Am I the only one here that is disappointed by Fitzgerald?

OK, grab your flamethrowers. I know Fitzgerald is a big hero around here. I've been putting off posting this comment for a while but I just have to say something.

Along with all the thanks and praise for Fitzgerald, I think it's warranted to express some disappointment as well.

Yes, he did a good job prosecuting Libby.

But it's clear Libby was just the fall guy. In essence, by ending his investigation with Libby, he allowed the fall guy to take the hit, leaving the real criminal untouched. He knows Cheney was responsible for the leak. We know it too. Everyone knows it. But Fitz appears content to leave Libby in jail and Cheney on the streets.

I'm not a lawyer... but ask yourself, do you think it's common for a prosecutor investigating a crime, to end the investigation with a perjury charge of a fall guy? If a prosecutor is investigating a murder, and he finds, say, the suspect's mother is providing a false alibi to protect her son, would he just convict the mother for perjury and then end the investigation? For God's sake, a murder took place! Once the mother is charged, it seems like the prosecutor should try work around the lies, or resolve them in court, and then move on to the real suspect. In this case, Fitz figuratively walked away from the case after convicting a murder suspect's mother of lying to protect her son.

I've watched enough CourtTV to know, investigators don't usually end their investigations simply because "someone is lying." A good investigator should be able to work around and through the lies, and get to the truth.

We've all heard it... Libby prevented him from getting to the real facts. But I don't buy that argument completely. Perjury charges are supposed to be to punish people for hampering an investigation; they're not supposed to be the end result of the investigation. I think there's more than enough evidence, even in the public record, to implicate other people. Heck, Rove said "PLAME IS FAIR GAME." What exactly did he mean by that, and what position was he speaking from when he said it?

John Turley, one of the most respected constitutional lawyers in the country, has said that he was very surprised Fitzgerald didn't indict others in this case, and he feels strongly that others should be indicted, even just on the public information. I agree.

And when the Libby trial ended, everyone here was cheering because Fitz said he would testify if Congress asked him to. Everyone was so psyched about that. I saw all kinds of posts expressing excitement that Fitz was going to turn over all his evidence to Congress. Well guess what. He didn't actually say he would cooperate in any way. If you listen to the press conference recording, he said he would "do what's appropriate." And evidently he doesn't think it's appropriate to work with Congress. At the press conference why didn't he just say it's not appropriate to give evidence to Congress? FDL has a nice article about Fitz's refusal to testify, indicating he would need to get approval before he could testify. Leaves me wondering, if he really wanted to help the investigation, why doesn't he seek and get the approvals he needs, rather than turning down the request based on the approval requirement?

Now let's just look at the Libby trial itself. There's so much in the public record now, seemingly enough to indict several other people. We now know from sworn testimony that Libby first learned Plame's identity from DICK CHENEY. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why Libby was lying and who he was protecting. So why is that man still walking the streets?

Even the jurors keep asking.... "where's Rove, where's Cheney? Why are we trying Libby when he was clearly the fall guy for the real crime?" Even though the jurors aren't trying Cheney and/or Rove, they have been presented with enough evidence to know that they were involved.

To me, these are indicators that something isn't right.

Fitz has said that Libby's lies prevented him from getting to the truth. If that's the case, then Libby succeded. He lied to protect Cheney, and he was successful. In this respect, even though Libby was found guilty, he succeded in covering up the real crime. And all it takes is one simple pardon, and the entire thing is swept under the rug (yes I know there is a congressional investigation now, but that is beyond Fitz's scope and wasn't in place when Fitz declared he's "done and going back to his day job." And I'm not aware of a way these investigations can actually put someone in jail anyway)

I think if you look at the bottom line, a very high crime was committed, which endangered, if not resulted in the deaths of, an unknown number of covert CIA agents. Our national security was significantly affected. All for political purposes. The only result of Fitz's investigation is that one person, not directly tied to the crime, has been convicted of lying during the investigation. On the surface, it looks like a coverup to me.

