Author Topic: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)  (Read 1346 times)

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Fitzgerald's Cover-Up

It's time to hold the special prosecutor accountable.

For a prosecutor who claims to be a truth-seeker, Patrick Fitzgerald sure can be secretive. Even now that the Scooter Libby trial is over and his "leak" investigation is all but closed, the unaccountable special counsel wants to keep his arguments for creating a Constitutional showdown over reporters and their sources under lock and key.

Mr. Fitzgerald is fighting release of the affidavits he filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to justify compelling two reporters to testify about their conversations with Mr. Libby, and to throw one of them in jail for 85 days until she did so. Also under court seal are eight pages of a redacted 2005 D.C. Circuit opinion by Judge David Tatel that explained the court's decision to support Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit of the reporters.

In January, Dow Jones--which publishes this newspaper--and the Associated Press requested that the D.C. Circuit release this material now that the case is wrapped up. By demanding that the reporters betray their sources, Mr. Fitzgerald caused a legal collision that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The public, the press and other prosecutors all have what the Dow Jones-AP motion calls "an undeniable and overwhelming public interest" in knowing the arguments and information that Mr. Fitzgerald made to the court.

His demand and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.

The two reporters he subpoenaed and their lawyers did not know this at the time, however, and if they had it might have changed their arguments or decisions. At a minimum, prosecutors and reporters deserve to know what evidence the D.C. Circuit found so compelling so we can all avoid such future collisions. Congress also has an interest now that it is contemplating a "shield law" to protect media sources.

In his reply to the DJ-AP motion, Mr. Fitzgerald tries to hide behind rule 6(e) of grand jury secrecy. He claims the integrity of grand juries will be compromised by the release. But much of the material was already disclosed during the Libby trial, if not leaked earlier. And the far larger risk to grand jury integrity would be if Mr. Fitzgerald misled the courts about what he knew and when he knew it in order to coerce the two reporters to testify.

As a "special counsel" appointed by his good friend and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Mr. Fitzgerald operated essentially without Justice Department supervision. He once said himself that he "serve[d] as the functional equivalent of the Attorney General." Now he wants the D.C. Circuit to give him a free pass as well.

The Dow Jones-AP request is about holding Mr. Fitzgerald accountable for what he told the courts. If it is the same as what he told the public, then the prosecutor should have nothing to fear from the release of the affidavits or Judge Tatel's redacted opinion.

Copyrighted to Opinion Journal

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2007, 06:49:56 AM »
scooter libby only leaked that info because clinton got a blowjob.

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2007, 06:56:29 AM »
Two cool sounding names: Fitzgerald and Scooter Libby.

-Hedge
As empty as paradise

ribonucleic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5158
  • I bring you ultimate reality!
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2007, 07:42:44 AM »
I propose a deal...

Fitzgerald will release that information right after Cheney releases what is certainly more important to the country: the notes of his 2001 meeting with that energy task force. You know... the one that the participating oil industry executives kept lying about having been at?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

So please make a good faith demonstration of your passion for transparency and accountability by demanding that Cheney make those public... and that he then answer any follow-up questions we may have by testifying under oath before Congress.

Once you've done that, we'll tell Fitzgerald to cooperate fully with you.

M'kay?  ::)

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2007, 08:38:02 AM »
I propose a deal...

Fitzgerald will release that information right after Cheney releases what is certainly more important to the country: the notes of his 2001 meeting with that energy task force. You know... the one that the participating oil industry executives kept lying about having been at?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

So please make a good faith demonstration of your passion for transparency and accountability by demanding that Cheney make those public... and that he then answer any follow-up questions we may have by testifying under oath before Congress.

Once you've done that, we'll tell Fitzgerald to cooperate fully with you.

M'kay?  ::)
Oh, let's not forget to make sure Sandy Berger is able to come up with those missing documents he stole from the National database.  You know, the ones with the handwritten notes back and forth between him and President Clinton pertaining to the capture of OBL? 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2007, 09:19:27 AM »
Fitzgerald's Cover-Up

It's time to hold the special prosecutor accountable.

For a prosecutor who claims to be a truth-seeker, Patrick Fitzgerald sure can be secretive. Even now that the Scooter Libby trial is over and his "leak" investigation is all but closed, the unaccountable special counsel wants to keep his arguments for creating a Constitutional showdown over reporters and their sources under lock and key.

Mr. Fitzgerald is fighting release of the affidavits he filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to justify compelling two reporters to testify about their conversations with Mr. Libby, and to throw one of them in jail for 85 days until she did so. Also under court seal are eight pages of a redacted 2005 D.C. Circuit opinion by Judge David Tatel that explained the court's decision to support Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit of the reporters.

In January, Dow Jones--which publishes this newspaper--and the Associated Press requested that the D.C. Circuit release this material now that the case is wrapped up. By demanding that the reporters betray their sources, Mr. Fitzgerald caused a legal collision that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The public, the press and other prosecutors all have what the Dow Jones-AP motion calls "an undeniable and overwhelming public interest" in knowing the arguments and information that Mr. Fitzgerald made to the court.

His demand and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.

The two reporters he subpoenaed and their lawyers did not know this at the time, however, and if they had it might have changed their arguments or decisions. At a minimum, prosecutors and reporters deserve to know what evidence the D.C. Circuit found so compelling so we can all avoid such future collisions. Congress also has an interest now that it is contemplating a "shield law" to protect media sources.

In his reply to the DJ-AP motion, Mr. Fitzgerald tries to hide behind rule 6(e) of grand jury secrecy. He claims the integrity of grand juries will be compromised by the release. But much of the material was already disclosed during the Libby trial, if not leaked earlier. And the far larger risk to grand jury integrity would be if Mr. Fitzgerald misled the courts about what he knew and when he knew it in order to coerce the two reporters to testify.

As a "special counsel" appointed by his good friend and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Mr. Fitzgerald operated essentially without Justice Department supervision. He once said himself that he "serve[d] as the functional equivalent of the Attorney General." Now he wants the D.C. Circuit to give him a free pass as well.

The Dow Jones-AP request is about holding Mr. Fitzgerald accountable for what he told the courts. If it is the same as what he told the public, then the prosecutor should have nothing to fear from the release of the affidavits or Judge Tatel's redacted opinion.

Copyrighted to Opinion Journal
There is no constitutional showdown over whether reporters have some special right or privilege for protecting sources.  It's well established law that reporters have the same 1st Amendment rights as everyone else.  There is no provision for protecting a reporter's source(s).  That's a matter of professional ethics and not constitutional law.

The person that wrote this article doesn't know the first thing about the case or about rights which emanate from our Constitution's 1st Amendment. 

ribonucleic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5158
  • I bring you ultimate reality!
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2007, 10:21:50 AM »
Oh, let's not forget to make sure Sandy Berger is able to come up with those missing documents he stole from the National database.  You know, the ones with the handwritten notes back and forth between him and President Clinton pertaining to the capture of OBL? 

Blowjob!

We could go back and forth like this back to the George Washington administration, I suppose. But Clinton has already been impeached. Cheney is still awaiting his turn.  :)


Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2007, 11:56:05 AM »
We could go back and forth like this back to the George Washington administration, I suppose.  :)
Yep.  :)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Something's Not Adding Up with Fitzgerald (Opinion Journal article)
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2007, 12:53:14 PM »
I blame Jefferson for impregnating one of his slaves.


He is clearly responsible for allowing bin laden to attack us.