Wash. Post reported Libby acquittal would damage Fitzgerald's "nonpartisan reputation," left out that he's a Bush appointee
A February 23 Washington Post article asserted that it "would be a blow" to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's "reputation as a nonpartisan prosecutor with a record of high-profile successes" if a jury finds Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, not guilty of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice. But the article never mentioned that Fitzgerald is a Bush administration political appointee. President Bush nominated Fitzgerald to his current position as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on September 19, 2001. The Senate confirmed him by unanimous consent on October 23, 2001.
As U.S. Attorney, Fitzgerald has prosecuted or investigated officials of both parties. As Media Matters for America has noted, Fitzgerald charged former Illinois Gov. George Ryan (R) with steering state contracts to cronies in return for cash and gifts, misusing campaign funds, and rigging the Illinois inspector general's office to cover his tracks. Ryan was convicted on April 17, 2006, following a six-month-long trial. Fitzgerald has also been leading an investigation into the administration of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat. Fitzgerald's office successfully prosecuted Daley's longtime aide Robert Sorich for, according to the indictment, "us[ing] fraudulent processes to award City of Chicago ... jobs and promotions on bases other than merit." Additionally, in October 2006, Fitzgerald's office charged a major fundraiser for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), Antoin Rezko, with multiple counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. At the time, Blagojevich said that Rezko "has been a friend and a supporter."
Further, former Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (IL), on the August 8, 2005, broadcast of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, said he had recommended Fitzgerald's appointment as U.S. Attorney because of his political independence:
PETER FITZGERALD: The allies of the governor [Ryan] were pressuring me to try and put someone in office who would see things more favorably to the governor, and so I was very concerned that whoever I recommended as U.S. attorney be someone who is totally independent.
And in finding Patrick Fitzgerald, I found someone of unquestioned independence and integrity and truly top-notch ability.
The Post article also stated that "Fitzgerald's motives and credentials were challenged when his investigation homed in on top Bush administration officials, including senior White House adviser Karl Rove, as well as the Washington press corps." However, as Media Matters has noted, Bush, in an October 11, 2005, interview on NBC's Today, called Fitzgerald's investigation "dignified." Libby was indicted on October 28, 2005.
From the February 23 Washington Post article headlined "A Nonpartisan Reputation At Stake":
When the jury in I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury trial returns with its verdict, its decision also will intensify the debate over whether Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald should have brought the case in the first place.
For Fitzgerald, who has led the CIA leak investigation for more than three years, an acquittal for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff would be a blow to a reputation as a nonpartisan prosecutor with a record of high-profile successes. Some say it would vindicate critics who think Fitzgerald went too far by charging Libby with perjury when no one was indicted for the original offense investigated, the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.
[...]
Fitzgerald's motives and credentials were challenged when his investigation homed in on top Bush administration officials, including senior White House adviser Karl Rove, as well as the Washington press corps. In a showdown with the New York Times, Fitzgerald went to the Supreme Court to force reporters to divulge their confidential conversations with government sources.
Fitzgerald is doing his job, so of course he is being smeared. Out of every person Bush has appointed, Is it me, or is Fitz the only person appointed by the Bush administration to have qualifications for the job?
And, I might add, the only one to carry out his responsibilities competently.
But then the more I think about it, if none of any other Bush appointees were competent, what's the possibility that Fitz has been screwing up like in the manner of your average Bush appointee? Could it be that the conviction of Scooter falls far short of what could have been achieved if someone REALLY competent had been handling the investigation?
I thought Colin Powell, while he had his faults,was a standout in this administration as far as competence, experience, qualifications and integrity.
He sure as hell had to go.
Libby not the real issue
The real issue is how he is protecting war criminal Cheney. To me it is amazing how loyal Libby is. Fitzgerald has done the best job he could possibly do.
Hey Doris,
They'll likely offer Libby a chance to flip IF he's convicted. Then we'll see how loyal he is to Cheney. Of course IF there's already a promised Bush Pardon in the works, then Cheney probably will walk away clean.
I admire Fitzgerald. He hasn't been intimidated by this administration...I'd love it if he could nail the real criminal: Cheney.
Depends, If Scooter is stupid enough to believe a dumbaya/crashcart promise of a pardon he may try to hold out.
Cheney is the real war criminal, but never forget Rumsfeld either and of course Bush.
Refresh our memories, please. When we bombed the Serbs into submission because of the MG's (mass graves) containing 225,000 ethnic Albanians, then found as many MG's as we did WMD's in Iraq, who were the war criminals? Was it Clinton himself, or was it his Veep, his Defense Secretary...just trying to remember.
Frogs croaking.
Ribb-t.
Ribb-t.
Ribb-t.
these trolls are nothing if unoriginal. on the 2-15 global warming thread, when lemoc was challenged to produce a study he claimed he had [and never produced], valentinian put "crickets chirping" under his post. so hey, change it to frogs.....
There's a wide range of accounts, fromboth ends of the spectrum, everywhere in between.
http://web.amnesty.org/wire/September2004/Kosovo
A lot of it's from '99, but this is one of the more recent.
What's your point, that you think this was BS'd up as badly as Iraq? What was the motive, in your opinion?
BTW, sometimes when people don't respond, it's just the weekend, and they're doing stuff. Don't take it too personally.
You are still trying to hijack the thread with off topic nonsense troll go back under your bridge
If an acquittal will cause questions about Fitzgerald's bipartisan credentials, what will a guilty verdict do? I fully expect to see every right-wing wacko going nuts about the unfairness of bringing a "meaningless" perjury case when Libby is declared guilty. After all, perjury is only a serious crime if it is charged against a Democrat.
If a conviction is attained Fitzgerald will be fired for "performance related issues"
That was also my first thought. The Flying Monkeys are going to barbecue Fitzgerald no matter what the verdict...it's what they're paid to do.
Forget all the evidence that Fitzgerald is a nonpartisan prosecutor. What the heck does the jury's verdict on this particular case have to do with it? If a prosecutor loses a case, how does that necessarily show the case was frivolous and politically motivated?
Why does MMFA spend so much cyber-ink showing what an unbiased prosecutor Fitzgerald is instead of on the ridiculousness of that statement?
Can you say O.J., boys and girls?
"Why does MMFA spend so much cyber-ink showing what an unbiased prosecutor Fitzgerald is instead of on the ridiculousness of that statement?"
-----
Perhaps because showing Fitzgerald is truly an unbiased prosecutor is precisely what will demonstrate how ridiculous a statement the Post made.
Is it typical that the writer of a story like this one was told the slant to take by her boss? Is there a typical title given to the whoever that boss is?
then again we could be reading a story on how it would make the Bush administration look like Nixonian era wheeler dealers...IF the jury comes back with a guilty verdict and scooter gets a pardon right before Fitz starts asking questions about this orchestrated leak...again, IF the jury comes back with a guitly verdict.
We won't read about that potential outcome. Big media resent this prosecution as much as GOPers because it exposes their chuminess with the GOP that is distasteful to moderates.
I have been following the trial and have been impressed with Patrick Fitzgerald's methodical and very professional performance... he's a good lawyer. A point I've wanted to bring up to some people here who have characterized Libby's prosecution as purely political is exactly what MMFA has noted... that Fitzgerald is a Bush appointee and reportedly pretty conservative politically.
But there's one qustion that's been bugging me and perhaps someone can help me out with an answer... Was Dick Cheney ever questioned by Fitzgerald or any other investigator? I am fairly certain Cheney was never called to testify (under oath) before the grand jury... but was he interviewed during the investigation? If Fitzgerald did not interview Cheney, perhaps in deference to Cheney's position as Vice-President then I might have to question Fitzgerald's strategy.
Let's face it... many of us have such little regard for Cheney (with damn good reason) that it would delight me to see Cheney squirm. But aside from that, this trial revealed just what an active role Cheney played in directing staff to counteract Joe Wilson's op-ed piece... but, unless my memory is failing me, I recall seeing Cheney on Sunday morning talk shows saying until Novak's article he had no idea who Valerie Plame was. Now we know from the Libby trial that Cheney's CIA briefer told Cheney and Libby about Valerie Plame a month before Novak's article. I wish someone would dig up the tapes because Cheney was publicly lying (Surprise, surprise...!).
Therefore, to the point, particularly because it appears Cheney was not being truthful with the press at the time, how aggressively was Cheney's involvement explored by Fitzgerald? As impressed as I've been with Fitzgerald legal skills, did he back off of the White House?
"IF Libby is acquitted, then ..."
... in this hypothetical, it could be that the jury had reasonable doubt, and believed it possible Libby was correct while dozen other witnesses were all lying on the stand. Of course, Libby didn't take the stand, himself. He'd have to be sworn in to do that.
Or, it might be the prosecuter failed to convince the jury of every element of the charges. Or it could be the jury engaged in a form of "nullification" because the believe Libby to have been otherwise a sterling public servant.
What does a loss SAY about the prosecutor, politically? The Post's writer assures us it will be a "BLOW" to his claim of non-partisanship. If true, what will a CONVICTION gain him? A Blow to his claim of partisanship. The rightwing pundits are set to trash Fitzgerald any way it goes, because he DARED to prosecute one of Bush's boys.
And to what end? To smear. It's its own reward. In truth, the rightwing have no other tool in their box.
It's just a hunch, but I think the reason the GOP may wish to smear Fitzgerald is to reduce the chances he would be used by any future Democrat president. They and their donors/cronies stand a lot to lose.
"IF Libby is acquitted, then ..."
... in this hypothetical, it could be that the jury had reasonable doubt, and believed it possible Libby was correct while dozen other witnesses were all lying on the stand. Of course, Libby didn't take the stand, himself. He'd have to be sworn in to do that.
Exactly. Fitzgerald is burdened with showing beyond reasonable doubt that Libby deliberately made statements that he knew to be untrue. The pundits mostly agree this would be difficult to do even assuming he is guilty. If he fails, it may be a blow to his skill as a trial lawyer, or a trophy for the skill of Libby's defense lawyers, but little else as far as I can see.
No verdict yet that I've heard of, as I write this.
The media outlets are going to spin this as far as they can to keep it out of their yards. It would be a massive blow to the credibility of the beltway media if Libby is convicted, because it will highlight how easily they were manipulated by a gang of inepts into being a tool for political revenge.
Good point, MrBad- The basic accusations of the Plame case are not very flattering to those who get to frame the public's perception of Fitzgerald.He has got to really walk on eggshells through this whole deal.
why should anyone talk about Berger? He is not the subject of this thread troll. That wasnt even a good try at sidetracking the topic. No one is taking the bait.
I know Solon, I shouldn't even reply. It's just these recent ones (Sandy Berger, Roe v. Wade) where the trolls ask for a defense for something where they haven't even made a clear accusation to defend. Just vague talking points, many of them self-contradicting.