Sound like we have a new defintion for the Urban Dictionary... and I LOVE it.
If this is true, and if the misrepresentations were deliberate, who prosecutes the prosecutor?
later read
bump
If the Libby case is dropped, several prominent Liberals around the country will spontaneously combust.
More telling than this article was a posting yesterday which related other requests for information that Libby's lawyers had requested from Fitzgerald.
One of those requests asked Fitzgerald for any and all documents relating to Valerie Plames classified employment status. Fitzgerald's answer said they could not provide any such documents because his office does not have any such documents and has not asked anyone for them.
So, the idea that a "classified" CIA employee's identity was "leaked" has never been part of Fitzgerald's investigation.
His entire case is that:
(1)if someone complains about government policy and in those complaints (a)lies about the manner in which they obtained that opinion (said his wife had nothing to do with how he got the assignment to Niger), (b)lies about the government's interpretation of just what it is the lier obtained (said his trip "proved" things it in fact did not prove, to anyone),
that
(2)the government or a person or persons in the government are remiss, illegally remiss, if they attempt to correct that liers assertions by giving more facts to the means by which the lier arrived at his opinion (his wife, working at the CIA got him the assignment).
Talk about a purely political witch hunt!!!!!!
Libbey and anyone else in government who revealed the untruths of Wilson are heroes, not criminals.
bump
Patrick FitzgeraldA Tale of Two Cases and a Congressman
The general media view of Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who has indicted Scooter Libby for perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements in the Plame leak investigation is that he is an incorruptible prosecutors prosecutor. A closer look at an earlier communications interception case involving Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) and the Libby case, a curious recommendation for him made by Representative Gerald Nadler (D, NY), and his own background all suggest something far different and more sinister.
I. THE TWO CASES
According to an October 22, 2005 NewsMax article, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/22/142646.shtml Fitzgerald. was the U.S. Attorney assigned to investigate a communications interception case where operatives of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) arranged secretly to tape a strategy meeting involving Harkins Republican opponent, Rep Greg Ganske. Brian Conley, a former aide to Harkin, made the recording while attending the meeting at the request of Rafael Ruthchild, a Harkin operative, and returned the recording and recorder to Ruthchild. When the Ganske campaign learned of this, they complained to Polk County, Iowa Attorney John Sarcone and to Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Conley and Ruthchild both refused to participate in the investigation and Ruthchild resigned from her job with Harkin.
The Federal statute in this case, 18 USC § 2511(1)(a) specifically prohibits any person from intercepting any wire, oral or electronic communication[.] This taping of the Ganske meeting appears to have been such an illegal interception. Nevertheless, the noted NewsMax article reported that Fitzgerald, after about a two week investigation, announced there was no violation of federal law by Harkins team. Fitzgerald apparently did not even interview Harkin, who staunchly denied he had any prior knowledge of the possibility of a criminal tape plot.
This starkly contrasts with Fitzgeralds investigation of the Plame leak case. Here the alleged underlying violation was of either the 1992 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Identities Act) or the Espionage Act. The Identities Act prohibits disclosure of the identities of covert CIA agents, 50 USC § 421, and narrowly defines a covert CIA agent as an individual whose identity . . . is classified information and . . . who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States[.] The Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793 is equally narrow in that it applies only to a specifically listed set of disclosures, not including the disclosure of covert agents identities and prohibits such disclosure only if it is done with intent or reason to believe the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation[.]
Plame wasnt a covert agent since she had returned to the United States more than five years before her identity was disclosed. There couldnt have been a violation of the Espionage Act because covert agents identities arent covered by that act and any disclosure of her identity was to protect the United States from the damage she and her husband were doing to it, not with intent to use the knowledge to injure the United States or help a foreign power.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald went ahead with the Plame investigation without any reasonable chance of discovering any underlying statutory violation while he dropped the Harkin investigation, in spite of clear appearances that there was an underlying violation. Why??
II. THE CONGRESSMAN
Enter Gerald Nadler (D, NY), a far left Democratic congressman from New York, who distinguished himself with his passionate defense of ex-president Clinton during Clintons impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives. Subsequently, Mr. Nadler enthusiastically supported of Hillary Clinton in her run for the NY Senate seat she now holds. He can be anticipated to do his all supporting her in her likely run for the presidency in 2008.
Mr. Nadler has apparently been watching Patrick Fitzgeralds handling of the Harkin and Plame cases and approved of the way hes done both or, at least, Fitzgeralds handling of the Plame investigation. Once again our old friend NewsMax has done some worthwhile digging and gone to Mr. Nadlers website. On October 22, 2005 NewsMax, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/22/234208.shtml reported that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are so pleased with reports that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is about to indict senior White House officials that they want him to lead an impeachment investigation into whether President Bush lied to Congress about Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. According to the same report, Nadler has written to the Justice Department and requested it to expand Fitzgerads investigation.
All this leads an inquiring mind to ask why Nadler, a strong supporter of Hillary in all her endeavors, is such a strong supporter of Fitzgerald. Is it possible that he knows something about Fitrzgerald, or ethically dubious communications involving Fitzgerald, that have not been publicly disclosed?
Fitzgeralds background and general present situation suggestion thats exactly the explanation for Nadlers view.
Fitzgerald will tured 45 on December 22, 2005. He has served a little more than four years as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, having been confirmed on October 24, 2001. Before then his entire career was spent in various positions in the Justice Department, meaning he is now and has always been a man of no more than upper middle class means. His whole career shows that hes a very ambitious man. According to an August 4, 2005 article in the Chicago Sun-Times http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-fitz04.html US. attorneys normally only serve four year terms, Fitzgeralds time is up, and theres speculation that hell be shown the door[.]
Thus, it boils down to the fact that Fitzgerald is a very ambitious lawyer of no more than upper middle class means whos at the end of his current career trajectory. He must find another way to advance and has shown an unscrupulous willingness to attack the Bush administration in the Plame investigation far different from his disinclination to follow a more promising investigation against Harkin. Now he has the golden opportunity of a lifetimethe chance to be the lynchpin of the Democrats effort to do what they have been absolutely unable to do since 2000, elect a Democratic President and Congress by destroying the Bush presidency in a time of war. If Fitzgerald accomplishes that, he will be their superstar and is almost assured to become Hillarys Attorney General. His motive for pursuing this investigation where there is no underlying crime is clearhe ambitiously and unscrupulously desires to become Hillarys Attorney General.
I have trouble with authors that can't even get the name of the person they are roasting correct. It's Patrick Fitzgerald, not Peter. If one is so sloppy to blow the very first sentence, it makes others wonder about the remainder of the article. |
I'd be a little sorry to see this not go to trial b/c I was hoping for a MSM smackdown.
Whatever it is,it would be worth starting a petition drive.
It would be sweet justice to call Fitz before a grand jury and question him under oath for 30 days straight.
See how long it takes him to fall into a "perjury trap"
"Sauce For The Goose"
"It is growing exceedingly obvious that the Special Counsel made a number of misrepresentations to the press and the court."
Translation: Fitz is a LIAR.