The suggestion that Bob Kjellander was working with Rove to have Fitz fired is not new.
In a hearing before court began, prosecutors said they hoped to call Ali Ata, the former Blagojevich administration official who pleaded guilty to corruption yesterday, to the stand.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Carrie Hamilton said she believed Ata would testify to conversations Ata had with his political patron, Rezko, about working to pull strings to kill the criminal investigation into Rezko and others when it was in its early stages in 2004.
"[Ata] had conversations with Mr. Rezko about the fact that Mr. Kjellander was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed," Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve.
Back in the days when there was question whether Fitzgerald would be ousted in 2006 (before the USA purge broke), Chicago commentators regularly noted how badly Chicago pols--and Kjellander in particular--wanted to see Fitzgerald gone.
And there's good reason to think he might be [fired], aside from the president's non-assurance. One of the chief practitioners of Illinois establishment politics is Republican operative Bob Kjellander, who brags (whether true or not) about his friendship with Bush chief political strategist, Karl Rove. Despite Kjellander's engineering Bush defeats in Illinois and other Midwest states, the White House (Rove?) thought he was pretty hot stuff and brought him to the Beltway where he is engineering who knows what political disaster.
Kjellander also will be credited with the coming GOP election disaster in Illinois, thanks to his help in selecting state Treasurer Judy Barr Topinka to run against incumbent Blagojevich. She's a dear lady, a treasured "moderate," but not a gusty independent willing to stand up to the political establishment.
The point is that Kjellander (pronounced Shelander), a Republican national committeeman who has received $800,000 in unexplained fees through a state bond-borrowing deal engineered by Democrat Blagojevich, is no fan of Fitzgerald's either. No one, in other words, in the political establishment in Chicago or Washington, is pushing for Fitzgerald's reappointment. [my emphasis]
And after news broke last year that Fitzgerald had been on the firing list, at least one Chicago commentator predicted that Kjellander was the reason, and not the Plame case. (This is a March 21 Chicago Trib article by John Kass behind the firewall, but here's a blog post that cites most of it.)
How many conversations did Karl Rove--the political Rasputin of the Bush White House--have with top Illinois Republicans about U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald?
Ten? Fifty? None?
Did Rove speak directly to Big Bob Kjellander, whom Rove engineered into the job of treasurer of the Republican National Committee?
Answers might tell us why Fitzgerald, honored in 2002 as one of the top prosecutors in the Justice Department--and the fed most feared by the bipartisan political Combine that runs Illinois--was abruptly downgraded in March 2005.
[snip]
Conventional wisdom from Washington is that Fitzgerald fell out of favor with the Republicans because of his pursuit of the CIA leak case, which led to the recent perjury conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
But why not consider an alternative?
Just as that March 2005 memo downgrading Fitzgerald was making its way to the White House, Fitzgerald's office in Chicago was proceeding in a fascinating political corruption probe involving alleged kickbacks requiring state approval for the construction of hospitals.
That case would mushroom into Operation Board Games, revealing bipartisan political influence in hundreds of millions of dollars invested through state pension funds.
There have been so many distractions that you're bound to have forgotten about Operation Board Games. The distractions include City Hall's Olympic dreams that won't cost taxpayers a dime and whether Lord Conrad Black's wife thinks reporters covering her husband's federal fraud trial are a bunch of vermin and sluts. With all this talk of Olympics and sluts and so on, you probably haven't had time to figure the Fitzgerald timeline.
But as that 2005 memo was sent to the White House, Fitzgerald was formally unmasking the Combine in what would later become Operation Board Games.
[snip]
One fellow in the federal documents of the Operation Board Games case was listed as "Individual K." And his buddy appeared several times in those same documents as "Individual A," for Alpha.
Individuals A and K have not been indicted. But the Tribune identified them as Big Bob Kjellander (pronounced $hell-ander) and his buddy, Big Bill Cellini, the political boss of Springfield.
Kjellander is the Republican committeeman of Illinois who flaunts his friendship with Rove and who recently resigned as treasurer of the Republican National Committee. Kjellander also represented the famous Carlyle Group before the teachers' pension fund board and he received $4.5 million in questionable consulting fees.
