Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Concerning the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:00 PM
Original message
Concerning the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation...
...During the Clinton years, special prosecutor Ken Starr expanded the scope of his investigation from Whitewater (where he turned up nothing) to obstruction related to the infamous hummer off the WH library. Does anyone doubt that if this were Clinton serving as president now, having done everything Dubya has done, that the scope of someone like Starr's investigation would be expanded to include any and all possible criminality i.e. election fraud, DSM, deception concerning the threat posed by Iraq in lead-up to war, missing millions funneled to BushCo cronies in Iraq, torture on U.S. soil at Gitmo? etc, ... the list could go on and on.

What's to stop Fitzgerald from trying to tie in some of these other areas? I never heard a good answer to the question of what Whitewater had to do with Clinton getting a BJ from an intern. Didn't stop Ken Starr. Any comments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. They would be building the gallows in front of the Capitol Building
Seriously, the Republican majority would be in over-drive, rightly so, to hang such a traitorous President. But, IOKIYAR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Starr was given specific instruction to expand the investigation
The Whitewater case was winding down. At one point they were going to shut it down, and Starr was even given a chair at some university funded by Scaife. Seemingly out of the blue he gave up the chair and announced that he was keeping the investigation open.

Not long after that Clinton was accused of perjury in the Paula Jones case, and Starr asked to be empowered to investigate that. The argument was that since he was already set up, he was in the best position to handle what was supposed to be a simple investigation. The rest is history.

A lot of people, like me, believe that CLinton was set up on the perjury charge (one reason they avoided impeaching him for the Paula Jones perjury charges itself), and that Starr was tipped that it was coming, and that's why he decided to keep the investigation open.

There was a lot of conspiracy going on with that group. The Paula Jones attorneys and Starr were working together. That was never a genuine investigation, it was only an attempt to find some excuse to impeach Clinton.

Fitzgerald is a legite investigation. Even if nothing comes of it, it is far more legite than the assassination attempt on CLinton. But he is well within his rights and powers to pursue crimes related to his original investigation, if the discovery comes naturally. In other words, if a source leads him to suspect that not only was Plame outed, but it was part of a larger attempt to mislead Congress on Iraq, then he's justified and empowered to investigate that. If, on the other hand, he accidentally discovered that Bush was involved in a crooked land deal that had no connection, that might be a different story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Enlightening, Thank you.
I'm hoping that at least the deceptions put forth in the lead-up to the war can somehow be connected. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. He's requested the results of the Italian Parliament's investigation
into the forged Niger docs. He's onto it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. That was according to Raimundo, right? Any other reporters pick that up?
I don't know Raimundo at all, so I don't know how reliable he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. If the Plame outing was part of a bigger conspiracy, then it's fair game
We all know it was. Getting evidence will be the tough part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That is the way I understood his charter too.
That he may go in whatever direction the investigation takes him. I would imagine that after the expiration of this grand jury he is likely to empanel a new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Has it ever been proven
That Monica wasn't a "plant" put in place solely to trap Clinton?
I mean seriously...why would anyone keep a dress with cum stains on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think he is. The Niger Forgery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Wow! That's explosive.
That should ensnare a lot of people. This could mean serious time for some very nasty characters---people who are, I think, dangerous. I'm starting to worry for Fitzgerald's safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carolinalady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. If he doesn't then I think it is because he does not want to be
painted with the same brush as Starr. He lost alot of respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC