Send a letter to Fitz

[earth mom]

Some very good questions below and also a good suggestion that friends and families of soldiers in Iraq write Fitz and demand some answers. He owes them-and us too-that much at least!

June 21, 2006 -- WMR has spoken to a number of informed individuals about the current status of the Patrick Fitzgerald criminal probe of CIA "Leakgate." Legal experts wonder why Fitzgerald is even fooling around with a Grand Jury when the evidence of criminal wrongdoing cited by Judge David Tatel of the US District Court for the District of Columbia in the Scooter Libby matter appears extremely damaging to national security. In a February 2005 decision on the Grand Jury subpoena of reporters Judith Miller and Matt Cooper, Judge Tatel wrote, "the special counsel refers to Plame as 'a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years' -- representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.)."

With such damage to national security already well established by the evidence collected by early 2005, legal experts say that Fitzgerald could have bypassed the Grand Jury process and filed a complaint, also known as an "information," with a Federal circuit court judge. Fitzgerald could have told the judge that sufficient evidence existed that a crime or crimes was/were committed, that this evidence was sufficient for a regular jury to consider, and requested that an arrest warrant or warrants be issued. Similarly, a Grand Jury can also file an information regardless of the wishes of the special prosecutor. The Grand Jury also has the power to subpoena any relevant document, including the diaries of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Which brings us to what kind of 11th hour deal was worked out between Fitzgerald and Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. On June 12, Luskin was faxed a letter from Fitzgerald stating that the special prosecutor "does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." There is much speculation among legal experts that Rove and Luskin worked out a cooperation agreement with the prosecutor in lieu of pressing ahead with an indictment. There is also a belief that the largely African-American Grand Jury, already hostile to the Bush administration, issued a True Bill (an indictment) against Rove on its own (in what is called a "runaway Grand Jury") without prompting from Fitzgerald and that this indictment remains sealed pending the outcome of Rove's cooperativeness with the prosecutor.

Whatever is the case at this point, it is clear, in the minds of legal experts, that Fitzgerald owes the American public some information on the progress of this case. With America's constitutional government hanging by a thread, legal experts reason that, above all, Fitzgerald owes some information to the American people and particularly to the next of kin of those Americans who have died in Iraq. After all, the entire leak matter was caused by White House retaliation against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his covert CIA wife over the Bush administration being called to task over their lies about the "danger" from Iraq. Fitzgerald has been portrayed by the media as a crime fighting Elliott Ness-type from Chicago. In actuality, Fitzgerald is a prosecutor who should be looking out for the public interest, not engaging in a legal chess match with the likes of Rove and Luskin. And it is to the public he remains answerable. The public's patience in the CIA Leakgate is not infinite and we suggest that the families of those killed or maimed in Iraq send a letter to Mr. Fitzgerald demanding an update on a criminal case that directly resulted in the losses of their loved ones.


Patrick J. Fitzgerald

Office of Special Counsel

Bond Federal Building
1400 New York Avenue, NW, Ninth Floor
Washington D.C. 20530

http://waynemadsenreport.com/

[Zensea]

1. This is a stupid idea

Leave Fitzgerald alone.
Let the case proceed at the pace it proceeds, it's not some political football deserving of petitions.
Don't meddle with the judicial system - which is essentially what sending a letter does -- politicizes it in a bad way.

Fitzgerald doesn't owe us anything, at least in the sense I'm seeing in this idea.

[earth mom]

3. Is Fitz serving justice or not?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Master Mahon]

2. I still think he's holding out for a judgeship! n/t

[meisje]

4. Why don't some people write TruthOut and demand the sources

Fitz owes you nothing

[earth mom]

6. Fitz doesn't have to answer to anyone? Why?

So does that mean that * and the rest of the cabal don't have to answer to anyone either?

[Igel]

11. Yes, he has to answer to someone.

Not us. Not directly. And plausibly at best barely indirectly. We are staggeringly irrelevant in this; the Iraq war is also irrelevant in this.

People we supposedly elect answer to us, if only through other elected officials. They also answer to the legal system. In the former instance, we are not irrelevant; in the latter system, we are, again, irrelevant.

Unless we serve on a jury; but until it gets to a jury we are, again, irrelevant.

And, if we do what the OP suggests, both irrelevant and a hindrance.

Popularly based justice begat lynch mobs.