Did Kjellander discuss Fitzgerald with Rove? I don't know.
In other words, knowledgeable observers at least suspected--as Fitzgerald's presence on the firing list came to light last year--that Kjellander, and not Rove in Plame, was the cause. (Me, I think both might have been the reason Fitzgerald made the firing list; far be it for Rove to be choosy about his reasons to fire a USA.)
Since the suggestion is not new, I'm not so much surprised by the announcement as I'm interested in the way the USA NDIL introduced this evidence and the implications it has for the whole investigation of politicized prosecutions.
You see, I believe--based on somewhat attentive observation of Patrick Fitzgerald over time--that introducing this kind of evidence is one of his favorite MOs. He introduces information that pertains to a case but is actually much more valuable for the way it points to much graver criminal issues that Fitzgerald is not in a position to address at a given moment. Thus, Fitzgerald introduced a great deal of evidence to show that Dick Cheney had, indeed, ordered Scooter Libby to leak Valerie Wilson's identity. Because of constitutional reasons and pixie dust reasons and the inadequacy of Judy Judy Judy's recall, he was not able to indict either Libby or Cheney on IIPA. But he got the evidence out there that that is, indeed, what happened. Unfortunately, Congress and the press were too busy trying to get Fitzgerald to release grand jury information that they failed to look closely at the information already in the public domain, and the information was never used to good effect.
I suspect that Fitzgerald has figured out the limits of Congress and the Press, because this time he has made it a bit easier. Golly, the press actually even reported on a non-trial conference, something that rarely happened in the Libby trial.
Fitzgerald's office (though not Fitzgerald personally) has just said to John Conyers, "Hey, I see you're still looking into politicized prosecutions. Well, here's a witness who can testify that a Rove crony was working with Rove to get Fitzgerald fired--just before Fitzgerald almost got fired." This adds another witness--like Dana Jill Simpson--who is willing to testify that Rove got personally involved in prosecutions affecting his political allies. But it also brings someone from the requesting side to the fore--someone who (unlike the GOP cronies in Washington who got John McKay fired and unlike the GOP cronies in NM who got Iglesias fired) is apparently willing (and presumably has already signed an affidavit to the effect) to testify that Karl Rove entertained these demands for firing seriously. Conyers will, undoubtedly, take a few days to respond (he's not so quick as Henry Waxman), but I imagine he will respond.
This will make it much easier demonstrate the criminal behavior needed to successfully subpoena Karl Rove to testify about this case, about Siegelman, and about Iglesias. It is, presumably, someone who is willing to go on the record to say that Karl Rove willingly intervened to fire a USA with the clear intent of stopping an investigation in one of Rove's allies.
Notice that Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin was very quick to issue a very insistent denial.
But Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, today issued an unequivocal statement about all of this to the Tribune on behalf of Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President Bush, architect of Bush's presidential campaigns and a private consultant in Washington now.
"Karl has known Kjellander for many years,'' Luskin said, "but does not recall him or anyone else arguing for Fitzgerald's removal. And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn't take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House -- or in the Justice Department -- about doing anything like that.''
Ha ha! Gold Bars! You thought you had beaten Fitzgerald once and for all, didn't you? Ha. Ha!
Of course, there's one more witness to this issue: Kyle Sampson. Now, even in HJC's preliminary report on the USA firings, there was clear evidence that cliquemembers at DOJ conspired to cover up the real reasons behind the firing of David Iglesias. As Glenn Fine reportedly draws near to finishing his investigation into the matter, those who participated in that cover-up may be getting antsy about their own role in the cover-up. I don't know whether such antsiness will or has made Kyle Sampson recall in more detail how or why he suggested Patrick Fitzgerald be fired. But I would imagine there is about to be a whole lot more pressure for him to remember those details.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FITZ!
You know, aside from reliving what a wonderful schmuck Sampson is, I’m struck by how well rehearsed this story is, when every other story Sampson told ws filled with lack of recall.
