I'm Sorry, but its time for Fitzgerald to go or get off the pot....

I might feel this way because of what has happened to Rove (no indictment), but I think it is time for Fitzgerald to either put it all up the table or fold his tent and go home. I can recall asking back BEFORE the 2004 election if everyone thought this investigation would be done before the election and most said absolutely. It is now mid-way through 2006 and this thing is still not done. Frankly, it's ridiculous. There is no way this investigation should be going on three years now (Fitzgerald was appointed in December of 2003).

In the long run no one will most likely pay for any of this wrongdoing anyway. My prediction is that as the way things are going now, if there is even ANY conviction, the conviction will be overturned upon appeal or the conviction will come so late in Bush's final term
that Bush will simply pardon the offender.

But like I said, this might just my own feeling because of the disappointment over Rove. I guess a Cheney indictment would be worth the wait, but really, it's time for Fitzgerald to finish this up.

remember how long Starr's investigation took (including his predecessor and successor)?

Not happy about that to be sure.

to testify and litigated it in 2004 and 2005 all the way to the SCOTUS? (Time/NYT/Cooper/Miller.)

As I recall, SCOTUS refused to hear the case around June 2005, Cooper folded and testified in July, and Miller went to jail and didn't fold and testify until September/October 2005. Libby was indicted within weeks of Miller's testimony.

So who was it that delayed the case for over a year, taking it well past the 2004 election?

but if you want to think otherwise in your quest for hero-worship, have at.

30, 2003, by end of Jan/early Feb the matter is before the grand jury and testimony is being taken. Journalists balk at testifying, Fitz works out deals with some but two publications/journos litigate and refuse to provide info and testify until summer/fall 2005. Libby charged less than a month after Miller testifies and her testimony is cited in Libby's indictment. But Fitzgerald is responsible for the delay?

And let's see, how many stories that would have been detrimental to the Administration did the media purposely sit on until after the 2004 election? Time mag, CBS, NYT, to name a few known documented instances. Woodward of the WaPo pontificates, denigrating the investigation and Fitzgerald without mentioning that Plame info was leaked to him by an Administration official in June 2003. He only comes forward with the info when he apparently thinks it will help the Administration in the Plame case, after Libby is indicted. Facts suggest the media were far more culpable in protecting the Administration prior to the 2004 election than Fitzgerald.

means you agree that Fitzgerald was partially (albeit minutely compared to the administration and the media) responsible for not divulging that Rove and Libby had, in fact, leaked the names of a covert CIA agent while he was mulling over charges, information he knew from almost the get-go per reports, salient information that was germaine to decision-making for voters in the 2004 election.

We are arguing semantics since you agree others were "far more culpable" leaving room for my assertion that Fitzgerald holds some responsibility.

investigation past 2004. I clearly don't, hence the timeline of events I posted. Miller's testimony was needed to wrap Libby up in his own lies. He was talking to her about Wilson's wife in June 2003, something even now Libby wants to avoid mentioning in his motions.

You want to blame Fitzgerald for not doing a Ken Starr and selectively leaking info from the investigation? I don't.

There was nothing prohibiting the media from doing its own investigative reporting and truth telling, was there? The media knew who in the Administration was talking shit about Wilson and his wife, who fed who what info. They knew, since they participated funneling info from the Administration. And at least several were direct recipients of the leak or knew what the Administration was up to since 2003. Nothing prevented them from doing real investigative journalism. They were under no grand jury secrecy rules. Andrea Mitchell tips off Wilson about what the WH is saying about him in 2003, later claims "everyone knew" about Plame and has to backpeddle from that. Just as the case with the other WMD lies, they knew the Niger claims were bunk because they had already been publicly discredited by Spring 2003, before Wilson went public. They knew what going on and going down and didn't make that clear. Instead going with the Administration party line. And allowing Cheney and Condi to continue to lie without calling them on it.

So where's your evidence that Fitzgerald's reponsible for delaying the investigation past 2004, based on actual facts? Libby could have been charged in 2004 if Miller had talked. She wasn't protecting a whistleblower, she was protecting one of her buddies in the disinformation game. She'd outed her own sources before in print when it suited her, so protecting sources wasn't necessarily a primary motivation for her.

Media Matters agrees with you.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511020005?offset=20&show=1

I'm just experiencing generalized pissed-off malaise and it's getting on Fitzgerald. He is slow as molasses, though. Meticulous, but damn.

And, no, I don't want Fitzgerald to behave like Starr did. That's why I admire him. I just want Rove to finally answer for the years of dirty politics he has inflicted on America. He so deserves to go down.

former Gov. This case started in 1994 and 12 years later plus 70++ indictments Fitz got the top dog.

Patience this a Marathon not a sprint ;)

:eyes:

He is not an independent prosecutor, and is not obligated to reveal anything he's done to the public. We don't know enough to make the judgement that the investigation should be "wrapped up" and our timetable means nothing to him. Sorry.

the name of a CIA oprerative during war time.... The democrats need to focus on this investigation. When Clinton was in office, they pretty much accused Hillary of killing foster... come on Democrats.. stay on this crooked b.s. Everytime the case is mentioned, they have to re-tell the story of what happened....

But why should we?

I asked here on this forum a few months ago, who is protecting Fitzgerald? I guess I got my answer now -- no one was.

I agree, this thing will end up being a dead end. No one will pay. He indicted Libby to mollify lefties, but I assure you Libby will never set foot inside a prison. Justice at this the ultimate level simply doesn't work. Too many connected players.

I know we all want instant gratification, but that's not the way things always work. Fitzgerald is doing his job under what has to be an extremely difficult environment. He knows that he holds political dynamite in his hands. Would you really prefer that he shoot from the hip? Or would you like him to do a thorough job.

Remember, Fitzgerald has a reputation of going after the top guy.

We all need to relax. Have a nice glass of wine. Go for a hike in the woods. Cuddle with our significant other. Do things that reduce stress.

Or, we could decide to do something productive. Each of us could volunteer for the local Dem party, become a precinct committeeperson, become part of the machinery which decides the future of the party.

All these things are much better than wringing our hands about a situation which is not going to resolve itself soon. Understand, I've been doing my share of hand-wringing as well. So I fully understand where you're coming from. It's just that it doesn't do much good, does it?

He's doing his job and he has shown himself to be a very capable prosecutor in many cases. We have no idea what is going on in that case. I think it is fair to say we should trust his judgement. It may not turn out the way we want, but that may be because there just isn't the evidence he needs. The attacks on him just because he didn't follow through with what one online journalist said he would do is insane.

to two reporters but he "forgot about it." So if you or I told a prosecutor that we forgot that we told something that important and classified, we would be charged with lying or withholding that information. We would not have skated away.

It took many, many interrogations before Rove admitted that he forgot. That is most ridiculous.

Rove isn't off the hook, by any stretch of the imagination. He dodged a bullet this time because his testimony is probably needed to convict Scooter Libby. Fitz isn't at his end game.

Rove will also probably get his due in the civil trial that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are bringing against him and others.

I've been thinking about this and while it seems clear that they've got something in mind (and while I hope that there is something), i haven't figured out what the basis for the civil case would be. The only thing that I can think of is "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and, to be honest, I worry that bringing that case will end up making Wilson/Plame fodder for late night jokes...

When you have enough power, you can pretty much get away with anything. There won't be any consequences me thinks.

that reflects (and protects) the interests of the same bourgeois powers that propelled BFEE into power. Insofar as those bourgeois powers may now be growing dis-satisfied with the BFEE's competence to maintain the interests of the empire, i.e., insofar as there is now a growing split in the power elite, is where Fitz' real powers, if any, reside.

This really, imho, isn't about one great man (Fitz) or one dastardly villain (Rove), but fundamentally a working-out of intra-class interests (the ruling class' interests). Based on what I've seen of Fitz, he probably personally thinks Rove is guiltier than sin. But what Rove and the BFEE did is ultimately a "political" crime. To understand what I mean by that, ask yourself this question: could Fitz if he so chose indict a sitting President or Vice President in l'affair Wilson-Plame? Put another way, could Fitz be dismissed by Gonzalez for pursuing an investigation after receiving a direct order from Gonzalez not to pursue it any further?

Ironically, Wilson and his wife are also products of this same bourgois-imperialist system. I don't know enough about their respective pedigrees to know whether they come from Brahmin stock or whether each is more of a self-raised technocrat. But the power elite's interests will ultimately determine what happens here, not Fitz' personal integrity or lack thereof. That's not to say we should be 'quietist' about l'affaire Wilson-Plame. But rather to say that we should also try to expose the seamy imperial agenda that itself gave rise to the BFEE's need to out Valerie Plame, much like Watergate happened because of Nixon's drive to silence and intimidate Ellsburg and others who might be tempted to emulate Ellsburg's actions.

These thoughts are tentative and I apologize to serious scholars of Marxism if I've inadvertently bastardized or vulgarized a more serious\more accurate Marxist analysis.

He's a prosecutor. His job is to fuck the poor, not to expose the corruption of the machine he represents. People really expect justice to happen in a post-Reagan, Drug-War-tainted American court, and that makes me laugh... that's really "livin' in the sixties."