Did Fitzgerald close the case?

And I slept through it?

We're hunting wabbits.

He hasn't made a public statement about the investigation, which tells me he's guilty of selling us out.

another way. He has said nothing and done nothing to confirm that Karl Rove and Robert Novak will not be prosecuted. Who we heard it from was Rove's lawyer (in the case of Rove), and he has refused to disclose the letter he claims that he has from Fitzgerald. That letter could contain conditions, reflecting a deal between Fitzgerald and Rove not to indict Rove in exchange for Rove's truthful testimony at Libby's trial. It sure looked to me like Fitzgerald had Rove by the short hairs on perjury. Fitzgerald would not be likely to let that go by, without extracting something important from Rove. Another possibility is that Rove has already ratted on others (Cheney comes to mind), as part of such a deal. Fitzgerald may be under obligation not to speak of this. That could have been part of the deal. And a similar situation could apply to Novak. Novak was the actual traitor who outed Valerie Plame and the entire WMD counter-proliferation network that she headed. The CIA told him not to print her name or the name of her brass plate company. He did it anyway. He also lied to Fitzgerald (cooked up cover stories with Rove). What might he have disclosed to Fitzgerald (or promised to disclose) in exchange for amnesty on perjury or on the main crime? What all this could mean is that Fitzgerald is biding his time. He is on his own timeline, not ours. And if Fitzgerald has Cheney in his sights (a good possibility, given the known evidence against him), Rove (not likely the mastermind of these outings) and Novak (not in government) may seem like relatively small prizes.

Another possible scenario that is NOT Fitzgerald "selling out" is that Gonzales interfered with Fitzgerald's prosecution on Rove's behalf, and Fitzgerald and Gonzales are now in a fight over Fitzgerald's authority. This would be suggested by the "Sealed vs Sealed" indictment that Fitzgerald submitted to the court at the time of his negotiations with Rove. The parties to it could be Fitzgerald vs Gonzales. (Fitz has the goods on Gonzales, as well--on obstruction of justice, back when Gonzales permitted the WH time to shred documents and burn hard drives.)

Selling out is always a possibility, especially given the extremely unscrupulous and powerful people involved, who would stop at nothing--murder, blackmail, extortion, spying, black ops set-ups, bribery, or any evil tactic--to get their way. Even a straightshooter like Fitzgerald seems to be may have limits to his courage and fortitude.

I think it's a big mistake to set up "White Knights" who are going to save our democracy, anyway. To say that someone has "sold out"--especially on such flimsy evidence (he hasn't said anything lately)--indicates an expectation of heroic virtue. Well, we had better exhibit some heroic virtue as a society, as a people, instead of waiting for someone to "save" us. It's our country and our democracy. What are we going to do to get these criminals out of our White House?

Personally, I think the key is election reform--while it is still possible. I am for a big citizen rebellion against the rigged voting machines this fall, by Absentee Ballot voting. But whatever we do, we need to do it collectively, as the true sovereigns of this land. Our leaders have failed us in every way--even the good ones. It's time we stepped in, and impressed our will upon them. And the only way I can see of doing that is by Absentee Ballot protest this November against the rigged election system.

"Shhh! We're hunting wabbits!"

:hi:

Hekate

from your post:

Another possible scenario that is NOT Fitzgerald "selling out" is that Gonzales interfered with Fitzgerald's prosecution on Rove's behalf, and Fitzgerald and Gonzales are now in a fight over Fitzgerald's authority. This would be suggested by the "Sealed vs Sealed" indictment that Fitzgerald submitted to the court at the time of his negotiations with Rove. The parties to it could be Fitzgerald vs Gonzales. (Fitz has the goods on Gonzales, as well--on obstruction of justice, back when Gonzales permitted the WH time to shred documents and burn hard drives.)

consider all possibilities, I would suggest that A.G. Gonzales is not playing any active role, due to his previous involvement in the White House's "response" to the investigation.

Gonzales interference, except for this: The Bush junta is not shy about asserting the most illegal powers, and taking outrageous advantage of their 35% "mandate" to do anything they damned please. You wouldn't think Gonzales, considering his own indictability, would dare to interfere. But WE tend to think like normal, law-abiding people. They don't.

On Fitzgerald "sell-out" being silly, I don't think I would call the possibility of it silly. He is dealing with the most corrupt people on God's earth, with enormous powers to hurt people. So it's always a possibility. But I agree that the poster's REASON was silly (that he hasn't said anything). (Also, he's a normally tight-lipped prosecutor. It's his M.O.)

