TruthOut - Town Meeting
T O  needs your help

"06 cr 128"

By Marc Ash

Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 02:44:03 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

Just a general review of Jason Leopold's latest article on the Fitzgerald investigation/Rove indictment - for clarity.

Once again we will attempt to clearly separate what we know from what we believe - and why. What we know will be based on official records and official statements. What we believe will be based on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se.

We know for certain several things about federal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. The indictment was filed in the time frame (around May the 10th) that the indictment of Karl Rove was first reported. The title of the indictment, Sealed vs. Sealed, is unusual. Typically a sealed federal indictment will be titled, "US vs. Sealed." The indictment has been sealed for roughly five weeks, an unusually long time (although not unheard-of). We know that experts watching the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation are keeping a very close eye on "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). We know that we attempted to contact Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, on two occasions while researching this issue and both calls went unreturned.

Now for what we believe: We believe that federal criminal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed) is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source and the information discussed above. We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status. That is based, again, on a single credible source, and background information provided by experts in federal criminal law. We believe that the indictment was returned and filed "on May 10 2006." Same single credible source, and details from the filing records. We believe that if any of the key facts that we have reported were materially false or inaccurate some statement to that effect would be forthcoming from Fitzgerald's staff. That is based on the same single credible source.

Brief note to our regulars:

One negative consequence of the Rove indictment firestorm has been that so much of what we cover that is so important to the community has been pushed into the background. There's a war going on, the right to vote is in doubt, democracy itself is under attack. Let's work together to keep our focus.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org

Update [2006-6-14 17:49:47 by TruthOut]: This thread is now closed.


------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.

Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 09:27:34 AM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------
I want to see a link or a screen shot with "06 cr 128" and the words "Sealed vs. Sealed" with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia letterhead or on its website.

I went there quickly and couldn't find it. If someone has a Pacer account, that might be the place to look.

Also, please crosspost at DU at this discussion string: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=140 6622&mesg_id=1406622

Thanks in advance.
- Mark
by leveymg on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 09:40:14 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
provide a copy or link.  Your article states,

"On the federal court's electronic database, '06 cr 128' is listed along with a succinct summary: 'No further information is available.'"

If the author is unable to post a copy or direct us to the source cited, please state that there is no external link available.  If there is no external link, please explain how TruthOut was able to determine that such a reference exists in the court database.

This is becoming very frustrating.

- Mark
by leveymg on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 11:05:22 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
It is my own belief and conclusion based upon all of the evidence presented here on truthout that Carl Rove is very likely to be giving evidence that could likely lead to indictments of his boss the twice unelected "Prez." or his Vice consort in crime the "Under Boss"  Cheney who was probably the prime mover in the revelations in the outing of Plame.  

Good work to all the folks at truthout.org, and keep the information coming.  W truly appreciate your efforts to keep us informed far above what is available in the MSM "Punditocracy" that reveals little of importance to the electorate and general public.      

by GhostWriter2 (ogana2@hotmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 09:47:48 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
I have no such belief with respect to Cheney.
Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 09:52:30 AM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Down to one now?

Did we figure out the other ones weren't credible after all?

by edburke (trainersbythetonne@hotmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 09:58:13 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps there are diferent sources for diferent aspects of the story...todays post is concerning sealed v. sealed...not the meeting between Rove and   Bush...people keep making arguments out of context.

by justpeace on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 10:51:09 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
is the key word.  They may have more, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily reliable.
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate on." George W. Bush
by YUCA (msealesk@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 11:31:07 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
...about the direction this story has taken.

As it is, they're still not naming people. No names in Leopold's latest update...just "legal experts" and a "former federal prosecuter."

I also though we'd get some sources burned, but it's probably better he didn't.

by edburke (trainersbythetonne@hotmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 12:19:40 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
this is a very secretive and dangerous business.
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate on." George W. Bush
by YUCA (msealesk@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 03:14:24 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Like I was saying I done a lot of reading on this the last few days and one of the things I read somewhere but I do'nt remember where that got me to thinking was one of the places where they were talking about this sealed indictment 128 and some one who seemed to know how to look things like that up pointed out that the one with 127 was on May 16 and the one with 129 was on the 18 May so he was saying they always do this stuff in number order and that meant that 128 had to be between the 16 and 18 of May so it could'nt have been from the 13 when like Leepold said because it would have a lower number if that was the case and then people were saying that 128 was the number of the Libby case where they was trying subpena the reporters but someone else said no thats a different 128 in a different court and showed like that number was 128 but it was a little different in the letter codes and was a different thing but they all seemed to agree that it could'nt have been done whe that story said because the 128 number was wrong for that date and the other thing they said was you just would be guessing if you said it was an indictment for rove or any one else  for that 128 case because it could be something else but then somebody else said no you do'nt get a number like that unless you have an indictment first and basicly I do'nt think any body really knew much of any thing for sure but the date thing was the only thing that made a whole lot of sense about it apparently no nobody can look at it unless they are a lawyer and pay the court to be on there but is a 128 case unless someone was making up fake website pictures because som one showed that number from what they said was the court.  

by angry matt on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 10:56:43 AM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
What do we expect, they'll start growing roses?
pianopoet
by pianopoet on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 10:57:11 AM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and don't hesitate to kill, ban, and/or disappear those who want to drag these discussions (and the whole website) into useless directions.  

Oh, and for those who want to whine about losing their "rights of free speech" you can take that bull$2it over to freepers or any of the 10K right wing websites you control -- <rant>this space is for those of us who give a damn about our freedom and liberty, not just like to wave flags. </rant>

I'm not at all worried that truthout is doing the very best they can to report this and the many other stories with far more professionalism and journalistic integrity than can be claimed by Fox, msnbc, or even CNN or NPR most of the time.

Do the good work, and to heck with those who impatiently expect instant gratification.

Charlie L
Portland, OR

P.S. This doesn't mean I don't think that Fitzpatrick is a right-wing plant who will drag this out until after the mid-terms and then cave when Bush pardons everybody involved who could implicate him or Cheney.

by CyberChas (CyberChas@email.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 11:17:48 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for this worthy commentary !!

Didn't have to remind me about that last part, though.

Hope it's not true !
Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.
by eyeswideopen (fairy_taletrash@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 12:31:34 PM EDT http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=302
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
and you sure can't trust everything they print, BUT...

Here's a good article about Fitz.  I don't think he is in any way a right-wing plant:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer

Cassandra
by Cassandra on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 07:20:57 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
ive been getting conflicting info regarding fitz...it's troubling all around and hard to get good facts, so thanks again....bd
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. Edward R. Murrow
by beachdweller on Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 08:45:30 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
like a new campaign to discredit Fitz with the left is now underway.  That's why you're getting "conflicting info".

Cassandra
by Cassandra on Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 09:43:37 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
i think he's single.

is this the last single man with integrity AVAILABLE?? I WANT HIM.  

That's how they'll get to him .. with a two dollar hooker.

Or a two thousand dollar hooker.

I'm going to believe he's a good guy.
Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.
by eyeswideopen (fairy_taletrash@yahoo.com) on Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 09:26:29 AM EDT http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=302
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
This tells me we are looking at something pretty high in the rankings.  Not that Lewis and Rove are not but you know what I mean.  Why would Fitzgerald pursue an indictement he can not serve yet.  He is waiting for two more years until the President CAN be indicted, I would bet.  Something is going to fuck his case up because bush must know that he is in for it once this shit hits the fan.  This can't be good for any of us, because what if they declare a state of emergency?  what if they do something like that?  You back sicko psychos liars into a corner and make them pay for what they have done and surely all hell is going to break loose; especially when the sicko psychos are in power.  ut oh......I'm willing to risk it just the same, to see these criminals to justice.  Treasonous, lyin bastards - Gooo Fitz!!!  
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead." Thomas Jefferson
by lizbitchwitch (saylinbackagin@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 12:51:02 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
how can anyone think rove is cooperating?  --or that they will submit to legitimate prosecution?  sealed vs sealed seems to be the perfect metaphor for how these thugs in broad daylight advance such brazen crimes to be unspeakable.  isn't it astounding, the depths to which the united states has fallen?  we're close to seeing the empemor's new clothes.  if it were unsealed, one of the few threads remaining would be gone.  i'm not sure i want to see him naked and probably enraged.  sealed vs sealed: virtual prosecution. discharge the responsibilities of the state to insure justice while not pissing off the traitors who have commandeered our government.

by LetsSaveDemocracy (LetsSaveDemocracy@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 01:26:56 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
SEALED VS SEALED
oh this did my little heart GOOD !!!!
Oh yeah...

imagine the BUSH ADMIN cooking up yet a NEW WAY to hide an indictment.

SEALED VS SEALED.

ROFLMAO!!!!

Come on down, already rove !!!!

COME ON DOWN !!!

Here's something everyone can do !! Write to OUR White House and ask them to unseal sealed and indict that SOB already !!!

THANKS JASON !!!

I stood up for you staunchly the ENTIRE TIME.  Keep your eyes on the prize.

This is what God means:  When all else around you is SH*T keep your eyes on Him.   Keep your eyes on what's right.   Don't lose faith, don't falter.  Keep right on going and TRUST.   If you get plowed over ANYWAY you must trust that is your destiny from moment one.  

That's the sum of what I know.   Ain't much but it works for me.

TAKE INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND DONT BACK DOWN.

Carry a sign.  Write.  Read.  Back up a friend doing the same.  JUST DO SOMETHING.

ANYTHING.

JUST DO IT and don't look back.  Do what makes you feel right inside !!
Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.
by eyeswideopen (fairy_taletrash@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 02:17:57 PM EDT http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=302
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
...the White House can unseal an indictment, can they?

Wouldn't that be up to a judge?

by edburke (trainersbythetonne@hotmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 03:52:46 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
they make up new rules all the time. I'm thinking of making up some of my own !

Seems if they can make up a NEW RULE to seal vs seal (who ever heard of such idiocy??) that we can ask them to undo one of the seals. ....

Okay send em to the federal judge via the whitehouse or whatever you think is best ...

(they'd never make it past the whitehouse HAHAHA)

The only idea is to let them know we are watching.  Which doesn't seem to bother them in the least.

As BD is constantly pointing out while our eyes are one way they are taking away the vote in the next town over.  

Who is the judge?  Does anyone know?  

This is the first step of secret courts, as well?

WTF?

This should not be allowed.
Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.
by eyeswideopen (fairy_taletrash@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 04:19:03 PM EDT http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=302
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
but it can only remain sealed up to 11 months from what I understand
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead." Thomas Jefferson
by lizbitchwitch (saylinbackagin@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 05:29:31 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
and it's 11 months, then Nov. will have come and gone... another chance for them to steal yet another election without anyone being able to a thing about it.

This is painful.
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate on." George W. Bush
by YUCA (msealesk@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 07:26:14 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Day Number 39 and still counting. So now the indictment is sealed. Top secret. The only people that know Rove has been indicted are those that read Truthout.  Not one other news media. I wonder if Karl Rove knows. Maybe he should read Truthout and then he would be fearfull. WOW. Reality. Rove has not been indicted. I guess you can report anything and say anything about anyone and just say it is sealed. What a way to get out of a story that was made up with no basis of fact. Just report it is sealed.That is reporting? The National Enquirer is looking for reporters. Checked into Tom Cruiz or what ever his name is lately.

by Texas Rebublican2 ( texasbou3@aol.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 06:34:33 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------

will you be around to eat your hat?
.
-9.00, -7.69 ... We may all put our pants on one leg at a time, but it's the ones that leave their zippers down ya gotta watch out for....
by brent (bonnyladd@hotmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 06:57:32 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
It will never come so what is the point?

by Texas Rebublican2 ( texasbou3@aol.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 07:17:13 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Wanking and whining?

What do you know?

by sirius99 (Aiman) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 07:36:25 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
He's not wearing any fatigues yet either!
"There is nothing in the world that is hidden." -Dogen Zenji
by amoeba (fermentman at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 10:44:15 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Must be another weird religious nutjob to be so concerned about premature journaculation....

Christ!  I'm going donate some money to buy you an obssessive-compulsive disorder!  It'd be easier to put up with!

!!!

Why don't you take some advice and learn to be a man, wear the widows uniform!
Oft Evil Will Shall Evil Mar - Theoden
by Not An American (naa-truthout@hotmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 11:16:44 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
What are you doing back here?  Ready to be "trivial" again.  :-)  While you're here, will you do something about the pest infestation?
Thanks!
~
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 12:25:57 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
did he?  

This one is big, 6', something, handsome and appealing to the ladies, according to his own autobio bullshit.  An excellent prospect for a commission in the Partiot Army of Irawi Liberation, I once thought.

But, would not even make a good trophy head.

On further inquiery, it appears he is lacking some essential equipment; balls and guts, I think.

But, he is a cutie, all the same. A bit dim-witted around the edges, but tame.

As it says in the HH Guide, "harmless."  A simple Texas housepet, all mouth, bark and no bite.

Wanker mouth.

Aviso:  Do not Feed.  Does Not Respond To Kindness.  Will Not Respond To Insult Or Abuse.  Not smart enough to know the difference.  

by sirius99 (Aiman) on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 01:28:34 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed that you lasted one month and one day.  And it seems like the likes of Deconstuctor and Texas Republican and others of the ilk just couldn't be ignored.  Just drop a note to us once in a while. We really need to hear from one with a voice of reason.  
illegitimi non carborundum
by blabbermouth on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 12:43:43 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
I will celebrate the day when all will be disclosed. Until then, I will support TO and Jason. Why? It's words like these below that wins my allegiance:

"One negative consequence of the Rove indictment firestorm has been that so much of what we cover that is so important to the community has been pushed into the background. There's a war going on, the right to vote is in doubt, democracy itself is under attack. Let's work together to keep our focus" - Marc Ash.

Classy.  

by Z man on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 06:46:49 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
.
This is an interesting supposition on the significance and plausible:

http://empiresfall.blogspot.com/2006/05/sealed-vs-sealed-did-gonzales-kill.html

Let me know what y'all think?
.
-9.00, -7.69 ... We may all put our pants on one leg at a time, but it's the ones that leave their zippers down ya gotta watch out for....
by brent (bonnyladd@hotmail.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 06:59:35 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
If this is true, it is probably going to be very difficult to get everything that has happened publically revealed. But as additional people are involved, the more the chance that it will open it up. We wait.

by Z man on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 07:23:27 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
mentioned in your link, it wouldn't be Fitzgerald v. (defendant), it would be US v. (defendant).

Also, McNulty has no power to kill any indictments, since Fitz's powers are the same as those of the Attorney General and he is independent of any oversight by the department.  When Comey left his position as Deputy Attorney General, he stipulated that this would in no way change anything about the powers he had given Fitz.

That doesn't mean Gonzales et al. wouldn't try to push those boundaries of course.  They've pushed nearly everything else!  And it may be that that very issue is currently tied up in federal court.

Cassandra
by Cassandra on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 07:54:19 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ash:

I'm afraid you are being badly burned here.  Cases are numbered in consecutive order by filing date, and in fact to call this purported indictment Case "06 cr 128" is incorrect on its face.  You couldn't even look it up on the Party/Case index that way.  It's possible that you might turn up something using 1-06-cr-128, but correctly labeled, this case would be a variant of 1:06-cr-00128.  In identifying and searching for records, laymen typically mistake the importance of specific numerical combinations & punctuation in legal nomenclature.

The numbering system employed by the courts indicate that case 1:06-cr-00128 had to have been filed either on May 16th, as was the preceeding Case 1:06-cr-00127, or on May 17th as was the following Case 1:06-cr-00129.  There is no way it could have been filed in the time frame asserted by Mr. Leopold, and defended by you.  

As for Mr. Leopold's latest, I cannot conceive of any reason a serious "legal expert" or "legal scholar" would insist on anonymity before commenting on the unusual nature of a "Sealed v Sealed" docket entry.  The mistake in identifying the case # itself is only one of several errors in terminology that any knowledgeable party simply would not make.  

I would like to think that it is your trust, not solely that of your readers, which is being abused.  Unfortunately, the longer you protect the sources of the misinformation Mr. Leopold has been promulgating under TruthOut's banner, the more difficult it will be to salvage what is left of your own reputation outside, and eventually within, your fan base.   Even an actual Rove indictment, should one actually come, will only soften the landing, it will not vindicate the travesty of journalism here.  What a sorry end for the idealistic enterprise TruthOut once represented.

by Spatula on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 08:02:41 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you get this information?

I look forward to Marc's reply.

Cassandra
by Cassandra on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 07:58:05 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
I am pleased to see the following information reported which appears factual, reported by TO to be factual, and too specific to be ignored, so I feel it is quite probably true:

"The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation."

Eh, that's enough. The rest, all of the rest, can be TO's error and be no problem to me. It doesn't have to be Rove, as long as the thing is moving, and TO is right about some sort of indictment involving the Fitzgerald investigation.

I'll tell you why. Y'all forget the most important thing to happen in all this. It happened a good while back, and it is proof the wheels are turning against this bunch. You forget that a wad of prosecutors showed up in Ashcroft's office and basically said things which caused Ashcroft to resign soon thereafter. Who here now would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall for that conversation, now that your attention is again drawn to it? That's the one thing in all this I hope to live long enough to hear about, what was said in that office that day. Then we get Fitzgerald, to me chosen by his peers as the best organized crime prosecutor in the country. And he's a Republican, and therefore inoculated to partisanship charges. No mistake there. And we see that Fitzgerald has been way too careful to be playing false, he's not doing the cheap tactical trick of tainting the jury pool with public announcements of every little thing, or otherwise unnecessarily drawing attention to himself or the investigation, which is a sure way to crock it. He's born to caution, this guy, and the organized criminals he's beginning to absorb are a really tough bunch, lots of power and money, so he better be naturally cautious, but basically they're the same sort of criminals he's used to getting, organized criminals, ones with lots of power and money. Remember they're the toughest bunch of organized criminals you can get, so I don't want to hear complaints about how long it's taking or the tactics used.

And that's all about Fitzgerald you need to know. And that's all about the prosecutors who forced Ashcroft out of office and chose Fitzgerald that anybody needs to know. And these are the sort of people who really run the country regardless who is in office. Fitzgerald represents the professional class of civil service workers who really run this country, the ones who have been there all along, the ones people always complain about when they don't get their way, the ones you can't really get at without a total organizational breakdown once you come to their attention as a class. Bushadmin wages class war, now he's got one. These people have been operating the levers, usually in boring ways, many of them are generational, their families have always been involved in professional civil service. They vote Republican, they vote Democrat, it doesn't matter. That's what Fitzgerald represents. It's a sad commentary on our electorate and our society it's come down to this, but there are still plenty of people you never hear about who really protect the country, and they do their job whether freepers believe they run the place or not, and that's who Fitzgerald represents and what this is all about. There are plenty of people who don't write articles and don't read blogs or TO who are equally concerned their country is being messed with. All around us we see basic services slowly winding down, everything's coming under strain, it's down to the organizational fabric, the running of basic stuff, and the organizers don't like it. Anecdotally, for instance, I know for a fact that OSHA was told to take it easy on the corporate regs, instructions given to them in a videotaped presentation made by their new boss. The OSHA personnel I know about seeing the videotape chuckled and continued with their usual work. They know workers die or get disabled if they don't.

I think Bushadmin is up against the civil service now.

It's widely known some folks took the real football away from Nixon. What sort of forces were involved in doing that, do you think? Where did those people come from? Who were those people, who did that? Who could do that? What sorts of things do you think they believed in? Do you think they appeared one day, and then went away, never to return? Nixon simply showed mental instability. We know Bush is plain nuts, a sociopath. But you can bet he's holding a dummy.

Conceptually, Bushadmin is owned, and since Fitzgerald represents the owners, it'll be reality soon enough. But they shouldn't be in this position. The citizenry has failed or they wouldn't have to be doing it. That's where we come in, to make sure we don't get to rock bottom again, even if it's a pretty good rock.

by Dignitatum on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 09:15:49 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
And I certainly hope you are right. There comes a time when one has to decide whether to trust or distrust; I am willing to wait and see and hope and pray that the truth will win out. There are optimists and pessimists and also realists. I hope to be one of the latter.

