Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has Fitz keeping the GJ open till 2005 made it WORSE for the Shrub cartel?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Rosco T. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:13 PM
Original message
Has Fitz keeping the GJ open till 2005 made it WORSE for the Shrub cartel?
If they had come in with indictments in '04, then maybe they would have gone lighter on them... but with the absolute ARROGANCE and STUPIDITY shown since 11/04, his "political capital", and everything else that has come out... could this have made them way more critical? more likely to name Shrub & CrashCart as un-indicted co-conspirators? more likely to, ahem, 'Drop the Hammer' on them?

I know we've been waiting with bated breath.. but in this case was patience a virtue???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think Fitzgerald will stick to the facts he has
and the reason he waited till now was for Miller's testimony which he felt would fill in a few spaces. What took the time was waiting for the Supreme Court decision about the reporters.
Waiting until now and today's political climate has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemsUnited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Think Miller's testimony was needed to kill WH "a reporter did it" spin.
I think that Fitgerald just wanted to put a big huge road block in front of that line of defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Agreed. But the trials will make a good lead-up to 2006 campaign season.
Don't you think?

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Might have affected the outcome in '04 if he had indicted them then
'06 is a hiccup election.. Not much will change..*² will still be in charge:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. no way. He is too much of a pro.
I understand the question, but, we have some here who question his professionalism and the fact that he was appointed by the GOP. At the other extreme, people wonder if hd is playing games for maximum impact.

NEITHER OF THE ABOVE.

He is a pro, he is working up a serious case, and the facts make the case, as applied to the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. These things take time.
This is a very large investigation with tentacles reaching all over. One does not jump the gun on these things. In Watergate, the grand jury didn't hand down indictments until March 1, 1974, almost two years after the break-in. That was with a cooperative legislative branch and press.

In the current political environment the situation is entirely different today. With no help from congressional hearings and without any help from the press, Fitz has been totally on his own. In fact, Congress and the press have been actually impeding the investigations by their total lack of willingness to broach the subject. It's like a cone of silence is covering the nation.

Fitz and the grand jury need our help here, and our patience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC