If you have "no place to go," come here!

Tying up the loose ends: Rove's IT guy, Mike Connell, dies when his small plane crashes


Story here. See Cannonfire for responsible speculation.

So, I wonder if Connell's lawyer has an envelope to open in the event of his death?

The one with the key to the safe deposit box where Connell stashed the backups of the "lost" White House email?

NOTE And our old friends, SmartTech, get a mention, too. Here, too.

No votes yet


gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

How is this speculation NOT truthiness?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

more cover on never "finding" the millions of emails --which certainly contain proof of their crimes, no?

and totally prevents him ever ever talking -- and he had even contacted attorneys for protection.

Submitted by lambert on

... that that which is explicitly speculative is not truthy?

(And if you check the tag and the links, you'll see this is a perfectly reasonable speculation -- not a Nooners-style one.)

zeezee's picture
Submitted by zeezee on

but calling the plane crash "damn suspicious" seems like ignorance and truthiness to me.

From a very short Google search I found out that the plane crashed while attempting to land, that earwitnesses heard the plane's engine sputtering, and that there were icing conditions at the time he was landing, after dark, in Akron. He apparently hit a flagpole outside a house next to an open field. It sounds very un-suspicious to me. He apparently developed some kind of engine trouble on landing, most likely related to icing conditions, and was attempting to land in an open field but didn't see the flagpole until it was too late. That doesn't coincide with tampering, which is implied by the term "suspicious", unless you want to make the case that Karl Rove was behind the flagpole.

If you understand even a little about small planes and icing, the crash seems totally understandable, though tragic for those involved. I don't like tin-foil. It doesn't go with any clothes I own.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

a witness dies right before they are called to testify in a major criminal case, that is suspicious.

Submitted by lambert on

And I still wonder about that safe deposit box, regardless of why the plane went down. Foily or not, it makes no sense to me that the mail would be destroyed -- the leverage of keeping a copy is just too great.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Many found his death suspicious. The whole point of the Arkansas project was the constant innuendo and speculation so that there was an appearance of illegality and malice.

Would I put it past Rove to do something like this? No. But that's exactly the situation where truthiness is most potent.

Submitted by lambert on

Unless you think that there's an Arkansas Project on this case.

At least in my understanding -- and maybe we need a thread on this -- part of the characteristics of truthiness is its manufactured quality, which connects to dis- and misinformation, and its techniques of propagation, leading right to zombie memes we all fight.

If we can't have a little fun by playing "what if" in a post, then who among us shall escape whipping?

Again, I ask: How is something that's easily perceived as speculation truthy? Surely it can't be, since the whole point of truthiness is to substitute for the truth, and explicitly labelled speculation can't do that.

zeezee's picture
Submitted by zeezee on

with testifying before Congress in the faux Travelgate controversy.

The question is not are the cases exactly similar but rather is there any rational reason to believe, from the circumstances of their deaths, that either Vince Foster or Mike Connell were the victims of foul-play. There wasn't and isn't any, and until and unless the circumstances lead to a rational assumption of foul play, we are playing the same sordid game that was played with Foster's death. Maybe we can get Bob Barr to fly a plane into a watermelon to check this out.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i don't think.

the actual subpoena, and his connections to OH 04 where tons of ppl went to jail, and the millions of missing emails, and running the exec networks, and the attorneys stuff, etc -- they're very different, and far more actual and real--and illegal--than any Foster speculation or accusations, i'd say.

zeezee's picture
Submitted by zeezee on

strictly of the allegations that the plane crash was "damn suspicious". It wasn't suspicious. People die in plane crashes under similar circumstances every day.I don't like baseless speculations about someone....even Karl Rove..... having offed him just because the man died in a plane crash. It smacks of the Clinton Body Count kind of "thinking" to me.

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

... but gave no links. Are those sources trustworthy?

There's foil, and then there's healthy skepticism of official accounts.

zeezee's picture
Submitted by zeezee on

the crash and came up with various first reports of the crash, before anyone knew who the victim was. The details didn't change. The plane was on final approach to the airport, eyewitnesses heard the plane's engine sputtering, it landed between two houses but hit a flagpole as it was near or on the ground. Here's an example of a similar report with a little more detail provided by eyewitnesses.

From the weather conditions at the time, and the fact that it was about an hour after sunset when it happened, it seems most likely that he may have run into a carburetor icing problem, causing a loss of engine power, that precipitated the emergency landing between the two houses. Its also highly possible that he could have survived the crash if he hadn't hit the flagpole, which he probably couldn't see until it was too late to avoid. It doesn't sound like suspicious circumstances at all.

Do you have ANY basis for thinking the crash was suspicious OTHER THAN the fact that Karl Rove MIGHT have had a motive to kill him? Rational thought would preclude looking for suspects before its known whether a crime was even committed. I thought we were into rational thought around here.

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

He had been warned on two previous occasions

"by a close friend not to fly his plane, because his plane might be sabotaged. And twice in the last two months Connell, who was an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his planes."
He took those warnings seriously enough that he didn't fly on either of those previous occasions. On the night that he died, he also had problems with his plane, but opted to fly anyway.

Two previous warnings about sabotage, preceded by threats from Karl Rove to his family sounds like sufficient reason to be suspicious.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

take FL2000 and them stopping the vote counts, and Watergate, and 9/11, and Iraq, for instance -- we're still finding out what they knew, when they knew it, what their lies were, who decided what, etc -- much of what was called "baseless" on those things and many many more have been proven to be totally true.

It usually is the case that governments so willing to totally openly break the law in such gigantic ways is willing to silence critics--whether like Plame/Libby, or like CBS with Bush's Nat'l Guard "service", etc -- or even like Foster and all of Whitewater.

What they don't even hide is enormously criminal and amoral to begin with--and what they have hidden that has come out is even worse.