Fitz v. Rove, Part VI

The suggestion that Bob Kjellander was working with Rove to have Fitz fired is not new.

In a hearing before court began, prosecutors said they hoped to call Ali Ata, the former Blagojevich administration official who pleaded guilty to corruption yesterday, to the stand.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Carrie Hamilton said she believed Ata would testify to conversations Ata had with his political patron, Rezko, about working to pull strings to kill the criminal investigation into Rezko and others when it was in its early stages in 2004.

"[Ata] had conversations with Mr. Rezko about the fact that Mr. Kjellander was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed," Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve.

Back in the days when there was question whether Fitzgerald would be ousted in 2006 (before the USA purge broke), Chicago commentators regularly noted how badly Chicago pols–and Kjellander in particular–wanted to see Fitzgerald gone.

And there’s good reason to think he might be [fired], aside from the president’s non-assurance. One of the chief practitioners of Illinois establishment politics is Republican operative Bob Kjellander, who brags (whether true or not) about his friendship with Bush chief political strategist, Karl Rove. Despite Kjellander’s engineering Bush defeats in Illinois and other Midwest states, the White House (Rove?) thought he was pretty hot stuff and brought him to the Beltway where he is engineering who knows what political disaster.

Kjellander also will be credited with the coming GOP election disaster in Illinois, thanks to his help in selecting state Treasurer Judy Barr Topinka to run against incumbent Blagojevich. She’s a dear lady, a treasured "moderate," but not a gusty independent willing to stand up to the political establishment.

The point is that Kjellander (pronounced Shelander), a Republican national committeeman who has received $800,000 in unexplained fees through a state bond-borrowing deal engineered by Democrat Blagojevich, is no fan of Fitzgerald’s either. No one, in other words, in the political establishment in Chicago or Washington, is pushing for Fitzgerald’s reappointment. [my emphasis]

And after news broke last year that Fitzgerald had been on the firing list, at least one Chicago commentator predicted that Kjellander was the reason, and not the Plame case. (This is a March 21 Chicago Trib article by John Kass behind the firewall, but here’s a blog post that cites most of it.)

How many conversations did Karl Rove–the political Rasputin of the Bush White House–have with top Illinois Republicans about U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald?

Ten? Fifty? None?

Did Rove speak directly to Big Bob Kjellander, whom Rove engineered into the job of treasurer of the Republican National Committee?

Answers might tell us why Fitzgerald, honored in 2002 as one of the top prosecutors in the Justice Department–and the fed most feared by the bipartisan political Combine that runs Illinois–was abruptly downgraded in March 2005.

[snip]

Conventional wisdom from Washington is that Fitzgerald fell out of favor with the Republicans because of his pursuit of the CIA leak case, which led to the recent perjury conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

But why not consider an alternative?

Just as that March 2005 memo downgrading Fitzgerald was making its way to the White House, Fitzgerald’s office in Chicago was proceeding in a fascinating political corruption probe involving alleged kickbacks requiring state approval for the construction of hospitals.

That case would mushroom into Operation Board Games, revealing bipartisan political influence in hundreds of millions of dollars invested through state pension funds.

There have been so many distractions that you’re bound to have forgotten about Operation Board Games. The distractions include City Hall’s Olympic dreams that won’t cost taxpayers a dime and whether Lord Conrad Black’s wife thinks reporters covering her husband’s federal fraud trial are a bunch of vermin and sluts. With all this talk of Olympics and sluts and so on, you probably haven’t had time to figure the Fitzgerald timeline.

But as that 2005 memo was sent to the White House, Fitzgerald was formally unmasking the Combine in what would later become Operation Board Games.

[snip]

One fellow in the federal documents of the Operation Board Games case was listed as "Individual K." And his buddy appeared several times in those same documents as "Individual A," for Alpha.

Individuals A and K have not been indicted. But the Tribune identified them as Big Bob Kjellander (pronounced $hell-ander) and his buddy, Big Bill Cellini, the political boss of Springfield.

Kjellander is the Republican committeeman of Illinois who flaunts his friendship with Rove and who recently resigned as treasurer of the Republican National Committee. Kjellander also represented the famous Carlyle Group before the teachers’ pension fund board and he received $4.5 million in questionable consulting fees.

Did Kjellander discuss Fitzgerald with Rove? I don’t know.

In other words, knowledgeable observers at least suspected–as Fitzgerald’s presence on the firing list came to light last year–that Kjellander, and not Rove in Plame, was the cause. (Me, I think both might have been the reason Fitzgerald made the firing list; far be it for Rove to be choosy about his reasons to fire a USA.)

Since the suggestion is not new, I’m not so much surprised by the announcement as I’m interested in the way the USA NDIL introduced this evidence and the implications it has for the whole investigation of politicized prosecutions.

You see, I believe–based on somewhat attentive observation of Patrick Fitzgerald over time–that introducing this kind of evidence is one of his favorite MOs. He introduces information that pertains to a case but is actually much more valuable for the way it points to much graver criminal issues that Fitzgerald is not in a position to address at a given moment. Thus, Fitzgerald introduced a great deal of evidence to show that Dick Cheney had, indeed, ordered Scooter Libby to leak Valerie Wilson’s identity. Because of constitutional reasons and pixie dust reasons and the inadequacy of Judy Judy Judy’s recall, he was not able to indict either Libby or Cheney on IIPA. But he got the evidence out there that that is, indeed, what happened. Unfortunately, Congress and the press were too busy trying to get Fitzgerald to release grand jury information that they failed to look closely at the information already in the public domain, and the information was never used to good effect.

I suspect that Fitzgerald has figured out the limits of Congress and the Press, because this time he has made it a bit easier. Golly, the press actually even reported on a non-trial conference, something that rarely happened in the Libby trial.

Fitzgerald’s office (though not Fitzgerald personally) has just said to John Conyers, "Hey, I see you’re still looking into politicized prosecutions. Well, here’s a witness who can testify that a Rove crony was working with Rove to get Fitzgerald fired–just before Fitzgerald almost got fired." This adds another witness–like Dana Jill Simpson–who is willing to testify that Rove got personally involved in prosecutions affecting his political allies. But it also brings someone from the requesting side to the fore–someone who (unlike the GOP cronies in Washington who got John McKay fired and unlike the GOP cronies in NM who got Iglesias fired) is apparently willing (and presumably has already signed an affidavit to the effect) to testify that Karl Rove entertained these demands for firing seriously. Conyers will, undoubtedly, take a few days to respond (he’s not so quick as Henry Waxman), but I imagine he will respond.

This will make it much easier demonstrate the criminal behavior needed to successfully subpoena Karl Rove to testify about this case, about Siegelman, and about Iglesias. It is, presumably, someone who is willing to go on the record to say that Karl Rove willingly intervened to fire a USA with the clear intent of stopping an investigation in one of Rove’s allies.

Notice that Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin was very quick to issue a very insistent denial.

But Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, today issued an unequivocal statement about all of this to the Tribune on behalf of Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President Bush, architect of Bush’s presidential campaigns and a private consultant in Washington now.

"Karl has known Kjellander for many years,” Luskin said, "but does not recall him or anyone else arguing for Fitzgerald’s removal. And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn’t take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House — or in the Justice Department — about doing anything like that.”

Ha ha! Gold Bars! You thought you had beaten Fitzgerald once and for all, didn’t you? Ha. Ha!

Of course, there’s one more witness to this issue: Kyle Sampson. Now, even in HJC’s preliminary report on the USA firings, there was clear evidence that cliquemembers at DOJ conspired to cover up the real reasons behind the firing of David Iglesias. As Glenn Fine reportedly draws near to finishing his investigation into the matter, those who participated in that cover-up may be getting antsy about their own role in the cover-up. I don’t know whether such antsiness will or has made Kyle Sampson recall in more detail how or why he suggested Patrick Fitzgerald be fired. But I would imagine there is about to be a whole lot more pressure for him to remember those details.

image_print
194 replies
  1. emptywheel says:

    You know, aside from reliving what a wonderful schmuck Sampson is, I’m struck by how well rehearsed this story is, when every other story Sampson told ws filled with lack of recall.

    And I’m struck who was purportedly present for this conversation: Kelley (in the WH) and Miers. And who was purportedly absent for it: Rove.

    So this story puts the conversation in the White House, presumably covered by privilege (though Kyle doesn’t invoke it). But doesn’t place Rove as present for the conversation.

    And I recall, too, that Sampson was Rove’s big chump at DOJ. Just the kind of guy who might take the fall for his boss.

  2. brendanx says:

    I don’t understand the relevance of the conversations about Fitzgerald-Rove-Kjellander to Rezko’s case. Did Rezko have influence with Kjellander?

    • SparklestheIguana says:

      Kjellander has not been charged with any wrongdoing. He is, however, allegedly connected to the overall scheme in which Rezko is accused of shaking down state investors for bribes and campaign contributions.

      Kjellander received about $800,000 in questioned “finder’s fees” tied to a bond deal under Blagojevich.

      I think Kjellander and Rezko both had influence with everybody. They are on a par in the ugly world of the Illinois combine. Perhaps the only (?) difference is that Kjellander is 100% Republican, Rezko swings both ways.

  3. SparklestheIguana says:

    Oh the shenanigans of the KKK! (Karl, Kyle, Kjellander.)

    From today’s Daily Herald (an Illinois newspaper):

    Powerbroker Bill Cellini “said it was Bob Kjellander’s job to take care of the U.S. Attorney,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Carrie Hamilton said in court late Tuesday, in reading Loren’s earlier grand jury testimony.

    Maybe “take care of” just means pick up his dry cleaning and drop his mortgage payments in the mail, or something.

    And I don’t find Luskin’s statement all that convincing. “Does not recall” – maybe he didn’t “argue”, maybe he “said” or “mentioned.” Maybe Rove sent smoke signals to Kyle and/or Kjellander and Kjellander dealt directly with Kyle.

  4. looseheadprop says:

    They were always very sketchy on how Pat got on the list and got off the list.

    I remember when I first found out he was on the list how hillareous so many of my collegues thought that was. Mediocre or Not distinguished are the last words any sane person would use to describe pat as a prosecutor. As a fashion plate, maybe; but never as a prosecutor

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh yeah, that’s the post I started, but never finished, early this AM. You think maybe Bush knew that his Colombian puppet was going to have tough political issues and could really use a nice trade deal?

      Uribe also got accused of buying someone’s vote with promises of positions for her allies.

      • watercarrier4diogenes says:

        Looks a lot like our own ‘hill’ has become a bigger role model than we knew:

        BOGOTA, Colombia, April 22 — Authorities on Tuesday arrested former senator Mario Uribe, a cousin and close ally of President Álvaro Uribe, for alleged ties to death squads in a widening inquiry that has implicated nearly a quarter of Colombia’s Congress.

        Of course, it will be at least Jan. 20, 2009 before the Rethuglican representation in our House is below 25%…

      • brendanx says:

        To add context, I hadn’t realized the scale of the issues was so large:

        As the result of investigations that began in 2006, 32 members of Congress have been arrested and about 30 others are being formally investigated for ties to paramilitary groups that killed thousands of civilians, infiltrated state institutions and trafficked cocaine to the United States. Preliminary investigations have begun against dozens of others, including the president of Congress, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez, who was implicated last week.

  5. emptywheel says:

    And what I love about this MO, is that all it took was introducing the possibility of Loren and Ata testifying that they were trying to fire Fitz–it doesn’t ever have to be introduced into court.

    Kind of like Fitz was willing not to have the full argument about the NIE introduced, was happy to have just the Judy Judy Judy stuff introduced, because all the other evidence was out there.

  6. bobschacht says:

    On the Fitz front, my congresscritter, Neil Abercrombie, is still offering this bit in defense of his minimal action against the illegal activities of the Bush-Cheney regime:

    I have asked U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to reopen and expand his investigation into the leak of classified information by top White House personnel. This is the process that led to the indictment and a guilty plea from I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for lying to a grand jury.

    Based on revelations from the publisher of former White House Secretary Scott McClellan’s forthcoming book, McClellan admits that Libby, Karl Rove, Andrew Card, Vice President Cheney and President Bush all deliberately misled him about the involvement of White House personnel in the leak of former CIA Officer Valerie Plame’s identity. The only way to determine whether or not this is true is to reopen the investigation.

    He made this “request” months ago. Has there ever been an official response? Is there any evidence that Fitz is doing *anything* on this front?

    Bob in HI

    • emptywheel says:

      I know of no response, nor should there be.

      First, is it illegal to mislead the spokesperson? No, not really. McClellan didn’t have the intent to mislead when he did so, and Libby and ROve and everyone else weren’t under oath when they misled Scottie.

      This is now a POLITICAL problem, not a legal one.

    • looseheadprop says:

      Your congresscritter is tad confused. Scooter did not plead guilty; he waged an all out defense and was convicted with a jury verdict. There was this big huge trial that some blogger chick typed in real real time on some obscure blog we never heard of. Snicker.

      A) PAt has said a dozen times that baring something unforeseem shaking loose, his done with Plame. The buget review from his Special Counsel Office expenditures says he’s done.

      B) if he reopened he would not announce it, he has repeatedl demonstrated that he treats GJ secrecy pretty seriously

  7. Stephen Parrish says:

    Marcy – this, posted on Raw Story today, may be germane to some extent: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0423.html

    In an extensive interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, who was released from prison on bond last month pending an appeal of his conviction on corruption charges, laid the blame for his prosecution squarely on Karl Rove’s “hijacking” of the federal Department of Justice.

    “This is not about me, it’s not about my case,” Siegelman emphasized in his appearance on Air America’s Ring of Fire, a show hosted by Kennedy and Mike Papantonio available online at GoLeft.tv. “This is about America, and about a quest now that must be pursued to find out who was responsible for hijacking the Department of Justice and using it as a political tool to win elections. I believe that person that Congress will ultimately hold responsible is Karl Rove.”

    (snip)

  8. WilliamOckham says:

    Paul Kiel at tpm muckraker report this:

    I spoke to Luskin just now, and he said that his statement ought to be qualified a bit: his statement on Kgellander stands as is, he said, but during the independent counsel investigation, he said, Rove was “frequently” approached about canning Fitzgerald: “a number of people approached Karl and suggested that Fitzgerald be removed because of the alleged politicization of the investigation, but he never took any follow-up steps except to say that I can’t talk about that. He didn’t want to do anything seen as compromising Fitzgerald’s independence.” Those approaches, Luskin said, came during fundraisers or other political events. “Karl simply never responded and did not take any action.”

    • Peterr says:

      Those approaches, Luskin said, came during fundraisers or other political events. “Karl simply never responded and did not take any action.”

      “. . . because that would be wrong.*”

      I’m sure that’s how that sentence ended. Something must have clogged the tubes to cut it off.
      _____
      *h/t Richard Nixon

  9. Stephen Parrish says:

    Marcy –

    Although off topic, this important story recently came to my attention: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0423.html

    CIA has 7,000 documents relating to rendition, detention, torture programs, filing shows

    RAW STORY
    Published: Wednesday April 23, 2008

    Documents suggest CIA stonewalled Congress

    The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged having 7,000 pages of documents pertaining to President George W. Bush’s secret rendition and detention programs, according to three international human rights groups.

    Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Human Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law made the claim following a summary judgment motion by the agency this week to avoid a lawsuit that seeks to force the nation’s top spy outfit to make the documents public under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    (snip)

    • klynn says:

      Gee, I’d like to see a mirror of such action in another country. Some nice peer modeling for us (US).

      SP @ 18-

      Greta catch…AND Marcy has yet to leave the country…

      maryo2,

      I tried to get a pool going last night on the “WHAT WILL HIT THE FAN” while Marcy is on her trip?

      • emptywheel says:

        Oh, I’ll probably do one over the weekend, when the news slows down. It’ll be accompanied by my pool on how much I’ll have ot pay to buy a euro and a pound–and whether I ought to pack a wheelbarrow of dollars.

  10. Mary says:

    6 – Maybe “take care of” just means pick up his dry cleaning and drop his mortgage payments in the mail, or something.

    Fix him a hot meal? Give him a pedicure? Draw him a bubble bath? yeahlikethat *g*

    The nicest part of the Ata reference is that they have their deal in place with Ata – Congress calling Ata to testify before them can’t queer that deal.

    I still wish someone had shown the slightest interest in the prima facie Nt Sec Act violation by Bush that Fitzgerald put in the record in the Libby case. Bush telling Cheney to plant the cherrypicked NIE information with no admin attribution in domestic press – laid out plain and clear in the filings, but no one acts. Oh well.

    BTW – OT, but is the House intel committee planning on calling Roberts, Rockefeller, etc. to testify to what they were briefed on about the tapes? if not, why not?

    • emptywheel says:

      Mary

      It would help if you didn’t take known perjurer Scooter Libby at his word on that. There is ABUNDANT reason to believe that story is not true, but is in fact a cover story for outing Plame.

      Yes, the NIE got leaked. But it was leaked first by COndi, and leaked to Woodward and Sanger before it was leaked to Judy. So if they were to pursue it the story as told by Libby would fall apart. That’s the point.

      Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out in depth, Cheney has an OLC opinion to defend what he did (whether it was Plame’s ID or the NIE). You need to go after the Pixie Dust, not swallow Libby’s lie, replicate it, then make a case based on his obvious lie.

  11. Mary says:

    10 – well, now in addition to the Chiquita payments, that situation also adds a bit more to think about on the issue of providing material support to terrorists, what with Uribe’s being “the beneficiary of billions of dollars in American military aid” from George W. Bush.

    17 – Interesting, that – how it goes from Karl not recollecting such a conversation with Kj (kinda like not recollecting conversations mentioned by Dana Jill Simpson) to now suddenly recollecting “lots” of instances of people asking to have Fitzgerald removed.

    Here’s what Luskin leaves open on that one – why in the world would people think that Karl Rove, a politician and one of the people under investigation, had the power to respond to their requests that Fitzgerald be fired? Not just one person – but many people – all apparently thought it was within Rove’s power to have Fitzgerald fired.

    Why?
    .

    • SparklestheIguana says:

      Here’s what Luskin leaves open on that one – why in the world would people think that Karl Rove, a politician and one of the people under investigation, had the power to respond to their requests that Fitzgerald be fired? Not just one person – but many people – all apparently thought it was within Rove’s power to have Fitzgerald fired.

      Why?

      Well, if this truly was happening at fundraisers and political events, I can easily imagine big dumb rich Republicans going up to Karl (for a brush with greatness) and suggesting he do it, maybe in a heh-heh frat boy gladhanding way so that if anyone nearby recoiled in horror at the inappropriateness of such a suggestion (not too likely), the rich dumb Republican could pretend they were just joking.

      I mean, we don’t really care so much what exchanges are happening between the rubes at fundraising events. We want to know what was happening in the corridors of power and what messages were flashing over the Blackberries.

      • emptywheel says:

        And what’s significant about it is that we know the requests to fire Iglesias came at fundraisers too. It is a regular occurence to Rove, apparently.

    • looseheadprop says:

      Don’t ask me how I know this, cause I can’t tell you, but Rove had the final say over who got to be a US Attorney. Sen Fitzgerald knew this and did something very unorthadox to get Pat into NDIL.

      Normally the nominating Senator sends the name he is proposing over the WH on the QT. The WH does whatever vetting/interviewing process they have and if the peroson is acceptable to them, then and only then, is that person mentioned publicly.

      Sen Ftizgerald has said that he announced his selection of Pat publicily before telling the WH. Since Pat was so hugely qualified there was no way they could refuse to nominate him w/o tipping their hand about politiizing DOJ.

      I know of at least one HUGELY qualified person who did not get a WH nomination as US Attorney and was told by the President it was because Rove vetoed that name. The President was very apologetic but said he could not go against his own people.

      This person had bipartisan support in his state, senator, governor all enthusiatistic, hundreds of calls from members of the bar in support of this would be nomination –all dust because Rove didn’t like the politics of it and wanted a loyal Bushie in the slot.

      • SparklestheIguana says:

        We know Patrick Fitzgerald will never spill the beans in a tell-all book, but I wish Peter Fitzgerald would. The stuff that guy knows!

        • looseheadprop says:

          You live inChicago, you read the chicago papers, Peter Fitz has been pretty willing to dish to the press.

        • looseheadprop says:

          Maybe nobody asked him? He seems pretty outspoken. He was trying to avoid having some Bushbot that Denny Hastert wanted. I never knew who the bushbot was.

        • SparklestheIguana says:

          I’d like to know who the bushbot was. And why Denny folded up his tent and went home early. Someone told me it was because he had health problems (he lost a lot of weight), but he seems ok to me. Hopefully there’s an indictment around the corner for him.

        • looseheadprop says:

          Denny was outrmanuveured by Sen Fitz onthe USA appointemnt. Do you mean his seat? I think Denny may turn up in one of these cases one day. Icannot believe his hands are clean.

        • looseheadprop says:

          Could be his helath, it could be he hopes to be out of sight out of mind when indictmetns are being written, could be something else altogether. Dunno

        • radiofreewill says:

          Denny jumped on the Foley Hand Grenade to ’smother’ the investigation into approximately 60 GOP Congresspeople – all of whom, and their staffs, may have been/are Gay – some, or all, of whom, in the Finest GOP Hypocritical Fashion, supported anti-Gay legislation.

          The 60 Goopers were ‘cross-pledging’ thousands and thousands of campaign dollars to Each Other as Loyalty Retainders, orchestrated through the staffs.

          Is it not common knowledge in Chicago that Hastert’s wife is a beard? Denny lived in DC with his COS. When his ‘wife’ came to visit, she stayed at a local DC Hotel.

          Foley was an out-of-control pedophile, imvho, who couldn’t manage his appetites, that preyed upon the Pages so recklessly he got caught.

          Essentially, Foley ‘ruined it’ for Hastert’s “We’re straight (but not)” Wink-and-Nod Midget Mafia Operation controlling the House.

          The same cesspool of depravity got Reynolds, too.

          And should get Foley-contemporary Page Board Member (the Money Fairy herself) – Heather Wilson of New Mexico – in November.

    • looseheadprop says:

      Also, it was Rove who chnaged the system of having the homestate senators nominte candidates for US Attorney. If the state had 2 Dem senators, then the highest ranking Repoblican (except in california where Karl bi-passed Arnold and gave this selctions to a freaking fundraiser guy)elected person in the state was givien the selection power.

      Memos went out to the GOP electeds inthe effected states, so lots of folks knew

  12. Peterr says:

    The person drawing up “The Libby List” of in-house pardons for Bush to grant next December better get a bigger filing cabinet.

  13. Stephen Parrish says:

    Posted early this aftternoon on ThinkProgress:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/…..ure-memos/

    Yoo refuses to testify about torture memos

    Former Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo, who wrote controversial legal memos authorizing the administration’s torture programs, will not testify voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee, ABC reports, “paving the way for a possible subpoena and showdown over Executive Privilege. In a letter to Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), Yoo’s lawyer said his client was “not authorized” by the DOJ to discuss internal deliberations…

    (snip)

    • JoFish says:

      They just need to start the effing impeachment proceedings. Then all this “executive privelege” bullshit goes straight into the dumper.

      It’s how Ken Starr got into HRC’s lingerie drawers, now it’s time to get into Bush’s files, and inside the heads of the yahoos who perpetrated and perpetuated this fraud on America.

      • JoFish says:

        Such is the nature of the self-protective ruling aristocracy that it will be judged best to ‘put the past behind us’ and move forward, rather than ‘dwell’ on the ‘allegations of misdeeds’ by past administrations.

        While I agree with you to some extent, I think that the only guide for that action is Jerry Ford and he did not fair well politically in 1976 for his actions vis-a-vis Nixon.

        • rwcole says:

          Probably wouldn’t have been popular at that point to indict dead headed Ronnie who would have just drooled through a deposition.

        • looseheadprop says:

          Oh, I understand how it happened, but between Ford wanting to paper things over (and I understand why he did, I truly believe he thought he was doing the right thing) and the peterring out of the Iran Contra investigation –and how Cheney punked Larry Walsh, there is now this hisotry of letting criminal presidents off scott free, and letting most /all their criminla minions off as well.

        • rwcole says:

          Yep—I somehow just got a bit fascinated by the national reaction to Ronnie in court for prosecution….strange mental picture.

        • JoFish says:

          mmm… yeah sort of. Iran-Contra was really more of a Reagan mess with heavy CIA/GHW Bush overtones, and Bush I pardoned a bunch of those folks. Others (North/Poindexter) were let off because of the immunity deal with Congress after they had been convicted. You could argue that some of the dissatisfaction with Bush 41 was over his cover-up and pardoning of principals. I don’t remember that Clinton was much involved in the worst of it because it had been several years (and investigations gone by) when he was sworn in.

        • looseheadprop says:

          Bush I was the freaking architect of Iran Contra. Bush I was the first VP running his own spook operations. So, the first opportunity to go after Bush I was when Clinton came in.

        • DWBartoo says:

          LHP, thank you for underlining this fact, I think the Clinton legacy quite incomplete without it,

        • looseheadprop says:

          I’m not trying to trash Clinton. Again, I understand why he wouldn’t want to take it on and expend the political capital that a new President usually enjoys during the honeymoon.

          I don’t think he realized how polarized things wouuld becoem. if you want to work WITH the other side to accomplish you new leg agenda, you don’t kick things off by indicting most of the senior people in thier party.

          In hindsight, if he had, thangs might have turned out much better b/c Newt would not have been able to go on offense

        • DWBartoo says:

          I quite agree LHP, but I do think we have to wonder what might have been the state of affairs today had Clinton persued some form of action. In a way, it is part of the pattern established, so unfortunately by Gerald Ford.

        • masaccio says:

          I have always said that the worst mistake Clinton made was that he didn’t try to crush the Rs after his election, and I agree that he probably did it for the reasons you suggest.

          I hope that we aren’t writing this in a couple of years. The best thing about HRC is that I am reasonably confident she won’t make the same mistake her husband made. I doubt that she can govern if the Rs are free to attack and they won’t be able to attack if they are busy trying to talk their way out of jail.

        • bobschacht says:

          The best thing about HRC is that I am reasonably confident she won’t make the same mistake her husband made. I doubt that she can govern if the Rs are free to attack and they won’t be able to attack if they are busy trying to talk their way out of jail.

          Are you sure? Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate running for President (in the high 40s). They WILL attack her, and viciously, and if faced with jail time, they will cry that they are being persecuted for political reasons. Whatever her personal desires, it will not be possible for her to be a “uniter”, because the public is already too polarized about her.

          IMHO, YMMV, etc.

          Bob in HI

        • masaccio says:

          If HRC were elected and follows my line, the cries of political witch hunt will be drowned out by the evidence, assuming they leave anything behind.

        • JoFish says:

          Yeah, I guess so. Just never really thought about it that way. I had always viewed it as more of a Reagan operation ably assisted by GHWB. Good point.

        • ACitizen says:

          Not to worry!

          Barry will ‘fix’ this. Can their be any doubt in your mind that Barry the Magic Man will put this to right. After all his close business associate and good, good personal friend, a man who helped him buy his house, is embroiled in these Rovian toils. Barry will certainly want to set the recored straight.

          Will he not?

  14. Albatross says:

    What makes me sick is my belief that no matter who is elected President, no investigation into Bush Administration crimes will follow. Such is the nature of the self-protective ruling aristocracy that it will be judged best to ‘put the past behind us’ and move forward, rather than ‘dwell’ on the ‘allegations of misdeeds’ by past administrations.