And I’m struck who was purportedly present for this conversation: Kelley (in the WH) and Miers. And who was purportedly absent for it: Rove.
So this story puts the conversation in the White House, presumably covered by privilege (though Kyle doesn’t invoke it). But doesn’t place Rove as present for the conversation.
And I recall, too, that Sampson was Rove’s big chump at DOJ. Just the kind of guy who might take the fall for his boss.
Now you stop that.
I don’t understand the relevance of the conversations about Fitzgerald-Rove-Kjellander to Rezko’s case. Did Rezko have influence with Kjellander?
I am sure DOJ will say Kyle can’t testify anymore just as did with John Yoo today.
Oh the shenanigans of the KKK! (Karl, Kyle, Kjellander.)
From today’s Daily Herald (an Illinois newspaper):
Maybe “take care of” just means pick up his dry cleaning and drop his mortgage payments in the mail, or something.
And I don’t find Luskin’s statement all that convincing. “Does not recall” - maybe he didn’t “argue”, maybe he “said” or “mentioned.” Maybe Rove sent smoke signals to Kyle and/or Kjellander and Kjellander dealt directly with Kyle.
Yes, evidently Rezko played both sides of the fence
I think Kjellander and Rezko both had influence with everybody. They are on a par in the ugly world of the Illinois combine. Perhaps the only (?) difference is that Kjellander is 100% Republican, Rezko swings both ways.
They were always very sketchy on how Pat got on the list and got off the list.
I remember when I first found out he was on the list how hillareous so many of my collegues thought that was. Mediocre or Not distinguished are the last words any sane person would use to describe pat as a prosecutor. As a fashion plate, maybe; but never as a prosecutor
OT: Uribe’s cousin arrested in death squad probe.
And what I love about this MO, is that all it took was introducing the possibility of Loren and Ata testifying that they were trying to fire Fitz–it doesn’t ever have to be introduced into court.
Kind of like Fitz was willing not to have the full argument about the NIE introduced, was happy to have just the Judy Judy Judy stuff introduced, because all the other evidence was out there.
Oh yeah, that’s the post I started, but never finished, early this AM. You think maybe Bush knew that his Colombian puppet was going to have tough political issues and could really use a nice trade deal?
Uribe also got accused of buying someone’s vote with promises of positions for her allies.
On the Fitz front, my congresscritter, Neil Abercrombie, is still offering this bit in defense of his minimal action against the illegal activities of the Bush-Cheney regime:
He made this “request” months ago. Has there ever been an official response? Is there any evidence that Fitz is doing *anything* on this front?
Bob in HI
Marcy - this, posted on Raw Story today, may be germane to some extent: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/....._0423.html
I know of no response, nor should there be.
First, is it illegal to mislead the spokesperson? No, not really. McClellan didn’t have the intent to mislead when he did so, and Libby and ROve and everyone else weren’t under oath when they misled Scottie.
This is now a POLITICAL problem, not a legal one.
Your congresscritter is tad confused. Scooter did not plead guilty; he waged an all out defense and was convicted with a jury verdict. There was this big huge trial that some blogger chick typed in real real time on some obscure blog we never heard of. Snicker.
A) PAt has said a dozen times that baring something unforeseem shaking loose, his done with Plame. The buget review from his Special Counsel Office expenditures says he’s done.
B) if he reopened he would not announce it, he has repeatedl demonstrated that he treats GJ secrecy pretty seriously
Paul Kiel at tpm muckraker report this:
I spoke to Luskin just now, and he said that his statement ought to be qualified a bit: his statement on Kgellander stands as is, he said, but during the independent counsel investigation, he said, Rove was “frequently” approached about canning Fitzgerald: “a number of people approached Karl and suggested that Fitzgerald be removed because of the alleged politicization of the investigation, but he never took any follow-up steps except to say that I can’t talk about that. He didn’t want to do anything seen as compromising Fitzgerald’s independence.” Those approaches, Luskin said, came during fundraisers or other political events. “Karl simply never responded and did not take any action.”