I'm not saying Fitz is part of the coverup. I'm just saying that if he was more tenacious he could have worked around Libby's lies and gotten to the truth, and if justice was being served the investigation should not be over now. Fitz is not saying a crime did not occur. A high crime has indeed occured and has been successfully covered up. I believe he could have gone further but he chose not to, for whatever reasons.

One thing that made me wonder a little bit, was during the investigation, the MSM networks were doing everything they could to depict Fitz as a real hardnose investigator who never leaves a stone unturned and goes after the criminals whoever they are. I saw more than one expose on Fitz's life, on the MSM, showing him as a real bulldog. I remember after watching that, I felt content "leaving it all in Fitz's hands." I knew he would do right. Now I'm not so sure. Why was the MSM, who was doing everything they could to minimize the Plame affair, at the same time trying to tell the public that Fitz is such a bulldog? In other words, they were telling the public if a crime was committed, you can be sure Fitz will find out who did and he won't let him go.

If you take all the emotions out of it and only look at the bottom line, we got just about the bare minimum we could expect out of the investigation. The only thing less we could have gotten was no conviction at all. In a crime that involved probably dozens of people, only one person was convicted, and not even for the original crime itself. Forget the names, forget the parties, forget the hype. Look at all the possible scenarios that could have resulted. On one end we could have gotten nothing at all. On the other end we could be seeing resignations from Cheney, Rove, and maybe even Bush. It could have gone on in all kinds of directions, including looking at the forged Niger documents themselves, the 16 words in the SOTU address, getting George Tenet and others to testify. All these things are related to the case. IN the end, we got one notch above the absolute minimum. The result is, now the MSM can spin it all to seem like no crime actually occured, and that Libby should be pardoned.

I'm sure I'll be flamed for posting this. Just remember the context. I'm not trying to critize Fitz per se. I just think that all the praise needs to be tempered at bit. Look at the gamut of possible outcomes from the investigation and consider what we got. I do think he could have done more. Before you flame me for not knowing what I'm talking about, just remember that there are some experts like John Turley singing the same tune.

And remember, I could easily avoid flames by just not posting this at all. I just think some questions need to be asked and some discussion is warranted along these lines.

Am I the only one at DU who feels this way?

I didn't know there was a rule about only posting about Alberto Gonzales today.

The Plame affair is still a big story and warrants discussion.

For the record, I think Gonzo is a compete lying ass cronie and should be in jail. Does that make you happy?

Yes

We were a bit lucky he got anybody to stand trial.

The problem, IMO, is that Armitage (the guy who really leaked Plame to Novak) lawyered up early and struck an immunity deal. Once he was immune from prosecution, Fitz was left saying :wtf: and holding a nearly empty bag. Then, it was just a question of Libby and that bitch reporter from the Times doing their jobs by delaying everything until after the 2k4 election. IMO, the one real screwup in the whole deal.

not a lawyer. You are as frustrated as the rest of us, but I really think Fitz went as far as he could, legally. I don't think it is over yet. Enough could come out with all the hearings going on. I hope so. As much as I feel like giving up, there is that one little iota of hope left for me.

for the repukes

he kept the "investigation" focused on trivial side issues

he kept Cheney and Rove out of court

he gave the real criminals a made-to-order fall guy


he did a great job.


for the repukes.

He got the guy who threw sand in his eyes but forgot about the actual crime it seems.

I have to agree. We spent the better part of the year focused on this as the beginning of the end. But the outcome hasn't really ended anything. Maybe it's too soon to form an opinion on how effective this prosecution was...but I have to say, I thought this would lead to higher hanging fruit.

I guess the firewall into the Executive Branch is pretty good. If Scooter is willing to go to jail to protect the CEO of War Profiteering, I guess there's not much Pat can do.

Thus, I keep my expectations low and my hopes and apirations high. :shrug:

Furthermore, I abandoned the notion of awaiting the hero in a white hat when I was about 8 years old.

I have thought a lot about what you said, I am sure most of us have. I am hoping this investigation is still ongoing and Fitzgerald is not quite done. And for all we know, he (or a family member) could have been threatened. I beleive it does happen.

does it seem like virtually all the discussion about Fitz here at DU is praise?

as far as it still ongoing, I've given up on that. I'm taking him for his word. He said it's over, he doesn't expect any more indictments and he's going back to his day job...

The ones that aren't praising him are calling him a republican blah blah blah. But your post was calm and not mean spirited. And don't forget a lot of his praise is by a lot of women that have the hots for him. His mind, that is.:)

But I'm not giving up on him. He's not superman. You'd almost have to be investigating this corrupt administration. I'm not reading the tea leaves but I just don't think he has completely ended it. He may just need to take a break, at least from this case since he's starting on the Conrad Black case.

Fitzgerald did not end the investigation, it is stalled. After Libby's verdict, Fitzgerald said something along the lines of "For now the investigation is over, unless we receive new evidence." I don't think there is enough evidence out there now to convict anyone else. So yes, even though Libby lost the trial, he won because he kept his boss out of jail...for now!

I think we should take him for his word on that. One thing is for sure, everything HE has said, although limited, has panned out.

evidence were to surface, the investigation would be activated. He DID NOT say it was over at all.

Taken from the live blogging on Firedoglake of the Fitzgerald press conference after the Libby conviction:

Is your investigation over now? Fitzgerald says that he does not expect to file any further charges. If information comes to light or if new information comes forward that warrants further investigation, we will do that. The case is now inactive. We are going back to our day jobs.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/06/fitzgerald-post-trial-press-conference/

Link to video of Fitzgerald's press conference:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/06/fitz-libby-presser/

if you take the overall gist of what he's saying, he's saying he's DONE. He's not pursuing any leads. He doesn't expect any more indictments. Of course, if anyone presents more evidence he'll look at it. Do you expect him to say that if someone brings new evidence he won't even look at it?

I think if we take the man for his words and stop trying to "read between the lines."

and interpreting it to reflect your opinion instead of dealing with what he DID say which was very clear. If further evidence were to be brought forward, the investigation would become active again. What part of that do you not understand?

I am not sure why you are so determined to smear Fitzgerald but, hey, whatever, those who want to buy your "bridge" will do so, most will not.

Please. He had three extremely high-ranking job titles. He was one of the top PNAC/neoconservatives, who was largely responsible for the lies that brought us to war, and the operation against the Wilsons. Calling him a "fall guy" displays a lack of insight in regard to who Libby is.

HE did not have direct access to know Plame was covert.

HE did not oversee the conspiracy to discredit Wilson.

HE did not direct others to out Valerie Plame.

HE was following orders from CHENEY in all of this.

HE got convicted. Cheney did not.

Cheny is the Vice President of the United States of America.

HE is an unelected official acting under orders.

Call it what you want. That makes him the fall guy in my book.

Unless you know more than Joe Wilson, you are wrong about Libby's not overseeing the operation to discredit Wiulson. And unless you know more than Patrick Fitzgerald, you are wrong about Libby's role in directing others to expose Plame. When you are wrong on those two things, the rest of what you say is of little significance.

So it's not the first epigrammatic gem of yours to crease me up. And I hope it won't be the last.

"When you are wrong on those two things, the rest of what you say is of little significance."!!!

Wasn't there a slightly more clumsy, more turgid way you could have expressed it, to soften the impact!

if Libby oversaw the effort to discredit Wilson, then why wasn't he charged with the crime.

Can't have it both ways.

Let's try to have a respectful discussion and keep the personal attacks at a minimum. I am entitled to my ideas and thoughts and I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I draw a distinction. A "fall guy" is one who's actually guilty and takes the "fall" without turning in the others. A "scapegoat" is an innocent person on whom the blame is placed.

