Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I just spoke to Joseph Wilson about the special prosecutor

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
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:17 PM
Original message
I just spoke to Joseph Wilson about the special prosecutor
About the US attorney who got named: "These guys are professionals. One former prosecutor told me last week that these guys are less interested in the politics and more interested in having that scalp on the wall. Beyond that, I dont have anything to add. This was not a crime committed against me or my wife. It was a crime committed against the country."

As for Fitzgerald, understand: He came from the Southern District of New York office. That is like playing for the New York Yankees. The fact that Fitzgerald worked there makes him, in all liklihood, an insanely excellent professional. That is the best office in the country, period, and is not political. The U.S. Attorneys in that office are usually kept on a year or two after a Presidential administration changeover, whereas the other offices get turned over almost immediately as part of the spoils system. That office has a lot of power, and is above politics, and is the best one in the system. This was in all liklihood a very solid pick.

Stay tuned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good to hear
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanx for sharing, Will.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stone_Spirits Donating Member (586 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. thanks so much!
that made my day!!!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrankBooth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks
Great news, and glad to see you posting again, much appreciated from this longtime DU lurker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatchWhatISay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. I am glad to see you back too, Will Pitt
Do you still keep in touch with Scott Ritter?

I saw him on C-Span earlier talking about the British papers' reports
of MI6 being used to manipulate public support for Iraq involvement.

Keep talking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks for the info Will! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yay!
Let's hope this means business. :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. So, do we actually have
the possiblity of a real investigation here, without a whitewash or cover-up, with Fitzgerald in charge? Will something actually come of it? If he does find something, and we know he will because there's definitely something there, will he be free to reveal it or will they get to him first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I think
this guy gives us the best shot. There is no Independent Counsel law anymore, and Congress belongs to Bush. Fitzgerald is a pro.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. That's good to hear,
let's hope he's able to do his job and is allowed to get to the bottome of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. Will do you think
this guy will lean on Novak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
53. 9/11 > Kean....Wilson/Plame > Fitzgerald..why am I not impressed? n/t
Edited on Tue Dec-30-03 10:43 PM by TruthIsAll
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good to hear
Was concerned that the special counsel would be working for Bu$hco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. Thanks, Will
I feel reassured!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. US Attorneys are generally really good at what they do
and, there really is very little politics involved in those offices- not just in New York. In Boston I know several of the Attorneys and they've been there for years-- turn around is minimal, even with a change in political climate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. My father was a US Attorney for most of Clinton's administration
These guys are pros.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Timefortruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. 
because of the political implications. A perfect example is Rush. A normal citizen who made that many serial transactions to avoid the federal reporting requirements for cash withdrawals would be prosecuted. Particularly if there is substantial evidence that the transactions were made to avoid detection of another crime such as tax evasion or drug trafficking which the reporting requirements were designed to reveal. Rush is a very lucky man that he has the AG to influence the case assignments.

Other examples abound, Enron and the securities fraud crowd etc.

That is not to say that the attorney named in this investigation isnt a straight shooter, just to say that politics is now playing a role in who is prosecuted and how vigorously. It aint your fathers Justice Department any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. I still keep the faith
please let the system work .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. thank you Will
could this be a day that will be marked in history?

fingers crossed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. I Agree, However, My Concerns Are NOT About the Pick, But Rather
about the time involved before he was appointed. A lot could have been disappeared during that time. Witnesses and suspects could have been expertly coached, had dirt dug up on them, or been outright threatened and intimidated into silence or towing the line. The was too much time to plug all the holes.

This pick may be above reproach, but he may have nothing to find. One can only hope the CIA had the foresight to protect some of the hard evidence that would be necessary to build a case, or Fitz might be left w/ a case built on hearsay, IOW, the word of people in the admin, vs. the word of a handful of journalists and CIA agenst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. I also feel
they've had time to "clean up" and nothing will be found.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. If that's the case
then Fitzgerald can add obstruction of justice to the list of crimes. We'll just have to wait and see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Bone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
49. Beetwasher may have it nailed
Edited on Tue Dec-30-03 10:32 PM by T Bone
he wrote: what about "...the time involved before he was appointed. A lot could have been disappeared during that time. Witnesses and suspects could have been expertly coached,... " etc, etc...

The crime scene has already been tampered with and contaminated by Ashcroft in all liklihood. That was my first feeling upon hearing of the appointment. Of course if these prosecutors are the persistent bulldogs we are being told that they are, then at least they should find Ashcroft guilty of some coverup and evidence tampering. At this point, I would take that, given the teflon nature of all things Bu$hco so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
16. Good to hear .. and in Illinois he's a tiger
This is the guy who has gone tirelessly after former Gov George Ryan, who (despite his principled position on the death penalty issue)has always been incredibly corrupt ... even by Illinois standards. Fitzgerald's office has charged him with a huge array of offenses and pursued him while he was the sitting governor during the * administration.

