WH blocking Fitzgerald cooperation in Plame probe

[deminks]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/03/wh-blocking-fitzgerald-cooperation-in-plame-probe/

House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) today wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and urged him to allow Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. From his letter:

As the recent disclosure from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan underscores, there remain many unanswered questions surrounding this incident and the involvement of the President, the Vice President, and other senior White House officials in the security breach and the White House response.

The Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been cooperating with the Committee’s investigation. Over the summer, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide relevant documents to the Committee, including records of interviews with senior White House officials. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee. <…>

I ask that you personally look into this matter and authorize the production of the documents to the Committee without any further delay.

[Spazito]

1. Excellent re Fitzgerald's cooperation!

There was a reason he did NOT close the investigation and it remains open to date. I always believed he was a man of integrity and this only re-enforces that belief.

Congress has less restraints upon it as to what can be asked, etc, and, because of that, new evidence could emerge that would allow Fitzgerald to re-activate his investigation. Mukasey will not authorize the production of these documents, I have little doubt, because, to do so, would endanger those to whom he owes his allegiance, the bush cabal.

[rockybelt]

2. Mukasey will not

allow those documents to surface. Bringing all documents to light will leave no doubt as to the guilt in the White House. Such guilt would REQUIRE that the articles of impeachment go forward. Of course the WH does not want that and neither does this Congress want that to happen. To that end, the Congress is now wanting to place emphasis on the economy and put the Iraq war on the back burner. Just what the people wanted them to do. Tell me this doesn't stink.

I do think Reid played it right when he stated that Bush was not involved in the prosecutor firings, as far as he could determine, and therefore he should get all the testimony and papers he needs. Good move, I think.

[PRETZEL]

5. I thought that was Leahy

but who it was is of less importance.

Again, Mukasey is in a tight spot. We'll see just how much of a loyalist he really is.

Waxman makes some damn good arguments about precedents.

[OzarkDem]

9. Surely you jest

The public wants an end to the Iraq War and an improved economy and can't get one without the other.

The two issues are not mutually exclusive, but very much linked. Dems cannot ignore the Iraq mandate and fund Bush's war AND fix the economy. The high national debt linked to the astronomical cost of the war is helping to fuel higher interest rates as consumers and businesses compete with the government to borrow money.

I would certainly hope, but would not be surprised if Congressional Dems opted for such a ridiculous strategy. The choice to play politics instead of fixing problems the voters sent them to fix WILL cost the the White House in 2008.

[rockybelt]

13. You are absolutely right

to state that both are entertwined. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this war. As it stands right now, each person in the US owes about $70,000 dollars as their share.

I am saying that Congress has their own agenda and that agenda is to cover their asses before anything else gets done. To keep their asses covered they must assure that impeachment does not happen and that a lot of this information, mounting to a mountain, does not come to light.

I do believe that this information will eventually come to light and then we will see the complicity between the White House and the Congress.

[L. Coyote]

10. I do not paint Congress with one brush. I leave that to Bush!

And Bush is doing it because of the forthcoming and continuing confrontations. He is trying to get out in front of the impeachment confrontation by bashing Congress at every turn. Well, the truth will out shout the Congress bashers.

[rhett o rick]

16. Oh yeah, Nancy has said the getting a 25 cent raise in min wage is way more important than

holding BushCorp accountable.

[PRETZEL]

3. Read that also,

this should be real fun if the MSM decides that this story qualifies as a "young girl (missing)/dead because her husband killed her".

But it won't and we'll be relegated to reading about it on the web and getting ourselves frutstrated over the fact that it's been how many months and the (missing)/dead young girl is still (missing)/dead because her husband killed her.

As Marcy so astutely put it, this is Mukasey's Janet Reno moment. He balks and we know that loyalty surpasses all. If he doesn't then we should finally get a few more answers into the real reasons for Valerie Plame's outing.

[G_Leo_Criley]

4. Error: You've already recommended that thread. K&R!

Go Henry! Go Fitz!

glc

[lovuian]

6. WELL WELL WELL How can a Whitehouse BLOCK

the Special Counsel???

H20 man any ideas???

Isn't that Obstructive ???

[H2O Man]

7. I am confident

that the White House will continue to stonewall until forced by a federal court to turn over the requested information.

[rhett o rick]

18. Yes but will a BushCorp federal court force them to? What if the records have been "accidently"

destroyed. I am beginning to feel that no one will be held accountable for the crimes of BushCorp and friends.

[H2O Man]

20. Good question.

I think so. The judges rule based upon case law, and that is pretty clear.

[rhett o rick]

21. And if they don't, like when they gave the presidency to Georgie, we are lost anyways. nm

[H2O Man]

23. In that case,

there was obviously no established case law. To be clear, I think what they did was criminal, and it justifies anyone being suspicious about the US Supreme Court. And that's a shame.

However, in this area, the case law is well established. And several federal judges have actually ruled against the administration, including in the Plame scandal. I would expand that to include the opinions of the federal judges who ruled on the Miller & Cooper appeals: they were clear that a serious violation of law, involving national security, had apparently taken place. If Congress pressed this, they would have no less than a 99% chance of success in the federal courts.

[rhett o rick]

24. Yes, I agree completely. nm

[bleever]

8. Fitzgerald's deference to POTUS and VP works against them.

From Marcy Wheeler's linked commentary:

First, understand the scope of this. As Waxman explains, he's only asking for details of interviews not conducted in front of the grand jury. Anything conducted in front of the grand jury is protected by grand jury secrecy; anything before that (like early FBI interviews) or not conducted before the grand jury (like Dick and Bush's interviews in June 2004, after both had lawyered up) is "fair game." There's a delicious irony in this last bit, since it means that the deference Fitz showed to Bush and Dick--by letting them avoid the stress of a grand jury appearance--is precisely what would make their interview transcripts accessible here.

Also, remember the logic to Waxman's inquiry. He's investigating how it was that Valeie Wilson's identity was leaked, but none of things that are supposed to happen happened--like internal investigations and the removal of the security clearance from those who have not fulfilled the terms of their Non-Disclosure Agreements (Rove would qualify, as would Armitage). So his request is going to be somewhat more narrow than it might otherwise be, since he claims to be interested primarily in why BushCo just sat on its hands after Valerie Wilson's cover was ruined.

Very interesting.

[madokie]

12. I remember Fitz saying it is going to take a lot of time and that it won't be over until he says it

is, maybe in the end it will be shown he has been baiting the trap since the start. Taking on bushco* in the open would be tantamount to bucking the mob, would it not

[donkeyotay]

11. bush is going to have to appoint a czar of stonewalling to keep it all straight

Maybe a new executive office, the Office of Obstruction (OOO). They're going to need a coordinator, or maybe a neo White House werking group, something like the WHOSE, or White House Obstruction, Stonewalling and Evasion hard-werkin group.

[shanine]

14. k&r

[rhett o rick]

15. Yeah, so what? Nany and the Democrats will not procecute. They will let BushCorp off without any

punishment. They are in the same club. Maybe a shame on you here and there but that's all.

[tavalon]

17. Wow, what a surprise! Who woulda thunk it?

:eyes:

[DemGa]

19. Dems should be nailing the treasonous bast*rds

At best we'll get a strongly worded letter. Maybe I'll be surprised this time...holding out about zero hope.

[Eurobabe]

22. Good. Get' em Henry.