Now that the RFK tragedy is being bandied about, how about RFK Jr.?

oh, no-o-o-o-o-ooooo... we certainly wouldn't want to give HIM any media exposure...! heavens to murgatroyd, no...! doing THAT might get people all stirred up or, worse yet, THINKING...!

from brasscheck tv...

How it all went wrong

It's headline news today that some people are outraged by Hilary Clinton's reference to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

The current clamor is remarkable especially when you consider the following three real outrages.

The US news media:

1. Has never shown any interest in getting to the bottom of who killed Robert F. Kennedy.

Instead they repeat the preposterous story that he was shot in the back of the head at close range by someone ten feet in front of him.

2. They never refer to what he stood for including his opposition to the Vietnam war, his skepticism about the need for the US to support Israel, and his intention to continue his brother's work.

3. And they never, never comment on Kennedy's positive legacy.

In these three ways, the US news media continues the work of the 1968 assassins whose mission was to silence Kennedy and remove his ideas from debate.

Part of a man's legacy are his children.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - RFK's son - is an informed, insightful, well-spoken - and very effective - environmental and political activist.

How often do you see him on US news programs? How often is he asked for his opinions on talk shows?

Just about never.

There's a reason for that.

This video makes it clear what that reason is.

i'm quite frankly stunned... rfk jr., up until this moment, has been almost invisible to me, and i consider myself among the better informed of my fellow citizens... watching the video clip, i couldn't help but think of patrick fitzgerald and how effective HE would be if he ever decided to show us that he actually has a pair...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Patrick Fitzgerald - not Chertoff - for AG

just sayin'...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Atrios outs David Broder who calls for presidential accountability - in 1993!

atrios unearths a david broder column from 3 january 1993... it's as good a find as anyone has made in quite some time, and, given the author, couldn't be more timely... go read it in full here...

a teaser...

Until this society is prepared to condemn and to shun those who abuse their governmental authority, there is no point in having special prosecutors or others trying to squeeze these cases through the criminal justice system.

We don't need more convictions and pardons of government officials. We need scorn and shame for those who violate their oaths of office. And that is a penalty that the American people -- and only the American people -- can invoke.

i think there's quite a few of us who would agree with mr. broder...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Will Fitz testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

according to cliff schecter...

Just now on Face the Nation, Chuck Schumer said that the Judiciary committee was considering calling Patrick Fitzgerald to testify about the Plame leak.

would fitz be subject to having his testimony prevented under a claim of executive privilege...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Is that the sound of an iron door closing behind Scooter that I hear?

the appeals panel evidently sees things the same way that reggie and fitz do...

happy 4th of july, scooter...

"In an order handed down Monday, a three judge panel wrote Libby 'has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question' that regular appeals court will consider when its next term begins in September."

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has not set a date for Libby to report to jail. CNN added that Libby could still seek relief from the Supreme Court.

now we get to see if george is going to cave to the elites who fear the same fate and grant him a pardon...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

It's about THEM not wanting to go to jail

when karl emails his talking points (from his blackberry using his rnc email account), he expects them to be USED...

Note the choice words and phrases used by [Washington Post] columnists, editorial writers, and contributors to describe Fitzgerald's pursuit of Libby:

"train wreck"

"silliness"

"A game"

"overblown"

"Tempest in a teapot"

"sideshow"

"an injustice"

"remarkable for its lack of substance"

"a huge, dangerous waste of time"

"nuts"

"bankrupt"

"farce"

"excessive"

" should not have been conducted in the first place"

"an injustice"

"misguided"

"Fitzgerald's Folly"

I'm nervous Post opinion writers are this close to organizing noisy sidewalk protests on Libby's behalf.

boehlert rightly asks why such fervent support for someone who was convicted on solid evidence and speculates on the answer...

But why? Why has the Post gone all-in on a loser of a case like Libby's? Why the waving of the arms, the name-calling, and the almost comical rhetoric in defense of a relatively straightforward white-collar crime? I think the uproar is more cultural than political (or even legal). It's a class thing. The Washington Establishment, which the Post has dutifully represented for generations, identifies with Libby -- empathizes with him -- and is aghast at the idea that he might have to serve jail time for merely practicing the "dark art of politics," as [Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen] described it.

