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.
Ken Starr was tarred and feathered in the media, and Starr sent 14+ people to jail. The media is all of a sudden on the presecutor's side. I wonder why?
Funny, that's exactly what the Libs said about Starr. If that's the best defense they can offer, somebody in the White House is going to jail.
Funny, that's exactly what the Libs said about Starr. If that's the best defense they can offer, somebody in the White House is going to jail.
Who is this White House ally?
I guess the two guys that wrote the article can't remember or the third guy that was going to help them is off today.
They wish only for indictments, they fear a trial, the Rats better not get what they wish for. I can of worms will certainly be opened and will involve more of their misconduct then the administrations.
Yeah? What's the name of this White House "ally?" We aren't told.
Liberals are so transparent.
Whether an underlying crime was actually committed or not, I'm not going to whine if Libby or Rove gets nailed for perjury. The fact is that you just don't lie under oath. Beginning and end of story. If they actually lied, then I hope they get shown the door. We can't ask for anything less if we're going to be consistent.
Fitzgerald is an experienced guy, and I'd be surprised if he'd bring a perjury charge that reasonably could be explained away by a faulty memory. So I'd guess he'd probably have more than that if he does decide to bring that charge against either of them.
I obviously hope neither of them lied, and that it goes in a different direction. But if it doesn't, there's no way I'm giving the lefties the satisfaction of whining about it. That's what they do, and they'd love nothing better than if we'd start a "lying really isn't that bad defense." We'd look horrible, and it would just give the story longer legs.
If there are indictments, then the reaction should be just to sit back and let the prosecution take its course. And reiterate what the President himself said -- if someone committed a crime, they should be gone.
Based on everything I have heard so far, Fitzgerald seems to be an intelligent, decent and fair individual, and if he has conducted the investigation with integrity then let the chips fall where they may.
No you didn't. You went after Starr.
"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."
Was this not almost the same description many liberals applied to W when he even mentioned his faith?
I agree with you. I heard Rush start with this the other day. Then, a caller actually brought up the hypocrisy, to which Rush responded. He even put his response on his website. But I found it very weak. I didn't think Rush answered the question sufficiently at all. As I recall, Ken Starr started out investigating a real estate deal?? By the time it was all over, it was perjury in reference to a harassment suit or something. I don't even know how it got from one to the other, but folks were happy to find any offense they could pin on the slick one. They'd have hung him for a parking ticket if that's all they could find. So yes, until someone splains what I'm missing, this looks like GOP hypocrisy.
If I ever criticized Starr, it was for not being aggressive enough against Clinton and the possibility that there were deaths involved in the Clinton crimes. That was certainly my belief - that Starr was too narrow in his investigation and too weak of heart. But I don't believe I ever voiced such criticism of Starr. All my fire, in public, was directed against Clinton. If you have proof otherwise, provide it. If not, slink back into your hole.
This is not the Fox News Channel and that is not what Hannity's program purports to be. He is on the Republican side and there is nothing wrong with him pointing out facts that may bear on Fitzgerald's action in this matter. He did not resort to name calling or sliming the man.
Starr found prejury -- and that was no mere technicality. Clinton perjured himself in a lawsuit in which he was charged with sexual harassment. Suddenly, the liberals -- who had previously claimed that sexual harassment was a huge issue -- said, in effect, it was OK to cover up sex harassment through perjury. A despicable double standard. I was outraged by their double standard - - and by Clinton's perjury. IF conservatives now show a double standard on perjury (As Rush seems to be playing with, to judge by his comments this morning), then I'll be outraged by that too. I'm a conservative of the old school who believes that respect for law is a conservative principle.
Starr was given the other areas of investigation, FBI file, Lewinsky, etc. by Reno.
You have a lot of class.
There's a difference between lying and having inconsistent memories about things that happened a couple of years ago.
You leveled an untruthful -- and really, slanderous -- charge against me (suggesting that I joined the Clinton-supporting crowd who trashed Starr), and you expect me to turn the other cheek?
Sean Hannity is a lightweight and nobody pays any attention to what he says, and neither should you.
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.