For the Bushaviks, McNulty’s appointment may be too little, too late. By the time he takes office, Fitzgerald will have either handed down indictments or gone home. On the other hand, if charges are brought, a long, drawn-out prosecution presumably will present plenty of opportunities for the Justice Department to make its influence felt.
Back to Main
October 24, 2005
WB: Fitzgerald’s New Boss
Comments
Hi. I’ve been quite worked up ever since your Sept. 25 Heart of Darkenss blog but only now discovered how to contact you. I don’t want to make public comments but is it possible I could email you directly? I work in Iraq and totally agreed with what you were saying about the dangers of troop withdrawl until your conclusion stating it’s better to have them leave. Based on all the time and work I’ve done here I can assure you it’s far more dangerous if they leave, particularly for average Iraqis. I live in the Middle East and so am a bit out of touch sometimes with political currents in the U.S. but I was surprised and distressed on my last visit home to the U.S. that immediate troop withdrawl has become the cry of the liberal folks out there that otherwise have been right in criticizing the lead-up and post-war efforts. I grow even more distressed when I see influential thinkers like you and Juan Cole also going in this direction. I’d like to give you a picture of life on the ground here in Baghdad to demonstrate the lesser-of-two-evils role that the foreign troops play.
If you don’t mind, please email me at the address attached. Thanks.
Posted by: Baghdadresident | Oct 24 2005 13:13 utc | 1
Fitzgerald’s charge (letter of December 2003) states, in part: “I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.” McNulty’s appointment may be irrelevant to the investigation.
Posted by: Mike Maltz | Oct 24 2005 13:51 utc | 2
I agree with Mike Maltz. The charge letter had nothing to with the status of his “boss” as “acting.” It had to do with explcitely insulating Fitzgerald from influence. McNulty’s appointment means nothing in relation to the investigation or to the prosecution process.
Under 28CFR s600.7, only the Attorney General himself can remove a Special Counsel and then only for “good cause” that is stated specifically in the removal letter sent to the SC.
Posted by: wai | Oct 24 2005 14:56 utc | 3
Resident of Baghdad
I think you are on the wrong thread, try this one
If you want Billmon to respond, why don’t you simply post your ideas here? He does read them..
Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 24 2005 15:20 utc | 4
Fitzgerald’s charge (letter of December 2003) states, in part: “I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.” McNulty’s appointment may be irrelevant to the investigation.
I’m reasonably sure the December 2003 and February 2004 letters could be superceded by new ones that limit Fitzgerald’s powers or require him to answer to someone within the DoJ hiearchy. Yes, it would be a PR nightmare for the Busheviks, but less so than actually firing him. Either way, at the end of the day Fitzgerald works for the Justice Department, and McNulty will be his boss — the “acting attorney general” for this matter.
Posted by: Billmon | Oct 24 2005 16:00 utc | 5
Even if McNulty is his boss, what do you all think of this?
UPI publishes article quoting NATO about Fitzgerald requesting copy of Italian documents
I know this has probably been addressed before, but I can’t get this out of my head…
Fitzgerald reported to be widening scope of investigation
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051023-104217-9679r
Would UPI publish without some sort of sourced backing? Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo just posted something about this as well.
thoughts MofA?
Posted by: Uppity Gal | Oct 24 2005 16:31 utc | 6
New bosses? From firedoglake
Preznit is set to announce a replacement for Fed. Chairman Alan Greenspan at 1 pm today. Someone check and see where the Preznit’s personal accountant is. After the Miers nomination, I’m not leaving any stone unturned. Sorta makes you wonder what else might be going on at 1pm today, doesn’t it?
Posted by: beq | Oct 24 2005 16:31 utc | 7
I think there’s an interesting doppelganger meme emerging from the GOP about Libby and Fitzgerald. Call it “Tale of Two Obsessives”, Libby fanatically collecting and highlighting every crumb of information about Wilson, Fitzgerald pursuing a simple leak investigation to Niger, Iraq, Italy, and beyond. Next will come the attempt to present a contrast: Libby went too far for the sake of his country and his (Vice) President, while Fitzgerald overstepped because of a prosecutor’s infatuation with making a case–any case–oblivious to the needs of national security, hardball politics, or the importance of letting the executive branch conduct the nation’s business. Then, when the indictments come down, Libby resigns to repair his shattered psyche and the GOP and conservatives close ranks around Karl Rove. Karl may resign but will keep his fist up the nation’s ass a la Tom Delay and fight the charges as a trumped up, politically motivated, and malicious attempt to implicate him in Scooter Libby’s patriotic excesses, with which he was only tangentially and innocently involved. Karl is probably already thinking of ways to ride this out, turn it into lemonade, and regroup and rally the base for the 2006 elections. It will be interesting to see if Fitzgerald’s reticence, the delays inherent in the legal process, and the media’s traditional aversion to pursuing a story about which the right is feisty and united combine to allow Karl to get away with it.
