good are they? What kind of team only wins away games?
The Company is something like an old description of the Soviet Union -- a midget that is very weak, except for a super strong right arm.
The Agency is legally constrained from interfering in domestic political affairs (the JFK unpleasantness was an Allen Dulles / Operation 40 action, and not official policy -- although Richard Helms and Langley were deeply involved in the coverup) and it's influence is limited by what it can leak to Walter Pincus, and what Pincus' editors are willing to publish.
Shorter answer -- the Agency may have wanted influence the election, but their ability to do so was constrained by the law and the pro-Bush Media.
One more thing -- both Porter Goss and GHWB were part of the Miami station Operation 40 team.
Perhaps BushCo has used the threat of JFK dirt to blackmail the Agency into impotence on the domestic front?
Posted by ck at July 27, 2005 09:41 AM“In doing so, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, an assertion that was later disputed.”
Disputed by whom? Not by the British and not by the CIA. I accede that we didn’t find WMDs in Iraq but that doesn’t make the assertion or the British Intelligence wrong. The CIA has stated in the SSCI hearings that Joe Wilson’s report did not sway them away from that premise; “if nothing else it reinforced the belief.” And Mr. Wilson’s claim of having debunked those memos was recanted in that same SSCI hearing. I want to float an idea out there that maybe Mr Wilson and someone outside the White House should be wary of an expanding investigation. Ok gang don’t disappoint me.
Obviously, Sarge hasn't been reading eripost's articles here at TLC. It's all there, no need to answer this trollpost.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 27, 2005 11:02 AMMore shades of Watergate. Then it was the FBI being given over to a White House political operative and Deep Throat Mark Felt came to be. This time it's a White House political operative taking over the CIA.
Posted by zhoward at July 27, 2005 11:02 AMWhile the post on the SSCI makes some interesting observations they are just observations. This report has been out there for over a year and few people (except on the left) are under the belief that this is some smoking gun. I was just advancing a counter-theory that perhaps the expansion of the investigation might want to include some inconsistencies in the testimony and public writings/comments of the sainted Joe Wilson. But don’t let me spoil your party; just don’t be surprised if things don’t turn out exactly as you aspire them to be.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at July 27, 2005 11:59 AM...the sainted Joe Wilson.
Can't you righties do anything without hyperbole?
Posted by muckcat at July 27, 2005 12:05 PMDear Cyber Sarge,
When the indictments come you will be crying in your soup. It will truly be the Revenge of the CIA, the State Department, and Colin Powell.
muckcat, i'm sure the sarge was referring to poppy bush's description of wilson as a "hero"
Posted by benjoya at July 27, 2005 12:18 PMStephen Hadley has already accepted responsiblity for the insertion of the "16 words". It seems rather obscure for the White House to be trying to pin the blame on the CIA when the White House staff has taken the blame already.
Good try, however, the White House turned over the stone before everyone else.
Posted by Brennan at July 27, 2005 01:45 PMJudith: It's simple really. The White House didn't select Fitzgerald.
The CIA refers the matter to the FBI. The FBI brings in the DoJ. The DoJ considers the political implications of an investigation of the White House staff. Ashcroft excuses himself. DAG James Comey appoints Fitzgerald as Spec Proc. Fitzgerald begins the investigation.
The White House has only participated in the investigation when requested by Fitzgerald.
Posted by Brennan at July 27, 2005 01:55 PMDriveby: Link me. When did the "special prosecutor" status run out? Are you confusing the special prosecutor with the independent counsel statute?
Remember that the largest factor in the delay of the investigation was via the media's stifling. Cooper and Miller tied Fitzgerald's hands and so the courts had to untie them.
Posted by Brennan at July 27, 2005 02:02 PMThe FBI brings in the DoJ. The DoJ considers the political implications of an investigation of the White House staff. Ashcroft excuses himself.
See, it's the recusal that makes so little sense. I have trouble remembering that far back, but I don't remember a significant firestorm of criticism forcing him to turn it over to somebody. Was there one?
I have to wonder at their judgment; did they think Ashcroft's replacement would be in the tank? If so, did some career employee at the U.S. Attorney sandbag them, promising somebody who would play ball and then pulling a switcheroo?
All very interesting.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 27, 2005 02:42 PMMatt Davis: I don't know a lot about US Prosecutors, but the one I have followed the longest is Pat Fitzgerald. He was named because he had the highest level of independent credibility at the DoJ. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that views Fitzgerald as a tool of anyone.
Ashcroft recused himself as soon as it was announced that White House staff would be questioned. He did so because he was still providing counsel to the White House on other matters, potentially many that cross hairs with the leak.
