OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD/ROVE THREAD #9

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODExMzllMjViM2M3NmI1NmJhYmJhY2FkM2QxMjE5NTE=

<snip>


Madsen's report has raised the hopes of Rove indictment fans who have become somewhat dispirited after Leopold's "24 business hours" passed without action against Rove. But it appears that they might again be destined for disappointment, because the details of Madsen's account are, if anything, even more farfetched than Leopold's.

First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12.

Second, Gonzales, like his predecessor John Ashcroft, has recused himself from the CIA leak investigation. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had taken part in the White House's response to the Justice Department in the early days of the probe. When he became attorney general, there was no doubt that he would have to recuse himself from the matter. He was asked about it during a press conference in October 2005, when there was great anticipation that indictments were coming in the CIA leak affair, and this is what he had to say:

...

Finally, it simply defies common sense to think that Fitzgerald and the grand jury would give the attorney general a preview of an indictment in the CIA leak matter. "Gonzales would not be given that kind of information," says one insider. "The reason one is recused from the case is so that one cannot make decisions that would affect the case — like he might tell the White House."

And one more note. Madsen also reported that Fitzgerald told Rove lawyer Robert Luskin that he, Luskin, is now a "subject" in the probe because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Luskin "may have violated laws on obstruction of justice." I asked Rove spokesman Mark Corallo whether Fitzgerald has informed Luskin that he, Luskin, is a subject of the investigation. "No," was Corallo's answer. And Corallo repeated his earlier denials about the purported meeting last Friday at Patton Boggs. It simply did not happen, Corallo said.

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?

By James Hatfield

Editor's note: In light of last week's horrific events and the Bush administration's reaction to them, we are reprising the following from the last column Jim Hatfield wrote for Online Journal prior to his tragic death on July 18:

July 3, 2001—There may be fireworks in Genoa, Italy, this month, too.

A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April.

German intelligence services have stated that bin Laden is covertly financing neo-Nazi skinhead groups throughout Europe to launch another terrorist attack at a high-profile American target—his first since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last October.

According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.

Why would Osama bi Laden want to kill, Dubya, his former business partner?

I knew that bombshell would whip your heads around. So here's the straight scoop, folks.

In June 1977, Dubya formed his own drilling company, Arbusto Energy ("arbusto" means "bush" in Spanish), in Midland, Texas. Like his father before him, Dubya founded his oil business with the financial backing of investors, including James R. Bath, a Houston businessman whom Dubya apparently first met when they were in the same Texas Air National Guard unit. (Interestingly, both Dubya and Bath were both suspended from flying in August and September 1972, respectively, for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination.")

CONTINUED...

http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html