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.
The DUmmie was not telling the truth (what else can you expect from the DUmp?). Txsleuth is on the up and up.
Second thought, I agree he's a TROLL!!
" have one problem with Fitzgerald. Someone, months ago, started leaking to leftist reporter Murray Waas. People who are familiar with this case think the information is so good it is coming from the Prosecutor's Office.
Now the investigation is leaking like crazy and leaking to all left outlets. Someone on his staff has an agenda and someone on his staff is very happy."
That's my problem, also.
Fitzgerald , by appearing to tolerate the leaks, is saying, in effect, if my AUSA's , my agents, my court reporters or my grand jurors commit a felony - yawn.
His tolerance of the leaks tarnishes the reputation of all the decent and honorable AUSA's, agents, et al who actually do follow the law and do not leak .
Every night Chris Matthews acts as if he has personal knowledge of what is going on in Fitzgerald's office.
He'd be the first one I'd put under oath.
District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson appointed a special master to investigate the leaks from Starr's office-after a push by David Kendall.
Ken Starr could have been held in contempt, if it was proven that the leaks came from his office.
DAVID KENDALL, : These leaks make a mockery of the traditional rules of grand jury secrecy. .... The independent counsel appears to have acknowledged some of these leaks but that office is out of control.
I find it so improper and so reprehensible that Fitzgerald is doing nothing to address the leaks.
And neither is anyone at Justice.
its worse then that. Stewart was guilty of insider trading (Waksal was convicted of it), but the prosecutors felt the burden was too high to prove. so "getting her" on the perjury - which she was given an opportunity to "correct" and take a plea deal - was OK in my book.
in this case, Rove and Libby are not guilty of the underlying crime, its a perjury trap as you say.
and to make it even worse yet again - Fitzgerald led these guys like lambs to the slaughter - they cooperated at every turn, Libby giving the 2nd release letter to Miller, he didn't give them target letters - and at the end of the day, he indicts them anyway. and Miller walks, given a chance to "correct" her testimony and supply the "missing" notes.
the whole thing stinks.
This is code, for "he's a damn good investigator".
well at least you've got something right on this thread.
Although this wasn't posted to me, what do you want here? Just nice, upbeat, all positive articles? Should the poster be banned? Should articles that you don't like be banned?
If a lie is not material to the crime, it is a lie, but not perjury.
bttt
I think, at least in the case of Karl Rove, whom the President has known for a long time, we owe the President the benefit of the doubt. If he looks Rove in the eye and believes that the charges are false, not only does he have the right to defend his friend, I think he would be cheered by many.
This could be Dubyas line in the sand, and he could go on offense.
Remeber the time when his father tore into Dan Rather on live TV? It was a nice little moment for Bush senior, and Dubya could take the same tack if indictments are brought, and get a little angry.
Given his "new tone" demeanor, I doubt it will happen, but I wouldn't hold it against him if he took that approach.
I think it's important to remember that the President believes he is answering to a higher calling, and that mitigates a lot of these moral equivilance notions that will be articulated.
He has done nothing to deserve being compared to Clinton, who was and remains a classic sociopath, and was as dangerous as he was disgraceful.
I think, at least in the case of Karl Rove, whom the President has known for a long time, we owe the President the benefit of the doubt. If he looks Rove in the eye and believes that the charges are false, not only does he have the right to defend his friend, I think he would be cheered by many.
This could be Dubyas line in the sand, and he could go on offense.
Remeber the time when his father tore into Dan Rather on live TV? It was a nice little moment for Bush senior, and Dubya could take the same tack if indictments are brought, and get a little angry.
Given his "new tone" demeanor, I doubt it will happen, but I wouldn't hold it against him if he took that approach.
I think it's important to remember that the President believes he is answering to a higher calling, and that mitigates a lot of these moral equivilance notions that will be articulated.
He has done nothing to deserve being compared to Clinton, who was and remains a classic sociopath, and was as dangerous as he was disgraceful.
If you happen to know where the White House is, does that make you an ally?
You nailed it!
I agree that Perjury IS a big deal.. Clinton KNOWINGLY lied about Monica Lewinsky. It would be impossible to "forget" being alone with someone he had had sexual relations with...and he said he'd never been alone with her..
What Fitz will have to prove...should he indict...is that Rove/Libby intentionally lied/etc. Could ROve/Libby forget meeting a reporter? forget what was said? Forget the date of the meeting? Certainly more possible then Clinton's situation. They will have to prove that any discrepency was due to faulty memory, etc.
In the meantime...Hillary Clinton was not indicted though she spoke "falsely" about the Travelgate case...It appears that Rove/Libby, if they are indicted, forgot that as Republicans,there can not even be an APPEARANCE of cover-up cause the media is out to get them..
I don't think Reno gave Starr the authority. A three judge panel gave Starr his authority. Starr was a Special Prosecutor under that now expired statute. Fitzgerald is a U.S. Attorney charged by the AG with prosecuting this case. Big difference between where Starr got his authority and Fitzgerald gets his.
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.