Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rocko
Thanks.

One passage that struck me the most from the NYT piece was this:

Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

And as I said, to my mind this is the most damning revelation yet. Why on earth would Patrick Fitzgerald tell Armitage to keep quiet about being the leaker? Robert Novak never understood why his source would not come forward and put an end to this preposterous charade.

The goal of a prosecutor is to get at the truth. Not to abuse his position to entrap others and to help propagate a smear campaign by the opposition party. For this act alone, Fitzgerald should face disbarment and probably jail time.

5 posted on 09/02/2006 1:15:12 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Sam Hill; Kenny Bunk

'The goal of a prosecutor is to get at the truth. Not to abuse his position to entrap others and to help propagate a smear campaign by the opposition party. For this act alone, Fitzgerald should face disbarment and probably jail time.'

absolutely.


8 posted on 09/02/2006 1:23:46 PM PDT by bitt ("And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Sam Hill
One would think that Scooter Libby might consider some punative legal action against Armitage, Fitzgerald, Plame, Wilson and Company!

Whats the famous quote...: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

12 posted on 09/02/2006 1:27:38 PM PDT by HardStarboard (Hey, march some more - its helping get the wall built!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Sam Hill

I distinctly remember when Karl Rove would not comment on his Grand Jury testimony, the MSM was quick to condemn his silence as a sign of guilt. They always reported, Rove could speak to reporters if he wanted to, there's no law against a person from revealing what is said to a Grand Jury. Of course Armitage never got that grilling from the media.


19 posted on 09/02/2006 1:42:37 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Sam Hill

"Why on earth would Patrick Fitzgerald tell Armitage to keep quiet about being the leaker?"

One thing is certain.....in the course of the "investigation" Fitzgerald had plenty of contact with Plames associates/managers at CIA.....at least some of likely were/are members of the CIA anti-Bush cabal.....of which Fitz might well be an 'associate' member or perhaps was manipulated to disregard Armitage and right and wrong.


24 posted on 09/02/2006 2:03:18 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Sam Hill

I agree that instructing Armitage to keep quiet is really scandalous. Probably threatened him with obstruction charges if he did. Fitz is a whack job.


32 posted on 09/02/2006 3:14:15 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Sam Hill

has Novak wrote his column yet?


42 posted on 09/02/2006 5:28:38 PM PDT by mosquitobite (The penalty for refusing to participate in politics is you end up being governed by your inferiors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson