Fitz on slow boil?
Is he waiting until February 2009 to make sure his work isn't wasted?
...all horses and riders welcome here
Is he waiting until February 2009 to make sure his work isn't wasted?
Posted by
Garrett
at
7:42 PM
Labels: PlameGate, Posted by: Garrett
23 comments:
You actually believe this shit?
Fitzgerald took his original mandate and fucked around until he caught Libby in a lie he didn't even have to tell. Pathetic on Libby's part. But it boggles the mind that this much time and effort was spent chasing Libby around when you have Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents into his pants and then destroying them.
There is nothing, repeat, nothing in his role as special prosecutor to allow him to pop up in 2009 with anything - he has a targeted role.
Dream on, liberal witchhunters.
Why don't you get it that the reason Fitzgerald couldn't indict on the underlying outing of a CIA agent charge is because people like Libby LIED and OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
With the Republicans in charge all these years, you don't believe that if Berger could have been charged with something he would have been?
You probably still think that Plame was just a desk jockey.
WRONG.
The reason he couldn't indict anyone for "outing" a CIA agent is that nobody did by legal definition. LOOK...IT...UP
And, yes, Plame was a friggin nobody.
As to Berger, I don't know what to think. Fact: The man stoled and destroyed classified documents. Fact: He got a wrist-slap for it. You tell me what's the deal with that because I'm utterly perplexed.
My God, John -- the reason the CIA hasn't confirmed that Wilson was undercover WAS THAT SHE WAS UNDERCOVER!!!!!! You actually believe this shit?
Well, if she was undercover then Fitz would have continued the prosecution for that and not turn it into a perjury trial.
I mean, c'mon man, if she had been "outed" they would have prosecuted on that basis. Friggin logic.
First of all, Cheney claimed the power to declassify any material he felt like declassifying (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/16/cheney.classified/index.html)and that he did just that - a private declassification of Plame's status - and that is one of the reasons Fitzgerald might not be able to prosecute what we all see as the underlying treason.
John, you keep putting the word "outing" in quotes. Here's commentary by a CIA agent who is/was a colleague of Plame's and it talks about the LIES *you* believe and the *truth* that the outing compromised many agents who worked with her.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/washington-post-_b_41548.html
If she wasn't covert, then why did the CIA request an investigation of the leaking of a covert officer's name?
You both raise good points but the fact of the matter is that Plame's husband has been such a duplicitous SOB that it's hard to see what the actual facts. Wilson is a lying piece of shit. I dunno - let's call this a "push"
BTW, Susan, the obstruction took place well after the original investigation was underway. As to Berger, I don't know what the motivation was but the fucker stoled and destroyed classified documents. FACT.
Please, for one, either get your facts straight or take your medications and stop using caps so stridently. Try being a thinking liberal and not an asshole kneejerk liberal.
Get YOUR facts straight, you POS.
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/10/30/1511/7730
and in here is Johnson's take on "no underlying crimes"
And - how can you possibly think the Repugs would have left Sandy Berger alone if there was something they could have done to nail him? Answer, of course, is that whatever he did, it didn't rise to the level of indictment. Even YOU have to believe they would have if they could have. They were in #$%^ charge! Um, I guess there was no "underlying crime".
forgot to post the second link:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/
So you link to a partisan, nutcase blog as "proof"....priceless.
That's exactly the sort of dementia I was critisizing....hahaha
He's a former CIA agent. Why do you call him a partisan nutcase? Just because you don't like what he says?
And if that's your criteria, why would you post a M. Malkin comment here? Talk about partisan nutcakes! There's your example!
OH, and if you think Johnson's wrong or lying (and why would he?) refute what he says. Put up or shut up.
"Plame's husband has been such a duplicitous SOB that it's hard to see what the actual facts."
Give me an example here, please: what has he lied about?
Garrett,
Washington Post good enough for you? (See, I don't use unfounded blog wet dreams as fact-finding).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Are you saying that everything he said in that article is a lie? Or particular items?
"Everything" is a broad term...but he flat-out lied about important things so who's to say?
John, you still haven't identified _one_ important thing he lied about. Waving your hand at a 3-year-old newspaper article and saying "it's in there somewhere" does not a conviction make.
Jesus Christ, Garrett, how dense are you? Practically every paragraph of that article details where and how Wilson misled or, euphemistically, misspoke.
One of the items there states that his wife recommended him, on the basis of a memo she wrote.
Only problem is, she wrote that memo at the request of her boss, who already wanted to send him, and figured that she could detail the reasons for doing so more effectively, or something like that.
If they mischaracterized that one, how do we know the other stuff is right?
I'll give you the memo part because I don't really know what the deal was there.
However, this guy has bullshitted so many times on other issues for - conjecturally - personal gain that how can anyone take anything he says without a grain?
Which other issues? John, until you identify one, you're blowing smoke. You can't call him a liar until you've actually identified a lie.
Post a Comment