Commentary: Here is one of the 2005 emails in which talks about Sampson's ranking of U.S. Atrorneys. Notice that Northern Illnois Attorney (Fitzgerald) was taped over. In the March 2005, Justice Department e-mail sent to the White House listing all 93 U.S. Attorneys in three categories:"Bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. attorneys who have managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general. Strikeout = Recommend removing; weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc. Nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively" was taped over in several cases. Fitzgerald was probably put into the third category by the Justice Department: "No recommendation; has not distinguished himself either positively or negatively."
What does this mean? Since there two other attorneys with same ranking as Fitzgerald that were fired, this may mean that by the White House putting Fitzgerald on the unemployment line consituted interference into Fitzgerald's investigation into the CIA Leak case. This news about Fitzgerald's ranking in the U.S. Attorney firings make it more evident for an Independent Counsel to a criminal prosecution of Karl Rove and other senior White House personnel. More importantly, it makes me wonder why Karl Rove was not charged by Fitzgerald and why Fitzgerald said that he did not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove. With the corruption within the White House put the squeeze on the U.S. Attorneys, the pondering question is why was Karl Rove giving a get out of jail card by Fitzgerald? I am sure the Oversight and Government Reform chairman, Henry Waxman and the Judicial Commitee would like an answer.
5 comments:
With the dates you have that is an interesting question. Was their in put to saving Karl Rove and not Libby. Ted Wells might want to hear that answer to before his appeal is over.
Good question, Jackie...That might be why Rove was a defense witness.
Not sure what that WH troll had under the bridge. Do you Fitz would have cut a deal with that Troll?
IMHO Fitz would not cut a deal with Rove. Fitz had every intention to indict Karl Rove according to Leopold. If Fitz didn't, then why did he present to the grand jury evidence to indict Rove? Something happened between the time in which the GJ indicted Rove, the time in which he told Rove to getr his affairs in order and to the time he told Rove and his attorney that Rove was not charged. Politics and pressure from the WH played into the decision by Fitzgerald. Fitz didn't call Rove as a witness but the defense did painting a picture of Libby being a sacrifical lamb for Rove.
No deal was cut by Fitz but Gonzo did take control in some way. Strange things were happening when Ted wanted Fitz removed. I remember Gonzo going to the court house and I think it was Gonzo using his position over Fitz to protect Rove. After reading about how the White House got involved with the DOJ I know it was hard for Fitz to fight his own boss.
Post a Comment