Is there any chance that Gonzales is implicated in Plamegate?

[grasswire]

I'm asking because of the sudden appearance of Paul McNulty as Deputy Attorney General and the high visibility he's getting the last couple of weeks. What is driving that?

McNulty is a Bush fixer of the worst kind. He was instrumental in the Florida recount, and groomed Ashcroft for confirmation hearings, and then was given the rocket docket in Alexandria as U.S. Attorney there.

Now he surfaces as Deputy Attorney General and is getting a lot of deliberate face time.

Why? Why?

[LA lady]

1. Recused

Gonzales recused himself from the case.

[MADem]

3. Because he was WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL at the time...n/t

[grasswire]

4. so maybe something else could force Gonzales out?

And what do you think of the info that Gonzales, McNulty and Mueller were all going to resign if forced to return Wm. Jefferson's possessions?!

[MADem]

2. Oh, hell yeah!

He can't fire Fitz. He can't touch the thing. Ashcroft recused, Comey set it up, Comey left, and now it has a life of its own.
Total bummer for BushCo.

[Catrina]

5. Yes, Gonzales is peripherally implicated in the Plame affair. He was WH

Counsel at the time of the investigation began and was told to inform all WH staff not to remove or alter anything because it might be evidence in the investigation. He failed to follow that order until 12 hours after he received it. He communicated with Andrew Card during those 12 hours. It was speculated at the time that evidence could have been tampered with during that time. Gonzales has testified before the GJ.

If any of the missing emails, recently 'found' had been erased (Fitzgerald did say that the WH had erased emails in one of the Libby court filings) during the 12 hours, then both Andrew Card and anyone he may have communicated with, and Gonzales would, (they may have already) have to explain that. Andrew Card recently resigned. He was Chief of Staff at the time, so contacting him was probably procedural. So far, there's nothing to say that Gonzales is under investigation.

Gonzales Raises Questions for Andy Card to Answer

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/24/gonzales-raises-questions-for-andy-card-to-answer

[grasswire]

6. yes, of course

And yet we've heard no talk of him being a possible target of Fitzgerald, have we? Isn't it possible?

I'm wondering because of the sudden promotion of McNulty and the shove to get him face time. Since when does a newbie to the AG's office get shoved in front of the cameras repeatedly?

[Catrina]

7. There's probably a lot we don't know about Gonzales' role in Plamegate

We only know what has been publised. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of those 250 emails Fitz found lately give a little more information about his role, if any. I can't imagine all this happening without him knowing about it and trying to write laws to get around whatever ones already existed.

As far as McNulty, I don't know what to think of him. H20Man said he's a friend of Fitzgerald's. I have read speculation that Fitz and McNulty may have cooperated as the Plame and Aipac cases crossed over into each other.

Just found this. It's an excellent timeline going back decades on the neocons. What's stunninng is the familiar names, many of whom were investigated on suspicion of
security violations. Some of them:

Wolfowitz
Ledeen
Perle
Feith
Bryen
Rhode

All of them given high security clearance in this administration. It's a very good article that gives the background of these people. I don't understand why Congress allowed them to get into these positions considering their backgrounds. But McNulty is the prosecutor on the AIPAC case ~ I hope he is one of the good guys.


January-February 2005: Several of the above four top AIPAC staffers testify before a federal grand jury convened by U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty. AIPAC places Rosen and Weissman on paid leave. Meanwhile, Franklin is quietly rehired at the Pentagon, against the FBI's wishes, in a non-sensitive position.

http://litbmueller.blogspot.com/2005/05/lawrence-franklin-case-possible.html