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.
Nevertheless, Fitz went on a jihad in the Palme case. That shows he's trying, unethically, to destroy the Bush administration, in the middle of a war for our notional survival, on any basis he can fabricate and expects to be rewarded by becoming Hillary's AG. Nadler's enthusiastic recommendation for him as counsel for any potential impeachment investigation pretty well blows the scam and is strong evidence that there's been some kind of improper and unethical communication between him and the Clinton camp.
After all, the Clintons try to flip anybody they can. Just look at Rush with Markie Post, David Brock with his boy friend, probably introduced to him by the Clintons, and Gary Aldrich's account of an attempted flip in Unlimited Access.
Add to this the fact that destroying the Bush administration, making the WOT unwinable, would make him the Democrat superstar who'd be first on the list to become Hillary's AG. As such, he'd have unaccountable life and death power, just like Reno, provided only that he enabled anything Hillary wanted to do. It's a genuinely terrifying prospect.
After what he's been doing to President Bush, that's like going to sleep with a black mamba, the most dangerous, venomous snake in the world.
Interception of electronic communication isn't necessary; all that's required is an interception of an oral communication with a device that passed in interstate commerce, just what probably happened here. Can't you Dummies come up with better responses??
What kind of a vehicle do you have and how did you get the "tires?"
One time I don't spellcheck...
Happens to us all.
I'll agree with that.
Nope fraid knot.
First the communications were not intercepted. The person recording was admitted to the meeting and Iowa law allowed members to record meetings. That's why the county attourny refused to get involved.
Second, sending a recording made legally across state lines is not an crime and is not prohibited. That's why the US attourney refused to get involved.
You simply can not make a crime out of this event no matter how hard you try. The entire text of 18 USC § 2511(1)(a) is available on line for your enjoyment. There is no reason to make these things up.
Please, spare me the cheerleading. His job was to investigate an apparent "outing" of a supposedly covert CIA agent. Shortly after the investigation began, he had to know Plame wasn't covert and hadn't been for quite a while, if ever. At that point, he went and asked for the investigation to be broadened. It should have ended if he had one ounce of integrity.
Shhh. Don't try to use logic or facts with the Patrick Fitzgerald haters. Since he's now indicted a guy who happens to work for a guy they voted for, all they can do is use the playbook of the Ken Starr haters and scream "partisan zealot!!", "witchhunt!", and "kangaroo court!!!" incessantly. It's a good thing this case didn't involve sexual behavior or they'd be calling Fitzgerald a "pornographer" next. They seem to have received their Prosecutor Smear Tactics 101 from James Carville.
The knee-jerk "defend anyone with an 'R' next to their name" crowd is making this website look more and more like a forum full of Ken Starr haters, c. 1998.
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.