Well, it probably sounded like a crudely delivered, thinly veiled threat, but I think the more worrisome time for Fitzgerald was when Comey left. Then, as Fitzgerald’s term was almost up, a source close to Karl Rove used Michael Isikoff (what a surprise his name turns up) to deliver a less crude, but more open threat.

Very curious to see the actual speech now, which is probably a very interesting read in hindsight. Do we think it’s out there somewhere?

nobody in the blogosphere seems to want to ask this question: Did Fitzgerald not indict Karl Rove because he was afraid he would lose his job?

Not that I’m â€in the blogosphereâ€, but I’ve been asking questions like that ever since Rove didn’t get indicted. As we’ve now learned from the post-trial juror comments, even Libby’s half-hearted defense team, with no help from Fitz, was able to convince a jury of Rove’s guilt. I find it hard to believe that Fitzgerald let Rove walk to save his Chicago USA job, but something is very wrong and rotten with the way that whole thing turned out. Rotten to the core.

I was fascinated with some of Jason Leopold’s reporting at Truthout about Rove’s involvement in the Plame case. At one point, Leopold reported that Rove had actually been indicted, and he had a couple of different sources for the story that his editors validated. But, it never came down — although there is a remaining sealed indictment for some unnamed person. The speculation is that it is for Rove. I just never understood why Pat Fitz did not carry through, if that is the case.

Money talks? I hope not — Fitzgerald has become a symbol of integrity for many of us, but like anything else, I suppose it can be bought.

Does anyone here remember the Leopold story and the resulting denials, etc?

Remember that there is a â€sealed vs sealed†indictment in some safe place. Because it is sealed on both sides, we don’t know if it is of concern to us, or not.

I think that Fitzgerald is more concerned with getting at the truth of the matter, AND working within the legal processes, than with preserving his job. Knowing something and being able to prove it decisively are different. Given this administration and its media enablers, he’d have to have not only a smoking gun but the ballistics report and film from the security camera. Of course, people who delete documents or allow 12 hours for such deletion aren’t helping the course of Justice much!

Rove is playing a game, and he thinks he is clever. But even chessmasters can be beaten by the computer, or by a silly mistake such as taking a finger off a piece. With all of these pieces in motion across various departments, a mistake is inevitable.

If they had gone through with the original plan to fire all 93 USAs at once, they’d have removed Fitzgerald and any other â€pesky nuisance†(Lam, Iglesias, etc.) in a manner which wouldn’t really have reeked of political ass-covering. It would have been brutal and controversial, but harder to prove malfeasance. By discriminating, the White House has made its concerns and its methods obvious. Even to the media. Maybe.

I know what it is like to work for a boss who is weak and untrustworthy. For someone in the DoJ, this must be especially galling.

It would certainly be poetic justice if Rove’s machinations to avoid indictment in AbuGate put him back in Plame jeopardy, but I doubt it.

What if Congress re-subpoenas Rove and Harriet AFTER 2009? Can Bush still claim executive privilege when he’s not longer the executive?

â€when he’s no longer the executive†– damn, that sounds good!

http://tomflocco.com/fs/Deaths…..stions.htm

WTF? Is Tom Flocco another Wayne Madsen or is this for real?

Maybee: It wasn’t Armitage that the Libby jurors were grousing about after the trial. You can indict a ham sandwich, but you can convict Karl Rove … if he doesn’t have you killed first.

Tom Flocco is more Wayne Madsen than Wayne Madsen. Pour a shaker of salt down your throat and read it.

Irene-
I was comparing Armitage to Rove, not Libby. Surely Armitage knows some people that can kill you, too? Maybe he knows whoever it was that killed Vince Foster.
Neither Armitage nor Rove seems to have been indicted, though we have equal proof of their lying and obstruction.

Does anyone know the satus of Simon Dodge’s testimony? I read on some blog it has been postponed.

obsessed,

According to Rove’s lawyer, Fitzgerald has every email and an image of every computer disk that Karl Rove has.

There is nothing that congress can get from Rove on Plame in 2009 except probably a lot of â€not sure on that.†And the additional lapse of time will make it more reasonable.

As for Prosecutors and Law Enforcement having to charge and arrest their bosses, it happens all the time in our country. From tiny townships and districts to giant cities, and states.
Fitzgerald is not unique in that.

Perhaps one day a lot of people can just let go of Wilson-Plame-Rove. I hope so. I am tired of hearing about it, though I originally came here just for that.

John Forde — I do wonder, though, what the truth is…has there been a disproportionate death rate among AUSA’s during the last 6 years? The details of the cold-blooded assassination of McKay’s AUSA is enough to make me wonder, without even having read the Tom Flocco bit. This administration’s scruples or lack thereof persuaded them to out a NOC for political and economic expediency; what’s an AUSA to them?

