Fitzgerald, Rove, Libby, and my shiny new tinfoil hat

For those wishing to find evidence that I am crazy, this post could be the proof you need.

In the last few days, I have heard and read much speculation on several issues, among them prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's motivation. Well, I have a possible answer to that one, and I will explain it just as soon as I make sure that my tinfoil hat is snugly in place...

Let's start with a basic description of Fitzgerald. From everything I have seen about him (and I first read about him several months before anybody heard about Valerie Plame), he is basically a by-the-book, relentless hard ass. "Straight as an arrow" would be a accurate, if understated, description. He appears to take his job and responsibilities very seriously, and he does not seem the type to tolerate outside pressure or interference.

Some people are seeing the investigation as going to matters beyond the outing of a CIA operative. As described in an October 16 column by Frank Rich (discussed here),

Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq.

(emphasis added). Given what I have seen about Fitzgerald, I am not at all sure that his motivation is to show that the Iraq war was based on false premises (indeed, there is a ton of proof of that already). I nonetheless think he might be motivated by factors other than the outing of Plame.

One of those factors is a desire to get people who have basically screwed him around in this investigation. There are many indications that several people 1) have not been completely truthful, 2) have tried to mislead Fitzgerald, and 3) have basically been obstructionist. If my basic description of Fitzgerald is correct, such conduct will piss him off severely, and he will want to go after people for violating the law in this regard.

Anopther possible factor is related in principle to the first, but is more complicated and definitely requires a tinfoil hat. Back in October of 2002, the U.S. government issued a criminal indictment against Enaam Arnaout, the executive director of Benevolence International Foundation, one of the two major Islamic charities shut down by the U.S. government. The case was in Chicago, and the lead prosecutor was Patrick Fitzgerald. As reported by Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times on October 10, 2002,

The leader of a prominent Islamic charity was indicted on conspiracy and racketeering charges today in Chicago in what officials said was the most significant criminal case that federal officials have brought as they seek to shut down Al Qaeda's terrorist money pipeline.

When the indicted was handed down on October 9, 2002, John Ashcroft (remember him?) held a big press conference in which he trumpeted the importance of the case. Included in his remarks was the following:

Enaam Arnaout is charged with conspiracy to obtain fraudulently charitable donations in order to provide financial assistance to Al-Qa'ida and other organizations engaged in violence and terrorism.

*******

In fact, the indictment describes an archive of incriminating documents recovered in the Bosnian offices of BIF in March, 2002--documents that link Arnaout directly to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida.

In another New York Times article by Lichtblau ("Charity Leader Accepts a Deal In a Terror Case," February 11, 2003), prosecutors were quoted as saying that the Arnaout case was a "linchpin in their efforts to shut down Al Qaeda's money pipeline."

Wow! That all sounds really great, right? Well, don't get too excited. The story of the Arnaout case is exceptionally lengthy (even by my standards), but here is a synopsis: Arnaout agreed to a plea agreement, that agreement fell apart, the government sought to have him sentenced to 20 years, the actual sentence was 11 years, 4 months, his alleged ties to Al Qaeda were never established, and the government gained no knowledge on Al Qaeda's financing. In other words, the case ended up a far cry from being the linchpin in shutting down Al Qaeda's money pipeline.

So what in the wide world of sports does this have to do with Fitzgerald's motivation in the Plame case? Does he want to redeem himself after a less than stellar result in the Arnaout case? I don't think so. To complete my tinfoil fantasy, we need to look at another terrorism case out of Detroit. The resulted in convictions, but after the trial, chaos ensued. This is also an very long story, but for purposes of this post, this February 18, 2004, article by Shannon McCaffrey sufficiently tells the story:

The federal prosecutor who won convictions in the government's first and only terrorism trial after the Sept. 11 attacks has filed a lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft accusing the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" in the war on terrorism.

The highly unusual complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington by Richard Convertino, the lead prosecutor in the conviction of three members of an alleged terrorism sleeper cell in Detroit.

Convertino is facing an internal Justice Department investigation for failing to turn over a document to the defense until long after the trial had ended.

Convertino claims the Justice Department is retaliating against him because he has attacked its efforts in the war on terrorism and cooperated with the Senate Finance Committee, led by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a vocal critic of the department.

In his lawsuit, Convertino said the Justice Department has exaggerated its success in fighting terrorism. He said heavy-handed officials at Justice Department headquarters in Washington have hindered prosecutors in the field.

In the case he handled in Detroit, which Ashcroft has frequently praised as a success in the war on terrorism, Convertino said the government failed to provide the needed federal law enforcement manpower to help review documents, interview witnesses and prepare for trial.

Convertino claims he worked the case for months with the help of only one FBI special agent.
Convertino said he repeatedly asked for additional help.

In the suit, Convertino alleges there was a "lack of support and cooperation, lack of effective assistance, lack of resources and intradepartmental infighting" in terrorism cases.

"These concerns directly related to the ability of the United States to effectively utilize the criminal justice system as a component in the `war on terrorism,' " the lawsuit said.

*******

U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen said Tuesday that he was seriously considering granting a new trial for the three men convicted.

Even before Tuesday's disclosures, the case was in jeopardy over allegations against Convertino.
A letter from a jailhouse inmate alleged that the government's star witness, Youssef Hmimssa, had lied. That letter was turned over to defense lawyers only last year, well after the trial had concluded in June.

*******

In his suit, Convertino alleges that his superiors in Detroit and Washington retaliated against him after he testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He had been subpoenaed to appear. Convertino and his boss, Keith Corbett, were removed from the Detroit case in September after Convertino appeared before Grassley's committee.

The Justice Department also launched an investigation against him after that testimony. The details of that probe were leaked to the media, which Convertino claims violated his constitutional rights under the First Amendment and the Privacy Act. The prosecutor also said in the lawsuit that Justice Department officials tried to discredit him by leaking the name of one of his confidential informants.

That leak put the informant at risk, forcing him to flee the United States.

The leak "interfered with the ability of the United States to obtain information from the (confidential informant) about current and future terrorist activities" the suit said.

Back in March of last year, I started really looking into this matter, and I was surprised by how viciously the Department of Justice turned on Convertino. Let's just assume for the moment that Convertino's allegations are correct. That would show that the Department of Justice--led at the time by Ashcroft, who was a hatchet man for the Bush administration--was doing a crappy job of combatting terrorism. And then when someone complained about it, the DoJ tried to ruin him.

Now let's get back to Fitzgerald. Perhaps he dealt with some of the same problems in the Arnaout case. Perhaps he is motivated by his experiences and what happened to Convertino to go after the people who kept him and Convertino and others from effectively combatting terrorism. If the Plame case ends up handing out indictments against many people, maybe one reason why Fitzgerald has been so thorough is that he sees this case as a way to send a strong message to those responsible for doing such a crappy job of fighting terrorism.

This is all speculation on my part. I do not know exactly what happened in the Arnaout case. I do not know if Convertino's claims are valid. Perhaps Fitzgerald does not like Convertino. Still, with all of the Bush administration's ineptitude, incompetence, and near pathological desire to destroy anyone who issues public criticism, my little theory could well be within the realm of possibility.