Last night I had dinner with a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. My friend knew and worked with Patrick Fitzgerald when he was attached to that office. She shared some impressions that should be reassuring to anyone who continues to doubt his intentions.
As an initial matter, my friend doubted that Fitzgerald would have agreed to accept the position unless he believed that a crime or crimes had been committed but also that he would approach the investigation with an open mind, not pursuing unwarranted indictments. She said that he is a non-political, straight-shooter, a totaly dedicated prosecutor who will not back down.
She described the character of the SDNY office as unique and particularly independent-minded and felt that Fitzgerald was very much a product of that culture. I haven't read this perspective anywhere else, and I think it's an interesting one that helps explain his career in Illinois as well as what seems to be taking shape in Washington.
My friend also shed some light on the question of subjects and targets and Federal grand juries. For those who missed it, Luskin acknowledged that Rove was considered a subject while trying to minimize the significance of that designation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp
Subjects and targets are notified of their status prior to testifying. Prosecutors are not obligated to notify a subject of a change in status and indeed are unlikely to do so. Thus, Luskin's claims may be true, but even so, they are meaningless. And I have little doubt that Rove became a target after Matt Cooper testified, if not before.
While I've been quite confident about Fitzgerald's integrity and commitment to pursuing this investigation, it was reassuring to hear about his character first-hand. His selection as prosecutor says something about hubris, and it will be a magnificent irony if that appointment brings down the regime.