Posted on 10/25/2005 9:14:57 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
Before he was appointed special counsel in the Leakgate case, Patrick Fitzgerald defended the prosecution of Martha Stewart against criticism that the Justice Department indicted her only after it couldn't prove the underlying crime she was accused of - insider trading.
The Stewart prosecution was run by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, the same person who tapped Fitzgerald to run the Leakgate probe in Dec. 2003.
A June 2003 "Today Show" transcript unearthed on Monday by ABC Radio host Sean Hannity shows Fitzgerald defending Comey for throwing the book at the domestic diva.
NBC's Anne Thompson introduced Fitzgerald as Comey's "close friend," before asking him why Comey pushed the envelope against Stewart.
"I think what drives him is a commitment to justice and wanting to do the right thing in a right way," Fitzgerald told "Today." "The people who get involved in the system, witnesses, jurors, judges, defense lawyers and even defendants, come away with a respect for what he does and how he does it."
What about charges that Comey was using Stewart's indictment to boost his profile?
Fitzgerald told NBC's Thompson that the showboating charge against his old friend was simply not true.
Fitzgerald's defense of Comey's prosecution could turn out to be significant, since it's widely expected that any indictments he brings in the Leakgate case will mirror tactics used against Stewart - where the prosecution pursues "process" crimes after determining that the original allegations were unprovable.
This is not encouraging or the administration.
Fitzgerald assignment to this is the moron republican's fault they are "stuck on stupid".
Borderline entrapment IMO.
"Fitzgerald assignment to this is the moron republican's fault they are "stuck on stupid"."
Well, his general reputation is that he is not very political so it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Appearances can be very deceiving, and if you fail to do your homework you deserve to be punished. The pubies love getting ass whipping, there are no unbiased prosecutors their allegiance are to the RATS.
If Fitzy intends to manufacture a crime here, as he
supported his pal in doing with Martha, this could
seriously damage law enforcement and our already-shaky
court system.
As I pointed out on another thread ...
If this investigation turns into a persecution of WH
people with faulty memories, or who made inadvertent
misstatements (but corrected them), then the GJ system
may collapse.
Anyone summoned to testify at one will take the 5th,
since anything less than zero-defects fully proveable
testimony could be used to incriminate the witness.
I suspect people are already a lot less cooperative
with the FBI after the Martha affair, for the same
reason - if "lying" to the FBI, even when not under
oath, is a crime, why risk that any unintentional
misstatement will be turned into a crime?"
An administration afraid of a fair and rigorous prosecutor like Fitzgerald would not be worth supporting.
I would never talk to the police or any investigating officer without consulting with an attorney, and perhaps not even then.
You are correct. Law Enforcement is getting out of hand. While real criminals run amok, innocent people are often persecuted on technicalities.
I don't like Martha Stewart. She has a nasty personality and she was a fund raiser for bill clinton. But she was railroaded on a technicality.
Lying to a prosecutor isn't a technicality, it's perjury.
If it was a reasonable lapse in memory, then they shouldn't be indicted. But if someone lies under oath, Republican or Rat, it's perjury.
I dunno about you guys, but I'm not preemptively defending perjury just because the LIEberal media's trying to make us believe that Scooter and Rove committed it.
I'm gonna wait to see what the charges are. Not base it on leaks from the NYTimes' editor's ugly sister's anonymous best friend.
Don't worry. There wont be indictments of Rove or Libby.
Prosecutors, especially Justice Dept. prosecutors, think that if you take the 5th, you're guilty.
Actually don't most people think that?
Why would an innocent person take the 5th?
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.