Photo of Gonzo & Fitz

[dancingme]

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, left, and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, right, speak at a round-table discussion Tuesday, March 27, 2007, in Chicago to highlight the 'Project Safe Childhood' campaign. Gonzales was in Chicago and Cincinnati Tuesday on the latest leg of a multistate tour to promote a crackdown on child sex abuse. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

[Monkeyman]

1. Na I wasn't going to fire you just wanted you to back off Rove

[berni_mccoy]

20. Mission Accomplished

[waiting for hope]

2. Fritz is such a gentleman...

But I betcha he's thinking "I could squash you like a nasty little bug"....

[dancingme]

3. another one

[DCKit]

11. Caption contest!

Shut up Fredo, just shut the hell up. You're so fucked, you don't even know it.

[Elidor]

4. Gonzales: "I was wondering if I could use you as a reference on my resume"

[GregD]

5. Did they call each other to check in on the suit color of the day?

[dancingme]

8. Fitz has a better tie

:-)

[durrrty libby]

6. Haha Gonzo can not look him in the eye. Very telling

[blogslut]

7. Do not want!

Not right. Make the bad torture man go away.

[verse18]

9. Fitz: "The sight of you gives me indigestion."

[xkenx]

10. I don't know why Fitz is lionized around here.

My take is that he was more concerned with his "score" for successful prosecutions, rather than putting the screws to Cheney et al. THEY OUTED VALERIE PLAME! THAT IS TREASON! You only have to have a heartbeat to know that. The only questions are who gave the original orders, and how many were involved? Pressure from Fitz would have caused unbearable stress. Somebody or somebodies would have spilled enough to avoid a long stretch in the Federal slammer. As a minimum, some of them should have been called to testify in Libby's trial.
So last week, Senate Dems. hold a hearing. Is that it? If the situation were reversed, a dozen Congressional Rethugs. and all their associated talking heads and spinmeisters would have been crying "TREASON" from the rooftops 24/7. When Dems. grow a spine we might turn things around. If Chuck Hagel, of all people, can put impeachment on the table, why can't Dems. show spine? Jack Murtha and Jim Webb are two of the rare ones to lead by example.

[Missy Vixen]

13. I suggest you read up on the realities of prosecuting this type of case

before yet another screed on Patrick Fitzgerald.

>My take is that he was more concerned with his "score" for successful prosecutions, rather than putting the screws to Cheney et al.<

If he were truly more concerned with his "score", he would have left public service a long time ago. Congress will have to do the heavy lifting on this one.

www.firedoglake.com
Start at "CIA Leak Case".

Julie

[xkenx]

17. Well, "President for life of the Patrick Fitzgerald estrogen parade," that just might explain your

comment. True, such a prosecution might not be easy, but this WAS TREASON. Read fmr. Fed prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's article about the laws to be defended and how to prosecute.

How to Prosecute the Plame Case
by Elizabeth de la Vega

Pundits right, left, and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, because it imposes an impossibly high standard for proof of intent. Typically, writing for Slate on July 19th, Christopher Hitchens described the 1982 Act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Similarly, columnist Richard Cohen, in the July 14 Washington Post, said he thought Rove was a "political opportunist, not a traitor" and that he didn't think Rove "specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent." Such examples could be multiplied many times over.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong; and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? The answer is no.

Before presenting any case, a prosecutor like Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame case has to figure out "the elements of the crime"; in other words, the factors he has to prove under whatever statute he is considering. If a grand jury finds probable cause to believe that each element has been proved, it may then return an indictment. At trial, the judge instructs the jury about these same elements. Parties can argue about whether the elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but neither side can add, delete, or modify the elements even slightly to suit their arguments.

Why can't you change the elements? Because they come from the exact wording of the statute. This then is what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 says:


"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent‘s intelligence relationship to the U.S. ."
To figure out the elements that must be proved, you simply break this run-on sentence into subparts in the following manner:

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.

========================

EDIT:COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST
ONLY 4 OR 5 PARAGRAPHS FROM
THE COPYRIGHTED NEWS SOURCE
PER DU RULES.




.

[Missy Vixen]

18. First of all

It's against DU rules to post more than four paragraphs of a copyrighted work on the site.

Secondly, I am the president of the PFEB, and for good reason. Elizabeth de la Vega wrote her article. I don't argue with her findings. She also has been nothing but complimentary to Patrick Fitzgerald.

The reason why he chose to file obstruction and perjury charges has been discussed and analyzed via MULTIPLE former federal prosecutors on firedoglake. I'm not going to rehash their arguments yet again, but I do have a suggestion for you. If you are so convinced that you would be able to get a conviction of Libby, Cheney, et al on treason, PLEASE go to law school, spend 18 years working as a federal prosecutor, and bring the case. It'll be graymailed out of court before your signature's dry on the filing paperwork.

Julie

[xkenx]

19. I'll stand by my comments. If it was easy, anyone could do it.

Fitz is highly skilled; that's why, IMO, he should have taken on that prosecution, not I. Again, IMO, failure to pursue Plame's outing further makes me question Fitzgerald's motives. At the very least, he could have called Cheney, Rove, and others to testify @ Libby's trial. Something might have shaken out of that. The question was not, again IMO, whether Plame's outing was treason, but who originated the treason and who was complicit.

[Missy Vixen]

21. Again

Cheney and Rove testifying at the Libby trial did nothing to further the prosecution's case and opened the case (YET AGAIN) to graymail. The judge in the case wouldn't have allowed questioning outside the matter at hand in the first place.

You continue to repost the same Elizabeth de la Vega article without even listening to those who should know that have also said that PJF did the best he could after being handed a virtually unwinnable situation.

The case has gone to Congress. Those who have the necessary clearances to look at the classified evidence are doing so. It's in their hands now.

You've repeatedly insisted that you know better than PJF does in the situation, therefore, I'm sure you won't mind taking it on.

Julie

[xkenx]

22. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Catherine Vincent]

12. Good thing they didn't wear the same color tie!!

Check out this video of Gonzales:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/

[Annces]

14. I think Fitz keeps a poker face

and tries to gather information instead of giving it up.

[antonialee839]

15. Fitz doesn't like liars.

[MidwestTransplant]

16. I wonder if he was also on job interviews

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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