Posted on 10/11/2005 9:48:56 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Fitzgerald a dem? I don't think so. He's reportedly a Republican, and -- undisputably he was nominated by a Republican and appointed by a Republican. And he's going after the sacred Democrat of Illinois (that would be Chicago's Daley).
You can say that he's overeager, or overly ambitious, and so overly zealous. (Or, all of the above.) But it defies believability to call him a dem.
1. They underestimated him. I find this to be highly unlikely, as the guy is well known for his aggresive style and unrelenting resolve.
2. They were unaware of extent of Libby/Rove's role in this matter.
re: "what's up with that?"
Quite interesting. I think there's a good chance that Miller is "going down." Reports are all over the place, but at least some say that she was only asked about July meetings, and only asked to produce documents relevant to the July meetings. I wonder whether the NYT, in trying to protect itself, "went through her files" and found these documents. Reports are that these notes were in the DC office, not in her NY office. Weird. The fact that she met with the prosecutor for hours (8?) yesterday indicates to me that she's in trouble - and is either "singing" per some plea-bargain, or is trying to wiggle her way out.
Yeah, right, and that's why the prosecutor had to give her assurances that he wouldn't ask about any other sources she was protecting. THAT is who she was protecting by going to jail, not Libby. The SP was only interested in her testimony about Libby. Misunderstanding the waiver was merely an excuse to cover the fact that she was afraid she would be asked about other sources who had NOT given her a waiver.
Funny you should mention that...Waas, who is Blumenthal's buddy, was trying to slime Ken Starr during the investigation.
Libby did not volunteer the information?
OR
Libby affirmatively provided knowingly false information when directly asked about them?
BIG DIFFERENCE. HUGE.
That was my understanding, that the scope of the investigation was on the July meetings and Libby's defense would have focused on that time period. It may have not been intentional to leave the June conversations out of the testimony. Heck, for all we know, they may not be relevant.
Absolutely false statement. Bush quoted separate British intel that had absolutely nothing to do with the Joe Wilson trip to Niger or the forged (by the French) Niger documents. The British info. was entirely separate and the Brits continue to stand by it.
I'm sure these lefty propagandists know that, but it doesn't fit with their get Bush strategy, so they just lie.
As I understand it, Miller went to jail because she was protecting other sources. Once she had an agreement that her testimony would be limited to her conversations with Rove and Libby, she agreed to testify. She had authorization to speak to the GJ about these conversations but she used her "confusion" about the seriousness of the release from Roveand Libby as an excuse so she could get a deal and not be asked about other sources...the sources she's protecting have to do with the Islamic charity case where she tipped them off about an FBI raid (by calling for comment).
I think Libby and Rove are fine...and Miller will be indicted - if ayone.
Yes, although some articles have referred to Fitzgerald as a Democrat, one detailed discussion I saw awhile ago quoted a number of his colleagues through the years saying he is never registered to a party and some called him 'apolitical' ...... so hopefully he is able to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it does show MSM reporters in a cabal with Joe Wilson and pals.
Some Republicans were also hoping to interest Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation to the outgoing senator), an Illinois-based U.S. attorney. He is leading a probe in Washington into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA officer.So, at least some Illinois Republicans considered him to be a Republican. He was also nominated for his position as a US Attorney by former Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, and was elevated to the position by the Bush administration.
?? Details?
I am not sure you are right either, but I couldn't find the answer during my brief search. You may be thinking of his transfer from the Southern District of New York where he served under Clinton, Reno, and Freeh. The Republican Senator from Illinois, Sen. Fitzferald (no relation as far as I can see), was looking for a tough prosecutor who couldn't be bought or influenced. Freeh and the other NY prosecutor, Mary White recommended him but he was actually transferred from NY to ILL under Ashcroft. I found this:
Fitzgerald is careful to be apolitical in his targets and his public life alike. He registered to vote as an Independent in New York, only to discover, when he began receiving fundraising calls, that Independent was a political party. He re-registered with no affiliation, as he did later in Chicago.
He spit fire last year when reporters asked whether the racketeering indictment of Muhammad Hamid Khalil Salah, a fundraiser for the Islamic militant group Hamas, was timed to boost President Bush's reelection campaign. The case was trumpeted first by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
"I am not running for an election. I'm not part of a political party," Fitzgerald said at the time. "The election is irrelevant to this case. The reason we brought this case now is we're ready to proceed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer
I don't know where I got mislead but I was obviously wrong. Thanks for bringing that to my attention or I would have continued down the wrong path. However, that does not detract from my thought that this could be a Democrat setup aimed at the '06 and '08 elections. Just the accusations do damage and add to the "Culture of Corruption" idea.
Yes, although some articles have referred to Fitzgerald as a Democrat, ....
That must be where I went wrong because I know I read it somewhere.
- Godzilla/Rodan activity on the upswing
Murray Waas is a left wing twerp. I'll believe what he writes when pigs fly.
As to Miller needing a personal waiver, she's on record back when Russert, Cooper, etc, testified after Libby's waiver saying even receiving the same thing (she did) she still would not testify.
Judge holds Times reporter in contempt in CIA case
Judge Thomas F. Hogan today ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed until she agrees to testify about her sources before a grand jury, The Associated Press reported. She could be jailed up to 18 months.
Hogan, ruling in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said Miller could remain free while pursuing an appeal. Her lawyer, Floyd Abrams, said he would file notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the AP reported.
~snip~
In August, Hogan found Time reporter Matthew Cooper in contempt. Cooper later agreed to testify after one of his sources, vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released him from a promise of confidentiality. Miller and Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said they would not agree to provide testimony even under those circumstances.
~snip~
Now, in light of that first contempt citation Cooper did give testimony on Libby. His second contempt citation was over Rove, who had also and already provided a waiver.
The reporters have consistantly misrepresented (to be charitable) their stances and what was going on.
You can bet Fitzgerald was well aware of all this and his letter to Tate asking for the "personal" waiver from Libby was a face-saving ploy to get Miller to finally cooperate. Needless to say, Tate and Libby immediately responded as requested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.