Regarding Patrick Fitzgerald

[H2O Man]

There is some confusion about why Patrick Fitzgerald has not released any of the FBI/grand jury investigation other than that used in the Libby trial. The reason is simple: he can't.

Patrick Fitzgerald does not have the authority to release any of the information that is not directly related to a person he has charged with a criminal offense. He has made that clear several times, including at the press conference held the day the Libby indictments were handed down, to his letter of response to democrats in congress after the Libby conviction.

The only exception would be in the context of a criminal trial. If, for example, a defense witness testified differently in the trial than s/he had in the grand jury investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald could then use the part of the earlier testimony to impeach their trial testimony.

There are parts of the Plame scandal investigation that the Department of Justice (but not Mr. Fitzgerald) could release to Congress. Several democrats have requested the DoJ do this. Thus far, the DoJ has simply refused the request.

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney met with Mr. Fitzgerald in July, 2004, to discuss their knowledge of the Plame scandal, including what took place leading up to Valerie Plame being exposed, and the response to the DoJ investigation. Both Bush and Cheney opted to be accompanied by their personal attorneys. Both Bush and Cheney have access to the full transcript of their respective interviews with Mr. Fitzgerald. Either of them could release their transcript. The chances of this happening is zero, of course.

Congress does have the ability to gain access to the FBI/grand jury investigation records that have not been released in the Libby trial. They have to show that there is a reason to justify the court ruling to release the information. Case law in this area -- which those in Congress and their staffs are 100% fully aware of -- is clear.

The problem today isn't Patrick Fitzgerald. It's that Congress is not doing its job. The responsibility falls fully with them.

[lonestarnot]

1. Who's calling for that? Just get the transcripts from the snotty/bushitler/dick conversations prior

to snotty spouting the lies. GJ testimony is secret unless it becomes a matter of record in public trials or hearings.

[H2O Man]

2. What transcripts? n/t

[MADem]

6. Yeah--what transcripts? Did they reinstall Tricky Dick's taping system? nt

[lonestarnot]

11. The ones KO discussed last night.

[H2O Man]

16. Those are

the interviews that Bush and Cheney did with Mr. Fitzgerald, as part of the investigation. Patrick Fitzgerald has no legal authority to release those. If he did, he would be violating the law.

[lonestarnot]

18. Judiciary Committee can subpoena them, but subpoenas mean nothing these days.

[H2O Man]

21. Congress

can go to the federal court, show just cause for the release of the records of the FBI/grand jury investigation, and have the court rule in their favor. Those in Congress and their staffs are fully aware of this.

[lonestarnot]

27. Well they better put it on their calendars for the day they return or

if they were actually leaders, they would call an emergency session to get to the bottom of this. This would be one time that grandstanding could pay off in the long-term.

[malaise]

32. I'm going to assume that we'll be hearing a lot more of this come

January.

[Horse with no Name]

26. Actually Fitz can release them with a subpoena.

The release isn't up to the WH.
Seems like a slam dunk doesn't it? Something they could actually get...yet they don't even ask...

[H2O Man]

30. The Department of Justice

can release some information under certain conditions. And Congress can gain access to the entire record.

[lonestarnot]

33. Secret means secret. You haven't given them time for shit sakes.

They're eating turkeys. :rofl:

[MADem]

22. Were there ACTUAL transcripts, or were 'notes' taken?

Usually, BushCo doesn't ALLOW transcripts. Are we sure of this fact?

[H2O Man]

24. Yes.

Absolutely sure.

[Lugnut]

35. Keith said manuscript

He meant the manuscript of Scott's book could be subpoenad.

[H2O Man]

36. He spoke about

the manuscript of the book, and about the transcripts of Bush and Cheney's July 2004 meetings with Patrick Fitzgerald. And you are correct, he did say that Congress could subpoena to get the manuscript of the book. I think he said this in the context of if McClellan himself refused to speak with Congress.

[lonestarnot]

38. No transcripts, listen again.

[MADem]

41. No COMMA transcripts, or NO TRANSCRIPTS?

It really isn't clear from everything I've been able to find. And I've been LOOKING.

[lonestarnot]

107. No comma transcripts.

:)

[madhoosier]

115. Fitzgerald's web site is still up.

I find it interesting that the web site of the Special Council is still up and operational; http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
We may not have seen the end of Fitz’s work yet.

[lonestarnot]

9. KO mentioned transcripts.

[MADem]

25. I wonder if he's not mistaken on that score...usually, BushCo forbids 'transcripts.'

They allow a summary to be taken down, 'notes' to be made, but no word-for-word shit. They don't want to be pinned down that way.

That aspect needs clarification, I think.

[lonestarnot]

29. Well it was pretty fucking clear to me.

[H2O Man]

31. Right.

They gave depositions. Word for word, on the record.

[lonestarnot]

34. Yes they did!

[fooj]

79. They BOTH did. I thought some of it was actually leaked.

I thought Little Lord Pissypants portion was available at one point.

I recall reading or hearing something like "I didn't think they were going to out an agent"...

Hell, there's so much info and so little time, eh?

I could be wrong. It won't be the first time. BWAHAHAHA!

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, H20 man! :hi:

[MADem]

40. Jesus, don't bite my head off. All I am saying is that it has not been customary for

BushCo to PERMIT transcripts during interviews, and I haven't seen a forthright source saying, in writing, that there were actual 'word for word' transcripts prepared from those interviews. Every cite I see, like WAPO, for example, calls it an interview, too, not 'testimony'--and we know he wasn't under oath. Now, lying to the feds IS a crime, but he had a lawyer in there with him. I'm sure the answers were sufficiently ambiguous so as to cover his ass, in any event.

It's not clear from this gaggle either, how the interview was 'memorialized.' And the question WAS asked.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/06/mil-040624-usia03.htm

[lonestarnot]

108. Lawyers cannot advise during GJ testimony.

:shrug:

[MADem]

114. That wasn't "testimony." That's my point. It was an interview, and Bush's lawyer was

IN THE ROOOM.

When you testify before a GJ, your lawyer sits outside on the bench.

And you are mistaken, the lawyer CAN advise the person testifying --but the person testifying has to ask for a break to consult.

This little 'talk' with Bush was NOT testimony. That's just not accurate. That's why I wonder if there is an actual 'transcript' or just notes made.

Just because someone SAYS so, doesn't make it so. It could be a misuse of a word.

[acmavm]

3. Exactly! And we've all seen how fast Congress has been to do their duty

to the country, the Constitution, and the American people.

This administration has been one big long criminal conspiracy, from the initial campaign leading up to the 2000 election and every single thing they've done since. They haven't done ONE thing, not one, that benefits this nation. Amazing, isn't it? Not one. They've destroyed the economy, they bankrupted the Treasury, they've put us in hock to foreign nations so bad we'll never get out, they lied us into a war that has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and in this particular case, they revealed the identity of an intelligence agent working to stop nuclear proliferation and to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Someone please tell me, what has this country come to when the crooks, killers, liars, (and in the case of Congress) those complicit in covering up the crimes, proudly and publically proclaim that regardless what the people want, it will still be business as usual with these assholes.

They all need to be arrested. For starters, I'd use the RICO statutes just for shits and giggles.

[H2O Man]

5. The McClellan snippet

supports the belief that VP Cheney engaged in abuses of power that warrent Congressional action.

[acmavm]

14. Oh, that I understand. But what are the odds? Grandma Nancy is NOT

about to do the right thing. So, criminal prosecution may be all he have left. And God knows, there's enough evidence to indict.

Start with the theft by deception of nine billion dollars and work your way up (or down). How about the 22 billion paid out and no one knows who actually got the money? Money always touches a nerve.

But if not money, what about the mass slaughter of innocents in Falluja? Or the use of White Phosphorus? Better yet, the intentional murder of our own troops by sending them into a war zone without the right equipment which results in unnecessary death? Or faking Jessica Lynch's 'rescue' and continuing to lie about it until she stepped up to the plate and did the right thing, she told the truth.

Or how about packing our government agencies and offices with clowns who were hand-picked to promote all this criminal activity and to facilitate their anti-American illegal and corrupt schemes?

And how about the theft of the 2004 election? They knew they were using hackable machines. And the voter tabulation being put on RNC servers? Oh please, that just screams fraud.

I don't know why I expect anything though. When the people we elect allow a bunch of criminals to spy on us, to lie through their teeth and get away with it, to defy Congressional subpoenas, and to rape kill and maim at will, it seems stupid to expect them to do their 'duty'.
Or how about

[H2O Man]

19. There is enough

evidence of Cheney engaging in abuses of power in the Plame scandal to warrent impeachment. Abuses of power need not reach the level of violations of criminal law to justify impeachment.

[acmavm]

20. My point EXACTLY. There is enough. But the Congress, led by Grandma

'impeachment is off the table' Pelosi, won't use it.

So we go to Plan B.

[fascisthunter]

4. If Fitz Could Do Something

would Mukasey be a factor?

[madrchsod]

12. you bet mulasey is---

he has to approve of the grand jury transcripts being turned over to the appropriate committees in the house and senate.

[fascisthunter]

13. I Thought So, But Really Know Less than You Folks

on procedure. Thanks for the reply.

[H2O Man]

15. It depends.

For Mr. Fitzgerald to do something, it would require some new evidence come to light. Scott McClellan's information does not fit that description.

The one thing with the most promise was Libby facing an extended period of incarceration. Patrick Fitzgerald knew that Libby was afraid of going to prison. Libby's attorneys had attempted to reach a plea deal with Mr. Fitzgerald in the fall of 2005, before the indictmentswere handed down. The stumbling block was that Mr. Fitzgerald insisted upon substantial jail time.

When Judge Walton handed down the sentence, it was longer than Mr. Fitzgerald had determined was necessary for a plea deal. Mr. Libby's attorneys had the option of attempting to reduce the sentence by offering to coperate with Mr. Fitzgerald; there is good reason to believe that Judge Walton would have accepted any recommendation Mr. Fitzgerald made in this regard.

There would have to be some "smoking gun" now, I believe, for Mr. Fitzgerald to continue with the case. It is possible, but unlikely to happen. But a "smoking gun" would make it hard for Mukasey to run interference.

[fascisthunter]

17. I See... Thank You (nt)

[rockybelt]

90. Except

for the assumed knowledge that the pres told Libby that he would never have to spend a day in prison. If a person could find evidence of this nature, all the current conjecture would be stood on it's head.

[H2O Man]

93. I have yet

to hear one intelligent person suggest that Bush told Libby this. That does not mean that intelligent people doubt for a minute that there was an unspoken understanding.

[L. Coyote]

7. Thanks. ALSO, there is the possibility that further indictments may follow, or

a new grand jury may be empaneled. What Fitz has is essentially the product of investigation, and you don't show all your cards when investigating.

[rhett o rick]

37. Like I am going to hold my breath. What was the result of the long Fitz investigation?

And all the other "investigations"? Oh that's right, a big fat nothing. I remember the continuing excitement during the Fitz investigation. And the excitement of "wait till we have a majority then we can have investigations". Investigations aren't worth 'stuff' w/o convictions. One might ask "Congressperson, what are we doing about the corruption in Washington?". Response, "We are investigating".

[madrchsod]

8. i have read and reread the law on federal grand juries

during the libby investigation and as soon as i read where those to "democrats" were voting to forward the ag to the senate i knew we were in trouble. will the appropriate committees request the transcripts? will the democrats finally understand the importance of dennis`s quest for impeachment. i`m not holding my breath on this happening. yes fitzgerald told them and only dennis has done something about it.

[dweller]

64. ONLY Dennis, you say?

why am i not surprised.

:kick:

dp

[spanone]

10. Thank You for the Clarification....

[Horse with no Name]

23. Thank you waterman

You cannot give a man a job to prosecute then give him lying witnesses who obstruct at every turn and expect great results.
The ONLY leverage he had was to flip Libby. However, the White House assured that would not happen.
In case folks have forgotten, the pardoning guidelines recommend that at least 5 years of the sentence be served before pardoning happens (Sec. 1.2 Eligibility for filing petition for pardon.
No petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who is on probation, parole, or supervised release.)

Fitzgerald's legs were taken off when the Libby pardon came through as quickly as it did and the American people should have been in an uproar.

But we know how that ended, don't we?

He specifically told Congress they could subpoena him. That was the only way this investigation could go on, however, even with that direct request, Congress has yet to do so.

The fault of this does NOT lie in Fitz--it lies in a Congress who is unwilling to seek impeachment, even when it means overlooking flagrant impeachable testimony.

[mmonk]

28. Very true. His hands are tied, but not the hands of congress.

So any failure to act is their's and their's alone.

[L. Coyote]

39. He still has many options, and all the power of the Attorney General to proceed

with investigations, empanel a grand jury .....

[mmonk]

84. I was speaking in what he can release concerning the

investigation. Yes, he would seem to have lattitude in convening a grand jury. The congress if it wanted to do its duty could cut to the chase however as it doesn't have to narrow its focus or investigation.

