Let me separate this report into two sections.
1. FACTS and QUESTIONS
2. ANALYSIS
All of the FACTS in section "1." are not disputed. Every FACT in this report is 100% documented.
The QUESTIONS are simply questions.
The ANALYSIS section contains my take on the facts.
1. FACTS and QUESTIONS:
The CIA leak investigation has been shut down according to George W. Bush.
Thanks to MissWaverly of the Democratic Underground discussion forum for pointing out this quote.
"On Air Force One flying back from a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush said of the decision: 'It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation.' "
DU link
New York Times link
Last week, Randall Samborn changed the official response of the Special Prosecutor's office regarding the status of the investigation.
When asked last week if the investigation was ongoing, Samborn refused to comment. This answer changed the official response of the Special Prosecutor's office as to the status of the investigation. Samborn has consistently invoked the "no comment" response to "almost" every question he's been asked. But back on October 28, 2005, at the time Libby's indictments were announced, Samborn was asked if the investigation was ongoing and to this he replied,
The investigation will continue with a new grand jury.
Fitzgerald -- at the Libby indictment press conference -- stated that the investigation was ongoing.
From a CBS News Report on October 28, 2005:
"Rove’s lawyer said he was told by the prosecutor’s office that investigators had 'made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and would continue their probe into Rove’s conduct.
Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today."
Political Forecast link
There you have it, back in October 2005, Samborn and Fitzgerald (at the Libby Indictment press conference) both unequivocally stated that the investigation was ongoing.
As of yesterday, the official word from Fitzgerald’s office – via Samborn -- is:
"Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, 'I'm not commenting on that as well at this time.' "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/ap/politics/mainD8I7C7N00.shtml
How is it possible that President Bush can unequivocally state that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation, while Samborn refuses to confirm this?
Some have argued that if Samborn were to say that the investigation was ongoing -- as he did at the time of the Libby indictment press conference -- that would elicit further media inquiries about who Fitz was investigating. To this I say, "So what?" Fitz can answer those questions in the same manner he answered them at the Libby indictment press conference when he refused to give any names. From the Libby indictment press conference:
QUESTION: Is Karl Rove off the hook? And are there any other individuals who might be charged? You say you're not quite finished.
FITZGERALD: What I can say is the same answer I gave before: If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named, because we either charged someone or we don't talk about them. And don't read that answer in the context of the name you gave me.
Libby Indictment Press conference link
But the more serious question is --
IF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION HAS ENDED AS PRESIDENT BUSH HAS STATED, WHY WON'T SAMBORN OR FITZGERALD CONFIRM THE PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT?
If the President is correct, the question remains -- WHO SHUT THE INVESTIGATION DOWN? I can think of three answers:
1. Fitzgerald shut it down.
2. External Government forces shut it down.
3. Judge Reggie Walton shut it down.
It's obvious from the statements of Luskin, Corallo and President Bush, they want us to believe it was Fitzgerald who shut the investigation down after clearing the entire Bush cabal of wrongdoing.
Please also note that Samborn would not comment last week on the status of Karl Rove even though Rove's attorney and spokesperson claim that Rove was cleared by Fitzgerald.
Various commentators have argued that Samborn's recent "no comments" should be ignored since he almost always answers "no comment."
But "almost" doesn't count except in horeshoes and hand grenades. Samborn's recent refusal to comment on the status of the investigation stands in stark contrast to his comment of October 28, 2005 -- "the investigation will continue..." And since that very specific comment was the only comment with any direct substance Samborn has ever issued, it makes sense to scrutinize carefully his most recent refusal to confirm that the investigation is ongoing.
Additionally, Fitzgerald, through Samborn, has refused to publicly issue any exculpatory comments or evidence pertaining to Rove's status.
Furthermore, as I pointed out last week, Samborn's official comment from October 28, 2005 -- "the investigation will continue" -- has been mysteriously edited out of the CBS News report the comment first appeared in.
And since I wrote that report last week, Samborn's only substantial comment --"the investigation will continue" -- remains mysteriously absent from the CBS News report. And since that quote was attributed to CBS News, there now exists no direct confirmation that Samborn ever said that.
The link provided for the original CBS News report by politicalforecast.net is
CBS News link 2
Neither link includes the quote by Samborn, “the investigation will continue.”
It wasn’t just politicalforecast.net who quoted this Samborn statement. You can find reference to it at Think Progress
as well as Democratic Underground
The quote was also carried by WTKR, but the page has now been removed.
The full WTKR story with the Samborn quote can be found here
ANALYSIS
If Samborn's October 28, 2005 quote -- "the investigation will continue" -- had never been uttered, it would be difficult to read anything into Samborn's most recent comments.
There appears to be a coordinated effort to distract those examining Samborn's refusal to confirm President Bush's allegation that Fitz has ended the investigation. That effort has also been extended to Samborn's refusal to issue a public exculpation of Rove's status. The greek chorus sounds something like this:
"Samborn always says 'no comment'. Samborn would say 'no comment' even if somebody asked him if his name was Randall?"
But the facts don't support the greek chorus because Samborn was very comfortable stating "the investigation will continue" back in Ocotber 2005.
There must be a reason why Fitzgerald via Samborn has refused to issue a public confirmation that:
A. President Bush was correct when he stated Fitzgerald "ended" the investigation.
B. Rove has been cleared.
Somebody with access needs to ask CBS News why they've rewritten history regarding Samborn's comments of October 28, 2005.
SOMEBODY WITH ACCESS NEEDS TO ASK CBS NEWS WHY THEY'VE REWRITTEN HISTORY REGARDING SAMBORN'S COMMENTS OF OCTOBER 28, 2005.
If the status of this investigation has been terminated by "SEALED" activity, Fitzgerald has NO LEGAL OPTION to comment. That would give Rove, Luskin and Bush the freedom to liberally comment for Fitzgerald. The only way for Fitzgerald to legally give us a hint that something might be rotten in Denmark is to issue a "no comment" where "no comment" did not exist before.
And that's exactly what we have now, a "no comment" from Samborn to the only question he ever offered a substantive answer to in the past.
I want to go on the record and say I believe in Patrick Fitzgerald. Everything available to me as a critical human being which influences my instincts is screaming loud to me that Fitzgerald is an ethical man swimming amongst vipers. And I believe he and Samborn have used the only tool available to them to inform the public that the situation is not as clear cut as Luskin, Rove and Bush would have us believe.
Last week, Samborn issued a "no comment" to the only question he previously made a substantive comment to. And he's refused to confirm Luskin's statements purporting to exonorate Rove as well.
It's incredible that a US Attorney refuses to confirm the President of the United States concerning the question of whether a criminal investigation with grave national security interests has been ended.
I believe it's totally in the realm of possibility, if not probability, that Fitzgerald was shut down by "SEALED" activity. Had Fitzgerald seen this coming, it's possible he may have educated the Grand Jury to their Constitutional powers of PRESENTMENT as opposed to INDICTMENT. It's also alternatively possible Fitzgerald was ordered to end the investigation. And it's possible that both of these scenarios are in play.
If Fitzgerald has been illegally stopped, and that decision is sealed, then Fitz can't speak out. The Bush cabal would know that he couldn't legally speak out and thereafter choose their statements carefully, making it appear as if Fitz has ended the investigation by selective quotation. Of course, Luskin can help to clear all of this up by publishing the purported document which allegedly clears Rove. But so far, Luskin refuses to do that.
If my analysis is on point, I expect Fitzgerald may be awaiting future decisions of Judicial review before he takes considers more drastic options, ie resignation.
Furthermore, all things considered, I'm very disgusted by bloggers who have eaten Luskin's comments up like good little Bush admin. stooges. The Talkleft.com attempt to squelch all dialogue concerning Rove's status is particularly sickening. You fold up the tents and go home dear girl, I'm sticking with Fitz until he officially clears this up.
Citizenspook
PLEASE COPY AND REPOST AT WILL
All Citizenspook reports are made freely available with no copyright attached. Feel free to copy sections or entire articles at will.
P.S. Various readers have commented that when doing a Google search on "citizenspook" the engine sometimes provides only three hits and then on a second attempt 556 hits come up. As of last week there were over 3600 hits. I just confirmed that only 3 hits showed up followed by a second attempt which showed 556.
Furthermore, the blog has been redirected at times to various blank sites.
I find this all very flattering and it inspires me to keep writing.
Coming soon:
An in depth study of the Grand Jury use of Presentments.
