I just read an article on Buzz Flash as to how Patrick Fitzgerald was selected. It then went on to NOT explain how he was selected and didn’t even mention the name of the person who selected him, James Comey. James Comey was appointed by John Ashcroft and Comey now works for Lockheed Martin a bastion of Cheney influence and Lockheed Martin is at the epicenter of the Military Industrial ultra right wing complex.
There is such a positive stir on the Internet over Patrick Fitzgerald it is mind-boggling. I have looked everywhere and found no critical analysis of him. Everyone believes he is a savior of the Democrats. I don’t know why he would be. They say he is non-partisan, a bulldog, an honest man who doesn’t’ like to be lied to. How about some factual, at least circumstantial information.
It should be clear by inference that Patrick Fitzgerald is a Republican and possibly extremely conservative. He may be conservative and perhaps even reactionary. His associations are with Republicans like his “best friend” Comey. Fitzgerald is godfather to Comey’s child. His possible conservative outlook and sentiments can greatly influence the outcome of the Plame investigation. Lets suppose he feels that an indictment of VP Cheney or of George Bush would be appropriate but in the interests of protecting the sanctity of the office of the Presidency he decides not to pursue these serious charges. That’s possible.
This investigation….if it isn’t doesn’t end up expanding to include the conspiracy to deceive the public and congress toward war in Iraq….it isn’t about anything. It’s nothing. If the Plame investigation hasn’t expanded to that, then Fitzgerald has done nothing but gloss over or cover up what the Bush Administration has done.
What Cheney and Bush and Libby and Rove have done is involve the entire United States in an unnecessary war that has killed over a hundred thousand people and destabilized the entire planet on a grand economic and political scale.
There are rumors that the investigation has expanded to the origin of the Niger forgeries, but they don’t seem to pan out. It seems that at best, the Niger forgeries are peripheral, not central to the investigation. The Niger forgeries lead to the only things of value. The Niger forgeries lead to the entire panoply of lies and criminal deception that the government has conspired to produce. Valerie Plame should be nothing more than a footnote to what has really occurred.
If all the investigation can produce, as a highlight is that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby lied to the Grand Jury but were not found guilty of conspiring to punish Joe Wilson by revealing his wife’s name to the public, then you have absolutely nothing gained that has lasting value.
Rove and Libby will resign and be admonished for telling little lies, not BIG ones. It may spur more revelations about the war’s origins, but these revelations will not have the force they need to unravel the whole Iraq debacle. If Rove and Libby and others were found guilty of a criminal offense involving the exposure of a covert agent, then a precedent would be established for further investigation into why and how. Being found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice has nothing directly to do with Valerie Plame and the War in Iraq. It concerns their behavior with the Grand Jury much more than their behavior as public officials in matters of national security and war. Perjury and obstruction of justice charges will not be easily understood by the public and they will most likely not lead to investigations of the wars origins. It will all be nothing more than another big, murky ball of confusion around which the Bush administration can play double speak.
If the Bush administration officials are not found guilty of at least violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, then all that will occur is that we will find that, like Martha Stewart, they lied to the Grand Jury, not to cover up a crime but rather cover up their conversations with reporters, which they apparently felt might make them “look bad”. Their lies were lies more easily associated with vanity and not criminality. This will in fact be the Republican defense. And it will be effective to a point. If they are found guilty of at least violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act they can be called traitors and you cannot hide from that accusation with impunity.
Patrick Fitzgerald cannot cover up the fact that Rove, Libby and others may have lied to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury heard the lies. Patrick Fitzgerald’s self imposed function may be to reduce the damage as much as possible to the Bush administration. It may be that he is sympathetic to the Bush administration. He may not be always sympathetic to all the individuals that comprise it.
There is a war between elements of the CIA and State Department and many other current and former officials in the government and this Grand Jury is where the battle is taking place and the Prosecutor cannot keep all the information at bay. There are strong governmental elements on both sides fighting each other.
I believe Patrick Fitzgerald to be extremely conservative. His association with James Comey, I choose to believe, verifies that. All the hype about him is nothing but hype without any foundation. As I pointed out in a previous diary, his indictment of George Ryan is an indictment of a Republican Governor who crossed George Bush on the issue of the death penalty.
