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.
In Fitz's court brief prior to the jailing of Miller, he claimed to have "substantial evidence" that there were crimes relating to the original outing allegation, not for subsequent technicalities involving inconsistent testimony, etc.
And if we do that, it will validate everything the Dems said about us during the Clinton years. Perjury is perjury, whether its a Democrat or Republican. The difference between us is that we take our trash out (Packwood, etc.), whereas they coddle theirs.
Let's just see what the charges actually are, and what the evidence is in support. Until that time, we really can't have informed opinions. There's no way I'm going to get caught up in "perjury is okay if you're trying to counter liberal lies" as a first line of defense.
Bingo!
Yep. That's likely what Fitzgerald is doing, pulling a "Martha Stewart prosecution."
He can't prosecute for an actual crime, so he tries to trap somebody into lying or accusing them of not being entirely forthcoming in some previous testimony.
Prosecutorial ambition run amok.
I have two questions: 1) why would someone loyal to President Bush help Mr. DeFrank; 2) why has Mr. DeFrank changed his phraseology from his original story?
When journalists refuse to name their sources, they make it impossible to refute there stories. On what basis should I believe them?
Why does this Plame women still have a job at the CIA?
One would wonder if you were that staffer. All of your posts hint at doom and bad news for the White House..
Txsleuth a traitor. Damn, just damn. That hurts.
Fool's bait.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Too bad.
You're really making an @ss out of yourself. You may not care for some of churchillbuff's viewpoints, but he's no troll and you should know better and apologize.
That looks wrong. I mean "Too bad we actually trusted someone like this."
Maybe, maybe not. Since we don't know exactly who said what before the grand jury, we don't know whether the prosecution is over-zealous or whether someone actually committed perjury. As a result, I'm willing to wait and see before stealing a page from the Democrat Playbook and participating in a whisper campaign to smear the special prosecutor.
Well, tell me about some good news for the White House. Do you think there will be no indictments?
Bush didn't appoint Fitzgerald. Someone in the CIA (a commie/dem mole) referred it to the Atty Generals office. Ashcroft, not wanting to appear there was a conflict of interest, recused himself and a Special Prosecutor was allowed to "look into it".
That was pretty surprising. I suspect another one on this thread as well..
I think people are getting sick of Fitzgerald being written up like he's a saint just because he's about to indict Republican officials. People remember the vicious attacks on Starr.
That's ok. It's just gonna take me a few minutes to absorb.
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.