Posted on 10/24/2005 1:16:10 PM PDT by churchillbuff
As the White House and Republicans brace for possible indictments in the CIA leak probe, defenders have launched a not-so-subtle campaign against the prosecutor handling the case. "He's a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by God to do very important things," one White House ally said, referring to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald was tapped nearly two years ago to find out whether anyone in the White House broke a federal law by blowing the cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame after her husband, Joseph Wilson, debunked administration claims about Saddam Hussein's nuclear activities.
President Bush recently praised Fitzgerald on NBC's "Today" show, saying: "The special prosecutor is conducting a very serious investigation. He's doing it in a very dignified way, by the way, and we'll see what he says."
But now friends of the White House have started whispering that the Brooklyn-raised prosecutor is overzealous after it became clear that Bush political mastermind Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, are in Fitzgerald's cross hairs.
Such hints surfaced publicly for the first time yesterday when Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), armed with comments that sources said were "shaped" by the White House, suggested Fitzgerald might nail someone on a "technicality" because they forgot something or misspoke.
"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment ... it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime, and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste," Hutchison said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Fitzgerald was first tasked with finding the Plame leaker, but his mandate expanded to include counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, intimidation of witnesses or destruction of evidence, should anyone undermine his probe.
There were several reports yesterday that Fitzgerald could warn people they've been indicted as soon as today, and that the grand jury could be called in for an unusual session tomorrow, but his office declined to comment.
Care to explain yourself, or are you just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick.
I'll expand "hypocrite" to include any member of the MSM who has ever relied upon or praised the leaking of classified information for any purpose whatsoever, and who now suddenly professes to be appalled that anyone would leak classified information.
Here's the difference; you're honest; churchillbluff is not.
And I don't remember you actively smearing anybody; this one does that.
Say it as many times as you want. That doesn't make it any more sensible. If someone on the WH staff committed indictable crimes and there is sufficient evidence to prove it, they should be thrown overboard. What their role may have been in anything else is irrelevant. As far as the President pardoning any such individual, the idea is absurd.
I think the turning point was when JR started coming down hard on people who disagreed with Bush in any major point. I remembger that. Now look at the daily zot fest and troll calling. Anyway, hang in there and best wishes.<
Always nice to get a post from you, even if we disagree at times.
Simply an editorial mix-up at the Daily News.
This was actually a quote by Congresswoman Pelosi about President Bush and was supposed to be included in a story discussing the crackdown on child pornography by the Bush administration.
Just an honest mistake by a newspaper editor!
Sounds like the authors are making up stories, trying to "tick off" Fitzgerald.
Hillary wasn't indicted on perjury charges, genius.
Aren't we lucky that we're getting old and we forget it when we do disagree? :-)
: )
Many of the posters here would consider themselves allies of the White House. I don't know that means they speak for the White House.
A lot of freepers, myself included, wondered why not.
Actually, JR has been very indulgent toward me -- except when I've broken the rule against vanities (which seems to be enforced against me more consistently than against others).
It would be interesting to hear the dems cry for a perjury conviction in a case with no underlying crime.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
good
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.