Marcy -
Although off topic, this important story recently came to my attention: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/....._0423.html
CIA has 7,000 documents relating to rendition, detention, torture programs, filing shows
Which makes it entirely possible that Kjellender DID talk to him about it.
Ruh roh, did Hayden fib to Congress?
6 - Maybe “take care of” just means pick up his dry cleaning and drop his mortgage payments in the mail, or something.
Fix him a hot meal? Give him a pedicure? Draw him a bubble bath? yeahlikethat *g*
The nicest part of the Ata reference is that they have their deal in place with Ata - Congress calling Ata to testify before them can’t queer that deal.
I still wish someone had shown the slightest interest in the prima facie Nt Sec Act violation by Bush that Fitzgerald put in the record in the Libby case. Bush telling Cheney to plant the cherrypicked NIE information with no admin attribution in domestic press - laid out plain and clear in the filings, but no one acts. Oh well.
BTW - OT, but is the House intel committee planning on calling Roberts, Rockefeller, etc. to testify to what they were briefed on about the tapes? if not, why not?
Very interesting read, Luskin tries once again to neatly cover Rove’s @ss.
Looks a lot like our own ‘hill’ has become a bigger role model than we knew:
Of course, it will be at least Jan. 20, 2009 before the Rethuglican representation in our House is below 25%…
I love when the fan gets revved up! You know the one - the soon to be messy one.
Mary
It would help if you didn’t take known perjurer Scooter Libby at his word on that. There is ABUNDANT reason to believe that story is not true, but is in fact a cover story for outing Plame.
Yes, the NIE got leaked. But it was leaked first by COndi, and leaked to Woodward and Sanger before it was leaked to Judy. So if they were to pursue it the story as told by Libby would fall apart. That’s the point.
Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out in depth, Cheney has an OLC opinion to defend what he did (whether it was Plame’s ID or the NIE). You need to go after the Pixie Dust, not swallow Libby’s lie, replicate it, then make a case based on his obvious lie.
Gee, I’d like to see a mirror of such action in another country. Some nice peer modeling for us (US).
SP @ 18-
Greta catch…AND Marcy has yet to leave the country…
maryo2,
I tried to get a pool going last night on the “WHAT WILL HIT THE FAN” while Marcy is on her trip?
10 - well, now in addition to the Chiquita payments, that situation also adds a bit more to think about on the issue of providing material support to terrorists, what with Uribe’s being “the beneficiary of billions of dollars in American military aid” from George W. Bush.
17 - Interesting, that - how it goes from Karl not recollecting such a conversation with Kj (kinda like not recollecting conversations mentioned by Dana Jill Simpson) to now suddenly recollecting “lots” of instances of people asking to have Fitzgerald removed.
Here’s what Luskin leaves open on that one - why in the world would people think that Karl Rove, a politician and one of the people under investigation, had the power to respond to their requests that Fitzgerald be fired? Not just one person - but many people - all apparently thought it was within Rove’s power to have Fitzgerald fired.
Why?
.
Oh, I’ll probably do one over the weekend, when the news slows down. It’ll be accompanied by my pool on how much I’ll have ot pay to buy a euro and a pound–and whether I ought to pack a wheelbarrow of dollars.
The person drawing up “The Libby List” of in-house pardons for Bush to grant next December better get a bigger filing cabinet.
Posted early this aftternoon on ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/.....ure-memos/
To add context, I hadn’t realized the scale of the issues was so large:
Well, if this truly was happening at fundraisers and political events, I can easily imagine big dumb rich Republicans going up to Karl (for a brush with greatness) and suggesting he do it, maybe in a heh-heh frat boy gladhanding way so that if anyone nearby recoiled in horror at the inappropriateness of such a suggestion (not too likely), the rich dumb Republican could pretend they were just joking.
I mean, we don’t really care so much what exchanges are happening between the rubes at fundraising events. We want to know what was happening in the corridors of power and what messages were flashing over the Blackberries.
What makes me sick is my belief that no matter who is elected President, no investigation into Bush Administration crimes will follow. Such is the nature of the self-protective ruling aristocracy that it will be judged best to ‘put the past behind us’ and move forward, rather than ‘dwell’ on the ‘allegations of misdeeds’ by past administrations.
So rather than gain a clear understanding of the damage that the Bush Administration has done to our Constitution, civil rights, and national character and reputation, instead we’ll try to pretend it never happened. Instead of learning the lessons of history, we will bury them.
So, no Karl Rove will never be prosecuted, much less Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld.
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think that I am.
Ha.
They just need to start the effing impeachment proceedings. Then all this “executive privelege” bullshit goes straight into the dumper.
It’s how Ken Starr got into HRC’s lingerie drawers, now it’s time to get into Bush’s files, and inside the heads of the yahoos who perpetrated and perpetuated this fraud on America.
“. . . because that would be wrong.*”
I’m sure that’s how that sentence ended. Something must have clogged the tubes to cut it off.
_____
*h/t Richard Nixon
While I agree with you to some extent, I think that the only guide for that action is Jerry Ford and he did not fair well politically in 1976 for his actions vis-a-vis Nixon.
Remember we are talking Illinois here. An uncorruptible federal prosecutor is the one thing that would make politicians of both parties crap in their pants.
Ah
Karl got out “the right answer” to any who may be questioned on this topic I see..
You are not wrong.
Clusterfuck will pardon anyone who appears to have any large potential jeopardy before leaving office..
BTW there is a good op-ed at the NYT by Gilbert King on the recent SCOTUS death penalty opinion (item 341 of my scandals list). He relates in greater detail than I do some of the history of SCOTUS decisions in this area and which are cited in Baze v. Rees paradoxically in defense of this decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04.....3king.html
So the University of Missouri has endowed a Kenneth Lay chair in economics; when can we expect a Karl Rove chair in public policy or political science, and what school will do the honors?
A bit from the president:
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) — President Bush denied Tuesday that the United States’ economy is in recession, calling it instead a “slowdown.”
He pointed out that the economy grew in the last quarter of 2007 and that figures are not yet in for the first quarter of 2008. A common rule of thumb says a recession is two consecutive quarters of the gross domestic product shrinking.
So what does Bush call Armageddon? A bad day?
More Bush news:
WASHINGTON — The House voted Wednesday to block the Bush administration from cutting federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. President Bush has threatened a veto, but supporters have more than enough votes in the House to override him, and maybe in the Senate, too.
Two thirds of the Republicans joined every voting Democrat in the 349-62 vote to impose a one-year moratorium, through next March, on seven rules changes that the administration argues are needed to rectify waste and abuse in the state-federal partnership to provide health care to the poor.
Don’t ask me how I know this, cause I can’t tell you, but Rove had the final say over who got to be a US Attorney. Sen Fitzgerald knew this and did something very unorthadox to get Pat into NDIL.
Normally the nominating Senator sends the name he is proposing over the WH on the QT. The WH does whatever vetting/interviewing process they have and if the peroson is acceptable to them, then and only then, is that person mentioned publicly.
Sen Ftizgerald has said that he announced his selection of Pat publicily before telling the WH. Since Pat was so hugely qualified there was no way they could refuse to nominate him w/o tipping their hand about politiizing DOJ.
I know of at least one HUGELY qualified person who did not get a WH nomination as US Attorney and was told by the President it was because Rove vetoed that name. The President was very apologetic but said he could not go against his own people.
This person had bipartisan support in his state, senator, governor all enthusiatistic, hundreds of calls from members of the bar in support of this would be nomination –all dust because Rove didn’t like the politics of it and wanted a loyal Bushie in the slot.
He’s being cute actually….since you can’t (by definition) be in a recession until after two consecutive down quarters—we CANNOT be in a recession-even if we are.
Also, it was Rove who chnaged the system of having the homestate senators nominte candidates for US Attorney. If the state had 2 Dem senators, then the highest ranking Repoblican (except in california where Karl bi-passed Arnold and gave this selctions to a freaking fundraiser guy)elected person in the state was givien the selection power.
