Skip to main content

The story starts off promising enough:

Congress will conduct a series of hearings on national security and espionage issues raised by the CIA-leak controversy surrounding senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, officials said on Monday.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans hearings on potential national security threats posed by leaks, including leaks to the media, and will aim to toughen legislation barring the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

"It's time there's a comprehensive law that will make it easier for the government to prosecute wrongdoers and increase the penalties that hopefully will act as a deterrent," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the panel's Republican chairman.

But get to the last paragraph, and you see this:

[Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) spokeswoman Sarah] Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.

Now why would congressional Republicans want to review Fitzgerald's work? Because he won't fly the elephant above the Stars and Stripes?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:16 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't you want to know why... (none)
    Fitzgerald hates freedom?

    Those against politics are in favor of the politics inflicted upon them. Bertolt Brecht

    by akapensensei on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:19:21 PM PDT

    •  Hilarious (none)
      It's our way of life that Fitzgerald seeks to destroy. He blames America first.
      •  They had better watch it.... (none)
        They had better stay out of Fitzgerald's way. If they try to interfere or step on his toes, we will have a truckload of ammunition to load the cannons with. The public doesn't like it when partisanship is placed over our national security and national interest.
        •  Today, Senator John Kerry; Senator Carl Levin, (none)
          Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; and 24 other Senators formally requested that Congress investigate the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity -- a leak a senior administration official described at the time as "meant purely and simply for revenge."

          "Americans deserve a Congress that holds Washington accountable for the truth about our national security. Can anyone argue with a straight face that Congress has time to look at steroid use in baseball but doesn't have the will to provide congressional oversight of the leak of a CIA agent's name? It's long past time to stop putting politics ahead of the public good, get to the bottom of a national security breach and restore credibility to Washington," said John Kerry, who authored the letter.



          Senators Kerry, Levin, Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Reed, Feinstein, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Durbin, Carper, Salazar, Boxer, Inouye, Corzine, Wyden, Mikulski, Obama, Murray, Bayh, Johnson, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Landrieu.

          Note - 7 signers of the letter are members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Rockefeller, Levin, Feinstein, Corzine, Wyden, Mikulski, Bayh. (Rules of Procedure: 1.3 - A special meeting of the Committee may be called at any time upon the written request of five or more members of the Committee filed with the Clerk of the Committee.) Could this possibly lead to a deeper investigation into this issue? "

          Note: Joe Biden's name was missing

          An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

          by crone on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:53:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Collaborate? (none)
            I wonder why the senators and congresspeople who have submitted various letters or requests for investigations have not gotten together and collaborated - creating one strong voice demanding that this be brought to investigation?

            Silly question I guess.  

            But I'm hoping there's a good reason behind it - like perhaps they are each going at it from different angles on purpose?  This is the third one I know of, off the top of my head: Conyers, Pelosi et al, Kerry et al.

            "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

            by joanneleon on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:30:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  This hearing is a trick to grant immunity. (4.00)
        I think the main purpose of this hearing will be to grant broad immunity to witnesses like Rove, Libby, etc. and make prosecution impossible.

        It worked for Oliver North, and now the Repugs control the hearing process and can grant immunity to whomever they want.

        They will also use the hearings to call Wilson a liar and call Plame non-covert.  Just to muddy the waters further.

        But the main purpose will be to grant immunity to Rove and the other conspirators.

        This country really has been taken over by criminals.  There's no other word for it.

        We haven't heard anything from the Dems about this, but let's hope they are on the ball and block any immunity grants if they can.

        •  By golly you've got it! (none)
          Fitzgerald had better indict while he still can.
        •  Nope, won't work (4.00)
          If Rove or anybody else is granted immunity for their testimony before Congress, it means only that the statements they make in Congress cannot be used against them at a later trial.

          If Fitzpatrick has a case against them that doesn't rest on statements they make to Congress, or he can prove the facts of statements they make from alternate sources, it won't stop the prosecution.

        •  and you are 100% correct... (4.00)
          This is not about the truth, but about trying to get rove, libby, and anyone else involved, immunity and ensuring their cases will  be thrown out:

          In November 1986, North was fired by President Reagan, and in July 1987 he was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint Congressional committee formed to investigate Iran-Contra. During the hearings, he admitted that he had lied to Congress, for which he was later charged. He defended his actions by stating that he believed in the goal of aiding the Contras, whom he saw as "freedom fighters," and said that he viewed the illegal Iran-Contra scheme as a "neat idea."

          North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.

          However, on July 20, 1990, a three-judge appeals panel overturned North's conviction in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. [1] The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed the charges on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.

          Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.

          taken from wikipedia Oliver North

          Letting them have hearings on this would give them all a "Get out of jail free card!"

          Do you really want to do that?

          HELL NO!

          We have to fight this...

          We want Justice First, then thay can have their hearings after rove, libby, and anyone else is alraedy in jail.

          I want them all to have an honest and fair trial before they are jailed/hung/sit in "ol' sparky"...

          IWT News
          Independent World Television

          by m16eib on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:06:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks (none)
            for the pertinent reminder to Ollie.

            I'm not sure if I see it happening in this case.  If Rove, Libby and whoever else get called, they won't be clean cut soldiers saying "golly gee" like North.  They might try to say it, but the public and the press won't buy it.  We know who Rove is already.  If they get called it will raise all kinds of alarms, (like these), and it will throw the investigation into an even brighter spotlight.  

            Immunity 3 years down the road after their careers are destroyed (outside talk radio and the lecture circuit) and the administration is humiliated?  That's the plan?  I don't know....

            •  The problem is (4.00)
              That I want to see these criminals go to jail. The possibility of them getting immunity, or even the possibility of them getting the case thrown out because they won't be able to find a jury that won't be biased because of the hearings, are not good bets for the Dems AND more importantly are not good deals for the CIA agents that have been targeted by these "games".

              I believe that Joe Wilson is just collateral damage in this, and Valerie Plame Wilson was targeted not just because of Niger, but as a warning shot to the rest of the CIA. bushies wanted specific results from their intel, not truth... And they have endagered the entire nation's security because they did not like the the facts based on truth that the CIA were offering.

              A slap on the wrist at the end of a hearing is not a just sentence (even if it taints the "benedict arnold administration" that currently occupies the  White House) for traitors.

              Giving them an out like Ollie had would be a slap in the face of every agent, every soldier, and anyone that works to actually protect us.

              Bang the freakin' drums loud on this...

              As far as politics go, what party will come out looking like they really do care about those agents, soldiers, etc.? Making noise on this issue is a political winner here. Remaining silent on this issue is just another sign of compliance.

              It is safe to say that nothing we do can stop the hearings, only the repubs can do that, BUT we can make sure that Americans have a clear picture of why the GOP is having the hearings... They want to create an "Ollie out" in a huge game of partisan showmanship politics to cover their own asses...

              IWT News
              Independent World Television

              by m16eib on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:55:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  agreed (none)
                Jail is the only thing good enough for these mofo's.  And because this prosecutor is so serious and the potential charges are so serious I don't see the political cover in granting immunity at a congressional hearing.  I wouldn't put it past them, but my bet is we don't see Rove or any other WH staffers in a congressional hearing until it's the real deal.  Watergate style.  

                I can dream right?

                •  I think we all can dream a little... (none)
                  But more importantly, everywhenre we go we can hammer the message of the traitors at the White House, and we can make sure that if they have their little dog and pony show, well, every single American needs to know why the GOP suddenly wants to have it...

                  It is all CYA... It has nothing to do with getting to the truth, it all has to do with trying to create their future courtroom defense with an "Ollie out".

                  Even the fact that they bring up hearings now, whether they have them now or plan on them later, gives us a huge opening to pound that message out.

                  It is cut and dried example of the GOP playing partisan politics at the expense of national security.  

                  The beuty of it all? Even if some of those republicans may actually be trying to do the right thing (Yeah right!) they have just stepped in it big time. They just gave themselves a lose-lose cowpie-landmine to step on.

                  They lose if they have the hearings (and we scream the "ollie" message loudly and often enough), and they lose if they don't have the hearings (What are ya hiding, huh?)

                  IWT News
                  Independent World Television

                  by m16eib on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:27:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Excellent point (none)
              At this point it isn't a sure thing anyone within the administration will be indicted anyhow.  Maybe a Miller, or a Novak, some other outsider still might take the fall. It doesn't warrant a congressional spectacle at this point that highlights the fixing of intelligence to sell war.
              Besides, Roberts refuses to follow through with the second part of the SSCI that was delayed for the presidential election year and was to deal with how intelligence might have been misused by the WH.  That alone is outrageous and could be easily brought to the fore on this issue of Fitzgerald's investigation.
              Why didn't Blitzer ask him that on Sunday?!
        •  My thoughts exactly. (none)
          These hearings will be designed to immunize Rove, Libby, and whomever else the Republicans think might be facing indictments. Ergo, even if/when the indictments come down the likelihood of a successful prosecution will be close to nil. Yes, I can clearly picture the White House and Senate Republicans conspiring to obstruct a special prosecutor.

          One thing the news article was not clear on is when these Congressional hearings will occur. A question: If someone is indicted/subpoenaed with regards to a federal crime does that in any way prevent Congress from deposing those people? I can't remember the sequence of events in Iran-Contra and whether or not this was an issue then.

          •  they will occur as early as september (none)
            what timing! anytime but NOW. IOW, attempt to pacify those who are paying attention to this traitor-gate
            by promising some hearing in a couple of months.

            "Happy now??Can we change the subject please??? We've got some terrorists to talk about. No, make that judicial nominees. Look how partisan the dems are!"

            Screw that. Whoever keeps dribbling new info to the press each day knows this one trick pony (change the subject and go on offense) a little too well.

            Someone has our back, I think. I now look forward to staying up till midnight each night to see the headlines for the next days papers.

            When Jesus said love your enemies, I'm pretty sure he meant don't kill them.

            by donailin on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:32:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Interesting. (none)
              You have to wonder if the hearings are a deliberate tactic to get Fitzgerals to bring indictments/show his cards before he has all of the loose ends tied up. Or, possibly get him to just bring the slam-dunk indictments now and drop the loose ends, such as the ones that could lead to Bush, Cheney, Bolton, et al.
        •  It won't work that way. (4.00)
          The North case involved North lying to congress, here it is lying behind closed doors to the grand jury and/or to investigators.  Congress can't grant immunity for those lies.  They can only grant immunity for what is said before them.    The only one who can do more is Bush.  

          I would expect that Rove and the gang would plead the Fifth Amendment if they were tried.  I doubt that the Senate would immunize them for contemporaneous perjury.    

          When you are going thru hell, keep going! Winston Churchill

          by flo58 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:21:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think you're on to something (none)
          I did a diary awhile about the same issue -Rove et al using hearings as their get out of jail free card the same way North and co did.

          The worst part is, it's going to be very hard for Democrats to come out against these hearings, or keep certain people from getting a deal for testimony.

          We have to be very carful not to become out-flanked on this one.

          Come see the house that Tom Delay built.

          by Goldfish on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:44:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And possibly (none)
          get Valerie Plame to speak on the record.  It is also likely (I don't see how they could get away with giving Rove, etc. immunity) to afford Rove, CHENEY and others an opportunity to PLAN their defense.  To hear what the allegations are AND FIX THEIR FACTS AROUND THE TESTIMONY.
      •  circle gets the square (none)
        I bet everything I own some nimrod republican will manage to imply that Fitzgerald is a traitor who seeks to destroy the freedom of press and is an enemy of a free and democratic society.

        When Jesus said love your enemies, I'm pretty sure he meant don't kill them.

        by donailin on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:13:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hubris knows no bounds (4.00)
      The Republicans can't be serious about investigating Fitzgerald when he's currently the special prosecutor for an investigation of a Republican WH leak resulting in the unmasking of a covert CIA operative.

      If the Dems are smart (and they've been showing some signs of higher brain function lately), they'd slam this home to the populace as another case of the Republicans not playing "by the rules". This was (essentially) the argument that forestalled the "nuclear option" on the filibuster -- most Americans don't understand (or care about) the arcane Senate rules, but they all understand changing the rules in the middle of the game. The Dems can also point to the fact that Clinton didn't engage in an "investigation" of Ken Starr during the whole Whitewater probe.

      If the party can continue to paint the Republicans as out of touch and willing to do anything to manipulate the results, people will respond -- everybody loves a winner, but nobody likes the guy who cheated to get the win.

      •  oh they're merely (none)
        "reviewing" his work.  His INDEPENDENT work.

        Let's just see how "independent" this guy really is.

        Appointed by the Bush administration.  Can't get much more independent than that...


        Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand. - Deep Throat

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:15:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Republican Party (4.00)
    reminds me of the so-called wise guys in Goodfellas and Casino.  Except they somehow went a step further and got themselves elected.

    KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid! :-D

    by Viktor on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:20:45 PM PDT

    •  What would happen? (4.00)
      What would happen if the richest and most powerful nation on earth was taken over by criminals?  And what would happen if they had majorities in both houses of congress and a galvanizing event along the lines of 9/11?

      Imagine the possibilites?

      •  What would happen? (4.00)
        What would happen is that what would otherwise be clearly seen as traitorous activity -- i.e., deliberately undermining and impeding the work of military and intelligence operatives who have misgivings about your political agenda and its impact on their ability to do the jobs they were assigned by Congress -- could be written off as "just politics," and the natural consequence of "policy differences" and "bureacratic turf wars."
      •  Reminds me of that Star Trek episode . . . (none)

        The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

        by semiot on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:29:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We'd have to call for (none)

        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

        by joanneleon on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:55:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely (none)
      I've been saying for awhile that this bunch, in any other line of work, would long ago have been up on RICO charges.  And this just reinforces that impression.
    •  Absotively! (none)
       They are a bunch of gangsters. Pure and simple. If you view the whole ugly bunch of them as "organised crime", everything they do makes sense. It's fucking scary how effective they have been, given the fact that they are running this criminal activity in public view. I hope that the light of this investigation will make them as visable as the cockroaches that they are.
      •  Their main purpose as an organized crime entity is (none)
        to rape our treasury.  First with the huge tax cuts to the wealthiest americans, and secondly to create and maintain a war situation where oil and defense contracts could be distributed to their cronies tied to these corporations.  It's the biggest criminal highjacking of a country in history.  
  •  OMG! TEH OUTRAGE! (1.35)
    This is business as usual. The Repugs are doing everything to cover their ass just as the Dems would do in the same situation.

    This is how corrupt politicians work. Most policticians are corrupt. Like I said, business as usual.

    •  I resent this comment (4.00)
      Do you really think the Dems would be stooping to lowest lows that the Repubs have been guilty of over the last four years? Some surely would, but we've seen nothing lately to indicate the complete moral and ethical breakdown that seems to taken over the GOP. If the Dems we as bad as the GOP, the Whitewater investigations would have been shut down, no lewisky, no impeachment and Clinton would still be president.
      •  I resent your resentment. (1.26)
        I don't think your average Dem rep is more moral than your average Republican rep. I think money's infected our government at every level. I think Democrats haven't leaked the name of a CIA agent becuase they haven't had the opportunity.

        I perceive you as naive. You seem to think that the kind of man who would become a career politician could posess a conscience. To get elected, and re-elected, you need to become a whore to corporations and special interest groups. Howard Dean tried to avoid that trap and look what happened to him. John Kerry is a whore. Hillary Clinton is a whore. They represent the Democratic party, and our government in general, better than your Dennis Kucinich or your Howard Dean.

        •  Represent (3.50)
          Hillary Clinton represents New York. John Kerry represents Massachusetts. Kucinich represents a Congressional District. You represent one person's view. If every politician is below your standards then you should run for office - not call names on the internets.

          'Just World News' by Helena Cobban, it's like Juan Cole with comments

          by joejoejoe on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:18:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Curious (none)
          Is there anyone in who currently holds a seat in Congress you DO respect?
        •  er... (4.00)
 do you feel about career politician Henry Waxman?

          Seriously, though, I hear your complaint and I share your bipartisan skepticism at a macro level. At the same time, simply to tar every politician with the same brush (i.e. to assume that the only reason that a Dem hasn't recently outed a covert operative is that "they haven't had the opportunity") is IMO far too oversimplified.

          I'm just sayin'....

          There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Benjamin Disraeli, cited by Mark Twain

          by sheba on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:47:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What assumption? (none)
            "to assume that the only reason that a Dem hasn't recently outed a covert operative is that "they haven't had the opportunity"

            Didn't former Democratic party member Bob Torricelli blow the cover of a real CIA operative in Guatemala sometime in the 90's?  Who says a person is immune to mistakes simply by nature of them being the member of a particular political party?

      •  Democrats / Clinton (none)
        There was only a two-year period where the Democrats controlled Congress while Clinton was in office, so that line of argument a red herring.

        While I don't recall the Ds doing anything as brazen as Rove (or for that matter Bush), I think it's foolish for activists for one major party to overlook the evidence that power corrupts in both of them.  There was a reason why the Rs were successful at running against perceptions of an out-of-touch, corrupt Congress in 1994.   Sadly a decade in power is more than enough for those lessons to be forgotten.   I'd like to see the other major party change this pattern, only because in our system it's only the other major party that has any chance of changing anything.   But I don't hold my breath, and if we get the hoped-for house-cleaning in 2006 it'd be naive to think that never again will another one be needed.

        Not a Democrat. Not a Republican. Just sick of George Bush's son and other big-government "conservatives".

        by EqualOpportunityCynic on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:25:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong (4.00)
      Most public servants I know - yes they are mostly Democrats - are honest, decent people who are trying to do the right thing.  They are not corrupt.  It is absolutely ridiculous and silly to say that Democrats are equally corrupt as the GOP - even though I don't held the Democratic Washington establishment in high regard.  GOP party is THE party of corruption and lies.  It will be impossible for the Democratic party to put up ANY concerted effort at the national and grassroots level to protect a traitor.  I guarantee you that.  And you don't have to rely on speculations.  There's data.  Look at Bob Torricelli.  Democrats did not protect him.  Democrats in general do not protect and defend corruption.

      I am tired of this "both parties are the same" bullshit.  If it weren't for Democrats, you wouldn't have social security.  If it weren't for Democrats you wouldn't have medicare.  If it weren't for Democrats you wouldn't even have paid leave from your job.  If it weren't for Democrats you wouldn't have public education.  If it weren't for Democrats, you wouldn't have the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.  If it weren't for Democrats, you would not have privacy rights.

      So please, Democrats deserve criticism, but not a blanket statement equating them with a corrupt thuggery that is the GOP party.

      •  Maybe California is different..... (4.00)
        I happen to think that the Democrats are every bit as corrupt here in Massachusetts as the Republicans are nationally.   Sure, they can't go start a useless war, and they can't compromise Commonwealth security for political gain in quite the same way as Rove.   But I think most people here find it pretty clear who benefits from state politics -- and it's not the public.

        Not a Democrat. Not a Republican. Just sick of George Bush's son and other big-government "conservatives".

        by EqualOpportunityCynic on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:29:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not just California (none)
          At least I don't think so.  Howard Dean is not from California.  Shiela Jackson Lee is not from California.  Harry Reid is not from California.  John Conyers is not from California.  Stephanie Tubbs Jones is not from California.

          Yes, some people - even on occation some good people - get caught into the culture of incumbency that the Democratic party has in many parts of the country (including, btw, California), and thus end up not always doing the public good.  I would like that culture of incumbency to be driven out and be replaces with the culture of popular, grassroots energy and power of the people.  No question about it.  But you cannot compare this culture of incumbency with the GOP culture of corruption in any respect: whether it be in depth, in nature, or in form.

          Are there corrupt Democrats?  Absolutely.  Does the Democratic party as an organization make concerted efforts to protect corrupt individuals who would fly their party's flag over our country's?  Absolutely not.

          •  I would agree with that (none)
            Does the Democratic party as an organization make concerted efforts to protect corrupt individuals who would fly their party's flag over our country's?  Absolutely not.

            I agree that we've seen nothing like the willingness of this White House to sell out national security for political gain.   Sounds like we're in substantial agreement.

            As an aside, I don't even think smaller parties are insulated from potential for corruption.   For example, my state Libertarian Party has more-or-less split based on some interpersonal conflicts that arose when a publication questioned the state party's use of funds.   I don't say that to accuse those involved -- I honestly don't know the underlying facts -- but the point is, you don't even have to win elections to have the potential for corruption.   I agree that most rank-and-file activists in any party are generally honest, but sadly the nature of politics is highly Darwinian and often it's the most ethically unfettered who move up fastest.

            Which brings us back to Karl Rove....

            Not a Democrat. Not a Republican. Just sick of George Bush's son and other big-government "conservatives".

            by EqualOpportunityCynic on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:29:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If you didn't have Democrats (none)
        We'd all be saying Seig Heil to Adolph Hitler Jr.

        the ratprick: the most envied sexual instrument in the animal kingdom

        by the ratprick on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:09:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ass-umptions (none)
        "If it weren't for Democrats..."

        So what you're saying is, if it weren't for the Democrats, we wouldn't be paying such high taxes to immoral programs that the majority of us will probably never use (SS, medicare, etc.)?  Great.

        I love the assumptions in this thread: Republicans are all corrupt, only a minor few Democrats might be corrupt, and if they are, it's not systematic like it is with our opponents.  I didn't know the Democrats were more God-like and less human (i.e. prone to error) than the Republicans.  Maybe instead of having Democrats run for political office, they should be running for deity positions instead.

        How about this: any person can make an error, which is not predicate on their political partisanship.

    •  That's funny... (none)
      ...because although Democrats ran Congress for decades, and although individual Democrats certainly went down for corruption, I don't ever recall anything like this organized lawlessness and corruption.

      You're certainly entitled to your opinion.  But I'll humbly submit that it's based solidly in a fantasy world of your own making.

    •  I agree! (none)
      They are doing the same thing the Dems would do.

      Like, remember that time that Bill Clinton fired Ken Starr?

      Or the time that Janet Reno had Starr subpoenaed and brought up on charges?

      Or the time that Clinton refused to testify?

      Yeah, I thought so.  Beat it.

      "I'm tired of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're going, and hook up with 'em later" - Mitch Hedberg

      by Jeff Seemann on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:57:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Holy witch-hunt, Robin (none)
    These guys really know how to close ranks.

    Review the Treason-gate special prosecutor?  How about reviewing the Whitewater prosecution and then the Cisneros prosecution first?  

    The shamelessness has no end.  If Rove or Libby do get prosecuted, don't be suprised if there's a Presidential pardon soon to follow.

    •  That's why we have to impeach Bush soon (none)
      January 21, 2009 will see a raft of presidential pardons unless we get all these fuckers before then.  They will all get away, and probably still have influence over policy for decades to come.

      Repeat after me: Impeachment, indictment, the Hague.

      •  Bush, pardon? (none)
        Bush won't pardon anyone. It isn't in his character. He doesn't give a shit about the help.

        People who think he's gonna pardon his underlings have forgotten about his generally arrogant, cruel nature.

        He will write them off as losers who got caught. Loyalty is a one way street.

        •  You assume... (none)
          You assume that Bush is running the show.
        •  He will pardon them (none)
          to cover his own butt -- and only to cover his butt.

          When you are going thru hell, keep going! Winston Churchill

          by flo58 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:25:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Who knows what he'll do... (none)
          It's not just about self-preservation. It's about a twisted ideology that he stumbled into years ago during a dark, cloudy hangover following a black-out. He hides his weakness behind religion, but is hardly a spiritual man. He will do whatever it takes to hold on to his manufactured truths. Like a good addict. Rational thinking and logic cannot be applied to his mindset.

          We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

          by August West on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:39:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  yes (none)
      shameless was the first word that came to my mind too.

      After I nearly swallowed my tongue, of course.

      Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand. - Deep Throat

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:25:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow... (none)
    just when i thought the GOP couldn't come across as anymore corrupt or despicable, they prove me wrong. I don't know whether to cry or make myself numb. either way, i am fucking sick of it. I am totally sick of my country being hijacked by these self-serving assholes!

    "Oh, how I miss the days of Monica Lewinsky..."

    by LawSkoolPunk on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:21:16 PM PDT

    •  Amazing (none)
      I got the feeling Fitzgerald will just publish the whole thing on the net rather than  submit the report to GOP.
    •  Word (none)
      They don't even make a pretense of propriety anymore.  The only thing that matters is winning at any cost.  Thank God they aren't in charge of our military, economy, or enviro-


    •  Right On! (none)
      Nothing wrong with a little righteous anger. We've earned the priviledge. Now to figure out what to do with it...

      TheBlooog - The Mike Jones of Politics

      •  I agree about the righteous anger (none)
        In my heart of hearts I knew the cons constant speak of morals would haunt them.  Most any time people who constantly believe they are on a moral highground end up falling off the cliff.  What really boggles my mind is how Cons try to constantly
        find a moral equivalence in the democratic party when the light is shown.  For a party that claims liberals have no values why on earth would Cons want to compare themselves to the immoral libruls?

        "Bush is a typical rich kid...will not take responsibility for anything"

        by givemhellHarryR on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:53:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Embrace the anger... (none)
        After all, it is our livelihood and our dreams on the line. What could be of greater importance? Apathy is what empowers corruption. Apathy sanctions for more lives to be lost and allows for more dreams to be cut short, unfulfilled. If enough people cannot get angry about what is going on in this country, I fear that we truly have lost our compass and have forgotten the great promise that America stands upon and the gifts that we have been afforded. This is the 4th quarter and time to leave everything on the field. Stay angry and don't lose hope. Get the word out there. People will listen because deep down we all want the same thing. Reason with them and find that common ground that once united us all.

        Sustenance will bring about reckoning.

        We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

        by August West on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:30:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (none)
          Perseverance is the key. And ORGANIZATION. People like Kos,, moveon, etc. need to put their differences aside and organize for a change. There is common ground that we can all get behind and we need to unite around these interests. All we need is some leadership. There's millions that just need to know when and where.

          TheBlooog - The Mike Jones of Politics

        •  Damn, I'm mad as hell ... (none)
          ... and I'm not gonna take it anymore.
          -- Howard Beal, "Network"

          Go to your window, open it, take a deep breath, and scream out into the night: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more."

          Keep the anger burning. YEAH!

          Its a thousand times more effective than apathy.

          In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican -- H.L. Mencken

          by lefty lucy on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:43:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Mehlman telegraphed as much on MTP (4.00)
    MR. RUSSERT:  ...will you pledge today, because you have tremendous confidence in him [Fitz], that you will not criticize his decision?

    MR. MEHLMAN:  Again, I'm not going to speculate.  I have tremendous confidence in him.  I look to getting to the bottom of this.  Whatever he does, I can assure you, people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by.

    MR. PODESTA:  Just say "yes," Ken.

    MR. MEHLMAN:  But I think it would be inappropriate for me as the RNC chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future.

  •  The Title Says It! (4.00)

    This is quite an amazing little turn in the Rove scandal. The GOP couldn't smear Wilson enough to make the investigation into the wrongdoing go away, so now they are going to have to start casting doubts directly on the investigator.

    Get ready for what might soon become the "War against Fitzgerald."

    Maybe they can get him replaced? What's Ken Starr doing these days?

    •  Starr? (none)

      Try Ashcroft.  Let's get Ashcroft into this.  HE'LL get to the bottom of this whole thing.

      •  Once recused (none)
        can Ashy "unrecuse" himself?  Besides, he's busy writing the follow ups to "Let The Eagle Soar," on his new album.  Remixed by G Money Tenet and Baghdaddy Bremer, produced by Tommy "They Plump When You Cook 'Em" Franks.
    •  Star (none)
      Well, Star was appearing on CNN with Dobbs, and touting John Roberts.
    •  I doubt it (4.00)
      As soon as they actually start to fuck with Fitzgerald, I expect to see him lob an indictment or two in front of them. Maybe a low level bitch, maybe a high level stud, whatever. But Fitzgerald will issue a strong 'don't fuck with me' message. (Assuming, of course, that his investigation has uncovered the kind of shit we are all assuming he's uncovered. Which, I think, is a rather safe assumption.)

      If this guy has prosecuted the mob and al queda-types, he won't be afraid of friends of treasonous traitors. Surely it will only piss him off more. I never suggest pissing off a prosecutor - unless you're on his side!

      *Evil flourishes when good men do nothing*

      by clueless on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:56:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  agreed. (4.00)
        Fitzgerald is a guy who has prosecuted, or supervised the prosecution of:

        • Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the "blind sheik" in the 1993 WTC bombings;
        • John Gambino, the crime family capo, for narcotics trafficking, murder, and racketeering, among other things; and
        • Ramzi Yousef, who worked with that fun-loving bunch in 1994 and 1995 who were plotting to detonate bombs simultaneously on 12 U.S. airliners.

        I'm guessing that he doesn't scare real easily.

        Also, remember that this is the guy who indicted former IL governor George Ryan. A quick google search reminds us how Ryan got ensared in the first place; namely, that a good prosecutor takes the investigation wherever it leads him/her, not simply to a foregone conclusion:

        The investigation, dubbed Operation Safe Road, initially focused on bribes exchanged for licenses for unqualified truck drivers when Ryan was secretary of state. It expanded into a broader investigation of political corruption that snared several of his top aides and associates.

        "It was not opened up as an investigation of George Ryan, it was opened up as an investigation of licenses for bribes at the secretary of state's office," Fitzgerald said.

        If the Republicans really mean to follow through with this threat of investigating Fitzgerald as some sort of means of either intimidation or of throwing him off the hunt, I think they will have seriously miscalculated.

        There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Benjamin Disraeli, cited by Mark Twain

        by sheba on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:19:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not Agreed (none)
          Compared to the Rethugs, the folks that Fitzgerald has come up against (Terrorists and the Mob) are Pikers.  Repugs have taken Mob behavior to new lows.  I wouldn't be suprised to someday find that a "work up" on Fitzgerald had been ordered by Libby and Rove and the results would published by Robert NoFACT--just like Valerie Wilson.  Remember, these guys have no shame.  At least the Mob had a code they adhered to.
          •  Agreed! (none)
            I wouldn't be suprised to someday find that a "work up" on Fitzgerald had been ordered by Libby and Rove and the results would published by Robert NoFACT

            I absolutely agree with you. They probably already know whether he prefered Batman or Superman underwear when he was a little kid! And to them I say: Bring It On!

            And they will be some sorry-assed motherfuckers after they do. Pissing off the Special Prosecutor, who is being skillfully assisted by the FBI and (I presume) fully assisted by the CIA -- well that is just plain stupid. But hey - that is the very definition of these assholes!

            *Evil flourishes when good men do nothing*

            by clueless on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:20:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  GOP invited Fitzgerald to run in 2004 (none)
              Before they got stuck with Alan Keyes. They also promoted the top case investigator...

              When bribes couldn't stop him they decided to go for smear...

              If being anti-child-sodomy is now considered the partisan position, then I'm going to be the biggest f---ing partisan on the planet.. - Hunter

              by lawnorder on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:57:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  aeiou (none)
            Given the hubris and hostility demonstrated by this administration I have no problem beliving that they're capable of ordering a "work up" on Fitzgerald.  The difference, I think, is that Fitzgerald isn't defenseless (remember these guys only pick on the people that they think they can walk all over) and is likely to fight back.  And as people have pointed out, a pissed of prosecutor is not the kind of enemy you want to have.

            Is this anymore than wishful thinking on my part?  I don't know.  None of us do and we won't until this plays itself out.  

            "The Klingon's words are unimportant and we do not hear them." - Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy

            by mlharges on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:57:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can Bush decalre Martial Law ? (none)
              With majority on 2 houses and 40% faithfull on the polls, can he do it ?

              McClellan just said Bush needs all means necessary to nab terrorists, a Pentagon lawyer said the same. Can Bush just arrest Fitzgerald and declare Martial Law ?

              It sounds like the only way he has to stop all the trouble he is in with Abu Ghraib, Rovegate and the rest...

              If being anti-child-sodomy is now considered the partisan position, then I'm going to be the biggest f---ing partisan on the planet.. - Hunter

              by lawnorder on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:00:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  God I miss Nixon... (none)
      at least he had the balls to fire Archibald Cox.  

      Now Bush, on the other hand, will attempt to get rid of Fitzgerald like the coward he is.  Just like withy Kerry, Bush will "step on his throat" using slimy political operatives to attack Fitzgerald's family, his personal dignity and reputation, whatever.  Doesn't matter whether the allegations are true or not.  

      And Roberts will play along.  

      I gotta go take a shower.  Just reading articles like this makes me feel dirty.


    •  but (none)
      we've got Bush, McClellan, Mehlman, etc. ALL on tape saying what a wonderful dude he is.

      Ya think Rove is working on some way to smear him behind the scenes?

      Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand. - Deep Throat

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:27:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Roberts is unbelievable (none)
      Pat Roberts stood before the American public and swore that the 2nd half of the WMD investigation would be conducted AFTER the election - he and his patriotic committee would pursue the question of whether/how the White House had manipulated the faulty intelligence etc. etc.

      Then, of course, he cancelled the 2nd half - even Jay Rockefeller (his fellow subcommitte chair) couldn't believe it.  Shameless.

  •  not just venal, stupid too (4.00)
    Isn't the defense of the Bush administration "we need to wait and see"?

    It seems a duplicitous to take a "wait and see" approach to Bush administration misconduct and to insist on reviewing Patrick Fitzgerald's work before he's done.

    While it's venal, it's also stupid.

    What does the GOP get by attacking Fitzgerald? He's in a position to do more harm to the Bush administration than the GOP can do to him.

    Congress can't get him taken off the case, right? And he can avoid answering most questions because the investigation is ongoing, right? And to the extent he answers questions, won't the answers be more harmful to Bush and the GOP than to Fitzgerald?

    Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

    by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:23:06 PM PDT

    •  I think the point is (4.00)
      if he's answering their questions, he's not asking questions of his own.  It's their classic distraction technique.  Plus, if they can apply a little muscle and scare him off a bit, so much the better for them.  

      They won't ask questions about Bush or Rove, don't worry about that.  Their questions will be about his sources and methods (you know, those things that Rummy said were off-limits a couple years ago), as well as some personal stuff, like land deals he made.  They're just planning to discredit him.

      This is without doubt the creepiest group of people to ever occupy seats in Congress.  And we've had some dirty people in the last 200+...

      •  Did anyone else (4.00)
        think that just maybe there were a few Republican congresspeople who would actually think that outing a CIA spy was not a good thing?  I thought that some of them might emerge and, driven by the radical ideology that there is a higher good than party loyalty, speak the truth.

        Just when I think I can't get more cynical, I get proven naive once more.

        What's left for these criminals to do?  Actually start building detention centers on the US mainland and declare martial law, I guess.

  •  I wonder what took them so long? (4.00)
    This independent investigation thing went way out of control when it became independent and investigated.
    •  Thank God for Humor... (none)
      ...cause I would hate to walk around pissed off all day.

      A rare slip up for "Teflon Karl".

      TheBlooog - The Mike Jones of Politics

      •  Good point (none)
        <deep breath>

        "when you lose your laugh, you lose your footing." - Ken Kesey

        We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

        by August West on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:44:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  we're now looking at (none)
        Velcro Karl.  

        A whole lot of shit is going to stick to this prick.  (And I don't mean in the Jeff Gannon sense)

        The name of Karl Rove will go down in history with Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot.  Betrayer

        This is the word of the Lord.

        the ratprick: the most envied sexual instrument in the animal kingdom

        by the ratprick on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:29:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That was my question too (none)
      Makes me wonder if things are starting to come unglued in the WH.  I'm very surprised that they haven't made an effort to stop Fitzgerald before this.

      Maybe he has been keeping his cards so close to the chest that they didn't see this coming, and then the fact the media won't drop it took them by surprise.

      Wonder who's going to get the axe for not taking care of this.  I've got a Google alert set up for James Baker III but nothin' yet.

      "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful & murder respectable, & to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." ~ George Orwell

      by Pandora on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:01:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The B3 bombers. (none)
        They call Baker, Boyden and Babs out when the going gets tough. Babs is already on the trail, recently insulting seniors, they'll move her to outrage creation soon. After your comment I checked Goggle and there was old Boyden, aka B2, all over the place.  He'll be on point before too long also it will be minutes before we see Baker.

        Next comes the Florida gang storming Fitzpatrick's office.

      •  His cards are close to his chest? (none)
        What does the WH know about this investigation?  Of course they know what they are hiding, covering up.

        But what kind of leaks from a repug DOJ are going to the WH about this investigation?  Is this the reason they are so smug at this point ala Shrub / Rove's recient photo ops?  This worries me.

        I hope it's the absoloute power corrupts thing tho.

    •  Agreed (none)
      I was wondering when the Bush slime machine would kick into gear against Fitzgerald.  What will it be this time?  What slander can they throw at Fitzgerald?  How will they try to discredit him?  

      If science proves facts that conflict with Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change accordingly. " - The Dalai Lama

      by LynChi on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:39:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They need to find (4.00)
    those who leaked damaging information about Karl Rove's leak and bring them to justice.  No one should be allowed to go around indiscriminately leaking information that shows that high-ranking Republicans had leaked information; it compromises the nation's faith in Republican leadership, and then where will we be???

    That Fitzgerald, he's one sneaky sunnavabitch, what with investigating Rove instead of Hillary KommunistKlinton.  Evil-doers like him need to answer to the House and feel the wrath of psychopathic legislators from Kansas!

  •  This is how it begins (4.00)
    The question is whether Rove will have the balls to pull the trigger and fire Fitzgerald to end it before indictments come down.

    I think we're about to find exactly how far these thugs are willing to go in their campaign to re-use the Constitution as toilet paper.

    "Who do you have to blow to get a president impeached around here?"

    by chris on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:23:54 PM PDT

    •  Saturday night massacre (4.00)
      When Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Elliot Richardson mortally wounded Nixon himself.

      I don't know who has to be told to fire Fitzgerald but whoever it is we can guarantee they won't resign on principle like Richardson.

      •  The scary thing about that is... (none)
        ...if they fire Fitz, there won't be the same reaction in congress that there was following the Saturday Night Massacre that pushed the GOP to consider impeachment. Hell, apparently the senate GOP is eager and willing to do the job for Bush.
        •  Don't be so sure about that (none)
          The Saturday Night Massacre is ingrained in our national history.  Even if the Pres and his accomplices were not guilty of treason, the act would ensure that people believed they were.  It would be equivalent to taking the Fifth.  I think Fitzgerald is safe.  I also would expect him to call in any member of Congress who got out of line to depose him or her on contacts with the White House concerning the investigation in preparation of a case for obstruction of justice.  He has a lot of power.
  •  Because NO ONE IS OFF LIMITS FOR GOP (none)
    Is anyone really surprized?  I'll bet Fitzgerald isn't.  These people are out of control and the sooner we get a grip on that the sooner we will maybe - just maybe - be able to defeat this cabal.
    •  Is anyone really surprized? (4.00)
      Hell, no.

      Not after the Dade County riots during the 2000 recount.

      Not after the Purple Heart bandaids at the RNC last September.

      Not after the Club Gitmo souvenirs on Rush Limbaugh's website.

    •  If Fitzgerald isn't (4.00)
      let's hope he indicts very soon.
    •  I keep telling myself (4.00)
      that seeing as their kids  (the right wing, that is) must live in the world they are destroying, there exists, in some small and mostly unused part of their brains, a cell or two that will prevent them from taking this thing completely over the cliff.

      Well, that's obviously wishful thinking and denial on my part.  

      At some point, will we have to start talking about how, in the course of human events, there comes a time when it is necessary, etc....?

      I mean, can the FBI arrest you for writing stuff like this:

      "mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" in order to declare our independence from oppression?

      "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."


      •  I would almost bet you that every (none)
        poster on this site is on file with the
        people who check things for them and that
        could easily include the FBI.

        Remember the Patroit act,. Why do you think
        they wanted and needed it? Did you ever think
        just how much it could help them to crush
        bold desent?

        Wake up America.

        I do not believe we have seen the worse of it


        I dream about waking up and finding out Bush has fell through his own Butthole and hung himself :)Popeye

        by eaglecries on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:45:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  totally agree (none)
          everything is being set up to round up disidents

          bob dole in the 1996 presidential debate that, "there is a database in washington d.c...."

          it is horific

          even the amber alert system can be used against people that don't agree with bush et al.

          the corporations per the supreme court can now take your property away from  you

          they are trying to force the "ten commandments"  down everyone's throat, well bush should be in jail for having other gods before him"

          its ok to torture, even if John McCain is against you

          the list goes on and on, but i can tell you people this: this roberts guy is a wolf in sheeps cloathing

          he has an agenda and it aint good

        •  Are you serious?? (none)
          I was just about to say something truly disparaging and revealing about the Adminstration...

          <looking up at satellite eye>

          ...but somehow I forgot what I was saying. And was only kidding anyway.


          We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

          by August West on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:51:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Their kids will be Raptured, (none)
        didn't you know? Any day now.
    •  They've picked the wrong guy (none)
      if they go after or try to impede Fitzgerald.  Check out Somerby on Fitzgerald today at The Daily Howler.  One may get the impression from the Washington Post piece Somerby highlights that the White House crowd is precisely the sort Fitzgerald may revel in bringing down.

      Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. --Springsteen

      by gaff98 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:30:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll bet (none)
      Fitzgerald in not surprised as well. He may have even anticipated it and thus will be prepared. It should toughen him up further.
  •  Saturday Night Massacre, anyone? (none)
    But is there anyone in Bush'a inner circle like Elliot Richardson?
  •  Roberts was also the one (none)
    who said working at Langley wasn't really undercover . . .

    we need to punch this ethics thing every day in every LTE -

    "treason in defense of the Republican Party is no crime" -


    •  HOW low can they GO?! (none)
      They're already finding new territory beyond the Earth's core.

      Alright then - here we come, bitches. 2006. Kiss your Senate seats goodybe.

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by jbeach on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:57:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isn't that a requirement? (none)
    Try to intimidate the prosecutor with vague threats, just like with Kenneth Starr...  ok, maybe not.
  •  Maybe they'll finally review Porn Starr (none)
    While they are at it, maybe some Dems can finally ask for a review of Inspector Javert Porn Starr's failed obessive quest to overthrow a duly-elected President via a sex-and-lies perjury trap.

    One can hope, right?

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:26:09 PM PDT

  •  This Stuff (4.00)
    seems more like the kind of thing a banana republic would do. Do you think they're taking Operation Yellow Elephant too seriously?

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:26:53 PM PDT

  •  by the way (none)
    did you notice the latest attempt to distract attention from traitorgate?

    now the WH is publicizing the information about Roberts they won't or might not give to the Senate -

    still trying to get us involved in a dustup about Roberts to distract attention from Rove . . .

    •  What chances that Roberts (none)
      will lose control of his committee the way Luger did in the Bolton hearings? What Voinovich like Repubs of the Intel Committee?

      The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

      by semiot on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:34:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  link to list, predict the renegade (none)
        Here's the list of members.

        GOP Senators that may give the Roberts trouble:

        1. DeWine
        2. Hagel
        3. Snowe
        4. Lott
        5. Warner

        Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

        by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:42:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll write to my Senator, Warner (none)

          The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

          by semiot on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:48:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He's made a good impression with me (none)
            Warner is also standing up to the White House and pushing amendments to the next defense spending bill that will attempt to reform places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

            In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

            by jabbausaf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:28:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Warner's a cautious guy (none)
               - on Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc., he's been way too cautious for my taste. I suspect he has a pretty keen sense of his constraints with the balance of opinion on his Armed Services Committee, and in dealing with the Bush crowd. In fact, Dick Cheney has been up to the Hill real recently to remind him of the latter.

              As far the Plame Affair goes, I note that Warner if "ex-officio" member of the Sen Intel Comm. Which probably comes with the Chair of Armed Services. I really don't expect Warner to get too far out on Roberts here. But who knows, perhaps a meme carefully phrased might find its way into the deliberations.

              The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

              by semiot on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 04:43:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't Hagel on the Intel Committee? (none)
    •  Sacrificial lamb? (none)
      I mean really.  He has very little bench experience or the kind of judicial record that normally qualifies for the scotus.  His nomination is rushed as traitorgate is heating up and he's already got two f-ups today.  "I would recuse myself" and "I don't remember paying any federalist society dues"

      Anything is possible with this administration.  And nothing I learn about them in the future will surprise me.

  •  President Nixon's orders to fire Archibald Cox (4.00)
    Who says history doesn't repeat itself?
    •  The second something on that level happens (none)
      this goes from scandal with obvious possible repurcussions to full out three alarm shitstorm that would dog Bush for the remainder of his term, if he made it that far.
      •  I'm wondering if that's what's coming up (none)
        I mean, it's just one inexorable downward slide, with a few blips. Implosion, split of the GOP party 'tween (relative) moderates and extremists, and lameduck presidency, all have gone from dreams to looking somewhat likely.

        Unless they sack/discredit Fitzgerald. And that doesn't seem likely. The guy is really pursuing this, and taking no BS. And he's a touch prosecutor, staunch Republican with working-man tough-guy cred. I don't see him letting anyone kill his career softly.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

        by jbeach on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:03:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Saturday Night Massacre (4.00)
      I think the GOP has worked on their obstruction of justice game since then.  See Iran-Contra.

      Plus, we'll never get Congressional hearings let alone impeachment until we win back the House.

  •  Yes!!! (none)
    This would be great, because it will allow the press to compare it to the Saturday Night Massacre!  

    The more the media can turn this into Watergate, the better chance it has of reaching the public.

    •  Why are you assuming (none)
      the media would do so?
      •  Don't forget (4.00)
        that all voters aren't old enough (or bright enough) to remember Watergate...

        ...let alone the Saturday Night Massacre...

        "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by hopesprings on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As for not remembering Watergate.... (none)
          I am only in my mid-20s and only know what I've been taught and read.

          However, I think that I am ready for my first "Watergate" about now. How else will I truly learn?

          We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

          by August West on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:58:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is not your fathers media. (4.00)
        This is a completely coopted, government controlled media.  Do you think Pravda would have reported Watergate if it'd happened in the Soviet Union?


        We've all but lost America.  If some Republicans don't turn out to surprise us with some moral backbone really quick, it may take bullets to get our country back.

        •  We slept and let them take it (none)
          Now we'll have to fight to take it back.

          We'll make this country better whether they like it or not.

          "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

          by jbeach on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:07:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It Wasn't So Much That We Slept... (4.00)
            The Democratic Party sort of lost its way amid all the boxes of cash.

            The Republicans made their move while a lot of Dems were complacently feeding at the trough.

            But you're right about having to fight now.

            This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

            by Mr X on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:25:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You can't guarantee anything... (none)
        ...but the more things are placed on a silver platter, the easier it will be for them to cover it.  

        Besides, I think the attention paid to Mark Felt showed that there's still a lot of interest in Watergate.  Even people who don't know any of the details know it as an emblem of a dishonest and corrupt regime.  The greater the similarity to Watergate, the better for us.  

      •  It's an easy story. (none)

        "The only way to ensure a free press is to own one."

        by Rico on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:21:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Duh (none)
        to sell newspapers?

        the ratprick: the most envied sexual instrument in the animal kingdom

        by the ratprick on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:49:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      Any chance that evidence revealed in testimony before congress cannot be used later to convict in a court trial?

      Isn't this the "technicality" that got Oliver North's felony conviction overturned on appeal?

      Could this be one avenue of relief that the Republicans in congress are seeking?

  •  Watch out (none)
    It's time to light a fire under the "liberal media's" ass if the cabal is even considering floating that "Fitzgerald not a real American" trial balloon.

    Desperate and cornered people or animals are dangerous. These people or animals are running scared and lashing out with whatever they have left in their arsenal.

    What's in the works next? Iran?

    •  I don't know how serious you are (none)
      but you may very well have hit the nail on the head.

      They are at the point that any desperate act is
      not beyound their realm of thought. If they think
      for a minute that launching another assault will
      help get them past this they are not above doing it.

      With the mentality of the group in control of the
      "Black House" now, the wise person would be
      expecting even wose acts to try to cover past

      I have no doubt that at least the regulars here
      know full well how serious a situation this country
      has now been put into.
      The real problem as I see it is how to make sure
      that we can put and end to it.

      It would appear more and more that mast all our hope
      depends on one man and that is very scary to say the least.

      We know that 90% of either has does not have the
       guts or the charactor to do what is right for our
       nation. Especialy if they can not see how they
      can personaly gain from any action that they do.

      To place any real hope on the members of the
      House or the Senate as a whole is a lot of folly.

      If that is not the case why the hell haven't they
      already done something about it. They did not
      have to wait until all this time passed and
      still have not really done anything.

      Sometimes you have to think about cleaning the
      entire house  and not just selected areas if you
      truly want to change it's image and it's
      condition. That means members of both parties
      which has laid low while the things that have
      been going on happened without even so much as
      a growl, let alone biting their asses.

      Another thing that really pisses me off is any
      elected member be they Democrat or Republican
      that says "they only voted for the war because
      of false intel given to them."

      Bull Shit they have an obligation to know the
      or determine the real facts before commiting
      this nation to an act of war.

      Hell for the most part they do not even
      investigate the stupid bills that sell our
      workers down the tubes or worse.

      Sorry if I seem harsh tonight.
      Guess I am so angry that I am on my rant tonight.


      I dream about waking up and finding out Bush has fell through his own Butthole and hung himself :)Popeye

      by eaglecries on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:19:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing new... (none)
      These thugs have been in "smash and grab" mode since the 9/11 check came in the mail. Just spending their political capital. Business as usual.

      And I hate to insinuate that such a tragedy could be viewed as a gift to some. I really hate it.

      We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

      by August West on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:03:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a good time to point out (4.00)
    that the Henry Cisneros investigation has been ongoing since 1995.  That Clinton-era scandal, if you recall, involved the critical national security issue of money Cisneros paid to a mistress.

    In the final six months of fiscal 2003, [special prosecutor] Barrett spent $839,085. In the first half of 2004, he spent $871,204, and in the most recent six-month span, he was at $1.26 million, a level he had not reached since early 2001.

        "There is a trend, and it's not a decline," said Hodge Herry, assistant director of financial management and assurance at the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

        In contrast, the GAO reported, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is conducting an investigation of the leak of an intelligence officer's name, spent $584,899, less than half of Barrett's expenditures. In all of fiscal 2004, Fitzgerald spent $611,491. Barrett spent $2.13 million.

    And when Democrats attempted to bring this 10-year investigation to a merciful end earlier this year, it's interesting to note what the Republicans had to say:

    The Honorable Thad Cochran
    Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
    United States Senate
    Washington, D.C.

    Dear Chairman Cochran:

    We are writing to express our concern regarding Senate Amendment 399 that was adopted by unanimous consent during recent debate over the emergency supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1268). This amendment prohibits any additional funds from being spent on the Independent Counsel investigation of Henry Cisneros, former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. If the language from this amendment is enacted into law, there is the risk that the final report on this investigation will not be released. Given the extraordinary amount of time and public funds that have already been expended on this matter, we do not believe that the Cisneros investigation should be prematurely terminated before its final findings are made public.

    We understand that many people have very strong feelings about the propriety of the Independent Counsel itself. We also understand that others have concerns about the use of taxpayer dollars to fund these types of investigations. We share these same concerns.

    The Independent Counsel, which began its investigation in May 1995, was appointed to investigate false statements by Mr. Cisneros to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, according to myriad news reports, the scope of the Independent Counsel's investigation later included both the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service. According to one of the judges overseeing the Independent Counsel, the investigation was an apparently wide-ranging probe of government officials who might have sought to shield Mr. Cisneros. If there is any truth to the charge that Mr. Cisneros was shielded by any federal official or department, both the Congress and the public deserve to know.

    Accordingly, we respectfully urge you to not include any language regarding the Independent Counsel investigation of Mr. Cisneros in the final conference agreement for H.R. 1268.


    Tom Coburn

    In other words, the Cisneros investigation ended years ago, but 10 years later, they are still spending millions of dollars a year to investigate whether anyone in the Clinton Administration might have obstructed justice in the matter.  And that's just fine.

    Look for Republicans to now claim that the Fitzgerald investigation has moved past its original objectives and that there's no point in continuing it just so Fitzgerald can investigate allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice.  Blatant hypocrisy?  Like they care.

  •  make 'em pay (none)
    i so hope for the day when these lickspittle gop congessional chump wads are made to recognize / pay the cost of carrying water for this corrupt administration.  

    i am perhaps more hopeful than confident though that any effort by the shrill on the hill to impede, besmirch, sully, muddy, or in any manner or form aim to fuck with fitzgerald's work might offer in return to any and all who'd dare go there their own, individual, pocket-sized third rail, just in time for 2006.

  •  Could It Be? (none)
    Could it be that the Repugs want to appear impartial or actually concerned about the matter and so propose investigating Fitzgerald from the tack of "what took you so long?"  It would all be show, but that's all they are anyway...

    Today is the tomorrow we worried about yesterday.

    by Long Haul on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:29:41 PM PDT

  •  If any Senate committee is going to do oversight (4.00)
    on Fitzgerald, shouldn't it be Specter's Judiciary Committee, rather than Roberts's Intelligence Committee?
    •  There is not....... (none)
      any shreds of intelligence on Roberts's committee!!
    •  The leak was all about covering up the big lie; (none)
      yellowcake. The intelligence committee knows this and can't afford to have the investigation expand in that direction.

      Think about it--all the polling on this is about Rove and whether or not he should be fired for leaking classified info. The minute a majority of the american public believes that the leakers were covering for the liars, then it'll be akin to Watergate.

  •  asdf (none)
    So what would happen if they get rid of Fitzgerald?  There is no one that can hold the Republicans accountable for anything.  With the MSM on the GOP payroll, basically this administration can do anything they want.  What realistically can be done?
    •  What Can Be Done? (none)
      If the Republicans get rid of Fitzgerald, before he can get rid of some or all of them, what can be done?

      Mass public non-cooperation.

      Work stoppages, strikes, stop paying taxes, mass demonstrations to paralyze every major city.

      They simply cannot force us to do their bidding. It quite works the other way.

      "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." --Joseph Goebbels

      by antifa on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:55:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  stop dreaming (none)
        and start talking real politics. When was the last time anything even remotely like this happened? 1884?
        •  1970 (none)
          There were mass protests in the street in 1970, over the Cambodian invasion. We even had troops gunnning down students at Kent State and Jackson State. Sorta like Tiananmen Square, only this didn't happen in China ... it happened here.
          •  Correct and don't bet it could not happen again (none)
            Any thoughts that the same thing could not happen
            again should be put aside.

            I think the only thing perhaps in our favor there
            is that hopefully the FBI would not obey orders to
            put down any protest with deadly force now if it
            came to that.

            But lets remember that few if any thought even then
            that our National Guard and Police would be ordered
            to carry out those acts and then actually do it.

            With the amount of power these thugs have manage to
            stack up through fear and lies don't have a false
            sense of security that even more dreadful things
            could not happen.

            Hell they are not beyound anything as long as
            they think they are pleasing the the Evangelic
            movement , You know  the only group that has the
            keys to Gods Kingdom.

            Plus they would have all the Repug elected
            officials cheering them on. Maybe even some of
            those weak hearted Democrats that can't seem to
            find enough guts to do a few things that is
            right for this country.

            Notice I did not say all the elected Democrats,
            but I do infer that many of them have been
            completely gutless.

            You do know how dictatorships usually handle
            those who desent don't you? Well how far do you
            think we are from being one?


            I dream about waking up and finding out Bush has fell through his own Butthole and hung himself :)Popeye

            by eaglecries on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:19:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  sorry... (none)
            I thought you were talking about a general strike, massive turnout in the streets, broad civil disobediance, and so on. That did not happen in the ealy 1970s. Widespread protest, yes - but general a general strike? Not even close.

            And on this issue, even mass protests aren't gonna happen.

  •  Just wanted to reiterate this here... (4.00)
    and to prepare for a possible fight on this.

    Fitzgerald was assigned the case by Jim Comey, Ashcroft's deputy after Ashcroft recused himself (which took 3 months!!) from the case. "Comey said that he has delegated his authority to investigate (which is the authority of the attorney general, since Ashcroft's withdrawal) to Fitzgerald, but the Justice Department is unwilling to release the formal delegation of authority." (Dean, "Worse Than Watergate")


    Moreover, the recent assignment to Fitzgerald contains none of the safeguards against politicization that come with the formal appointment of a special counsel. He doesn't have the ability to seek whatever financial resources are needed to pursue the case as a special counsel is able to. Fitzgerald does not have the guarantee that he can be fired only for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity or other good cause as is the case with a special counsel. And there is no requirement that the attorney general provide the public with a written explanation of why any action proposed by the prosecutor was not taken, as is specified in the special counsel regulations. -- John Conyers

    It may be very interesting to see what course the GOP and WH take depending on Fitzgerald's conclusions. But don't forget...Fitzgerald, as Conyers also puts it in the above link, "owes his job to President George W, Bush."

    "Opinion, whether well or ill founded, is the governing principle of human affairs." -- Alexander Hamilton

    by juniper on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:29:52 PM PDT

  •  Let's hope... (none)
    ..that Patrick Fitzgerald won't join Archibald Cox and Robert Fisk on history's scrap heap.

    This is encouraging, no? A hack like Pat Roberts--wouldn't you hate to be his male child and introduced as Pat Roberts' son--attacking Fitzgerald b/c he cares more about treason than permanent one-party rule?

    Smell the fear.

  •  What's the matter with Kansas? (none)
    Sen. Pat Roberts!

    I am so far to the left I can almost see the right again.

    by beagleandtabby on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:31:58 PM PDT

  •  Inescapable Fact (none)
    The heart of this investigation is about our National Security and protecting those who are protecting the US.  It's the teflon that keeps the GOP bullshit from sticking.  So don't worry.  Every attempt at GOPBS just makes things worse for the GOP.
  •  I'M MAD AS HELL (4.00)
    and I can't take it anymore.

    Pissant Republican neoCON freaks!

    No ethics need apply to them does it?


    Bastards.  Burn in hell the lot of them!


  •  Just give the Scotty defense (4.00)
    "This is an ongoing investigation and I've asked myself not to talk about it..."
  •  It seems to me (none)
    if there was something obvious they had on him, they would've gotten to it a long, long time ago.

    Could this be a threat?

    "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by hopesprings on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:32:55 PM PDT

  •  I am surprised that more (none)
    of you didn't see this coming already.

    This option has been in their mind for a long time
    and would be used when things really got hot.

    After all with control of all of Washington and 99%
    of the news camps, they may even get away with it.

    Sometimes some of us seem to forget much of the
    real battle is still ahead.

    Reserve the whooping and hollering and the "stick
    a fork in it" that it is a done deal until we
    actually have them.

    That is not saying that we should not be
    encouraged by any new thing that breaks our way.
    Just to not set yourself up for a quick victory
    when in fact any victory is a while away at best.

    You may soon start getting discouraged that way.


    I dream about waking up and finding out Bush has fell through his own Butthole and hung himself :)Popeye

    by eaglecries on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:35:58 PM PDT

  •  Scott! Scott! (4.00)
    "Congressional Republicans are set to start investigations of this ongoing investigation. Care to comment on their commentary on the ongoing investigation?"
  •  Dammit (none)
    Somebody really needs to start running some commercials about this fucker in Kansas.  Can't cost too much to blanket some commercials in KS, right?

    Just put up some spots with some of the quotes Pat Roberts has said over the past years about this.  Basically, rehash Armando's post Is Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), Incompetent or a Liar? Or Both?  Make it non-partisan, just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and partisan horseshit that Roberts has been spouting.

    Not that a Democrat is going to take his Senate seat anytime soon, but just some funds spent in order to raise questions in his backyard.  At least try to make the SOB feel some heat from home.  And just maybe spur some home-grown Democrats to start to take aim at him.

    Because seriously, any slightly objective look at his statements about covert agents and this whole investigation would blow the bastard out of the water.  The fact that he is the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is simply mind boggling.

    •  I KNEW you referring to ... Archie on (none)
      Oct 20, 1973.

      I was 13 and I REMEMBER it so well !!  what a hullaba-loo --

      of course, in 1974 my family was sporting

      "Don't Blame Us, We're From Massachusetts" bumper stickers.


      Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders"

      by rmdewey on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:48:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Our family had an "IMPEACH NIXON" sign (none)
        in our front yard and we had it lighted at night!
        My Cousin played "Happy Days Are Here Again!" on his trumpet throughoot his neighborhood on August 9, 1974 (which was also my birthday).

        In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

        by TampaCPA on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:47:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We will know about Fitz soon ! (none)
    We will soon findout if Fitzgerald is for real as the Rethugs are starting to hammer him. As the pressure start to build, Fitzgerald may be forced to show his cards sooner rather than later.
  •  Actually (none)
    I thought the last paragraph was a joke.  Unfortunately, it wasn't.  Well, it was the dems who demanded an investigation and we got it.  I'm not sure that this committee has any authority to investigate Fitzgeral though, at least not while his investigation is going on.  Investigate the investigator.  Hmm.  From what I've read of him, it'll just make him put in more time and energy sinking these bastards.  (Not I am pissed!)
  •  Separation of Powers? (none)
    Also, does Congress have any power to interfere in an ongoing investigation and legal process?  Don't attorney generals refuse to talk to Congress or anybody else about ongoing cases?
    •  Yeah! (none)
      Does Congress have any oversight authority over a Spccial Prosecutor appointed by the AG, part of the Executive Branch?

      Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as shall never be put out.

      by Bollox Ref on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:26:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  maybe he'll get off his ass and indite someone (none)
    2 years of investigating - whatever.  

    for those of us in the bottom 90% of money income, household income, taxable income

    the investigation and inditements would take between 2 weeks and 2 months

    wonder why the lower classes are skeptical of this latest crap-gate?  how about the way the system works ?

    btw, for that bottom 90% of us, another way the "system works" is we jump how high the boss wants when the boss wants, or bye bye job AND health care (IF you had it) AND 401(k) retirement (IF you had it)

    the "leaders" might get more by - in to "the system" if the system worked for people other than those at top.

    worked ... like inditing crooks like Rove in a timely manner, NOT after 2 freaking years.


    Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders"

    by rmdewey on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:43:33 PM PDT

    •  Fully half the time (none)
      ...was taken up by Miller and Cooper's refusal to testify.

      I want it done right, not fast.  I don't want those slimy Rethuglicans to ooze out this time.

      Rubus Eradicandus Est.

      by Randomfactor on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:47:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Headline: Republicans attack Republican prosecutor (none)
      Will the prosecutor get mad?

      Will he hurry up the investigation?

      Get mad?  Get even?  Go away?

      Stay tuned . . . .

    •  Let the indictments begin (none)
        I heard on the ABC/John Batchelor show that the reason things are taking so long is that Fitz is preparing an indictment for Joe Wilson, not Rove. This from some retired General.
       The Batchelor/Alexander program was good at one time. It has turned into partisan hackery,without P.Alexander.
  •  "Saturday Night (none)
    Massacre" redux?  Heh, if history is repeating itself, they might want to be careful what they ask for.

    "There is a cancer growing on the presidency." John Dean

    by Caldonia on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:47:47 PM PDT

  •  They're going to pull an Ollie North Damnit! (3.85)
    The only reason that there would be for Congress to butt into the investigation is to start handing out testimonial immunity to their favored witnesses (Rove, Scooter, and destroy Fitzgerald's case against them just like they did to get Oliver North off.

    Once they grant immunity to these traitors it makes it harder for Fitzgerald to prove his case outside of any admissions they make in their Congressional testimony.  Which of course a friendly congressman will assist them in coming clean of their crimes and therefore making it impossible to use it in a criminal proceeding.

    These Republicans are trying to protect traitors!

    •  Likely true. (3.50)
      The Repugs are convening these hearings, and you know they don't give a shit about whether the Plame conspirators are ever brought to justice. They are up to no good, and that is for sure. I think they are going to use these hearings to muddy the waters but good. They are going to try to make a record that 1) Wilson is a liar, 2) Plame is not covert, 3) Fitzgerald is an out of control prosecutor. And along the way they will grant immunity to get "witnesses" to testify and make criminal prosecution impossible. I haven't heard a Dem response to this, but let's hope they are on the ball. No immunity grants.
  •  Hagel appears in Wilson's book. (none)
    By the way, Wilson's book reveals that Hagel expressed sympathy to Wilson after the outing of Plame.
  •  Barbara Boxers office says the were not aware (none)
    They claim they haven't seen the story, but will notify her immediatly about it. Something tells me there isn't anyway possible she wouldn't already have known about it.
    I followed up also about Fridays hearings for Karen Hughes, they were mum on that also.

    I hope they are keeping it quiet for a reason, and not just letting this stuff go unchecked.

  •  Bitter harvest (none)
    I can't do anything but laugh at the GOP's transparent effort at intimidation. I don't believe that Fitzgerald will be intimidated by them in the least, although I do not have any factual evidence to back up my feeling.

    One of these days these guys are going to run out of luck. They will fuck with one person too many and their empire that was built on lies, arrogance, greed, and blood-lust will come crashing down around their ears. I have to believe they will reap what they have sown.

    "The palace is not safe when the cottage is not happy." -Benjamin Disraeli

    by meg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:56:29 PM PDT

  •  Am I mistaken.. (none)
    wasn't there originally some concern that Fitzgerald was in the bag for BushCo?
  •  Hey Bush (none)
    If someone in your Adminsitration is indicted or convicted for outing a CIA agent, do you pledge not to pardon them in the future?

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:57:23 PM PDT

  •  WOW!! (none)
    They are reaching for straws now, they must not realize there are portions of the MSM that are not as asleep as they once were, I think this is going to display extremely well the Corrupt Nature of the GOP. This is a blatant abuse of power to Intefere with a On-Going Investigation. The repubes seem desperate they have guns and no bullets at them moment.

    Like others said, I think they have a Gestapo Attiude about Government!

    •  Stretching...aye... (none)
      and they are going to throw everything that moves. Then they are going to get screwdrivers and toss everything that isn't hammered down. Then they are going to get the hammer and undo those also...

      And when they're done with that, they'll start tossing these...

      Cause that's what they've got...

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:58:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent line ... (3.50)
    Markos -- You have more than your share of truly wonderful and, to me, powerful lines ...  The following should be on the tip of all Democratic tounges in the weeks and months ahead:

    "Because he won't fly the elephant above the Stars and Stripes?"

    • You're calling me a traitor because I don't think we should fly the elephant above the Stars and Stripes?

    • Well, what Karl Rove did isn't wrong for those who fly the elephant above the Stars and Strips ...

    • Yet again, the Republicans are flying their elephant above the Stars and Stripes ...

    And, so on ... this, it seems to me, is a wonderful sound bite that could get through to some of the blindly flag waving crowd.  

    (I wave the flag with great pride but with the understanding that there is no such thing as a perfect society -- I wave understanding warts and all -- and regret that the past five years have moved us farther from rather than closer to that ever unattainable but ever so desirable objective.)

  •  listen folks (none)
    i am sorry to be a downer.  but if we don't think the Rethugs can pull Fitz and get away with it then we're deluding ourselves.  they're testing the waters now.  Nixon had nothing like the current Rethug Machine in place, and if he had he would have been nominated for sainthood already. if anybody hadn't noticed, rethugs control virtually EVERY part of government.  Supreme court soon to be rethugged.  we should be very very concerned.      
  •  Dear Sen. Roberts... (none)
    Are you nuts!?!

    Patrick Fitzgerald put this guy:


    He also put this guy:


    Why aren't you pinning a medal on his chest?

    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:09:04 PM PDT

  •  ROBERTS.... (none)
    refused to hold hearings on how the intell about saddam was USED or misused before the war but he is going to investigate Fitzgerald???

    isnt this a violation of seperation of powers???  this is an ongoing investigation...can congress subpoena fitzgeralds 'classified' findings?  

    cause it sure looks like roberts has been tasked by team Bush to find out who may be about to be indicted and for what...

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:10:50 PM PDT

  •  there's a big difference (none)
    between "review" and "investigate." I think folks are jumping to conclusions.
  •  oh, there they are! (none)
    THERE'S the GOP we all know and love.

    They've been slow coming out of the gate on this one, but I see they're back to form now.

    "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

    by marjo on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:15:54 PM PDT

  •  Hoekstra is my congresscritter (4.00)
    He has been in the back pocket of the GOP forever.  Consider that he was a major muckety muck at an office furniture manufacturer in the Calvanistic, Republican centered West Michigan.

    He supposedly went to Washington in '94 to clean up the corruption.

    He now takes ~$250,000 PAC money a year (originally said he would take no PAC $$) and he said he would only serve 12 years, but ran again when that was over.

    BUT, there are a good number in West Michigan that are holding them accountable.  He hears from me and others on a regular basis.  I just asked him whether on the run-up to the war whether he lied to us or the administration lied to him.  I don't think he liked that at all.

    But, don't expect anything but GOP talking points from him at this time.

    America works best in spreading democracy when people over the world see something they want to emulate. Richard

    by Mlle L on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:16:58 PM PDT

  •  Crime Pays (none)

    They will do anything to keep in power.  This is not the Nixon era anymore.  The Bush crime family knows how to retain power, and they will do anything to remain in power.

    Thoughts from Connecticut - Recommended Reading - Growing Up Red

    by ctsteve on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:20:34 PM PDT

  •  That statement could (none)
    actually be innocuous.  We'll see.  I wouldn't piss Fitzy off.
  •  They can't help themselves (none)
    At this point I hope Roberts does this really stupid thing.

    Smile. These morons are starting to flay away.

    Fitzgerald can get pay back by stretching this out into fall.

  •  This is just getting...... (none)
    too ridiculous.  The Rethugs are taking things too, too far now.  They are getting more and more brazen by the day aren't they?  This shit of theirs has got to stop!!  

    Why are the Rethugs so hell-bent on destroying our country and all the things we believe in?  What ever happened to truth, justice and the American way?

    They have pushed the envelope too far on this one.  Let's really get out there and beat the drums on this one people!


  •  The United States of America (none)
    Born: July 4, 1776
    Died: January 20, 2001

    Cause of Death: GOP + Corporate Media

  •  Sorry, I don't see it. (none)
    " the probe..." is a very benign statement, it could very easily (and probably does) mean that it will be a topic of discussion, which is perfectly appropriate (and way overdue, in fact).

    I'd like to see the actual statement by Pat Roberts' spokesperson, but I'm surprised that this is on the front page, it makes us look exceptionally reactionary and, frankly, a little loony.

    The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham

    by verasoie on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:01:54 PM PDT

    •  It'll be benign... (none)
      so long as they are wiggling their respective toes in the waters...

      But it's the beginning of a long winded salvo. They are headed out for summer recess. Last thing they want is to toss in a handgrenade that'll probably cause a heavy dose of blowback at home...

      "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

      by kredwyn on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:02:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So... (none)
        ...we have all summer long to hammer GOP congresscritters on whether they back the Whitehouse holding on to a guy who leaks classified information.

        Make Rove as radioactive as Social Security privatization, and I'll bet Roberts will back off rather quickly.

  •  To use a cliche' (none)
    It is hard, in one of your most creative moments, "You can't make this up." With this President and pals, we truly live in a fantasy land. It is sad that so, so many people are intent on living there too.
  •  Clash of the Branches (none)
    Interesting.  Fitzgerald is presumably operating under the executive branch, as a DOJ substitute, whereas Congress  Can Congress legislate  Fitzgerald's investigation?  I haven't thought it all the way out, nor have I studied the Iran-Contra thing, but what happens if Fitzgerald resists?  What happens if he indicts before the hearings - can Congress undermine the indictments by granting immunity?  Lots of questions...any answers?
    •  OMG! (none)
      Now THIS hadn't occurred to me.  Is Fitz waiting until the recess to hand down the indictments?  Defuse the congressional reaction by indicting the repuglicans while they are out of town?  Now I don't mean to sanctify Fitzgerald, but, to all appearances, he IS the last publicly known repug with any credibility or integrity left.
  •  Republicans Want to See Fitzgerald's Cards (none)
    While they discuss what the meaning of "covert" is.

    And maybe granting immunity to a few of the pResident's men.

    That's probably all it is. Of course, somewhere Rove is figuring out if they can fire Fitzgerald and get away with it.

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:43:29 PM PDT

  •  Another Saturday Night Massacre (3.50)
    They're investigating the special prosecutor in order to lay the groundwork for dismissing him should he prove so imprudent as to actually recommend indicting anyone in the administration.  His vulnerability?  Why, leaks, of course.  Who do you think is leaking this stuff we've been reading in the papers about the Plame affair the past few weeks?  "According to lawyers who have been briefed on the case", a typical formulation to describe sources of recent news stories, refers to who, if not folks in the special prosecutor's office?  The beauty of taking this line of threatening Fitzgerald is that it makes the point that he would be well-advised to not go public with the gory details of any disagreements he might have with his masters at the DoJ, from any recommendations he might have on indictments, and up to and including the matter of his continued employment as special prosecutor.

    The threat of dismissal, and even possible criminal prosecution, will probably suffice to make an actual repeat of the Saturday Night Massacre uneccessary.  But even if it does come to that, what does the administration have to fear?  Senator Roberts' threatened hearings make the point very eloquently that we are in a very different place today than we were with Watergate.  Congress was already exercising vigorous oversight even before the Saturday Night Massacre, whose main practical effect was to push wavering moderates in Congress over the line to support impeachment as the only remaining way to get to the truth.  Today's Congress is part of the conspiracy.  Roberts and his ilk merely have to dig up enough dirt, to the effect that everybody in this town leaks, etc., they all do it, Rove, Fitzgerald, lobbyists for Mother Theresa, everybody, and this whole Plame affair is just another illegitimate attempt to criminalize normal political behavior, etc. -- that the Saturday Night Massacre won't hemorrhage so many swing voters in 2006 that they lose Congress.

  •  This is for real? (none)
    I was sure it was a satire on the present Congress.
  •  roaches (none)
    Wether or not the result f hearings wuld in some way grant immunity against further prosecution against the players in this sordid tawdry tale is less important than shining light onto the smarmy dealings of these weasels. Shine a lght and cockroaches scurry.And once theyre exposed who knows what will happen? Nothing good for them,that Im willing to believe.

    it tastes like burning...

    by eastvan on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:07:57 PM PDT

  •  Investigating the investigation (none)

    Hmm? This sounds interestiing.

    "I'm sorry, Senator, but under federal law I'm not permitted to tell you what happened before a grand jury."

    Notice that they still haven't found time to investigate the original leak, but they will find time to investigate the degree of cover the CIA gives people working in Langley and now to investigate the grand-jury investigation.

    What's this joker's state, and does anyone here live it? Are all the papers there lapdogs?

  •  Republican Party is a slow motion ant hill (none)
    You kick the top off an ant hill they start pouring out and running in all directions.

    Same here.   Lashing out in all directions.  Attacking everyone who dares to stick their head up.  They know they've been hurt and are hoping that by muddying things up enough they can hide again back under their dirt.

    Has anyone considered that a lot of this may be working toward outrage fatigue?   Enough awful things and they start running off because you've taken all you can.   Then they can just do away with whoever is bothering them or whoever is in their way and people will still be working through about 6 outrages back.

    Karl Rove----When you care enough to do the very worst.

      I love it !! PAPER BALLOTS is my NEW MOTTO as well!!!  Bring back paper!!! Bring back FREEDOM  & DEMOCRACY!!  Ban the Computers!!!!

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

      by Blutodog on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:43:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  An interesting but Irrelevant reply (none)
      just above; RATHER, IMPORTANTLY, the point made by maybeso is spot on, and is pretty transparently the current strategy:  scandal fatigue.  The apparent pushing of Bolton's recess appt is EXACTLY what this is:  PLAY TO THE PUBLIC'S SHORT ATTENTION SPAN and their tendency to feel for those put upon.....
  •  Ugh... (none)
    This is the most transparent act of political retribution since, well, the leaking of Valerie Plame.
  •  where is the outrage (none)
    Where is the outrage in the streets of America! Why are people being so complacent? Why doesn't anyone give a shit? Maybe if we made this into a TV movie of the week someone, somewhere, would care.

    I wash my hands of the sheeple.

  •  The Rethugs are capable of any outrage now! (none)
    If you've been reading the rethug media lately you'd think u were in another universe. The rethugs see Rove as a martyr. I won't be surprised when they deep 6 Fitzgerald. They never thought he was going to really have the balls to really do his job anyway. He'll be gone before Oct. replaced by some GOP party hack that will find Bill Clinton as the one who leaked Val's name to the Press or some other completely absurd charge. These are CRIMINALS and FASCISTS folks so don't be surprised at what's going to happen next.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

    by Blutodog on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:40:18 PM PDT

  •  "OUTRAGE fatigue"-- <???>- (none)
    That's an incredibly good deduction, Watson!   It HAS to be what's going on.  With Watergate, I was 16 and sat in front of the set at my babysitting job DAILY to watch every second of the televised hearings.  How can people even keep UP with all of the "FAKE" allegations aimed at the Clintons...and now so many allegations lobbed (many weakly, I might add) at this present administration?   I still keep seeing the look on George's face as he was reading "My Pet Goat" after they told him about the 1st plane.  I can't help it-- he looked like he was sitting there, PENSIVE, waiting for.. the ressst of the story.  Come on,,, he knew.  What can we doooo?  I did write to the paper in Phoenix yesterday on the lack of media attention to the Rove thing.  I bet THAT did a lot of good.   <eye rolls>    
  •  Tit for tat (none)
    Jim Sensenbrenner's already trying to shake Fitzgerald down over an unrelated case:,1,5787813.story?coll=chi-newsnati onworld-hed

    Another Saturday Night Massacre in the works?

  •  The Massacre (none)
    Many in the media have called the events of Saturday November 13, 1973 "a massacre."  This is not accurate.  The correct term is abuse.  What we had were rogue elements meting out punishment that, we swear! was not sanctioned by the president.  Those elements have been dealt with; indeed the majority of those involved no longer work for the government, including Mr. Granier.  I mean Mr. Cox.  The abuse was confined to one night, and only 3 individuals were involved.  President Nixon has assured the nation that there was no systematic failure of law here, and he is confident the internal report on the matter will arrive at the truth.  Indeed, the president now believes, and I agree with him, that the publicization of the so-called "massacre" has hurt the US's reputation abroad.  The US is not about massacres, and we believe those calling it as such need to watch what they say, because they are giving aide and comfort to our enemies.    

    Unka' Karl? More like Uncle RICO.

    by Amovar on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:13:57 PM PDT

  •  I say fantastic! (none)

    Now we are assured Fitzgerald's findings will be discussed in the legislative branch.  
  •  it's ok, really (none)
    honestly, I don't expect Bush to be impeached
    I don't even expect Rove and Libby to go to jail
    Most likely, they will fall on their swords and quit, absolving Bush as they go.


    I believe that this scandal will open more people's eyes to the corruption and cyncism of the Rethugs.

    Perhaps the Dems will take control of Congress (or come close) in 2006, and springboard from their to the WH in 2008

    (always dependent on the Dems actually having a strategy to present a real political alternative, and progressive/liberal programs.....)

  •  There's A Mistake (none)
    To be made in thinking Fitzgerald's biography will save him from their attacks.

    Listen to me.

    They can and they will attack anyone who crosses them.  Your reasons don't matter, only their survival does.  There is always dirt to be found if people want it badly enough.  Always.  I'm pretty familiar with Fitzgerald's career just from reading profiles of the guy and I could come up with smears or innuendo about the guy.  Totally without merit of course.  But it can be done.  There does not exist biographical inoculation.  For anyone.  For Kerry, Clark, or McCain.  For Cindy McCain.  For Richard Clarke.  For anyone.  For Patrick Fitzgerald.

    But what we can hope for is that Fitz's character will push him through this thing.  That he is as smart, aggressive, tenacious, human, and unafraid as he's rumored to be.  That he knows how to dish out the "no, fuck you's."  

    That he might be an exception to the brave and fighting souls struck down by this criminal regime.  If he, like all those others we have seen chewed up and spit out, falters or falls, it will not be a mark against him, but a mark against what has happened to America.

    But even if that happens, if they kick him off the case, if they throw him in jail, if their criminality abets yet more criminality, I will still have not stopped believing what I'm about to say.  Because I will never not believe it.  Because I have to believe it.

    I believe in Patrick Fitzgerald.

    And I still believe in a promised land.

    Unka' Karl? More like Uncle RICO.

    by Amovar on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:38:11 PM PDT

    •  Well.... (none)
      if the Democrats on capitol hill haven't learned their lessons by now then they are just totally lost.  They shouls show up at this hearing loaded and ready to go....and I don't mean playing footsie.  If this turns out to be a smear campaign against Fitz then the dems in the senate and house need to turn up the volume quite a bit.  Better yet, turn it up right now!  Fire a few across the bow.  Our guys need to learn how to play nasty.
  •  A consortium of prosecutors should weigh in (none)
    It would be nice to get a consrotium of prosecutors to comment on such proceedings.  

    Also, Leon Jaworski's book, "The Right and The Power" should be read by every participating congressman.  


    George W Bush - Plame Duck President

    by Tug on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:45:47 PM PDT

  •  U.S. Army vs. Joseph McCarthy (none)
    Remember that the tipping point for Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his control over the House Permanent Subcommitte on Investigations (and its arm HUAC) in 1954 came when he took on the U.S. Army in a petty, outrageous attempt to accomodate an obscure private who happened to be Roy Cohn's lover.  Roy Cohn was his Rove-like legal assistant who built his reputation on bullying, blackmailing, and sliming all who opposed thier scary agenda.
    The U.S. Army finally challenged the omnipotent Red-Baitor, hired Joseph Welch to pursue their case on live television, and turned the table in front of millions watching:

    "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you left no sense of decency?"
                            -Joseph Welch - Republican counsel from Boston

    McCarthy was, in short order, censured by the Senate for "conduct unbecoming of a U.S. Senator" and lost the confidence of the nation to pursue his unholy agenda.

  •  "Their best conscience (none)
    Is not to leave't undone, but keep't unknown."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site