Posted on 10/02/2005 12:10:11 AM PDT by YaYa123
Ronnie Earle had nothin' but he still issued an indictment and generated lots of MSM spin against Delay, and also forced Delay to resign from the Majority Leader position.
If Fitzgerald is not vigorously exploring every aspect of MSM collusion with Joe Wilson in perpetrating the whole "Niger uranium" hoax on the public then Fitzgerald is falling down on the job. I sure hope the GJ results will not be a furtherance of the MSM spin machine, but the 'Rats have certainly controlled the agenda on this story thus far.... does Fitzgerald have the sense to see beyond the talking points fed to him by Joe Wilson and the DNC, or not???
Walter Pink-us is a lying whore for the Democratic Party (much like most of the MSM). Nothing he writes can be seen as anything but another attempt to spread DNC talking points in whatever way he deems most feasible and effective. His credibility is zilch and his character is below that of most other DNC rodents....
I would be very surprised if it did. If indictments are in fact brought against Rove and/or Libby under the IIPA, and the position of the prosecutor therefore is that Plame did meet the definition of "covert" under the Act, then at that point the defense may well challenge the allegation that she was "covert" within the meaning of the statute. Perhaps the scope of the definition of "covert" under the IIPA has been litigated before; I don't know. But I would think that the argument on the other side would be, even if her cover was blown in that it was known by journalists who closely follow the WMD beat, or even by the Russians as a result of an Ames disclosure or considered compromised by an inadvertent mistake in not using a secure communication protocol between embassies, that she might still be considered useful for a covert task in a some limited role. I think the Agency's determination of whether an agent was "covert" would be given deference, with the defense having to overcome a hurdle to prove it was not the case.
What Kalb said was based on unnamed lawyers "close" to the case, who are "now talking about" the possibility. Sheesh! Why did Fox even let this on the air? It was nothing but the rankest sort of speculation.
However, I do not trust Fitzgerald at all. Special prosecutors almost always wind up running amok for years, then wind up having to charge someone with something in order to justify their existence.
(Was it Marvin or his brother; I get the two mixed up.)
While I don't think Fitzgerald is anything like Ronnie Earle, he is a Democrat and it's possible that he has his pressure points.
The Dims view Rove in exactly the same way a maddened bull, stuck by the swords and lances of the matador, views its tormentor. If the national Dims have any leverage over Fitzgerald at all, we can be sure they will be exercising it to the full to get an indictment of some sort issued.
You are such a gem!
I have been afraid of a malicious, politically motivated prosecution for a long time. It's pretty clear the original matter is a non-starter legally, because the law related to the release of her name quite simply doesn't apply to her case. So, in my opinion, an honest prosecutor would have dropped this case a long time ago.
Even if, somewhere down the road, Rove, Libby, or whoever Fitzgerald targets may be acquitted, the damage to the Bush presidency of an indictment will be enormous.
Fitzgerald has a good reputation, and the calculus for him may well be balancing, on the one hand, the danger to his reputation by bringing indictments on a conspiracy charge that may turn out to be seen by the public as indicting a ham sandwich, with, on the other hand, trying not be become persona non grata in the Dim party.
So I guess I'm still thinking he'll go with a report criticizing Rove and Libby, but stop short of indictments, as an attempt to satisfy both sides.
You know, it's possible that these leaks from his office as to bringing a possible conspiracy charge are essentially a "weather balloon" by him to see how such charges would play to the public.
Fox has been repeating a lot of rumors lately and their credibility suffers as a result.
Personally, I'm sick of all the witch hunts and I would imagine the rest of the country is as well.
As to criminal conspiracy, those charges could just as easily be filed against Wilson for devulging information about his mission to Niger.
As I understand it, the leaks are not coming from Fitzgerald's office, but from lawyers "close" to the case.
Me, too. And I also agree that if any conspiracy charges are going to be brought, they should be against Wilson and the cabal he's been involved with from the beginning.
Wolf knew the answer to that question before he asked it.
Do intelligent people "feel comfortable" with a slimy RINO vacillating liar like Shays anywhere near Congress? All people with any intelligence and judgment answer with a resounding "NO!"
Wilson and a few other people should end up in jail over this, but I'm not optimistic. All the leaks from start to finish have been about Libby and Rove. Perhaps that's just more desperate 'Rat spin, but we've had no indication of any sort that Fitzgerald has focused any attention upon Wilson's cabal and the journalists he's played like puppets. Of course, we really don't know anything about what Fitzgerald is thinking, just what unnamed 'Rat lawyers choose to leak....
And that DOJ referral contends that she was covert.
It is not true legalistically, I grant. However, Wilson was only too happy to encourage the MSM in their mistaken expression that he was "on a mission from Cheney". Until, of course, he was pinned to the truth and, perforce, had to deny it.
Irrespective of all that, Joe Wilson does not warrant your -- or indeed, any American's -- defense and respect.
In Wilson, we have a man who himself believed that Saddam had WMD and would use them up to and even after Bush's SOTU speech. A man who then, out of rank political opportunism, undertook to undermine the President of the United States at a time of war.
What's more, Wilson was prepared to -- and did in fact -- fabricate the evidence in order to accomplish his highly partisan objective.
Legalistically, you might contend that Wilson was not really guilty of treason, but his intention certainly approached the mark. Assuming you are a patriotic American, Joe Wilson is undeserving of your support.
Instead, the little weasel deserves our hearty contempt.
Calling him a weasel is an insult to weasels everywhere. It's far too kind.
You're quite right. My apologies to all weasels, everywhere.
Instead, Joe Wilson would be more fairly characterized as a contemptible slug.
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.