Posted on 06/06/2006 3:57:32 AM PDT by Laverne
The special prosecutor wants to use our editorial as evidence. Sorry. "One of the mysteries of the recent yellowcake uranium flap is why the White House has been so defensive about an intelligence judgment that we don't yet know is false, and that the British still insist is true.
So imagine our surprise when Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald declared his intention last month to use that editorial as part of his perjury and obstruction case against former Vice Presidential aide Scooter Libby, who had also questioned Mr. Wilson's claims. It suggests that his case is a lot weaker than his media spin. Mr. Libby wasn't a source for our editorial, which quoted from the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concerning the Africa-uranium issue. But Mr. Fitzgerald alleges in a court filing that Mr. Libby played a role in our getting the information, which in turn shows that "notwithstanding other pressing government business, [Libby] was heavily focused on shaping media coverage of the controversy concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger." The prosecutor comes close here to suggesting that senior government officials have no right to fight back against critics who make false allegations. To the extent our editorial is germane to this trial, in fact, it's because it puts Mr. Libby's actions into a broadly defensible context that Mr. Fitzgerald refuses to acknowledge.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Let's see ...
1. Frist scandal over HCA stock sales ... NOTHINGBURGER
2. Rush's doctor shopping scandal ... NOTHINGBURGER
3. Tom Delay? ... Looking more & more like ... NOTHINGBURGER
4. Scooter Libby ... NOTHINGBURGER
5. Abramoff's implications for GOP ... NOTHINGBURGER
Am I missing something, or are the Dems whiffing big time???? I think I am missing a few things, but they're all more ... NOTHINGBURGERS.
Scooter Ping!
Thanks for the *ping*
Go Scooter Go
Step 1 is the WSJ. Step 2? I'm sure the NYTimes will comment on this as well (HAHAHAHAHA). Anyway, it is a step in the right direction, I believe this may be the first editorial that addresses the incompetence of Fitzy. His star may be fading; we can at least hope so.
That is a remarkably strained read of Fitzgerald's filing. Rather than saying Libby's involvement in disseminating this information was 'wrong,' he is trying to say that it runs counter to Libby's "I was too busy to worry with fighting back against allegations in the press about the runup to war" defense.
Not only should this case be tossed out, but it should have never been brought in the first place.
I agree -- the whole thing is beyond pathetic. Criminalizing politics, that Fitzy actually believes its OK for Joe and Val to lie the clymer's off, and yet Libby is not allowed to tell the truth. Bizzaro world for sure -- the liars are free to roam and lie some more, the those who want to counter those lies are indicted. Fitzy is one messed up prosecutor, and the judge is acting questionably, imo, to allow this to proceed.
Thanks for the tip to justoneminute! I've bookmarked it now and will be reading that regularly.
Strained? Fitz is so stupid he thinks responding to these lies was NOT part of Libby's job..
Thanks for the ping. I think the last 2 paragraphs are worth noting:
"All of this matters because it suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is scrambling even now to explain why a seasoned attorney such as Mr. Libby would lie to a grand jury. The prosecutor's original indictment doesn't mention a motive. And his mention of our editorial suggests he's now trying to invent a motive out of Mr. Libby's attempt to defend the White House from Mr. Wilson's manifestly false allegations at the onset of a Presidential election campaign. (Mr. Wilson joined the Kerry campaign until he was dropped after the official probes destroyed his credibility.)
There is all the difference in the world between seeking to respond to the substance of Mr. Wilson's charges, as Mr. Libby did, and taking revenge on him by blowing his wife's cover, which was the motive originally hypothesized by Bush critics for the Plame exposure. The more of Mr. Fitzgerald's case that becomes public, the more it looks like he has made the terrible mistake for a prosecutor of taking Joe Wilson's side in what was essentially a political fight."
Fitzy has nothing.
Pinz
The more of Mr. Fitzgerald's case that becomes public, the more it looks like he has made the terrible mistake for a prosecutor of taking Joe Wilson's side in what was essentially a political fight.
I happen to believe that it was Fitzgerald's staff who got him into this mess, and Fitz should really get rid of some of these people and extricate himself from this case post haste. It looks like he doesn't have a friend in the building. His reputation has taken some very serious damage.
Why on earth is it wrong for Libby to disseminate information that acutally corrects the public record?
Pinz
Wonder if his staff has connections to those other paragons of Chicago political cleanliness, Daley and Rahm Emmanuel....
Pinz
Oh, they have eyes and ears in there, I would bet on it.
Hilarious visual! ;-)
Pinz
The original grand juries are long gone. Fitz got his ham sandwich/Libby indictment right at the expiration of a previous grand jury.
By the way, I imagine that when Judge Walton reads editorials like this one he just shakes his head and wonders what he has to do to keep his own reputation intact and not let Fitzgerald drag him down. It's a full time job for Walton, and I am sure he doesn't want it.
Is the judge allowed to read editorials covering cases under his jurisdiction? I know next to nothing about the law, so sorry if this is a dumb question.
Oh yeah, there's no restrictions on what a judge can look at, only the jury.
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.