How do we _know_ Fitz. investigation isn't a whitewash?

I'm sure that this has been addressed before, but maybe someone can convince me that the Fitzgerald investigation is not a scripted whitewash?

What's the response if there are no indictments?

This invest. has been going on for almost 2 years, and there have been NO leaks from the prosecutors office! THAT'S almost unheard of...EVER!

If he were going to whitewash the case, there would have been leaks early on with rumors that there just isn't much he'd be able to prove. It would have been wrapped up in six months.

If it was a whitwash, that would mean Fitz was covering for/supporting the admin. There's been FAR to much damage already done to this Admin. just by who hes called to testify, and the rumors it all created. If he was supporting the WH, I'm SURE they don't want THAT kind of support!!!

He is not the type to throw the World Series for a bunch of cronies. He is going to do the best he can at the job he was given. Thats my impression.

Even the MSM admits to being surprised there's someone in Washington who is NOT political!

If this "No-Partisan Gunslinger Bulldog" comes up with nothing, it would play out perfectly for the WH.

With all the praise for Fitzgerald here and elsewhere, it will be nearly impossible to complain if there are no indictments.

If he wanted it to wash over he could have ended it a year ago and said he had found nothing and no one would have cared.

Miller was released by her source half a year ago. It's unfathomable that she didn't talk earlier unless she had a reason to stay in jail: "He put Judy Miller in Jail to get to the bottom of this."

That the name would first show up there from an unknown source.

But in the end, he played the game-plan to a "T".

If it was a whitewash it would've been like Starr with Clinton. This guy obviously takes his job seriously. Karl Rove wouldn't be sweating and Bush wouldn't be looking like total crap either.

+ I think the investigation has not hurt the WH - it's just that lots of us get excited about possibilities that are imagined to likely materialize.

That Rove has been called 4 times now means squat .... unless he doesn't get indicted - then the four interviews are ammunition for those who claim nobody did anything wrong.

If it was a whitewash, Ashcroft would not have recused himself then resigned.

If it was a whitewash, any one of the 3 judges who saw his secret information wouldn't have allowed him to jail 2 journalists.

If it was a whitewash, Rove wouldn't have been called in to testify 4 times.

If it was a whitewash, it wouldn't have taken 2 years to say "nothing to see here."

and so on and so on and so on

If there are no indictments, Freepers will be linking to your post.

I mean, the Repubs manipulated the Senate Intel Comm. investigation into Iraq so it was a big nothing.

get some sleep

- The Energy Task Force
- The Senate Intel report on Iraq intelligence
- The Downing Street Memo

... IOW every potential real scandal?

What's different about Plamegate?

a. We know there was a coordinated conspiracy to smear an enemy of the administration by illegally leaking classified information
b. Almost everyone who looks at it honestly believes Fitzgerald is the shit that will actually stick to the wall, and has been vocal about it

If there's no indictments, it's "case closed". Few will be able to complain after the praise heaped on Fitzgerald.

that lasted for 2 years with all of the things in my first post)

You have to be able to recognize the differences between these 4 cases.

I hope Fitzgerald is able to come up with all the appropriate indictments. This is the highest profile scandal so far that has or reasonably could go to trial.

We know that, the administration knows that.

And I believe because they know it too, they will put oin the best show possible.

Again, I hope appearances are correct: that Fitzgerald has been running a no-holds-barred investigation.

But IF there are no indictments, all the praise and confidence put into Fitzgerald will have prevented anyone from crying "foul".

If there are no indictments, it's all over anyway.

Fitzgerald is our only hope.


We really, really, really need this.

John Dean and this guy believe she already should have:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050726.html

That sure seems like a lot of extra work if he is ultimately going to let them off the hook.

All this "evidence" means nothing unless if in the end, he asks the Grand Jury for indictments. And if he doesn't, all this "no-partisan gunslinger bulldog" talk will come back to haunt we who believe there ought to be indictments.

It would have blown over and no one would have cared.

An Comey would have appointed an investigator that would give all appearances of a thorough investigation, but in the end, protect the administration.

I recall that the appointment of Fitzgerald was made WHILE Kerry was accepting the nomination. Listen to what people here are saying: Fitzgerald has been investigating it for two years. Not true. He was put in midway through the investigation.

Granted, there may be a lot of people who don't follow the news like we do & they may not know enough about this case, but the indictments will get their attention & it will hurt the WH profoundly.

The already-low approval ratings of * are mainly attributed to Iraq; can you imagine how low they'll go after the indictments are announced?

The same O'Reilly who would "nev er trust this administration again" if no WMD were found in Iraq?

Anyway, what is your response if "the pundits" (who are against the admin and frothing at the mouth for indictments or supportive and could have got the call 'paint Fitzgerald as a thorough non-partisan bulldog") are wrong?

I don't mean anything personal toward you, shockingelk, but I get the impression you haven't been reading much about this investigation or watching much of the tv news programs lately. There are many who believe there are going to be as many as 22 indictments handed down. I'm talking about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, & many, many blogs on the internet.

But, recall, this administration sold the nation on war with Iraq on barely specious claims that were known to be demonstrably false by all of we who read the non-US media reports and the IAEA/UNMOVIC reports.

That took some skill to pull off. The perfect "out" of Plamegate would be to provide the appearance of a thorough investigation but with a muted finale.

I mean, why would Comey have appointed someone frothing at the mouth for indictments? That is my best point regarding why we shouldn't count chickens when all we see are eggs. Even 22 eggs.

That's just my personal opinion.

The motivation for outing Plame may be more complicated than just revenge toward Joe Wilson. There are suspicions that the blatantly sinister breach against an undercover CIA officer had a lot to do with neutralizing Brewster & Jennings, her cover company during her WMD assignment.

As for why Comey would have appointed someone known for putting away members of organized crime, we can only guess. My opinion is that perhaps Comey, an honest guy with integrity himself, had seen enough & put his country before politics. Comey is no longer with this administration.

I recommend that you read the DU archives, Daily Kos, Josh Marshall, the Huffington Report, etc. There's a wealth of background information on this subject that would give you more confidence that justice will be done in the end. I don't think we'll be disappointed when Fitzgerald wraps up the investigation.

I read TPM and DU Latest Breaking, + read the Plame related MSM headlines. And I would like to believe that Fitzgerald is no partisan gunslinger, but eager to rack up indictments.

But I haven't religiously followed the Plame related threads here.

Could you briefly enumerate the top 3 reasons why it's more reasonable to think Fitzgerald wants incitements more than he may wish to protect the administration?

I mean, I respected Powell until there was enormous evidence that in the end, he most wished to be a cog in the administration's false propaganda effort.

Patrick Fitzgerald

If that doesn't sell you on his integrity, nothing will.

As for Powell, his credibility went south after he went along with the WHIGs & made his presentation at the UN. After that, most everyone here lost respect for him.

Guilliani
McCain
Powell
...

There are plenty of Republicans who have been "respectable" until they threw in with this lying, manipulative administration when the chips are really down.

Again, I hope my trepidation is ill-founded, but I do know this administration thinks many steps ahead so as to create the media story most beneficial to promote their desired story line.

But you know what? We have no way of knowing anything

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202002.html

Thursday, October 13, 2005; Page A23

The best thing Patrick Fitzgerald could do for his country is get out of Washington, return to Chicago and prosecute some real criminals. As it is, all he has done so far is send Judith Miller of the New York Times to jail and repeatedly haul this or that administration high official before a grand jury, investigating a crime that probably wasn't one in the first place but that now, as is often the case, might have metastasized into some sort of coverup -- but, again, of nothing much. Go home, Pat.

(more)

Paraphrased meaning: "Fitzgerald has gone over this with a fine-toothed comb way too many dozens of times, he should give it up now and stop wasting time. And if this leads to nothing, nobody can possibly complain."

This is a serious question. You seem to feel very strongly about this, but I'm not sure what you would have us do. Are you just suggesting we not get our hopes up too high or are you saying we should discount it all right now and pack it in?

1. I hope Fitzgerald is a strait shooter
2. Fitzgerald was appointed by Comey, who is a Bush appointee
3. If he hands down indictments, the administration will view his appointment as a mistake
4. This administration is 95% about appearances and media control
5. DU in general holds Fitzgerald as a hero
6. If there are no indictments, noone will be able to call "foul"
7. If there are indictments, the Bush admin would have made a huge error concerning something they had control over (who they appointed)

my fears indeed

I don't thing we're going to get to the bottom of this until Fitz is long, long gone.

If it were fixed, Libby would not have desperately attempted to coach Judith Miller's testimony via his aspens letter.

They can act. How are we sure this is not Bush Administration ruse #144?

We don't. I'm gonna watch and see, but I don't see the point of questioning it this much at the moment.

DU has for the most part treated Firtzgerald like some sort of Noam Chomsky with a law degree.

He is a Republican appointed to his post by a Bush crony. We know those facts.

Here, think about it this way: if there are indictments, the administration would view appointing him as a mistake. Does this administration make these types of mistakes?

Believe it or not, there are a few honest Republicans in the world. Wait and see is all we can really do. I don't see the point in picking this to death. That sounds harsh but I don't mean it that way.

And in this case, their biggest mistake was assuming that Ashcroft would whitewash this all away from them. When Ashcroft recused himself, the White House lost their trump card.

The scandal from Plame is already taking a bigger toll on the Bush admin than they would ever want. If this is all a plot to get them off scott-free, it has already failed many times over.

February 2, 2005, WP:



Why was Comey - a Bush appointee - "smiling" that the press painted Fitzgerald as beyond reproach? Was he hoping for clean and solid indictments? Really?

It says wacky runaway. Comey is saying he's smiling because he thinks the press is trying to present Fitz as someone with a crazed vendetta, like Ken Starr, when he knows him to be level-headed. (At least that's my interpretation.)

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

...story first went public about two years ago.

Additionally, they refused to be questioned under oath and insisted that they be questioned together in the same room.

The indictments will get here when Fitz is ready to deliver them, and not a second quicker.

When * and Cheney =refused to testify separately?