Fitz on Firing

In their Questions for the Record submitted after he testified, HJC managed to ask Patrick Fitzgerald one obvious question they didn’t manage to ask when he testified at their hearing on Special Counsels (h/t MadDog). What would have happened–or would happen to John Durham, investigating the torture tapes destruction–if a Special Counsel got fired during the course of the investigation? Actually, in the QFRs Fitzgerald got asked about 5 different versions of the question, only one of which elicited a really useful answer (at least as it might reflect on John Durham’s investigation):

13. If you had been fired as a U.S. Attorney, what impact would that have had on the CIA leak investigation? What impact would that have had on your appointment as Special Counsel?

During my tenure, this question did not present itself. It is not clear to me what the legal implications would have been had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while serving as Special Counsel. (This might be an issue that should be specifically addressed if there is a delegation of power to a sitting United States Attorney in the future as it is entirely possible that a United States Attorney could be asked to resign after a change in administration.) It would appear that unless the United States Attorney were specifically retained in some other capacit (such as a Special Assistant United States Attorney), he or she could no longer serve as a Special Counsel who was employed by the Department of Justice and whose authority had been delegated by the Attorney General. It would be possible that a new appointment could be made for such a former United States Attorney which would provide that he or she would serve as a Special Counsel from outside the Department of Justice pursuant to the appropriate regulations.

Had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while conducting the CIA leak investigation, even if a legal basis were established for me to continue as Special Counsel or in some other proper capacity, I would nevertheless have had to determine whether it would be appropriate for me to continue representing the government under all of the circumstances. I would have had to consider whether my ability to be effective had been undercut and whether any decision I made to prosecute or not prosecute a case (or whether to further investigate any matter) might reasonably subject the investigative team to the criticism that I (or others on the team) might harbor a bias against the administration which had relieved the prosecutor of his Presidential appointment. This would be a determination heavily dependent on the particular factual circumstances which led to the termination of my appointment as United States Attorney.

That is, since Rove never managed to get him fired, Fitzgerald never had to think these things all the way through. But if he had been fired as USA, he would have had to be reappointed to some other position to continue the investigation in a constitutional manner. In any case, though, the threat of firing would present the difficulty that, even if he were appointed to some other position, his investigation might be tainted by the appearance that his prosecutorial decisions might be biased because he had been fired.

In other words, the threat of firing a prosecutor investigating top Administration officials does present a possible problem.

But that’s not the version of the "what if you got fired" question that I find most interesting. Rather, there’s a question that asks specifically if Fitzgerald became aware of efforts to fire him during the course of the CIA Leak investigation. Fizgerald refuses to answer … because of the ongoing Rezko case.

11. When one U.S. Attorney concurrently serves as a Special Counsel, is it appropriate for the Justice Department or the White House to consider firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys? Please explain.

National Public Radio has reported that, according to "someone who’s had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of US Attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of." Ari Shapiro, Documents Show Justice Ranking US Attorneys, NPR, April 13,2007. Many have speculated that Mr. Rove’s goal in proposing the U.S. Attorney firings was to pressure and intimidate you. When Mr. Rove made the suggestion to fire the U.S. Attorneys, he had already been before the grand jury several times in the Scooter Libby case. To your knowledge, is this account correct? Please explain why or why not.

During the CIA leak investigation, were you aware of any conversations that you might be asked to resign? If so please describe all such conversations, including the substance of the conversations, when they occurred, and the names of those who participated.

I do not know if the referenced account of events is correct or not.

As to whether I was aware during the relevant time period of the investigation that I might be asked to resign, I will respectfully decline to discuss matters currently at issue in a trial ongoing in the Northern District of Illinois.

Fitzgerald is referring, of course, to the multiple times during the Rezko trial when a witness has testified that Rezko and Bob Kjellander talked about having Rove fire Fitzgerald to scuttle the investigation into Chicago corruption. But that’s not, of course, what HJC asked him–they asked him about the CIA Leak case, and they made a reference specifically to coverage of the USA Purge.

To understand why this is interesting, consider the timing. These QFRs almost certainly went out within a week of February 26, when Fitzgerald testified before HJC. While there had been speculation that Rezko and Kjellander might have tried to get Fitzgerald fired, that speculation wasn’t confirmed during the Rezko trial until April 23. Now, the date on Fitzgerald’s repsonse (which went through DOJ’s minder) is May 2–after, but not long after, the revelations in the Rezko trial. And here HJC has it, conveniently before the closing arguments finish in the Rezko trial, so Fitzgerald can’t legitimately answer when he learned–over the course of the Rezko investigation–that Kjellander was working with Rove to get him fired.

But unless Fitzgerald learned that fact "during the CIA leak investigation," the answer wouldn’t be on point at all. That is, as Fitzgerald suggests with his other answers, he didn’t learn he was on the USA Purge list until the media started asking DOJ about it last year:

I first learned about an evaluation of me by Mr. Sampson at the time of an inquiry by the media to the Department of Justice indicating that the media was aware of such evaluation. A colleague from the Department of Justice told me about the media inquiry and the substance of the document inquired about.

But, by his answer to this question, Fitzgerald suggests he did learn of efforts by Kjellander and Rove "during the CIA Leak investigation." Now, I’m not convinced that means Fitzgerald learned of Kjellander’s efforts before he gave Rove the all-clear in June 2006–but it sure suggests that’s a possibility.

Update: fixed basic grammar per watercarrier

image_print
54 replies
  1. Christy Hardin Smith says:

    I’ve always wondered about that Gonzales trip to Chicago and the set-up and implications for it prior to him getting there. LHP has long speculated that there was a potential problem that got headed off at the pass before that visit, and I’ve always wondered if it served as a sort of warning shot across the bow, so to speak. Didn’t help Libby…but you have to wonder what was ongoing with the G/J at that exact point in between Rove’s various testimonial incarnations…

      • Christy Hardin Smith says:

        Yes — I was thinking about one that was earliere, but maybe I’m mixing them up in my own mind. Will page back through my notebook and see if I can find exactly what date I’m talking about…and, is it me, or does the entire timeline from start of the investigation to now seem like a lifetime ago at this point? Jeebus, I’m getting old…

  2. FrankProbst says:

    Hmmm. I thought the first answer was more interesting than the second. The first answer more or less says: “I’m STILL special counsel on the CIA leak case. If I’m asked to resign as a USA, that means I’ll probably have to resign as special counsel, too.” I wonder what he’s up to.

      • FrankProbst says:

        Nah, elsewhere in the response he says he’s done done done.

        Well, I don’t think he’s going to indict the Shooter on Jan 21 or anything. But it’s becoming quite clear that Rezko has dirt on Rove, and he may be looking to deal. If Rezko says Rove told him, “We’re going to dump Fitz and take care of you and this CIA leak thing with one fell swoop,” then he’s done. I read Fitz’s answer to that question as legalese for, “You know, I’d really love to nail that fat bastard to the wall myself.”

        • emptywheel says:

          Oh, that was clear to me as soon as I saw the way these three witness statements got released, one in testimony that might not have been permitted in the court room. Classic Fitz, IMO.

          Now let’s see if Conyers et al can do anything with it.

  3. klynn says:

    This it?

    looseheadprop January 15th, 2007 at 10:24 am
    106

    JF @ 95

    Margot @ 87

    JF,
    Yes, Fitz is still a U.S. Attorney. Rats.
    I was thinking that it’s tied in to what dirty pols have been convicted and that many of them gave heavily to re-elect the president.
    You may have heard of the rare coin investment scam in Ohio, where state officials invested workman’s comp money in rare coins, rare stamps, and the like. Stole money, too. Tom Noe went to prison for this.link

    Yeah, Margot, I heard about that. That makes sense. My thinking was that if they could establish a pattern of firing other US Attorneys under whatever “reason” they had, they could fire Fitz, thereby having him removed from the Plame case, or at least discredited, right in time for the proceedings to begin.

    Don’t mean to give anyone palpitations but, they can fire him right now. He was appointed for a 4 year tern that expired in 2005. He is a holdover and can be repleced, quite legally, at any time.

    Hastert was leaking his short list for replacements at the time. Abu Gonzales paid a very ominous looking trip ti “inspect” pat’s shop around that time. Cue the “jaws” music.

    It was the most overt chunk of intimidation I have ever seen. Didn’t seem to have worked though.

    Even if they fire him as US Attorney, he would still be Special Prosecutor. He would have to get all new infrastrucutre b/c he could not work out of his Chicago office, not use it’s personel any longer.