"...the Post has dutifully represented for generations, identifies with Libby..."

i would push that perspective a bit further... just as that very same media outlet in its current series on cheney described the overt maneuvers in late 2001-early 2002 to write presidential directives in such a way as to minimize the chance of war crimes charges, i think the elite ranks in d.c. - pundits, policy wonks, government officials, lobbyists, and even defense contractors - see the very real possibility of being charged themselves as co-conspirators and accomplices in the clearly illegal and unconstitutional actions of the bush administration... they figure if they can pressure bush to pardon libby, it will set a precedent that would be useful should their own deeds suddenly be subject to accountability...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bill Moyers for President

i could have sworn i posted this the other day, but, when i went looking for it, it wasn't there... anyway, here it is again, from one of the very best u.s. media has to offer...

Begging His Pardon

by Bill Moyers

We have yet another remarkable revelation of the mindset of Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites—the people who took us to war from the safety of their Beltway bunkers. Even as Iraq grows bloodier by the day, their passion of the week is to keep one of their own from going to jail.

It is well known that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby—once Vice President Cheney’s most trusted adviser—has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice.

Attempting to trash critics of the war, Libby and his pals in high places—including his boss Dick Cheney—outed a covert CIA agent. Libby then lied to cover their tracks. To throw investigators off the trail, he kicked sand in the eyes of truth. "Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered,” wrote the chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The jury agreed and found him guilty on four felony counts. Judge Reggie B. Walton—a no-nonsense, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key type, appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush—called the evidence “overwhelming” and threw the book at Libby.

You would have thought their man had been ordered to Guantanamo, so intense was the reaction from his cheerleaders. They flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to “free Scooter.”

Vice President Cheney issued a statement praising Libby as “a man…of personal integrity”—without even a hint of irony about their collusion to browbeat the CIA into mangling intelligence about Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

“A patriot, a dedicated public servant, a strong family man, and a tireless, honorable, selfless human being,” said Donald Rumsfeld—the very same Rumsfeld who had claimed to know the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction and who boasted of “bulletproof” evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. “A good person” and “decent man,” said the one-time Pentagon adviser Kenneth Adelman, who had predicted the war in Iraq would be a “cakewalk.” Paul Wolfowitz wrote a four-page letter to praise “the noblest spirit of selfless service” that he knew motivated his friend Scooter. Yes, that Paul Wolfowitz, who had claimed Iraqis would “greet us as liberators” and that Iraq would “finance its own reconstruction.” The same Paul Wolfowitz who had to resign recently as president of the World Bank for using his office to show favoritism to his girlfriend. Paul Wolfowitz turned character witness.

The praise kept coming: from Douglas Feith, who ran the Pentagon factory of disinformation that Cheney and Libby used to brainwash the press; from Richard Perle, as cocksure about Libby’s “honesty, integrity, fairness and balance” as he had been about the success of the war; and from William Kristol, who had primed the pump of the propaganda machine at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and has led the call for a Presidential pardon. “The case was such a farce, in my view,” he said. “I’m for pardon on the merits.”

One beltway insider reports that the entire community is grieving—“weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness” of Libby's sentence.

And there’s the rub.

None seem the least weighted down by the sheer, glaring unfairness of sentencing soldiers to repeated and longer tours of duty in a war induced by deception. It was left to the hawkish academic Fouad Ajami to state the matter baldly. In a piece published on the editorial page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Ajami pleaded with Bush to pardon Libby. For believing “in the nobility of this war,” wrote Ajami, Scooter Libby had himself become a “casualty”—a fallen soldier the President dare not leave behind on the Beltway battlefield.

Not a word in the entire article about the real fallen soldiers. The honest-to-God dead, and dying, and wounded. Not a word about the chaos or the cost. Even as the calamity they created worsens, all they can muster is a cry for leniency for one of their own who lied to cover their tracks.

There are contrarian voices: “This is an open and shut case of perjury and obstruction of justice,” said Pat Buchanan. “The Republican Party stands for the idea that high officials should not be lying to special investigators.” From the former Governor of Virginia, James Gilmore, a staunch conservative, comes this verdict: “If the public believes there’s one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system.”

So it may well be, as THE HARTFORD COURANT said editorially, that Mr Libby is “a nice guy, a loyal and devoted patriot…but none of that excuses perjury or obstruction of justice. If it did, truth wouldn’t matter much.”

going back to a comment from the late, great, much-missed molly ivins from july 2006...

Dear desperate Democrats, here's what we do. We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It's simple, cheap and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Scooter to go to jail

reggie walton rules on scooter libby...

He is not a flight risk or danger to the community, but I don’t see the issues raised as close, so I deny his request to be released pending appeal. I will allow him to self report, but unless I am overruled, he will have to report.

I will rule on the obstruction charge sentence to 30 months, to perjury 24 months, to false statements 6 months, all to run concurrently.

Robbins: Ask for a stay the surrender pending filing motion.

Walton: Denied. Mr. Libby, you have right to appeal.

judge walton, obviously pissed, had an interesting comment on the amici curiae brief...

Robbin: Going back to appointments clause. Your honor has received an amicus brief.

Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish.

Robbins: These 12 scholars believe this is a close question.

Walton: If I had gotten something more of substance from them, maybe.

you do the crime, you do the time...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

BTD at TalkLeft demolishes the Libby Amici brief

big tent democrat over at talkleft develops a strong argument for why the amici curiae brief (PDF) filed by the 9 "concern troll"* constitutional lawyers (see my previous post here), contending that fitzgerald's appointment as special prosecutor was unconstitutional because it was, in legal terms, a "special office" that required presidential appointment and senate confirmation, is groundless...

from Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994)...

[O]fficers of the United States who had been theretofore appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, we do not think that, because additional duties, germane to the offices already held by them, were devolved upon them by the act, it was necessary that they should be again appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It cannot be doubted, and it has frequently been the case, that Congress may increase the power and duties of an existing office without thereby rendering it necessary that the incumbent should be again nominated and appointed.

it seems perfectly clear to me, even as one who doesn't know law from a bag of apples... as btd states...

Fitzgerald was already an appointed and confirmed United States Attorney when Acting Attorney General Comey appointed him as Special Counsel to investigate the Plame leak matter.

[...]

Fitzgerald was carrying out the exact role for which he was appointed and confirmed. There is nothing new in what Fitzgerald did in the Plame investigation that he did not do every day in his role as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

The discussion of whether Fitzgerald was appointed to an office requiring appointment is a red herring. The very cases that the amici cite for their argument demonstrate this. Fitzgerald would not need a second appoint and confirmation process to act as Special Counsel.

In short, the amici, who couch their brief in language of law professors expressing Constitutional concern, have merely rehashed a bad argument made by Libby's principal attorneys in poor and incomplete fashion. It is a bad piece of work.

one thing you can go to the bank on... if judge walton rejects this argument, these 9 trolls will seek a higher review...

* i'm deviating from the original definition of the term as contained in dKosopedia...

"Concern Trolls". Marginally more clever, they pretend at being progressive Democrats, but at every turn seem to suggest the most obviously damaging or boneheaded or offensive thing they can. These are easier to catch than you might imagine: since it hardly matters whether someone is an obvious concern troll or just an unmitigated idiot, sometimes it doesn't pay to think about it too hard.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The Amici Curiae brief filed on behalf of Scooter

first, the intro to the brief (PDF)...



note this in particular...

...amici submit that the constitutionality of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's appointment presents a "close question."

[italics added]

it's worth noting that the entire 9-page brief is devoted to questioning the constitutionality of fitz's appointment... it's also worth noting that the 9 signatories on the brief identify themselves as current or former professors of constitutional law... failed supreme court nominee robert bork is one of the signatories...

marcy wheeler/empty wheel at the next hurrah has some observations...

How appropriate that Robert Bork would weigh in on the Libby conviction to assert that Fitzgerald's appointment might not be constitutional. Over thirty years later and he's still trying to fire the guy investigating the Republican Administration.

she also highlights judge walton's counter argument...

Walton explains the reason for the necessary legality of the Special Counsel: Because if we can't have a Special Counsel free of direct oversight of the AG, then there is no way to investigate those who occupy high levels of DOJ or those who have direct responsibility for it.

most importantly, she emphasizes precisely WHY this is so critical and WHY she thinks these heavy-hitters are coming down so hard on the issue...

[I]f Fitzgerald's appointment is unconstitutional, Walton was arguing, we can't hold Alberto Gonzales or Dick Cheney or George Bush to account.

That's not really a constitutional argument, mind you, it's a pragmatic one. But it really underscores the importance of this issue. Because Bork is not just trying to get Fitzgerald fired. He's trying to get the next Special Counsel--the one investigating BushCo constitutional violations--fired.

now, THAT'S a truly worrisome perspective, one i think judge walton is no doubt very well aware of...

later on, she has another interesting observation...

Jeebus! They sure pulled this together quickly, with 12 fancy lawyers agreeing on a brief within 72 hours. You think maybe they had this in the works ahead of time?

then she wonders if trying to full-court press judge walton is necessarily the wisest strategy...

I'm reminded of Judge Walton's face when Ted Wells insisted on reading the letters from Wolfie et al before the sentencing. He was staring up at the ceiling with his lips pursed, a look of disgust that Team Libby insisted on carrying out their big show regardless of any effect it might have on Walton. Walton was just a prop, it seemed, in Ted Wells' circus.

And from the look of things, Walton isn't any happier about this latest stunt. I'm not so sure that the Bork brief is as easy to ignore as Wolfowitz' letter. But Team Libby sure seems prepared to piss off Walton to get what they want out of him.

she was reacting to a footnote judge walton appended to his order [PDF] allowing the submission of the amici curiae brief, and it's a doozy...

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

marcy doesn't think that leaves much doubt about where judge walton stands and i would wholeheartedly agree... she says...

Ouch! You think maybe he didn't appreciate the heavy-handed intervention into his case? You think maybe he didn't appreciate having 12 fancy lawyers suggest he can't make his own decision in this matter?

what i absolutely do not want to happen is to have a precedent set that would further insulate bush/cheney from prosecution... no way, no how...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

What if? What if Libby isn't pardoned? What if Libby goes to jail? What if Libby talks?

robert parry poses some very interesting what ifs...

[I]f U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton orders Libby to start his jail term in July while his appeals proceed – as it now appears the judge will – Bush will be faced with the prospect of Libby serving more than half his sentence before November 2008 and a risk that Libby finally might cooperate with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

If Libby, who was Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, were to start talking, he could explain the full role of Bush and Cheney in orchestrating the smear campaign against Iraq War critic Joseph Wilson, which set the stage for Libby and other administration officials to leak the identity of Wilson’s wife, covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, in summer 2003.

Libby also had a front-row seat to the White House cover-up that followed the revelation in September 2003 that the CIA had sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department, complaining about the security breach and prompting the start of a formal investigation.

The evidence from Libby’s trial makes clear that Bush and Cheney had authorized a media campaign to discredit former U.S. Ambassador Wilson, who undertook a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger in 2002 and accused the White House in July 2003 of “twisting” intelligence about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa to justify going to war.

At minimum, the evidence shows that Bush selectively declassified parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to undercut Wilson, and Cheney ordered Libby to share the information with friendly reporters.

and...? and...? go on... i'm all ears...

From the start, Bush and Cheney appear to have sensed that they could make the cover-up work if they transformed it into a political spat. To a great extent, they have been proven correct in that assumption.

Now, their last remaining Plamegate concern is that “Scooter” Libby might calculate that he stands a better chance of reducing his time in jail if he tells the whole story rather than trust that his loyal silence will be rewarded by a pardon from a thankful President Bush.

as molly ivins - rest her dear soul - used to say, i'm serious as a heart attack... i would give the left portion of an important part of my anatomy if scooter would sing like a canary, and bring down the whole filthy mess right on top of george and dick... nothing, and i mean NOTHING, would give me greater satisfaction than to see those two driven from office in disgrace so we could get about putting things in the united states to rights... bastards...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

My impression of Todd Graves from yesterday's hearing

to me, the difference in watching the testimony of brad schlozman and todd graves at yesterday's senate judiciary committee hearing was night and day... schlozman, in full-tilt gonzo mode, with his "i don't recall" responses, delivered in his horribly irritating voice, with sweat dripping from his forehead, couldn't have been a greater contrast to graves' straightforward, totally professional, yet completely relaxed manner, leavened with what is an obviously solid sense of humor... i was reminded of watching patrick fitzgerald at the press conference where he announced the libby indictment... i actually got tears in my eyes because i was so moved, after all the spinning and evasion of officials in the bush coterie, to hear someone so thoroughly professional, honestly and candidly making a statement and responding to questions... now that i think of it, i had the same reaction watching richard clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission...

check out the contrasts between schlozman and the other three... it's dramatic...



