Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

W pals bushwhack CIA leak prosecutor
New York Dailiy News ^ | Oct 24 05 | THOMAS M. DeFRANK and MICHAEL McAULIFF

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.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: chamberlainbuff; churchilltroll; cialeak; longestlastingtroll; lyingjoewilson; neville; valerieplame; wardchurchillbuff; zotmeb4itrollagain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-225 next last
To: churchillbuff

"one White House ally"

Ally? That's a new one. Is that MSM-speak for some crank calling in to a talk radio show?


21 posted on 10/24/2005 1:24:25 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

"The longest lasting troll on FR."

Really.

And he never stops. I suspect he's on somebody's payroll.


22 posted on 10/24/2005 1:24:27 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
All what you post on FR is negative news. I am sure that you are a troll, and you are one troll who brags back on DU that you have not been caught yet after all these years.

PS: Chris Matthews was rooting for Clinton impeachement and he is the most flaming liberal on the planet.

23 posted on 10/24/2005 1:24:28 PM PDT by jveritas (The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"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.

What would the Left do without anonymous sources? I prefer to listen to people willing to go on the record. I also support SP Fitzgerald.

24 posted on 10/24/2005 1:24:35 PM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

I could swear I just heard Sean Hannity saying what a fine upstanding man Fitzgerald is.


25 posted on 10/24/2005 1:25:40 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

26 posted on 10/24/2005 1:25:53 PM PDT by evets (God bless president Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
"Who said this quote from the article?"

Must be "The Invisible Man" since the Daily Screws didn't bother to name him.

27 posted on 10/24/2005 1:26:01 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway~~John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

What I don't understand is that any first year law student, or even hot dog salesman, knew in the first 5 minutes that no law had been broken. Even if Karl had held a press conference and said that Wilson was sent to Niger at the recommendation of his wife, a CIA employee.

So if it is very obvious at the outset that no law was broken, how do you drag out an investigation for two years, unless you're just trying to milk the government for two years employment.


28 posted on 10/24/2005 1:26:27 PM PDT by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
When Clinton committed perjury, I thought it was a very big deal.

That's because Clinton's perjury was a deliberate lie to prevent the prosecutor from finding the truth. Here you have the potential for perjury charges to be brought because someone could not remember the precise details of a telephone conversation from a few years before, the subject of which was something else entirely, and which was subsequently corrected in later testimony. There's a big difference there.

29 posted on 10/24/2005 1:26:29 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

You're consistent, which is a good thing.


30 posted on 10/24/2005 1:26:37 PM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
Saddam's defense team on board!

Imagining Saddam and Son's were innocent, and imagining a conspiracy against a leaky SP, a Dem socialite in the CIA, and her husband.

LOL, their hatred for the evil Bush, has pushed them into believing that a meek Senator commenting on the slander of the past many months is somehow an attack.
31 posted on 10/24/2005 1:27:01 PM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"Essentially, perjury is no big deal. Well then, why doesn't Sen. Hutchison introduce a bill that repeals the prohibition on perjury, or the criminal sanctions for perjury?"

What hutchinson is refering to is the speculation Rove will get nailed for perjury for not mentioning his talk with cooper but later bringing it foward himself and not being prompted by anything fitzgerald said or did. Thats not perjury, thats forgetting something (especially as rove volunteered the correction)


32 posted on 10/24/2005 1:27:17 PM PDT by mykpfsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Perjury requires a showing of intent to deceive. Not remembering is not enough.


33 posted on 10/24/2005 1:27:30 PM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
. Not remembering is not enough."""

Hillary: "I don't recall"

34 posted on 10/24/2005 1:28:20 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
they could have mentioned Hannity today. He was putting out a bunch of negative stuff on Fitzgerald.

I listened to Hannity and all I heard him do was put out some facts about Fitzgerald's connections and past acts. I didn't hear any name calling, ala Carville.

35 posted on 10/24/2005 1:28:20 PM PDT by Bahbah (Tony Schaffer is a hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Who is being attributed to the quote in the article?


36 posted on 10/24/2005 1:28:59 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM - Being miserable for no good reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"When Clinton committed perjury, I thought it was a very big deal."

Clinton created a false affidavit and then lied under oath to undermine a case against him. Hardly the same thing as misspeaking or contradicting something you said months earlier while being questioned for hours at a time over a period of two years without the aid of notes or counsel, as potential indictments may be based on.

The MSM obviously won't have much of a challenge in convincing you with their distortions of reality.

37 posted on 10/24/2005 1:29:11 PM PDT by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Bush was stupid to appoint anyone at all. It was not neccessary, and it has created an absurd distraction and threat over a trivial matter. No one except the NYT was calling for it. Plame was not covert, and the Wilsons were obviously trying to setup a political trap for the President in Niger. I said how dumb Bush was to do this at the time and was roundly laughed at on this forum. You all told me that the Wilsons themselves would be indicted, and that naming a prosecutor was a brilliant Bush/Rove plan to embarrass the RATs. Still laughing?


38 posted on 10/24/2005 1:30:06 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

I smell a HUGE rat in this story. I think this quote from an 'anonymous' Whitehouse source is phony.


39 posted on 10/24/2005 1:30:12 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
The longest lasting troll on FR.

It has been a while but I remember this one.

40 posted on 10/24/2005 1:30:21 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-225 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson