Reply #105: The spec was that Gonzales tried to interfere with Fitz when he was

[Peace Patriot]

pressuring Rove, and Fitz replied with a sealed indictment of Gonzales. When Gonzales was WH counsel, he alerted the WH to the investigation giving them overnight to shred docs and work on their cover stories. This was obstruction of justice. Bush then elevated him to AG. Fitz has powers independent of Gonzales, but with these particular perps--the most powerful and evil men on earth--you never know what they would try. Fitz theoretically works for Gonzales. But the previous AG Ashcroft had to recuse himself from this case (couldn't protect the perps) because he, too, had a conflict of interest. Fitz was made special counsel at that point, with delegated AG powers. But Bush then appointed Gonzales (Bush Cartel toady) as AG likely with the mission of stopping Fitz if he could, or bottom line, protecting Bush. Rove is very close to Bush. A Rove indictment could mean that Bush is next. They would go all out to stop it. This particular spec is that they did--and Fitz replied with a sealed indictment of Gonzales. Legal powers--Gonzales vs. Fitz--is an issue in this case (or, WH/Libby have tried to make it an issue). We have the Bush junta in essence investigating itself. They own the Justice Dept. And Gonzales has been particularly craven in his twisting of the law to suit Bush junta purposes (on torture, for instance). So, how do you frame a federal indictment of the federal government--the people you are working for (the people who own the Justice Dept., the FBI, the CIA, and the military, and who have in addition claimed extraordinary, unconstitutional powers that laws don't apply to them)? U.S. vs. U.S.? That is possibly what "sealed vs. sealed" is hiding. A war within the government (over Fitz's powers). But it's still just a spec. Sealed indictment could be Cheney, Rove--or any number of people.

Re: Rove. Fitz has Rove by the short hairs on perjury. This is quite obvious from court docs and other info. Fitz's SOP in that event is to pressure the lieutenants to get the generals. (Something else that seems pretty clear in this case is that Rove was a lieutenant not a general in the Plame-Brewster Jennings outings. He did not have the power, and likely would not have risked his own skin, taking on the CIA on his own initiative--court docs point to Cheney). Rove's lawyer has refused to release the Fitz letter which purportedly says that Rove will not be indicted, because the letter likely says that Rove will not be indicted UNLESS...(fill in the blank--probably truthful testimony in the Libby trial).

It would be quite easy--getting signals and reports from this very tangled situation--for reporters and their sources to misread signals (for instance, that a Rove indictment is imminent)--and also, to get "stung" by somebody's disinformation. The perps and their lawyers have worked overtime on "spin" in this case, and Rove of course is THE most devious political operative in our history (probably behind the Dan Rather sting, the Kerry "swiftboating" and all sorts of "special ops"). A leftist blog would be particularly vulnerable. Their enthusiasm for a Rove indictment (--a particularly satisfying political development) would incline them to over-interpret signals, and could also make them an easy mark for a Rove sting.

There is a difference between lying and getting something wrong. Why certain DUers insist that Truthout/Leopold LIED about an imminent Rove indictment is beyond me. There is zero evidence that they lied. They got one part of a larger story wrong, is all--this seems a much more reasonable and likely interpretation of their reporting. The Libby trial is going forward. There is no evidence AT ALL that Fitzgerald has been stopped--other than his silence, which is typical of him. And there is LOTS of evidence pointing to Rove as a perp (--a lieutenant on the outings; lied about it to the investigators). What makes the MOST sense is that Rove was threatened with indictment and is now under duress to tell the truth and name names. He is only temporarily off the hook. That an indictment of him was imminent would be a completely understandable mistake, given the secrecy of this investigation/grand jury proceedings, and the difficulty of reading sources and signals. And we are in a hiatus now, with the outcome an unknown. Why jump on leftist bloggers with such viciousness, in these circumstances? So they WANTED Rove to be indicted. So did we all. (Not me actually--I DIDN'T want a second perjury indictment; I wanted Rove to sing.) So did most of us. I prefer Truthout/Leopold's leftist ENTHUSIASM--even if it leads them astray--to the crap we read (and the vital stories that are black-holed) in the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press. And no amount of DU "hit and runs" can change that. I trust Truthout/Leopold, even when they're wrong, way more than the "hit and runs" and the corporate press.

The case remains open and on-going. Anything can happen. But we shouldn't be depending on this case to save our democracy--or to out these criminals before the November elections. Saving our democracy is up to us, not to any prosecutor.

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

Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW! Join the grass roots voter revolt--vote by Absentee Ballot! If enough people do it, we can get rid of these machines peacefully!