I'm actually somewhat nervous-nelly about an overarching Bush junta political plot--to sacrifice Cheney next year, put Rice or somebody else in as VP (phony house-cleaning; fresh face), and Diebold that person into the WH in '08. It would be dirty pool (as per usual). But it's a plausible plot. Cheney of course will never see jail time. He will retire in splendor, on our dime (multiplied by billions), in the mass of pardons that may be coming up. I worry that Fitzgerald will settle for this--either out of exhaustion or fear, or even a "sell-out" (say Rice or whoever offers him AG, with a carefully tailored mandate but one with sufficient leeway for him to convince himself that it will be interesting and worth it). (I'm thinking this could be a Hillary plot as well--she and Bill have been awfully cozy with the junta. Wouldn't that just take the cake, if Hillary replaced Cheney?)

(Personally, I'm very down on the Democrats these days. I was born into the party of FDR in 1945, and have been loyal to it through many a fine moment, as well as many an outrage. But their silence on electronic voting--Bushite corporate control of our elections, with trade secret programming--and votes to give Bush war powers, and continual boffo boondoggle, grand theft funding, and now Plan B of the PNAC war (get Israel to do it), have seriously damaged the hope I have harbored, that the Democratic Party COULD be a vehicle for change. So Hillary stepping in as Bush's VP, in some sort of "centrist" war profiteer consensus that we really do need WW III in the Middle East, would not surprise me in the least. And her co-signing all the pardons would not surprise me. And Fitzgerald giving up, or selling out, in such a scenario, would not surprise me either. Although maybe he'll run for president against her--as a New Republican. Ha! The End.)

time word was out that he might be indicted. You could see the coverage of Bush change and then when only Libby was indicted the Faux type coverage started again. When the TruthOut article appeared, Chris Matthews told Imus he would be working all weekend because things were happening and Imus had just mentioned the Rove story.

BUT! I guess we media watchers could have been carefully played by the media to make it appear Rove was going to go down. Trusting Imus or Matthews at this point is probably silly given how they've acted towards Dems and they could have found it very funny to play us on the Left who were glued to the story in anticipation.

I know Gonzales had to recuse himself from the investigation, but justice is now filled with Bushbots and who knows what tools they could use to thwart Fitz from any more indictments.
So, I don't think his recusal doesn't mean that there wasn't some struggle behind the scenes that continues even now.

Like you I defer to Waterman because he's done so much careful research on this...but I can't rule out Fitz being stopped because of the crowd we are dealing with... .I'm just not as trusting about basic honesty and integrety of anyone in power these days, sadly.

And other threads about the absurdity of the actions of the bush administration, I think about the very interesting movies that will be coming out if/when the bushies are finally out of power.

Could you imagine a film that details what Plame's operation was like, what they were doing, how risky it was etc... and then showing how she and her company was outed.

I don't think that the significance of this has sunk in with the general public... and with the dumbing down of Western society in general, it might be best to spoon feed it to them hollywood style...

the bogus "whitewater" claims to their conclusion.

The crimes of the bush regime are constant and ongoing.

I have a court case going on 3 years, WITH a settlement having already been negotiated.

My last court case took 2 years, again, with a settlement previously determined.

True justice is well, well worth the wait.

bully. You've tagged someone. You're so smart. So all you have to do is call out the tag, to wound and crush. It's smartassy. It aims to harm good people. And it contributes nothing. Nothing.

you are oversensitive.

The source for thinking that a indictment was returned back in May is a proven, admitted liar. You have to do better than that to return to the "Sealed v. Sealed" story, IMO. I think you should find some reason to believe, rather than snap back at people who have not seen a credible reason yet.

n/t

Overdramatic a little bit?

PS, maybe a lot of us were wounded and crushed that the story was false. That makes us 'bad' people?

divide and conquer.

You're right, it contributes nothing.

He hasn't closed the case

What else did we all expect in * & Co's corrupt America?! :grr:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1609337

H2O Man's journal here on DU has more of the same. He's been following it closer than most and gives a rational and informed overview of all the players and writes clearly about how the various elements fit together. Enjoy.

comments by others, and stuff on John Dean's analysis. Just read it through. It really reinforces my guess that Fitzgerald is still after Cheney, and has been all along, and that these other players are just Fitz's tools. Politicos misunderstand this investigation. They think it was all about Rove. It never was. He didn't mastermind this, and couldn't have (the outing of a CIA agent, and an entire counter-proliferation network?--no way! He wouldn't risk his own hide doing that on this own.). So they are disappointed that Rove wasn't indicted. They wanted the political fodder for November, and Rove out of the way as dirty gamester. Very short-term thinking. Their time would be better spent organizing a big citizen rebellion of Absent Ballot voting, to indict the rigged machinery and get rid of it for '08.

But I'm still wondering about Fitzgerald's perspective on what this conspiracy (the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings) was really all about, and where it was really coming from.

I think Rumsfeld was the mastermind, and Plame/BJ was the target, not the collateral damage. I also think it may be tied to David Kelly's death in England. Plame outed July 14, 2003. Kelly found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days later, on July 18; his office and computers searched. Brewster-Jennings, the entire counter-proliferation network, outed July 22 (the second outing--people often forget). This second outing was the lethal one--the one that may have gotten our agents/contacts in the WMD watch network killed.

Kelly was the Brits chief WMD expert, with ties to Judith Miller. In May 2003 (two months after the invasion, which he had supported), he began whistleblowing anonymously to the BBC about the "sexed up" pre-war WMD intel. Someone (still unknown) outed him to his bosses, and he was interrogated at a "safe house" and threatened with the Official Secrets Act in the last week of June/ first week of July. On July 7, Tony Blair was told that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" (--could say; not had said).

Meanwhile, Libby is meeting with Judith Miller in the conspiracy to out Plame (mid-June and later). Miller has also been embedded with the US troops who were "hunting" for the WMDs that everybody (except maybe the troops) knew weren't there (all trumped; lies). She seemed to be getting into position for a big scoop, or at least was acting that way. But no WMDs were found.

The Brits get Kelly to partially recant before a Parliamentary committee (Kelly under visible stress); they out him to press, and send him home without protection and apparently without surveillance. He sends several emails on July 17, all upbeat, forward-looking. And one to Judith Miller, rebuffing her cheerful email and stating that there are "many dark actors playing games." He then takes his afternoon walk and doesn't return. Found the next day, reportedly having slit one wrist (the minor artery) and bled to death all night outdoors under a tree in the rain, not far from his home.

If he was under surveillance (which surely he was), where were his watchers while he bled to death all night? An MP in England has now called for re-opening of this investigation (--the Hutton Report was a blatant whitewash of this death as a suicide).

The connection with Plame/BJ may be a Bushite plot to PLANT nukes in Iraq (--discovered by Kelly, post-invasion, motive for his turnaround on the cooked intel? possible Plame/BJ involvement in foiling a WMD-planting plot?).

If there was a WMD-planting plot, it would have come from the Pentagon.

------------------

(Note on July 7: Wilson's article was published July 6. But there is evidence that this article was not a surprise to the Bushites, meaning that Cheney's disturbance at it may be feigned. The info that Kelly might have gotten on to their Great Deceit--the planting of weapons--on the other hand, may well have been something "out of the blue"--and a very big threat. This would account for the very startling coincidence of dates: Upon hearing from Blair that Kelly knew, they then scrambled to out Plame--something they didn't need to do in such a risky way--and, after Kelly's office and computers were searched, four days later, Novak ADDITIONALLY outed the entire network. The story that it was all to "get" Wilson may be a cover story. Part of it--that it was Rove politicking--quickly fell apart. But the main thrust has held, that it was a Cheney plot to "get" Wilson (reinforced by Wilson, who could be protecting his wife). There is also a backstory theory--adjunct to the WMD-planting theory--that the Niger forgeries (cooked up in 2001 at the Rome meeting) were intended to be exposed, to draw the CIA out into a no-nukes-in-Iraq position, to be followed by the planting of the nukes and their "discovery"--aimed at discrediting the CIA, as well as giving Bush and Blair great political capital. Wilson may have been baited to oppose them--which would explain both why they insisted on the Niger doc insertion in Bush's SOTU speech, and all that weird business about how it got in, why the Niger docs were such obvious fakes (not good forgeries, easily detectable), and why Rice and others kept rebuffing Wilson's warnings, pushing him to publish the article. But whether or not this adjunct theory is true--or partly true--the July 6 and July 7 dates still resonate as pivotal to Bushite motivation in outing Plame. And I favor the July 7 date--Kelly revealing, under interrogation, that he knew of WMD-planting plot (Brit intel to Blair; Blair to Bush) as the real trigger for the outings, and more than likely for Kelly's murder.)

that the real mastermind, Rumsfeld, will get away with it; that the deeper plot is not in Fitzgerald's sights; and that it will all come down to an orchestrated removal of Cheney, who will take the rap (what does he care?) and retire in splendor with a pardon.

Meanwhile, PNAC-Plan B is in progress: get Israel to do it (start WW III in the Middle East). Easy to segue the U.S. in, with a "Gulf of Tonkin'-type incident--thus getting around the EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT opposition among Americans to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war (and world opposition).

Is this what the "aspens" (Bushite Republican cabal) cooked up, at their Aspen meeting--that Libby told Miller would be the stuff of her future writings? He specifically mentioned Iran bio-weapons; will evidence be cooked up, say, bio's hitting US troops, tracked to Iran, trigger for demolishing Iran? And now we have no honest, professional, WMD counter-proliferation network to say otherwise.

Anyone else here still think Plame/Brewster-Jennings was "collateral damage" in a Bushite effort to stifle dissent, in a newsstream that they control?

the Kelly stuff? Could he have gone that far. Comey gave him legal cover to take the investigation as far as he needed. But, then Comey is gone now and even though his replacement (is it Margolies?) might have orginally been on board....he could have been "turned" by now.

It's possible Fitz stumbled onto the connecting threads that we here have followed...but either can't do anything about them or is waiting for the appropriate time. :shrug:

of Cheney as a target, none of the Rumsfeld. And the WMD-planting plot would almost have to have been run out of the Pentagon, and certainly fits with everything else we know about Rumsfeld. Not that Cheney is not guilty (of the outings) but that he was just doing the frontman part of a deeper, more vile scheme, and one that accommodated his own interests (illicit weapons dealings--getting the CIA off his track). I suppose it could have been run out of the WH. Who knows with these people? One gets the feeling that the Bush Cartel has hit squads and black ops ready to hand, for whatever comes up. In a normal world (as opposed to Bushworld), manufacturing war, by planting WMDs, would be a CIA operation, but the Rumsfeldian Pentagon was at war with the CIA (possibly over this--also torture), and Rumsfeld created his own little CIA--the Office of Special Plans. He had operatives in the WH--for instance, those who kept putting the phony Niger nuke allegation back into Bush's speeches, after the CIA took it out. I remember all that, and the junta didn't really need the Niger allegation. They were going to war, no matter what; they had control of the US newsstream. Why would they trip themselves up on known forgeries? Rumsfeld was likely working closely with Cheney, and--if this theory is largely correct--only they would know WHY that allegation HAD to be made by Bush (to draw the CIA into debunking it--later to trump them, and discredit them, by the "find" of the planted nukes).

But I think, as with Rove being the mastermind of the outings (not possible), Cheney was not in a position to carry out a WMD-planting scheme, or not in as good a position as Rumsfeld was. Cheney was likely cooperating and furthering the deeper scheme, but not implementing it, or only implementing parts of it (the attempt to discredit Wilson, and then the outings--when the shit hit the fan, and their plan was discovered).

This whole thing--the Plame/BJ outings, and how they did them, and how they reacted to things, during that period and after it, in the coverup period--has the feel of a grand scheme gone awry. How did they think they could get away with outing CIA agents? Well, they didn't think about it. They did it defensively, almost in a panic. That's why I think it wasn't Wilson--it was Kelly. Wilson was a known quantity--maybe even set up by them--baited into his opposition. They probably knew his wife was CIA counter-proliferation all along, but the plan wasn't to out her and Brewster-Jennings. The plan was to make fools of them, discredit them--by the phony nuke "find" in Iraq. Then Kelly came along. HE was the surprise. If HE knew about their scheme, how far had it gotten? Who else knew? They had to stop it immediately. And who was in any better position to stumble upon, and prevent, illicit weapons movement into Iraq, than the CIA WMD counter-proliferation network? (Kelly was also in a good position to get knowledge of it, if not to foil it--he may have passed his info to someone who COULD stop it; hell, he may have BEEN part of the BJ network. He spent time in the US, hanging out with a USAF female spy--the woman who converted him to the Ba'hai faith.)

Then the scramble of the coverups. Think of the number of people involved in this scheme and its coverups. Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, Gonzales, Addington, Powell at one point (but he backed off and covered himself quickly), several other aides, more than likely Rumsfeld as mastermind and aides of his, probably several members of the White House Iraq Group (if not all of them), plus a number of journalists, two of them active participants, Miller and Novak (and possibly also Bob Woodward). And if you add in the Niger forgery players, and Blair and British intelligence, you've got a huge cast of major figures, with the top tier in the US all scrambling to, a) out Plame and Brewster-Jennings, and b) cover it up.

All this--over an ex-diplomat's dissenting article? I don't believe it. Something much worse was going on, to account for the number of top players and the risks they took (involvement of many journalists; potential charges of treason!); something capable of prompting the murder of an insider white guy, and the truly absurd coverup of his murder (the Hutton "investigation").

Kelly said something interesting in his last week on earth--possibly in one of his July 17 emails (his last day on earth)--I can't recall right now where I read it--something to this effect: I don't know what all this fuss is about--"I told them I wasn't going to reveal any state secrets."

What "state secrets" was he referring to? He'd already whistleblown on the exaggerated WMD threat in the prewar report. What else did he know?