Not sure what use the Daily Flame thread is, since flame wars have erupted in virtually every comment thread, but via Memeorandum, this story by Murry Waas that actually has new information:
Justice Department officials made the crucial decision in late 2003 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in large part because investigators had begun to specifically question the veracity of accounts provided to them by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to senior law enforcement officials.
Several of the federal investigators were also deeply concerned that then attorney general John Ashcroft was personally briefed regarding the details of at least one FBI interview with Rove, despite Ashcroft’s own longstanding personal and political ties to Rove, the Voice has also learned. The same sources said Ashcroft was also told that investigators firmly believed that Rove had withheld important information from them during that FBI interview.
Those concerns by senior career law enforcement officials regarding the propriety of such briefings continuing, as Rove became more central to the investigation, also was instrumental in the naming of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald…
Also of concern to investigators when they sought Ashcroft’s recusal, according to law enforcement sources, was that a number among Ashcroft’s inner circle had partisan backgrounds that included working closely with Rove. Foremost among them was David Isrealite, who served as Ashcroft’s deputy chief of staff. Another, Barbara Comstock, who was the Justice Department’s director of public affairs during much of Ashcroft’s tenure, had previously worked for the Republican National Committee, where she was in charge of the party’s “opposition research” operations.
“It would have been a nightmare scenario if Ashcroft let something slip to an aide or someone else they had in common with Rove . . . and then word got back to Rove or the White House what investigators were saying about him,” says a former senior Justice Department official, familiar with the matter.
You know the drill.
aaron
Sure…I’ll go first. Karl Rove is going DOWN!…and I love it! The lying sack of crap….lying to the FBI?!?!?! So do conservatives who are defending Rove think it’s ok to lie to the FBI? This is going to bite the president in the ass. Normally ..I would be upset with the office of the presidency being discredited…but …I’ve gotten used to it…it’s nothing new for the Bush Admin. Whether it’s manipulating scientific data on the environment..selling an optional war on “Slam Dunk” intel…or “Last throws” comments. Now we know Rove lied to Scotty about being involved…and the FBI!!!…what about the President? Did he lie to him…did the president ASK Rove about it? But I guess lying isn’t enough to get fired in the white house. Keep “Restoring integrity to the office.” Mr. Bush.
Bob
So what was the official reason for Ashcroft stepping down? He wanted to spend more time with his family (before he was indicted)?
Despite the hideous display of Kenneth Starr’s runaway special prosecution, maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing, considering the number of potential indictees on the Executive flow chart.
neil
Bob, I believe it had something to do with the rather large conflict of interest between Rove and Ashcroft, who has paid the former over $700,000 in campaign consulting fees.
DougJ
Ashcroft stepped aside he, unlike his predescessor Jane Reno, is an honorable man. If Reno had stepped aside, there is little doubt Clinton would have faced a lot more trouble on Whitewater. She shielded him from the beginning.
That’s the difference between this administration and Clinton’s. Where Clinton has his AG shield him from trouble, Bush sees an investigation of a a piddling matter — a matter that ultimately involved nothing more than the sharing of information that can be found in Who’s Who — and says “Bring it on!”
carpeicthus
DougJ: What color is the sky in your world? Ashcroft recused himself late and under pressure, and only after forewarning involved parties of the impending investigation even though (or, some might say, because) that would allow for more than enough time to destroy evidence.
demimondian
DougJ, you know, I used to resent you, but now tou’ve gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. I don’t know if you’re serious or not, but, by golly, every day, you get a rise out of somebody.
Bravo! Bring it on — keep making civil discourse hard to pursue.
(Wait, I know — DougJ is John Cole’s alter-ego. Those are the tentacles behind the mask.)