RRRevolution

"Speaking truth to the powers that be..." is our most powerful weapon. "Trading liberty for security results in the loss of both" "Give me liberty or give me death - Patrick Henry" "Government of, by and for the people"

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Where Does Fitz Go From Here?

Rove is in real trouble for basically the same reasons Libby was indicted. His date with indictment is not avoided, just delayed.

The real target here is Cheney, which is clear from the factual recitation in the Libby indictment. Cheney was a source for Libby, knew Libby was lying for 2 years and said and did nothing. Cheney headed up the WHIG. Cheney is in this game in a big way.

Then the real issue becomes clear, what did Bush know and when did he know it, and who will "roll over" on him for their own self-interest.
The prospect of serving prison time has a way of helping you make up your mind about cooperating with the prosecutor. This would explain why Bush is in such a foul mood --he knows what he did, and how much trouble he could be in if his house of cards does not hold up.

So how does Fitz get from here to "there?"

Here is one plan. Offer Libby a deal he cannot refuse, reduced prison time, and squeeze him for every factual tidbit and get him on record under oath before the grand jury. Take that information and turn another top WH official with knowledge who has not been indicted for perjury and false statements like Libby, and get them on the record under oath, and squeeze them for their contacts.

Slowly build the framework of those who informed and observed Cheney and Bush first hand, who can testify to what was said and done consistent with what we know to be true.

Libby is toast. Rove is next. Cheney will likely resign. The big question is whether Bush can stay insulated. Right now his only card to play is the "dumb" defense, that "I was out of the loop." IF it works to avoid criminal charges, it makes Bush look incredibly out of control as President and very weak.

The story is gonna come out, the question is will anyone other than scooter take the fall. I think they will, and sighs of relief that certain people were not indicted yesterday are way too premature.

One indisputable fact that should send a chill through Rove and all the other Plamegate targets --Fitzgerald has rented office space across the street from the courthouse where Scooter will be tried and/or sentenced.

Fitz misses his bed in Chicago, but he is planning to be in Washington for an extended period of time to wind up this affair. The fact Fitz is securing office space cannot be spun, and should scare everyone with potential liability in this matter.

This is very bad news indeed for the WH and the inhabitants thereof.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Like a Jigsaw Puzzle, Obscure Pieces Reveal a Lot

Names and events mentioned in passing during the speculation on the Plamegate Leak case may hold forth more merit than initially thought. John Hannah, Mary Matalin, Cheney's PR guy sent to Iraq, Bolton visiting Judy Miller in prison, Jennifer Millerwise, Tim Russert, and Bob Novak. So how do all these pieces of the puzzle fit together? Here is one theory .....

John Hannah is now being reported as having "flipped" early on in the investigation. As a member of the Cheney staff borrowed from John Bolton's Office, he would have been in a position to know about the true motives for silencing Joe Wilson and outing his wife. With that information held close to the vest Fitzgerald would have been armed with the information needed to ask the right questions, and know when people were being untruthful. Mary Matalin, married to James Carrville, would have been part of the WHIG and as such would have had inside information as to the role other members played in the outing of Plame. She has held such a low profile, she most likely could have agreed to cooperate with Fitzgerald early on and no one would have been the wiser. So Bolton gets on the visitor list to see Judy Miller while in prison. Hmmm.... sounds like somebody needed to get their stories coordinated. We know from Bolton's failed confirmation hearings that there were intercepts of communications recorded by NSA that Bolton had access to, that were requested by the Senate, that were never revealed to the full Senate --but most likely were reviewed by Sen. Roberts and Sen. Rockefeller. They would know who he was listening in on and how it related to the Plame affair. Tim Russert appeared before the grand jury, but has not commented further on his role. Russert most likely has been cooperating with Fitzgerald just like Bob Novak. Cheney's PR guy is sent out of the country to Iraq for the next 6 months "to help" over there, and to be outside the reach of Fitzgerald's grand jury. And Millerwise as the CIA communications dir. most likely has been feeding CIA info to Fitzgerald, since she was never called to testify before the grand jury.

So how do the pieces fit? Each of these individuals know a lot more about who did what in Plamegate than they have disclosed publicly. With the exception of Hannah and Bolton, they each are likely to draw lenient sentences if charged, but they have no reason to risk being charged and sentenced to cover for the higherups. However, each was in a position to know a significant part of what was going on. Millerwise would have no liability, but would have played a huge role in pushback against the Whitehouse.

A good guess is that this investigation has centered on Cheney from the very beginning, and how Libby assisted Cheney in carrying out the orders. Plea arrangements have most likely included a provision that no leaks about cooperation could be exposed or the deals are off. THis has allowed Fitzgerald to put people over a barrel for lack of truthfulness and possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, and thereby dig deeper. Now reports are circulating that Bush knew 2 years ago about the role Rove played in the outing, and lambasted him for it while telling the public he did not know. So is Bush in range for a "money shot" as an unindicted co-conspirator?

Most likely we are in the final hours of plea offers remaining on the table for likely defendants. Depending on who "flips" and who does not will likely determine whether Fitz takes a shot at indicting Bush, or merely refers to him as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Too many people inside and outside the White House know too much for the critical information regarding Cheney and Libby to leak out. In the end, the rest of us will be surprised at how much was known for so long by so many, and yet not made public until that time.

If Fitzgerald does his job, we may receive a second chance to remove the evildoers and reclaim our government.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

GOP Corruption Presents Democrats With Opportunity

We need to recognize that there is an opportunity being presented here which Democrats must take advantage of in the next 12 mos or it will be lost.

The culture of corruption is breaking out into the open all over. Ohio, Kentucky, Delay Indictment, Frist insider trading, Plame Investigation, etc. People are beginning to see the consequences of having corrupt leaders in both a raided treasury and lost lives. Those in power are beginning to be exposed as saying one thing and doing the opposite.

The opportunity presented to Democrats is to present a clear choice to voters in the mid-term elections. Democrats need to take an unambiguous stand in favor of truth, integrity, and against not only corruption, but the appearance of corruption.

This can be done if Democrats insist on promoting only candidates who are "squeaky clean" and far from known corrupt influences. Democrats must not only field clean candidates, they must speak out against corruption wherever found -- including inside its own organization.

It is impossible to point the finger of condemnation at corrupt Republicans if our house is not first put in order.

I know any kind of self-criticism is not looked upon kindly in a time of such Republican corruption and abuse. But we must clearly demonstate to the voters that we will not tolerate corruption and will set a different standard if our candidates are elected. Otherwise, plenty of Democrats will be painted with the same "culture of corruption" brush right along with Republicans.

Disaffected voters fed up with corruption will either vote for Democrats, or they will "drop out" and not vote at all. If they do not vote, you can be sure partisan Republicans will and we are in for more of the same.

This window of opportunity will not remain open long. Let us hope our party leaders and supporters will recognize it for what it is, and not let it slip away.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Harriet Miers? Non-Judge to Supreme Ct Justice?

You have to wonder sometimes if George Bush's world view extends beyond the State of Texas and a small outpost called Washington, D.C. Bush has the opportunity and responsibility to name a replacement on the bench of the United States Supreme Court and he looks no further than his former personal White House Counsel from the State of Texas who has NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE as a judge to the highest court in the land.

Why?

Once again it appears that the personal relationship to Bush trumps qualifications. A loyal friend does not equal a well-qualified appointee to an important position.

Makes you wonder if Bush was not considering the possible scenario where Bush or one of his Senior Administration officials will have one of their own cases arrive before the Supreme Court, and his overriding concern had be to "stack the deck" in his favor should that situation arise.

It is not clear that an attorney who spent most of her career in private practice from the State of Texas is the best qualified candidate for this position. Her list of past clients includes Microsoft and Disney, which indicates she has wielded the corporate shield in the past. We have no evidence that she ever represented any clients in the public interest against corporate interests. Troubling news in this time of power wielded by special interest groups flush with cash.

We have no written record of her decisions as a sitting judge to show us where she might stand on important issues now pending before the Supreme Court. Abortion, civil rights, sexual equality, right to privacy, the list could go on and on. We do not know if she has an opinion on any of these issues, and if she has one what that opinion might be. We also have nothing to examine which might indicate her intellectual ability and grasp of the law.

It would appear that by selecting Miers as his nominee Bush is sending the message to the American public "just trust me, she is a good woman with a good heart." If that were enough, any female Red Cross worker would be qualified as his nominee for this position which carries with it a "lifetime" appointment.

Can we afford to risk approving Miers appointment to such an important position when we know so little about her?

The ball is in the Senate's court now. Will the duly elected Senators perform their duty to examine and determine that this nominee is qualified before giving her their stamp of approval by confirming her? Or will they view this as a political appointment which they must support in lockstep along party lines because the head of the Executive Branch of government says they must?

With all the important 5-4 decisions on the books over the last decade, this could be the most important Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history.

If the Senate does its job, this should be a bumpy ride which requires a slow and thorough examination of this nominee. A wrong decision at this point could have lasting ill effects on this country and its way of life for so long as Harriet Miers might live.