Memos went out to the GOP electeds inthe effected states, so lots of folks knew
No, it also applies to Iran Contra. Bill Clinton did not clean up that mess
“And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn’t take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House — or in the Justice Department — about doing anything like that.” (my emphasis)
If I am not mistaken, that is the second time in the last two or three days that Rove was quoted with those precise words… What are we missing?
(((((looseheadprop)))))
We know Patrick Fitzgerald will never spill the beans in a tell-all book, but I wish Peter Fitzgerald would. The stuff that guy knows!
Probably wouldn’t have been popular at that point to indict dead headed Ronnie who would have just drooled through a deposition.
It wasn’t me who didn’t get the USA gig. WHy do I get hugs. The hugs go to the guy who should be a US Attorney today.
maybe we’re about to find out why Rove decided to spend more time with his family?
You live inChicago, you read the chicago papers, Peter Fitz has been pretty willing to dish to the press.
mmm… yeah sort of. Iran-Contra was really more of a Reagan mess with heavy CIA/GHW Bush overtones, and Bush I pardoned a bunch of those folks. Others (North/Poindexter) were let off because of the immunity deal with Congress after they had been convicted. You could argue that some of the dissatisfaction with Bush 41 was over his cover-up and pardoning of principals. I don’t remember that Clinton was much involved in the worst of it because it had been several years (and investigations gone by) when he was sworn in.
Petraeus getting repaid quickly for spinnin congress on the war…
And this reminds me, a couple weeks ago I saw Viveca Novak acting as a political commentator on one of the nightly news shows. I shivered with horror……
Oh, I understand how it happened, but between Ford wanting to paper things over (and I understand why he did, I truly believe he thought he was doing the right thing) and the peterring out of the Iran Contra investigation –and how Cheney punked Larry Walsh, there is now this hisotry of letting criminal presidents off scott free, and letting most /all their criminla minions off as well.
25 - I’m not relying on Libby’s statements, I’m relying on Fitzgerald’s representations to the court. I’d have to go back, but IIRC Fitzgerald did represent to the court as fact the sequencing of Bush authorizing Cheney to cherrypick the NIE info and covertly put it out. Again, IIRC it was phrased in such a way as to seemingly come from his interviews. In any event, it was rep’d to the court and if Fitzgerald had serious reasons to doubt the truth and validity of those facts, he was required to let the court know that.
But I don’t see why you think it has to be an either or on the NIE and Plame front? I don’t. I think it very likely that Libby was authorized to do both - leak the cherrypicked NIE info and also leak Plame’s identity. I also think it very likely that when it looked like Fitzgerald was tumbling to it all, they decided that for both legal (the IIPA not being subject to pixie dust so much) and political reasons, there couldn’t be any acknowledgement of the authorization to out Plame, but they could try to muck up the works with a “instadeclassification” argument on the cherrypicked NIE info and they did also put a lot of that same info out publically later too, so they used the NIE cherrypicks to try to help provide cover for the IIPA violation.
But in any event, yes I do believe that Fitzgerald’s court filings, which he purported to be facutally based, make a prima facie case for violation of the Nat Sec Act. And no, the OLC opinon doesn’t give Cheney any cover for that because it doesn’t even discuss it IIRC. And I do think that Fitzgerald couldn’t do anything about the NIE leak if he had wanted to - it was definitely outside of his mandate.
That’s why it was so slick that he worked it in (kind of the MO you refer to above) Ashcroft only recused for the Plame identity leak and that, with the authority to pursue obstruction and perjury related to that identity leak investigation, were pretty much it for Fitzgerald. I think Walton’s ruling on the principal officer issue made that very clear - Fitzgerld did not have jurisdiction to investigate or charge for leaks other than the identity leak. Still, Fitzgerald danced every time the issue came up - over and over saying he wouldn’t be charging for it, but never really flat out going along with the proposals that the NIE leak was “legal”
But unlike the IIPA, which has some very specific remedies, the Nat Sec Act (which was violated by the Gang of 4 briefings as well) does not spell out liabilities for violation (a bit like the Presidential Records Act). It’s very amorphous and truly seems almost more meant to serve as an impeachment grounds than a criminal grounds, although I think some generic criminal provisions could be linked for the criminal penalties.
