Where's Fitzmas?

Jane is disappointed there is no Fitzmas news, so she reports on what she thinks is happening. Here's one insight.

The nomination of Viveca Novak’s husband to the FEC is nothing if not a giant “f**ck you” to Fitz, and if it happened in say the Gotti organization it would definitely raise the eyebrows of a prosecutor. It’s also a big “who’s your daddy” moment for Viveca Novak, as she is probably out of a job and now the key defense witness for a man who is now going to be her husband’s boss. Those who want to argue they nominated him purely on his merits with no notion of any larger implication? Please. This is Karl Rove we’re talking about here.

Viveca's husband is Robert D. Lenhard. His nomination was announced by the White House here. I also find the appointment curious, especially since Mr. Lenhard donated $1,000. to John Kerry in 2004. [Update: A commenter below points out that Lenhard was Harry Reid's choice to fill a Democratic slot on the FEC months ago, as reported last August in the Hill. It's Congressional leadership that picks the nominees, Bush just follows through with the appointment. So scratch that theory.]

Arianna too writes the appointment appears politically motivated.

Imagine that: Novak provides Bush's Brain with a possible get-out-of-jail-free card and -- just weeks after she tells Fitzgerald things Rove's lawyer desperately wants the special prosecutor to hear -- Bush taps her hubby for the FEC post.

< Judge Tosses Federal Death Sentence | Ten Great Myths of the Iraq War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    A Rovian move perhaps but good politics either way. I would have read Jane's entire post but it was unavailable when I last checked. What I love about this story even more is how it feeds the paranoic tendencies of certain folks. What I don't like about the story is that this type of thing is not uncommon for either party to engage in. Those who reside in the beltway have rather incestuous reletionships with each other. It is not much different than a certain CIA employee recommending thier spouse for a sensitive mission to another continent. And then crying foul when someone points this out as they are releasing a book...and appearing in Vanity Fair and on CSPAN, and NBC and CNN...and in Time or Newsweek. Or perhaps how two party consultants can be involved with different candidates but share the same bed. Face it most people in Washington just plain suck and are just in it for themselves and the rst of the country be damned.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    Jimcee - what's paranoid about watching Rove/Libby and whoever else deliberately break the law, cover it up, and see a president and congress not lift a finger to punish them? Are we supposed to give any credence to the he said/she said argument you try and make stick? Who knows if Rove will get indicted, or even go to jail if he is, but common sense says he's guilty. Libby is guilty. And then trying to take our eye off the ball by sliming Wilson - whose claims you don't even try and refute, since, well, he was telling the truth. Sliming is enough. That doesn't make Libby and Rove any less guilty, and your saying that it happens in both parties doesn't cut it either. Like Fitz said - you're just trying to throw sand in our eyes. I do agree with your last sentence, and I think that's what's got so many of us so passionate about this whole story. We want to do what we can to get this country on the right track again, and see this as a possible reality check to force those who've refused to admit it to themselves to see what Bush et al are really about. A few indictments might go a long way in getting that message across.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:11:46 PM EST
    Chuckyboi, Time to get off the crack there fella. It might help with your talking points. (Oh and by the way nice invective.) Phrith, You are awful quick to decide who is guilty. I just wish I had you mind-reading capabilities. I'll wait for Fitzgerald's possible indictments and watch the trials and see how they come out. If it were up to you there would be no need for any of that messy judicial stuff. Me, I'll wait and see what, if anything happens in the Plame affair. I'm sure I have insulted all the true Americans on this site with my aquiessence to the judicial system and I'm sure some fine philosophical thoughts will come from some folks here. I'll tell you what; when you cleanse Washington of all the filth and scum from both sides of the aisle and end the incestiousness between lobbyists, politicians and political appointees then you will have done something amazing. But somehow I get the impression that for most here there is only one side that needs to be purged and somehow I get the idea that they all are Republicans excepting Joe Lieberman who seems to be a victim of some sort of pogrom lately.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 09:24:26 PM EST
    Again, sorry to have learned this from The West Wing, but it's true: the President is legally required to keep the FEC politically balanced. When a Democratic commissioner leaves, he has to appoint a Democratic replacement. It would be more odd if Lenhard hadn't donated to John Kerry. And while I love Jane's writing, everyone needs to read this article from The Hill in August of this year. Guess what Rovian mastermind thought of Lenhard?
    Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said before the recess said that he would ask the president to nominate Steve Walther, a Reno-based lawyer who represented Reid during a recount of the vote after his narrow reelection victory in 1998, and Robert Lenhard, counsel for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union allied with the Democratic party.
    (The party leadership in Congress traditionally picks FEC nominees and the President appoints them. I also learned this from The West Wing, and it also happens to be true.) It's definitely become more interesting, and deserves scrutiny, but Harry Reid wanted Lenhard for the post before any of us even knew Viveca Novak (his wife) had anything to do with the Plame affair. Dig more, please, but not indiscriminately.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 11:10:09 PM EST
    Jimcee - Excuse me for jumping to conclusions. Let's see - It's clear he leaked to Cooper, if no-one else. Are you so gullible to believe he is innocent? He may get off, but you must have just fallen off a turnip truck if you believe he's innocent. Or just have drunk a bit too much koolaid.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimcee on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 06:42:07 AM EST
    Phrith, You are very willing to jump to conclusions and are obviously willing to toss the whole judicial system if you think you know someone is guilty before thier trial. You would have made a great inquisitor, Soviet judge or one of Saddam's henchmen. As flawed as the judicial system is in the US your version is down right scary. Oh, and your excused.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    Jimcee - Your dripping sarcasm and mispelling aside, (it's "you're excused" - and thank you for that!) you still avoid my question. That is, with the information that's already been presented, do you honestly believe that Rove is innocent? My belief in his guilt is most admittedly lacking in a judge's sentence, but IMO based on common sense and the facts as have been presented. It has nothing to do with tossing the judicial system aside. I'm pleased as punch that in this case it is finally taking its proper course through the courts. The Bush crew has managed to avoid any oversight until this case, unless you count Abramoff and friends. I'd just like to hear you defend Rove with some facts, rather than the typical smears you guys are so good at. I guess I'm a simple person - maybe you can help me out. Fact 1: Rove leaked Plame's identity and position in the CIA to Cooper. Fact 2: It was a crime to leak her name and position to anyone. Is it such a stretch to put those two basic facts together to come to the conclusion that he's guilty? What am I missing?

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    Oops - guilty of "misspelling" myself.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimcee on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    Phrith, Spelling is not an issue contrary to your or CDS10's assertions. I am not defending Rove as much as I am allowing the judicial system to run its course. I don't know Rove told anyone anything because I didn't sit on the grand jury and if you did you shouldn't be saying anything. Any facts that have been presented are few and far between. There has been plenty of speculation by Joe Wilson and numerous talking heads but were they in the grand jury room? There is much speculation but that doesn't a case make. I'll wait for first, an indictment and then a trial and then a verdict.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 11:46:55 PM EST
    What Charlie said. I'd only add that I base the first of my two facts mentioned above - that Rove leaked to Cooper - on Cooper's article he wrote after his grand jury appearance. For some reason I believe him more than all the spins Luskin has tried to weave through all of Rove's 4 (5?) visits to Fitz & co.

    Re: Where's Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    Since this is such a serious issue will Fitzgerald indict Plame's son? Plame's Son outs her