Brad Schlozman on the ACORN indictments



Todd Graves on his investigation by the OIG



Patrick Fitzgerald on the Libby conviction



Richard Clarke apologizes to 9/11 families

three solid, professional, dedicated, constitution-respecting public servants, and one political hack loser...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Are there any consequences at all for the White House Press Secretary to tell outright lies?

no...

greenwald...

In February of this year, Tony Snow chatted with Bill O'Reilly and said this (h/t Zack):

Very quickly -- very quickly, you got this Valerie Plame case. Now, it turns out that [special counsel] Peter (sic: Patrick) Fitzgerald doesn't -- can't even identify any harm. She wasn't a covert agent. She wasn't compromised. . . She wasn't covert anymore.

Are there any consequences at all for the White House Press Secertary to tell outright lies like that? Does that prompt any media scandals? Why can Tony Snow say with impunity that Plame "wasn't a covert agent" when their own CIA confirms that she was?

this is only another reminder, as if we needed any, that the bush administration and its sycophants will say whatever they believe is necessary to maintain the wall of protection around the presidency... they have lenin's strategy down to a fine art...

"This administration, I've never seen an organization that learned the lessons of Lenin as clearly as these guys," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) ... . "These guys must tack up Lenin's philosophy on their bedstand every night. Particularly when Lenin suggested if you say something often enough, with enough conviction, everybody will believe it."

greenwald continues...

Many people who listen to right-wing commentators such as these get their "news" about the world primarily, even exclusively, from these sources. And these sources, knowing that, routinely create their own self-affirming though wildly warped realities, in the process denying the most established facts or asserting propositions for which there is no factual basis.

[...]

But, as they so often do, they [make] them anyway, because those statements [help] to defend the Leader and bolster their political agenda. Most of all, they know that their readers will trust what they say even when those statements are demonstrably false.

and it works quite well, doesn't it...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Libby's lies threw Fitz off Cheney's trail

which was undoubtedly the whole idea...

according to froomkin...

Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

[...]

Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President."

in case that didn't quite sink in, froomkin goes on...

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President."

[Froomkin added italics and I changed them to boldface]

got it...? i thought you might...

(thanks to jlfinch at daily kos...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Send Scooter to the slam

fitz thinks it would be a good idea that the courts send a "message" about obstruction of justice and lying... i agree...

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby betrayed the public's trust and deserves to spend 2 1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and an assistant to President Bush, is the highest-ranking White House official convicted since the Iran-Contra affair two decades ago.

"Particularly in a case such as this, where Mr. Libby was a high-ranking government official whose falsehoods were central to issues in a significant criminal investigation, it is important that this court impose a sentence that accurately reflects the value the judicial system places on truth-telling in criminal investigations," Fitzgerald wrote in court documents.

yes, i know scooter's attorneys are going to ask for no jail time and, yes, i know that sentencing may be deferred until the appeals run out, but, as airtight a case as i believe fitz has, he wouldn't be calling for 2-3 years unless he thought the verdict would be upheld... his argument that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime, while certainly cogent, wouldn't have much weight if it wasn't already in the cards...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"One of the finest federal prosecutors there is"

my view exactly...

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, long believed to be one of Patrick Fitzgerald's best friends, turned on his one-time colleague during a House hearing a few moments ago.

Asked about his reaction to a now-infamous listing of U.S. attorneys in which Fitzgerald was ranked mediocre, Comey replied: "I've never thought much of him."

One beat...two beats...Comey grinned and said, "No, I'm just kidding."

Acknowledging that Fitzgerald is a close friend, Comey described the Chicago prosecutor as "one of the finest federal prosecutors there is...maybe has ever been."

and we desperately need him to be back in the thick of what's happening now...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Yes, obstruction of justice charges would be nice

how about an indictment for turning political discourse in the u.s. into a screaming hate fest...? how about satan returning to claim the marker on your soul...?

A major government watchdog organization has warned that White House officials, including Karl Rove, could face a number of obstruction of justice charges for the way they used outside e-mail accounts and failed to properly archive e-mails on White House servers.

"[Special Counsel Patrick] Fitzgerald could decide to reopen the case," said Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, referring to the probe over who leaked the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. "And if it turns out that e-mail was deleted from the RNC server as suggested by the Waxman letter, that could lead to new obstruction of justice charges."

such an odious human being is just crying out for appropriate consequences... oh, yes, the others too... ;)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Dear Patrick Fitzgerald

day or night, awake or asleep, hunt me down and let me know what his answer is...

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Washington-based legal watchdog organization, has called on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to re-open an investigation into White House adviser Karl Rove's role in the identity leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

"It looks like Karl Rove may well have destroyed evidence that implicated him in the White House's orchestrated efforts to leak Valerie Plame Wilson's covert identity to the press in retaliation against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director.

this little wisp of a connection has been floating around for the last couple of days, since the "amazing disappearing emails" story broke... fitz may think he got 'em all, but i betcha serious money he's thinking twice now...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Ok, here's what I don't get

if i stepped into a position like karl rove's, a deputy chief of staff to the president of the united states, i would be humbled by what i would consider to be a sacred obligation to serve my country in the most upstanding, ethical, squeakiest clean way possible, to serve as nothing less than a paragon of virtue that would bring honor to me, my boss, and my country... every single day, i would be cognizant that i was not there to serve anything other than the common good, and all that i did must meet that end... when i worked at united airlines, there was no question in my mind that we were there to provide a safe, reliable, efficient, economical, and fast way to move people and goods from one point to another...

yeah, i know there are lots of different kinds of people out there and it's evident that there aren't nearly enough who think like i do, but what, i would like to know, makes it such a difficult concept that it doesn't take root in the minds of our public servants...? it irritates the ever-loving shit outta me to have to read crap like this...

[I]n January 2006, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed the Scooter Libby defense team that some of Rove’s emails from his White House account in 2003 were not saved as required by federal law.

[...]

The controversy surrounding Rove this week has involved his RNC email account. The RNC acknowledged that, while they instituted a new policy in 2004 to preserve emails, there appear to be no records from White House senior political adviser Karl Rove until 2005, leaving open “the possibility that Rove had personally deleted the missing e-mails.” According to the RNC, the Committee took action specifically and singularly against Rove in 2005 to keep him “from deleting his e-mails from the RNC server.”

one of the things foremost in my mind would be that everything i did would be part of the historical record, potentially available and open at any time to public scrutiny, something i would consider right and appropriate for someone serving as a steward of the public trust... i would be almost obsessive about making sure that records were properly kept, maintained, and accessible right from the moment i first set foot in my office... i guess that's just me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sampson displayed the recall of a man who recently fell off a ladder

the wapo's dana milbank has a superb summary of sampson's performance yesterday...

Sampson seemed content to fall on his sword rather than naming names when he was questioned about the prosecutor mess. Only the red felt on the witness table concealed the blood. "I could have and should have helped to prevent this," Sampson offered. "I let the attorney general and the department down. . . . I failed to organize a more effective response. . . . It was a failure on my part. . . . I will hold myself responsible. . . . I wish we could do it all over again."

The witness fessed up to an expanding list of sins. He admitted that the Justice Department was trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. He confessed that he proposed firing Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak case. "I regretted it," he explained. "I knew that it was the wrong thing to do."

But the self-sacrificing witness still managed -- inadvertently, perhaps -- to implicate Gonzales and Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove. Sampson, who resigned from the Justice Department earlier this month, admitted that Gonzales "had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in three jurisdictions." Asked about the accuracy of Gonzales's claim of non-involvement, Sampson confessed: "I don't think it's entirely accurate what he said."

and i laughed out loud when i read this...

"I can't pretend to know or remember every fact that may be of relevance," he warned at the start -- and he wasn't kidding. He used the phrase "I don't remember" a memorable 122 times.

It may have been a tactical effort to limit his risk of perjury, but Sampson displayed the recall of a man who recently fell off a ladder.

besides being a "loyal bushie" and having the ability to unquestioningly take direction, it seems that a faulty memory is also a prerequisite for achieving a political appointment in the bush administration...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments