More Trails Lead to Rove; Aschroft's Involvement Again Comes into Question
Latest on Detainee Abuse Photos
Those who read the American Prospect or the Village Voice, know that as of late Murray Waas has had the most up to date information on treasongate. Last week, in the American Prospect, Murray disclosed that Rove had met with Judith Miller shortly before Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA Agent, and that the princiipal reason Miller has not cooperated with Fitzgerald is that Scooter Libby had never given a specific privelege waiver to her (which I of course asked him to do -- no response as of yet).
This week, in the Village Voice, Waas revealed that the reason Ashcroft ultimately was forced to permit the appointment of a special prosecutor was because of concerns that Rove may have misled FBI investigators regarding his role in the matter. The problem is, because of his personal and political relationships with Rove, Ashcroft should have recused himself when he first learned about Rove's involvement. He also should not have allowed himself to be privately briefed on Rove's involvement.
Because of these concerns, I plan to ask the Department's Office of Inspector General to investigate whether Ashcroft violated applicable recusal and conflict of interest rules and guidelines. (I previously asked them to investigate the delay in the Department's investigation and the advance notice given to the White House). I hope to have more on this tomorrow.While I am discussing treasongate, I am happy to report that more than 3500 individuals have joined with me in asking the president not to pardon Karl Rove, should he eventually be indicted. Let me also remind readers that Louise Slaughter is still gathering signatures in her effort to ask the president to give Rove a Pink Slip. Both are important and worthwhile efforts.
Finally, Rawstory has a story on the governnment's sad efforts to prevent not only the release of detainee abuse photos, but to prevent any public scrutiny of their arguments. As I explain in the article, it is "truly Kafkaesque to envision a government which does not even permit its legal arguments to be disclosed for publlic scrutiny. This not only violates the Freedom of Information Act, it turns the Act on its head."
http://www.conyersblog.us/