[earth mom]

15. Guess I'm tired of the rules, and the rhetoric.

Isn't it true that everyone around DU wants answers?!

That's why this idea sounded good to me: Go to the source-ask Fitz. :shrug:

[Igel]

21. Certainly, we want answers.

And we'll get some. But only those that we're entitled to, when Fitzgerald decides there's no harm in it, and as required by law. Perhaps as permitted by law, but I wouldn't go that far.

The rest ... in decades future when the records are unsealed (or in leaks future).

Best to be patient, and find something worth doing. Remember: This is a spectator sport.

[earth mom]

24. Patience is not one of my strongest traits.

Thanks for your post, I appreciate it that you didn't attack like others did.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Just what he needs

A letter from a bunch of know-nothing bozos citing super-loony Wayne Madsen.

It's bound to work!

Brilliant!

[earth mom]

7. Families of soldiers = bozos?

Sounds very freeperish to me.

[gkhouston]

9. good choice of avatar. n/t

[earth mom]

12. Calling me names huh?

Well, the donkey is the Dem symbol is it not? So what were you saying about Dems?

[gkhouston]

14. Was I saying anything about Dems? n/t

[earth mom]

16. Yes, you were. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. This after you just called me a freeper...

:rofl:

oh, no, that's right. your post was too cowardly to come right out and say it. it just "sounds freeperish"...:eyes: that's some cowardly shit, and then the chutzpah to complain about name-calling two posts later? no shame, brotha.

[earth mom]

27. If the shoe fits.

BTW-this is what you said about soldiers families: "bunch of know-nothing bozos".
Ain't that special? Not.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. I said that about soldier's families?

I don't think so. I said it about know-nothing Wayne Madsen fans who send nonsensical letters to Mr. Fitzgerald. But it's fun to see you con tinue with your cowardly implications.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Oh, right

You're all about the families of soldiers....

Lay off the treacle. It's a bit clownish already, you know?

[earth mom]

28. I get it. It's attack the messenger time. Instead of the message.

Maybe because you can't handle the message, eh?

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Since the message seems to be remarkably ineffective at producing anything

It would be silly if someone couldn't handle it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

8. Wayne Madsen is not credible.

Fitzgerald is a straight arrow. He isn't going to open his mouth unless he absolutely has to.

[earth mom]

10. Why is Madsen not credible? Why is Fitz a hero? nt

[greatauntoftriplets]

13. Try posting something from Madsen in the Late Breaking News forum...

You'll find out why he isn't credible. He's a moonbat.

Nor did I say that Fitzgerald is a hero, just that he is a straight arrow and tight-lipped.

[earth mom]

17. When Fitz goes after the truly guilty, then I will agree with you

that he's a straight arrow.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting.

[greatauntoftriplets]

18. Google "George Ryan" and Illinois.

n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

19. Hi there.

Sending Fitzgerald a letter..hmm. That is a nice gesture. You should do it but don't go through this WMadsen, for some reason he's not credible here. But I think you should send a letter, you never know. He (or a member of his staff) may answer you.

[earth mom]

22. Thanks for replying and not jumping down my throat like the rest..

:hi:

At this point, I feel we are all owed an explanation-by someone. People are dying in Iraq every day. And still we have no answers...

[theboss]

43. And you will get no answers from Fitzgerald on Iraq

His job is not to investigate the Iraq War. If you want the Iraq War investigated, you are better off spending your energy on November.

That's what I find a little confusing about this post.

[Marie26]

20. Idiotic in the extreme. nt

[earth mom]

23. Hope it made your day!

:sarcasm:

[Marie26]

29. Oh, it did!

:) To be clear, I'm not saying that you, personally, are idiotic. But this idea sure is.

[theboss]

30. Are you going to personally reply to every post on this thread?

You're going to need to drink some OJ afterwards.

[earth mom]

32. I'm pretty much done. I'm sickened & disappointed by DUers attitudes

on this thread. Kill the messenger is about the sum of it.

Time for a break and though I rarely drink...this kind of crap could drive me to it.

[Catherine Vincent]

37. Even if she does, you got a problem with that, bossman?

[theboss]

42. No...just pointing it out

It is one of the more annoying message board traits though.

[kma3346]

31. Boy, what's with all the attacks on the poster?

If you don't think it's a good idea, fine. But is it really necessary to be rude about it? What happened to civility on this board?

:crazy:

[earth mom]

34. Thank you-I needed to hear that!

I'm feeling pretty beat up right now...

[H2O Man]

33. While your intentions

may be good, you waste time and energy on this. The sentence that includes "legal experts reason that, above all, Fitzgerald owes some information to the American people" reflects a lack insight regarding what his duties are, and I think it is safe to say that there are no "legal experts" who would make such an error. The Constitution provides for the type of investigation that is necessary in these situations. It is not Mr. Fitzgerald's job.

[earth mom]

35. Thank you H20 Man-I respect your opinion greatly.

Yes, my intentions are good and I was just trying to get some answers...

With that, I'm off, I can't take any more of this thread today.

[H2O Man]

39. I can certainly

understand peoples' frustrations. However, the laws are very clear -- and Mr. Fitzgerald explained this at length at his October '05 press conference. By law, he can not: {1} comment about any part of the on-going investigation; {2} discuss the role of anyone not indicted; {3} issue a "report"; and, in the case of the Libby trial, the judge has ordered both sets of attorneys to not discuss the case with journalists. More, Mr. Fitzgerald has noted that the investigation he is conducting will not result in judgements about the war, and Judge Walton has made very clear the 16 words and the war are not on trial in the Libby case.

Even with the best of intentions, to advocate lobbying Mr. Fitzgerald's office can raise people's expectations in a manner that can only cause disappointment. He can't answer. His co-workers can't answer. They would be in violation of the laws that guide the grand jury process if they did. To get people's hopes up would be an error.

It is, in my non-expert opinion, too bad that Mr. Fitzgerald can not -- by law -- make a report available even to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. But he can't. We can, however, work to keep the case in the news. Letters to the editor, and letter-writing campaigns aimed at our elected officials are helpful. We have elections coming up: we can make a congressional investigation a campaign issue.

The same effort that might be misdirected at Mr. Fitzgerald can be correctly directed in areas that can get results.

[Catherine Vincent]

44. Great advice!

:thumbsup:

[Missy Vixen]

36. Patrick Fitzgerald did not vote in support of the IWR

>He owes them-and us too-that much at least!<

He wrote a letter to Congress asking THEM to investigate. Ask THEM why they haven't. Ask THEM why they continue to support it.

Julie

[KharmaTrain]

38. Fitzgerald Owes Us Nothing...He Doesn't Work For Us

He works for the Justice Department and his mandate wasn't to run a wide open investigation. It was to investigate if there was any illegel activities involving the outting of Valerie Plame. As a prosecutor his job is to not just find if a crime was committed, but to do so in a way that not only can be proven in court but that he stands a strong chance of winning. It puts the burden of proof on his shoulders as it should be...as we saw what a runaway prosecutor can do in the case of Ken Starr. For one, I appreciate the secrecy that has surrounded Fitzgerald and how he has conducted this and other investigations.

Sadly, there was no Fitzmas, but there was no promise of that. All that came out in reports have been speculation and attempts at reading tea leaves. What Fitzgerald had been looking into and what evidence he gathered is still guarded (not leaked to the media like Starr did) and we'll see and learn a lot of what he does in the Libby trial.

A grand jury is an advisory panel...they don't indict, the prosecutor does and its approved by the judge. A jury can help in that process and their role is wide ranging, but what they say or think is not binding. Look at how Starr used his grand jury as a TV audience and then went one step further to break all sorts of courtroom protocol by letting the tape of that "secret" grand jury testimony be shown on national television. To this day it was one of the greatest abuses of power and privacy along with the perverting of the judicial system. Its in this light that I see what Fitzgerald has done is a breath of fresh air. He hasn't apparently jumped to conclusions or looking for something, anything to indict like Starr was. He, of all people, knows the political nature of what he's doing and I see him bringing Rove back several times to make sure he didn't indict improperly. Would we want a case where Rove wins or is thrown out for a technicality? Personal and political feelings aside, Rove was never a target of the investigation...no target letter was issued to Luskin that we know of and Fitzgerald's silence in the matter speaks to the sensitive nature of his work and his need to keep a lid on things so he can move forward with the Libby trial.

I'm more concerned with this regime issuing pardons before Libby or others go to trial. And this is just one of many investigations going on regarding Repugnican corruption. The real crimes this regime has committed aren't being tried by Fitzgerald...this is work that belongs in the world court in the Hague.