He can't show what doesn't exist.............
Ha! Ha! Another lump of coal for the DUmmies!
i-i'll have a blu-u-ue Fitzmas.....without youuuuuu....
Libby ping.
Can Libby sue for Prosecutorial abuse?
For some legal beagle type, but if your car is searched and the cop did not have reasonable grounds to think you had committed a crime, wouldn't the evidence be tossed out? And would the same legal reasoning be in play here? If there was no crime in the first place, how could any fruit of the poison tree be used to convict someone?
For some reading on another topic I thought you might find interesting. :-)
There used to be a show called"In Living Color" They did a Homey the Clown skit where Homey had this sock that he beat kids over the head with.
It seems obvious Homey beat Fitz a little too hard.
Extremely difficult to prove a negative, "I did not beat my wife, in fact, I do not have to prove that I did not beat a wife, as I have no wife."
All this from the so-called "Prosecutor's prosecutor"???
The man whose very essence, whose very being, is the Platonic essence itself of "prosecutorial justice" ???
Maybe all those Demmy exhortations (threats?) that one could not POSSIBLY impugn the integrity of this uber-prosecutor, that here was a man above the fray, so to speak, were for a very good reason... that being that he is politically unhinged, pursuing a fantasy crime with evidence that doesnt even rise to the level of "flimsy", and that he is about as impartial and as fair as the cackling hyena known as Mary Mapes.
ping for read at work.
More non-findings about Fitz's non-case about the non-story.
Good taxpayer money went for this non-investigation.
Pttui!
Patrick FitzgeraldA Tale of Two Cases and a Congressman
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 prosecutors 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 secretly to tape a strategy meeting involving Harkins 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 Harkins 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 Fitzgeralds 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 wasnt a covert agent since she had returned to the United States more than five years before her identity was disclosed. There couldnt have been a violation of the Espionage Act because covert agents identities arent 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 Clintons 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 Fitzgeralds handling of the Harkin and Plame cases and approved of the way hes done both or, at least, Fitzgeralds handling of the Plame investigation. Once again our old friend NewsMax has done some worthwhile digging and gone to Mr. Nadlers 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 Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. According to the same report, Nadler has written to the Justice Department and requested it to expand Fitzgerads 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?
Fitzgeralds background and general present situation suggestion thats exactly the explanation for Nadlers view.
Fitzgerald turned 45 on December 22, 2005. 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 then 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 hes 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, Fitzgeralds time is up, and theres speculation that hell 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 whos 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 lifetimethe 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 Hillarys Attorney General. His motive for pursuing this investigation where there is no underlying crime is clearhe ambitiously and unscrupulously desires to become Hillarys Attorney General.
In the end Libby, who has served faithfully, will be completely vindicated but the damage to his reputation and the Administration will never be repaired.
The Left will move on to create their next Republican "scandal" with the full support of some other rogue Prosecutor, the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the Left-Wing Media.
Looks like it's going to be a Fitz-BQ. Well done for me please.
Well wonder of wonders, and this case was about WHAT?
Now how about who ever it was at the CIA that referred this case to begin with under the pretense that she was covert???? Names please.
Isn't it a valid defense of perjury that the lie was not 'material' to the unlying case? If there is no underlying case, then how can any statement be "material?" Any lawyers on board please correct me.