In no way, shape, or form is Libby innocent.

I think Fitz may have decided that he could not get a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Cheney & Rove deliberately leaked Plame's identity.

some of them made public comments that they felt they should have been trying Cheney or Rove, not Libby.

I guess we'll never know if he could have gotten a conviction or not.

the bottom line is, SOMEONE was responsible, but NO ONE is going to pay for the crime.

even if they are guilty in the civil trial, they'll never serve time because Fitz let them go.

I have to believe that he knows what he is doing, and is biding his time for the right events to unfold.

Several years ago, I didn't believe the majority of Americans would see the lies behind starting this war, or how crooked and corrupt this Administration is. Now people are beginning to see.

So I continue to be patient. (But hurry!)

Lots of positive action now! :hi:

he refused to testify in Congress. He said the investigation is over and there will not be any more indictments.

anyone who thinks he's planning some kind of big move and he's still focusing on Cheney, I have a bridge to sell you.

the first time. I don't think your sales pitch is going to work any better this time than last. I do wish you would include FACTS in your sales pitch, though, it would smell a bit better, imo.

Edited to correct typo

Looks like the criminals are going to skip off scot free since Congress isn't going to Impeach either. :grr:

eat stale, wet cigarettes and think about what you've done.

Seriously, though-- we're a happy lot and there's always room for improvement. Don't let perfect get in the way of good.

I don't think it's flame-worthy although I do think it's not over til it's over. We don't know what's being said behind the doors in Congress. Fitz handed the ball to them, perhaps he has confidence in Waxman and Conyers, as I do.

We'll see what we see.

when to defer to the honest politicians working at the political level. A kind of cooperative interplay. I imagine it's only prudent to minimise the Republicans' opportunities to smear Fitz's labours with their MSM, political noise-machine, by working in this way.

I believe that you are extremely fortunate to have some extraordinarily astute political and legal brains on your side.

At first I didn't get your post because aren't they on your side too? Then I saw you are from Scotland :hi: (I still think they're on your side too though ;)).

You got that right, glitch, for sure. And thanks for the wave. :hi: yourself!

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=295306250&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=all">Link

FBI Informant & CIA "Assets" Plotted 1993 WTC Attack, FBI & CIA Also Followed 9-11 Hijackers
Source: Online Journal
Published: February 28, 2007 Author: Jerry Mazza


It is also most interesting that those who knew Atta in Hamburg have said that Mohamed Atta's "lessons ranged beyond the Koran to include the Muslim struggle, or jihad, in Palestine, Chechnya and Kosovo." The Kosovo Liberation Army was financed, trained, and generally organized by "the CIA, the German BND, and Albanian fundamentalists. Some are trained in Osama bin Laden’s camps." In 1999, former DEA officer Michael Levine made these observations about the KLA:


"Ten years ago we were arming and equipping the worst elements of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan — drug traffickers, arms smugglers, anti-American terrorists. We later paid the price when the World Trade Center was bombed , and we learned that some of those responsible had been trained by us. Now we’re doing the same thing with the KLA, which is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel....."

"News leaked Salem had made tapes of more than a hundred hours of his conversations with FBI agents and handlers. Yet somehow the transcripts were not helpful to the prosecution"? The prosecutors in the 1993 WTC bombing case withheld a lot of other evidence from the juries and grand juries, such as Sudanese surveillance intelligence, which led right to the CIA's front door. The main federal prosecutors "for New York City and New Jersey in the bombing case -- were Patrick J. Fitzgerald and Michael Chertoff, respectively." Fitzgerald, with Andrew McCarthy, went on to lead the coverup of the plots to attack the US embassies in Kenya & Tanzania in 1998. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALI MOHAMED.

When Patrick Fitzgerald "immersed himself" and "took a major role" in the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation investigations the outcome was predictable. The DOJ made a plea deal with BIF executive director Enaam Arnaout and dropped the terrorism charges. GRF co-founder Rabih Haddad was locked up on immigration charges in December 2001 until the Bush administration could get him out of the country. We found out from the Muntasser-Mubayyid case that Care International was basicly a front for the CIA front, that Alkifah Refugee Center. The Global Relief Foundation & Benevolence International Foundation received funds directly from Care.

another example from your author

The AIDS virus: Made in the USA?
Health. The AIDS virus: Made in the USA? By Jerry Mazza
www.onlinejournal.com/health/102605Mazza/102605mazza.html

Is it the weather or government terror?
By Jerry Mazza Online Journal Contributing Writer
www.onlinejournal.org/Commentary/102205Mazza/102205mazza.html

Aspartame, Anti-Depressants And Bush
By Jerry Mazza
www.rense.com/general56/dewf.htm

and so on -- google has a treasure trove

...Vol. 15, No. 11 -- not the Online journal, and a Wayne Madsen Report, articles.

The New American -- appears to be a right wing, John Birch society rag, that has been around from 1958.

Michael Levine - whom The New American, and Wayne Madsen cite is on a ulta left; allegedly liberal radio show at WBAI in New York City, every Monday from 5 to 6 PM.

In fact, I recently heard Michale Levine - just last week, and he said basically the same thing that was cited from the Madsen article.

"Backing the KLA is simply insane. My contacts within the DEA are quite frankly terrified, but there’s not much they can say without risking their jobs. These guys have a network that’s active on the streets of this country . The Albanian mob is a scary operation. In fact, the Mafia relied on Albanian hitmen to carry out a lot of their contracts. They’re the worst elements of society that you can imagine, and now, according to my sources in drug enforcement, they’re politically protected. It’s the same old story. Ten years ago we were arming and equipping the worst elements of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan — drug traffickers, arms smugglers, anti-American terrorists. We later paid the price when the World Trade Center was bombed, and we learned that some of those responsible had been trained by us. Now we’re doing the same thing with the KLA, which is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel. Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead right to the KLA, and right to Albanian gangs in this country."
Michael Levine, former US Drug Enforcement Administration counter-narcotics officer
New American, Vol. 15, No. 11, May 24, 1999
http://www.jbs.org/node/594


Wayne Madsen
How Fitzgerald & Chertoff Obstructed Justice in 1993 WTC Attack & Rahman Case
August 27, 2006 Author: Wayne Madsen

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=294896288&page=0&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1#Post294896288

Ironically, the two men responsible for the failure to present the surveillance intelligence on the 1993 World Trade Center bombers to the juries and grand juries hearing the charges -- the main federal prosecutors for New York City and New Jersey in the bombing case -- were Patrick J. Fitzgerald and Michael Chertoff, respectively.

for not testifying at the Libby trial and walking into a perjury trap (which I believe Fitz had ready for him).

Fitz is a lawyer so he talks like a lawyer -- he said the investigation is "Inactive", not over.

I am inactive right now, but I will get up if the doorbell rings. I am not "over" I am just sitting here. Ready to jump up if I need to/

Unlike many around here I am unconvinced that Bush will pardon Libby before he has to serve time. If Bush waits til the end of his term, Scooter will be in jail.

And in fact I am not sure Bush will pardon at all -- Bush's loyalty is to Karl Rove and his "legacy" -- not to Dick Cheney.

Who knows, maybe Mrs. Libby is starting to realize that Dick Cheney first and foremost cares about Dick Cheney, not her husband.

So who knows what will happen in the future --- not you or me.

JMHO

Libby lied, obstructed justice and covered up for Cheney--who is obviously the real target of the investigation. Libby is, barring an immediate pardon or successful appeal, going to jail. Once the appeals process is exhausted--in a matter of a few months, probably--and if no pardon is forthcoming, Libby will then be forced to make a decision: go to jail or provide additional testimony in exchange for a reduced sentence. Which do you think he'll choose? Let's say he's sentenced to 10-15 years (the max, I believe, is 20); do you really think he's going to do 15 years to protect Dick Cheney? Do you?

This is maybe the fourth time I've had to post the same very basic message: this is how conspiracy prosecutions almost always work--first you convict the stooges, then the stooges rat out the bosses once their other options (appeals, etc.) are exhausted. That's standard procedure. Get it now?

I don't think he'll get 15 years. Did you hear the sympathetic talk from the jurors? Some said he should be pardoned. I wouldn't be surprised if they go easy on him and I also think he will be pardoned.

Sounds like your argument is that the whole case is balancing on Libby getting a stiff sentence and then spilling the beans. If that's Fitz's strategy I'd say he's putting a lot of eggs into one basket.

The jury's done. I doubt Libby will be pardoned--I think it plays out like this: Libby makes a deal and rats out Cheney, who resigns for "medical reasons." Bush pardons Cheney because, you know, it's not nice to hound a man who's got medical problems. And yes, at this point I think Libby agreeing to tell the truth in exchange for a "get out of jail free" card is pretty much all that's left to Fitzgerald. It's still a pretty powerful gambit--and it is, as I said, the way prosecutors usually work in corruption/conspiracy cases. Look back at Fitz's career as a US attorney and you'll see what I'm talking about.

While jury may be taken with Ted Wells misdirection towards other, Judge Walton does not seem like the kind to fall for shallow emotional tricks.

As to the rest of your scenario I agree -- who is Bush really loyal to -- Rove or Libby?

There is not going to be any taking down of the bad guys like there was in Chicago for the great Fitzgerald. There is not going to be any higher ups. It's over. Fitzgerald's whole case is resting on the idea that Libby will turn since Fitz believes he is unable to try any of the other criminals because he fears he can't get a prosecution. Much like the Democrats have feared being called traitors or doing something to end the war because it will come for not. Well IF you don't try the fucking criminals you sure as hell can't convict them. And you can't begin to end a war if you don't try. It's a forgone conclusion. He did what was easiest. And in the end, all Fitzgerald is is a worthless boy scout. He plays by the rules while Rome burns-much again like our Democratic represent ives.

Libby will at the VERY most do a few months then be pardoned. There is no 15 years to be had. He will never turn, he knows he doesn't need to. And please, please quote me on this in the future.

So, you're saying you want Fitzgerald to do what, exactly? Who do you want him to try? Shouldn't he get indictments first? Wouldn't it be useful if he actually had some testimony that might lead to those indictments? Or are you just completely talking out of your ass on this one?

But you no likey when others do it to you. AND NO-Fitzgerald didn't even try to indict anyone else. That is the point. Prosecutors try to indict people all the time if they believe they are guilty even if they aren't 100% certain they can get a conviction.

but that Rove changed his testimony at the last minute and wriggled off the hook. Rove appeared before the grand jury five times in all--that's highly unusual. If Rove finally came around and told the truth to the GJ, what should Fitz have tried to indict him for? As others have pointed out, the applicable statute is extremely narrow. There's also the question of whether Cheney could have legally authorized Plame's outing, since Bush apparently gave him the authority to declassify pretty much any information he wanted to declassify--but if you'd been paying any attention to this case as it went along, you'd already know all that. I wasn't talking down to you so much as pointing out that, for all your big, emphatic bluster, you don't appear to know what the hell you're talking about.

It's been a little over two weeks now. Time for another "Patrick Fitzgerald didn't do exactly what I wanted, therefore, he's a shit," posts. Remember this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=352019

I'll repeat the same things I said to you at that time, and they ALL remain fact.

Fact: The espionage statute that Cheney, Rove, etcetera should have been charged under is so poorly written that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to gain a conviction. There's also the problem of greymail, which I also reminded you of at that time. The readers of firedoglake (and of H20Man,) have known this for quite some time now. If you've been "following this all along," why didn't you know it, too?

Fact: Scooter Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be tried and convicted of ANYTHING in the past 130 years. He continues to obstruct the investigation.

>just remember that there are some experts like John Turley singing the same tune.<

I told you that multiple former federal prosecutors said the SAME THINGS I have written above at firedoglake; your response was that it was "my opinion". I think it's a damn sight more than "my opinion". It's fact. Of course, I'm sure they're all wrong, too.

Any prosecutions of Rove, Cheney, Bush or anyone else are going to have to run through Congress at this point. They do not have the greymail problems inherent in prosecutions in a United States court of law, due to intelligence clearances. There is also the very real fact that we will have a Constitutional crisis by the time this is over.

>I'm not trying to critize Fitz per se.<

Yes, you are. You've done it repeatedly in the past, and continue to do so.

>I do think he could have done more.<

What exactly do you think he could have done? File additional charges that got greymailed out of court before his signature was dry on the filing paperwork? I'm waiting.

Before you pitch on Patrick Fitzgerald, I challenge you, yet again: Go to law school. Spend seven years racking up debt in excess of $100,000, then take a job as an assistant US attorney making oh, $40K per year. Pay off your debt. Work 70-hour weeks for years, eighteen or so, as a matter of fact. Forgo any semblance of a personal life. Take on a second job that NOBODY would want, and that you're essentially doing for free. Spend over two years on an investigation that ends up stonewalled by a person who's so stupid he'll end up in prison for people who had no problem throwing him under the bus. KNOW that your career, your very future, will be impacted by this case for the next 20 years.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? If you're so convinced you could do better, I invite you to do so.
Julie

his covering up the first "Twin Towers" bombing investigation?

I heard on WBAI radio; just last week and this week Fitzgerald's name coming up by a former Federal agent (Micheal Levine), that was a supervisor at the DEA -- that basically called him incompetent.

The same guy dedicated to rooting out corruption wherever he finds it (at professional cost,) and going after mobsters (personal cost--how would you like, for instance, to not be able to receive mail at home due to safety issues?) is going to cover evidence in the Twin Towers bombing?

Uh-huh.
Julie

I don't Particularly like WBAI these days -- it is to one sided. I am a pacifist/liberal, and originally WBAI was founded by Pacifists whom would have both Conservatives and Liberals -- discussing a controversial issue.

The guy rants and raves every week, how he fought mobsters, International drug dealers, terrorists; so I was just wanting to see if anyone would refute him.

It does seem like a topic of interest to me, because so many place their hopes in him (Fitz) -- not me, because in my research-- though I am not a lawyer -- lawyers (prosecutors) generally don't fight great social political evils, or even great evils with the exception of Gandhi perhaps, but even Gandhi's work for social justice was not in the court room -- but in the court of public opinion.

Perhaps lawyers could advice me of prosecutors; whom have become social justice movement advocators, in the past.

I can think of kunstler as a a lawyer -- but he was not a prosecutor, and also the ACLU (founded by a pacifist); but they were not prosecutors.

you said:

It's been a little over two weeks now. Time for another "Patrick Fitzgerald didn't do exactly what I wanted, therefore, he's a shit," posts. Remember this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

that was before Fitz refused to testify in the Congressional hearings. I think it is warranted to bring it up again. EXCUSE me for expressing my opinion. I guess I just thought that's what a discussion forum is for. I guess you're right. We're just supposed to go along with what everyone else thinks and keep our mouths shut. and God forbid if there is a little overlap in some of our postings.

congrats on your great investigative work finding some old post of mine and trying to incriminate me for repeating myself. I guess I thought there was free speech.