Posted by: Halcyon Days | Oct 24 2005 18:07 utc | 8
I think there’s an interesting doppelganger meme emerging from the GOP about Libby and Fitzgerald. Call it “Tale of Two Obsessives”, Libby fanatically collecting and highlighting every crumb of information about Wilson, Fitzgerald pursuing a simple leak investigation to Niger, Iraq, Italy, and beyond. Next will come the attempt to present a contrast: Libby went too far for the sake of his country and his (Vice) President, while Fitzgerald overstepped because of a prosecutor’s infatuation with making a case–any case–oblivious to the needs of national security, hardball politics, or the importance of letting the executive branch conduct the nation’s business. Then, when the indictments come down, Libby resigns to repair his shattered psyche and the GOP and conservatives close ranks around Karl Rove. Karl may resign but will keep his fist up the nation’s ass a la Tom Delay and fight the charges as a trumped up, politically motivated, and malicious attempt to implicate him in Scooter Libby’s patriotic excesses, with which he was only tangentially and innocently involved. Karl is probably already thinking of ways to ride this out, turn it into lemonade, and regroup and rally the base for the 2006 elections. It will be interesting to see if Fitzgerald’s reticence, the delays inherent in the legal process, and the media’s traditional aversion to pursuing a story about which the right is feisty and united combine to allow Karl to get away with it.
Posted by: Halcyon Days | Oct 24 2005 18:07 utc | 9
“the dynamic duo from AIPAC — Steve Rosenberg and Keith Weissman”
Billmon, it’s Steve Rosen, not Rosenberg. If not in fact a traitor (we shall see), Rosen is the worst kisser ever, I can tell you.
Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 24 2005 18:18 utc | 10
wayne madsen reiterates his position from saturday:
The promotion of McNulty to number two at DOJ and Fitzgerald’s forthcoming major indictments are all indications that the White House is coming under “new management,” management directed by Bush’s father’s team. The days of the neo-cons are truly numbered.
Posted by: b real | Oct 24 2005 18:30 utc | 12
That guy who was number two at DoJ when Ashcroft recused himself…..
What happened to him after he resigned?
Has anybody buttonholed him to find out why/how he managed to appoint the PF Flyer and what he thinks now?
____
As to the matter at hand….forget Saturday Nights’ being all right for fighting, looks to me like these folks are setting things up for a Chain Saw Massacray.
.
“Billmon, it’s Steve Rosen, not Rosenberg.”
Whoops! Talk about a Freudian slip.
Posted by: Billmon | Oct 24 2005 19:49 utc | 14
Marshall’s take is a little different:
Now comes information that President Bush will nominate McNulty, currently the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney General. That’s the post that was going to go to Timothy Flanigan before he withdrew his nomination over his connections to Jack Abramoff.
Now, if McNulty had been cooperating with or become a participant or enabler of some sort of Fitzgerald’s investigation, he’s not the first person you’d figure President Bush would be appointing to the number two spot at DOJ — especially when you consider that Al Gonzales will almost certainly have to recuse himself from any consideration of the entire Plame case. If something is a afoot between Fitzgerald and McNulty, what went into the appointment? Who came up with the idea?
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | Oct 24 2005 20:42 utc | 15
Halcyon Days- no doubt the rethugs are going to fight to keep the truth about their war crimes from coming out in a court of law.
However, rather than seeing those two as dopplegangers, maybe it’s an Oldpal struggle, in which Fitzgerald destroys his father and fucks his mother…via prison surrogates.
Of course they must be punished. And stopped.
It’s time to repair the damage that this administration has done.
If Scowcroft, Jr’s Dad’s best friend, feels compelled to warn the nation about the dangers we face if we continue down this path, if other conservatives feel complelled to call this situation dangerous…
Frankly, it’s not just the executive branch that needs to do its job. It’s also the legislative and the judicial. If this investigation were to stop Bush from doing his “job” that might be the best thing that could happen to this country right now.
then the legislature could stop acting like the abused wife of the executive…which has accrued too much power at this time.