Jim E. — Yes, these USA’s were political appointees. Yes, they could have said something more immediately about their situation when the problem became apparent. Some of them did, but it didn’t saturate the national media; is that their fault, or the fault of the public that has for too long tolerated the systematic squelching of important stories to cover this week’s iteration #407 of Missing White Girl? These USA’s were also trying to do their jobs while simultaneously being pressured to stay silent or risk their future careers. Chiara made a major announcement about a key prosecution within 24 hours of her announced departure, if memory serves, and Lam did the same (fact check me, working off memory). They’d all been told that they weren’t being dismissed for performance, so why would they question it until McNulty’s public testimony indicated otherwise? That’s when all the pieces began to fall into place and they began to emerge from their blackout.

Right Jodi, just let the black hearted sado-masochist who thrive in the theater of violence have their way.

I live in a region of the country where the social networks tend to be pretty small. As near as I can tell, the legal community isn’t all that big; you know one attorney (or law librarian, or law school prof) you hear about many more.

I happen to know several people — some liberal, some conservative — who hold John McKay in the highest regard. I’ve heard from several people that there was a collective, â€â€¦Huh??!†when the news went around of McKay leaving the USAG spot in W. Wa. It simply didn’t make sense to people, and in that regard it is a classic case of karma — if you fire someone who is highly respected, people ARE going to start asking questions and being suspicious.

My sources tell me that McKay ’went quietly,’ and they had no clue what was up, other than the fact that there was a general mystification. IIRC, he’s now teaching at Seattle Univ, a Jesuit school — where the atty who won the Hamdan decision at US Supreme Court also now teaches. (The Jesuits are certainly snapping up some good legal talent for their law school these days.)

It’s not a big stretch to suppose that McKay was so busy reeling in shock and trying to figure out what to do next that he didn’t initially put the pieces together. (Mere speculation on my part, FWIW.) Rayne has probably nailed it — these USAGs didn’t start to connect the dots until this winter/spring. And IMHO, if not for Josh Marshall and the other blogs, this would have sunk out of sight and Bu$hCo would have gotten away with it.

Good to see some of these USAGs pushing back. I hope they are giving hope to FBI and law enforcement people everywhere. At this point, being fired by Bu$hCo is a badge of honor.

However, I am concerned that Congress won’t ask good technical questions about the web servers and email setups used to communicate about the decisions over firing specific USAGs — if RNC and WH emails were ’lost’, that’s obstruction. It stands to reason that Rove would prefer to be charged with ’obstruction’ rather than have the contents of those emails revealed.
——————–

Kind of OT:

It’s a near-miracle that the story of the fired USAGs ever surfaced, and in lieu of Rosen’s comments on a different thread at EW, I think this is a good example of the fact that blogs and press are working TOGETHER.

Note the number of links to the Kansas City Star, the Seattle Times, and other regional papers (and national pubs) that are starting to turn up in this story. Good to see. The coverage on this story is beginning to be collaborative, perhaps in part b/c blogs are figuring out the narrative — but also, because the regional papers now have blogs for many of their own reporters. I have a hunch that the tips have been coming in for weeks now, and the media has more to run with — and with a better understanding of what’s at stake, they are also asking better questions… which makes for better information… which makes for better reporting… it’s quite likely that this case has set in motion a ’dispersed media dynamic’ that we’ve not seen before.

In addition, look how many regional papers now have a clear investment in covering the LOCAL ramifications of this story for their readers. And these attorneys are certainly articulate, bright people who make outstanding interview subjects — on a topic that local media is now increasingly interested in covering. It’s really a bit like watching water run uphill — if one or more of the attorneys had approached a local reporter last January, I’ll bet their stories would never have seen print. But as it ’hits home’ AND ALSO fits into a larger national narrative, it’s power is definitely building. People that I’d never dream would take an interest are showing genuine curiosity. Interesting phenomenon.

Ultimately, all of this is really, really encouraging to see.

Per Jodi — if a nuclear attack occurs, and I survive to hear about it, I’m going to be asking whether the nuclear materials were obtained by terrorists b/c the Plame network was blinded by OVP/WH. I will never, ever forgive the blood-curdling evil of the people who outed a CIA agent. Nor will any of my 12 cousins who are US military vets, nor their kids who are vets. That will be handed down in family memory as one of the most reprehensible acts ever conducted by any citizen, in any nation, at any time. Not. Forgetting. About. It. Ever.

According to Rove’s lawyer, Fitzgerald has every email and an image of every computer disk that Karl Rove has.

If this is true, why isn’t Leahy subpoenaing Fitzgerald?

Obse’d: The way I remember Luskin’s comment, he was parsing to refer to only one portable machine belonging to his client.

obsessed,

earlier in this same blog, there was a discussion about where Leathy was trying to get the infomation on Rove, etc, that Fitzgerald had, and Fitzgerald wrote a letter with a lot of that legal jargon stuff, but essentially saying no..

I think that there are legal problems trying to suponea the info from Fitzgerald.

Get the real lawyers to explain it to you.

you are one stupid piece of shit, jodi.

please go away.

you make me want to vomit.

JODI-GO AWAY. JODI, PLEASE GO AWAY. JODI-WE ARE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE!
IF YOU AND TOTO NEED A HOME; point your browser to http://www.justoneminute.typepad.com
your sceptisism and naivite will be well reeived!
ABOVE ALL-GO AWAY NOW FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again I marvel at the amazing work you do Marcy.It is always a pleasure to read and truly heartwarming. But more importantly you shine a light on the petty facist rodents who are trying to undo the constitution. The standard of your comment contributors make them a ’must read’ every day. It must be a source of joy for you, to know that you attract such insightful commentators,except of course, for the dispicable paid troll jodi.

Here in Australia my wife and I recently acquired a little mini dashound dog, called Oscar. In honour of the troll we have named his little turds jodies, as in †sweetheart there is a new jodi on the verandah. Will you put it in the bin please.â€

JK–I was profoundly disappointed when Rove was not indicted and it is perfectly reasonable that the Libby jury had questions about Rove’s role. But Rove, unlike Libby, in his multiple grand jury appearances, ommitted and didn’t recall. Whereas, Scooter just made stuff up. And even after Fitz paraded 9 witnesses who contradicted Libby’s version of events, the jury took more than 2 weeks to sort through it all and find him guilty. Fitz didn’t bring the case against Rove not because he feared for his job but because he feared he didn’t have enough to sway a jury. I think his experience in the Libby trial bears this out. And I will also say, under the category of wild ass speculation, that as frustrated as we all were about Rove’s non-indictment, I suspect Fitzgerald was the most frustrated of all. He knew that he’d have a tough case to prove against Rove but he also knew Rove lied and obstructed over and over again.

Jodi – Regarding Plame, there is another reason, and the most likely one, that you have conveniently omitted; namely that engaging in an IIPA prosecution of Rove would either be impossible because the necessary evidence would not be declassified or, if it were to be declassified, would geometrically exacerbate the harm already done by the improper outing of Plame/Brewster-Jennings. I would assume that even you do not think it was appropriate to out them. Secondly, there is a big difference between the privacy interest of a normal citizen and any interest a public servant, such as Rove, would have in the actions he has taken in his public capacity.

Jodi: â€As for some of the other people on this blog, I am always surprised when people can’t argue the facts, and just call names. Then I reason that they are unable to argue the facts and only able to call names like kids in a sandbox.â€

Pot meet kettle… Jodi, you are no different. You argue opinion and facts and you call names. When someone addresses you with an uncharitable description, you demonstrate your thin skin and use it as an excuse to drop the discussion. Yet, you’re back here again the next day arguing opinion, some facts, and on occasion, name-calling.

I wonder about comment contributors who regularly post dismissive opinions. Why do they spend their time visiting frequently and posting if they find so little effective analysis or meritorious conclusions here? Seriously, why? I wonder why you come and whether you are who you say you are. As rex applegate inquired, why you don’t point your browser to http://www.justoneminute.typepad.com? I wonder why too. The Plamegate topic is covered and you may find the analysis and conclusions closer to your standards.

I’m not encouraging you to leave; I’m just saying you might consider the nature of your own comments before critcizing others and drop the “it’s everyone else†act.

Jodi,

Thanks for your response. I think you have two good reasons – not that it matters what I think – but the reasons are not apparent from your comments, and I don’t have to point out to you that your comments draw a lot of fire. Perhaps, there is something unintentionally inflamatory about your comments… or perhaps its intentional. The responses your comments elicit certainly seem consistent with one or the other.

It’s not clear you learn a lot. Perhaps you would be well served to comment on what you learn and agree with, as well as what you disagee with.

Testing yourself is another good reason. I will point out that a lack of response does not necessarily verify the truth or the logic of your comment but certainly posting a comment and drawing feedback is a good way to test yourself.

In the vernacular, a litmus test means a person holds an opinion that qualifies them as suitable. In our soundbite world, I find litmus tests anti-intellectual – they do not consider the quality of the reasoning on which a person’s opinion is based. See you around.

My view: He wanted a bulletproof case against Rove before he indicted, he didn’t have it then, and they concealed evidence and he might get another sh

My view is the same as that of bmaz: he knew that any indictment of Rove wouldn’t have made it to trial, given the tiptoeing over evidence required in the Libby case.