Posted on 10/28/2005 1:05:49 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
"But, half way through, he clearly states that he reached no conclusion about Plame being covert."
Didn't in a previous hearing before and/or during the time Fritzy had this case (IIRC it involved Judith Miller), a bunch of journalists and attorneys file a Amicus Briefs w the court stating she had not been outed? Why didn't he read those, suponea Valerie's boss and/or CIA records and then he would have known she was not covert? Something stinks about this case, to quote the VP - "BIG TIME"
I refer you to my post 227. Regards from one who often disagrees with you.
"I feel the US Attorney General, if he can, must shut him down immediately under the threat of malfeasance of office charges."
I've heard and read that Fitz is acting as AG, since John Ashcroft and his Deputy recused themselve and the Deputy handed the case to Fitz. Therefore, can the AG shut down this case?
Why would this go on for an hour if the investigation was ongoing? I am reminded of the OJ prosecution team.
"He claims that he does not know why Libby "lied". "
I didn't have the opportunity to listen to the press conference. If he said that I have concerns - isn't a prosecutor supposed to say that we are charging X for allegedly doing Y? Even if indicted, isn't a person supposed to be innocent until provent guilty? Isn't he convicting him before a trial? Isn't that a no-no for a prosecutor to do?
One more thing...why would he go after Libby and others relentlessly and but not Miller?
Didn't she give advance warning to a Muslim group about to be visited by the feds? If it is about National Security, this would qualify. So it was a "whoops! my bad!" type of thing?"
Valerie was not covert, he is looking at 30 years for alledgedly lying in an investigation of a non-crime?
Doesn't make sense.
Very perceptive point.
The New York Times reported that Fitzgerald once baked two lasagnas, then found them three months later in the oven. He had the gas disconnected.
I'm stocking up on popcorn. This should be good.
Leni
I have enjoyed your discussions in the past. I am enjoying this one also.
And why did the CIA give him permission to do that?
I hope for his own sake Libby hires Dick DeGeurin. I agree that he needs a lawyer who understands how to get results.
I want to see DeGeurin go right for the jugular of this indictment, and expose it for being nothing more than a perjury trap in an investigation where no crime was committed. I want to see DeGeurin come out and say all the things that none of the reporters have or will ever say in a news conference, particularly now that their own - Russert, Cooper and Miller - will all have to avoid perjury snares themselves.
When did this prosecutor realize that the facts he was investigating made him conclude that no crime of outing a covert agent was committed, because Plame was not covert as defined by the law? That's such a core question and it's so powerful without even getting an answer.
If Fitzgerald realized this early on, then did he subsequently set a perjury trap to ensnare Libby? Why should he be permitted to continue to investigate Karl Rove when he admits he cannot now prove that Plame was covert?
If Fitzgerald claims that the conclusions regarding the facts he was investigating did not become clear until the end of the investigation, then he comes off as a liar himself; at best, he comes off as too stupid to realize what has been obvious to many, many others for some time.
Libby needs someone to get out in front of all the cameras and ask the questions that none of the reporters will ask, preferably someone like DeGeurin who has the credibility to make everyone take seriously the threat of exposing the reporters who represent the core of the case against Libby as liars themselves. According to the precedent Fitzgerald is setting, it shouldn't matter whether these reporters are lying about what Libby told them - DeGeurin can legitimately expose them as lying about anything *material* to the entire affair and demand that they be tried for perjury and obstruction.
That's what some prosecutors on TV were saying today.
Thanks for the ping!
All Ashcroft did was recuse himself from appointing a SP; Comey did that.
And, in fact, Gonzales met with this guy last week.
I thought the entire press conference was out of bounds concerning what a prosecutor should be saying about a person he was indicting.
It was too "these are the facts" to suit me.
Did Mr.Fitzgerald ever examine the fact that the force and vector of this case eminates from the same place...Langley. 1)White House and CIA at odds, with internice infighting, 2)Plame petitions someone to send Wilson to Niger, although he has no expertice in uranium, yellocake, or WMD,3)Wilson says he sipped Mint Julips for a week and determined nothing of the sort of Iraq petitioning Niger for yellowcake,4)He comes home and speaks of a forged document 6 months before the documents existance was publically known,(how did he know that), 5)He writes a partisan oped piece in the NYT critical of the very people who sent him (so he alleges). 6)In response to a reasonable question from Cheney (Who is this guy? I did not send him) the CIA makes a referral to Justice. 7)Wilson becomes the darling of the media as a spokesman for the CIA (What institution hates the CIA, historically, more than the main stream media? 8) Tenent whispers in Powell's ear, "Slam dunk". 9) The CIA goes on a flagrant media public relations tour to refute what the head of the CIA stated openly in front of cameras as well as writ. 10) Joe Wilson signs on with the Kerry campaign as a foreign policy advisor, then suddenly quits. 11) Tenent retires(?) and Goss moves in to clean house and the Agency is demonstrably resentful.
Any one of these events should have demanded Fitzgerald look at what has been openly printed in many news forums that there might be a cabal at CIA devising a plan to discredit the administration. Only this week did he as a few neighbors if they knew the occupation of Plame. 2 of these people were on television saying , no they did not. There they investigated and prooved that 2 people in the greater Washington area did not know. That was supposed to convince us that no one knew. There was a pretext to letting that information out.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I hope we get down to the bottom of it.
It was too "these are the facts" to suit me
Yep...I'm sure Gonzales was watching and everyone in the WH...and Fitzy is toast...he can kiss his career GOOD BYE...I'm very sure Gonzales was HORRIFIED by this out of line display of ole' Fitzy...I wouldn't want to be in his shoes...after today. Wouldn't be one bit surprised if a new prosecutor prosecutes this case.
Why should Karl Rove continue to be under investigation when this prosecutor admits that he cannot prove that Plame was covert, and thus outing her cannot be considered a crime? It's clear as day to me that continuing the *investigation* at this point is nothing but a trap by a prosecutor who is trying to verify the legitimacy of his indictment against another person.
The White House needs to slam that point home and fast.
Wasn't Plame compromised in 1997 by Cuba and brought home to be an analysist? Didn't the CIA out her? Didn't Wilson out her....all predating this sordid affair?
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.