Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsmax: Patrick Fitzgerald Quickly Asked for Wider Probe

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:06 PM
Original message
Newsmax: Patrick Fitzgerald Quickly Asked for Wider Probe
Edited on Mon Oct-24-05 06:23 PM by longship
A little over a month after he was appointed as special counsel in charge of the Leakgate investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald asked Deputy Attorney General James Comey for the authority to expand his investigation beyond the original allegations that the White House had illegally leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame.

In a February 6, 2004 letter posted to Fitzgerald's official web site, Mr. Comey acknowledged Fitzgerald's request to broaden his probe into the areas that now seem most likely to yield indictments of senior White House officials.

<snip>

The brief five week period between Fitzgerald's appointment as special counsel and his request to widen the Leakgate investigation raises questions about whether he concluded early on that White House officials had broken no laws in leaking Plame's identity - the original crime Fitzgerald was charged with investigating.


Am I the only one who has a problem with the NewsMax conclusion that an early expansion of the investigation should be interpreted that no crime had been committed in the leaking of Plame's identity?

To me, it means that Fitz realized early on that a larger conspiracy was evident.

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/24/132317.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's Newsmax, what did you expect?
Reasoned logic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. It sounds like he found a veritable mares nest of
criminal activity. You are right. NewsMax is spitting talking points apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fitz turned over the rock and found a bunch of worms
and Newsmax can't handle the truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Fitz Was Expecting a Bunch of Worms, He Found

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Couldn't have said it better, longship:
To me, it means that Fitz realized early on that a larger conspiracy was evident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. From Media Matters...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510240012

Citing a February 6, 2004, letter from then-acting Attorney General James B. Comey, recent news stories have falsely reported that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald asked for and received "expand" authority to investigate crimes, such as perjury and obstruction of justice, that may have arisen during the investigation into whether senior White House officials illegally outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. In fact, Comey's letter did not grant new authority to Fitzgerald; it provided clarification that Fitzgerald had the authority to pursue those crimes from the time he was initially appointed to investigate the case on December 30, 2003. The distinction is critical in light of the concerted effort on the part of White House allies to minimize the impact of any charges that are brought against Bush administration officials by depicting Fitzgerald as overzealous and by falsely suggesting that he might be exceeding his original mandate. His investigative and prosecutorial authority is, and always has been, plenary, as the Comey letter made clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. Getting news from Newsmax is like asking a freeper for the story.
Newsmax is not news. It's propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caduceus111 Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-05 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. Conspiracy
You hit the nail on the head.

The mainstream press is only parroting what the attorneys are spouting, which is that "perjury and obstruction of justice" are going to be the charges. Just listen to the pugs talking points about it.

I'm gonna be laughing my head off when these guys get hit with CONSPIRACY charges, as well as other charges that go far beyond perjury, lying to federal officials, and obstruction.

I'm convinced it's gonna be MUCH bigger than just the coverup felonies.

Fitz realized that people were trying to hide their activities early on in the investigation, hence the specific request for a broader investigation. Those charges aren't the MEAT, just the condiments.

=caduceus=
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC