That last sentence is probably the whole purpose of the hearings, to put the chill on Fitzgerald's investigation. The White House and the Republican leadership really are scared, since this investigation leads where the Republicans can't let it go, namely ...

1. If it's shown that the adminstration wanted to discredit Joe Wilson, that gives credence to his charge that the Iraq intelligence was fixed.

2. If the Iraq intelligence was fixed, then that gives credence to the charge that the war itself was based on false premises.

3. If we went to war on false premises, then that gives credence to what Paul O'Neill said.

4. Paul O'Neill said that the Bush White House was working on going to war with Iraq before 9/11.

5. Bush thus deceived the American people about the reason for the Iraq War (possibly to fulfill the agreements made with big oil in those secret meetings held by Dick Cheney, and covered in the memos referencd by Paul O'Neill).

That's the place they don't want this to go. Expect the Bushies to do anything that can be done, legal or illegal, to keep the public from learning the truth.

If you missed it the first time, read Digby's post from a few weeks back.  **Read it to the end.**

 Roberts is not the only one in congress who appears to be going after Fitzgerald.

 That said, I suspect that the American people just might have become slightly more cynical. The BS generated by the GOP is close to reaching critical mass and exploding all over those who perpetuate it.

Fury said to a mouse,
That he met in the house,
"Let us both go to law:
I will prosecute you.
Come, I'll take no denial:
We must have the trial;
For really this morning
I've nothing to do."
Said the mouse to the cur,
"Such a trial, dear sir,
With no jury or judge
Would be wasting our breath."
"I'll be judge, I'll be jury",
Said the cunning old Fury,
"I'll try the whole cause,
And condemn you to death".

("Fury" being a cat, in case that's not obvious.)

Seriously, didn't these people learn anything from their prostitution of the congress in the impeachment and trial of WJC? Apparently not.

 . . . and are doing this simply as a excuse to grant various people immunity in exchange for their testimony, thereby screwing up Fitzgerald's prosecutions.

They must really feel Fitzgerald has the goods on someone or something.  We have all been focusing on the actual outing of Plame, which may or may not reach a criminal threshhold.  But a conspiracy to obstruct an investigation or lying under oath looks like a good probability. 

If the CIA requested an investigation and the DoJ investigated why does Roberts feel the Senate (Congress) should have oversight of this specific investigation?  I would think Fitzgerald would report back to and be accountable to the DoJ.  I guess congressional hearings make for good "smear" soundbytes and out of context clips...

Perhaps the RepubliCONs want to fire Fitzgerald before his grand jury can indict.  So, if "Elliott Ness" can come up with the goods on the gangster-style slime machine operating out of 1600, look for indictments before the committee members get back from Tuscany and sundry junket-lands to call a quorum for Roberts' "hearing."

To think I self-dubbed these RepubliCONs as CONmen.  Who knew, it was foreshadowing CONvicts.  The WH wants to illicitly take our men and women to war?  To retro back to the '30s to destroy the New Deal?  Give 'em a taste of Capone-style justice, Mr. Fitzgerald.  Rest in peace, Cobber #9.

While people justifiably say the Muslim world must stand up and denounce the terrorists, by the same token, republicans of honor must stand up and denounce the corrupt leadership gang at  1600 and in Congress.  Even McCain, Mr. Straight-Talker, was responding with such convolution on the CIA-leak story that it was sad, sad.

If the theory "Roberts gets call from WH to investigate Fitzgerald" is, in fact, true, then would any law or statute preclude Fitzgerald from expanding his investigation to include members of Congress? In other words, couldn't an order from the WH to a member of Congress to aid in a cover-up be taken as the furtherance of a criminal conspiracy?  Couldn't Sen. Roberts be called in front of the Grand Jury and his records subpoenaed?  Is there a law that says no?  I'm certainly no expert, but it seems logical.

When you are exposed, attack attack attack.

Attacking Wilson didn't work, so they attacked his wife. When exposed for attacking his wife, they attacked Wilson again. Now that that has failed to work, attack the prosecutor.

Luckily, I think the American people have caught on and aren't buying this time. Also, from what I've heard about Fitzgerald and with the information he has, they may be screwing with the wrong guy.

Recalling Nixon's Saturday night massacre, AG Elliott Richardson was told to fire Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor investigatiing Watergate.  Richardson refused and resigned.  Then the Deputy AG, William Ruckelshous, was ordered to fire Cox.  He refused and resigned.  Finally our friend Robert Bork, who was then the Solicitor General, did the deed.

At one time there were honorable Republicans. 

Democrats need to attack this charade for the sham that it is.  Procedurally, can anything be done?  Does Frist have to formally approve hearings?  Can witnesses boycott?  What can be done to protest? 

The legitimacy of the grand jury process must be protected at all costs.  We cannot let this go the route of Iran-Contra where North, Poindexter, Abrams, et. al., escaped punishment for their criminal activities.

Where is Gonzalez in all this?

By all accounts, he was surprisingly frank in the talking head shows on Sunday, stating matter-of-factly that he had given Card 12 hours notice.  One wonders if he realizes what a mess the WH is in and would like (now) to distance himself from the coming pile-up.

If ordered to fire Fitzgerald, I wonder if he would follow that order.  Ambitious, sure, but maybe smart enough to know he's in danger of being on the wrong side of history...

Frankly, I see this as a desperation move.  As Rovian dirty tricks go, this isn't terribly savvy, nor is it likely to be very effective.

Republicans would like nothing better at this point than to be able to create headlines such as "Congress probes serious questions regarding special counsel's conduct".  But given what the public already knows about this issue, I have real trouble seeing that making much headway, and it could backfire badly. 

Rove's tactics work the best when they weave a lie that is plausible, both in the nature of the lie itself (the more audacious, the better) and in the creation of an illusion of legitimacy surrounding the lie.  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's campaign worked because, at least in part, it was veterans doing the accusing.  It also worked due to the willing complacency of the target, and the nature of political campaigns when the target is a relative unknown.

I see little of that going for Rove's latest gambit. It's likely to be seen as an attack on a lawman by those with a vested interest and ulterior motive in doing so.  Not exactly what I'd call good prospects for success, and easy to defend against.

We know what those who forget the past are condemned to do,  and this would be not the first time the Bush regime acted with "selective memory"....but it would certainly be the sweetest. 

Couldn't Sen. Roberts be called in front of the Grand Jury and his records subpoenaed?

Wouldn't it violate the separation of powers part of the Constitution if more than one or two Congresspeople were to be indicted?  I don't think the Executive Branch, which anything to do with the Justice Department is,  has much authority over Congress.

Roberts ought to watch himself on this one lest he find himself on the wrong end of an angry Irishman who has the law behind him. This is not a good place to be.

Frankly, Robert's hands are far from clean in this whole affair being point man for a terribly sloppy whitewash investigation by his committe on WMD intelligence. He might not want too many questions being asked about that when the facts start to come out, as they will.

What gives me hope is what I read in a bio of Fitzgerald. He's the self made son of a poor Irish immigrant who was a doorman. He worked his way though a very toney old boys college (Amherst) on scholarship and by doing janitorial work and being a doorman himself during the summer. He saw a lot of snooty types as he held the door for them just as his old man had, and from all accounts was not enamored by what he saw. I'm not saying he is in any way bitter or envious, just not awed by money and phoney power. You don't fool with people like this. By the way he ended up Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude and went to Harvard Law.

Further, he's from Brooklyn, Flatbush to be exact. Now, I happen to be from Flatbush myself and it was an interesting place to grow up in. Without engaging in too many perhaps non-politically correct stereotypes let me say that there were four basic ethnic groups in Flatbush, Jews (like me), Italians, Blacks and Irish. If you messed with the Jews they'd argue with you, if you messed with the blacks they'd get their gang to scare you, if you messed with the Italians they'd get their family to threaten you, but if you messed with the Irish kids you'd better be prepared to lose a few teeth, there and then. They fought their own battles.

Fitgerald cut his teeth prosecuting mobsters, and he knows the type. He went after the corruption in Chicago next.  I don't think Pat Roberts scares him. If Roberts had any sense, a doubtful proposition, he be extra judicious before picking a fight. <span><pre> </pre&gt</span&gt

In other words, couldn't an order from the WH to a member of Congress to aid in a cover-up be taken as the furtherance of a criminal conspiracy?

Oh, I like how you think...

Couldn't Sen. Roberts be called in front of the Grand Jury and his records subpoenaed?

United States Constitution, Article One, Section Six:

They [i.e., the senators and representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I think the short answer is no.

Here's the membership of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Let them know what you think of this move.

REPUBLICANS

• Pat Roberts, Kansas, Chairman        
• Orrin G. Hatch, Utah            
• Mike Dewine, Ohio                
• Christopher S. Bond, Missouri    
• Trent Lott, Mississippi        
• Olympia J. Snowe, Maine        
• Chuck Hagel, Nebraska            
• Saxby Chambliss, Georgia

DEMOCRATS   

• John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia, Vice Chairman
• Carl Levin, Michigan
• Dianne Feinstein, California
• Ron Wyden, Oregon
• Evan Bayh, Indiana
• Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
• Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey

Ex Officio Members

• Bill Frist, Tennessee
• Harry Reid, Nevada
• John Warner, Virginia

I have no idea whether you're right or wrong, but it sure was fun reading this . . .

Several have mentioned parallels with Iran/Contra, but there are some differences: The Iran/Contra committee was run by the Democrats, who granted immunity to Oliver North and other witness as a way of getting to the bigger fish. (Some have said as a way of winning some cheap partisan points.) It was not done with the intent of thwarting the prosecution, although it was done with the knoweldge that it might have that effect.

North turned the whole thing around to his favor, not just the criminal prosecution but also the PR battle. Many people disliked him, but his impasssioned testimony made it clear that when he stepped around the law, he was doing so in pursuit of what he considered a nobler goal.

The damage to the Reagan Administration's standing was greatly lessened, and Reagan's popularity ratings went back up when he finished his term.

The facts are not all in, but it's hard to believe that Mr. Rove will be equally convincing of a similarly noble goal.

I would think criminal conspiracy is a felony.  No?  Second, it is possible that Fitzgerald is considering espionage - not only a felony, but also treason.  Using this basis and your reference, it would seem that Roberts could be called.

Sure, if there's probable cause that Senator Roberts himself has engaged in a crime, he could be arrested. And if said crime was a felony, he could be even arrested on the floor of the Senate. But there's no evidence that he has done so.

And of course, if he knows something that could be germane to the investigation, of course he could be called as a witness. But I haven't seen any evidence that he knows anything useful.

But what Roberts says and does as part of the "speech and debate" of the Senate is protected and he cannot be made to answer for it any place other than the Senate. He can't be questioned simply because, in his capacity as a senator, he was conducting an investigation into Fitzgerald's investigation.

There might be some subtleties or exceptions of which I am unaware, but I think that my general understanding is correct and that Roberts' actions are protected.

cs, I believe NJ provides a paper record to back up their electronic voting machines, and the state has trended increasingly Democratic over the last ten years or so (Whitman's two gubernatorial victories by paper thin margins notwithstanding).

Machinations by ill-intentoned political operatives are much tougher to accomplish as the opposition's margin of victory widens. That is what I sense (hope?) will happen in '06.

In the vein of "they'll do anything," here's what they'll do:  The Bush Administration becomes the defender of the First Amendment and buys off the press.  How?  See the Hill's coverage of yesterday's developments, which includes this gem:

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) said that "the talk on the street" was less about Rove and more about shielding reporters from having to disclose their confidential sources.

"There's no federal protection, and that's what we should be focused on," he said. "There's a loud cry for protection for journalists."

Can't you imagine some swell party in Northwest: "Gee, guys, how could you be mad at us after the swell bill we passed to shield your sources (which you already enjoy in 49 states).  So go easy on T. Blossom, ok?"

If they fall for this--and they will if we don't push them--it is game over.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071
305/rove.html

Well you're right in that he can't be questioned about actually having the hearings or anything that he says in the hearings (its called Congressional Immunity), however.....

If, for instance, the SP finds out that Roberts got a call from someone and agreed to hold hearings for the purpose of discrediting or impeding the SP's investigation, that would certainly be a proper matter for investigation and, if necessary, prosecution for obstruction of justice.

Where, exactly, IS the SP is with this thing?? i mean, geez, we could sit around for MONTHS while more atrocities pile up, but can't we just get to the INDICTMENTS, please? Wouldn't that help stave off Roberts? Has anyone seen anything about where the grand jury stands? What are they WAITING for??

For those wondering about Fitzgerald getting fired:  there are more subtle ways someone can try to render him ineffective without actually firing him (or accepting his resignation).

Here's how it works.  Fitzgerald has two jobs, one as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and one as Special Counsel investigating the leak and any related obstruction of justice.  As US Attorney, his Senate-confirmed presidential appointment has a four-year term that expires in October 2005 (around the same time as the leak grand jury).  Under the applicable law, he stays in office beyond that time until a successor takes over, but Bush could simply say he's nominating someone else to a new term and ask Gonzalez to appoint an interim US Attorney in the meantime.  Except when the White House changes hands, that never happens, so it would be an obvious play to shut Fitzgerald down, and seems pretty unlikely.

More to the point, such a move wouldn't end Fitzgerald's role as Special Counsel, which is a separate commission from the Attorney General.  In fact, losing his job as US Attorney would make his standing as Special Counsel more secure, since federal regs actually require a Special Counsel to be someone who doesn't already have a DOJ job.  As Special Counsel, I'm pretty sure Fitzgerald has no set term (DOJ isn't putting the 12/30/03 order appointing him on line, so I may be wrong), but the regs do say that he answers to -- and gets his annual budget for the investigation approved by -- the Attorney General.

AG Gonzalez recused himself from that role when he was confirmed, which means that Fitzgerald has up to now answered to Deputy AG Jim Comey.  Comey and Fitzgerald are old friends and former trial partners, and Comey won't shut Fitzgerald down (it was Comey who appointed Fitzgerald as soon as Ashcroft finally recused himself).

But here's the important point:  Comey is stepping down in September, and the guy nominated to replace him, Timothy Flanigan, used to work under Gonzalez in the White House Counsel's office.  Flanigan would almost certainly have to recuse himself from the investigation as well.  He has his confirmation hearing tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee, so perhaps they'll ask him about it (though it looks like there's plenty of other stuff to discuss). 

If Flanigan doesn't commit to recusing himself, there may well be reason to think Fitzgerald is about to get more intrusive oversight within the administration.  Maybe not an outright shutdown of his investigation (that would be too clumsy), but things like budget constraints, slow review of requests, frequent reporting to the acting AG, and no protection from Roberts' request for testimony before the Intel Committee.

BTW, it's not clear who would oversee Fitzgerald if Flanigan does recuse.  My guess is it would be Solicitor General Paul Clement (technically the no. 3 position in DOJ) or Associate AG Robert McCallum (the guy who recently intervened to hamstring the lawyers handling the government's tobacco industry RICO case).

Go to 911 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' site JUST A CITIZEN.  Good Articles, Sen. Waxman sent letter, Sibel Edmonds has started a group to protect government Whistleblowers that links from JUST A CITIZEN site.

Find some good ideas what we as citizens can do to protect honest people like Fitzgerald who try to bring the Bush Crime Family to justice.

With enough support from the American people, it will, God Willing, happen and our long, long National nightmare of the Bush, PNAC Mob will be over and we can regain our government.

If the White House dicussed with Roberts the goal of establishing an investigation into Fitzgerald in order to cool his jets and to grant immunity to the culprits, would this qualify as 'obstruction of justice', since the WH is obstructing Fitzgerald's ability to convict the culprits?

And, according to the last Congress, isn't 'obstruction' impeachable? 

I agree that is a desperation type move, although I am not to sure that it won't succeed due to the Republican majority, and the ubiquitous corruption of DC.

Personally I hate to blame it on the M$M, although I cannot fathom why the press is not doing a better job on these stories, unless of course all the denigrating remarks about it from Jefferson onward are correct. Travelgate was born of hurt feelings of the media elite, and so one must presume that these elite are again in cahoots with the criminal elements that now run the elective institutions of the government, ala Judy Miller.

I suppose, with more scandals ongoing at one time than I can remember, and so little press coverage of any of them, that one more by Mr. Roberts will seem insignificant. Unfortunately that is precisely the problem.  

I see two Republicans on that Committee who might not cooperate with Roberts in his attempts to hamper Fitzgerald's investigation-  Hagel and Snow.

Democrats should seriously pursue the question of whether anyone has actually died as a result of this leak. 

Roberts may not want to do this but it will be hard to ignore if associates of Ms Plame have died after a spasm of partisan political smears by White House officials.

I want to say, "Unbelievable!" but, well....how can we not believe that The Liar and the lying liars who work for him wouldn't pull a stunt like this?!

I think that Fitzgerald's best protection rests with us: the people who are out here, including the many lurkers, watching this game of brinksmanship coming from the White House. The Bushites and Rovians are trying to create their own brand of terror. Aren't we at war with "it"? I guess that would make them all "fair game".

Anyway, I'm hoping that this threat will just galvanize Fitzgerald to his task. I'm also hoping that he gives Roberts quid pro quo, and looks into his (Roberts') own motivations for obstructing justice.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

ds