As an Illinoisan born and bred I have a huge amount of respect for Fitzgerald and I'm stunned that he was named to this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
62. I am an Illinoisan, too.
He nailed Ryan, which was soooo overdue. Maybe something good will come of this.

Thanks, Will!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
17. Glad to hear this...
I was a little leery after reading testimony from Fitzgerald praising the Patriot Act (Assumed he was another bushbot hack)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. If Fitzgerald is a pro then there's something we need to remember
as he assumes control of the investigation: There will not be leaks like there was with Starr because this guy presumably is not politically motivated either way and will be careful not to compromise the probe. That means we might not hear much until something is going to break, like an indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevebreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. there were zero leaks in IL
regarding the corruption of the Ryan administration.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
59. You're right
Fitzgerald is highly respected for a reason and he'll be sending Ryan to the pen! He's good. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. I gotta agree with hedda_foil on this one,
How did this guy get the call then? Has the trail been sufficiently scrubbed by JA that they feel good enough to have an actual investigator go over this? Time to comb the obits for the out of place death of the one obscure person who had the key to the investigation but was "baxterized" for bush*s protection.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. "baxterized"...Who was that CIA guy that "fell" out a window
a couple of months back...? Anybody remember his name? He was in the intelligence dept, as I recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Found it... John Kokal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. nevermind (n/t)
Edited on Tue Dec-30-03 04:41 PM by 0rganism
deleted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
22. This should be fun
I'd like to see how Bush deals with a Prosecutor from New York. And most likely, Fitzgerald rose up from being a DA or an ADA mostly because US Attorneys have either been judges or worked in the DA's office, and prosecutors from New York City have a reputation of being VERY good at what they do as well as a strong desire to catch the badguy. This will be fun to watch as the BushCo house of cards comes down. This investigation will destroy his image of being an honest guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
54. Can you imagine Bush doing the perp walk ...
out of the Republican Convention and straight to One Police Plaza?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Yes, as a matter of fact,
...I sure as hell can!!!! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Killarney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
23. Thanks. Good to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Don Claybrook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. How does it feel...
...to go through a life being so profoundly stupid? Or does it become a matter of perspective, i.e., as the 'inbreedee' you're not able to see the inbreeder that everyone else sees when they look at you?

Oh, and welcome to D....ah, screw it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
33. Honest men are Bush's worst enemy
You have given us more news in one morning than every news organization on the planet. You rock, Will!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ivote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Thanks Will
Ive been following this closely
I think that Fitzgerald will probably start his investigation with that draw in Langley
Go get them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chiburb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
36. What, his Illinois work not good enough for ya?
Just kidding, but really...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
37. Isn't that the same office that decide to investigate Clinton for Pardons?
I know it wasn't Fitzgerald but wasn't it the same non-partisan office that ran that investigation knowing full well that any President has the Constitutional Right to pardon anyone they please without giving any reason. It was another political witch hunt IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sperk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
38. why would Bush/Rove let a "solid" pick happen?
I hope you are right Will, but I will believe it when I see it. IT being Rove hauled out of the white house!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Why Indeed ??
here's some useless speculation ...

1. democrats pushed for this investigation ... perhaps they "held some damaging cards" against those near and dear to bush ... or against bush himself ... maybe this was the best compromise bush could get ...

2. maybe the "big boys" (i.e. bush, cheney, rove?) are innocent and it was becoming "a coverup" for them to continue obstructing the process to protect someone down the chain of command ...

3. maybe the big boys are GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY and they think they can "adjust" the evidence so that someone lower down the chain takes the hit either voluntarily or otherwise ...

The timing of this is very strange indeed ... while i suppose it's possible that we could get an instant dump of evidence and tie up all the loose ends right away, these things have a habit of dragging on and on and on ... there's no way the white house wants this rearing its ugly little head repeatedly during the election season ...