OLC opinion notwithstanding, and Libby effort to use the NIE leak for cover notwithstanding, I absolutely believe that the NIE leak was a Nat Sec Act violation and that it should be pursued as such, but Congress isn’t looking into the very clear violations of both the covert planting and the failure to brief violations of the Act, nor is the DOJ.
EW - Your writing soars on all the thermals of this topic!
Luskin didn’t waste any time getting Rove’s “Shhhhhh, everybody be quiet” message out, did he?
It would likely only take one person in PIN, giving eye-witness testimony, to Tie Rove to Siegelman, Mississippi, Iglesias, Abramoff, Guam and probably a whole lot of other Fresh Hell, too.
So, Luskin issues a qualified Denial for Rove, claiming Privilege…
Out floats to the table the deposition of an eye-witness to criminal activity by Rove…
…End of Privilege Claim, makes the Subpoena absolutely enforceable.
OT fwiw, I still have Hayden on my Fantasy Good Guy Team, along with Fallon.
Imvho, those Honorable Men are resigning their Commissions prior to giving Testimony that would implicate you-know-who in any possible Criminal Wrong-doing. If that is what is happening, then they would be going about it the right way…
Spawn of Robert Novak? I guess being a commentator is better money than say, working for a living. (Mika Brezinski)
Yep—I somehow just got a bit fascinated by the national reaction to Ronnie in court for prosecution….strange mental picture.
Bush I was the freaking architect of Iran Contra. Bush I was the first VP running his own spook operations. So, the first opportunity to go after Bush I was when Clinton came in.
Sure, but he’s not dishing everything.
No, no relation. Viveca is the Time journalist who saved Karl’s @ss by blabbing to Luskin.
OT - Via The Hill:
LHP, thank you for underlining this fact, I think the Clinton legacy quite incomplete without it,
Maybe nobody asked him? He seems pretty outspoken. He was trying to avoid having some Bushbot that Denny Hastert wanted. I never knew who the bushbot was.
You get hugs cause your reports never fail to inspire and lift this ole brat’s spirits in these final months of the Bush/Cheney reign of criminal insanity. Not to mention your reporting & writing skills remind me my late great reporter Dad skills and integrity.
Yeah, I guess so. Just never really thought about it that way. I had always viewed it as more of a Reagan operation ably assisted by GHWB. Good point.
I need to get out more.
Two things.
1)Fosella is a tool, so anything he is pushing is probably not good.
2)I wonder why they think they have still have the votes in the Seante? Or is this them throwing in the towel on retroactive immunity?
46 - I had heard a part of that story (not the part about another hugely qualified person, but about Rove holding sway and Sen Fitzgerald just walking around him and getting what he wanted anyway - with a pissed Rove making some comments along the lines of it being a mistake or hoping SenF knew what he had just done) Add in the Rezko push and it all makes that dinner Bush had with Daley that much more interesting, doesn’t it? Oh well.
Why doesn’t fitz who “knows so much” have the balls to indict Rod Blagojevich instead of spending a couple million dollars during the Rezko trial flirting with it? Fitz knows how to Futz around–that’s fer sure.
Chicago Sometimes–Sometimes a newspaper and other times a tabloid–Eye on Rezko with Fitz Blinders on Rod Blog
I’m not trying to trash Clinton. Again, I understand why he wouldn’t want to take it on and expend the political capital that a new President usually enjoys during the honeymoon.
I don’t think he realized how polarized things wouuld becoem. if you want to work WITH the other side to accomplish you new leg agenda, you don’t kick things off by indicting most of the senior people in thier party.
In hindsight, if he had, thangs might have turned out much better b/c Newt would not have been able to go on offense
lhp, might Sen Church’s (political) fate after investigating spookworld also be deterring his colleagues from acting?
I’d like to know who the bushbot was. And why Denny folded up his tent and went home early. Someone told me it was because he had health problems (he lost a lot of weight), but he seems ok to me. Hopefully there’s an indictment around the corner for him.
