guess they shoulda thought about that BEFORE they started this BOOOGUS Witch hunt!!!
Posted on 03/07/2006 1:44:11 PM PST by Cboldt
Of course the leaker/s is/are in the CIA!
There is an inherent conflict when an intel agency goes who works for the executive wants to prosecute the right-hand-man of the executive they work for.
It is relevant that Libby found himself defending the executive from attacks by the CIA itself, it is relevant that the CIA itself waged a war against the executive by means of targeted leaks. It is now prosecuting a member of the very same executive it has tried to undermine.
To prosecute a leak that was intended to counter CIA leaks, without first cleaning house at the CIA, is to take sides in an institutional mutiny.
Yes, yes, yes, and YES!
guess they shoulda thought about that BEFORE they started this BOOOGUS Witch hunt!!!
We could have saved a lot of money if Fitzgerald had done that at the very start.
It's both the FBI and the Grand Jury he's charged with lying to.
Patrick Fitzgerald—A 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 “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 secretly to 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 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 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 time 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.
That would be my take, but I'm no lawyer.
But as we saw in the Clinton case having oral sex with your 22 year old intern is not a criminal matter. Lying about it under oath is (even if you don't think you should be answering the question, etc.). In Libby's case telling the press about society-spy-girl Val Plame is not a crime, but lying about under oath is. (even if you had every right to tell the press about it.)
That seems simple to understand. I have been under oath in a civil case and the thing my lawyer stressed in preparing me is: DO NOT LIE. Why are the rules different for Scooter than they were for me, you or even Billy-bob Xlinton?
That's a lot of verbage there. The net it the circumstantial evidence to this point strongly suggests that Libbly lied under oath. If he did, he'll probalby be found guilty. That won't help Hillary or lead to the impeachment of Bush. Even if it was showed Chenny told Libby to out Plame that appears to not be a crime. So the buck stops w/ Libby, regardless of outcome of the case.
That's a lot of verbage there. The net it the circumstantial evidence to this point strongly suggests that Libbly lied under oath. If he did, he'll probalby be found guilty. That won't help Hillary or lead to the impeachment of Bush. Even if it was showed Chenny told Libby to out Plame that appears to not be a crime. So the buck stops w/ Libby, regardless of outcome of the case.
That was my understanding of how it was going to work out.
This move virtually guarentee's he'll not be found guilty of anything.
The CIA prefers to divulge information through legitimate means such as selective leaks to the press, not through bogus channels such as court orders. (sarcasm)
Libby should do well; he has Wen Ho Lee's lawyer defending him.
I am still flabbergasted that this thing is starting in 2007.
Why don't they just gather up a few ex-Ambasadors like they did with Wilson and have them handle the extra work?
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.