02
Nov
Mr. Inside Goes to Washington
Here’s a quick quiz for all you Plamegame experts: What actually are the Justice Department regulations regarding the appointment of ‘special’ prosecutors such as Patrick Fitzgerald?
Here’s a hint: DOJ’s own rules were ignored in December, 2003 by then Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey when (acting on behalf of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who recused himself owing to past ties with presidential adviser Karl Rove) Comey gave the special counsel job to his old pal Fitzgerald.
Still stumped? Okay, let me tell you. Federal rules (namely Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 600.3) require the appointment of a prosecutor “selected from outside the United States government.” As United States Attorney in Chicago – one of the Bush Administration’s top Justice representatives in the Midwest – Fitzgerald hardly qualifies.
Comey was obviously aware of what he was doing when he ignored the rules to appoint Fitzgerald. In fact, when asked by Fitzgerald for clarification, Comey wrote in February 2004 that his conferral to Fitzgerald of the title Special Counsel “should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited” by the relevant regulation.
Since that regulation stipulates that the ranks of federal prosecutors (like Fitzgerald) should be the last place to look for a special prosecutor, one must wonder: Why was Fitzgerald chosen? After all, the regulations were put in place, and prosecutors like Fitzgerald disqualified, so as to avoid any potential or perceived conflict of interest that might be created by having a member of any given presidential administration investigate that same administration.
Yet those rules were ignored by the Bush Justice Department, and the Bush Administration thus ended up with its own ‘inside’ man running the investigation. To date, that investigation has yielded only the minimum that would forestall a firestorm of criticism – the indictment of Scooter Libby on charges of covering up a crime that apparently never happened. No Karl Rove…no Dick Cheney…not even any answers to the most basic questions underlying the entire affair – who revealed Valerie Plame’s secret identity, and was that in itself a criminal act?
How convenient for everyone! After all, “the coverup worked,” as E. J. Dionne has pointed out: If Lewis Libby’s strategy of slowing the investigation down hadn’t been successful, “We would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005,” as Fitzgerald himself noted when announcing the indictments.
“Note the significance of the two dates,” Dionne says. “October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected…
“As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.”
Given the stakes, is it surprising that the rules were waived and a Justice Department insider put in charge of the inquiry? After all, when the disastrous independent counsel statute – which of course brought us the Clinton-era Starr Chamber – expired in 1999, the question of who should investigate high government officials was seemingly answered by federal regulations meant to ensure that a full and unhindered inquiry could be undertaken with no perceived conflict of interest. Comey’s decision to waive those rules, and instead appoint someone selected from inside the United States government, call into question Fitzgerald’s entire investigation.
Fitzgerald’s closemouthed spokesman Randall Samborn declined comment, and Department of Justice representatives failed to return my phone calls and emails.
Their reticence is understandable. Although he has been widely portrayed as a fightin’ Irish son of a New York doorman, or alternately a Jimmy Stewart-like, “Mr. Fitzgerald Goes to Washington” Everyman, the special counsel and his curious investigation interruptus can best be understood as an inside job. Rather than being a “priest of the law…neither Democrat nor Republican” (Maureen Dowd’s typically cute but wrongheaded Times Select description) Patrick Fitzgerald is nothing more - but nothing less – than a loyal foot soldier in the John Ashcroft/Alberto “Torturer” Gonzales Justice Department of the Bush/Cheney regime. And if that ain’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is…
Fitzgerald has always been one of Them. He was the prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombings and 1998 bombings of US facilities in Africa. He was the guy who introduced the court to the name Osama Ben Laden.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:39 pmOne specific thing this charade specifically does not prove is- that “the system really works” as Anthony Lewis famously and fatuously said in the NY Times after Nixon fell. Libby’s bust is not proof that the truth always comes out in this wonderful country, nor that government people who lie always get it in the end, nor that virtue gets rewarded. We are not really good people who have been misled and made a few small mistakes. The system does not work.
The CIA wants to bring Bush, and particularly Cheney and Rumsfeld – down.
The Wilson/Plame involvement in the Niger escapade was all CIA.
The outing of Plame was retaliation not against Wilson, but against the CIA itself.
This whole deal is another battle in the long-standing ongoing war between the absolutist NEOCON Idealogues and the relativist CIA Pragmatists.
The innocent victims of these wars: Vietnamese, Greeks, Haitians, Afghanis, Iraqis….. do not include us.