[xiamiam]

42. last night on olberman, j turley commented that fitzgeralds image was not in keeping with the

investigation..dont have the exact quote because i was a little surprised to hear him say that..but it seemed he(Turley) wasnt too impressed with Fitzgeralds investigation

[lovuian]

48. I'm not either Fitzgerald was given the job to investigate

and there were crimes of missing emails and crimes against storing those emails and he knew Rove was in violation of those laws

and yet Rove never got convicted and to not bring Cheney on the stand Amazing

Fitz was trying to give the CIA agents and Plame who was outed some justice

he gave them a fall guy

Its pretty obvious Congress didn't do their job and Fitz didn't do his

because we still have traitors walking in the whitehouse


but in giving Fitz his due ...he was working against some pretty dangerous fellos
He did venture out and left the doors open for more... I give him credit for that but again he was covering himself there too
To hear Scotty MCCellan bringing this out only makes Fitz look like a bad investigator for he didn't get to the truth did he

Scottie tells now when he should have told under oath
maybe he never got asked that not good investigating

[H2O Man]

49. I like Jonathan Turley.

He believes that Mr. Fitzgerald should have indicted Rove and/or Cheney. I wish both had been indicted. However, like Mr. Turley, I could only speculate on if Mr. Fitzgerald asked the grand jury to return indictments, but didn't have the votes, or if perhaps he believed that he did not not believe that he had enough evidence to believe he would get convictions after a trial.

[lovuian]

50. You know your probably right but dang on the surface

Fitz's butt looks so bad from the evidence

Scottie coming out now really makes him look bad

You have to understand he was given the power to investigate
He knows the crimes that were committed

and then to see Scooter's sentence commuted it really looks like a deal was made
its actually like a page out of the movie Syriana when the lawyer asked we need a fall guy

I wish I could have seen Scooter's face when they told him it was going to be him

that picture would be priceless

I think Dean had it right Fitz needed to convict over and over again
Be a real pain in their sides

but Fitz got his fall guy and went back into the shadows

looks bad very bad I feel for him because he is honest playing with very bad men

[H2O Man]

51. Scoot McClellan's snippet

can only make Mr. Fitzgerald "look bad" to those who insist upon the snippet meaning something other than what it says.

[lovuian]

56. Are you saying you don't think Bush knew that Scottie was

lying to America or that Cheney and Rove was involved??? Do you think Fitz got his man that he got the real criminals???

McCellan's Snippet what a word that is Snippet sounds like a joke when I take it as a interesting statement and seems very plausible with the evidence given in the trial

its a book called What Happened

and Scottie just like Armitage is trying to salvage his credibility and political career

I guess I look at the Snippet as a very BIG deal
its a matter of subjectivity

Scottie was a patsy doing the job of a patsy but obviously Scottie believes his career is worth more than what the whitehouse paid him .... inflation is going up
Lesson for Scottie is you play around with these guys and your going to get burned

[H2O Man]

57. What can be said

with near certainty is that Scott McClellan would not have been in a position to know to what extent Bush was aware of Rove, Libby, or Cheney's role was when he first discussed this with the press.

We can also say for certain that Scott McClellan told the journalists at the press conference that he had spoken with Rove. Did Rove lie to McClellan? Yes. Did Rove know that McClellan was telling reporters something that wasn't true? Yes. However, it is not illegal for Rove to lie to the press secretary.

In general, making a false cover-story is considered consciousness of guilt. Rove and Novak were believed to have discussed a cover-story for their July '03 phone conversation (per Murray Waas), and Rove's grand jury testimony about his phone conversation with Chris Matthews was very different from what Chris said happened. I think there were areas where Rove could have been indicted. However, neither you nor I know if Mr. Fitzgerald asked the grand jury to return indictments and found there were not the votes, or if he decided there wasn't strong enough evidence to ask for indictments. Either way, Rove's role in the scandal was far less significant than Libby's.

The only individual who played a more significant role in the scandal was VP Cheney. Again, neither of us knows why Mr. Fitzgerald did not indict Cheney. My belief, based upon the evidence, is that he concluded that Cheney had definitely been involved in a way that was an abuse of the power of his office, but did not meet the standard for criminal prosecution. As of yet, I have not heard or read anything that indicates anything other than that.

Abuses of power which are not criminal are still serious issues. In fact, they are exactly what our Foundind Fathers had in mind when they put the line "high crimes and misdemeanors" into the Constitution. More, when we look at the second article that the House was preparing for Nixon, it involves abusing the power of office to punish political opponents.

[xiamiam]

62. it would be very interesting to see how high crimes and misdemeanors, and treason as joe wilson has

mentioned...well, it would be nice to see a very simple outline (if simple is even possible)..which connects the various ongoing investigations..the outing of valerie wilson..the no bid contracts and looting of the treasury...the lies which led us to war...torture...

its too much for the average gal or guy to comprehend..would be good if we could start working on some kind of emailable outline which breaks it down..i know a lot of folks who know it but just cant connect the dots...

[lovuian]

111. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made clear his suspicions

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made clear his suspicions about the culprit when he said "a cloud remains over the office of the vice president."

