Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Hey Yakk, when were you appointed prosecutor? Fitzgerald - who <i><b>is</i></b> the prosecutor - has ascertained that, even though any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Rove wouldn't be indicted. In fact, no one was indicted for "outing" Valerie Plame (if there even was anything to be outed), whether Rove or otherwise.
Convince yourself of what you want, but the fact remains that Fitzgerald was given a mission: track down any crimes committed in connection with this Plame business and go after the perps. <b>And he came up with a big fat zero. Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation itself, not by anything that motivated the appointment of a prosecutor to begin with.</b>
|
loquitur, I am responding to your post directly above this one, but I am displaying the quote from your post before that.
Throughout this thread, and (in others before it....), for two years, I have posted a mix of material that I thought was relevant to my own opinions of what this "Plame leak" investigation is about, and where it is going.
I view you as a reasonable person, politically, more so after reading your posted opinion of Hillary Clinton; finding that you have a much more positive and well explained opinion of her than I do.
I've stressed in a number of posts, this analogy of what Patrick Fitzgerald says that the Libby indictment and trial is about
:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102801986.html
Fitzgerald Speaks, Up to a Point
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A01
........Breaking his long public silence, Fitzgerald gave a 66-minute news conference yesterday explaining his case against Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. But his appearance was as much about answering the charge that will inevitably be lodged against Fitzgerald himself: that he exceeded his charter and brought charges on "technicalities" rather than major crimes.
The prosecutor had prepared his defense well. "That talking point won't fly," he said when a questioner raised the anticipated criticism. "If it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story . . . that is a very, very serious matter," said Fitzgerald, 44, licking his lips frequently and moving his eyes back and forth across the line of eight cameras. "The truth is the engine of our judicial system, and if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost."
Fitzie, as some pals call him, came straight from prosecutorial central casting: He spoke with a street-tough Brooklyn accent and laid out his case with the matter-of-fact assurance of a police captain explaining how his officers gained entrance to the premises and apprehended the suspect.
Seldom glancing at notes and eschewing stage makeup, Fitzgerald expressed amusement with the attention he's getting ("I think someone interviewed the person who shined my shoes the other day") and a fierce determination to stay within what he called the "four corners of the indictment." Asked to compare his probe with that of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky matter, he replied: "I don't even know how to answer that. I'm just going to take a dive."
In a political environment where prosecutions can become about the accuser as much as the accused -- a matter Ken Starr knows something about -- Fitzgerald's deft performance made it clear that the administration's defenders will have a difficult time presenting him as anything but clean and independent. The weight of his presentation could give pause to opponents who would say he brought charges only to justify the investigation.
Fitzgerald seemed acutely aware that he was being judged by millions of Americans. At least 10 times he made references to cameras, microphones or people viewing on TV. When asked why he didn't bring charges on the leaking of classified information, he tried to play ball. "I know baseball analogies are the fad these days," Fitzgerald said, perhaps referring to John Roberts's pledge to be an "umpire" on the Supreme Court -- which set off a World Series of baseball metaphors in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
<b>He likened his role to that of an umpire trying to determine whether a pitcher beaned a batter intentionally or by accident. "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened, and somebody blocked their view."</b>
As sports metaphors go, Fitzgerald didn't quite hit that one out of the park. And he occasionally sounded defensive about his decision to prosecute the coverup rather than the crime; he said that he would hold a "truck driver" to the same standard as Libby. Sixteen times, he found it necessary to use the word "serious" as he described the charges.
More engaging was Fitzgerald's self-awareness at the need to dodge the main question about the fate of Karl Rove, identified in the indictment only as "Official A."
"For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker," Newsweek's Michael Isikoff ventured. "Can you explain why that official was not charged in this indictment?"
Fitzgerald would not. "I can't give you answers," he said.
When somebody tried again, Fitzgerald replied: "I'm afraid I'm going to have find a polite way of repeating my answer to Mr. Isikoff's question." When a third questioner tried, the prosecutor joked: "I would refer you to Mr. Isikoff, who took great notes on his question about people not charged, which I cannot answer.".........
|
....and here is what he actually said in his baseball umpire comparison:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102801340.html
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference
Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM
........QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?
FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.
OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.
I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.
FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.
Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.
If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.
You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.
FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.
And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.
FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.
But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here. ........
|
loquitur, I think that you are overlooking several things, but I think that you are genuinely interested in satisfying yourelf as to what this is about.
IMO, the white house (including the OVP in that "wh" term) brought the appointment of the special counsel by #2 at the DOJ, Mr. Comey, upon itself.
If you recall, general Ashcroft recused himself, because he was so close to the folks potentially to be investigated by his dept., and designated Comey to be in charge.....for the purpose of the Plame leak investigation, Comey became the US AJ.....
As the Comey supervised leak investigation progressed....into the fall of 2003,
Quote:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...doj-pconf.html
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO OVERSEE INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED LEAK OF CIA AGENT IDENTITY AND RECUSAL OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT FROM THE INVESTIGATION
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES COMEY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRISTOPHER RAY
DECEMBER 30, 2003
......Q: Is this a suggestion that you brought to him first?