    Former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald really went to bat to keep Pat in ILND

    http://firedoglake.com/2007/01…..vidence-i/

      • klynn says:

        No problem. Glad I could help. After reading the Fitz testimony, I was asking myself the same question and had found her comment earlier..

        EW and Christy, question.

        I also thought the questions (6,7,8) irt GJ evidence being made available was interesting. Was this line of question in any way regarding Sealed vs Sealed?

        Basically asked:

        Are you do with the investigation? If so, should the evidence be made public?

        It’s my understanding that many believe that Sealed v Sealed is an indictment brought about by the GJ due to unquestionable evidence? IANAL …I’ve just wondered when Sealed v Sealed will ever enter our lives again?

        • emptywheel says:

          Two things.

          First, I really don’t think sealed v sealed had anything to do with Fitz.

          Second, remember the context of these QFRs. The active concern of the panel was whether or not John Durham would have enough power to do what he needs to do in the torture tapes investigation.

          • klynn says:

            Agreed. Although, the whole line of questions and answers amounted to a between the lines Q & A’s.

            I read Fitz’s answer to that question as legalese for, “You know, I’d really love to nail that fat bastard to the wall myself.”

            Thanks for that FrankProbst. Like that.

  4. lizard says:

    Fitz is still in charge of the CIA leak investigation, and it has never really been closed, right? I have long wondered if the Libby prosecution was a test, to see if Bush would pardon the guilty or otherwise stymie the system. I do not know enough about how the transference of power between USAs with the change of administration. Is it possible that Fitz has prepared a case against other figures (Cheney Addington, Rove, et al.) that he will not bring while Bush is still in a position to pardon the prosecuted? Could he pass this case to a successor as USA?

    Wouldn’t it be nice to see the entire upper echelon of the white house indicted about 20 minutes after Bush is no longer able to pardon his cronies?

      • klynn says:

        It’s interesting, he has yet to respond to CREW’s lastest requests to reopen due to the timeline of the missing tapes. CREW has their answer now.

        • emptywheel says:

          I don’t think Fitz would think it his place to repoen in response to CREW in any case. Furthermore, he knew that there were missing emails before he ended the case.

          What are missing emails going to discover, after all? Most likely–and one I strongly believe that Fitz suspects–is a smoking gun email between Judy and Libby. So you indict Judy for perjury. In which case Judy goes to jail and Libby and CHeney still go free, courtesy of BushCo.

          Or, it’s possible that there’d be emails between Libby and Novak, making it clear that Armi was set up. Again, so what?

          So long as you know Bush is going to pardon the people indicted, so long as there’s legal doubt whether Cheney (or even Libby) COULD be busted for IIPA, the most likely further evidence would only serve to punish Judy or Novak. I’d love to see them in jail, but I don’t think Fitz would put them in jail if he believed he couldn’t also throw Dick and Scooter in jail.

          • WilliamOckham says:

            I disagree pretty strongly with the idea the most important things you would find among the missing emails would be external communications. It would have been nuts to cover up external emails that way. No, what’s missing, if anything, are emails exchanged between people in the OVP (or possibly others in the EOP). If Addington wasn’t such an Asperger’s case, I’d guess Libby-Addington email. I suspect Libby emailed something incriminating to Cathie Martin.

            • emptywheel says:

              Right. But so what?

              Nothing changes the fact that you’re not going to put Scooter and Cheney in jail.

              I do strongly suspect Fitz thought there were missing emails, particularly bet Libby and Judy. And there is probably incriminating email involving Jenny Mayfield (who was almost certainly obstructing wrt discovery, anyway). But that still doesn’t get you to someone who 1) can give up new information that would incriminate someone who Bush wouldn’t pardon but that Fitz would believe was central to the case 2) was senior and guilty enough to indict directly.

              He might find more Rove email, for example; might even prove that ROve tampered with the Hadley email. But do you think Bush wouldn’t pardon Rove, too?

              • FrankProbst says:

                He might find more Rove email, for example; might even prove that ROve tampered with the Hadley email. But do you think Bush wouldn’t pardon Rove, too?

                While it offends my sense of justice that no one is going to go to jail, I’ll be happy if we can just get everything out in the open. The big danger that Rove faces is not that he’s going to go to jail, but rather that someone somewhere along the line is going to make a civil suit stick. Plame is still appealing. And you KNOW Siegelman is going to go after him. For Rove, there’s a very real danger that he’s going to become the OJ Simpson of the political world. The more stuff that’s out there on him, the more likely this is to happen.

                • klynn says:

                  Additionally, I’m willing to add to that desire to get everything out in the open the reality of what will happen to voters “trusting repug leadership” longterm once Bush pardons people close to him for treason and obstruction. Nothing says, “I wear my flag pin and thus love Amerika,” like a pardon for treason and obstruction of justice in regards to treason. Especially, when it took us into a costly war…

              • Peterr says:

                Suppose the information comes along in, say, October. Fitz takes it all in, and diligently prepares his case. He’s really thorough about it, and it takes him until January 21, 2009 to present anything to a grand jury.

                Suddenly, Bush is no longer in a position to issue any pardons . . .

                  • FrankProbst says:

                    No.

                    Hmmm. What’s your take on what happened between Judy Grand Jury #1 and Judy Grand Jury #2? I’ve never had a good feel for what happened there. After all, should could have easily gone in and claimed complete amnesia. I’ve never really understand how Fitz got her to “remember” everything in round #2. I’m also not sure why she was so unbelievably nervous on the witness stand. She was pretty clearly trying to shield someone else, but I could never figure out who.

                    • emptywheel says:

                      I think Fitz made it crystal clear that he knew she was lyign about the June meeting, and encouraged her to refresh her memory by refusing to drop the contempt until she looked for those notes. SHe knew she had been caught in a lie (trying to shield the earlier meeting, trying to shift everything one meetigng later).

                      Why she was nervous on the stand? Well, she was very actively not recalling whether or not Libby had told her that Plame was covert. She was very actively not recalling all the other source for her on Plame–that Libby almost certainly directed her towards.

                      Fitz did her a huge favor by not indicting, and by letting it drop with just the Libby sourcing. She knew that. But she had a big pickle, bcause Libby’s lawyer also knew that.

              • WilliamOckham says:

                I agree with that. And I actually was thinking of Mayfield when I typed Martin (always have them crosswired for some reason). The thing worth trashing email for was anything that indicated outing Plame was official policy from Cheney.

                • emptywheel says:

                  Yup. I doubt something that strong exists. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if email either indicated where Cheney really learned of Plame’s ID (I think David Shedd shared the emails Valerie wrote in support of Joe’s trip, which would have made it crystal clear she was covert), or that people knew she was covert.

      • MadDog says:

        Yeah, I agree that Fitz believes he’s done…with a wee lil’ exception. *g*

        Fitz, in his typical understated way, was blowing the horn loud and clear, that Congress itself is not done.

        I refer you to this response to question 7:

        7. Are there any pending matters in the CIA leak investigation? If so, please describe those matters. If not, please indicate the date in which the investigation was concluded.

        With the withdrawal of Mr. Libby’s appeal, this matter is effectively concluded. The only matters pending involve participation in providing appropriate responses to Congressional requests.

        (My Bold)

        I took that “hint” from Fitz to mean that Congress ought to get off their damn butts and make AG Mukasey give up the non-Grand Jury testimony of Junya and Deadeye, and that Pat would be more than happy to assist “on the record” in interpreting for the Congresscritters just what was taking place during that Liar’s Bull Session Q&A.

        But knowing how Nancy “Impeachment is off the table” Pelosi thinks, we’re not liable to get this testimony until after Dos Caballeros ride off into the sunset on January 20, 2009.

        • bmaz says:

          My guess is that Fitzgerald is still in possession of that material so long as his office is technically open, which I believe it is (although not open for any of the further investigations everybody pipe dreams of occurring). Fitz flat out told Congress what was necessary to obtain this info, they have consciously determined NOT to do so; same as they have consciously determined NOT to pursue all of the supposed Abramoff info that McCain was sitting on when he was still committee chair.

          • MadDog says:

            It’s hard for me to believe at times that our leadership in Congress is at all conscious. Perhaps not even sentient. Non compos mentis, that would fit!

          • bobschacht says:

            Fitz flat out told Congress what was necessary to obtain this info, they have consciously determined NOT to do so; same as they have consciously determined NOT to pursue all of the supposed Abramoff info that McCain was sitting on when he was still committee chair.

            That committee collected a HUGE pile of documents that need to be mined. There’s some stupid agreement that McCain’s agreement is required to look into it. I don’t understand why the Democrats allowed that, other than under Clinton the Dept of Interior didn’t to its job (I am forever disappointed with Bruce Babbitt’s nonfeasance in that regard.)