60 - Amen.
For that matter, Congress out ought to make it a routine to haul in someone like Weinberger or Abrams who gets a pardon and, post-pardon make them testify to Congress about what really happened, under oath. So that they commit a NEW and undpardoned violation of law by lying or by obstructing and not testifying, or they at least have to basically allocute to the American public to go along with their pardon.
…I believe–based on somewhat attentive observation of Patrick Fitzgerald over time…
LOL
One man’s futzing is another man’s gathering evidence. What I want to know is, when will he have enough to indict Daley?
IMHO, this is just an attempt to get Repug Campaign material traction.
Based on the previous vote in which the House Democrats successfully voting to not support the Senate version, this smells like Repug desperation.
However, one should never rule out the possibility that Steny Hoyer might shoot the House Democrats in the foot (or higher) by swallowing a deal with the Repugs to sell our 4th Amendment rights for a pittance.
Who says he won’t indict the governor? Have you not noticed that he does things very methodically, building eachnew proscution upon the foundation of the prior prsecution?
Why? because once you get a conviction, as a matter of law,the facts introduced in the prior case are now “true”. So, you have this strong foundation.
Also, you have to go carefully making sure you have your witnesses locked down and your documents in hand so that people cannot bow to political pressure and change thier stories.
When I was doing public corruption cases, one of the most maddening things would be that you would interview all these witnesses, spend weeks or months figuring out your GJ presentation, fianlly secure a big enough block of GJ time or get the clerk to empanel a Specail GJ for you, and then have jkey witnesses recant, develope amnesia, slant their testimony just enough.
In addition you had the targets and their political allies try ot cut off your funding, direct you to other work to slow you down, shit all over your bosses. Public corruption cases are amoung the slowest most tedious investigations, even worse than mafia cases–though very similar.
What will happen first
1) Dems have a nominee
2) Iraq war over
3) FISA legislation resolved
One hunert years fer all of ‘em!!!
I don’t remember what happened to Church
Denny was outrmanuveured by Sen Fitz onthe USA appointemnt. Do you mean his seat? I think Denny may turn up in one of these cases one day. Icannot believe his hands are clean.
YOU are so right
I quite agree LHP, but I do think we have to wonder what might have been the state of affairs today had Clinton persued some form of action. In a way, it is part of the pattern established, so unfortunately by Gerald Ford.
Yes I have, and I agree with you that the archetypal template is to nibble and packman the smaller fish methodically and progressively, flip them and finally bring down the largest fish. I was being a bit snarky. There has been a ton of testimony now that should make the Governor pretty uncomfortable and implicating him in behavior, if true that’s incriminating. Not being in or around Chicago, I don’t have much of a feel for the whole situation.
I can’t understand though in the cases of some of the principals, why they would have thrown the money they threw (bribes) for what seemed to be nebulous rewards.
Another word-parsing alert:
“Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said Rove and Kjellander have been friends since college, but Rove does not remember Kjellander ever talking to him about Fitzgerald.
” ‘He does not recall Kjellander speaking to him about Pat Fitzgerald and is certain he never spoke to anyone at the White House about removing Fitzgerald,’ Luskin said Wednesday, adding that Rove has never been contacted by the U.S. attorney’s office about the alleged conversations.”
He didn’t “talk” to Kjellander about Fitzgerald, he communicated with him about the US Attorney.
He does not recall Kjellander “speaking” to him — again, the two communicate in another form;
He certainly never “spoke to anyone at the White House” — a double parsing, involving both “spoke” and “at.” He communicated with people from the White House or other political entities, he just never spoke with them while at the White House. …. hmmmm, wonder if he even differentiates between “at” and “in.”
Wouldn’t put it past him; this man needs to take an oath, ’cause then the pesky “whole truth” would seemingly disallow such juvenile parsing.
“Did you brush your teeth?” I ask my children.
“Yes,” they’ll each answer.
“Today?” I’ll push.
“Whoops,” they respond — caught.
Please, please, please someone do this to Karl Rove and Company.
AMEN!!!
Bob in HI