MR. COMEY: I don't want to talk about my discussions with the attorney general. What I can tell you is that <b>it was always in his mind that it might be necessary at some point for him to step away from this, step aside from this, and that it might be necessary to change the way it was approached, to move it outside the normal chain of command.
I can't -- and for that reason -- that was the reason -- much was made in the press, apparently, that he was learning about the facts of it. He was being briefed periodically on the facts, so that he could make the very judgment he made here.</b> And I can tell you none of that acted to delay this investigation in any way. The attorney general learned enough about the case that at a point where it was appropriate, he made the judgment to step aside.
And I, at the same time, was making my own judgments, and that is agreeing with him that it was appropriate for him to step aside, but also reaching the conclusion that it was appropriate to change the way we were handling this, for the reasons I talked about in my statement.
And as I said, I have great confidence in the two guys standing on this stage. And -- but my judgment was, simply because of the subject matter involved here and our duties -- which most people don't realize, but we spend part of every day working on national security intelligence stuff -- that it was better for us to be able to focus on that, which is our nation's number-one priority, and not, at the same time, be making judgments about who to interview and all the things that come with an investigation......
|
There were accusations in the press that Ashcroft, recused from overseeing the leak investigation was being briefed on it's particulars and it's progress, and was reporting what he learned to the very people who were being questioned in the investigation.....
Since this was an investigation about whether officials in the white house admin. leaked classified info about the identity of a CIA 'operative" as Novak first described her, during a time of "war", the negative press accounts pressured Ashcroft to go even further to convince that he and his department had no conflict. He authorized Comey to pass on all of the authority of the US AJ, in the matter of the leak investigation and any resulting prosecutions, to an impartial outsider, Fitzgerald.
Comey made it clear that Fitzgerald, unlike Ken Starr previously, did not need to receive any approvals from the DOJ during the course of his investigation. He was vested with all of the authority that Ashcroft or Gonzales has, but just for the matter of the leak investigation.
This step was taken only because of press reporting that gave the impression that Ashcroft was not fully recused, as he had claimed. By receiving briefings, there was an appearance of conflict of interests, since he reported to, and interacted with potential suspects in the Bush administration.
loquitur, my point is that your "big fat zero" comment, influences me to believe that you do not accept (or maybe understand ?) that this trial is where the investigation ended up, because Libby blocked the investigation's progress, and then delayed the trial at least 6 months past where it would have been routinely scheduled....to get it past the mid term election of 2 months ago, and to further bolster his "it's been a long time, and I'm very busy, so I don't remember, and neither can these prosecution witnesses", <b>defense.</b>
Once Libby testified before the grand jury, the second time, and Fitzgerald attempted to compare his testimony with that of reporters who he talked to, Fitzgerald ran into the response of the lawyers at the news outlets that the reporters worked for. If Libby had testified in a way that co-operated with the investigation, or if he had taken a plea deal like Ari Fleischer did after he invoked his 5th amendment rights before the grand jury, the investigation could have moved to a conclusion, of to another stumbling block like the one Libby created.
How is the investigation being halted by what Fitzgerald says was Libby's refusal to testify truthfully, supported by Russert, then Cooper, and finally, when she was released from jail, by Judith Miller, and then by Libby's maneuvering to delay his trial, any indication of "a big fat zero"?
What we know we have here is the POTUS himself saying that anyone found to be not telling the truth to investigators will not continue to serve in his administration, changed to anyone convicted of a crime will not be allowed to serve. Then the white house press secretary told the press that he had spoken to both Rove and Libby, received assurances that neither of them had leaked Plame's identity to any member of the press, and that the press secretary believed the denials of these two fine men.
Now we have sworn testimony from a number of news reporters that Libby and Rove discussed Plame's CIA job and her identity with multiple members of the press.
The CIA requested this investigation of a leak of classified material during war time.
I see no indication that the white house, and especially the OVP, want to find out who leaked, ASAP, in the interests of national security. I see the trial as the renewal of the investigation, after Libby effectively halted it's progress.
Would you have had Fitzgerald declare that he would continue his investigation after he nailed Libby? He has been tight lipped during all of this.
The Libby trial will determine what happens next in the investigation. On the surface, there has been a lot of effort to get it to end here. That seems to say to me that people in the administration had something to hide, and they have not impressed me that they want to find the leaker. They seem comfortable that there is no unknown threat to national security. People at the CIA seem to believe that national security was compromised.
In order to discuss this with me....at the risk of how this may read....you have to be "up to speed" about the details of the trial. I don't think a "play by play" from me is the way other people should follow the trial. I anticipated that that would be a further "turn off" to folks who seem to me to be interested, but harboring misconceptions about what this is about, because of the influences of the "spin" they have focussed on, instead of the actual dispatches....like the ones in this post.
Yakk.....I appreciate your frustration. You're in Canada....I give you credit for following this "mess" at all. I'd be glad to share my opinion, and what influences it.....if you have specific questions....