    So rather than gain a clear understanding of the damage that the Bush Administration has done to our Constitution, civil rights, and national character and reputation, instead we’ll try to pretend it never happened. Instead of learning the lessons of history, we will bury them.

    So, no Karl Rove will never be prosecuted, much less Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld.

    I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think that I am.

    • rwcole says:

      You are not wrong.

      Clusterfuck will pardon anyone who appears to have any large potential jeopardy before leaving office..

  15. Hugh says:

    Remember we are talking Illinois here. An uncorruptible federal prosecutor is the one thing that would make politicians of both parties crap in their pants.

  16. Hugh says:

    BTW there is a good op-ed at the NYT by Gilbert King on the recent SCOTUS death penalty opinion (item 341 of my scandals list). He relates in greater detail than I do some of the history of SCOTUS decisions in this area and which are cited in Baze v. Rees paradoxically in defense of this decision.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04…..3king.html

  17. SparklestheIguana says:

    So the University of Missouri has endowed a Kenneth Lay chair in economics; when can we expect a Karl Rove chair in public policy or political science, and what school will do the honors?

  18. rwcole says:

    A bit from the president:

    NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) — President Bush denied Tuesday that the United States’ economy is in recession, calling it instead a “slowdown.”

    He pointed out that the economy grew in the last quarter of 2007 and that figures are not yet in for the first quarter of 2008. A common rule of thumb says a recession is two consecutive quarters of the gross domestic product shrinking.

      • rwcole says:

        He’s being cute actually….since you can’t (by definition) be in a recession until after two consecutive down quarters—we CANNOT be in a recession-even if we are.

  19. rwcole says:

    More Bush news:

    WASHINGTON — The House voted Wednesday to block the Bush administration from cutting federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. President Bush has threatened a veto, but supporters have more than enough votes in the House to override him, and maybe in the Senate, too.

    Two thirds of the Republicans joined every voting Democrat in the 349-62 vote to impose a one-year moratorium, through next March, on seven rules changes that the administration argues are needed to rectify waste and abuse in the state-federal partnership to provide health care to the poor.

  20. sojourner says:

    “And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn’t take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House — or in the Justice Department — about doing anything like that.” (my emphasis)

    If I am not mistaken, that is the second time in the last two or three days that Rove was quoted with those precise words… What are we missing?

    • Helen says:

      My paranoid self reads that as such: Rove was not physically in the White House or in the Justice Department when he has these conversations.

      • PJEvans says:

        Possibly all of the above: he was in his car going somewhere (or maybe just sitting in it in a garage) using his Blackberry to ‘communicate’ with Kjelland et al.
        Not in the WH, not at the DoJ, not talking to them … but he wasn’t doing nothing.
        I wouldn’t put that kind of parsing past Rover.

      • bmaz says:

        Well, there is precedent for that thought via Wayne Slater’s book

        The book also alleges that Rove held streetcorner meetings with fallen superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, knowing that all visits and phones calls to the White House were logged.

        • RandomSF says:

          A few minutes later, Abramoff pointed through the front windshield at an approaching street corner and turned to smile at Schwartz.

          “You recognize him?” the lobbyist asked his client.

          “Son of a b*tch,” Schwartz muttered. “He’s just out in the middle of the street.”

          And a sneaky “son of a b*tch” at that.

    • looseheadprop says:

      It wasn’t me who didn’t get the USA gig. WHy do I get hugs. The hugs go to the guy who should be a US Attorney today.

      • newspaperbrat says:

        You get hugs cause your reports never fail to inspire and lift this ole brat’s spirits in these final months of the Bush/Cheney reign of criminal insanity. Not to mention your reporting & writing skills remind me my late great reporter Dad skills and integrity.

        • bobschacht says:

          In response to looseheadprop @ 54

          You get hugs cause your reports never fail to inspire and lift this ole brat’s spirits in these final months of the Bush/Cheney reign of criminal insanity. Not to mention your reporting & writing skills remind me my late great reporter Dad skills and integrity.

          AMEN!!!

          Bob in HI

  21. SparklestheIguana says:

    And this reminds me, a couple weeks ago I saw Viveca Novak acting as a political commentator on one of the nightly news shows. I shivered with horror……

  22. Mary says:

    25 – I’m not relying on Libby’s statements, I’m relying on Fitzgerald’s representations to the court. I’d have to go back, but IIRC Fitzgerald did represent to the court as fact the sequencing of Bush authorizing Cheney to cherrypick the NIE info and covertly put it out. Again, IIRC it was phrased in such a way as to seemingly come from his interviews. In any event, it was rep’d to the court and if Fitzgerald had serious reasons to doubt the truth and validity of those facts, he was required to let the court know that.

    But I don’t see why you think it has to be an either or on the NIE and Plame front? I don’t. I think it very likely that Libby was authorized to do both – leak the cherrypicked NIE info and also leak Plame’s identity. I also think it very likely that when it looked like Fitzgerald was tumbling to it all, they decided that for both legal (the IIPA not being subject to pixie dust so much) and political reasons, there couldn’t be any acknowledgement of the authorization to out Plame, but they could try to muck up the works with a “instadeclassification” argument on the cherrypicked NIE info and they did also put a lot of that same info out publically later too, so they used the NIE cherrypicks to try to help provide cover for the IIPA violation.

    But in any event, yes I do believe that Fitzgerald’s court filings, which he purported to be facutally based, make a prima facie case for violation of the Nat Sec Act. And no, the OLC opinon doesn’t give Cheney any cover for that because it doesn’t even discuss it IIRC. And I do think that Fitzgerald couldn’t do anything about the NIE leak if he had wanted to – it was definitely outside of his mandate.

    That’s why it was so slick that he worked it in (kind of the MO you refer to above) Ashcroft only recused for the Plame identity leak and that, with the authority to pursue obstruction and perjury related to that identity leak investigation, were pretty much it for Fitzgerald. I think Walton’s ruling on the principal officer issue made that very clear – Fitzgerld did not have jurisdiction to investigate or charge for leaks other than the identity leak. Still, Fitzgerald danced every time the issue came up – over and over saying he wouldn’t be charging for it, but never really flat out going along with the proposals that the NIE leak was “legal”

    But unlike the IIPA, which has some very specific remedies, the Nat Sec Act (which was violated by the Gang of 4 briefings as well) does not spell out liabilities for violation (a bit like the Presidential Records Act). It’s very amorphous and truly seems almost more meant to serve as an impeachment grounds than a criminal grounds, although I think some generic criminal provisions could be linked for the criminal penalties.

    OLC opinion notwithstanding, and Libby effort to use the NIE leak for cover notwithstanding, I absolutely believe that the NIE leak was a Nat Sec Act violation and that it should be pursued as such, but Congress isn’t looking into the very clear violations of both the covert planting and the failure to brief violations of the Act, nor is the DOJ.

    • emptywheel says:

      Fitz says only that the govt does not dispute that the NIE was declassified on July 8 when Libby leaked it to Judy. Fitz specifically REFUSES to say when and how that happened (in the May 5, 2006 hearing). The account for when and how it happened is Libby’s. All of which is completely consistent with 1) Condi having leaked it, and 2) Libby having leaked it to Sanger and Woodward, and 3) that not being the primary purpose of Cheney’s order. (And note, along with the NIE and Plame, Cheney also apparently ordered Libby to leak the CIA trip report, that reportedly against Tenet’s explicit desires.)

      Also we haven’t seen the OLC memo. What we know is it said the President doesn’t have to follow his own EOs. And what we know is that Cheney has repeatedly appealed to EO 13292 that–we found out after the fact–Bush had changed the plain language meaning of to extend ALL Presidential powers to Cheney. I’m not saying the OLC memo is sound or even anything but ridiculous. But from everything we know, as a result of it, Cheney and Bush claim that Cheney has all the same powers of classification and declassification as Bush has.

      There is, as far as anyone has explained to me, no difference between the CIA’s classification authority over an identity or the NIE. Tenet owned both of those, purportedly only Bush could override Tenet. But with Pixie Dust, he gave Cheney that authority too.

      I agree that it doesn’t have to be either/or, NIE or Plame. Yes, I’m sure Cheney wanted Libby to leak everything.

      But every time someone intelligent who knows better repeats Libby’s lie that the primary purpose of his conversation with Judy was to leak the NIE, it just makes that intelligent person complicit in perpetuating Libby’s cover story for outing Plame.

      It makes no sense to perpetuate Libby’s cover story by reinforcing it.

  23. radiofreewill says:

    EW – Your writing soars on all the thermals of this topic!

    Luskin didn’t waste any time getting Rove’s “Shhhhhh, everybody be quiet” message out, did he?

    It would likely only take one person in PIN, giving eye-witness testimony, to Tie Rove to Siegelman, Mississippi, Iglesias, Abramoff, Guam and probably a whole lot of other Fresh Hell, too.

    So, Luskin issues a qualified Denial for Rove, claiming Privilege…

    Out floats to the table the deposition of an eye-witness to criminal activity by Rove…

    …End of Privilege Claim, makes the Subpoena absolutely enforceable.

    OT fwiw, I still have Hayden on my Fantasy Good Guy Team, along with Fallon.

    Imvho, those Honorable Men are resigning their Commissions prior to giving Testimony that would implicate you-know-who in any possible Criminal Wrong-doing. If that is what is happening, then they would be going about it the right way…

  24. MadDog says:

    OT – Via The Hill:

    GOP pushes discharge petition to force FISA vote

    House Republicans Wednesday began circulating a discharge petition to force a vote on the Senate version of a bill seeking changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    GOP leaders hope that enough Democrats will support the effort to get the vote.

    “We have no choice but to take this step to force House leaders to bring this bipartisan anti-terror bill to the floor for a vote,” said Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.), one of the leaders of the effort.

    To force a vote on the Senate bill, which passed with bipartisan support earlier this year, 218 lawmakers need to sign on to the discharge petition.

    • looseheadprop says:

      Two things.

      1)Fosella is a tool, so anything he is pushing is probably not good.

      2)I wonder why they think they have still have the votes in the Seante? Or is this them throwing in the towel on retroactive immunity?

      • MadDog says:

        IMHO, this is just an attempt to get Repug Campaign material traction.

        Based on the previous vote in which the House Democrats successfully voting to not support the Senate version, this smells like Repug desperation.

        However, one should never rule out the possibility that Steny Hoyer might shoot the House Democrats in the foot (or higher) by swallowing a deal with the Repugs to sell our 4th Amendment rights for a pittance.

        • PetePierce says:

          What will happen first

          1) Dems have a nominee

          2) Iraq war over

          3) FISA legislation resolved

          One hunert years fer all of ‘em!!!

      • emptywheel says:

        Haven’t talked to anyone about it.

        But I think it means the bipartisan negotiations yesterday did not go well (that is, Steny refused to negotiate on immunity) for the Republicans and/or they’ve gotten to a few of the Blue dogs who voted for the House version.

  25. Mary says:

    46 – I had heard a part of that story (not the part about another hugely qualified person, but about Rove holding sway and Sen Fitzgerald just walking around him and getting what he wanted anyway – with a pissed Rove making some comments along the lines of it being a mistake or hoping SenF knew what he had just done) Add in the Rezko push and it all makes that dinner Bush had with Daley that much more interesting, doesn’t it? Oh well.

    • SparklestheIguana says:

      One man’s futzing is another man’s gathering evidence. What I want to know is, when will he have enough to indict Daley?

    • looseheadprop says:

      Who says he won’t indict the governor? Have you not noticed that he does things very methodically, building eachnew proscution upon the foundation of the prior prsecution?

      Why? because once you get a conviction, as a matter of law,the facts introduced in the prior case are now “true”. So, you have this strong foundation.

      Also, you have to go carefully making sure you have your witnesses locked down and your documents in hand so that people cannot bow to political pressure and change thier stories.

      When I was doing public corruption cases, one of the most maddening things would be that you would interview all these witnesses, spend weeks or months figuring out your GJ presentation, fianlly secure a big enough block of GJ time or get the clerk to empanel a Specail GJ for you, and then have jkey witnesses recant, develope amnesia, slant their testimony just enough.

      In addition you had the targets and their political allies try ot cut off your funding, direct you to other work to slow you down, shit all over your bosses. Public corruption cases are amoung the slowest most tedious investigations, even worse than mafia cases–though very similar.

      • PetePierce says:

        Yes I have, and I agree with you that the archetypal template is to nibble and packman the smaller fish methodically and progressively, flip them and finally bring down the largest fish. I was being a bit snarky. There has been a ton of testimony now that should make the Governor pretty uncomfortable and implicating him in behavior, if true that’s incriminating. Not being in or around Chicago, I don’t have much of a feel for the whole situation.

        I can’t understand though in the cases of some of the principals, why they would have thrown the money they threw (bribes) for what seemed to be nebulous rewards.

  26. kirk murphy says:

    Oh, I understand how it happened, but between Ford wanting to paper things over (and I understand why he did, I truly believe he thought he was doing the right thing) and the peterring out of the Iran Contra investigation –and how Cheney punked Larry Walsh, there is now this hisotry of letting criminal presidents off scott free, and letting most /all their criminla minions off as well.

    lhp, might Sen Church’s (political) fate after investigating spookworld also be deterring his colleagues from acting?

      • kirk murphy says:

        sorry for late reply re Church. Though I’ve no doubt you recall news re Church Committee, the following is intended to help readers follow along…

        (Apologies for lengthy excerpts)

        Sen Church investigated spookworld – and touched the pols who used the spooks:

        Three separate bodies were formed to investigate the intelligence services: Church’s committee in the Senate, a committee headed by New York Democrat Otis Pike in the House of Representatives, and a commission led by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller….

        And as the embarrassing revelations tumbled out–that the CIA had kept lethal shellfish poisons despite an order from President Nixon to destroy them, for example, or that it had administered LSD to “unwitting” human subjects–the Ford administration dug in its heels. Indeed, the rhetoric of “dismantling” and “crippling” the CIA comes from ur-Realpolitickers Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger….

        Nevertheless, some CIA officers in the Directorate of Operations (DO) never forgave Colby for exposing their “crown jewels” to Church, explains Melvin Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and former CIA Soviet analyst. “When Colby died, I didn’t see one DO luminary attend that funeral,” remembers Goodman. “There was just tremendous contempt for him. They basically put out the word that Church was the turning point.” Because of Church, the CIA’s freewheeling cowboy era was over.

        And – after false accusations the investigation caused CIA Chief of Station Richard Welch’s assassination in Athens –

        Probably the most malicious attack on Church suggests that his committee’s activities compromised CIA operatives overseas. Following September 11, for example, the American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., wrote that Church’s hearings “betrayed CIA agents and operations.” This intimation has its roots in Christmas Day, 1975, when Richard Skeffington Welch, the CIA station chief in Greece, was assassinated. Welch’s death was instantly used against the Church committee for political gain. Many CIA agents killed in the line of duty are memorialized only by anonymous stars in the lobby of the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia–but NBC’s Today Show covered the airlifting of Welch’s body back to the United States, and President Ford attended his funeral with various luminaries. The chief counsel of the Church committee remarked that intelligence defenders “danced on the grave of Richard Welch in the most cynical way.” Following Welch’s assassination, Church received death threats and letters calling him a murderer.

        The truth is that Church stuck to his promise to Colby that there would be “no dismantling and no exposing of agents to danger. No sources will be compromised.” The committee made sure that it received no names of active agents, so that none could be revealed. Colby’s successor as CIA director, George H.W. Bush, fully admitted that Welch’s death had nothing to do with the investigation. In fact, Welch had been warned not to live in the Athens home that his CIA predecessors had occupied, because it was “notorious.” And the Greek media had identified him as a CIA officer.

        Lost his 2000 re-election by a tiny margin:

        Yet when Church ran for re-election in 1980, Republican Senator Jim McClure of Idaho publicly blamed him for Welch’s death. Church lost by just over 4,000 votes.

        • Minnesotachuck says:

          . . . Church’s hearings “betrayed CIA agents and operations.” This intimation has its roots in Christmas Day, 1975, when Richard Skeffington Welch, the CIA station chief in Greece, was assassinated. Welch’s death was instantly used against the Church committee for political gain.

          I recently read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes and, IIRC (book is back at the library so I can’t look it up), the 17 November movement had a spy in the Greek police or Army who fingered Welch. There was no mention of Sen. Church, as I recall.

          Legacy of Ashes is a good read. Weiner asserts that intelligence and analysis has played second fiddle to clandestine “operations” practically since the inception of the agency in the late 1940s. The only directors he has much positive to say about are John McCone (especially) and, to a lesser extent, Richard Helms and Robert Gates.

  27. Mary says:

    60 – Amen.

    For that matter, Congress out ought to make it a routine to haul in someone like Weinberger or Abrams who gets a pardon and, post-pardon make them testify to Congress about what really happened, under oath. So that they commit a NEW and undpardoned violation of law by lying or by obstructing and not testifying, or they at least have to basically allocute to the American public to go along with their pardon.

    • bobschacht says:

      For that matter, Congress out ought to make it a routine to haul in someone like Weinberger or Abrams who gets a pardon and, post-pardon make them testify to Congress about what really happened, under oath. So that they commit a NEW and undpardoned violation of law by lying or by obstructing and not testifying, or they at least have to basically allocute to the American public to go along with their pardon.

      This is a most excellent idea.

      Bob in HI

  28. punaise says:

    …I believe–based on somewhat attentive observation of Patrick Fitzgerald over time…

    LOL

  29. Pat2 says:

    Another word-parsing alert:

    “Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said Rove and Kjellander have been friends since college, but Rove does not remember Kjellander ever talking to him about Fitzgerald.

    ” ‘He does not recall Kjellander speaking to him about Pat Fitzgerald and is certain he never spoke to anyone at the White House about removing Fitzgerald,’ Luskin said Wednesday, adding that Rove has never been contacted by the U.S. attorney’s office about the alleged conversations.”

    He didn’t “talk” to Kjellander about Fitzgerald, he communicated with him about the US Attorney.

    He does not recall Kjellander “speaking” to him — again, the two communicate in another form;

    He certainly never “spoke to anyone at the White House” — a double parsing, involving both “spoke” and “at.” He communicated with people from the White House or other political entities, he just never spoke with them while at the White House. …. hmmmm, wonder if he even differentiates between “at” and “in.”

    Wouldn’t put it past him; this man needs to take an oath, ’cause then the pesky “whole truth” would seemingly disallow such juvenile parsing.

    “Did you brush your teeth?” I ask my children.
    “Yes,” they’ll each answer.
    “Today?” I’ll push.
    “Whoops,” they respond — caught.

    Please, please, please someone do this to Karl Rove and Company.

  30. dmac says:

    loosehead at 74–and maddog 68—-no, there’s something else BIG going on , too….besides that,

    http://intelligence.senate.gov…..ingId=2643

    selise posted earlier that there is a part of another bill that is sneaking immunity back on the table, hidden in it…
    the original posts had links, i just saved the link to the pdf’s-above……you can find which thread by the time it was posted.

    ==========
    selise April 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 am
    58
    In response to tw3k @ 52

    I think that would be a better step than granting telco immunity.

    that reminds me…. seems fisa is back on the table.

    i posted this yesterday in a thread a emptywheel:

    the Senate Intelligence Committee has a hearing scheduled for next week on FISA.

    Hearing/Meeting: Open/Closed Hearing: FISA
    Date & Time Tuesday, May 1 2007 2:30 PM

    witnesses:

    John M. McConnell
    Director of National Intelligence

    Lt. General Keith B. Alexander
    Director
    National Security Agency

    Kenneth Wainstein
    Assistant Attorney General for National Security

    The issue is the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008″ and the pdf is posted on the committee’s website (see link above). Check out section 4 – it’s all about FISA. Apparently this administration hasn’t given up on getting what they want.

    • MadDog says:

      I did read that yesterday, and in particular, Section 4 of the bill that Selise mentioned.

      It has the same ol’ Retroactive Immunity provision that the original SSCI committee bill had that Jello Jay got from the White House.

      As far as I can see, IMHO, the action is still in the House.

  31. watercarrier4diogenes says:

    Here’s some fresh parsing for you. Rep. Robert Wexler has posted his ‘conversation‘ of earlier today with FBI Dir. Robert Mueller over at dailyKos

  32. maryo2 says:

    http://www.swamppolitics.com/n…..nings.html
    “Former Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald told the Tribune that Rove, at the behest of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and unnamed GOP insiders, had tried to persuade him to limit his recommendation for U.S. attorney to someone from inside the state.”

    http://blogs.trb.com/news/poli…..20Rove.doc
    “A year or so later, according to Peter Fitzgerald, Rove “said to me that Fitzgerald appointment got great headlines for you, but it ticked off the base.” ” (Chicago Tribune) < <Is that a veiled threat?</p>

    • looseheadprop says:

      “Former Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald told the Tribune that Rove, at the behest of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and unnamed GOP insiders, had tried to persuade him to limit his recommendation for U.S. attorney to someone from inside the state.”

      Translation: Limit his recommendation for US Attoenry to someone on Hasstert’s short list.

      When Pat’s first 4 year term was epxiring, Hasstert was leaking the list. A buddy of mine ( a federal agent)called up and wanted to know what I knew about the guys on the list. Not being from Chicago, I didn’t know anything about them–but the names were in circulation

        • looseheadprop says:

          I couldn’t tell you who they are at this point. I didn’t write them down and the names didn’t mean anything to me, so I don’t remeber them. They thing that stuck with me was that folks were calling around to “get the book” on them and it seemed for a bit as though Pat’s goose was cooked.

        • SparklestheIguana says:

          Hmm, well back in July 2005 Denny was denying anyone was pressuring him to sack Fitz.

          House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was asked about Peter Fitzgerald’s concerns Thursday . “I know there [have] been innuendos about my getting pressures. I can tell you nobody has talked to me or called me about this. Anybody. Period,” Hastert said.

        • behindthefall says:

          Hmm, well back in July 2005 Denny was denying anyone was pressuring him to sack Fitz.

          House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was asked about Peter Fitzgerald’s concerns Thursday . “I know there [have] been innuendos about my getting pressures. I can tell you nobody has talked to me or called me about this. Anybody. Period,” Hastert said.

          In the spirit-of-the-day, I point out that he could have been, oh, EMAILED, SENT LITTLE BITS OF PARCHMENT BY CARRIER PIGEON, or FLASHED SEMAPHORE SIGNALS. *groan* Why do we have to put up with this childish hyperprecision of language. This ain’t ‘parsing’; ‘parsing’ is what we used do with sentences in English class, or what yacc (of lex/yac fame) does with a stream of tokens. This is just jerking people around to get away with dishonest acts.

        • bobschacht says:

          In the spirit-of-the-day, I point out that he could have been, oh, EMAILED, SENT LITTLE BITS OF PARCHMENT BY CARRIER PIGEON, or FLASHED SEMAPHORE SIGNALS. *groan* Why do we have to put up with this childish hyperprecision of language. This ain’t ‘parsing’; ‘parsing’ is what we used do with sentences in English class, or what yacc (of lex/yac fame) does with a stream of tokens. This is just jerking people around to get away with dishonest acts.

          That is why one should use more generic words, where applicable, in questioning. Like for example “Did you communicate with … in any way about…”

          “Parsing ” got a bad name ever since Bill famously said, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.

          Bob in HI

        • behindthefall says:

          What ticks me off at this moment is that this isn’t what I would call ‘parsing’: it’s something else — I just can’t come up with the proper term for it. I LIKE parsing. Parsing is fun. Parsing clarifies how a language works. This ain’t parsing. This is being a smart@ss.

        • bobschacht says:

          In response to bobschacht @ 141

          What ticks me off at this moment is that this isn’t what I would call ‘parsing’: it’s something else — I just can’t come up with the proper term for it. I LIKE parsing. Parsing is fun. Parsing clarifies how a language works. This ain’t parsing. This is being a smart@ss.

          I was not trying to be a smart-ass, but rather playing back to you what the MSmedia means when the word “parsing” comes up. Not MSM, but see for example The Politics of Parsing, and Chris Cilizza’s column, “Parsing the Polls on Bill and Hillary Clinton,” including the comment Posted by Helena Montana on July 26, 2006 8:30 AM that

          The word “parse” related to politics rather than grammar came into usage during the Clinton/Lewinsky affair (pun intended).

          I am unable at this time to do a more thorough history at this time. I agree that it is a distortion of what true parsing means. Perhaps the operative word should be “deconstruct”, as in “It depends on how you deconstruct the word ‘is’.”

          Bob in HI

  33. NorskeFlamethrower says:

    1,821 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

    Firepup Freedom Fighters:

    I have long felt that as important as the TraItorgate-Libby prosecution was, the more important work bein’ done to unravel the deep metastatic corruption in our entire system was Fitz’s on-goin’ work in Illinois. What we have learned over the last 7 years is that our system is fatally corrupted and that corruption extends across and into all political parties and institutions from the large cities and states through the institutions of the federal government. We can’t isolate one scandal from another now. Traitorgate leads to Abrahmoff leads to the US attorney scandal leads to…well ya get the idea. And there isn’t a single one of the aforementioned scandals that doesn’t involve or impact on the major criminal political machines across the country including the Daily machine in Chicago- and the Texas syndicate based in Crawford.

    This is why the Obama political phenomenon and the movement that is developing around it is so important. An outsider with no connections or obligations to any of the elements of the corporate oligarchy is essential to any hope we may have of cleaning up the system at least enough to save constitutional governance and return some political sovereignty to the states and localities. I see Obama and the movement around him as a political Pat Fitzgerald, I think there is a synergy here that may be our last chance to kill enough of the cancerous corruption in the system to at least give us a fightin’ chance to save our constitution. Jest ask yourself the question, “Which candidate for President offers the best chance to continue Fitzgerald’s work?”

    Everything in our country is political, that is the genius of the 18th century ideas around which our form of democracy developed… we now face the biggest threats to our existance as a constitutional democracy and politics and a truly free election is our only hope.

    KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND ANYMORE AND THERE IS NO COMPROMISING WITH EVIL!!

  34. JimWhite says:

    pow wow just pointed out in comments at Glenn’s place that the link is for a May 1, 2007 hearing. I clicked on the transmittal letter at the link and it is dated April 27, 2007.

        • selise says:

          many, many apologies to all. i just emailed a correction and sent it also to one of the mods with the request that a correction be added to any prior comment as a mod note.

      • JimWhite says:

        selise,

        Thanks for all that you do.
        Sorry I had to run off after putting up that information, but I thought you would want to know. We can trust that they aren’t finished trying to shove retroactive immunity down our throats and so everyone’s efforts will be needed to watch out for whatever they try.

        • selise says:

          Sorry I had to run off after putting up that information, but I thought you would want to know.

          absolutely – thank you very much!

          i hate to fuck up, but fucking up and not cleaning up after myself is beyond the pale.

  35. dmac says:

    maddog at 101–i’m saying there is more than one ball in play, keep eyes on all balls……

    and emptywheel–haven’t heard this mentioned—a possible witness still to testify about the karl rove link….

    (i think cbl2 posted this link)

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/……htmlstory

    ”[Ata] had conversations with Mr. Rezko about the fact that Mr. Kjellander was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed,” Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve.

    scroll down to 9:54am ’us attorney reportedly targeted by heavyweights’

    • MadDog says:

      See JimWhite’s comment at 107 about the dates. That stuff about the SSCI hearings is from 2007, not this year. *g* The action is still in the House.

  36. SparklestheIguana says:

    Hastert is a friend of Dorothy? But…..I’ve seen his Christmas card and his children and their golden retrievers (or maybe it was Labs)! Even the kids looked like golden retrievers! It can’t be.

  37. Bluetoe2 says:

    Sorry to be OT, but I sick and tired of hearing from rich celebrity pundits of the courtesan class saying the Dems are in chaos and implying they are self destructing. Maureen Dowd, and Adam Nagourney both of the Old Gray Slut, are closet Republicans that have seldom or ever had anything to say positive about Democrats. The Dems are going thru a nominating process and although it may be ugly at times it’s just part of that process.

  38. dmac says:

    (redfaced-i ALWAYS read things before i post them, can’t say that anymore now, but today, busy busy, and computer crashed and wiped out the pdf’s that i stored in the dock for later, so went to read them and couldn’t find them anywhere, have been spending last half hour or so looking-because i posted it and didn’t read it, so went to read it quick…….i am in some ways computer illiterate, especially when everything is closed up on me…..and i didn’t know the file name…..REALLY sorry ’bout that, and i did see that date when it opened earlier, but thought it was an introductory document, so didn’t think much about it….”boy i hate it when that happens”-billy crystal and christopher guest….)

    but i’m GLAD that’s OLD!!!!!!!!!

    YAY!!!!!!

    • MadDog says:

      My comment at 127 to Selise applies to you also!

      As a proven practioner of missteps and ooopsies myself, I only wish I hadn’t bought the lifetime membership. *g*

  39. dmac says:

    selise–just act like it’s April 1st!!!!

    let’s do the time warp againnnnnnn…… *G*

    or just say you’re a procrastinator…and finally thought of a good one to play on us!

    (my other link at 109 i read the whole thing : ) )

  40. rapier says:

    They just knew the limits of their power and Fitz was off limits. He was saved by being appointed to the leak case. This wasn’t about the Libby case because it couldn’t be. That case was too hot. Then again maybe even without that case Fitz was just too well known to be taken out. It would have just smelled too bad and would have put people on the scent. It has already reached scuttle butt stage in Chitown. The deal got messed anyway, ut after the AZ guy spoke out after they dissed him

  41. dmac says:

    emptywheel at 128-” And what’s significant about it is that we know the requests to fire Iglesias came at fundraisers too. It is a regular occurence to Rove, apparently.”

    i bet that’s the only time he was directly accessible, any other time he was within his inner circle, and you know by know they aren’t talkin’….bet he was pretty much at the white house or at home except at fundraisers, even going to events he would have been ’isolated’ from anyone….

    and i remember hearing over and over he’s a blackberry freak, so, saying things like ’didn’t have a conversation, etc,” well, noone has said he didn’t get ’messages’ about it, or send any……

  42. dmac says:

    sparkles quotes–”

    Hmm, well back in July 2005 Denny was denying anyone was pressuring him to sack Fitz.

    House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was asked about Peter Fitzgerald’s concerns Thursday . “I know there [have] been innuendos about my getting pressures. I can tell you nobody has talked to me or called me about this. Anybody. Period,” Hastert said.

    =======

    he says ”talked to me or called me about this”

    so, pretty much what rove said, so, rove and his blackberry would still be in play on this one…..

    someone mentioned earlier parsing of words, i completely hear that when people talk and when they write, even on blogs…….word usage……

    i have a saying, one word can be an entire language, and/or an entire history-my uncle taught me that…..what someone doesn’t say, and how they say it when they do say it……

  43. Loo Hoo. says:

    Doesn’t it seem like the judiciary committees would be interested in knowing who encouraged Rove to remove Fitzgerald?

    • PetePierce says:

      How does any committee transport Rove’s ass before them to testify? Subpoenas don’t matter; and he claims executive privilege even while claiming he had no Executive discussions.

  44. PetePierce says:

    Speaking of dissembling, I’d like to congratulate 3rd Circuit Judge Chertoff continuing his fucking up on the bench at DHS with a $760 million tax payer pissaway in the electronic fence that does not work.

  45. bmaz says:

    Interesting that Yoo retained a securities specialist at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to handle his interaction with Conyers instead of a lawyer at Gibson, Dunn who is a partner and

    Co-Chair of the firm’s Crisis Management Practice Group and the White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Group.

    such as this one. I guess 1.5 million dollar signing bonuses just don’t buy the talent they used to….

    • PetePierce says:

      Bmaz you remember ole Debra don’t you? She has probably been the focus of a blog by EW/Christy or LHP but after a while a lot of blogs merge.

      Her mafia like linage goes deep into US Attorney gate. She was one of the corrupt (should have been convicted loyal Bushie AUSAs who whored herself out to Rove, Addison and Fredo. I’m glad to see she’s gaining weight even like a pig on steroids even though it means she’s eating well.


      Debra Wong Yang–US Attorney Whore from the Central District of California

      Did Debra Wong Yang get $1.5 million to stop investigating Rep. Jerry Lewis?

  46. bmaz says:

    Who the hell is this dude from HuffPo on my teevee (Abram’s Verdict) that looks like Roger Daltrey in “Tommy”?

    • PetePierce says:

      Maybe you’ll see the pic http://www.huffingtonpost.com/here.

      I finally hit a wall, and it may be terminal.

      I’ve OD’d irreversibly on political cable. I can’t watch it anymore–so I don’t know. Instead I turn to something soothing like

      Criminal Minds

      and work on the pc and something calm like Beta testing to crash it.

      I don’t know what to take that will cure this overdose. 5″0, 000 stories on changing metrics did me in. If she loses the delegates, the popular vote, and the super delegates”, McAulliffe, Corzine, Bayh, Howie Wolfson and Rendell say if Reverand Wright’s yell speech plays 50 times within 24 hours for 7 days straight, HRC is automatically the nominee. That’s the current metric even Chuck Todd can’t refute.

      Also it’s a proven medical fact that if you’re exposed to Reverand Wright screaming “Goddamn America” more than 50 times in one year, you will turn to stone over a period of 72 hours, and then disintegrate into a pillar of salt. Intriguing that McCain “denounced” the North Carolina Wright commercial but HRC revelled in it in silence. The “gangs of Chicago 527 commercial by the guy who did the Dukakis commercials (they brought him back from the grave) is superlative as well(Obama and Bin Ladin personally birthed every gang member with Obama’s home girls behind the dialysis machine).

      I’d like to say at this time that I’ve received more votes for President than anyone else and I scored more touchdowns at the Superbowl in Arizona than any player (but I did it yesterday when the teams had left). Still counts. Terry says.

      So I don’t know.

      But I do know this. Debra Wong Yang (hadn’t thought about her in months) is at the nexus of every sewer that still lives at Main Justice and Karl Rove has been her pimp. Google her and watch the hits keep on comin’. Even from the Murdoch journal whose Libby coverage consisted of editorials by Vicki Toensig and no news stories:

      Debra Wong Yang & the U.S. Attorney Mess

      “>NYT: Debra Yang: The U.S. Attorney, the G.O.P. Congressman and the Timely Job Offer

      • bmaz says:

        Thanks, but I know exactly who Debra Yang is in all this mess. I probably wasn’t clear enough @162. Yang is not representing Yoo, another lawyer at Gibson Dunn is, a one John C. Millian whose “practice emphasizes securities, financial institutions, antitrust, and intellectual property litigation.” I guess Yang, whose specialization is tailor made for this type of case, is not good enough. I am disregarding that there is at least, arguably, a potential conflict for Yang because I am getting great joy from the snark of this juxtaposition.

        • PetePierce says:

          Sorry I misunderstood and then got carried away with Yang. But I don’t think I’m ranting at all with her–she and Rove and the Lewis situation among others are one of the nuggets in the Kingdom of Rovedom and the hijacking of DOJ.

  47. Mary says:

    137 – EW, prima facie does not mean primary purpose.

    But every time someone intelligent who knows better repeats Libby’s lie that the primary purpose of his conversation with Judy was to leak the NIE, it just makes that intelligent person complicit in perpetuating Libby’s cover story for outing Plame.

    It makes no sense to perpetuate Libby’s cover story by reinforcing it.
    >

    What I said was that there was a prima facie case of violation of the Nat Sec Act with the covert planting of cherrypicked NIE info (all for the stated purpose of trying to influence domestic politics). Not that the NIE leak was the primary purpose of Libby’s meeting with Miller. ??

    I happen to agree with your spec and opinion as to the likelihood that Libby was authorized to out Plame and that they used the NIE leak, for which they thought they had more legal cover, to mask and obscure. But Fitzgerald was never able to get the crack in the facades to establish every element of a prima facie IIPA violation with Libby (although I still wonder about wth happened with Rove).

    However, unlike the IIPA violation, Fitzgerald WAS able to state an evidentiary basis for all necessary items (a prima facie case) for a NSA 503f violation in his pleadings. It’s not something he could pursue, if he wanted to (and I don’t know him so I don’t know if he would have wanted to with all the implications). Even so, he laid it out in his Libby filings – that the Decider and Cheney discussed influencing domestic politics covertly and decided to accomplish that task by covertly planting stories with Miller.

    So while it’s not the case that most people wanted made or laid out in the Plame investigation, and while it’s not one that Fitzgerald even could do anything with, it makes no sense to me for a prima facie violation of law by the President and Vice President of the United States to just sit around not getting any attention. Just like the violations of the NSA arising out of only briefing the “gang of 4″ are just sitting there, getting no follow up.

    You never know – maybe some IIPA cases can and will still be made, but whether they do or do not, that isn’t really intrinsically tied to the planting of stories with Miller issue. For that, you don’t really even need to know the date of the imaginary and elusive instadeclassification, bc the main element isnt the classified status of the info, it’s the covert planting by the Gov for political purposes. It could have been covertly planting a story that Hillary Clinton has a gay Muslim lover,as opposed to classified, cherrypicked info.
    our
    The classification element is just an overlay and goes to the secondary round of whether there is “declassification” when a journalist’s ear gets a whisper and they are then allowed the defact right to decide if others get access to the “instadeclassified” info or not. All that is your pixie dust issue, but not really the NSA issue.

    No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.

    Fitzgerald laid out the meeting expressing concern over domestic politics, the decision to influence domestic politics, and the decision to covertly plant stories in the domestic media. Unlike an IIPA violation, where he had hurdles that he could not get over for some of the elements of his case, for the NSA violation he has it all in the record. IMO.

    To me saying that we should ignore the case Fitzgerald did lay out (that he couldn’t have pursued if he wanted to) because of frustrations over the case he couldn’t completely lay out, because going after the case that can be made somehow empower’s Libby’s lies, doesn’t follow. It certainly doesn’t negate the argument that Libby met Miller to out Plame to also purse the facts that Bush and Cheney met and planned to violate the NSA and Cheney then had Libby carry out their plans to violate the NSA.

    all fwiw

    • emptywheel says:

      Mary

      You are utterly and totally missing my point. I understand what you’re saying, I just think it is strategically counterproductive and possibly much weaker than you claim.

      What I don’t understand is why you–someone who knows better–would choose THIS to go after BushCo on, rather than any of the huge number of other equally clear-cut cases, when in doing so you would rhetorically give credit to Libby’s story.

      I’m making a pragmatic argument. I’m saying people who know that Cheney ordered Libby to leak Plame’s identity–and who focus on anything but that–are helping to perpetuate Libby’s story.

      Furthermore, your covert argument falls flat when it becomes clear that Condi overtly, back in June, leaked some of the things you’re so wrapped up in Libby leaking covertly. Or that Libby provided them overtly to Sanger with his press aide present before he gave them to Judy covertly. If you really want to go that route, go after Wolfowitz with the Jan 24 document, not Libby and Judy. But don’t become a willing participant in Libby’s lies.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        bmaz,

        Is this news to you? I’m glad the WP wrote it up, but surely this is patently obvious to anybody who has been paying attention.

        • bmaz says:

          Ah Jeepers WO; have mercy, haven’t the folks in your neck of the woods been doing enough damage to us poor desert dwellers what with what the Spurs are doing to the Suns and all? Now you have to go and beat up on my excitement over this? Seriously though, yeah, it struck me as a fairly significant deal. It is one thing to see something nefarious as patently obvious, but quite another (at least to my pin head lawyer brain) to start getting sworn declarations by the opposition that you are correct. Then you toss in all the involvement of the OLC on the issue, it is just frosting on the cake. This isn’t just the authorization of torture, that I agree we have had down pat for quite a while and then boosted by the Yoo memo release and “principals” meetings etc., but the key here is that they have now point blankedly admitted, again apparently in sworn declarations, that they intentionally destroyed the torture tapes with the direct knowledge that they were material evidence of criminal, civil and administrative charges against them were “inevitable”. To my mind, that smacks of a direct admission to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence of governmental crimes.

      • klynn says:

        bmaz, how can Ex Priv still be claimed? The article itself points to the fact that the documents reinforce what the President himself admitted to recently on ABC.

        Once “it” (or the essence of “it”) goes public, how does Ex Priv still apply?

        I know, it’s the Bush admin meme, but I guess I do not see how Ex Priv stands up once the Pres goes public on something he previously claimed to be priv?

        Love that it ran on A16…Wow how newsie…

      • masaccio says:

        bmaz: great article. Look at this sentence:

        After the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation tactics, including a form of simulated drowning, became known, the agency said they were authorized by a series of secret Justice Department legal opinions.

        “a form of simulated drowning” = waterboarding. Apparently we have settled on the new euphemism for torture.

        • Rayne says:

          Ah, the ultimate corruption. They are asking us to forsake the reality of torture and subscribe to its simulation.

          Simulacra and Simulation.

          This is why “24″ is so bloody dangerous; they point to it as if it were real, Jack Bauer saving the world through a simulation of torture, becoming simulacra as reality is completely rejected and obsoleted by the progressive preference for the the unreal model of torture as salvation.

          We are damned as long as we cannot transcend this breach with reality.

  48. klynn says:

    Ok,

    this just ran in the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…../usa.korea

    The White House is today set to unveil a video it claims supports allegations that North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor.

    The suspected reactor was destroyed by Israeli planes last September, in an attack reminiscent of Israel’s 1981 raid on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.

    Now, I posted yesterday in the Kadish thread about how AIPAC lobbied the state of Ohio just this past February to not divest totally in Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan… And this has been a lobbying pattern the past year. Hmmm…

    IRT AIPAC in Ohio:

    It is simply bizarre that of all the organizations in the US, the organization dedicated to strengthening America’s alliance with Israel is leading the effort to shield the North Korean, Syrian and Sudanese economies from divestment and to limit the damage the divest terror movement can exact on Iran’s economy.

    In light of the Kadish arrest and this announcement, that the White House is going to release this today, I’d say we have an intelligence war going on on the highest levels and there is a race to nail the Israelis before we declare war…

    Just crazy arse guessing…

    No doubt, something big is happening…

    • kspena says:

      Apparently Phil Giraldi at anti-war is saying that indeed there is a war between the highest levels of US and Israeli intell; the leaks are coming from Israelis who don’t want war. The hope is that this revelation will cause the disruption of the testimony of hard-line Israeli intell officers to US congress next week. The hope is they won’t appear in this climate of suspicion.

  49. wavpeac says:

    And all set to go down as we approach the elections and as evidence for war crimes are building. They must create a crises. They are cornered.

    It’s like a perfect storm and it’s why they don’t sweat.

  50. behindthefall says:

    In response to behindthefall @ 142

    In response to bobschacht @ 141

    What ticks me off at this moment is that this isn’t what I would call ‘parsing’: it’s something else — I just can’t come up with the proper term for it. I LIKE parsing. Parsing is fun. Parsing clarifies how a language works. This ain’t parsing. This is being a smart@ss.

    I was not trying to be a smart-ass, but rather playing back to you what the MSmedia means when the word “parsing” comes up. Not MSM, but see for example The Politics of Parsing, and Chris Cilizza’s column, “Parsing the Polls on Bill and Hillary Clinton,” including the comment Posted by Helena Montana on July 26, 2006 8:30 AM that

    The word “parse” related to politics rather than grammar came into usage during the Clinton/Lewinsky affair (pun intended).

    I am unable at this time to do a more thorough history at this time. I agree that it is a distortion of what true parsing means. Perhaps the operative word should be “deconstruct”, as in “It depends on how you deconstruct the word ‘is’.”

    =====================================================

    Bob, if you’re still here — it’s Thursday AM now — (and if Bob’s not around, somebody please pass this on to him) — I most certainly was NOT saying that you were acting badly. I see now that I had conflated two gripes: 1. using a string of narrowly-directed verbs to intentionally fail to cover all possibilities while giving the impression that all possibilities were being dealt with, and then some, and 2. calling that behavior ‘parsing’. The person who does the former, I was suggesting, might be a, well, you know. My apologies for phrasing that rant in a way that could be misunderstood.

  51. SparklestheIguana says:

    Well, for what it’s worth, Peter Fitzgerald is certain that Rove would not have tried to remove PatFitz.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/b…..24.article

    (I didn’t know that Rove was Peter Fitzgerald’s campaign strategist when PetFitz was running against Carol Moseley Braun for Carol’s Senate seat.)

  52. MartyDidier says:

    This is a great series of articles. This particular subject is a good example but needs to be expanded many times. There is that I’m personally aware of other examples with people of nearly the same level of importance as Fitz who were actually affected in the same manner. One in particular is featured on the Internet however I’m not able to discuss any detail at this time. Sorry but later I’ll be able to talk more about this.

    However one main question that needs to be asked is WHY? And what is the bigger picture that this supports? Many of my posts touch on issues that for most may be difficult to believe but please remember for more than 26 years I lived in a family who is part of these issues. And it’s not to mention the years that followed of what I had to deal with too. A bigger picture exists and there is also a huge support network to protect it.

    A side issue: The Rezko trial in Chicago does surface a number of interesting issues to consider. And for me, this is personal as my youngest son is involved with Rezko. However there is much more that still will need to be said to explain what the bigger picture is all about and that is expected to eventually happen.

    Marty Didier
    Northbrook, IL

Comments are closed.