Shuster: "Fitzgerald is somebody who brings cases that he wins..."

[sabra]

http://newsbusters.org/node/5873

<snip>

Substitute anchor Brian Unger inquired: "David, as you reported, your sources seemed to indicate that Karl Rove would be indicted. What happened?"

David Shuster, from Washington, DC, answered: "Well, sometimes when you're trying to track a secret grand jury investigation, the legal sources, the defense lawyers who have witnesses in front of that grand jury, sometimes they get it wrong, and that seemed to be the case in this particular case. And, of course, we hate it when that happens, but in going back to all of those defense lawyers today with the exception of Karl Rove's lawyer, who said that he would never be charged, all of those lawyers said that if he had the same circumstances all over again, somebody testifying five times before a grand jury, somebody who had the burden to stop the charges, somebody who had to testify for three and a half hours the last time, and oh, by the way, he had a classification in the Libby case that almost suggested he would certainly be indicted, the lawyers say they would have reached the same conclusion.

“The issue, they say, though, is not that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concluded that the case was unwinnable, rather that it was not a slam dunk. And all these lawyers suggested that in a case where you're looking at a public official and whether a prosecutor is going to indict a public official, that prosecutor usually has an extra burden trying to make sure that if they're going to bring this case to trial, they can certainly meet the obligation of beyond a reasonable doubt, and that they are 99 percent certain, not 50-50 because they're dealing with a public official, and you're dealing with the career-making or possibly-losing case if, in fact, you do lose it."

Unger’s follow-up presumed Fitzgerald let Rove off easy: “David, does this demonstrate some remarkable restraint from what seems to be a very straight arrow here, Mr. Fitzgerald in this case for stopping now?”

Shuster: “Well, what it underscores is that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is somebody who brings cases that he wins...”

[Selatius]

1. I guess Karl Rove was too tricky for Fitzgerald

Libby was a good enough catch, no?

[sandnsea]

2. Everybody has a life and a career

What, regular lives and careers aren't worth as much as the protected and connected class??

[Kagemusha]

3. Fitzgerald's job isn't to frivolously indict people.

Also, these are difficult cases to prove. He's acting in the best interests of the public if he can't indict Rove AND convict him... as unsatisfying as that might seem. But as Jane Hamsher, no shrinking lily, was saying on her blog, it was never about Rove's head, it's about restoring faith in the system. Not indicting people frivolously is part of the system of seeing justice done.

I mean, ordinarily, investigations are much more open. The grand jury process is an exception to normal rules and with that power comes great responsibility. If only Rove took responsibility as seriously.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Schuster's such a limpdick

He's been wrong about everything on this Rove matter, and now he pontificates about how it's somehow Fitzgerald's fault because he 'brings cases that he wins.'

Guess what?

There's such a crime as "malicious prosecution," and that means you have to bring cases you can win.

David Schuster should just go away and find work as a bagger in the local supermarket. Maybe he can get that right.

He's shameful.

[madrchsod]

5. he didn`t have enough to bring to the grand jury

to convince them to indict. by watching him work in illinois and i don`t think rove was ever the real target. i think his target is dickey boy and he may not be able to get him at this political time..