Posted on 10/28/2005 1:05:49 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Sorry , but I have the impression that Harvard has graduated many people of average ability.(I met many) This is a 2 years farce ,conducted by an American dimwit.Inadmissible !
Libby's lawyers?
You're right, Libby's lawyers.
Fitzgerald acted like he was prosecuting a triple murder, when in reality it was a political case involving the memories of a few reporters with a staffer about an ongoing story in the news.
Again, Fitzgerald claimed during the press conference that he was prosecuting a case of "national security" of the most important order.
I was floored when I heard that, almost fell over laughing.
National Security -- baloney. He was obsessed with charging Libby, an honest patriotic American who donated years in public service only to be wrongly implicated in a political scandal that Fitzgerald blindly refused to see.
If Fitzgerald eventually charges Rove, I feel the US Attorney General, if he can, must shut him down immediately under the threat of malfeasance of office charges.
Fitzgerald is so full of himself he stunk today.
Pray tell ... this creep isn't married, is he?
I missed a chunk of the front end of the conference, but the part I saw at the end reflected he was more concerned that Libby lied to reporters than anything else. The indictments themselves hint at the same. Have you read the indictments?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
Harsh, but close. I lost a lot of respect for him as he went way beyond the charges and their implications in justifying his investigation. I expected facts and nothing more. Instead, he made it sound like he took down Aldrich Ames or something. Bizarre...
Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald pauses during a news conference at the Justice Department following the indictment of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Friday, Oct. 28, 2005 in Washington. Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Jr. was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury in the CIA leak case. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them!"
This guy is a publicity hog and Dem operative.
Thats about the size of it.
Wilson and his "wife" lies about the VP's office sending him of all people to investigate nuclear terrorism when it was her and her fellow leftist subversives at the CIA all along will eventually become the real story.
The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a “well-founded” judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.” This intelligence (which had controversially found its way into George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech) had previously (before September 2003 [C. May, 2004]) been thought to rely on forged documents. The Butler Review stated that “the forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made.” (6.4 para. 503) Taking into account the American intelligence community’s findings on the matter, it is true that in December 2003, then CIA director George Tenet conceded that the inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union address was a mistake. (CNN.com, 2003) However, Tenet believed so, not due to any compelling evidence to the contrary, but rather because the CIA (criticized concerning this matter by the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq [Schmidt, 2004]) had failed to investigate the claim thoroughly; however again, the Butler Review states (6.4 para. 497) in 2002 the CIA “agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought.” In the run-up to war in Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents (6.4 Para. 502). (Times Online, 2003) The report did not blame any specific individuals. It specifically stated that John Scarlett, the head of the JIC should not resign, and indeed should take up his new post as head of MI6.
My take: Fitzgerald is fixated with Mrs. Wilson in fact being a classified and/or covert CIA employee...I believe a substantial case can be made that Mrs. Wilson was in no way classified/covert beyond her CIA personnel file.
I could not get a good interpretation of Fitgerald's statements. I waited just about the whole press conference for a reporter to ask Fitzgerald whether Plame was a covert agent, and was merely mentioning the name of a CIA agent, covert or not, by a government official to a non-government person a crime. I'm still puzzled.
What I found disturbing was that he started off by giving the impression Plame was, indeed, a covert operative. He then pontificated on the importance of maintaining covert status and national security. Hey, who could disagree with the general principle of perserving national security.
But, half way through, he clearly states that he reached no conclusion about Plame being covert. As a matter of fact, he uses the term "classified" and basically admits that the original statute that formed the underlying basis of the investigation was not violated. Of course, he covers himself by saying prosecutors investigate facts, not crimes.
Basically, it all came down to this. Fitz didn't like the way Plame was treated, covert or not. He felt that if Libby had a beef with Wilson, he should have taken it up with Wilson. Ok, Fitz is a national security hawk and is peeved by what Libby has done. But, he could not indict Libby on the underlying statute. Thus, he uses the process to ensnare Libby, which Libby may deserve to be snared by if he made misleading statement.
Bottom line, Fitz talked about the underlying crime, then did squat about it. Why? I am still waiting for an answer from Fitz, one that doesn't involve bean ball analogies.
It seems to me that Fitz had enough stuff to charged Libby with the underlying charge .... and would have, but he knew it'd be laughed out of court. It's now pretty obvious that Libby (or anybody else, ftm) did not "knowingly" out a "covert agent".
So, Fitz took what he could get and call it quits.
Fitz kinda fizzled for the Dems. I'm sure they are deeply saddened. :)
Queeg? Or more like Captain Ahab pursuing an illusion?
LOL!!
One can only hope that Fitz has a fifty cal on his cleared off desk and starts firing out the window.
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.