>that was before Fitz refused to testify in the Congressional hearings.<

He is UNABLE to testify in those hearings, by law. It is ILLEGAL for him to do so. He is not allowed to discuss evidence that has not been made available in open court. He is not permitted to opine on anyone not named in the case, and he's certainly not able to discuss the Libby case while it is on appeal.

>I think it is warranted to bring it up again. EXCUSE me for expressing my opinion.<

I offer facts instead of conjecture. You informed me that they were "my opinion". No, they're facts.

Julie

I am not a lawyer -- but I filed a lawsuit in Federal court Pro Se, and I appealed the lower Court decision and the 3 court panel ruled in my favor, and the parties that I sued favor.

As far as I can remember from the court rules that I read; everything that is in the court file, and "everything" part of the proceedings is a record for the appeals court, and basically the case is closed.

Fitz or Libby's lawyers can present no new evidence that was not part of the Libby Court proceedings, so it is entirely within the rights of Congress, to ask for Fitz to talk, because, everything that was a part of the proceedings is a matter of public record, and will be reviewed by the appeals court.

Noting the recurring themes in your writing speaks to your body of work, not you personally.
I also notice you didn't respond to any of the points made in JulieRB's post, only to her "attacks".
You also failed to mention the reason Fitz couldn't testify before Waxman's Committee.....he said the case is still ACTIVE!
Have a nice day

I will never forgive Fitzgerald for letting Rove off the hook. If ever a person deserved to be charged with a crime in the history of the planet and a person had a chance to do that, that was Fitzgerald with Rove. No guts, no glory.

You may be right -- I don't know enough about how these things REALLY work to know.

BUT, I do know that when you have someone OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, you have more trouble getting to the info you need to PURSUE justice, which is the whole point of the obstructing JUSTICE charge. Get it? If someone lies about Participant A's participation in a potential crime, you won't have the goods or evidence on Participant A to pursue legal charges.

Libby is most certainly the Fall Guy, but he took on that job willingly, and will no doubt be handsomely rewarded for it -- in time. That's my guess.

through lower level guys up to higher level guys, until the big one finally gets taken down--sometimes years after the start of the investigation? H2OMan, do you have any background information on that?

in his other investigations he's said things like "I do not expect any more indictments" or " the investigation is now inactive" or "we're all going back to our dayjobs."

if he's hoping to continue and indict more people I see no reason why he would say these things.

Also I don't think you can indict the Vice President he is out of office.

also, if you can't indict a sitting elected official, what did Ken Starr do to Clinton?

You can indict a sitting official, just not the President or Vice President.

And to answer your first question, if Fitz wanted to let these guys off easy he wouldn't have indicted anybody. In terms of holding people accountable as well as advancing his career, it makes very little sense for him to not fry the bigger fish if possible.

I have felt for a long time, something is missing and
a lot more people needed to be held responsible.
Thank you!:yourock:

I think the problem is in the lack of evidence towards breaking the law in order to charge the others. It doesn't mean there wasn't ethical or logical wrongdoing, but in order for Fitz to prosecute there had to be solid enough evidence of a crime being committed. Fact is, at the end of the day, such solid evidence is not available.

But based on what he had to deal with and the information he was factually able to get, he did an amazing job putting things together. But he can't just simply create facts to suit your desires.

I also think Fitzgerald's interaction with radical Islamists like Ali Mohamed should be reviewed thoroughly as well.

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/9-11.htm

It may be worth considering that Bushco had shit on him, and said, "Swing at the Pinata, Libby. Swing, Fitz, swing! BUT DO NOT LET YOUR BATON STRAY."

Apparently the White House agrees with you.
According to an anonymous DOJ official, a document that the DOJ refused to release showed that Fitz's rankings were no better than other attorneys that were fired. Had their prosecutor reseeding program been allowed to continue, I imagine Fitz would have been sent packing once the Libby furor died down.

I couldn't have been disappointed, because this is, sadly, what I reckoned would happen.

For all that, it may still have provided the breach through which more will now flow.