The Times is hurting pretty badly.
The Post, not so badly, but still down substantially from their peak.
Posted on 09/01/2006 8:50:56 PM PDT by rightgrafix
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.
Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.
Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Two years ago it was reported that Kerry was considering Armitage as Secretary of Defense.
If Korn and Isikoff are convinced Kerry is going to run again and stands a chance to win, maybe they don't want Armitage in that administration because he's not quite "left" enough.
This part has puzzled me. Libby had absolutely no motive to lie about where he heard the information about Valarie Palm Wilson. Russert says they did not discuss Valarie Palm. Either Russert is lying or Libby was mistaken about which reporter he talked with. However, to have a perjury rap prosecuted he would have to have been very definite about talking with Russert. Otherwise, he would have said "to the best of my memory it was Russert I spoke with about Valarie Palm."
I THINK RUSSERT IS LYING!
Agreed if the president fired him he would be played out like the Saturday Night Massacre under the Nixon administration.
Could Fitzgerald have granted Armitage immunity or would that have been made public?
It may have been a "flop" because of what you said..and Bush got reelected anyway...
However, OUR tax money has paid for this sham for 3 years...I want my money back..
And LIBBY's career was ruined, plus HIS expenses for alledgedly lying and obstructing "justice" for a case that never had MERIT and the SP KNEW the person who he was going after BEFORE the grand jury ever got the case.
So...for THOSE reasons, WE need to do whatever possible to make sure this story doesn't DIE, or go away.
I am going to contact my Congresscritters to find out if any kind of charges can be brought against any of the players, like Fitzy!
HE has wasted MILLIONS of taxpayers dollars..and should be made to pay them back.
I am not sure but I dont think Armitage's name was mentioned.
..Was Armitage Judith Miller's source as well?.......
It is said the whole exercise was a fiasco. But it must be rmembered that Judith Wilson was actually jailed.
The precedent is in my view a great historical event. From now on sources must be given up if a grand jury asks. We should rejoice at this change in the rules by which the game will be played.
I hope not...sounds like a GREAT fantasy.
What we have here is another possible "Barrett Report" case...where taxpayers pay MILLIONS for an investigation that in the end, may never be exposed completely.
Clinton has probably had a strong hand in both cases.
I posted your little find at Amazon. :-)
There has been speculation that he was offered the AG position in a Democrat administration if he could help bring about that administration. Didn't work out and yet he still didn't end the charade.
AmeriBrit brought up the possibility of blackmail. I wouldn't rule that out only because of certain observations.
1) Fitzie had a good reputation on both sides of the aisle and a very successful career and that's a lot to risk for an uncertain pay back with an enormous down side if caught.
2) Fitz is a very experienced and confident (even arrogant) prosecutor. Does anybody here think he routinely breaks out in flop sweat when he appears in court or on TV? But he sure did in his "news conference".
IMO this indicates (not proves) that he knew he was lying and maybe he even understood that he was participating in treason (undermining a pres and CIC in time of war). What could make a person take that kind of risk?
If anybody has observed him in action and knows that he does routinely break out in sweat while working, I'll take it all back. Meanwhile I'm wondering what they've got on him and I'm pretty sure it's not taking pens home from the office.
After a week or so of silence, watch for the New Improved Democrat Position on this--"We've been had. Why didn't Armitage, who served under the President's Secretary of State, step forward? Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed by the Attorney General for a job he clearly botched. We call for an inquiry into the inquiry."
Ah the unintentional comedy of the Sulzberger whores.
I think most of us here agree with you. The interesting glitch is that Russert was never put under oath so he's not subject to perjury charges. Legally he's home free.
OTOH if this goes to trial and he's put under oath and has to tell the truth, the SOB will expose himself as a partisan LIAR who deliberately ruined a man's life both WRT finances and reputation.
If so, Libby can sue Russert's fat ass right off. Also, one of the left's most established operatives is blown out of the water with loads of collateral damage to the left.
Also, Fitzie will have to explain why he didn't put Russert under oath and yet took his word over Libby's.
Please, please, please let there be a trial.
I guess it's just an honest mistake that the Times doesn't mention that Gonzales isn't supposed to ask--in other words, he was sticking to the law. Here they make it seem like he just didn't ask, and was possibly neglecting his duty.
F-ing shameless, these people.
Now it's time to prosecute that bastard Fitzgerald.
They're trying to cover their own asses. They are as guilty as anyone by participating in an obviously fraudulent political witch hunt. The only good news is that their circulation and stock prices continue to sink into the tar pit of historical irrelevance.
The Times is hurting pretty badly.
The Post, not so badly, but still down substantially from their peak.
Gimme a break. Not only will he not fire him, but he won't even say a harsh word about this sordid affair.
In fact, he is more apt to give him another position in his meandering Administration.
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.