As for the class of civil servants which keeps things running in spite of the administration, I sincerely hope you are correct on this account. It would offer us some sense of hope to know that the ship is still on course even if the captain is a drunk and the crew is playing poker below decks while the ship sails into dangerous waters (Sirius, isn't this YOUR baliwick? Bail me out, mate!).

Interesting to think about, because as a one time servant of the people, I know that I PERSONALLY would adhere to MY principles even if a boss told ME to do something illegal. I suspect that is true of most of the TO regulars here. And it follows if a vast majority of people who choose to live a life of integrity as much as humanly possible are in positions that help this government to function, we could expect them to "do the right thing" even if their orders are illegal. Let us hope. I retired rather than continue to work for a nutcase; but I had the years to do it. If these people are young enough, courageous enough, moral enough, and intelligent enough - well, there's indeed hope.

For tonight.

by WonderWoman on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 11:11:32 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
that we have the self-discipline, born of experience, to avoid the bait posted directly above by our two newest "guests" and just swim right on by.
~sd
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 10:02:28 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------

Why did they pick Patrick Fitzgerald in the first place?  Why did they appoint Fitzgerald as a US Attorney in the first place?

Here's a 2005 article from The University of Chicago Law School entitled:

One Anti-terror measure, Three Widely Divergent Views

By Bill Myers
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
June 21, 2005

A debate Tuesday over the USA Patriot Act zeroed in on a single section of the act -- with one law professor saying it was a threat to civil liberties, a top federal prosecutor saying it was a vital law enforcement tool and another law professor saying the whole debate was "overblown."  Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to investigate a suspect's "tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."  The debate, sponsored by the Chicago Lawyers' Chapter of the Federalist Society and the Heartland Institute, was held at the Chicago Athletic Association, 12 S. Michigan Ave.

Though billed as an examination of the larger set of anti-terror measures provided for under the law, the debate quickly narrowed to a discussion of section 215, dubbed "the library section" by its critics. University of Chicago Law School Professor Geoffrey R. Stone argued for removing the section, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald defended it and University of Chicago Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein said that the whole controversy was for naught.

[Note: At the time, Section 215 also required the government to obtain a warrant from a federal judge before searching someone's records. Federal law enforcement agencies had up to 72 hours to apply for a warrant, and could obtain an extension "up front" -- if the judge thinks the extra time is "justified."  It did not require the Feds to notify the suject of the search until after the investigation, and barred libraries and staff from reporting the ongoing search to the subject.]

Stone, "a self-confessed liberal," opened the discussion.  He said that he took issue with the White House's intransigence on the Patriot Act:

"The legislation 'was rushed through Congress without debate' in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and, given that, it would be 'surprising -- if not implausible' that some parts of it aren't in need of revision.  He acknowledged that case law gives the government the right to request someone's private records, [but Stone] added that most of America's civil liberties are protected not by the Constitution, but by the government "restraining itself."

"Section 215 is bad not necessarily from a Fourth Amendment perspective, but from a First Amendment perspective," Stone said.  "One of the things about free speech is that it's easily chilled...[I]f someone knows that by checking out a book or signing a petition they might wind up the subject of a government file, they probably will not engage in those First Amendment-protected activities," Stone said.

Still another objection to section 215 is "that even the government has asserted that it hasn't been used," Stone said. "If we don't need it, it shouldn't be there. It simply shouldn't be a power that's left 'sitting around' waiting for 'a U.S. attorney less responsible than Pat Fitzgerald' to abuse it."

Responding to Stone's utility argument, Fitzgerald said:

..."that it was like asking a veteran Chicago police officer to surrender his gun just because he's never fired it at a suspect.  Even before the Patriot Act was passed, library records were used in the investigations of the Unabomber, the Gianni Versace homicide, abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolf and even al-Qaida.  Putting libraries out of the reach of prosecutors is dangerous," Fitzgerald said.  "Do we really want to create a safe haven, where you tell a terrorist that the one place you can go in America and know that you won't be investigated -- or someone will wipe the slate clean when you're done -- would be a library,"  Fitzgerald asked.

Wrapping up the debate University of Chicago Law School Professor Richard A. Epstein said that the whole controversy was for naught:

[Epstein] said that he would vote to renew section 215 of the Act on the same grounds that Stone would vote to cancel it.  "When a law is being created, it should be weighed by its potential for abuse, but when a law is subject to renewal, it should be weighed according to its actual record of abuse.  Since section 215 has been on the books for four years and it hasn't been abused, he saw no reason not to keep it,"  Epstein said.

Many of us are familiar with the good work the Fedralist Society does to ensure that judgeships stay right-wing. A little note may be in order about the less publicized Heartland Institute.  Here's a take on Heartland from Sourcewatch.org:

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "devoted to turning ideas into social movements that empower people."

[In reality,] [I]t campaigns on "junk science", "common-sense environmentalism" (i.e. anti-Kyoto, pro-GM), smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking), the introduction of school vouchers, and the deregulation of health care insurance. It also provides an online resource for finding right-wing think tank policy documents called "PolicyBot."  

The institute was founded in 1984 by David H. Padden and Joseph L. Bast. Among its more interesting participants are:  Roy Marden and Craig Fuller of Philip Morris, Thomas Walton of GM, Walter F. Buchholtz, ExxonMobil, and representatives of Fidelity Bank, BankNote Capital LLC, and Golden Rule Insurance Company.

I'd like to thank the Chicago Chapter of the Federalist Society and the Heartland Institute for holding this mock debate.  I'm sure pre-law students at UC were heartened by the thought that Constitutional argument in a Federal court might require as little forethought from them as it did from the three participants.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Fitzgerald -- albeit belatedly -- for his participation and candor in this "mock" debate.  

It has done as much to "mock" civil liberties as any debate in Chicago's recent memory. It also suggests he's the ideal prosecutor to put off the unsealing of indictments of the major participants until after the November elections.

by pellelindbergh (stellagh444@sbcglobal.net) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 10:16:31 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like a ping pong. This is worth noting. Thanks for sharing.

by WonderWoman on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 11:19:49 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the problem here is section 215 of the Patriot Act. Fitzgerald is a prosecutor, he's going to have an internal belief system which leads him to think examining library records for his purposes are necessary or significant to his job, despite the larger context we have problems with. I don't agree with Fitzgerald in relation to section 215, but I do think he's been given a job in the investigation under current discussion that he's taking seriously.

You can't get around Ashcroft being bounced, why would anybody bother to do that if it was all a crock to get a phony prosecutor on the job? Ashcroft could have appointed one of those, nobody doubts he was managing fixes at the time, and he was helping manage the Plame thing, too, at first. Can you say that Libby wanted to be indicted, that Cheney wanted Libby to be indicted? If Fitzgerald isn't forcing the indictment of Libby, what force has forced the indictment of Libby? What fire has Libby been cast upon by Bushadmin which quenches that fire in favor of Bushadmin? What is that fire against them, what is it's fuel?

I mean, what power against Libby/Bushadmin is doing all this, if it isn't the one on record as doing it, namely Fitzgerald's team?

Frankly, I don't think Bushadmin particularly cares about what most things look like, not enough to bother setting up a Fitzgerald crock of the election perception like you say. They've got a lot more bogey wedges on hand than this complex thing. These aren't people you can argue with or persuade through polls, they cheat on the votes so at bottom they don't care much about elections either. They're simply people who have to be stopped. Right now, the tools we have to stop them are the courts and the law, still populated by many people who want to use these tools and are trying to use them. It's not easy with a democracy-hostile media turning masses of people into dummies or at least neutralizing political dissent, if this wasn't the case we wouldn't be depending on Fitzgerald's investigation to do anything, and we shouldn't depend on it, TO and things like it and people like us have to work to kick these dogs out.

If these things don't work then I think the bottom crumbles, and we have a full blown dictatorship that is unanswerable to law, and all that happens after that. If Fitzgerald's investigation is the test of our ability to bring Bushadmin under law, and I think it is, well, the test is being conducted and we'll have to see what happens. But I don't agree with your contention that because Fitzgerald takes a view contrary to ours on section 215 of the Patriot Act that he isn't a professional, and will not prosecute who he can when he can when he is ready to do so, that he is a Bushadmin plant designed to offset some negative perception of an election that by all indications will be a massive fraud, when Bushadmin has got a number of less delicate and more crude tools to manage election perceptions, crude tools they prefer to use because one thing Bushadmin lacks is class. Elections they can swing. The legal establishment of the United States, and its history, not yet, I don't think so. Have a touch more conscious faith in the basic principles, pal. Democracy's got some kicks left. You wouldn't be here if you didn't feel that way.

I can think of a reason why the Republicans aren't actively trashing him every step of the way. They've done some stuff, but you're right, they're  not grinding the organ. Mainly, I think everything about it is a net negative for them. I think the preponderance of available data says Bushadmin is being hunted, and they know better than to make noise on this one. I think in relation to this they're hiding, waiting for an opening. A chance, a mistake. Fitzgerald's team doesn't give anybody information they don't have to, and barring grist for the mill, what's the antidemocracy media going to say? What a great guy Libby is, that Fitzgerald should pick on him for partisan reasons? Libby? The traitor?


by Dignitatum on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 12:31:52 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, this is long but good:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer

The Prosecutor Never Rests
Whether Probing a Leak or Trying Terrorists, Patrick Fitzgerald Is Relentless

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 2, 2005; Page C01

CHICAGO

If Osama bin Laden ever stands trial, there's a prosecutor in Chicago waiting to face him down. As a driven young lawyer in the 1990s, Patrick J. Fitzgerald built the first criminal indictment against the man who would become the world's most hunted terrorist. Both men have moved on, you might say, but Fitzgerald still imagines that fantasy date before a judge.

"If you're a prosecutor, you'd be insane if you didn't want to go do that," Fitzgerald says in the well-appointed conference room of the U.S. attorney's office here. "If there was a courtroom and they said someone has to stand up and try him, would I hesitate to volunteer? No. I'm not saying I'd be the best person to try him at that point, but I'd be lying if I told you I wouldn't be interested."

A solidly built former rugby player who enjoyed getting muddy and bloody well into his twenties, Fitzgerald is nothing but confident in his own skin. Just as he does not fear bin Laden, he seems to fret little that he is now tangling simultaneously with the Bush White House and the New York Times, two of the nation's most powerful and privileged institutions.

Fitzgerald, 44, is the special prosecutor investigating the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. The gifted son of an Irish doorman makes no bones about challenging the establishment. His office is also prosecuting former Illinois governor George Ryan and loyal associates of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on influence-peddling and corruption charges.

He sees his task as getting to the bottom of things in ways as creative as the law allows. The law doesn't say you can't question a sitting president about his contacts or an investigative reporter about confidential sources. So Fitzgerald has done both, including quizzing Bush for more than an hour in the White House last June. His assiduous demands for answers from journalists alarms critics who believe he has created the greatest confrontation between the government and the press in a generation.

The Times editorial page has hammered Fitzgerald, saying that "in his zeal to compel reporters to disclose their sources, Mr. Fitzgerald lost sight of the bigger picture." His demand that Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper be forced to testify prompted the paper to call the case "a major assault" on relationships between reporters and their secret sources, the very essence of reporting on the abuse of power.

Fitzgerald is too politic to talk back, at least before he has wrapped up the case. A federal appeals panel in Washington is due to rule any day on whether the reporters must testify, and his work on the leak investigation is not done. But he appears to wonder what the fuss is all about. He says freely that he is zealous, a term he translates as passion within limits.

James B. Comey, deputy attorney general and unofficial president-for-life of the Pat Fitzgerald Booster Club, says no high-profile prosecutor ever provided less evidence that he was "doing something wacky."

"What's been interesting is seeing the media accounts and the columnists portray him as some sort of runaway prosecutor. That makes me smile," says Comey, who is largely responsible for Fitzgerald getting the Plame assignment. "Because there is no prosecutor who is less of a runaway than this guy."

The Untouchable

Fitzgerald frequently makes crime-fighting headlines in Chicago, where he took over the U.S. attorney's office just 10 days before 9/11. What's surprising is that he got the job at all. A New Yorker born and bred, Fitzgerald knew hardly a soul in Chicago, which was precisely the idea. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (no relation) was looking for an outsider to battle the state's notoriously corrupt political apparatus.

The recently retired Illinois Republican tells a story about back in Al Capone's day, when Col. Robert McCormick, the imperious publisher of the Chicago Tribune, called FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and demanded that he send someone to Chicago who could not be bought.

Hoover sent the untouchable Eliot Ness.

Now, as then, the U.S. attorney's job has the gloss of patronage. The late Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley used to say the U.S. attorney in Chicago is one of the three most important people in the state, and Peter Fitzgerald said he wanted "someone who couldn't be influenced either to prosecute someone unfairly or protect someone from being prosecuted unjustly."

So the senator, who as the state's senior Republican had the right to recommend a candidate to the White House, went to one of Hoover's successors for advice.

"I called Louis Freeh and said, 'Who's the best assistant U.S. attorney you know of in the country?' He said, 'Patrick Fitzgerald in the Southern District of New York.'" The senator then called Mary Jo White, who ran the New York office. Same question. Same answer.

At the time, Patrick Fitzgerald was trying suspects in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He thought the call from a senatorial aide was a practical joke by one of his buddies. But as soon as their interview was over, the senator knew he had his man.

"I thought, 'He is the original Untouchable,'" Peter Fitzgerald says. "You could just see it in his eyes that he was a straight shooter. There were no levers that anyone had over him. He had no desire to become a partner in a private law firm. He has no interest in electoral politics. He wanted to be a prosecutor."

World Class

For years, Fitzgerald has avoided receiving mail at his apartment because of the threat of a letter bomb from one murder-minded defendant or another.

The staff of the 9/11 commission called him one of the world's best terrorism prosecutors. He convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and all four defendants in the embassy bombings, which had left 224 people dead. He extracted a guilty plea from Mafia capo John Gambino and became an authority on bin Laden, whom he indicted in 1998 for a global terrorist conspiracy that included the African bombings.

"His thoroughness, his relentlessness, his work ethic are legendary," says terrorism expert Daniel Benjamin, a former member of the National Security Council.

Seeing Fitzgerald in action, says Los Angeles lawyer Anthony Bouza, a college classmate, is "like watching a sophisticated machine." Colleagues speak in head-shaking tones of Fitzgerald's skills in taking a case to trial. A Phi Beta Kappa math and economics student at Amherst before earning a Harvard law degree in 1985, he has a gift for solving puzzles and simplifying complexity for a jury.

He's no slouch at stagecraft, either. At the trial of a Mafia hit man, the defense argued that a ski mask -- part of what Fitzgerald called a "hit kit" that included surgical gloves, a gun and hollow-point bullets -- was really just a hat. (The defense also said the surgical gloves were for putting ointment on the defendant's ailing dog.) During closing arguments, Fitzgerald startled the jury by rolling up one leg on his lawyerly dark suit.

"These are just shorts, ladies and gentlemen," he said, according to one account. "These are just shorts."

Into the Scrum

People who know Fitzgerald describe him as anything but a stuffed shirt. During a key moment in one New York trial, he slipped a note to his co-counsel, who interrupted questioning to read it to himself. It said, "Is there beer in the fridge?"

Fitzgerald's parents, born on opposite sides of Ireland's County Clare, met in the United States. They raised their son in Flatbush and guided him to a scholarship at a Jesuit high school. He worked as a school janitor in Brooklyn to make money for college and spent summers opening doors at an upscale co-op building on East 72nd Street in Manhattan. (His father worked at a building on East 75th, just off Madison Avenue.) It is part of Fitzgerald lore that he bit his tongue when rich apartment dwellers talked down to him as "just the doorman."

After law school, he spent three years in private practice before fleeing to the prosecution side. In the New York days, his married friends chided him about his workaholic, overachieving, hopelessly bachelor life. One time, visiting the small Brooklyn studio where Fitzgerald lived, a lawman noticed papers piled on the gas stove. Don't worry about the fire hazard, Fitzgerald told him -- "I've never turned it on."

"The advantage he had over me," Comey says, "was he was much smarter and he had no life. He could sit there and never go home. Fitz would go in there and just sit and read through files. It would almost be as if he was photographing them."

Fitzgerald did get out to exercise, and he even learned to scuba dive, an image his friends still cackle about.

"I'm certified as a scuba diver, but I can't really swim," Fitzgerald explains. "I'm very good at sinking."

Above all, Fitzgerald, who is 6 feet 2 and weighs 215 pounds, played rugby, a sport defined by toughness and camaraderie. He played at Amherst, at Harvard, and for several years in Manhattan. "You get every stress out of your system. You kick the ball, catch the ball, tackle, be tackled. At the end of the game, there's no unspent energy left. I did get bloodied a fair amount."

He adds, "That was not the goal."

'Nice Place'

Fitzgerald is careful to be apolitical in his targets and his public life alike. He registered to vote as an Independent in New York, only to discover, when he began receiving fundraising calls, that Independent was a political party. He re-registered with no affiliation, as he did later in Chicago.

He spit fire last year when reporters asked whether the racketeering indictment of Muhammad Hamid Khalil Salah, a fundraiser for the Islamic militant group Hamas, was timed to boost President Bush's reelection campaign. The case was trumpeted first by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"I am not running for an election. I'm not part of a political party," Fitzgerald said at the time. "The election is irrelevant to this case. The reason we brought this case now is we're ready to proceed."

Nor has Fitzgerald signaled where his own ambitions lie. He insists that he has already advanced further than his imaginings, but he is clearly aware of his emerging star status. Asked about the notion of becoming FBI director after Robert Mueller, another prosecutor who quit private practice to put bad guys behind bars, he laughs. "That's probably Director Mueller when he's having a bad day, trying to unload it on somebody else."

He did not say he was uninterested, just that he is not thinking beyond his current job.

In the high-profile Chicago job, he still works killer hours and he chairs the attorney general's advisory panel on terrorism. And while he will not publicly discuss details of love, politics or religion, others say his social life has improved, along with his apartment. "It's a really nice place. My wife walked in and said, 'I know Pat's got a girlfriend,' " says Comey. "Fitz wouldn't know eggshell from burnt orange, but he's got a life."

Fitzgerald says he remembers where he came from and pinches himself when he realizes where he is.

"I'm very indebted to my parents. They were very hardworking, straight, decent people. The values we grew up with were straight-ahead. We didn't grow up in a household where people were anything but direct," Fitzgerald says. "I'm hoping that if you're a straight shooter in the world, that's not that remarkable."

'Off Course'?

Try telling that to the publisher of the New York Times.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., defending his reporters, blasted Fitzgerald and said, "The government's investigation into the Valerie Plame case has moved dangerously off course." Not only has the liberal editorial page sliced into Fitzgerald, but conservative columnist William Safire called Fitzgerald a "runaway Chicago prosecutor" and warned that a pair of his investigations are "this generation's gravest threat to our ability to ferret out the news."

President Richard Nixon kept an enemies list and waged an epic fight over the publication of the Pentagon Papers, settling only when the Supreme Court backed the right of The Washington Post and New York Times to publish. Not a few presidents have tried, usually fruitlessly, to identify leakers and punish the reporters all too glad to publish those leaks.

But Fitzgerald has ignored the old saw about arguing with someone who buys ink by the barrel. In both the Plame case and an unrelated terrorism investigation, he is trying to force Times reporters to reveal their confidential sources, a quinella not attempted in modern memory.

"In all his cases, Pat keeps the blinders on and goes forward to where the facts lead him," says David Kelley, the acting U.S. attorney in New York and former head of the Justice Department's 9/11 Task Force. "He is not influenced by anything except by those things that ought to influence him. I wouldn't call it zeal. I would call it courage."

Many legal experts say Fitzgerald has the law on his side in the Plame investigation. The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in 1972 that reporters could be required to testify to a grand jury if the prosecutor proved a legitimate need.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan backed Fitzgerald and ordered Miller and Cooper to testify. Fitzgerald's tactics are not "a fishing expedition or an improper exercise of prosecutorial authority," he said.

Zeal or courage? Where one side sees dangerous meddling, another sees creativity. The divergent takes are evident in the Plame investigation, a quest to find out who leaked her name and why. Faced with confidentiality pledges that reporters consider sacrosanct, Fitzgerald got one source, vice presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, to grant journalists a limited release from their confidentiality pledge.

Reporters, including two from The Washington Post, ultimately answered a narrow list of questions regarding their conversations with Libby. One Fitzgerald backer called it "elegant thinking that I would expect from him." But some journalists worried that a secret source brave enough to expose wrongdoing could now be pressured by prosecutors to reveal his cooperation with reporters.

Even more troubling to many press analysts is Fitzgerald's effort to review the telephone records of Miller and fellow Times reporter Philip Shenon in another case. The prosecutor wants to know how the Times learned of the impending search of two Islamic charities then under investigation by Fitzgerald's office. The Times called the charities for comment, allegedly alerting them to the raid, Fitzgerald says.

In a recent court hearing, Fitzgerald told U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet that he is sensitive to First Amendment concerns. He said the reporters are not his targets: "We want to find out who leaked national security information."

Times attorney Floyd Abrams countered, "If we start down the road of permitting a federal prosecutor to obtain secret information without which journalists cannot function, the world will change for the worse because confidential sources will no longer be available."

The Chicago Tribune, which has cheered Fitzgerald's crime-fighting energy, published a Jan. 23 editorial titled "Mr. Fitzgerald, Back Off." It called his pursuit of the reporters "a direct affront" to the First Amendment rights of the free press.

Of the prosecutor's assertions of sensitivity, the paper scoffed, "That's rubbish."

Playing Hardball

"Do I have zeal? Yes. I don't pretend I don't," Fitzgerald says. "As a prosecutor, you have two roles: Show judgment as to what to go after and how to go after it. But also, once you do that, to be zealous. And if you're not zealous, you shouldn't have the job. Now sometimes 'zealous' becomes a code word for overzealous and I don't want to be overzealous. I hope I'm not."

Media advocacy circles are not the only places where Fitzgerald's enthusiasm has been noted with alarm. In an unusually bitter fight that surfaced in late January, Fitzgerald drew angry criticism from a Chicago federal judge who said one of Fitzgerald's attorneys improperly delivered secret grand jury material to a private attorney in a civil case.

U.S. District Judge James F. Holderman demanded an investigation of Fitzgerald and several prosecutors. Fitzgerald blazed back, charging in an unusually pointed brief that the judge had "displayed a disturbing lack of objectivity." He accused him of "petty harassment" of prosecutors and asked an appeals court to remove the judge from the case because of a conflict of interest involving his wife.

The question of zeal surfaced yet more prominently in two Chicago terrorism cases -- investigations into the Global Relief and Benevolence International foundations, which inspired a less than flattering analysis by the 9/11 commission staff.

The staff report last year said the federal government's treatment of the two charities raised "substantial civil liberty concerns" and revealed a critical difference between asserting "links" to terrorists and proving concrete support. In the case, Fitzgerald again had the backing of Ashcroft, who jetted to Chicago in October 2002 with a media contingent in tow and vowed to halt "the source of terrorist blood money."

But the trial judge and the 9/11 commission staff concluded that Fitzgerald failed to prove that Enaam Arnaout, the Benevolence executive director, had provided financial support to al Qaeda, as the indictment had alleged. A federal judge, referring to the prosecution's evidence, said the defendant appeared primarily a victim of guilt by association.

On the day the trial was to begin, Arnaout pleaded guilty to a fraud charge. Judge Suzanne Conlon made clear in ordering Arnaout to prison for 11 years that he had not been convicted of a terrorism crime.

Fitzgerald said in the interview that he is not disappointed by the plea bargain that ended the case, only by what he considers Arnaout's later failure to tell what he knows. Of Conlon, he said, "She thought we hadn't connected the dots. I thought we had."

"When you're a pitcher, you throw the ball over the plate and if you think you threw a strike and the umpire says it's a ball, it doesn't matter how much you think it's a strike. You put your case on. You don't walk into court out of fear that when you do it, either a judge will disagree with some of what you say or a defense attorney will call you overzealous."

Cassandra
by Cassandra on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:14:21 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
A final note about the above quoted debate. No delegate from the South Chicago Corner Bar Association was invited.

However, being made aware that some debate had transpired, one customer commented that I had about 15 seconds to get back in my car and stop asking "damn fool questions."  As I made my way to the door he did offer one opinion -- "maybe if you lie with dogs long enough...you get fleas."

He had heard of the debate, after all.

by pellelindbergh (stellagh444@sbcglobal.net) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 10:29:05 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
aren't trashing Fitz' reputation.  After all, it is their forte.
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate on." George W. Bush
by YUCA (msealesk@yahoo.com) on Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 11:05:35 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
Probably there is no integrity among any of Bush's political appointees. Gonzales would probably stay

Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 04:19:26 AM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times is reporting that Rove will not be indicted.  Fitzgerald has informed the White House.

It's over, folks.  Now, Truthout and Mr. Leopold have some explaining to do.  Their story is over, and they should expose their sources or risk being accused of inventing the entire thing.  I believe they were burned.  Let them explain how.

by anonymous2005 on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 05:59:53 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
Front page headline, but for the record:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html

If I was Jason Leopold, or any of the management of Truthout, I'd be considering suicide right now.

by Xbrit on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 06:01:31 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
 Up until the weekend I was really convinced that the story was totaly true and it was just some spinmaster Republicans trying to fool us into not believing because they were scared of it then when I started reading some other places and I started having some doubts I still really wanted to think it was true but now I just feel dumb for going after Texas Republican and decon and objectionist and them who was saying the story was wrong and they were right all along and we were just believing a bunch of lies and made to look really stupid and how does that happen I do'nt know but I know I learned something and thats not to believe everything you read just because you want to believe it and maybe you should pay attention more to things when people give you all the reasons why stuff does'nt really make sense and not just ignore them just because you do'nt like them. Now I'm angry at Truth Out because when you go back and look at everything it has to be they were lying to every one and knew every one would end up getting burned for listening to them and they did it any way ther'es nothing I hate more than being made to look stupid by a bunch of ahole Republicans and now they'll be gloating all over and thats that so Texas Republican and all the rest to beat you the punch I admit I was wrong about everything and you were right and I apologize for getting on your butts about it and just leave mea alone.

by angry matt on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 07:14:48 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
because you're a newbie---we never heard of you until last week or so---and we haven't really been sure whose side you were on anyway.  It's not like you were a loyal long-timer!  So I guess you haven't lost much.

"I know I learned something and thats not to believe everything you read just because you want to believe it and maybe you should pay attention more to things when people give you all the reasons why stuff does'nt really make sense and not just ignore them just because you do'nt like them"

Now why does that sound like you're delivering a little strategic-communications message to us?

Now that you're "mad" at TruthOut, your position is clearer to us all, and I guess you'll be leaving for greener and more credible pastures.  Ta-ta now.

Cassandra
by Cassandra on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:31:35 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Have a great day, whatever you really are...
"There is nothing in the world that is hidden." -Dogen Zenji
by amoeba (fermentman at gmail dot com) on Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 12:11:34 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
I see what you mean, Amoeba.

Thanks for being an "animal" and feeling the truth.  I'm right there (here) with you.
~
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 07:25:51 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Leopold's been had....Let's have those 'Sources' now....
They need to be outed....

But with all that's coming to light about the true fixing of
'00 and '04....Can we say we still live in a democracy?

Or do the multinationals own each of the nation states they
operate in with capitalist (s)elected war lords actually
appointed to carry out their bidding?
Maybe the only real struggle going on is one paid off side
fighting for power with another bought off side....

Nonetheless...lets go through the motions and out
these duplicitous 'Sources'
DemocracyinShambles
by endofdays on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 07:13:54 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
CR 06 0128 is the case number in USA v. Scoooter Libby.

We learned this morning that Karl Rove will not be indicted.

Therefore, if there is a "Sealed v. Sealed" indictment associated with the Libby case, it is a superseding indictment, which either restates the original charges to deal with some technical defect, adds additional charges, adds additional defendants, or some combination thereof.

 

by YellowDog (sam@samandeidreshow.com) on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 07:28:20 AM EDT http://www.samanddeidreshow.com

------------------------------------------------------------
The 128 case which is about the subpenas in the Libby case had a different letter code meaning it was in a different court a magistrate or something they was talking about that weeks ago on one of the other websites but I do'nt remember which one but it really do'nt matter about this anyway because the real point of whole 128 thing was where the people pinted out and this was also weeks ago that the sealed 128 case could'nt of been around back on the 13 when Leepold erote the story saying Rove was indicted because the date did'nt match because 127 did'nt come to the 16 of May and 128 has to be after that at the time it really did'nt mean much to me because I just figured who says the Rove one has to be 128 anyway but then yesterdat when I read here that Leepold was now trying to say that I remembered what I read back then and finaly realized that it was all just a big lie and he was just making stuff up as he went along and he is'nt even smart enough to make sure his lies have'nt already been out there in other places and that I was really wrong ever to believe any of it. This really burns me up because it made me say things I should'nt have said but at least I am going to be man enough to say to the people I said things to that I was wrong to say them and I am sorry for saying that even though I still think you are out to do bad things you were right and I did'nt know what I was talking about and should have just kept quiet about it.

by angry matt on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:52:18 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
As soon as you guys can, please get back to us. You owe it to your readers.

by Z man on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:00:24 AM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
We all deserve it. Live by your name. Let's have the TRUTH. We've given you our faith in this story. Now give us the respect of the full truth: sources, explanations, apologies, etc.

by LeCubist on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:32:26 AM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
With this announcment, TruthOut should reveal their sources. and detail how the false information was fed to them so we can finally figure out who was behind the story.

A shrug of the shoulders simply won't do.

by Foxhound on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:50:00 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
This is one major disappointment.  
Now the question IS:
Is Fitzgerald a part of Bushco's Coverup process?  

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2069863

By JOHN SOLOMON

WASHINGTON Jun 13, 2006 (AP)-- Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday, lifting a heavy burden from one of President Bush's most trusted advisers.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election now focused on stopping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in this November's elections.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The announcement cheered Republicans and a White House beleaguered by war and low approval ratings.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said the White House official "is elated" and said that "we're done."

Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Messages left with Fitzgerald's spokesman seeking comment were not immediately returned.

The prosecutor called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said. "We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame in retribution because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sharply criticized the administration's pursuit of war in Iraq.

Rove testified five times before a grand jury, most recently in April. He has admitted he spoke with columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in the days before they published Plame's name in July 2003.

Continued
1.   2.   3.   NEXT»

by GhostWriter2 (ogana2@hotmail.com) on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
The question is: How will Truth Out respond?

by Foxhound on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 09:02:14 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
something's still coming.   Something IS.

Maybe it's BUSH who will be charged.  Maybe rove rolled over like the lapdog he is.

Maybe he sacrificed someone else.

Maybe he's going to be charged with something else.

Those fatuous smiles are hiding something. (more than the usual I mean)
Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.
by eyeswideopen (fairy_taletrash@yahoo.com) on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 09:05:16 AM EDT http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=302

------------------------------------------------------------
  I ca'nt tell for sure if but you are kidding or something eyes wide open but if not that might be exactly the wrong name for you because did you not hear about how Rove is still working in the White House and going around and giving speeches and stuff I mean I was dumb enought to believe the stuff about him being indicted even though he was working there when that does'nt look to smart when you look back on it but I'm not near dumb enough to believe they would still have him working there if he was turning states evidence on all of them that just makes it even worse when you say crazy stuff like that and is like those waste of time conspiracy things i was saying people should stop writing because they are a big waste of time and take time away from doing things that are true and important.

by angry matt on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 09:11:42 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
is NOT a virtue -- it is CONCENTRATED STRENGTH.

Yes, Matt, I can read. Thanks just the same for asking.  hehe
Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.
by eyeswideopen (fairy_taletrash@yahoo.com) on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 09:15:38 AM EDT http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=302
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
 I'm guessing it is meant to be a disagreement with what I said about it not being good to write crazy stuff and some kind of idea like if you keep saying crazy stuff long enough it will come true we ll i do'nt think the world really works that way if you keep saying it you might actually come to believe in it being true but that wo'nt make it true and it wo'nt make any body else even think its true for long and in the meantime the good stuff you could be doing or just writing does'nt get done because you are too busy being patient wwaiting for crazy stuff to happen that does'nt sound much like a real good idea to me and I'm going to stick with what i said was my idea and just admit I was wrong say I'm sorry to any body I said stuff too and try to do better from now on.

by angry matt on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 10:09:34 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

You're trying to act like a "regular" here and set some kind of precedent for us to start falling all over ourselves apologizing for anything we said and demanding that TO "come clean".  WE DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU.  Everything you say always aligns perfectly with the Rovians, in spite of your cute little aw-shucks act about not being a good writer.  You act dumb but you're not.  I think you're a phony.

Cassandra
by Cassandra on Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 08:43:37 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

"There is nothing in the world that is hidden." -Dogen Zenji
by amoeba (fermentman at gmail dot com) on Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 12:12:29 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
with fiance?
~
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by