Posted by Brennan at July 27, 2005 05:34 PM"When the indictments come you will be crying in your soup." And on the flip side when there are no indictments, don't cry in your soup. FYI if a crime was commited I am all for a perp walk and jail time. But aside from the wild speculation (mostly on the left) and some unnamed sources I ain t heard anything that describes a crime. Also I am not trying to be a troll I am looking for honest debate. A troll spits out vitriol and then leaves. To my knowledge I have not attacked anyone at this site I have just tried to spark debate. Echo chambers are boring.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at July 27, 2005 06:05 PMBut sarge, you still haven't answered my question: disregarding whether or not a crime has been committed, do you personnaly think Rove and Libby's pushing the name of a covert agent, and thus dissolving any networks around the world that she might have been involved in, was a boon to national security. Also, do you think, personally, someone so reckless with our secrets should continue to be entrusted with them?
You may very well be right that no one will serve jail time, but do you, in your own heart, believe that our nation is the better for it? C'mon, you can tell me, I won't blab.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 27, 2005 07:37 PMiamcoyote: The point seems rather mute. Plame's cover had been burned before. The Agency believed Aldrich Ames burned her to the Russians and the Agency burned her with sloppy paper work directed at Cuba through the Swiss Embassy.
The more pertinent question here is this. Why would the Agency even consider putting burned agents back on the NOC list?
For Libby and Rove, I think that making statements to the press about the dealings that led to using the non-intelligence background Joe Wilson to address an INTELLIGENCE question was suspicious at the least, negligent at its worst.
Posted by Brennan at July 27, 2005 07:51 PM[A]side from the wild speculation (mostly on the left) and some unnamed sources I ain t heard anything that describes a crime.
What's your level of familiarity with the crime of conspiracy?
Posted by Matt Davis at July 27, 2005 07:52 PMdo you smell something stinking in here?
Posted by dung yen hee at July 27, 2005 08:29 PMCoyote I think you read too many Tom Clancy novels. She was an analyst that worked on the WMDs desk not a female James Bond. She probably worked out of an Embassy like her husband. Not exactly James Bond cover because the entire world use their Emassies for overt spying. But lets just see what Mr. Fitzgerald comes up with.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at July 27, 2005 08:48 PMLet's not lose sight of the central issue: Wilson exposed the "16 word" lie and was given the hardball treatment. The intended blunt message was " don't f--k with us." Rove's participation in this follows the pattern we've seen every step of the way. Even long term GOP insiders have privately discribed the Bush team as ruthless.
Apologists can mince words and hope that the technicalities of the laws involved exonerate their heroes, but great nations don't willfully expose agents here and abroad to unknown danger to silence critics. Nor do they show the callous disregard for the truth that led to this situation.
This is what the American people have to understand before it is too late.
Posted by rlprather at July 27, 2005 09:17 PMSarge, you make me laugh. I'm sure you appreciate that. You seem to have still not read the ellucidting (spelling?) posts here. Your choice is to Hollywood it. Did you not read the much more damning allegation in this:
The point seems rather mute. Plame's cover had been burned before. The Agency believed Aldrich Ames burned her to the Russians and the Agency burned her with sloppy paper work directed at Cuba through the Swiss Embassy.
The more pertinent question here is this. Why would the Agency even consider putting burned agents back on the NOC list?
So Sarge, is Brennan right or not? Either of you care to prove it?
Posted by caroline at July 27, 2005 09:24 PMI am practically giddy that your post delayed mine :) Hope you are ok. And hope you see my other posts. I will look for yours.
Posted by caroline at July 27, 2005 09:30 PMthat last one was meant for rlprather -- sorry I didn't say
Posted by caroline at July 27, 2005 09:34 PMCaroline, So far as I know the only 'evedence' we actually have is the released emails that supports what Karl Rove has stated. We also know that Plame was working at a CIA desk for alost six years. Even if Rove said "Yea that bitch Plame (a covert CIA agent) was responsible for sending her bumbling husband to Niger" it would not violate the 1982 law. But so far nobody has claimed that Rove said anything close to that. The tale of a vast spy network that was rolled up after her outing sounds good and would make a great movie/book but so far I have seen any facts that support that.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at July 28, 2005 04:54 AMEven if Rove said "Yea that bitch Plame (a covert CIA agent) was responsible for sending her bumbling husband to Niger" it would not violate the 1982 law.
Yes, but that's quite different from your claim that there was no evidence of "any law" being violated. The CIA didn't mention the IIPA in its request for an investigation, and even if they did, Fitzgerald is free to prosecute the crimes that were committed, not just those originally proposed.
But you don't actually give a damn, I know. You just want your boy to come out okay.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 28, 2005 05:54 AM