What I'll be interested to see is the scope of the investigation ... when little Kenny Starr went on his witch-hunt against the Clinton's, he investigated whatever he damn well pleased, whether it was related to whitewater or not ...

bushie-boy will be in serious trouble if the scope is broadened and fitzgerald's investigation spills over into the "lying about WMD" (and all the other pre-Iraq lies) business ... and imagine this investigation pooling some of its information with the 9/11 commission ... can you imagine multiple commissions having to subpoena records from the white house because bushie-boy decides to stonewall and cover up the truth on these critical national issues? fighting multiple prosecutors on multiple fronts is no way to run an election campaign ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
70. Agree with you Sperk, bigtime--"Why would Bush/Rove let a "solid" pick
happen"????????

ya just can't trust 'em on ANYTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
39. Great to hear. So glad you have gained his confidence.
That makes you beyond solid in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
41. Bush* is busy working on getting some neo-cons out of his hair
since the flowers and dancing in the streets of Iraq didn't materialize as promised and have caused him some heartburn. Maybe they're leaving a papertrail to out a Perle or Wolfowitz or some such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smaug Donating Member (146 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
75. Hmm -- Interesting, but . . .
But,

this sort of information (about CIA deep covers) wouldn't (or, *shouldn't*) be available to entities such as Wolfowitz and Perle. If they are the chosen fall guys, then Fitzgerald should then investigate who allowed these two to acquire such information. That would be a compounded offense, and allow the opening up of all the worms connected with the case; i.e., lying about WMDs, the links between Reagan, Rumsfeld, and GHWB and Hussein's acquisition of weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Could be the "never ending story."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
42. When I heard this news tonight I danced in the kitchen
At worst it's an admission that some shit might hit the fan at best they will expose some facet of the Bushit we've seen for years. My first concern was Fitzgerald, but this makes it all the more exciting. Thanks Will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
43. Thanks for the very good news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
44. Thank you for the update Will n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shirlden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
45. A Good News Kick
For the late bloomers.


:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonAndSun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Another kick for the evening DUers!!
I was skeptical when I heard about Fitzgerald, so Will's news is heartening.

Dare I hope this will be AWOL's downfall?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KFC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. You absolutely can not do any better than Fitzgerald
This guy is honest, non-partisan, and gets convictions. On msnbc they said he got 58/59 convictions in the recent Illinois case. And the last one is pending.

You will see how strong this guy is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
48. I Am Perplexed
I thought "god" wanted them to sweep it all under the carpet. Can this really be happening? I heard the Ashcroft recused himself and the Asst AG picked this guy. What do we know about this Asst AG?

How is this gonna work if they finger somebody? Does it go to a grand jury or straight to criminal court? Military tribunal???

I hope Rove has a good lawyer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
50. Is there anything left for him to find?
They've had quite a headstart burying the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
51. Spitzer's a good example
of the professionalism that NY U.S. Attorneys have. I sure wouldn't want any of them investigating me.

Did you happen to catch Rove being questioned today while he was walking to his car? He couldn't get in it fast enough. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
52. Cool!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
56. I agree Will
and agree with many posts here. I was dubious when Sen. Peter Fitzgerald nominated Pat Fitzgerald for U.S. Atty. in Chicago but i read all about him and was satisfied at the time that he was an all pro. Since then he has shown himself to be nothing but professional and he is a frikkin bulldog!!

U.S. Attorney is a place for an ambitious lawyer to make a name for him/herself by going for the jugular. In New York, before being promoted to USDA in Chi his specialty was terrorism. If I remember correctly he was heavily involved in the WTC bombing investigations and follow ups.

My jaw is on the ground at the selection and pray this guy has as much integrity as was advertised when he came to Chicago! I hope he startes out with a 4 day debriefing of Wilson and Plame!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
57. Glad you decided to come back.
But everything's political, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
58. Thanks for the good news report Will. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gemini Cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
60. First bit of good news I've heard in a long time.
Thanks for posting this.

:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
61. Will, I read earlier in a news article that the "leaker"
..."could be charged with a felony if identified".

Huh? Aren't we talking about a charge of treason? How did this become a felony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #61
66. I think what they mean is it's "treasonous" to out a spook...
...meaning it is grossly damaging to American interests, but according to the law, doing so is a felony.

Whatever the case, someone high up in the Bush administration will be going to jail once their identity is revealed.

My $$$ is on Karl Rove. Rove worked for Ashcroft as a paid political consultant in the past. That's why Ashcroft recused himself, not because he's a Bush appointee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
63. Thanks for sharing this with us, Will
I have been following this since Joe Wilson's piece appeared in the NY Times on July 6th, and have been horrified at the incompetence of the "investigation" into the leak. I have seen him on talk shows and have admired his resolve and the fact that he is so well-spoken and has managed to channel his anger in a positive way. It is long past time that this issue is resolved. It was an inexcusable transgression. I would be anxious to know anytime you hear more. Thanks, Will. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
64. Thanks for sharing this with us, Will
I have been following this since Joe Wilson's piece appeared in the NY Times on July 6th, and have been horrified at the incompetence of the "investigation" into the leak. I have seen him on talk shows and have admired his resolve and the fact that he is so well-spoken and has managed to channel his anger in a positive way. It is long past time that this issue is resolved. It was an inexcusable transgression. I would be anxious to know anytime you hear more. Thanks, Will. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
65. Keep in touch!!.....Great news!!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
67. As I thought
as I heard the announcement. Thanks for the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
68. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChemEng Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
69. kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
71. seen this, by Ray McGovern?
just what I was thinking.......

It seems it is all too easy to get caught up in the holiday spirit. How else to explain the reaction of the normally astute Senator Charles Schumer to the news that Attorney General Ashcroft has finally done what the New York Times lauds as "the right thing."

Schumer is quoted in todays Times as seeing the glass "three-quarters full" in light of Ashcrofts decision to recuse himself from the investigation of the deliberate blowing of the cover of CIA official Valerie Plame, and the decision to appoint US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as "special counsel" to investigate that felony. Howard Dean labeled the maneuver "too little, too late." I fear Dean is right.

Even the Times, in its "Right Thing" editorial, notes that "there are still serious questions about the investigation," namely, will Fitzgerald have "true operational independence." The odds are strongly against it. Let not yesterdays maneuver obscure the fact that in naming Fitzgerald, who remains under the authority of Ashcrofts deputy, the Bush administration has rejected the only appropriate coursenaming a complete outsider to be special counsel.

Why has that path been rejected? One need not be paranoid to see this latest move as evidence the White House has something very sensitive to hide. Has one of their senior officials committed a felony, endangered lives, and vitiated the ability of a senior intelligence official to use her net of agents to acquire critical information on weapons of mass destruction (Valerie Plames portfolio)?


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/01/con04001.ht...


btw.....not a big Dean fan

BUT......I am mos def an

ABBBaby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. and what to make of this?
"Small wonder that Valerie Plames husband, Joe Wilson, has refused to express optimism at the naming of Fitzgerald."

sounds like a conflict here......

what to make of this.......a quote from Wilson seeming to approve of Fitzgerald, then the above, which contradicts what was said in article.

disturbing either way: where does McGovern get his information, seemingly in direct conflict with the truthout story?

it's of the utmost importance to get all ducks in a row, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayleybeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
73. Okay, my tinfoil hat is showing but...
I don't like this. My fear is that Smirk & Co. have covered their tracks so well that Ashcroft KNOWS no one high up in the administration is "touchable", and nothing will be found to implicate Rove or Cheney or Libby, etc.

Ashcroft also knows that if his office is the one to "discover" that no wrongdoing was found by senior officials, he will have no credibility whatsoever, hence, his quoted concern about "appearances".

So what does he do? He appoints someone with the nickname "Elliot Ness" to take over the investigation. Several prominent Dems (as well as Joe Wilson himself) come forward to vouch for Fitzgerald's impeccable character and assure us that this will be a fair, thorough, nonpartisan investigation.

Since the White House has had months to cover their tracks and erase the evidence, Fitzgerald's investigation will not implicate anyone of any consequence. If he nails anyone at all, it will be some low-level nobody and that will be the end of it. The Dems will cry foul, and the press will trot out all of their previous quotes praising Fitzgerald's record and character. The Repuke pundits will all say what a bunch of whiners we are, and Smirk will come out smelling like a rose.

Dang I hope I am just being paranoid here, but this whole thing reeks of a setup to me. I just can't believe that this administration would allow a real investigation to take place unless they know they are untouchable. I sure hope I'm wrong.

P.S. Good to see you again, Will!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HalfManHalfBiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
74. Fitzgerald is an excellent choice
This guy lives to get at the truth and is beholden to no one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbows Donating Member (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
76. Too Late ? Hey Legal Eagles and Journalist's ???
Many articles have expressed that too much time has passed and too much potential evidence destroyed or hidden.

QUESTION: The original information was shopped around to several journalists before Novak finally did the bidding. Novak can protect his source through First Amendment rights. What about the other journalists who refused to print and therefore have no public story or source to protect? Could they be compelled under oath and subpoena to reveal who shopped the information for a story they chose not to write or submit for print? Is this clearly defined by law or ethics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
77. glad to see you back mr pitt
if you read this thread again -- perhaps you could give us some info on the concerns of the times article.
can a prosecutor find well covered tracks of this admin?
what's your gut on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-03 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
78. Kick!
This is a really important announcement. I'm not holding my breath, however. :shrug:
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 Nov 21st 2017, 03:11 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