Fitzgerald is lame and corrupt

[wookie294]

Libby could have been indicted for the more serious crime of outing a CIA agent, but Fitz totally rolled over on this. Read part of the indictment below....

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

In other words, Libby knew she was undercover and Fitz could have indicted Libby under the 1982 law against exposing undercover agents. Fitz is a putz. It took him TWO YEARS to complete this lame investigation. Amazing.

[incapsulated]

1. That statement doesn't nail Libby

There is a reason he wanted to continue that conversation on another line, of course. But unless Fitz has him cold making the statement that he wants her name out there even though she is covert, he has to go for the sure win. That's what prosecutors do, if they have any sense.

[wookie294]

7. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich

Most prosecutors throw the kitchen sink at defendants. Fitz could have indicted for the more serious crime, but he chose not to. Remember, it's an indictment, not a conviction. I think the passage cited above is a starting point and Fitz declined to take it all the way, just like Ken Starr took every angle to prosecute.

[Shakespeare]

13. Wow. You show a fundamental misunderstanding for the law at issue.

Spare me the "ham sandwich" cliche.

[Shakespeare]

14. Wow. You show a fundamental misunderstanding for the law at issue.

Spare me the "ham sandwich" cliche.

[wookie294]

15. Fitz should have let a trial decide this issue

Why did Libby says he "could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line"??

[Shakespeare]

21. Wrong.

A good prosecutor doesn't bring an indictment unless and until he knows he's got a pretty airtight case. The law about revealing an intelligence operative's name is badly written and extremely difficult to prove; that's not to say he won't eventually indict on that charge, though, because he's not said anything else about what other charges he's seeking.

[depakid]

40. That's horsepucky

The law's NOT that difficult to prove.

I suggest that before falling for all craps that the punditocracy repeats over and over you delve a little bit into the law as it reagrds criminal intent:

Here's a good place to start:

How to Prosecute the Plame Case
by Elizabeth de la Vega

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0812-22.htm

Elizabeth de la Vega has recently retired after serving more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Minneapolis and San Jose. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.

[incapsulated]

43. Well, you do have a point

From the article:

A defendant must:

(1) have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;

(2) "intentionally disclose" the information;

(3) disclose it to one not authorized to receive classified information;

(4) know the information he is disclosing identifies the covert agent; and

(5) know that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.

Proof of these five elements -- and no others -- is what's required under the 1982 legislation.

[Sydnie]

48. If you listened to Fitz today he said, loud and clear, that

she was classified. He never said she was covert in so many words. He implied that her identity was not widely known, true.

He also said that was the reason for the obstruction of justice charge, in a nut shell. He said because of the perjury, it was hard to discern just what the thoughts were that Libby was having concerning any discussions about her. He could not assess what his intent was in talking about her. It's a fine line when using the Espionage Act, to prove the motive for the discussion.

I think he is hoping, that during the trial, Libby's intent for obstructing justice will be clarified, and then further charges could be brought against him and any one that might be considered a co-conspirator.

[incapsulated]

16. He could *indict* and then *lose*

I think, given the circumstances, that it's obvious to everyone that Libby was leaking her name but Fitz only wanted to charge him with what he could win with in court.

Yes, he could have gone crazy and hit him with everything, but then he would have been expected to back it up or be accused of being "political".

Ken Starr had no scruples, so it's kinda pointless to compare.

[ContraBass Black]

65. "Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich"

But can they convict one?

[drduffy]

10. agree absolutely....

can't do what you legally can't do even if you 'know' ..... proof is the thing, like it or not.

edited in context... Fitzgerald appears to be a straight shooter and very aware of what he can vs should do ethically, legally. I give him the benefit. Other investigators might abuse the power but I doubt Fitzgerald would.

[Catch22Dem]

2. ok

:eyes:

[skids]

3. How's the kool aid taste?

The unmitigated clueless pessimist kool-aid that's being served around here lately, that is.

[ContraBass Black]

66. It's a little sour, actually.

But then, the stuff going around yesterday was over-sweetened.

[DoYouEverWonder]

You don't get it, do you?

The investigation is still ongoing. This is only the beginning.

[meganmonkey]

4. Wow -

:popcorn:

[goodhue]

5. Lame maybe, but not corrupt

[madame defarge]

6. I totally disagree...

Fitz is doing his job to the letter. He has done his homework and he knows what he can charge Libby with, make it stick, and prove it. I have the utmost respect & confidence in Fitzgerald. Clearly, he has no agenda or alterior motives.

And BTW, remember: this investigation is NOT his full-time job (even though it is clearly the most important case of his career to date). He's got several other key cases he's working on, including the license-for-bribes case against ex-Gov. George Ryan in IL.

[annabanana]

8. not lame, not corrupt,

NOT DONE!

[Alamom]

22. Absolutely agree. NOT DONE ! n/t

[LSK]

9. PLEASE GO READ THE INDIGHTMENT

This is not over and the indictment has some pretty damning information.

Please dont knee-jerk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5204684&mesg_id=5204684

[zanne]

29. I must have been in the bathroom today when Fitz announced...

That another grand jury would be impaneled.

[LSK]

30. while you were in the bathroom

He did not say he was finished.

[zanne]

33. Clutching at straws.

Somewhere over the rainbow....

[William769]

11. This investigation is far from over.

Look how long it took Archibald Cox (Watergate).

[deadparrot]

12. Oh, fuck it.

Turn on Fitzgerald because he didn't do precisely what you want. That's really mature.

Maybe you should remember that Fitz is...well, an actual lawyer, whereas I assume you're not. In fact, he's one of the best at what he does....he acts with all the powers of, oh yes, the attorney general. He's prosecuted mobsters and governors and terrorists.

But, you know, he's just an idiot. :eyes:

Try to consider that Fitzgerald may be a bit more seasoned in these matters than yourself.

[wookie294]

19. Sure, there's nothing wrong with me "turning" on Fitz

I've seen his press conference. It was lame. I'm not a practicing attorney, but I do have a law degree -- still doesn't make me an "expert" -- but prosecutors throw all kinds of accusations into indictments, even accusations that aren't perfectly provable. The passage from the indictment which I cited above tells me it's not clear that Libby didn't know Plame was undercover. Fitz should have let the jury decide if he broke the law on this issue.

Fitz is playing ball for the Republican Party, imho.

[deadparrot]

23. Yeah, like when he indicted Illinois Republican Governor Ryan.

Also, he has to present indictments to the Grand Jury. If a majority of them reject it, it doesn't fly.

Can't people just accept that some people are truly nonpartisan?

[kanrok]

41. You show a remarkable misunderstanding of a prosecutor's role

Prosecutors just don't make allegations for the fun of it. In order to abide by the letter of the law and the ethics that bind government attorneys, they MUST only charge those crimes that, in their judgment, they can actually prove. What about that concept don't you understand? Don't you think it preferable that a prosecutor not over-reach? I suspect that if it were you, or a friend or family member being indicted, you would only want the prosecutor to indict on crimes that are supported by available evidence. Fitzgerald handled himself magnificently at the press conference. He only said what he was ethically allowed to say, and nothing more. Despite the fact that we all would have liked to see the rat-bastards in the Bush administration drawn and quartered, we should not abandon principles that serve us so well. Even the rat-bastards in the Bush administration deserve fundamental fairness when dealing with criminal prosecution. Fitzgerald is decidely not "lame."

[cynatnite]

53. What makes you think Fitz didn't let the grand jury decide?

I know little about grand jury proceedings, but it seems to me that he can't force them to rule one way or the other.

Also, we don't know what evidence he has. It's easy to sit back and look at one piece of paper and pass judgment without seeing everything Fitz has.

There's so much we don't know right now. I don't understand the quick judgment over so little information.

[Sydnie]

56. He was asked today if there were other people and other charges

considered that the GJ passed on. He stated that he couldn't answer that question. If it had been a NO answer, I think he would have said NO. I took that to mean YES. I also took that to mean that the option of going back to clarify what evidence they have, as the trial and investigation continues, was a distinct possiblility. Meaning ... I couldn't provide enough evidence just yet, because Libby lied (and others were turning), but not that he gave up on revisiting those possibilities.

Lighten up. Glass is half full!

[11cents]

17. Thank you for sharing your immense legal expertise with us.

For what district are you a federal prosecutor?

[zanne]

26. It amazes me that DUers are settling for this.

And criticizing any other DUer who isn't satisfied with the measly indictment. For weeks, we've ALL been talking about nothing else than ROVE being indicted. Can you blame those of us who are disappointed today? I would think we would ALL be outraged at this farce of an investigation. And those of you who think that the best is yet to come ARE drinking the Kool-Aid. Don't we know these people by now?

[rockymountaindem]

38. Yes, I blame you

for still having any expectations. You should have abandoned them back in 2002 like I did. They reemerged when I thought Kerry might win, but now they're gone again.

It's your fault for actually thinking Bush et. al. aren't going to see out 2008 in the White House. They will.

[meganmonkey]

39. In Fitz's own words, this is FAR from over

"I will not end the investigation until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility sufficiently to be sure that we've done what we could to make intelligent decisions about when to end the investigation. We hope to do that as soon as possible. I just hope that people will take a deep breath and just allow us to continue to do what we have to do."

Let me repeat:

"I just hope that people will take a deep breath and just allow us to continue to do what we have to do."

[incapsulated]

47. You must be one of those freeper moles!

How dare you have a dissenting opinion!! :P

My heart wants one thing, my brain tends to be a lot more cynical about all this.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

18. Neither lame nor corrupt

I think that Fitz made it very clear that the investigation of outing a CIA agent COULD NOT CONTINUE without all of the facts. And if one of the witnesses was lying, then there is no possible way to charge other people for the outing until the truth is known.

Hence, the indictment of Libby - obstruction of justice means just that, that there is no way justice can currently be carried out because all of the facts are not known. Once the truth is known, additional indictments may be forthcoming.

Remember, Rove is still under investigation.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg - Fitz will carry the day, mark my words. The rats in the White House will be scurrying even more before long.

[slaveplanet]

60. and just where is he

supposed to come by this truth?
In case you haven't noticed the case involves...Rethuglicans...
If you plan on waiting for them to go through some kind of truth machine Fitz has squirreled away...you'll be waiting an awful long time

without all of the facts. And if one of the witnesses was lying, then there is no possible way to charge other people for the outing until the truth is known.
Hence, the indictment of Libby - obstruction of justice means just that, that there is no way justice can currently be carried out because all of the facts are not known. Once the truth is known, additional indictments

If Fitz does magically get to the truth ...it will be right around Sept 2008...so they can spend minimal time in jail before the pardon.

What part of obstruct do you fail to understand?

[savemefromdumbya]

20. You are assuming that it is all over?

It's not

[mtnsnake]

24. Sounds like something right off a RW radio bullshit show

Tell Rush or whoever spun it like this to shove it and give up.

[trof]

25. I call "Bullshit".

Sorry bub.
:-(

[demobabe]

27. Where's the mod locking for bad cheese? n/t

.

[toddaa]

28. Fitzgerald didn't indict anyone

First of all, no one knows what Fitzgerald tried to do as grand jury proceedings are closed to public scrutiny. Secondly, Fitzgerald tried to find evidence that would hold up in a trial to get a conviction, otherwise he's wasting everyone's time and money. Finally, it's the grand jury that ultimately determines whether or not a conviction is possible in a trial. Fitzgerald obviously didn't find enough evidence to convince the grand jury, so it's a safe bet that whatever he did present wouldn't be sufficient to say a jury.

The above statement could be about anything. Implying that it's about Plame would be too easy for the defense to knock down.

[MADem]

31. You cannot see the forest for the trees

When all is revealed, will you offer all a mea culpa?

Why wrap up the case with a Scooter TOOL, when you are going after the hands that USED the tool?

The weeks ahead will be very interesting, I think.

[LibertyorDeath]

32. .

[H2O Man]

34. shallow n/t

[lostnfound]

35. It's not fast food!!! Just appetizer, relax & enjoy a 4 or 5 course meal!

This is only the first sweet taste of justice.

[IndianaGreen]

36. You can indict a ham sandwich but getting a conviction is something

else altogether. Fitzgerald wants a conviction and, perhaps hopes that Libby will make a deal for a lighter sentence in return for testifying against Cheney.

[Mutley]

37. Here we go....

The same flip flop type behavior that gives DU a bad name. Oh, one week we love Fitzgerald. The next week we hate him! But, wait for it... NOW we LOVE him again!

WOOOOOO!!!! Who knows what we believe? :crazy:

[wookie294]

42. Flip-flopping is a good thing when new facts arrive

I loved Fitz until his press conference. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind when new facts arrive. In fact, it's REQUIRED. Only morons frown at flip-flopping.

[Mutley]

46. Nice not so subtle way of calling me a moron.

Only morons have to call people names.

What exactly about the press conference did you not like?

[nomatrix]

44. Based on your assessment

2 years and he should have got Bush, Cheney, Senate Intelligence Committee, Halliburton, etc.

You don't get the spoiler up front.

You probably don't remember the Watergate hearings.

Trust me, we are at the beginning. Will it go to trial? Who knows. It's the hearings that will reveal so much more.

This is only the forplay. WAIT FOR IT.

[EuroObserver]

51. ed: foreplay. Take lots of time {g} n/t

[stepnw1f]

45. Wow... Now That Was Shallow and Lame(nt)

[sundancekid]

49. I'm sure glad YOU'LL NEVER BE MY LAWYER ... analysis capacity of gnat

[Batgirl]

50. Looks like a cautionary tale

of what can happen when you entertain fantasies -- in this case, of Fitz storming in and toppling the entire Bush administration with the terrible swift sword of justice. A beautiful fantasy, for sure. And in Technicolor, so vivid and detailed as to be more convincing than reality itself.

The hysterical declaration that Fitzgerald is lame and, especially the accusation of corruption -- seems appropriate, not for an adult grappling with disappointment, but of someone who's enraged at having been awakened from a lovely daydream.

[Marr]

52. Oh, Christ- this kneejerk "with us or against us" shit really get old.

The man seems like a real professional to me.

[jbnow]

54. I thought you were quoting

freeper posts saying "Fitzgerald is lame and corrupt". Someone linked to their site earlier and they, at least, agree with you.

I do not.

[mzmolly]

55. I've noticed a similarity in trolls. Generally there is a name/number

combination in their usernames?

Just my personal observation. Of COURSE I'm not insinuating anyone participating in THIS thread is a troll, but it's an interesting observation none the less.

*ehem*

[Der Blaue Engel]

57. Your assertions are lame and corrupt

:puke:

[Orangepeel]

58. Sam Waterston would have had him indicted for murder!

If this were an episode of Law & Order, the whole White House would be indicted and bush would have confessed by now.

But, it isn't a Law & Order episode, no matter how much some people expected it to turn out like one.

I think Fitzgerald has done a professional job, whether or not there is more to come. Of course, I never expected his investigation to lead to impeachment.

The administration and the GOP are corrupt, and this is evidence of that corruption. It can also be used as a platform for exposing additional corruption. But that's not Fitzgerald's job. Hopefully, the Democratic party will pick up that ball. Based on statements put out today, they seem to be trying. Would that the media would do it, but that's too much to ask.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrackpotAmerica]

61. Don't Take This Personally, But:

That is about the most baseless and idiotic thing I have heard in about a year.

Mr. Fitzgerald is not a Democrat, nor does he serve the Democratic party. He has a specific job to do and he has done it thus far.

Frankly, the man has impressed me most was his brilliant success in keeping his investigation air tight. Mind you, he is the first to experience working on a high profile Grand Jury case in the theater of the 24 hour, cut throat news cycle.

Even if he had returned no indictments today or returns none in the future, he has done his job and I have confidence that his actions are and were in the interest of justice.

Justice does not equate to Democratic happiness. I wish it did, but I live in reality.

:)

[bluedawg12]

62. He is very birght and prudent, a trial will bring out a hell of a lot more

than he got out of a tight lipped scooty.

Don't forget scooty clammed up about the very issue in question- who the hell leaked PLame's name. That's the obstuction charge and that is why he is going to trial.

[Carolab]

63. ANYONE WHO SAYS "TRUTH IS THE ENGINE OF JUSTICE"

and that if we abandon THAT people like him may "just as well hand in their jobs"

Certainly does NOT deserve to be criticized as "lame and corrupt".

That label just plain doesn't fit. NOT AT ALL.

[peacetalksforall]

64. The statute relating to outing a cover agent is tricky. It has been

discussed here and on tv. There's a law, but it's not cut and dried.

Why not go with sure things? It's not over yet.

[mandyky]

67. Bull crud!

Fitzgerald is a fine American and a genius. Give this time!

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Care to study Wateragete?

and how exactly did that party end?

[ultraist]

69. This is only the first day of the twelve days of Fitzmas.

Let the process continue.

[Gold Metal Flake]

70. Locking

This thread has become a flame fest.