Posted on 04/05/2006 6:42:08 AM PDT by the Real fifi
A few days ago, something quite unprecedented happened. A former federal prosecutor (Richard Convertino) was indicted for obstructing justice and seeking false testimony under oath in the nation’s first post-9/11 terror trial three years ago. What particularly caught my eye in the AP account of the case is this:
At one point in late 2002, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago drafted an indictment against al-Marabh on multiple counts of making false statements in his interviews with FBI agents. Justice headquarters declined prosecution.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-bttt-
bump for later
Who does special Prosecutor Fitzgerald answer to? Spending taxpayer money so wantonly on frivolous cases merits his dismissal.
ping
The fact is in this politically charged case, no one in their right mind is going to remove a special counsel. The dems would have a tizzy, claiming that this was a continuation of the Saturday Night Massacre and that a coverup was under way. No, once Fitz was appointed he had free reign to wreak any havoc he saw fit, and that's exactly what he did.
Ding .......
It's been said that drying up funding which has been looked into is the way it's been done.
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.
I have believed this since his press conference.
Can't do it here. There is no limit on his tenure or funding.
For one thing, Mr. Harlow, the CIA’s public affairs officer, not only confirmed her identity to journalist Robert Novak and did very little to prevent its publication, but also, as the prosecutor has revealed, conveyed this information to Ms. Martin, a White House public affairs officer, as early as June 1, 2003.
Now June 1, 2003 would be prior to or contemporary with Walter Pincus' inquiry to the CIA about Wilson's Niger trip, which was sometime during the first week of June 2003. If Harlow was willing to disclose Plame's background to Martin at that time, it makes it virtually certain that Pincus would have been provided that same information (if he did not have it already). Presumably this could be verified if Fitzgerald had allowed Pincus' testimony to be leaked to the press the way he has allowed the testimony of other witnesses to be leaked--but as we have seen, Fitzgerald's illegal leaks are very selective (and when do we get to start an investigation of who's behind the flood of leaks from Fitzgerald's office?). To my knowledge Pincus has not commented publicly on this aspect of his testimony (and even if he did we'd have no guarantee he'd accurately report what he testified, as he and his Post colleague Woodward seem to have separate versions of the truth and neither of their words are worth the paper they're printed on, much like Fitzgerald's law degree).
Great point.
I don't believe the leaks are from his office though, I think some are made up leaks to justify partisan claims and others are from lawyers representing partisans in this matter.
I agree ... there are so many he said/she said .. he said/he said CYA operations at work here, and with the MSM implicated and Wilson's scumminess, I doubt we'll ever know the truth. Judge Walton's head must be spinning.
Another great article from Clarice on this topic. Does anyone know the schedule for a hearing on this issue?
Some seem to have been--I noted a few. I'll see if I can dig up the references for you.
I knew but forgot. It was moved back recently IIRC. The schedule is not on Libby's website nor Fitzgerald's and I think you can find out only by calling the clerk of the court.As to the subpoenas to reporters I do have the schedule. The media must file any motions to quash of modify by April 18. On the 25th any opposition to those motions must be filed. The media has until May 1 to reply and the hearing is set for May 5.
I cut the following from the YARGB site; someone might want to post a link to the Judge's ruling. This summary, as I said is from the YARGB site, cut and pasted in its entirety. (I hope that is OK to do; if not I have posted to the admin moderator and he/she can delete this post if its improper).
Judge Walton today issued an order and memorandum opinion today respecting Libby's motion to prohibit the government from filing an ex parte submission of classified information to the court without first making a particularlized showing of exceptional circumstances. At first glance the memo and order seem to indicate that he views with a gimlet eye the notion that ex parte submissions claims and will entertain them only under circumstances where the dfendant's interests in a fair trial are protected as fully as possible. He also rejects the notion that Libby and his lawyers all of whom are cleared to handle classified information should be kept in the dark as if the defendant were a suspected spy and his counsel untrustworthy.
Any Section 4 filings submitted by the govt must include a declaration, executed by an intelligence official with requisite classification review authority, which (1) describes the reasons for the classification of the information at issue,(2)sets forth the potential harm to national security that could result from its unauthorized disclosure; and (3)explains why the defense, based upon appropriate classification guidelines, does not have a "need to know" the information
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.