Victims we are, but innocent we are not.
Who the hell are you? A Repub-bot on a mission to divert, obfuscate, and distract?!
Your blind optimism in these sentences amuses me>>
To date, that investigation has yielded only the minimum that would forestall a firestorm of criticism – the indictment of Scooter Libby on charges of covering up a crime that apparently never happened. No Karl Rove…no Dick Cheney…not even any answers to the most basic questions underlying the entire affair – who revealed Valerie Plame’s secret identity, and was that in itself a criminal act?
Take your head out of the sand, and recognize a historic moment when it is IN YOUR FACE! All your wishful thinking will be quashed soon enough…
Styve
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:12 pmWhat a load of bollox. If Fitz was a plant he could have just rapped up shop and said “nothing to see here - move along” like has happened so many times before. He is the real deal. One down more to come, mark my words. Paddy
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:51 pmMr Rubinson, I hope, hope , hope you are wrong. But, I sure got a sick feeling while reading that he is the one that prosecuted the WTC bombings in 1993 and brought Bin Laden’s name into the mix of later bad deeds. Damn, I hope you are wrong and I suspect you hope so too.
November 4th, 2005 at 12:46 amRory, I hear what You are saying and it is natural to question Fitzgerald’s motives due to all the misinformation, disingenuous, fabricated statements that come from MSN and the WH. It is so easy to distrust anything that is said at this stage by any government official and every reporter especially after the bush administration took over the WH.
The bush administration’s credibility is zero. If they were to say it is raining, I would go look for myself along with millions of others. So it is no surprise you question whether Fitzgerald is forthcoming…. or not … you are not alone…
However I suggest we wait until the verdict is in.
Fitzgerald stated in his press conference that because Libby lied it broke the flow of information Fitzgerald needs in order to go further. He appears to be the type of prosecuting attorney that unless he knows the odds are in his favour will he convict thus assured to win. He is not the type to take any chances by throwing erroneous charges in hopes they will stick. And re_member Fitzgerald did not make those decisions alone — the Grand Jury had not been convinced evidently or not enough to indict, at least not yet.
Or perhaps Fitzgerald is holding out for a plea bargain which could unravel the whole shebang. Let’s say for instance Cheney is a target, well you know darn well that Fitzgerald would have every single duck in a row and then some because even just the slightest mistake could blow any chance of bringing the case to fruition. Or perhaps he already has the information to blow this open, but needs a few more pieces of the puzzle that may be discovered at trial. Who knows!!
Something not mentioned certainly not in mainstream, according to NATO Fitzgerald subpoenaed (?) requested (?) the forged documents from Niger. I read that in a couple of different places. Theretofore “IF” true that would maybe indicate there is more to this than meets the eye.
On the other hand Rory it is very possible you are correct.
At this point we just don’t know. There are so many unknown variables which makes it that much more frustrating for the ones of us who are following this closely.
Patience will pay off in the long run… Hopefully *S*
November 4th, 2005 at 1:13 amI agree with you.
Something just didn’t feel right when Fitzgerald announced the indictments brought against Libby…and only Libby.
Fitzgerald indicated that the Bush administration obstructed his investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame’s classified identity to unauthorized reporters.
So, at the least, a large number of Bush officials should have been charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice…along with Libby.
And Fitzgerald knew this. But he only indicts Libby and says that Rove is still under investigation. This latter is just a red herring. Why?
Fitzgerald knew that there would have been a firestorm if he’d just indicted Libby (who’ll be pardoned by Bush) and just left it at that. So, by tossing out his statement about the “ongoing” investigation into Rove’s involvement in perjury and the conspiracy to obstruct justice makes it appear that his investigation is still ongoing…when I believe that nothing else will be forthcoming.
And no report will ever be made to the American people…nor will any report about any Bush improprieties be made to a Congressional committee…as long as Republicans in Congress also continue to engage in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. You know, because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.
But I must qualify. I may be wrong. If Libby actually goes to trial, then everything will depend on whom Fitzgerald calls to build his case against Libby. If he keeps his witness list to a bare minimum, then we will know that he was selected for damage control and not to expose the rampant corruption in the Bush administration.
If however, he has a wide-ranging and extensive witness list in which he seeks to determine who else might have been involved in the “obstruction of justice” besides just Libby, then all our fears are groundless. Maybe Fitzgerald plans on getting people on the witness stand and under oath to get to the root of the rot in the Bush White House.
However, I doubt this, primarily based on some of his other comments regarding his investigation up to this point. Apparently, he does not see his role to be that of an aggressive prosecutor out to expose the criminal activities that are so blatantly apparent in this current administration. It seems to me that he intends to keep his focus entirely on Libby, while letting all the other “conspirators” involved in the “obstruction of justice” unindicted and on the loose to wreak even more havoc, death and destruction.
Which will mean that our national security will continue to be compromised. Maybe Fitzgerald is praying that the Republicon-controlled Congress will finally look into the matter. Ha, that’s a laugh.
So, I’d rate Fitzgerald’s performance up to this point a 5, which means it can still go either way.
Either he has “got his man,” or he will get “all the president’s men” behind this major breach of our national security.
November 4th, 2005 at 3:22 amWhat you’re saying makes sense. I wondered why he let Judith Miller stall so long and why he got all our hopes up dragging it out until the very last day on a Friday afternoon. This gave ample time for the Harriet Miers nomination to distract us. Her withdrawal from the process happened just in time so Bush could nominate Alito on the Monday after Fitzgerald’s announcement again in an attempt at distraction.
Also note that if Libby is not convicted it will be like a free pass to the Bush administration to continue their reprehensible behavior for the next 3 years.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:01 amOK, this is all possible…so is Libby just the lucky sacrificial victim? A prop? The guy that goes to the slammer for a while and comes out with a huge cash payload hidden somewhere in the Caymens? Nothing but nothing would shock me about this adm, other than honesty, but I’m trying to figger out Libby’s role. Please advise, somebody.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:01 amI’ve read Fitz is running this thing like a mafia investigation (remember Joe Valachi) in hopes of intimidating Libby to spill the beans. I’d imagine this will accomplished via plea bargaining.
I’d assume the reason for the sole indictment is Libby was the only one with hard evidence of malfesence (perjury). One has to remember Al Capone (so many mob references!) was finally brought down by “Tax Evasion” even though everybody knew he guilty of much more. But that’s where they had the hard facts, and thus the only thing that, evidence-wise, could pin something on the mob boss. It worked.
And it might just work again. Mr. Prep School’s staring at thirty in the slammer. Oh, he thinks he’ll get a pardon, but I don’t think Bushie can get away with this one. They’ll abandon Libby when they get their news cycles back on track and that’s when, hypothetically, he’ll break. After all, none of the Andover grads I know are willing to spend a decade or so with some prison “sister’s” pecker lodged in their anus.
My bet — they’re all in for the ride of their lives.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:02 amWe still do NOT know yet whether Fitzgerald is a non partisan prosecutor who will go where the facts take him OR if he is an inside Bush administration hack who is doing everything he can to minimize damage for the Busheviks. Let’s withhold judgment for now but also not eliminate the possibility. Maureen Dowd could turn out right but EJ Dionne could turn out right as well.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:43 amRegarding the comment about prison and the likelihood of anal rape:
I understand the glee that opponents of this administration are enjoying, and share their frustration with the obfuscation, gamesmanship, et.al., so I sincerely hope they get what’s coming to them. The recent developments have taken me out of a years-long funk regarding whether this benighted population and stupid MSM.
What I MUST decry, on this and any other venue, is the smirking references to the sexual abuse that is all too common in our prisons. This is a very bad issue, and I understand how prosecutors can implicitly hang the threat of physical violence over a guy’s head for hopefully the greater good. But, I mean, c’mon, folks. Let the truth of your argument suffice, and don’t indulge in that rape stuff. Would you like to be facing that?
Imagine all those kids in NY State with the Rockefeller drug laws who get thrown into that situation, a nightmare that probably stays with them all their lives, and for what?
(Again, I hope these bastards get the max).
A fellow citizen.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:54 amI hope you are wrong but was also suspicious of the fact that only one Bush Regime official was indicted and that Fitz said the bulk of the investigation was done.
A week or so before the press conference I read that the head of the CIA agency department who had asked for the initial investigation into the Plame outing was quitting because he believed that Fitz was not going to do the job. This may have been on Madsen’s site.
Also Rep. Hinchey and 40 Congresspersons wrote a letter and even visited Fitz a day or so before the press conference to ask him to investigate the Niger forgeries. Hinchey has some good things on his website but the following quote from the NYT that the FBI has stopped the investigation into the Niger forgeries is also very suspicious.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×5262940
~~~Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified
ROME, Nov. 3 - Italy’s spymaster identified an Italian occasional spy named Rocco Martino on Thursday
as the disseminator of forged documents that described efforts by Iraq to buy uranium ore from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, three lawmakers said Thursday.
The spymaster, Gen. Nicolò Pollari, director of the Italian military intelligence agency known as Sismi,
disclosed that Mr. Martino was the source of the forged documents in closed-door testimony to a parliamentary committee that oversees secret services, the lawmakers said.
Senator Massimo Brutti, a member of the committee, told reporters that General Pollari had identified Mr.
Martino as a former intelligence informer who had been “kicked out of the agency.” He did not say Mr. Martino was the forger.
The revelation came on a day when the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed that it had shut down
its two-year investigation into the origin of the forged documents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/international/europe/…
Bellacio had a long and informative article about the Italian connection with the above names a week or so ago.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:06 amThere’s no doubt that Fitz is essentially defending the CIA against the neocons, and certainly we can find many things to object to re the CIA. However, Fitz is also untangling a real travesty of foreign policy, and there is a difference between starting a war based entirely on p.r. lies (and the theatre that was 9/11) and starting a war based on some realistic fundamentals, like real serious existing national security threats. Starting a war like this Iraq mess is a war crime. If you want to follow Fitz in a realistic way, read firedoglake.blogspot.com every day.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:00 amWhen this investigaton first started, Joe Wilson said he was confident Fitzpatrick would prosecute it fairly. I wonder where that confidence came from.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:47 amI’m so sick of self-styled “mavericks” who feel the need to shit all over every positive development against Bush&Co. Does it make you feel more in-the-know to deride this investigation? “Inside job” huh? Oooo you sound so laconic and hard-boiled when you say this.
And here I was enjoying the crippling fallout from Fitz’ well-placed bomb to Libby’s office. How naive of me to enjoy watching that indictment speed the unravelling of the web of criminalilty of these sanctimonious sh!ts.
But I gues you are much more in the know. after all, you have a blog. Keep attacking BUsh’s adversaries..It makes you look fiercely independent and its easier and safer than actually going after the Bushes like, say…Patrick Fitzgerald
November 5th, 2005 at 9:48 amFitz has a track record of starting slowly w/ one or a few indictments, and then folowing up with more.
Let’s hope that’s what he is doing here.
Are we sure the the fed rules were broken when Fitz was selected? I’d like to here from a lawer on that.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:50 pmI am wondering how many of you commenting suspiciously on Patrick Fitzgerald actually saw or read the entire indictment? Rarely have I seen such masterful staging. Fitzgerald took every opportunity to incriminate the white house of corruption. He didn’t just say Libby has been indicted on 5 counts of perjury, obstruction of justice etc. He made the case for Libby being a liar Get the indictment and actually read it, or watch the video. You can not watch the man without coming away from it feeling that he has made a spectacle of what the bush chaney cabal has been up to. . Fitzgerald asked to see precedence on Spiro Agnew. He is going after Cheney. Based on what has been revealed, by Fitzgerald, the bush white house has been exposed. Fitzgerald has made it clear, he has found the filth and he is going after it!
November 9th, 2005 at 4:36 amIt would be very powerful to start showing the video of the indictment all across the land. There is much of value in it that should not be allowed to be forgotten. Look closer at what the man has actually accomplished. If Fitzgerald was a bush lackey, he would never have spent so much time making it very clear that he found much corruption. It is up to us to capitalize on this portal that Fitzgerald has held open to the World view, into the filthy world of bush politics.
According to recent research, the age of special prosecutors, of course, began with Watergate. Since that time, a series of “independent counsels” and “special counsels” has left a trail of ruined lives but very few well-founded convictions for serious federal crimes. Republicans were thoroughly disillusioned with
November 16th, 2005 at 5:40 pmthe system by the close of Ronald Reagan’s second term, and many
Democrats came to agree by the time President Bill Clinton left office.
The independent counsel statute was not renewed and is no longer in
effect. But the attorney general may still appoint special counsels as
an administrative act, and this is how Fitzgerald took office. He should be the last.
I completely agree that Fitzgerald was just a Bush lackey. There was no question that Cheney was guilty of committing treason for putting America’s security at risk by exposing Valerie Plame. The fact that he was never even brought into it, suggests another successful Bush cover-up. I would bet on it that Cheney himself picked Fitzpatrick.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am