Sol Wisenberg on Chris Mathews had an interesting comment. He was asked what is Fitzgerald’s motivation. Wisenberg responded (and I am paraphrasing) that on the one hand he’s been appointed by a Republican Administration and he doesn’t want to offend them but he’s doing everything he can to make it …to dot all the I’s and cross the t’s.
The implication is what I have been suspecting (after a brief moment of possible weakness) that Fitzgerald is making it look like he’s doing a thorough investigation. But he may not be. He is sympathetic to the people who appointed him, Fitzgerald is the godfather to Comey’s child. Comey appointed him. Comey once again works for Lockheed Martin, where Lynn Cheney was a board member and no doubt still retains influence there.
What do liberals say when and if there are no or few significant indictments?
They cannot say that Fitzgerald did not do a thorough job can they?
Let’s not be naive. Let’s take a real hard look at this guy before it’s too late to. Maybe he will indict maybe he won’t. Isn’t it better to have a better handle on who he actually is. I can find next to nothing but praise everywhere I look. It’s way to one-sided.
Fitzgerald has become the hero to all American liberals before he has even done anything.
There are no leaks everyone says. Who doees that benefit? It benefits Bush. Ken Starr didn’t have that problem. He showed where his sympathies were. Fitzgerald with no leaks maybe showing where his sympalthies lie.
If Fitzgerald is giving the appearance of doing a thorough job and he comes up with nothing, then we can say it was all for show? Can we say he never intended to investigate and put any of his fellow Republicans in jail. The fact that he is registered as non-affiliated is irrelevant.
Something is not right about this investigation.
Fitzgerald has had two other Grand Juries operating in Illinois. There are lots of indictments.that did not take two years to surface.
I noted earlier that he has indicted a Republican governor of Illinois who was not beholden to George Bush and may have crossed Bush when he put a moratorium on the death penalty, which was a total embarrassment for Bush as a Republican.
There are a ton of indictments coming down on that Governor and his administration for nothing but typical politics.
The Daley administration in Chicago has a ton of indictments as well and they are all about the little fish turning in the bigger fish.
I read Raw Stories headlines about major developments in the case and they almost always turn out to be nothing of substance.
I am still very skeptical. I don’t know why there is almost no skepticism about Patrick Fitzgerald. His best friend James Comey works for an ultra right wing corporation, Lockheed Martin.
So many Republicans are saying what an honest, upright, non-partisan lawyer he is.
Again what do you say about him if this investigations turns up very little? Will you have been completely disarmed by your total endorsement of this man?
Don’t give up hope. There were honorable Republicans during Watergate; in fact, Nixon had to fire some when things got hot during Watergate. And he found himself out of the frying pan and into the fire.
I have no idea what’s going on. I haven’t given up hope. I am just wondering who the hell Patrick Fitzgerald really is.
He does look like a bulldog. I saw him on TV. He looks dumb. He looks like someone who just puts his head down and plows through without thinking.
He has FOOTBALL written all over his face.
Or Like a coach who calls only one play in football and keeps doing it over and over. That;s just an impression.
Like a Dave Wannstedt for example.
If Fitzgerald has only been going thru the motions and not building a solid case, then why did a judge agree to jail Judy Miller?
I hope you don’t really mean you can tell how intellignet someone is by how they look.
And, it’s the grand jury that will do the indicting (if there’s any to be done), not Fitz himself.
Think about it. No indictments is tantamount to re-writing history so that we’d have to believe that l’affaire Plame never happened. How likely do you feel that outcome is?
Besides, there are new facts emerging from this probe, like the June 23 conversations between Miller and Libby/Rove(?). With a week or two between those conversations and the “outing,” you have a pretty solid case for conspiracy — it wasn’t an “Oops! I shot from the lip,” revelation that VP was a CIA undercover operative. It was a planned leak.
Additionally, all the comings and goings of Rove and Miller before the GJ is because liars are being given another chance to “remember” it right and to be sure the GJ hears the whole truth. Not to further the cover-up. Matt Cooper(?) hasn’t been called back because his story jives. No facts conflict with his testimony.
(BTW, it’s one year to the day tomorrow that Miller was found in contempt of court.)
but indictments aren’t for fitzgerald alone to put forth – it’s up to the jurors as well.
Ohhhh….don’t say that! Please, please, please don’t say that. I wake up in the dead of the night filled with this terrible fear that there will be no indictments after all. Sweating and consumed by dread I recall that Fitzgerald is a Republican, there have been no leaks, and that all my joy at this looming diasaster for the Repugs is so not based on any real facts. (Yeah, okay I don’t really have a life.) But, this is how I reassure myself–I am singing, and I am fat (maybe) and I am a lady (not really, but lets stretch the truth a bit here.) Its over, surely!!
What do liberals say when and if there are no or few significant indictments?
We’re prepared for that possibility. It’s been noted far and wide that all that may come out of this are charges related to the process of the investigation itself ie. obstruction of justice etc.
There are no leaks everyone says. Who doees that benefit? It benefits Bush.
In fact, there have been leaks. Just last nite we learned the contents of Miller’s “newly discovered” botes ie. that Libby and Miller spoke about Joe Wilson on June 23, 2003.
Fitzgerald has become the hero to all American liberals before he has even done anything.
The hero? No. A hope? Maybe.
Isn’t it better to have a better handle on who he actually is.
Lots has been written about who he is.
If Fitzgerald is giving the appearance of doing a thorough job and he comes up with nothing, then we can say it was all for show? Can we say he never intended to investigate and put any of his fellow Republicans in jail.
No.
I read Raw Stories headlines about major developments in the case and they almost always turn out to be nothing of substance.
I’d complain to Raw Story if I were you. They have a tendency to be as senstaionalistic as Drudge sometimes.
Perhaps there are no leaks because Fitzgerald is not part of a vast conspiracy, in the true sense that Ken Starr was.
Perhaps Fitzgerald is not trying to titillate with sexual material as Starr was.
Perhaps Fitzgerald is an honorable man. Some Republicans are. I certainly hope he is, and I hope he has worked hard to investigate and convince his jury – our jury – to return indictments !
My question has always been, even if there are indictments, how many will be pardoned. I suspect most if not all. At the highest levels of government that seems to be the way it is done.
Yes, I think you are right. But history will note that they were indicted, and Bush will be tarred with those pardons.