I'm not obtuse enough to believe that this involves anything at all other than threatened payback unless Fitzgerald stops annoying the White House. In a normal world this would be an illegal attempt to obstruct justice, but that fateful day in 2001 changed everything. Yes, 1/20/01 was a pivotal moment in our history.

Canning Fitzgerald would be just one more indication that the Republican Party leadership doesn't really care about what is right, they only care about what advances the interests of the Republican Party.

This is a shot across Fitzgerald's bow--"Keep it up, and you're dead to us."

So far, it seems like Fitzgerald is woven from better thread, and won't wilt under such craven attempts to pressure him away from justice---but then-again my usual state of pessimism is continually insufficient for the Bush Administration and it's antics. On that note, I won't be surprised if Fitz wakes up one morning with a horse's head for a bed-partner--literally.

Interesting. Suppose for argument's sake that this is really a threat, and suppose it's carried through.

I think it's a good bet that this will not slow down Fitz's investigation -- doesn't seem like his style. Given that his appointment as special counsel is distinct from his US Atty's job (which I'm assuming is true), we can assume he'll stay on, and we can assume that, short of firing him, the Republicans would have to think about how all of this would play in Peoria if Fitz does send up some WH indictments.

One could imagine it cutting two ways.

First, you can easily see how people would think "obviously he's got the goods -- the Bushies were so afraid of him they canned him, and it didn't even work!"

Second, and I think more likely (in the event all of the suppositions above actually were to occur), is this: the GOP's slime-and-defend machine swings into action on the day Fitz indicts, accusing him of seeking payback -- "He's just mad that he lost his job!"

If you're going to take that tack, you need to set up a supposed grievance....and getting canned as USA would be just the sort of thing these folks would use. I bet if they do can him, they're thinking along the lines above. Defense, not offense. Slimey defense, but defense still.

One thing to remember. If Fitzgerald's probe does include Bush and Cheney, then who benefits if they are disgraced. Hastert, after all, is next in line.

The Saturday night massacre all over again. Really, who would this surprise in terms on whether it could happen, and how kind history would be to repeat the result of such an act?

There has also been a speculation in the past 24 hours about the possible real motives behind announced plans by Senate Republicans to hold hearings on "how to better protect our spies from being outed."  (Ahhhhhh the sheer cynicism of such a ploy.)
However, one observer said maybe the idea was to reuse the successful approach pursued by Reagan supporters in Iran-Contra -- namely convene a Senate hearing, hand out immunity for testimony given and protect folks who might otherwise face a criminal indictment because their statements under immunity can't be used against them.
My only question on this however, is that I don't think such protections would be valid ex post facto since most or all of the main players in the Rove matter have already given testimony before Mr. Fitzgerald's grand jury and giving those folks Senate immunity would not, I think, protect them against statements already made.  Would welcome response by those with better legal minds and understanding than I have. 

This may seem counterintuitive, but the Combine in Illinois has been plotting to get rid of the guy since he was appointed. First, the defeated Peter Fitzgerald who appointed him or actually-got him not to run.  Then they hoped to quietly get the President to ask Patrickt to step down at the end of his term. 

The Plame investigation made a quiet exit at the request of the administration impossible. While Josh is rightly concerned, they can't touch him right now. Hastert might be upset about Plame, but he is far more upset at how Patrick Fitzgerald is tearing up the corrupt practices in both Illinois parties.  He's hated him since he was appointed.  The Plame investigation is now Patrick's best defense against attacks by the Republican establishmen and the Daley Machine.

More at:
http://www.archpundit.com/archives/012727.html

Read the Tribune story and you'll see it was based solely on comments made by former US Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who considers the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald to be his greatest accomplishment in six years.

Sen. Fitzgerald didn't back up his comments with any evidence or anything else except his own gut feeling.  He's not in the loop any longer, so I doubt he has any real idea what's going on.

dweb823 is right.  The difference between immunity here and immunity in Iran-Contra is that the major witnesses are all already on record.

Witnesses forced to testify by a grant of immunity (forced in the sense that they can't invoke the Fifth Amendment) are protected against the use of what they say against them and also against "derivative use."  This means the evidence they give can't be used as a lead, and everything that is produced by such a lead can't be used against them.  Olly North got off because Lawrence Walsh couldn't show that none of his evidence derived from immunized testimony before Congress.  Fitzgerald will face no such problem.

The other thing to notice is that immunity doesn't cover perjury.  If you're subpoenaed, granted immunity, and then you lie, you'll be treated like any other perjuror.

Hate to be nitipicky, but what is the situation when someone lies to a Grand Jury, then is granted immunity in Congess?

OT-  
Where can I lodge a complaint about how seriously unfriendly and just plain fucked up this site is to Mac users.  I formatted that properly using standard html tags for italics and my strike didn't work either.  And what's with this "Apple-stlye-span" shit?  I've seen quite a bit of that before.  My post is nearly unreadable.  How very unpleasant.  
Furthermore my OS X integrated spell checker will not work in this box.  And using the buttons on the bottom of the comments box for automating html tags does some really messy shit too.
Josh this is completely unacceptable.  You must make this a priority.  Fix it by the end of this week-end or this very cute puppy will be sleeping with the fishes.

They can't take the risk of firing Fitzgerald from his special counsel role.  Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) says that a lawyer for the government must not reveal what happens in the grand jury.  (Hence, Fitzgerald's tight-lipped investigation.)  It doesn't say anything about former lawyers for the government.

His role as U.S. Attorney might be in jeopardy, but my interest in cleaning up corruption in Chicago is markedly less intense than cleaning up corruption in the White House.

I am Hastert's opponent for 2006. It sickens me that people in my my district continue to vote for this guy. They have signs that say, "Oswego, home of Congressman and Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert." Barf!!
As for the Fitzgerald issue, I am not surprised. When hasn't Denny done what he's been told to do by Bush.
He supposedly has a reputation for reaching across the aisle to Dem's and reaching a consensus. It's more like he reaches across and chokes.
He is doing exactly what his master tells him.

With apologies to those who saw an earlier form of this comment on Monday re Roberts' investigation of Fitzgerald, a few points about whether and how he can be fired.

Fitzgerald's term as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois is up in Ocotber, but the law provides that he stays in office until a successor is confirmed (28 USC 541(b)). So that job is his until either he resigns or he is removed by Bush (or conceivably by impeachment), or Bush appoints and the Senate confirms someone in his place.  The latter would be virtually unprecedented where the US Attorney wants to stay and there's been no change in Presidents.  And the confirmation hearing of any nominee could obviously become a very uncomfortable process for the White House.

Even if removed as US Attorney, Fitzgerald would still be 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.  I don't know if that issue came up at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee (it looks like there was 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).

One bit of good news:  federal regs require DOJ to report to Congress (including the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee) any decision by the AG to remove a Special Counsel or, after the investigation is over, any decision by the AG "that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued."  So while they can make life difficult for Fitzgerald, they can't keep it quiet

This process started with Sensenbrenner trying to chump Fitzgerald's office over a drug sentence.
Sensenbrenner and Roberts are merely stooges of Bushco who happen to be members of Congress.
There is definitely a concerted effort to get Fitz fired for "other" reasons, or to cast aspersions on his competence, in general.
The whole thing reminds me of vampires or other creatures of the night that, confronted by the light of truth, lash out with sharpened fangs.
These criminals will not go quietly to their appointed fates, and will use the entire apparatus of the state to protect themselves, regardless of the damage it does to the country.
Talk about evildoers!  They are a cancer on the entire country.

I have no personal knowledge of Fiztgerald, he appears to be an upstanding guy. But as an Illinoisan I think I can tell you that not too many in the GOP were pissed to see George Ryan go...the guy was a scandal machine and hurt their party. As someone mentioned above, Daley may have the real motive here, and Daley and Bush seem to get along very well when they met.

 But, if my job as Prosecutor(not SP but as DA) was in jeopardy I'd be pissed and  I would haul that fatass high school wrestling coach (yes he was, believe it or not, Kaneland HS)  we call Speaker of the House and find out for sure.

There's a tipping point in all of this, and the extent of evidence that Fitzgerald has will determine which way it goes. Undoubtedly, that extent is what the House and Senate hearings will be attempting to find out come September.

If the Fitzgerald investigation will produce only peripheral damage to the president and vice president, Hastert will play things locally, protecting his Illinois turf and leaving it at that.

If the Fitzgerald investigation will seriously damage the president and vice president directly, then Hastert will have the cards in his hands. After all, he is the one who can set impeachment in motion.

Why would he do so?
 
Think about it. Who is president if Bush is impeached and removed (or resigns) and Cheney is impeached and removed (or resigns), for instance?

I'll admit this latter scenario sounds farfetched, but the chance to be Caesar has a strange way of making the unthinkable happen. It's not imposible that we could end up with a President Hastert and Speaker DeLay before this power play is over, and they could claim the corruption had been eliminated.

Without honor, all things are possible.

The comparison I've been making with the Fitzgerald investigation is the one that Kenneth Starr did own Clinton.  What I admired about the Fitzgerald investigation was its lack of leaks -- until recently.  Starr's investigation of Whitewater, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky leaked and leaked.  And it leaked only information that was negative against Clinton.

When the investigation was finally reported, information that would have put Clinton in a good light shown.  That's why MSM should not use leaks from grand jury investigation without identifying the source or at least the political bias of the source.  The leaks can be very misleading.  

The leaks in the current investigation may be just as misleading as those that occurred in Starr's.  There is a very good chance that Karl Rove is not guilty of the particular violation unless Fitzgerald is going after the mastermind behind the crime as well as the perp.  When this investigation finally surfaces with whatever report is made, it will certainly climb high in the blog indices like Daypop.

Fitzgerald has acquired enough respect on both sides of the aisle and in both wings of the blogoshpere, that any revenge action by the current faith-based faction running the administration would certainly realize the curse of the second term.  (The pervious link is a test of the new system which seems to be working as well as the previous one did for me.)  

First off, you make an excellent point to mention the possible (nay probable) civil actions to be taken once this all shakes out. But I think they just might fire Fitzgerald anyway, using their smear machine to justify it in some manner.

With all due respect, and at the risk of continuing on an OT vein, I disagree.  It is the responsibility of the one who wishes to communicate with others via this medium to insure that it may be easily done without undue complications or inconvenience.  It's basic self-interest.  

And having found a thread on this issue elsewhere here I'd say it is the developers of the wysiwyg software who are responsible for the problems here.

emptywheel,

Do you thinl Fitzgerald is going after the Niger forgeries?

Polly

YES! Iran Contra movie!!! Did i just read that the 9/11 patsies i mean "hijackers" trained at the same airports stuff came and went during iran contra? Diane Watson told media reformers in St. Louis about an illegal gun store in L.A. NOW being protected from the top ...i asked her if that stuff was still goin on & she said yeah

And this time Oliver can NOT back down when his critics start to whine...

And Leslie Cockburn and Bob Parry and Al Martin can write or consult...

o boy o boy o boy

(p.s. i'm on a mac using osX.2- no problem here that i can notice)