Posted by: fauxreal | Oct 24 2005 21:36 utc | 16
Last night’s stories on the Titanic deckchair re arrangement brought to mind the lyric of Won’t Get Fooled Again .
Two relevant excerpts:
“The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that’s all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war”
But more importantly the last two lines:
“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss”
I’m sorry to be such ‘a glass half full’ person but I’m still not convinced that Fitzgerald isn’t having an auction here.
The appointment of McNulty would gel with that since McNulty is an obvious party hack.
Beyond that I hope I am wrong on this but changes to to campaign funding laws won’t mean a whole helluva lot while political appointments to senior bureaucratic positions is an acceptable practise.
That would remove one method of bribery but leave the root cause of the corruption untouched. Another means of bribery would be implemented long before the change got the executive tick.
Merit based systems for senior appointments are by no means fullproof but at the very least they do help to prevent too much ‘off the job’ contact between elected officials and salaried public servants.
It can also help salaried govt employees grasp the concept of objectivity as their loyalty will always be to who/whatever appointed them so that would move from their political masters to the organisation itself.
Yes that does become problematic because the empire building and not biting the hand that feeds you syndrome becomes more of an issue.
The best counter to this is to have a Cabinet of extremely competent people serving as Secretary of their organisation.
Cronyism a la BushCo delivers the Cabinet appointee into the hands of the organisation he/she should be administering.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 24 2005 21:44 utc | 17
Comey.
James Comey
“When Comey appointed Fitzgerald in 2003, the deputy granted him extraordinary powers to act however he saw fit—but noted he still had the right to revoke Fitzgerald’s authority.”
____
My take on the matter when Comey stepped down and was replaced by ‘acting’ Deputy Robert McCallum in the summer is here.
Question is, why didn’t McCallum, who looked to be, at the very least, a Watercarrier of the ‘skull and bones’ variety, manage to reign Fitzgerald in?
Is it possible that McCallum had his bones (double)crossed?
.
I don’t see the idea of McNulty undressing Fitzgerald as one that’ll happen. Sure, the Bush fedayeen no doubt salivates at the prospect of it and I’m sure the idea is indeed floating accross what passes for brains in McNulty’s own oilpan, but Fitzgerald strikes me as the type of guy that doesn’t get mad — he gets even. And I can think of no better way for Fitzgerald to get even with McNulty possibly yanking on his choke-chain than secretly cabling reams upon reams of his own notes to a Democratic senator or two which — upon a Democratic Party sweep of the Beltway in the 2006 midterms — could then turn this whole “outing a CIA NOC” affair into a fullblown investigative orgy on Capital Hill …… with Fitzgerald sitting in the same seat that once supported the asses of McCarthy, Thomas, and Oliver North (provided Fitzgerald somehow inherits “BulleTime” from Max Payne).
Then again, I could very well be snorting the same shit The Bugman’s been snorting lately. A man can dream, can’t I?!?
The Times just published on line – Libby learned about Plame through Cheney and Cheney was told by Tenet. Wonder who leaked it and why. Contradicts previous testimony from Libby that he and Rove heard it from journalists. Article also places Cheney at the center of the effort to learn more about Wilson. Cheney and Libby are said to be able to discuss Plame, but were not free to share the info with others, particularly those without security clearances. Is Cheney sacrificing himself to shelter W?
Posted by: conchita | Oct 25 2005 2:10 utc | 23
Bernhard, this might be important
Leak of Agent’s Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03
The leak of a CIA operative’s name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The company’s identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore’s presidential primary campaign.
After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame’s employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.
SNIP
The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.
——————————————————————————–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer
Look at that third paragraph. It’s amazing.
The name of Brewster Jennings was not leaked until October 3.
That’s one week AFTER “the Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26. ”
And who the hell was in such a hurry to confirm the name and make damn sure the network and the people within it were destroyed?
Who were these “Bush administration officials” who CONFIRMED that Plame was working undercover for the CIA in 1999 to Pincus and Allen?
Who were these Bush administration officials who CONFIRMED the name of Brewster-Jennings to Pincus and Allen?
We’ve heard very little from or about Walter Pincus.
I would suggest that THIS is Fitzgerald’s case.
And there is NO DOUBT THIS IS A BREACH OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT BY TWO PERSONS CONSPIRING.
I wonder who they are?
postscript
Note the parallels with the outing of David Kelly.
They put so many clues out there that they are bound to be found.
Then they confirm it when someone finds the clue (and I have to wonder who it was who found the clue?)
Posted by: john | Oct 25 2005 2:16 utc | 24
@R’Giap
To reduce the likelihood of hyperlink typographical errors, I personally find ‘copy & pasting’ the example html tag re Link to ACLU followed by ‘copying & pasting’ the actual URL address from the relevant browser page between the =” paste url here “> and the same for the link description “> paste link title here < is highly accurate and efficient as opposed to manually tying the link and tag syntax ...
Mileage varies ... 🙂
PS always 'preview' and examine link before hitting 'post' button.
Posted by: Outraged | Oct 25 2005 2:39 utc | 25
If that’s all they have on Cheney, we’re in deep shit. Obviously that came from the Top…are those bastards so hell bent on protecting their bosses, that Fitzy can’t even pull together enough for an Unindicted Co-conspirator charge against either of them…?? Yikes, ghastly thought.
Posted by: jj | Oct 25 2005 3:55 utc | 26
Here’s another version.
Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on loan from the office of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle, the sources said.
Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, they added.
Within a week, Wurmser, on orders from “executives in the office of the vice president,” was told to leak her name to a specific group of reporters in an effort to muzzle her husband, Wilson, who had become a thorn in the side of the administration, those close to the inquiry say. It is unclear who Wurmser had spoken with in the media, the sources said, but they confirmed he did speak with reporters at national media outlets about Plame.
“Libby wanted to discredit him right from the start,” one source close to the investigation told RAW STORY. “He used David Wurmser to help him do that.”
Neither Wurmser or Libby could be reached for comment.
Wurmser had a direct link to the CIA because of his work on intelligence issues related to Iraq and frequently met with CIA analysts who worked on weapons of mass destruction. Through his contacts, Wurmser was told that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent working on WMD issues and it was she who had recommended Wilson for the trip, the sources said. Those familiar with the investigation say, however, it is unclear whether Wurmser was told that she operating as a covert agent. They believe it was likely he was told she was an “analyst” working on WMDs in a similar capacity to the other agents Wurmser had interacted with. link
Then Cheney prob. got more info. on her from Tenet. Wonder if he’s been before G.J.
Posted by: jj | Oct 25 2005 4:05 utc | 27
I’m afraid the repercussions of Cheney of Bush not going down after all the hubbub, are going to be enormous, they will come out like gangbusters and everyone will pay, and pay dearly. Alia iacta est. ( The die is cast ).
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 25 2005 4:23 utc | 28
Is “discrediting Joe Wilson” a red herring?
Everyone assumes Libby and his co-conspirators were really after Wilson, but this now seems unwarranted, especially in light of Fitzgerald’s reported focus on the Niger uranium forgeries. If this question of the forgeries is now within Fitzgerald’s purview, it opens up the possibility that the conspirators really were after Plame on her own account. If Plame and her associates were hot on the trail of whoever forged the Niger uranium documents, by neutralizing Brewster Jennings & Associates the Libby cabal closed one possible route to uncovering their schemes – and opened up another one.
Something to think about, no? War w/in as I have speculated in the past?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 25 2005 4:28 utc | 29
Did you see THIS
Larry Wilkerson Erases Any Doubts About Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal in Tomorrow Morning’s Los Angeles Times
I have just been tipped off that the Los Angeles Times plans to run a rip-the-veneer-off the White House cabal op-ed by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff, in the morning.
I have read it…It’s 998 words of honest patriotism that Americans need to hear — and 998 tons of dynamite on the Executive Office of the President.
Here is a short teaser, but you must read the entire article in the Los Angeles Times that I will link as soon as it us up:
Posted by: eftsoons | Oct 25 2005 4:45 utc | 30
Thanks Eftsoons. Note piece indicates one of Wilkerson’s central points is the one that I made to Night Owl the other day – the Problemo of a handful of guys in DC taking over, shutting out the rest of the Military, Intel & Foreign Policy Establishment…The Coup of 2000, Part II.
Posted by: jj | Oct 25 2005 5:03 utc | 31
Juan Cole has an interesting take on the implosion of the NYTimes:
The extraordinary exchanges between New York Times editor Bill Keller and reporter Judith Miller over her role in the Plame scandal and reporting on non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have suggested to me a wider context of the entire matter.
The wider context is that Rupert Murdoch, and Richard Mellon Scaife, and other far rightwing billionaires have deeply corrupted our information environment. They are in part responsible for what happened at the NYT.
Miller attempts to excuse her shoddy reporting on Iraq’s imaginary weapons of mass destruction by saying that “everyone” got that story wrong. But the State Department Intelligence and Research Division did not get it wrong. The Department of Energy analysts were correct that the aluminum tubes couldn’t be used to construct centrifuges. Elbaradei of the International Atomic Energy Commission was not wrong. Imad Khadduri, former Iraqi nuclear scientist, was not wrong. “Everybody” got it wrong only in the sense that “everybody” had been brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch.
The entire article is a must-read and I’d say when everything is added together, one could make a damned good case that Clinton’s “Deregulation Act” of 1996 along with Reagan crushing The Fairness Doctrine deliberately made this horseshit possible.
Unfortunately, the chances of us getting a Democratic presidential candidate that could win by vowing to repeal the latter and reapply the former are directly purportional to the chances of the fleas of a 1000 reindeer taking up permanent residence inside Brit Hume’s genitals.
@ John
Thanks for your observations which I find both illuminating and stimulating. If one accepts the hypothesis that “getting Plame and Brewster-Jennings” was part and parcel of the assault on the “moderate” CIA, and that Joe Wilson was seen rather more as a CIA spear carrier rather than as a diplomat with a streak of independence, one has to wonder who wanted to put the anti-proliferation unit hors de combat and why? The usual “why” is scads of money to be made or stolen, in this case, perhaps, trafficking in real or fake nuclear weapons stock. Or could it have been the desire to disable an objective font of information about the true capabilities of designated “rogue states” like Iran? The “who” is less obvious, although there is no dearth of candidates even without going beyond the “usual suspects”.
Naturally, this is all sheer speculation spun out of the gossamer filament of the Post story you cite, but wild surmise is our stock and trade. Thanks again for an interesting post.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 25 2005 5:41 utc | 33
Thanks for the link, RememberingGiap. I followed that one just to see what you were pointing out.
The things people have been saying revolve around and around. Is Cheney sick? He was photographed with a cane recently, of course he also had vein operations behind his knees as well.
Is he heartless, more so since his heart operations? Wilkerson said so, I think Scowcroft said “I knew Cheney but I don’t know Dick Cheney.”
Is he the hands-on, hard-driven executive of the White House? Or does he just play one on TV.
Funny, there’s a photo of Rice, Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld walking together in a row. The tallest was Rice; in heels of course. Bush in boots, jacketless. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld are the same height. Cheney always looks short to me, but Rumsfeld seems tall when he is on his own.
The men’s silhouettes are deceiving without known elements to measure them against I guess.
Imagine Cheney as a cartoon character, it seems like if we just added a cigarette holder and a little “Qua, Qua qua” dialog bubble above his head he could be the Penguin, that waistcoated villain from the old Batman television series.
Posted by: jonku | Oct 25 2005 6:01 utc | 34
“Everybody” got it wrong only in the sense that “everybody” had been brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch.
brainwashed
I’m reading this book at the moment, and so far I would recommend it highly. Taylor explores brainwashing techniques employed in the aftermath of the Korean war, moving on to discuss the subject in terms of neurology and cognitive science. She then goes on to suggest that similar tehniques are prevalent within contemporary media and politics. We are, according to Taylor, more susceptible to brainwashing in the 21st century because of the stress caused by the imminent threat of terror. The cybernetic media operates materially, modulating waves of dread across the plane of existence.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 25 2005 6:04 utc | 35
Funny, there’s a photo of Rice, Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld walking together in a row. The tallest was Rice; in heels of course. Bush in boots, jacketless. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld are the same height. Cheney always looks short to me, but Rumsfeld seems tall when he is on his own.
Cheney: currently 5’9″
Rumsfeld: currently 5’8″
Rice: not yet shrinking 5’7″
Bush: 5’11”
jonku–
Sure he could be the Penquin, but no matter how you slice it, Mr. Cheney makes Spiro Agnew look positively ‘Wiiiiiilllllddddd Mr. Freeeeeezzzzze!’
And just who do figure is looking more and mor like Frank Gorshin these days anyway?
Wilkerson White House Cabal article is up.
Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and “guardians of the turf.”
Posted by: eftsoons | Oct 25 2005 7:59 utc | 38
…Overhyped, it seems to me.
Whad you expect in Brain washed America ?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 25 2005 8:24 utc | 40
“Whad you expect in Brain washed America ?”
That’s not more of that Amerikan exceptionalism is it Uncle? (lol)
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 25 2005 9:22 utc | 41