            Tapping into that mine of documents should be a high priority! It probably includes copies of emails that no longer exist anywhere else.

            Bob in HI

          • Jim Clausen says:

            Dammit Bmaz,
            That has been the source of my anger. Why back off when your constitutional obligations dictate otherwise.

            • bobschacht says:

              Dammit Bmaz,
              That has been the source of my anger. Why back off when your constitutional obligations dictate otherwise.

              Me too. Tell me: If you’re a prosecutor, and a known bystander fails to intervene in an apparently illegal act when they might normally be expected to do so, what conclusion do you suspect?

              If a pedestrian repeatedly passes by an alley where a mugging is going on, and does nothing about it, other than to complain later on in vague terms about the crime rate, what do you suspect?

              The normal answers that come to my mind are
              (a) cowardice,
              (b) moral turpitude, or
              (c) complicity

              What else is there?

              Bob in HI

    • bobschacht says:

      Fitz is still in charge of the CIA leak investigation, and it has never really been closed, right? I have long wondered if the Libby prosecution was a test, to see if Bush would pardon the guilty or otherwise stymie the system. I do not know enough about how the transference of power between USAs with the change of administration. Is it possible that Fitz has prepared a case against other figures (Cheney Addington, Rove, et al.) that he will not bring while Bush is still in a position to pardon the prosecuted? Could he pass this case to a successor as USA?

      Wouldn’t it be nice to see the entire upper echelon of the white house indicted about 20 minutes after Bush is no longer able to pardon his cronies?

      I’ve been wondering this: Why hasn’t the HJC or any other investigation invited Scooter Libby to testify on follow-ups regarding shenanigans in the VEEP’s office while he was still a key player there? After all, Bush’s Commutation thingy doesn’t allow him to lie in court, does it? And if he does commit perjury, he can be whacked again, can’t he?

      I think its time for Mr. Libby to have the opportunity to shed more light on some dark corners again.

      Bob in HI

  5. Citizen92 says:

    The case that keeps on giving, thanks for continuing with it.

    Two things stick in my mind. Fitzgerald notes that, if fired, he would have had to become a “Special Assistant US Attorney” (a politically appointed position). Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson and Tim Griffin were all “Special Assistant US Attorneys” during portions of their tenure as political appointees. The temporary SA slots allowed all three to try cases in Federal Court (for Monica and Kyle, I think it was ED-Virginia, and for Tim it was ED-Arkansas under Cummings in 2003).

    Second, the Rezko trial did reveal that Kjellander, convicted moneyman Stuart Levine and State GOP powerbroker William Cellini all landed an invite to the White House Christmas Party in early December 2003. Kjellander http://www.suntimes.com/news/m…..cle”>arranged the invite. Kjellander is, of course, a long time Rove confidante.

    IL Governor Ryan was indicted by Pat Fitzgerald in late December 2003. Do you suppose Kjellander et al used the party as an opportunity to lobby WH-types to help them save Gov. Ryan, their bread-and-butter? And surely Karl Rove would have made himself availble at a White House Christmas party to see his old pal Rove.

    Just what did those guys talk about?

    • emptywheel says:

      Excellent point, not least because the NM GOP were demanding that Iglesias be fired at some parties, too (though not at the WH).

      Boy must they have figured they were fucked when, a week later, he started investigating ROve.

  6. Mary says:

    Bush did go and have an odd little Birtday dinner with Daley in July 06.

    I dumped some of my reactions to Fitzgerald’s response on the thread with Mad Dog’s link, but they really need to get more specific with questions from Congress IMO.

    Fitzgerald is asked if he is done with his investigation and he says yep -also that he was done with his investigation a long long long long time ago. What they don’t ask is anything along the lines of, “the investigation resulted in charges involving Scootre Libby yada yada is it anticipated that any OTHER charges will be filed in connection with the investigation.” That would put a more definite end to the matter.

    Fitzgerald also makes the point pretty clearly that I resurrect ever so often when there is a reference to his “plenary” authority that he had a very limited mandate and scope and no power whatsoever to act outside that mandate.

    For some reason, too, when doing his otherwise thorough comparison of outside counsel CFRs and his inhouse delegation, Fitzgerald leaves out the fact that when the AG overrules or removes an outside special counsel, he has to tell Congress (”If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed
    action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General
    shall notify Congress as specified in Sec. 600.9(a)(3).”) and equally leaves hanging what happens if the AG overrules what an inhouse special counsel wants to do – – although he implicitly answers that by his over and over recognition of the point that his delegation can be modified as well as rescinded or revoked.

    So to the extent anyone wants to know a big issue for Dunham (Durham?), it seems that Fitzgerald emphasizes that point as loudly and repeatedly as he can, given the overall context. That is – whatever Dunham is delegated, he can be undelegated or overruled on independence any time, place or way.

    Other questions not asked of Fitzgerald – if your delegation could be rescinded or revoked or modified in whole or in part – was it ever so modified or partially revoked or rescinded; – who held status as Acting AG for your delegation from initial appointment (Comey) (through any and all subsequent transfers (Margolis – but then? did anyone ever call it back to McNulty or others?); – and the biggie, which is, without any requirements of notification to Congress such as exist with an outside special counsel, what is to prevent secret (pixie dustish) modifications of delegations for political purposes that remain obscured from outside scrutiny.

    • Hmmm says:

      … – and the biggie, which is, without any requirements of notification to Congress such as exist with an outside special counsel, what is to prevent secret (pixie dustish) modifications of delegations for political purposes that remain obscured from outside scrutiny.

      Wow. They might go that far, mightn’t they? Though I imagine ‘for political purposes’ could be couched as ‘for national security reasons’ instead. In fact, why not go whole-hog and make it secret on the recipient’s part like the librarian NSLs, i.e. Sorry Fitz, we cancelled part of your mandate… and you can’t tell anyone we did it, ever.

  7. oldtree says:

    hope not to be redundant, but as Fitzgerald learned of Rove’s involvement with Rezko, what is the timing potential with that information being discovered vs the timeline of the Libby trial? If Rove is involved, and Fitz learned it at a point when it covered not the Libby case, but the Rezko case, he might still be under the cone of silence due to his obligations.
    is this a reason Rove both claims he will be indicted, but is so happy that it is for one thing and not another? Is silence on the part of Fitzgerald due to his being assigned a new and secret task by a committee head in congress upon completion of his existing duties?

    • emptywheel says:

      That’s part of the point of this post–I think Fitz is suggesting that he learned Rove was trying to fire him BEFORE the trial started–during the investigation. I’d wager he found out relatively early in the investigation (late 2004 to mid-2005, just a guess).

      But he’s not going directly after Rove. In fact, if I read him right, I think he’s expecting someone else will pick it up. Though Congress doesn’t seem really pushed about it–at least not until Rove shows up to talk Siegelman.

  8. Helen says:

    Do we know if Henry Waxman ever received the Plame documents from Fitz? The docs that were being held up by the DOJ. I think they were due at the beginning of the year and I don’t recall hearing anything after Henry’s December letter to Mukasey

  9. bmaz says:

    So, the US, after holding and torturing him for seven years, is dropping the charges against supposed “20th Hijacker” Mohammed al-Qahtani.

    The Pentagon is dropping charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was supposed to have been the “20th hijacker” in the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men facing murder charges before a U.S. military tribunal for the attacks.

    But U.S. military defense lawyers confirmed to The Associated Press on Monday that a Pentagon official has finalized the charges only against the other five, including the alleged architect of the attacks.

    No Harm No Foul?? So what will the benevolent Bush government do with him now, drug him up and drop him off in Siberia? We are evil.

  10. prostratedragon says:

    I guess they’ve concluded that the tomorrow that belongs to them is not quite here yet.

  11. jnardo says:

    But, by his answer to this question, Fitzgerald suggests he did learn of efforts by Kjellander and Rove “during the CIA Leak investigation.” Now, I’m not convinced that means Fitzgerald learned of Kjellander’s efforts before he gave Rove the all-clear in June 2006–but it sure suggests that’s a possibility.

    Are you suggesting that Fitz’s “all clear” for Rove was related to or maybe because of the possibility that Rove might get him fired – that Fitz was intimidated?

    • Helen says:

      I read that the opposite way. That even though Fitz knew about Rove trying to get him fired, he refrained from indicting him because he (Fitz) has so much integrity. In other words, because an indictment would have been defensible, a lesser person (like, say, me) would have indicted Rove just for spite.

      • jnardo says:

        I like your version better than the one I thought ew might be getting at. But what of the culpability of Rove in exploring the firing a prosecutor who is investigating you?

Comments are closed.