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

Skip to comments.

Patrick Fitzgerald Planned 2004 October Surprise
Newsmax ^ | Nov 4, 2005

Posted on 11/04/2005 4:16:03 AM PST by Hadean

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Williams
I think it rather means that he wished all the stuff had been in PROMPTLY. Fitzgerald is a non-politico, and the efforts to paint these indictments as politically motivated are just stupid. Not that there aren't legions of politicos out there who will try to spin this for all it is worth, it is just unfair to paint Fitzgerald as a part of this cabal. He is a career bureaucrat legal hard*ass, and would be going after democrats just as aggressively.

As to whether he should have been given the reigns to pursue this non-issue, that is another story entirely. If this weren't such a political hot potato, some uppity up in justice would have said, "down, boy!, we are not wasting Justice's time and money on this." As it is, that was not politically possible, as everyone would have wondered if there was a coverup.

The fact that there was an ELECTION in October 2004 does not imply that Fitzgerald wished he could influence it. It just meant that he wished all the facts were in earlier so he could do what he does, which is prosecute for a living.

Don't make more of this than it is.

41 posted on 11/04/2005 5:07:48 AM PST by chronic_loser (Handle provided free of charge as flame bait for the neurally vacant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser

I doubt somehow that the elder President Bush could have won under any circumstance in 1992. Even if Weinberger had not been indicted, I think Clinton would have won. Mr Bush might have carried a couple more states but he needed more time to turn that around. With Perot in the race, Bush just seemed doomed.


42 posted on 11/04/2005 5:15:42 AM PST by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
CIA can't even run a coup in their own country

The dems are always out in front of us on these things.
They will,if given a chance pack the CIA with leftists to have the ability to run a shadow governments without at all times.

Remember back in the 1920s when they realized public education was the perfect vehicle for indoctrination of lib/communist viewpoints.

43 posted on 11/04/2005 5:18:51 AM PST by carlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mariabush
Can we say Devine intervention!!!!!!!!!

Only if we all learn to spell it "Divine".

44 posted on 11/04/2005 5:19:01 AM PST by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Hadean

I have asked myself the question, "what would Fitz have done if Bush had not been reelected? Would Libby be indicted? Would this whole case have just been dumped?" My answer is most of the country would not even know who Libby is.


46 posted on 11/04/2005 5:29:23 AM PST by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carlr

"Remember back in the 1920s when they realized public education was the perfect vehicle for indoctrination of lib/communist viewpoints."
..................................................
The self appointed Elites in both the Dem and GOP party seem to think they will be exempt from the pogrom when all the communist ploting finally gives us a country where the constitution has been fully overturned and becomes a tool to promote the agenda as a (living breathing document of modern times) History has shown that all ELITES in a society become victims of the " Socialist STATE" most recent example is cambodia.


47 posted on 11/04/2005 5:31:57 AM PST by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If he were only interested in finishing the investigation in an expeditious manner, why did he keep on fishing once he found that no crime had been committed?

You miss the point entirely. Fitzpatrick was unable to complete the investigation in an expeditious manner because his investigation was obstructed by the alleged perjury of Libby. Fitzpatrick said that this is the reason his is still unable to name (indict) the person(s) who revealed the status of Valerie Plame Wilson. But even if there was no crime, even if the politically-motivated disclosure of her status was not technically a crime, we still have the alleged deliberate perjury to the grand jury by Libby, a perjury that occurred during an investigation concerning a national security matter (the disclosure of classified information possibly endangering CIA agents and methods).

This is not a trivial matter; the most charitable thing that can be said about this affair is that it appears to be a mistake of career-destroying proportions by key people (Libby, at least) in the Bush-Cheney administration.

48 posted on 11/04/2005 5:37:44 AM PST by megatherium (Hecho in China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fish Speaker
Does anyone seriously believe that the MSM would have prevented an October '04 surprise by dragging their feet and stonewalling the investigation?

That's the key, IMHO. The MSM would have jumped on the opportunity to torpedo the President.

49 posted on 11/04/2005 5:41:58 AM PST by Terabitten (God grant me the strength to live a life worthy of those who have gone before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hadean

There should be a special prosecutor to investigate why Fitzgerald ignored investigating #1 liar, Joe Wilson and his scheming CIA wife.


