Is Bush a target in Fitz's investigation?

[BR_Parkway]

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/040706.html

Despite Bush’s deceptive public pronouncements, the more important legal question is what Bush told
Fitzgerald when the President submitted to a 70-minute interview – not under oath – on June 24, 2004.

If Bush misled the prosecutor about authorizing Libby to brief a reporter, then Bush himself could be open to charges of making false statements or obstructing justice, potential felonies and possibly impeachable offenses.

Also deserving an explanation is the curious trip that Fitzgerald reportedly made to the office of Bush’s personal criminal attorney, James Sharp, on the morning of Oct. 28, 2005, just before announcing the indictment of Libby on charges of obstruction, perjury and false statements.

It’s unclear why Fitzgerald would take time out of his very busy schedule that day to visit Bush’s personal lawyer unless Fitzgerald had to pass on sensitive information about Bush’s status in the investigation. Possibilities range from telling Bush that he would not be named in the Libby indictment to saying he had become an investigative target. Attorney Sharp accompanied Bush on June 24, 2004, when the President was questioned about the Plame case, CNN reported.

Bush “was pleased to do his part to help the investigation move forward,” spokesman McClellan said after the interview. “No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President does.” But McClellan declined to comment about the substance of what Bush told Fitzgerald or whether Bush was a target of the investigation.

Bold added by me, but why would Fitz take the time to go by the Prez's personal attorney? If previous statements had been made that showed the info was not declassified, yet Bush told Fitz that it was then he could be facing obstruction charges. And as late as March 17, 2006 - Fitz was still using the phase "then-classified information" in his court filings. Obviously, if he had been told by Bush or Cheney that it been declassified, Fitz wouldn't keep saying "then-classified information". The prosecutor knows the world is watching this, in addition to having a reputation for being meticulous in his cases - and to paraphrase, "if you shoot at the king, you better kill the king" - Fitz knows there is no room for error - every single thing needs to be perfect.

And I couldn't resist leaving in Scotty's quote about no one wanting to find out who leaked more than the President did.

[amitten]

1. I wouldn't doubt it.

Oh Fitzi, Fitzi, take me in your arms!!! :loveya:

[Catherine Vincent]

3. If Fitz were successful in indicting Bush, he would have to leave

the country for sure. To get away from the Bush bots that would be after him for picking on their puppet president and to get away from thousands of women wanting his hand in marriage! LOL!

[amitten]

4. Oh, I wouldn't have to marry him. I would just reward him with

physical expressions of gratitude.

You know, if he wanted to and stuff. }(

[npincus]

6. tee hee

I guess I'll just take a number and wait my turn.

:loveya:

[dubyaD40web]

12. A sitting president cannot be indicted.

However, a vice president can.

Also, Fitz can name Bush as an unindictable co-conspirator.

[3waygeek]

14. Maybe, maybe not

it's still an open question, since Leon Jaworski decided not to press the issue during Watergate.

[Catherine Vincent]

15. Yes, I forgot about that.

But maybe Fitzgerald (knowing that you can't indict a sitting "president") can motion to indict Bush, after he leaves office? I could go with that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. Sez who?

That's not at all settled law. Far from it.

[dubyaD40web]

25. Sez the U.S. Department of Justice!

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. That's nothing but a memorandum

I have law clerks (law students) write them all the time when researching a problem.

Don't mistake it for law. It's not.

[SoCalDemocrat]

35. Fitzgerald said Bush did nothing wrong - please read & comment

According to the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing."

Can anyone refute that? It seems pretty clear.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. I doubt there are "targets"

Fitzgerald is ferreting out what happened. You don't do that with any specific target in mind, or else you fuck it up.

He's putting pieces of a puzzle together.

[BR_Parkway]

5. True, but on the day he laid the charges on Libby, he knew people

were lying and so did the GJ. So why stop by the Prez's personal attorney? If it was a professional 'heads up' to not embarrass the gov't about Libby, Fitz works for the Attorney General, he could have picked up the phone and called the AG.

But he stopped by the personal (criminal) lawyer's office. Wouldn't I love to have been a fly on that wall...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. I'm always amused

by people who claim to know what others - people they don't even know - are thinking.

Your assumptions about what Fitzgerald knew or didn't know are without foundation, so the speculation is mindless.

And what is a "professional 'heads up' to not embarrass the government"?

You're projecting. Just remember, it's still an investigation.

[BR_Parkway]

10. Didn't claim to know what he was thinking, I've been reading what

he's written in the various filings as they get posted. Common sense says that to bring charges of perjury, than you must know someone is lying.

As far as the professional heads up, I'm thinking of the time allowed for Libby to resign prior to the afternoon press conference as opposed to just sending in the police to secure his arrest like they do for all the little people who get indicted.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Well,

when you claim that Fitzgerald "knew" something, that's called mindreading, and gleaning it from documents puts no time stamp on it.

As for the Libby perjury charges, yeah, he's charged with lying to the grand jury, and that in no way goes to what the original investigation is about. It's a wholly tangential charge, having nothing to do with the outing of Valerie Plame.

The notion that people get arrested like you see on TV is specious. That's not how it works in real life, no matter how little you are. When you're indicted on a charge like perjury, you're always given time to surrender.

Back to your law books, kid, and keep rooting for the good guys.

[worldgonekrazy]

30. You ought to change your name to OldPOMPOUSLeftieLawyer

Don't be an ass.

[bdamomma]

17. Fitzgerald

is very thorough too. This guy is not stupid.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. Bet on him

If anything is there, Fitzgerald will find it.

I'm betting on him.

[cassiepriam]

32. Yes he will, actually I think he might have already found it....

He is just going about things in a slow, methodical way.
I have been feeling for some time that Fitz is playing a bit
of cat and mouse with someone.

[InternalDialogue]

7. My wishes:

1. Yes
2. Hurry

[AtomicKitten]

33. ditto

[MADem]

8. He's surely a subject n/t

[Hand]

11. Oooh, I hope so! nt

[Neil Lisst]

16. I think he wants to prove Bush & Cheney were at the center ...

... which disproves Libby's "I forgot" defense.

You can't forget the most important thing on your agenda for the president.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. A serious investigator doesn't want to "prove" anything

He wants to find out what happened. He has no agenda, and he has no "targets."

Fitzgerald is the best, and he's the most objective. That's what it takes.

He just wants to find out what happened.

[Neil Lisst]

21. yes, a serious PROSECUTOR, not investigator, does want to prove ...

... those things important to making his case.

In this instance, he wants to prove that Bush and Cheney knew, because it proves his perjury case against Libby, by disproving Libby's claim that he forgot, lost it in the shuffle. By proving this meant serious involvement and coordination by Bush and Cheney, Fitz makes his case against Libby.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. No

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Think about it. Fitzgerald, or anyone in his role - and don't be fooled by nomenclature - must keep an open mind and wide eyes about everything involved in this Plame matter. That's why Libby was taken up by perjury charges, a very ancillary matter, indeed.

You cannot start with your own conclusions and work backwards. You just can't.

[TahitiNut]

24. The same disciplines apply in any problem-solving activity.

Easily 90% of solving any problem is actually determining what the problem is. I can't even begin to count the times I've seen solution-peddlers attempt to shortcut that analysis and fail abysmally.

[Neil Lisst]

27. yes

Fitz interviewed Bush and Cheney. Don't you think he already KNOWS they lied to him?

You don't really think they told him they leaked it and orchestrated the revenge, do you?

You and I disagree. Leave it at that.

[cassiepriam]

23. I think he already knows what happened, he put it together some

time ago. But getting all the t's crossed and i's dotted is taking some time.
I also think he is still playing a cat and mouse game with someone.

[Neil Lisst]

28. right. He has to know Bush and Cheney lied to him directly.

There's no issue, I'm sure, about that.

Does anyone here believe Bush and Cheney owned up to their roles? Hell No. They lied to Fitz, many times, and he knows it.

[cassiepriam]

31. Yes he most certainly has known it for some time.

Maybe as far back as Rove's last testimony to the grand jury. Fitz knew then that they were pulling a fast one. All of them lied to him, bold face, over and over again.

[Sapere aude]

29. it's ok, Bush wasn't lying about a blow job.

[mithnanthy]

34. well...

we'd have to ask Jeff Gannon and Victor Ashe about that now wouldn't we...

[saltpoint]

36. The perception voters now have of Dubya is he's not the horse they

thought he was when they plunked down their money on the barrel.

He's got some problems.

His foreign policy is a global disaster.

Domestic policy? (see under foreign policy, above).

He can't put 2 sentences together.

Scratch that -- he can't put ONE sentence together.

And he's an irritating, whiney little rich kid who's pretending to be a Christian peace-making cowboy.

Hold the tax cuts and give us all a barf bag.