So Fitz was waiting for Scooter to talk before he went to prison

But we may never know exactly what happened because President Bush thwarted justice and guaranteed the success of the cover-up when he commuted Scooter Libby's felony sentence on four counts of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice.

this is guilt of Bush right here where he thwarts justice and commutes Scooter's sentence

even after he made the speech about getting rid of those who outed Plame

and not to mention Novak Chris Matthews Cooper Russert and Miller all are
"The Washington press corps, whose pretension is to report and interpret events objectively, has been compromised in this matter as evidence presented in the courtroom demonstrated. Prominent journalists acted as witting agents of Rove, Libby and Armitage and covered up this serious breach of U.S. national security rather than doing their duty as journalists to report it to the public."
Isn't there some Fraud here somwehere or a conspiracy???

One would like to ask Fitz did you ask Russert who he worked for or Novak and checked the CIA personel records or could he even go there for its too top secret. And the guy who forged the Niger documents did he go to jail???

And this kinda says what I'm thinking too

Now we learn from the president's former press secretary, Scott McClellan, that the president himself "was involved" in sending him out to lie to the American public about the betrayal. If his direction to McClellan was deliberate and knowing, then the president was party to a conspiracy by senior administration officials to defraud the public. If that isn't a high crime and misdemeanor then we don't know what is. And if the president was merely an unwitting accomplice, then who lied to him? What is he doing to punish the person who misled the president to abuse his office? And why is that person still working in the executive branch?


Scottie wants whoever sent him out there to lie to America ...to ANSWER those questions because I don't think Fitz asked them those... And then Fitz why didn't you

[CK_John]

43. We put all our hope in a GOP DA and now we expect results, how stupid are we? n/t

[H2O Man]

47. How stupid?

Here's a clue: Mr. Fitzgerald is not a DA, nor is he a republican.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. How does the Scott McClellan statement tie into all this?

[H2O Man]

46. It keeps the issue

at a relatively high profile, and should be used to create interest in Congress.

[xiamiam]

54. well..front page headlines last night and today on cnn were about holloway..nt

[H2O Man]

55. One hopes

that the elected representatives from both parties would focus on what is important to the nation. Yet there are doubtlessly many who would prefer that Congress focus on the Holloway's family tragedy, than on the Plame scandal.

[JDPriestly]

94. What role does Armitage play in this?

Did the fact that Armitage claims to have discussed Plame with Woodward without knowing Plame's true status mean no crime was committed? Does anyone really believe the story of Armitage, the invisible man in Iran-Contra?

[H2O Man]

98. "no crime was committed"

In what context? Do you mean with just Armitage? Or the entire administration?

[JDPriestly]

101. That is what I am asking.

I am not an expert on this. I have never thoroughly understood the details. I vaguely recall the argument that since Armitage was the first to "out" Plame and since, somehow, the popular version is that he did not know Plame was covert, somehow no crime was committed. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm asking for clarification on this point.

[The Backlash Cometh]

103. He was used.

[H2O Man]

104. Armitage

was not charged with any crime. His having spoken to two journalists did not make it any more or less possible to charge the others in the administration who also were telling other journalists during the same time period.

[H2O Man]

105. PS:

It was a good question -- I did not intend to imply otherwise. I was just unsure of what context you were speaking of.

[The Backlash Cometh]

102. Armitage is known to have a big mouth.

The White House's men give him a memo that reveals Valerie Plame works for the CIA. He either babbled, because that's what he normally does, or he is lying. Either way, it says a whole lot that someome like Armitage was even allowed to have a government job for as long as he did. Doesn't add up. Is our government really that incompetent?

[H2O Man]

45. An important transcript:

Question: Would you oppose a congressional investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity? And if not, would you be willing to cooperate with such an investigation by handing over the work product of your investigation?

Fitzgerald: I guess that's two questions, and I know I can answer the second part, turning over the work product.

There are strict rules about grand jury secrecy if there were an investigation. And, frankly, I have to pull the book out and get people smarter than me about grand jury rules in Chicago and sit down and tell me how it works.

My gut instinct is that we do not -- very, very rarely is grand jury information shared with the Congress.

And I also think I'd have to be very careful about what my charter is here. I don't think it's my role to opine on whether the Justice Department would oppose or not oppose some other investigation. So I'm certainly not going to figure that out standing up here with a bunch of cameras pointing at me.

Press conference announcing Libby indictments
Friday, October 28, 2005
3:57 pm est

[xiamiam]

53. he left in open..and maybe that was the only thing he could do in the political climate of that era

but that was before all the of the current investigations started..so maybe he looks a little tarnished but by leaving the door open..perhaps that was the ultimate decision he had to make..because look where libby is now..i personally think the time is better now..

[bleever]

58. The way Fitzgerald answered that question

is a perfect example of why I respect him so much. He is deeply committed to the rule of law. He's the antithesis of the Cheney/Bush approach to the law.

[Me.]

52. If You Can't Knock Down The First Domino The Rest Aren't Going To Fall

That WH gang was used to lying with impunity, their biggest one being being the lie that sent us to war. A whole group of them used to meet in the veep's office to figure out the best way for them to lie and spin, spin, spin. They're not the kind that tells on each other, unlesss...they have something to lose. Fitzgerald tried a classic move, taking them down from the bottom up. What stopped him was sand and the fact that I Liar Libby knew he'd be taken care of, and he was. There are no words for how outrageous that commutation was. It effectively put a stop sign in front of any potential traffic from the prison where the Scooter might have been sent.

It's up to Congress now and if they fail us, they fail the country in a way that will haunt us for years.

[Garbo 2004]

59. Exactly. The commutation guaranteed Libby's continued silence

and interfered with what was then still an ongoing criminal case/investigation.

[Mend]

61. if the outcome was going to be the same, Fitzgerald deprived us of the pleasure of seeing

these bastards in court. That was what they most feared, esp. Rove, and that is the gift they were given...free passage. My intuition says Fitzgerald did not work for the people of the United States. He seems part of their machine.

[Me.]

66. Respectfully Disagree

On this Thanksgiving. That is a judgment I will not make until all the facts, those things we do not know, come to light, if ever they do. I'd have to know if the GJ was ready to go ahead and he wasn't, what solid evidence he did and did not have. Further, I'd have to know what pressure he was under (if any) and how and by whom it was being applied.

I consider the admin a form of Mafia, and as with all Mafia prosecutions, someone needed to be turned for the case to go forward. Libby was the pressure point until his sentence was commuted. Right before our very faces the crime was committed.

"Omertà implies “the categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities or reliance on its services, even when one has been victim of a crime.”

[Mend]

67. the expectations were high, maybe too high (?FItzmas), but the outcome was classic zip

...everyone knew libby would be pardoned so the only point of the trial would have been to grill rove and cheney under oath...we the people did not get anything. That must be in some part due to Fitzgerald as he ran the show.

[H2O Man]

68. Mr. Fitzgerald

was prosecuting Libby for charges that did not require him to call either Rove or Cheney. Neither could have added anything for the prosecution of the case.

[Mend]

69. maybe he didn't require it, but we sure hoped for it...we were all looking forward to

admissions from cheney/rove. I gather you are satisfied with how Fitzpatrick handled treason.

[H2O Man]

72. Can you

list a single advantage that Mr. Fitzgerald might have gained by calling two people that were, in effect, defense witnesses, in a trial where he convicted Libby on 4 of the 5 felony charges?

[Kingofalldems]

70. True, but as I recall

Libby's attorney promised to call Cheney as a witness in his opening statement.

[H2O Man]

71. Yes, he said

that the defense would call Cheney, and indicated that they would call Rove, as well. But that isn't something that Mr. Fitzgerald is responsible for.

[rateyes]

60. Impeachment hearings would do nicely.

[elehhhhna]

63. "Congress is not doing its job.' well duh

[Duppers]

65. blackmail?

I keep thinking congress-persons are being blackmailed, just as Sibel Edmonds said that she had proof of.
I think some must fear for their lives--hint: Sen. Wellstone.

I hate being so cynical.

[spag68]

73. I'm surprised that so many here still don't get it.

This Fitzgerald guy is not a hero of any sort, he's a REPUBLICAN for crying out loud. He's in their pocket and was from the beginning.It was just a dog and pony show all along. Did you really believe anyone from that investigation was going to jail? They learned their lesson from the Nixon BS, and got it right this time.The only real hope is to keep trying to convince others and keep writing and pestering reps. and sens.

[H2O Man]

74. He's not

a republican. Why do people keep saying that? Is it because they haven't bothered to pay attention? Or have they been fooled by purposeful lies?

[Catherine Vincent]

75. I think some keep saying that because they know Fitzgerald was

appointed by the Bush administration and they ASSume he's a republican. :)

[H2O Man]

81. That could be.

I think that you are right: in many cases, it is because people are unfamiliar with the facts, and so they just make something up that they assume is correct. That type of attempred shortcut to logic renders anything they say after the "he's a republican" to be meaningless.

[Disturbed]

76. Fitzferald did the best he could with what he had to work with.

In order to do better he would have had to have Documents to prove his case. Those have been thrown away on the HDs & /or shredded. This Fascist Regime did learn not to tape incriminating evidence or keep other such evidence around.

[H2O Man]

82. Right.

Bullfight critics ranked in rows
crowd the enormous Plaza full;
yet only one is there who knows,
And he's the man who fights the bull.

[Me.]

77. Beats Me

‘Fitzgerald is careful to be apolitical in his targets and his public life alike. He registered to vote as an Independent in New York, only to discover, when he began receiving fundraising calls, that Independent was a political party. He re-registered with no affiliation, as he did later in Chicago.’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer

‘He registered to vote in New York as an independent. When he discovered that Independent was a political party, he re-registered with no affiliation. Illinois citizens know him for pursuing Republicans and Democrats with equal fervor. Former governor George Ryan (R) is on trial on corruption charges, and a growing number of aides to Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) face influence-peddling charges.’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301028.html

[Catherine Vincent]

78. Yes, I remember reading that about him.

But you know what? I have a feeling he doesn't vote. Because if he re-registed as an Independent, he should know there is always someone that runs for President on the Independent party ticket. Since he didn't realize it was an actual party, he re-registered "no affiliation".

Yep. I don't think he votes.

[H2O Man]

83. I could at least

understand the concerns of those who worried about how Judge Reggie Walton would rule from the bench. He is a conservative republican. As you may recall, a few DUers, such as merh and myself, kept saying that he was exactly right for the case. And he was -- Judge Walton ruled in our favor on almost every important point. No critics could say, "he's a liberal judge!" And when he used the same sentencing guidelines that conservative judges always use, the president had to step in and obstruct justice.

[Mend]

85. I am with you Spag....look at the process, not the content, look at the result,

not the script, and there is the answer.

[Me.]

96. Stuff & Nonsense

Your ire would be better placed at the admin and the Congress. one for creating this situation and the other for not addressing it in any way. Further, it astonishes me how many would so easily attempt to tarnish the reputation of someone who didn't do anything to deserve it and probably didn't want the job in the first place. This man was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. He got the conviction for God's sake but dems and republicons alike join in keeping harping about him instead of putting their attention where it should be.

[blogslut]

80. Thank you

Here's hoping a certain fellow named John has duly noted McClellan's snippet and will act upon it. ;)

[PATRICK]

86. Classic legal process vs.

classic power abuse. Turning a single player who can simply be pardoned was inevitably doomed. In our system, even without such defensive power, the crucial victories are often sidereal. Suing OJ. Suing the KKK. Civil liberties violations when murder trials fail. Harvesting the Mafia for tax evasion under their
hardwired Catch-22 of not being able to declare criminal sources of income. In the Watergate trials, "maximum sentence" Judge Sirica had the pressure applied and people folded- or held on grimly in hope of Ford pardons. Mixed results because the pardons were delayed and too many to consider in the avalanche of events.

Looking at the Plame dynamic it was herded down the narrow path continually as far as legal consequences were concerned, no matter how deftly and secretly the prosecutor played his cards. Are the rich and powerful simply over-protected by the system they abuse?

The power of presidential pardons could be restricted. The power of the prosecutor could be increased. Other avenues for alternative prosecution could be enabled and pursued and I think some are being tried even now, with varying degrees of hopelessness.

In the end where is the responsibility and accountability for reining in government abuses if all three branches fail to check and balance much less simply perform their sworn duty? The special prosecutor? GAO? Inspectors? They might, by fate's chances, tip the balance or simply bring critical facts out into the open with less freedom than a fair news reporter might theoretically enjoy. The ultimate responsibility is among elected officials and it is there where the failure lies as in Iran-Contra or any other shortcoming in dealing with their own institutions.

Dealing with one's own in ANY human endeavor poses the same shortcomings almost as a dismal rule of thumb. Thus outside or designated intermediaries, always opposed and restricted depending on the power of the group. In this case it is impossible to make the prosecutor function an equal to the ultimate power of the government itself. It is a reminder of where we are, absent a divine intervention we do not deserve.

[Mend]

87. the outcome was pre-ordained. The one thing we could have gotten was

rove and cheney on the stand...it was clear that the ultimate goal of those two was to stay out of court and they won. It was not about clearing libby, his lawyers barely presented a case and we knew he would be pardoned (commuted, whatever). Fitzpatrick was in charge and he did not bring them into court. We are reaching different conclusions as to why that happened.

[H2O Man]

88. You have yet

to explain how "we could have gotten rove and cheney on the stand."

[Mend]

89. KO said that Fitzpatrick allowed rove to come in several times to redo his

testimony...cheney gave testimony. They were parties to this or they wouldn't have been called in. Why didn't they have to take the stand if they gave testimony? Why was rove allowed to "clarify" his statements several times? Rove won, Cheney won, Bush won, Libby won...we lost, the end.

[H2O Man]

91. Libby was the one

on trial. Rove was not. Hence, Mr. Fitzgerald was prosecuting Libby. He convicted him on four felonies without putting either Rove or Cheney on the stand.

The grand jury investigation included interviews with many, many people who did not testify in Libby's trial. Again, the reason is because Mr. Fitzgerald was focused on convicting Libby.

[Mend]

95. that is the concrete reality but in truth we were after the big fish...

the hook is empty. Thanks for your time...I'm off now.

[H2O Man]

97. You have no answer.

Hence, I agree that you are off.

[Me.]

100. You Might As Well Save Your Breath

Those who know and understand little about the case will continue to batter the prosecutor because the sdmin has continued on their cheating lying course. Like Caesar's wife Fitzgerald's case had to be above suspicion and he conducted himself appropriately. Whining about him because * commuted the sentence and stopped the matter dead is fruitless. Without Libby's testimony he would be attempting a wink, wink, nod, nod prosecution of Cheney. Remember Libby going into the veep's office and saying in, of course, the most innocent way, I think I'll just continue the way I have been? The game was set with that non-plan put into the works. Does anyone seriously think that defense fund would have been set up if its real mission, to keep super hero Libby silent, hadn't been made as plain as day?

[H2O Man]

106. I can understand

why people might feel the investigation was not complete, because Dick Cheney has thus far walked away untouched. Cheney lost his top aide, and had his already stained reputation take a hit, but he did not have to take responsibility for what he did.

Having to testify in the Libby trial could, in theory, have created difficulty for him. That is, one can safely assume, why he did not testify for the defense. Mt. Fitzgerald had no reason to call him in the Libby trial. It's important to remember that there are different dynamics in examining a witness -- even a "hostile witness" -- and cross-examining one.

In terms of the grand jury failing to indict Cheney, while I certainly wish they had, there are a number of reasons why it didn't happen. In part, it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald believed that Libby was more likely to try to make a deal when facing incarceration. Libby had almost taken a deal in the fall of 2005, but refused due to the jail time. His sentence was longer.

Several members of Congress had written to Bush, requesting that he not step in and pardon Libby. They could have prevented him doing so, by taking one step: opening an investigation into that "cloud over the vice president," and stating it was to see if Cheney committed impeachable offenses, based on his role with Libby in the Plame scandal. Bush could not have stepped in under that circumstance. Those in Congress knew this, but they failed to do their part.

The part about Rove is still frustrating for many. Rove is toxic. Democrats can't stand him. Yet his role in both the war in Iraq and the Plame scandal was minor compared to Libby. Those who call Libby a "small fish" are either ignorant when there is no excuse for that type of ignorance, or full of baloney.

Regarding the part about "treason": while I understand why people refer to the Plame scandal as such, there was zero chance that any prosecutor would have attempted to charge any of the major players with treason. The truth is that the charge about revealing a covert agent's identity would have been difficult in the case of either Libby or Cheney; it didn't apply to Rove; but it might have been fair to charge Elliot Abrams with. More, the entire group could have been charged with violations of the espionage act (same as the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal). It appears that Mr. Fitzgerald was giving serious consideration to charging both Libby and Cheney with this; had Libby made a deal, it would have happened.

There is still more than enough to justify the House impeaching Cheney for abuses of power that were not "criminal."

[Me.]

109. Knowing Is One Thing

Proving it is another. And unless you have a bona fide tape recording, a signed document which says exactly so and so and can not be interpreted as a question but rather a strategy, or a witness willing to testify, you've got nothing. Which is why the Scott McCellan disclosure is so intriguing.

[H2O Man]

110. Congress has two options

for finding out what Scott knows: (a) asking him to come in and talk; or (b) taking the step necessary to secure the records from the FBI/grand jury investigation. Or, do both.

[Me.]

113. Will They Act?

That's the operative question. It seems like weeks since the McClellan revelation but hasn't been a week, and there is the holiday. But we will know whether or not Congress has any intention of investigating at all by the action/non-action that should or will not shortly ensure. McClellan hasn't only put the WH on the spot, he has placed Congress there too.

[acmavm]

92. Another day, same tired from Congress. It reminds me of lather, rinse,

repeat.

[AikidoSoul]

99. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Kick then dammit!

Kick. Kick and kick again.

[deacon]

112. k + r