50 posted on 11/04/2005 5:45:26 AM PST by KenmcG414
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hadean

Gee, I'm happy to learn that Fitzgerald isn't really politically motivated! </sarcasm>


51 posted on 11/04/2005 5:53:03 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnny7

Do Chrissie and his ilk realize how foolish they look on tv getting so worked up over this? They look like they're in the throes of orgasmic rapture, or barely suppressing it. If I was them and I caught myself on tv looking like that, I'd die of embarassment.


52 posted on 11/04/2005 5:53:53 AM PST by gop_gene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
You miss the point entirely. Fitzpatrick was unable to complete the investigation in an expeditious manner because his investigation was obstructed by the alleged perjury of Libby. Fitzpatrick said that this is the reason his is still unable to name (indict) the person(s) who revealed the status of Valerie Plame Wilson. But even if there was no crime, even if the politically-motivated disclosure of her status was not technically a crime, we still have the alleged deliberate perjury to the grand jury by Libby, a perjury that occurred during an investigation concerning a national security matter (the disclosure of classified information possibly endangering CIA agents and methods).

Fitzpatrick did not need Libby's testimony to determine that no crime had been committed. All he needed to do was to determine Plame's status at the time of the supposed leak. As far as I can tell, he deliberately avoided making that determination in order to stretch out the investigation. After all, once he determined that Plame did not meet the strict definition of a "Covert" agent under the law, there would have been no more need of an investigation.

53 posted on 11/04/2005 5:55:02 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

Who are you... Jimmy Carter?


54 posted on 11/04/2005 6:18:04 AM PST by johnny7 (“What now? Let me tell you what now.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine
Timing does apparently mean everything.

Now Joe Wilson was sent to Niger in Feb. 2002, a mere 6 months after 9/11/01 to gather this supposed intel.

Now this trip seems more like a pre-emptive strike, looking back on the history of this attempt to save Saddam. There are few people upon this earth that had the knowledge and wherewith all to plan this and have the foresight to attempt to accomplish three things.

1. Save Saddam

2. Crush President Bush - under "whatever it takes" plan = Rockey's MEMO

3. Elect a lying crooked liberal = JFKerry

This attempt has "global" implications considering whom it is that supposedly promised old Saddam they would save him.
55 posted on 11/04/2005 6:33:45 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser
Ah! But don't we all remember the famous "political tin ear" of Ken Starr?:

"starr" and "tin ear"

Results 1 - 10 of about 567 for "starr" and "tin ear".

Starr`s `tin ear` hurts his case, friends say
WASHINGTON - A common view about Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr these days is that he has a "tin ear" for for the subtleties of politics and that he is not helping his case by employing tactics the public dislikes...

It seems to me that either the prosecutor is a Democrat, or else he's too politically naive to be running this investigation.

FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005.

Gads! What an effing naif! Anybody that knows anything about politics knows that this sort of thing is set up months and sometimes YEARS in advance. Uh, Patrick - anything about that SPECIFIC month [October 2004] ring a bell for you? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

56 posted on 11/04/2005 6:52:33 AM PST by an amused spectator (If Social Security isn't broken, then cut me a check for the cash I have into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
"We had to indict someone...If not Rove, then who?"

The ham sandwich.

57 posted on 11/04/2005 6:53:04 AM PST by p23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hadean

How about an investigation into the Kerry campaigns use of the Niger story to try to defeat Bush? There's a Pulitzer there for somebody. Yeah, I know, today's "journalists" are only interested in screwing Republicans.

But, consider. If a Republican campaign persuaded someone to write a substantially phoney op-ed in the New York Times, to make a Democrat administration look like they were lying, wouldn't that be big news?


58 posted on 11/04/2005 6:54:44 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hattie
I have asked myself the question, "what would Fitz have done if Bush had not been reelected? Would Libby be indicted? Would this whole case have just been dumped?" My answer is most of the country would not even know who Libby is.

Isn't it odd that none of the "journalists" asked this very obvious question of yours? This is why we need the Internet.

59 posted on 11/04/2005 6:55:32 AM PST by an amused spectator (If Social Security isn't broken, then cut me a check for the cash I have into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Williams

"If true, this would have been a violation of the Justice Department's long standing policy of NOT indicting on teh eve of an election."

I guess that policy wasn't in existence in 1992. Or is that a policy that only applies to indictments of Democrats?


60 posted on 11/04/2005 6:57:11 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

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