Fitzgerald Refuses to Show Evidence That Valerie Wilson Was Classified (NO Fitzmas For The Left)

National Review Online ^ | February 23, 2006 | Byron York

[Just mythoughts]

"Tenant?"


Actually I think the team Rockefeller under the method and means described by his leaked memo were directing this whole effort. Rockefeller went to Syria/Jordan/Saudi Arabia in Jan of 2002 to "warn" about the intentions of the President. Joe Wilson goes in Feb of 2002 to Niger and stays silent for almost a year.

The liberal intent was to save Saddam and win elections whatever it took.

[Bommer]

The fact that Valerie may or may not have been outed, because she may, or may not have been a secret spy girl, really ain't got too much to do with this.

I disagree. Its got everything to do with the case, otherwise its not a crime to out someone who was never covert! A grand jury is seated for the sole purpose of investigation of breaking the law. If they were seated to investigate a crime that was never violated, nor never a crime where no statute has been broken, then Fitz is in big trouble!

[XJarhead]

The fact that Valerie may or may not have been outed, because she may, or may not have been a secret spy girl, really ain't got too much to do with this. Neither does the fact that her sleazoid bed partner may, or may not have, outed her long before Scooter may, or may not have.

Agreed, but I think the problem is that Fitz blabbed a bit too much at his presser and elsewhere about this indictment. I'm not sure if a judge if going to let him smear someone in public when announcing an indictment, then refuse to let the defense get evidence to refute the smears. Even if the smears are not mentioned explicitly in the indictment, I think he may have a problem with that unless Fitz can give good national security reasons why that information should not be required.

[Lurking in Kansas]

The more I read about Fitzgerald, the more he seems to be a classic case of the Peter Principle at work.

[Lady Heron]

The only problem with your thinking is Fitzgerald's press conference. Otherwise I would agree.

[mass55th]

I'd still like to know how a supposed "undercover" agent makes political contributions in the name of a fabricated company created to cover one's CIA employment. Wouldn't that be against the policy of the CIA? 10 to 1, Plame used a CIA phone line to pledge these contributions...another act that is not allowed while in the employment of a government agency. But I guess since Al "the wood" Gore did it, others feel it's okay to do it too.

[colorado tanker]

It really strikes me as unethical for a prosecutor to make the claims Fitz made in the press conference and then refuse to provide the documentation to back it up, claiming later it's all technically irrelevant.

[STARWISE]

I think the referral had to originate within the CIA, due to the nature of the violation ... doesn't mean Rocky couldn't have an implication in that either.

[Puppage]

They did a Homey the Clown skit where Homey had this sock that he beat kids over the head with.

Homey don't play dat

[lepton]

Purgery usually must be material to a case to be a crime.

Perjury must be material to determining that there was a crime as well. Even if Libby didn't leak, he can't be allowed to mislead a legitimate investigation. ...But that's not the issue. The issue is that it appears that Fitzgerald failed to determine if there was even a basis for investigation...not that Libby later may have interfered with an investigation that never should have occured.

[Republican Red]

Another post by Byron York at NRO:

PATRICK FITZGERALD, UNCONSTITUTIONAL? [Byron York]

Lawyers for Lewis Libby have just filed a motion to dismiss the perjury, obstruction, and false statement charges against him in the CIA leak case. That is standard procedure, and to be expected, but what is interesting about the motion is that it is based on a question that has been discussed privately among observers in Washington but has not really been fully explored in public. That question is whether the Bush administration gave CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald too much authority. In essence, Fitzgerald has as much power as prosecutors under the old independent counsel statute, but without the supervision of the attorney general or a three-judge panel, and without the requirement that he report his findings to the public.

Fitzgerald's authority comes from a December 30, 2003 letter from Deputy Attorney General James Comey in which Comey -- after the recusal of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft -- "delegated to Mr. Fitzgerald all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a Central Intelligence Agency employee's identity." In that letter, Comey told Fitzgerald, "I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department."

Libby's motion to dismiss argues that that is a unique, and constitutionally unsupportable, grant of power:

Acting without any direction or supervision, Mr. Fitzgerald alone decides where the interests of the United States lie in an investigation that involves national security, the First Amendment, and important political questions. He alone decides which individuals to subject to investigation, what evidence will be obtained or not obtained, and whether or not continued investigation and prosecution are warranted. He is subject to no oversight and has no obligation to comply with Department of Justice policies and regulations that constrain the exercise of law enforcement powers in all other federal cases. Furthermore, he has unilateral authority to expand his jurisdiction and the power to say when, if ever, his office should be terminated. It was limitations on those powers that led the Supreme Court to uphold the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. It is the absence of such controls that violates the Appointments Clause in this case.

After the independent counsel law expired, the Clinton Justice Department came up with a set of rules governing the appointment and practices of special prosecutors for future investigations. Those rules included supervision and control of the prosecutor. But the Bush administration, for reasons that have never been made public, decided not to follow those rules and instead gave Fitzgerald unlimited powers -- a decision that some in the administration no doubt regret and one which raises real constitutional questions. Now we'll see what the judge in the CIA leak case thinks about it.

[Kenny Bunk]

Its got everything to do with the case, otherwise its not a crime to out someone who was never covert!

One might think so, but remember, "The Law, Sir? The Law? The Law, Sir, is a Ass!"

From your keyboard, Bommer, to the Judge's ears.

[Just mythoughts]

I do not disagree about the origination of the filing, but I think the whole Niger trip to the filing was orchestrated by somebody in Congress. When the supposed leak or Novak's article first appeared old Rockefeller was squawking about needing an investigation, it was not until later Rockey's memo was leaked.

[Kenny Bunk]

Even if Libby didn't leak, he can't be allowed to mislead a legitimate investigation

That's part 1 of Fitz's Perjury Trap.

Part 2: The issue is that it appears that Fitzgerald failed to determine if there was even a basis for investigation...not that Libby later may have interfered with an investigation that never should have occured.

The beauty of Fitz's Perjury Trap is that he can claim that he would be unable to know whether or not there was a case, because Libby lied!

Fitz has served his masters well. His line of legal reasoning is designed to remove Valerie and her husband from the case. Libby is in big, big trouble here.

This is a case of "Turnabout is Fair Play." We didn't get Bill Clinton because of Monica. We got him because he lied about it under oath. It's sadder in Libby's case, because, unlike BJ, it doesn't look like (to me) he knew what he was doing.

[kcvl]

If that photo doesn't say it all I don't know what does.

[p23185]

They just ride off into the sunset, lay low for a while and then show up again to try ruining someone's life and reputation.

Man, my dream is to see at least 3 of these 4 "see no evil, hear no evil" buffon morons in prison for all the damage they did to this country, and continue to do.

[firewalk]

Thanks Howlin

[nopardons]

Lump? This will be more like a TON of coal, for the Dems!

[nopardons]

BIG bumpity BUMP to this.

[Cboldt]

If there is no underlying case, then how can any statement be "material?"

The context is investigating whether or not a crime has been comitted. A rule that legally excuses lying to investigators (e.g., put them on the wrong track) would be disruptive.

There is at least one case where the criminal statute itself was found unconstitutional, therefore it was impossible to be a criminal under it. But, the fellow who lied in the case? He still got nailed with perjury.