This Grand Jury is not like the Grand Juries of Patrick Fitzgerald that indicted Illinois governor George Ryan and members of Chicago’s Mayor Daley administration. There were numerous indictments of people while the Grand Jury was going on and they turned on each other. This isn’t happening with this Grand Jury.
.
Your concerns are understood. However, I’m encouraged by the amount of time that has been spent on this investigation. Surely Fitzgerald need not have kept a charade inquiry going this long. And he has had multiple rounds of testimony from certain witnesses. If this was just going to go away I believe that it would have done so some time ago and with less effort expended.
the need to be cautious and not get giddy about the situation. None of us knows what, if anything, will happen for sure.
I don’t understand, however, how you can ask this:
and then launch into a diatribe (smear campaign?) based on “inference”, “circumstantial evidence”, and “choosing to believe”.
I don’t think I smear him by saying I think he’s a very conservative person judging by his association with people like James Comey.
I hope he is a maverick. He does not have a family, he’s single, which could mean he has less to lose than someone who is entrenched. There are indications that he is upright and all that stuff, but everything on the web is all inference. So I am providing another inference in hopes somebody will add to it, but no one ever does. The report on him reads like a mantra and that bothers me. I personally don’t want to hear mantras If I had more time I might look into his investigations of the Mob and the “terrorist” investigation. I am sure there is good stuff that would give indications where his sympathies lie. But I have looked into the investigations in Illinois..not deeply but enough to question his motives.
So I don’t think I smeared him in this diary anyway. Maybe in some other.
Perhaps smear is too strong of a word. I recognize that you are raising real possibilities.
It is just that all of the evidence I have seen points to the commonly held view of the man.
Your portrait of Fitzgerald is a potentially believable one. But you are relying on the fact that we really don’t know to push your point, instead of showing evidence to support your conjecture.
Yes, I can’t find anything to base my conjecture on other than by association and what would normally be expected of a prosecutor who was chosen by an administration that is investigating itself.
He is not an outside prosecutor. He can from the inside and the people who choose him are very, very ultra conservative..
That’s ususally a strong indicator. It is possible of course that Fitzgerald is an execptiion. That happens too, rarely.
First of all, I have more confidence in Fitzgerald than you do. Everything I’ve read about him has pointed to his being shrewd, decisive and non-partisan in his prosecutions and indictments – not allowing politics to play any role in his decisions.
Secondly, regarding this comment:
Step back for a moment. Rove and Libby are major forces in the White House. If they are indicted on perjury charges, Bush will be forced to fire them and that will throw the White House into a tail spin and will tarnish all Republicans during the 2006 and 2008 elections.
While I agree with you that many in the general public don’t understand the ins and outs of the Plame case, I’m sure they all remember what happened to Clinton when he was charged with perjury and later impeached. They’ll grasp the importance of lying to a grand jury.
Lastly, documents released by Fitz on his new web site show that his investigation expanded to encompass the lies involved in the push to the Iraq war and leaks from testimony have confirmed that.
If the only indictments are related to perjury and if Fitz does not present a final report (and it has been rumoured that he won’t) then I tend to agree with you that the public may still be in the dark. However, speculation has said that his office may not be presenting that final report because the indictments may involve the broader conspiracy.
When it all comes down to it, we’ll just have to wait and see.
What happened to Clinton is his popularity was unaffected for the most part by the scandal. Bush is suffereing, I think from a revolt within his party and elements of the CIA, State Department and individuals who he has punished along the way. Including the military. But I don’t think unless they are indicted for crimes related to Valerie Plame this will be such a big thing. That would be unfortunate.
Then the cowardly democrats would have again nothing to complain about since so many voted for the war.
Rove and Libby….nobody knows anything about them really…Rove to a point and yes, it will cause damage to the administration, but I think they need a knockout blow and this could have been and ought to have been the opportunity. Maybe it will come in another form.
He doesn’t issue a report becuase he is not authorized to. He would have to have special permission to authorize a report, it’s not normally done..
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/18/233120.shtml
I don’t think Rove and Libby are irreplaceable. I suppose it causese a lot of problems for the Whitehouse. But Bush is still being guided by a higher father than Rove. I don’t know if you know this but God acutally does speak to him and he wants George to keep up the good work, ignore the polls, the scandals, the fears of his fellow republicans for their reelection and go for broke.
I don’t think Bush is going to listen to the polls or you or me….he’s going to listen to the voices in his head.
He doesn’t issue a report becuase he is not authorized to. He would have to have special permission to authorize a report, it’s not normally done..
That may be the opinion of those two lawyers but it doesn’t agree with others opinions I’ve seen.
I want to see broader indictments as much as you do but, frankly, nailing these cockroaches with anything will be satisfying for me.
Well, if it can be done and the democrats have asked that it be done…why isn’t it being done.
Without a report and without indictments related to Valerie Plame (and not lying to a grand jury which is nothing) there will be nothing that you can point to as evidence of what the investigation uncovered except the verbal, contrasting unofficial reports of what happened by participants.
THIS FAVORS BUSH. NO REPORT IS GOOD FOR BUSH.
Another reason I would be skeptical of Fitzgerald …if what you say is true that a report could be issued.
Stu, I don’t want to out you, but I’ve figured out your real identity.
You’re Kay Bailey Hutchison!
Allright, but I pulled the wool over your eyes didn’t I?
Lying to a grand jury is a trick. Tha’ts how Martha Stewart got put in jail.
It is nothing compared to the war crimes that this investigation could have led to. Lying to congress is a crime and that is what these people did and where the investigation should have led. It sounds like it didn’t go there.
Instead we have this perjury and obstruction of justice which will not unravel the Plame outiing and the Niger Foregeries and on and on leading to the larger conspiracy to decieve congress. Which is a real crime.
watch this.
I wrote about this development here.
THIS FAVORS BUSH. NO REPORT IS GOOD FOR BUSH.
Not necessarily.
Stu,
A good portion of your indictment (to use a word advisedly) of Fitzgerald seems to be predicated on his association with James Comey. Apart from not being one to just assume guilt by association. I must admit, I feel I know even less about Comey and his specific qualities than I do about Fitzgerald with the exception of the widely published interview when he discussed Fitzgerald’s powers (which seems pretty upstanding from here) and the fact that he left his position at DOJ for Lockheed Martin. That last one does give me a bit of pause but again, I know little about the actual circumstances.
Could you direct me to some information that could further establish Comey’s credentials for either good or ill? My impression so far is neither negative nor positive about him. Assertions about his conservatism aside, I know little upon which to judge his actions.
Comey handlied the Martha Stewart Imclone trial. That was a political hack job, clear and simple. Of all people someone who makes cookies. She went to jail for the things Rove and Libby may have done in their Grand Jury testimony.
He put Jose Padilla in jail ….Didn’t I just read something about how ridiculous that was. Padilla is the alleged diry bomber.
He also was inivolved with the Worldcom prosecution.
Working for Lockheed Martin as general counsel means he is to use his contracts in the judiciary to soften any prosecution of Lockeheed Martin by other government and private enterprises.
He went into the private sector, I imagine to make money. His predecssor thare was Dick Cheneys’s wifes husband who is now general counsel for Homeland Security.
Clarify. Stewart committed no crime with her stocks. She apparently got scared and during an interview with agents, not before a Grand Jury, appears to have lied about her contacts with people who advised her to sell her stock.
She was a big liberal donor. High profile liberal. The whole thing was a waste of time.
The trap: It’s like you are questioned about a robbery. You had nothing to do with it. But you lie about where you were because you perhaps were doing something your wife (gambling) didn’t want you to do. So they put you in jail for lying to a federal agent. These things happen.
They put her in jail for that, not for insider trading. It is a technacality and a trap.
Rove and Libby may have not even fallen into a trap, but rather, figured that Fitzgerald could not make the reporters talk and so they may have lied on the stand and contradicted themselves in fromt of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury heard this.
We’re so used to seeing corruption in government (on both sides) that we’re immediately suspicious of someone that appears to be a straight arrow type.
I heard a great analysis of Fitzgerald’s hiring on “Countdown” the other night — when Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself from the investigation, Comey recommended Fitzgerald, not just because he was friends with him, but also because he knew that Fitzgerald would do a thorough job and deep down inside Comey didn’t like the direction things were going in but didn’t want to jeopardize his private-sector contacts by speaking out himself.
Yeah, maybe I’m just being duped like the rest of America…but I still cry when I hear a good rendition of the National Anthem (give the Stanford Band’s version a listen sometime), and I still believe that honesty and integrity can be found in the most unlikeliest of places…
(maybe I should change my handle to “Pollyanna”…)