The law you quote is relevant only to electronic intercept of communications to which you are not a party.
Posted on 10/30/2005 1:44:37 PM PST by libstripper
The general media view of Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who has indicted “Scooter” Libby for perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements in the Plame leak investigation is that he is an incorruptible “prosecutor’s prosecutor.” A closer look at an earlier communications interception case involving Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) and the Libby case, a curious recommendation for him made by Representative Gerald Nadler (D, NY), and his own background all suggest something far different and more sinister.
I. THE TWO CASES
According to an October 22, 2005 NewsMax article, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/22/142646.shtml Fitzgerald. was the U.S. Attorney assigned to investigate a communications interception case where operatives of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) arranged to secretly tape a strategy meeting involving Harkin’s Republican opponent, Rep Greg Ganske. Brian Conley, a former aide to Harkin, made the recording while attending the meeting at the request of Rafael Ruthchild, a Harkin operative, and returned the recording and recorder to Ruthchild. When the Ganske campaign learned of this, they complained to Polk County, Iowa Attorney John Sarcone and to Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Conley and Ruthchild both refused to participate in the investigation and Ruthchild resigned from her job with Harkin.
The Federal statute in this case, 18 USC § 2511(1)(a) specifically prohibits any person from intercepting “any wire, oral or electronic communication[.]” This taping of the Ganske meeting appears to have been such an illegal interception. Nevertheless, the noted NewsMax article reported that Fitzgerald, after about a two week investigation, “announced there was no violation of federal law by Harkin’s team.” Fitzgerald apparently did not even interview Harkin, who “staunchly denied he had any prior knowledge of the possibility of a criminal tape plot.”
This starkly contrasts with Fitzgerald’s investigation of the Plame leak case. Here the alleged underlying violation was of either the 1992 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Identities Act) or the Espionage Act. The Identities Act prohibits disclosure of the identities of “covert” CIA agents, 50 USC § 421, and narrowly defines a “covert” CIA agent as an individual whose “identity . . . is classified information and . . . who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States[.]” The Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793 is equally narrow in that it applies only to a specifically listed set of disclosures, not including the disclosure of covert agents’ identities and prohibits such disclosure only if it is done “with intent or reason to believe the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation[.]”
Plame wasn’t a “covert” agent since she had returned to the United States more than five years before her identity was disclosed. There couldn’t have been a violation of the Espionage Act because “covert” agents’ identities aren’t covered by that act and any disclosure of her identity was to protect the United States from the damage she and her husband were doing to it, not with intent to use the knowledge to injure the United States or help a foreign power.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald went ahead with the Plame investigation without any reasonable chance of discovering any underlying statutory violation while he dropped the Harkin investigation, in spite of clear appearances that there was an underlying violation. Why??
II. THE CONGRESSMAN
Enter Gerald Nadler (D, NY), a far left Democratic congressman from New York, who distinguished himself with his passionate defense of ex-president Clinton during Clinton’s impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives. Subsequently, Mr. Nadler enthusiastically supported of Hillary Clinton in her run for the NY Senate seat she now holds. He can be anticipated to do his all supporting her in her likely run for the presidency in 2008.
Mr. Nadler has apparently been watching Patrick Fitzgerald’s handling of the Harkin and Plame cases and approved of the way he’s done both or, at least, Fitzgerald’s handling of the Plame investigation. Once again our old friend NewsMax has done some worthwhile digging and gone to Mr. Nadler’s website. On October 22, 2005 NewsMax, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/22/234208.shtml reported that “Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are so pleased with reports that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is about to indict senior White House officials that they want him to lead an impeachment investigation into whether President Bush lied to Congress about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” According to the same report, Nadler has written to the Justice Department and requested it to expand Fitzgerad’s investigation.
All this leads an inquiring mind to ask why Nadler, a strong supporter of Hillary in all her endeavors, is such a strong supporter of Fitzgerald. Is it possible that he knows something about Fitrzgerald, or ethically dubious communications involving Fitzgerald, that have not been publicly disclosed?
Fitzgerald’s background and general present situation suggestion that’s exactly the explanation for Nadler’s view.
Fitzgerald will turn 45 on December 22 of this year. He has served a little more than four years as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, having been confirmed on October 24, 2001. Before the his entire career was spent in various positions in the Justice Department, meaning he is now and has always been a man of no more than upper middle class means. His whole career shows that he’s a very ambitious man. According to an August 4, 2005 article in the Chicago Sun-Times http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-fitz04.html US. attorneys normally only serve four year terms, Fitzgerald’s is up, and there’s “speculation that he’ll be shown the door[.]”
Thus, it boils down to the fact that Fitzgerald is a very ambitious lawyer of no more than upper middle class means who’s at the end of his current career trajectory. He must find another way to advance and has shown an unscrupulous willingness to attack the Bush administration in the Plame investigation far different from his disinclination to follow a more promising investigation against Harkin. Now he has the golden opportunity of a lifetime—the chance to be the lynchpin of the Democrats’ effort to do what they have been absolutely unable to do since 2000, elect a Democratic President and Congress by destroying the Bush presidency in a time of war. If Fitzgerald accomplishes that, he will be their superstar and is almost assured to become Hillary’s Attorney General. His motive for pursuing this investigation where there is no underlying crime is clear—he ambitiously and unscrupulously desires to become Hillary’s Attorney General.
And he was right, because the meeting did not involve Interstate communication (or any electronic communication at all), and the only law that applied was Iowa law which did not prohibit the tapeing.
Next!!
The law you quote is relevant only to electronic intercept of communications to which you are not a party.
This garbage is really beneath FR.
All this money and time spent and all they can do is bust a Scooter.
A lawyer.
"...in the Plame leak..."
I still don't understand why there was a grand jury investigation in the first place. The law they were citing to do the investigation was for covert operatives in FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Plame was in Langley, VA...besides which, everyone...her neighbors, et al, knew she was CIA; she was NOT in a foreign country!
Even so, if Libby had just told the truth each time he was questioned, they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
I don't even want to see Fitzgerald run for dogcatcher. He is a hack.
Seems to me that he has missed at least half of the territory of his investigation and taken about 8x too much time to get to Friday's point.
Did we watch the same press conference? It doesn't seen so.
The Special Prosecutor made absolute statements that Libby DID all these things, not allegedly did them.
I got the distinct impression that Fitz had at best a weak case, knew he had a weak case and also knew that what he presented sounded as if he knew the results would be perceived as a mountain laboring and producing a very small mouse.
Far from prounouncing Libby innocent, I thought he was doing his damndest to a priori convict him by press conference.
(((This starkly contrasts with Fitzgerald’s investigation of the Plame leak case. Here the alleged underlying violation was of either the 1992 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Identities Act) or the Espionage Act. The Identities Act prohibits disclosure of the identities of “covert” CIA agents, 50 USC § 421, and narrowly defines a “covert” CIA agent as an individual whose “identity . . . is classified information and . . . who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States[.]” The Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793 is equally narrow in that it applies only to a specifically listed set of disclosures, not including the disclosure of covert agents’ identities and prohibits such disclosure only if it is done “with intent or reason to believe the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation[.]”
Plame wasn’t a “covert” agent since she had returned to the United States more than five years before her identity was disclosed. There couldn’t have been a violation of the Espionage Act because “covert” agents’ identities aren’t covered by that act and any disclosure of her identity was to protect the United States from the damage she and her husband were doing to it, not with intent to use the knowledge to injure the United States or help a foreign power.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald went ahead with the Plame investigation without any reasonable chance of discovering any underlying statutory violation)))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh for Pete's sake. He wasn't just empowered to investigate that one statute. He was empowered to investigate any illegal leaking. That could have meant the covert identity act, the espionage act, misuse of classified information, violating Wilson's civil rights, etc etc etc
Ashcroft & Gonzales both thought it warranted an investigation and chose him to do it. I'll trust that they had more info about the case than any of us.
And all of the griping ignores a point Fitzgerald made strongly. That Libby's lies made it difficult (or even impossible) to discover whether any of those laws had been broken. That's why people get charged with perjury or obstruction.
If Fitzgerald was the partisan hack some are making him out to be - he could have indicted Libby under those laws, he could have indicted Rove, he could have dragged Cheney back in under oath. Even if he lost the cases 18 months from now the damage would have been enormous. I've seen ambitious prosecutors indict on flimsy charges knowing that they probably won't hold up. They hope that more evidence will come later, or that the perp will plead, or someone will flip. Fitzgerald didn't do any of that...did he?
If it weren't for the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln, Langley, VA, would be in a foreign country (to the U.S.). Of course, the CIA headquarters wouldn't be located there.
If Fitz is such a clean upstanding Prosector, just exactly what has he been doing for two years to get to a he said / he said situation?
Did you watch his press conference? You know..the one where he said that if all of the people who received subpeonas had just shown up to testify that news conference & indictment would have happened in October 2004 instead of Oct. 2005. He spent a year traipsing through courts to force people to testify.
Would you like to keep griping about him spending 2 years at the investigation? Would you have been happier if this indictment and controversy happened last october just weeks before the election?
OK, maybe Fitz isn't a partisan hack. Maybe he is a bipartisan hack. He presented this crap to the "grand" jury when he could have just told them the media was lying as usual and it was beneath them to waste their time on it.
Then again, Fitz is a lawyer, and his lips have been moving................
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.