As I undrstand it, outting this particular CIA operative was only technically wrong. It was public record that she worked for the CIA, she had a desk job. It is merely a technicality that her position was still listed as undercover.

Of course, the legal system is built on technicalities...

10/28/2005 7:29:29 PM

Not according to the special prosecutor...

10/28/2005 7:49:44 PM

Quote :

"David Gergen, CNN's Lou Dobson [paraphrased] "Rove escaped indictment because of 11th hour information, which he provided only to Fitzgerald yesterday, which gave the prosecutor pause enough to continue the investigation rather than issue an indictment..." "

interesting

10/28/2005 7:59:23 PM

These charges basically stink -- Libby is getting the Martha Stewart treatment. The usual:

* prosecutor goes after highly public figure for specific crime X
* prosecutor cannot find substantial evidence to indict said figure for X, so he charges him with perjury, obstruction of justice, etc instead of X

I am somewhat curious as to which "justice" was being obstructed if, in fact, there was no substantial case that Valerie Plame was wrongfully outed?

Furthermore, these charges basically amount to the prosecutor's attempt to use interrogation and a grand jury to coerce a confession out of Libby. When that tactic failed, the prosecutor decided to fall back on secondary charges.

So much for American justice -- in America, if you're a highly public figure -- Republican or Democrat -- expect to be tried on something.

10/28/2005 8:30:01 PM

Quote :

"Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials."

10/28/2005 8:33:59 PM

^

Surely you can see that intent factors into a felony conviction. If -- as the prosecutor quite obviously found -- there was no actual wrongdoing vis a vis Valerie Plame (because if there had been, he would have INDICTED SOMEONE), then what was Libby's motive to lie about the circumstances of the case?

So what's the motive going to be? That Libby, an outstanding public servant with years of solid political experience and no criminal record, lied on the stand just for the Hell of it?

Maybe Libby was scared of something -- but then he's just as likely to have forgotten as to have lied. See above about "outstanding individual."

Maybe there was a political cover-up -- but as the prosecutor himself found, there was in fact nothing to cover up. Otherwise -- he would've indicted someone!

I hope Libby's defense attorneys drag this asshole through the dirt.

[Edited on October 28, 2005 at 9:10 PM. Reason : foo]

10/28/2005 9:10:32 PM

So cover-ups should be legal, but only if they're successful.

10/28/2005 9:48:15 PM

^Exactly. Libby, Rove et. al. obscured the true crime effectively.

FYI, for those of you celebrating Rove escaping indictment, here is a previous Fitzgerald investigation that began with only one indictment and ended with 66 of them.

Quote :

"http://www.nbc5.com/news/2710256/detail.html Feds Charge Former Gov. George Ryan Ryan's Attorney Prepared To Mount 'Aggressive Defense' POSTED: 6:25 a.m. CST December 17, 2003 UPDATED: 8:25 a.m. CST December 18, 2003 CHICAGO -- Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan was charged in a federal racketeering indictment Wednesday with taking payoffs, gifts and vacations in return for government contracts and leases while he was secretary of state. snip Ryan became the 66th person charged in the investigation; 59 people and his campaign committee have been convicted so far. For his part, Ryan has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing, claiming he had no knowledge of the license-for-bribes scandal that occurred while he was Illinois secretary of state. "Was I involved in selling driver's licenses to people illegally? Hell, no, I wasn't," Ryan said previously, when asked about the scandal. "I didn't have anything to do with it. Would I tolerate it? Hell, no." snip The scandal dates back to 1998, according to NBC5's Dick Kay, when dozens of midlevel state employees were accused of selling licenses for bribes."

10/28/2005 9:53:57 PM

^^

What was covered up in this case?

Look at this logically:

Quite obviously if Fitzgerald knows that Libby lied, he quite obviously also knows what he lied about -- and what the actual truth is. In fact, he says as much in his own news conference.

I mean -- if you heard or read his news conference, you would be struck by the obviously air-tight case against Libby as the source of the Plame leak.

And yet -- despite all that, he did not indict Libby for leaking her name. Why?

Well, quite obviously it's because Libby didn't do anything wrong. That's why. Given that Fitzgerald knows the whole truth of the situation, up to and including the fact that Libby leaked Plame's name to the press and then allegedly lied about it, he still did not indict him for the leak.

The message: there was no cover-up, because there was nothing to cover up. Nobody actually committed a crime. Oh, but we're going to prosecute Libby for lying about a non-crime. That makes sense.

And not only is he allegedly lying about covering up a non-crime, it's a non-crime involving a non-secret agent.

This case is absurd.



[Edited on October 28, 2005 at 10:01 PM. Reason : foo]

10/28/2005 10:00:29 PM

Quote :

" Well, quite obviously it's because Libby didn't do anything wrong. That's why. Given that Fitzgerald knows the whole truth of the situation, up to and including the fact that Libby leaked Plame's name to the press and then allegedly lied about it, he still did not indict him for the leak. The message: there was no cover-up, because there was nothing to cover up. Nobody actually committed a crime. Oh, but we're going to prosecute Libby for lying about a non-crime. That makes sense."

Well, quite obviously you have your head up your ass. You don't know know if Libby did anything wrong, and neither do I. This is why there will be a trial.

Quote :

"And not only is he allegedly lying about covering up a non-crime, it's a non-crime involving a non-secret agent. This case is absurd."

Stop trying to spread that lie. Valerie Plame was an agent with non-official cover which means "secret agent".

10/28/2005 10:25:11 PM

Quote :

"the Department of Justice (DOJ) granted Fitzgerald "plenary" authority to investigate the "alleged unauthorized disclosure" of Plame's identity. Fitzgerald's December 2003 delegation as special counsel on the case mentioned neither the IIPA nor any other particular statute. Further, shortly after his designation as special counsel, Fitzgerald sought clarification from then-acting attorney general James B. Comey regarding the scope of the case. Comey's written response clearly established that the special prosecutor's mandate had included from the outset: [T]he authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses. "

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510260002

10/28/2005 10:48:58 PM

these guys are all crooks, and when they fall ... they will fall hard.
it seems everyone is coming under investigation... how pathetic.

10/28/2005 11:02:17 PM

Perjury was ok was Clinton did it. Why shouldn't those under investigation be held to the same standard?

10/28/2005 11:46:37 PM

Quote :

"This case is absurd."

So you can lie all you want to a grand jury --while under oath-- so long as no one can pin anything else on you? No.

Why are you arguing this?


^There's a difference between "ok" and "not an impeachable offense."





[Edited on October 29, 2005 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2005 12:05:43 AM

The last time I checked perjury was an impeachable offense.

I didn't mention anything about the merit of the offense, I am simply pointing out the pretty obvious double standard here.

10/29/2005 12:12:34 AM

Quote :

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

One instance of perjury = "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

10/29/2005 12:18:14 AM

Perjury and obstruction of justice, and it's up to the Legislature to determine if those 2 offenses fall within the parameters of "high crimes and misdemeanors." You see, the Constitution, contrary to popular belief, allows for those who control the Legislature to sets its own rules and boundaries within the parameters given, and it's reasonable to include such a high crime as perjury (which Clinton did more than once via his testimony and sworn affidavit).

10/29/2005 12:41:24 AM

Quote :

"One instance of perjury = "high crimes and misdemeanors?""

10/29/2005 12:59:56 AM

It was more than one instance.

There was lying under oath, cited as such by a federal judge. There was suborning perjury on the part of Monica Lewinsky. He wrote for her a false affidavit that she presented. He conducted from the highest levels of this government, the Oval Office, Bill Clinton conducted an entire attempt to obstruct justice and lie, and he did lie under oath when he testified to the truthfulness of Lewinsky's affidavit. All these are multiple acts of perjury. They are multiple acts of conspiracy and contempt of court. They were premeditated. He had his law license suspended, and he was disbarred from the Supreme Court for a number of years from trying cases or working at the Supreme Court as a lawyer.

10/29/2005 1:30:16 AM

Quote :

""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.""

High Crime.

10/29/2005 7:11:08 AM

High crime? The NY Times of all newspapers even reported that Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake and 1.8 tons of it had been enriched.

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

10/29/2005 7:30:58 AM

....

10/29/2005 7:37:58 AM

Quote :

"And yet -- despite all that, he did not indict Libby for leaking her name. Why? "

What is your question exactly? Why do prosecutors routinely choose to prosecute lesser crimes that they have higher chances to convict on instead of going with the heaviest charge that might have merit but is also risky in terms of obtaining an actual conviction?

10/29/2005 1:35:57 PM

^

They may prosecute lesser crimes (like Manslaughter instead of Murder), but those are related to the act itself -- not the process of investigation.

If he had indicted Libby for something like "conspiracy to reveal the identity of a covert agent," you MIGHT have a semblance of a point.

Again, I view this as basically the same as the Martha Stewart trial -- she proclaimed her innocence, that pissed off the prosecutors who were looking for "big fish," so they ponied up some process-related charges all while basically conceding that the investigation never had a leg to stand on.

My basic point here is that if I. Lewis Libby weren't I. Lewis Libby, he would never have been served such an indictment. It wouldn't have been worth the prosecutor's time, after having spent two years and having failed to make his actual case -- but because the man is a prominent public figure, it's a career-booster for the prosecution to pursue these (IMO bogus) charges.

10/29/2005 1:54:13 PM

lying about some trim != lying about matters of national security

10/29/2005 1:54:46 PM

Are you saying that nobody gets prosecuted for lying to the FBI investigators?

10/29/2005 1:57:45 PM

Quote :

"So you can lie all you want to a grand jury --while under oath-- so long as no one can pin anything else on you?"

So you can use a grand jury to coerce a confession out of someone, and when they refuse to confess or follow your storyline, you can try them for perjury and obstruction instead?

That's a great standard of American justice you have.

10/29/2005 1:58:28 PM

^^

No. I'm saying that I. Lewis Libby was indicted because Fitzgerald was under political pressure to indict someone for something, no matter what.

10/29/2005 2:00:10 PM

The way the prosecutor presented it, Cooter was talking to everybody and his brother about Valerie Wilson at least a week before he claims to have learned about her from a reporter, a circumstance in which he would be far less likely to have committed a crime. I think it's pretty clear that there is no concensus on whether or not leaking her identity WAS a crime, but, if the allegations are true, he would have lied about when he heard of Mrs. Wilson to protect himself in case it turned out what he did was illegal.

I mean, let's say you thought posting dirty pictures on TWW was a crime. It isn't, but let's say you lied, repeatedly, under oath, saying that you have never done anything of the sort. Are you saying that lying in this fashion should not be a crime?

10/29/2005 2:07:15 PM

Quote :

"No. I'm saying that I. Lewis Libby was indicted because Fitzgerald was under political pressure to indict someone for something, no matter what."

Or he was doing his job.

10/29/2005 2:14:20 PM

Neocon gets indicted, neocons bitch and moan.

Nothing to see here...

---

Color me curious, but just who was this politically independent prosecutor (appointed by a Republican), under political pressure to bring an indictment at all costs from?

The left--to whom he owes not a bead a sweat? The right--who urged him to bring no idictments at all? Certainly not the White House.

[Edited on October 29, 2005 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ...]

10/29/2005 2:56:04 PM

Quote :

"So you can use a grand jury to coerce a confession out of someone, and when they refuse to confess or follow your storyline, you can try them for perjury and obstruction instead? That's a great standard of American justice you have."

That's just stupid.

Do you really believe that the prosecutor is inditing Libby because his story didn't jive with a preconcieved scenario thought up in Fitzgerald's head?

When you give two or more different stories to a grand jury, it's perjury. Are you arguing against this?

10/29/2005 3:58:48 PM

It's also worth pointing out to the "OMF HE DIDN'T PROSECUTE ON THE ORIGINAL CRIME" banshees that they're completely misunderstanding the way an investigation of this nature is run. It wasn't a great talking point, and few networks and newspapers printed this part of the transcript, but he addressed your question during the press conference:

Quote :

"It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held. So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works. Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts. It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged. Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that. That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts. ..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

His prosecution can't bring other charges at this time because of the effects of the counts against Libby.

10/29/2005 4:22:55 PM

you liberals are sure nutting yourself over this, bet you didnt when this happened under your boy clinton

10/29/2005 5:04:59 PM

Quote :

" I think it's pretty clear that there is no concensus on whether or not leaking her identity WAS a crime, but, if the allegations are true, he would have lied about when he heard of Mrs. Wilson to protect himself in case it turned out what he did was illegal."

Except that perjury has a lower standard of statuory proof than the outing charge. And, quite obviously, if the perjury is as blatant as the prosecutor claims, then we basically have to accept that Libby was stupid as opposed to clever (plz to read his biography if you think the man is stupid).

Plus he was consistent in his story from start to finish. Boy, that sounds like a committed liar -- consistent over a multi-year investigation!

Quote :

"When you give two or more different stories to a grand jury, it's perjury."

Libby gave one consistent story to the grand jury and to the FBI. The contradictions came from the other people involved. Thanks for trying though -- post again when you know something (which will be never).

Quote :

"Color me curious, but just who was this politically independent prosecutor (appointed by a Republican), under political pressure to bring an indictment at all costs from?"

Well, let's say you're Joe Prosecutor from Illinois. How many times in your grand career do you get to go to Washington and be in the national spotlight and investigate the top minds in the nation's government? Complete with a national news conference and all?

That's such a stupid question -- I can't even believe you asked it. Look at Spitzer in NY for the prototypical "politically-motivated prosecution."

(no wait, he just investigates those big companies for the good of society! ha!)

Moving on ...

Quote :

"It wasn't a great talking point, and few networks and newspapers printed this part of the transcript, but he addressed your question during the press conference"

I know. I read it already. It's called a "standard disclaimer," aka Cover Your Ass Clause, etc.

"No, no, I know you're all wondering why we DIDN'T indict him on the charge we were pursuing for TWO YEARS, but you know, there are LOTS of charges out there!"

::beeps horn:: "National Security! National Security!"

I'm a little curious as to how national security was _actually_ at stake, anyway; the investigation took place rather after the fact of the matter.

[Edited on October 29, 2005 at 5:26 PM. Reason : foo]

10/29/2005 5:17:03 PM

Quote :

"Libby gave one consistent story to the grand jury and to the FBI. The contradictions came from the other people involved. Thanks for trying though -- post again when you know something (which will be never)."

post post post


Libby said he was at the end of a long chain of conversations, and that it was a commonly-known rumor by the time it got to him. Everyone around him says otherwise.

Two stories.

Therefore,

perjury was committed by someone.

Is that difficult to grasp?

Now that perjury has been committed, he can accuse Libby, or everyone else. Hmmm.


post post post


[Edited on October 29, 2005 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2005 5:33:49 PM

Quote :

" O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that."

I think that quote illustrates why people resist thinking about our country being lied into a war by this administration. It's too monstrous for them to accept.

10/29/2005 6:54:16 PM

Quote :

"Libby said he was at the end of a long chain of conversations, and that it was a commonly-known rumor by the time it got to him. Everyone around him says otherwise. Two stories. Therefore, perjury was committed by someone."

Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under testimony.

If everytime two or more witnesses' testimonies didnt match up 100% someone had to be charged with perjury, then there would be like 20 perjury charges for every trial that happened in this country.

10/29/2005 9:44:51 PM

But what if you have like five guys saying one thing and one guy saying something different.

10/29/2005 10:15:13 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4: That's such a stupid question -- I can't even believe you asked it."

Your assertion that Patrick Fitzgerald is under political pressure to bring an indictment against "someone for something, no matter what" from himself is so stupid that I can't believe you made it.

Quote :

"Smoker4: "No, no, I know you're all wondering why we DIDN'T indict him on the charge we were pursuing for TWO YEARS, but you know, there are LOTS of charges out there!""

Quote :

"Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts."

10/29/2005 11:39:54 PM

Quote :

"Your assertion that Patrick Fitzgerald is under political pressure to bring an indictment against "someone for something, no matter what" from himself is so stupid that I can't believe you made it."

Right. Because Fitzgerald is a fucking SAINT. Let's call the Pope now! A prosecutor who doesn't care about his career!

God forbid anyone should suggest to Gamecat that people who work for a living are under pressure to further their lots in life! That is heresy!

Oh wait, not to mention the pressure from the media and the parts of the Democratic and Republican establishments alike that want to see someone indicted. Somehow I forgot that they weren't monolithic political entities, but are rather coalition-based.

10/30/2005 1:58:53 AM

Quote :

"Fitzgerald is a fucking SAINT"

thats what bush said. saying that hes dignified when hes expected to call him the devil is lke calling him a saint.

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 3:58 AM. Reason : -]

10/30/2005 3:57:46 AM

Quote :

"you liberals are sure nutting yourself over this, bet you didnt when this happened under your boy clinton"

the problem is, at least for me, that alot of us weren't old enough to know much of what was going on when clinton was impeached. didn't care much about politics in high school.

10/30/2005 8:40:56 AM

Quote :

"God forbid anyone should suggest to Gamecat that people who work for a living are under pressure to further their lots in life!"

God forbid anyone should suggest to Smoker4 that Patrick Fitzgerald gets paid whether or not he brings indictments against Libby or none at all--you know, for all that work he's done over the past couple years?

Quote :

"Oh wait, not to mention the pressure from the media and the parts of the Democratic and Republican establishments alike that want to see someone indicted. Somehow I forgot that they weren't monolithic political entities, but are rather coalition-based."

So, you think he's only bringing indictments to serve the media (whom he has conspicuously ignored during the entire investigation and to whom he owes nothing) and the parts of the Democratic and Republican establishments to whom he also owes nothing?

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/30/2005 9:39:55 AM

With all due respect I would seriously question Libby's not being stupid if he's truly innocent. His own testimony suggests he's a moron. Why would you even THINK of participating in any discussions of someone's belonging to CIA? I'm not now talking about the legality of it, but about whether or no it is appropriate for someone of his position.

"Uhhh... I like heard she was a CIA operative from one guy and I told the other guy about it. I didn't like even know if the shit was true, officer."

WTF????!! You're a fucking top 10 official in the country, and this is what you say? Seriously, I trust he's not stupid for real, but that sure as hell seems to be his own defense.

10/30/2005 12:26:23 PM

COOTER'S JAPANESE NOVEL!!!
Setsuo is a young apprentice at a remote mountain inn in turn-of-the-century Japan, who falls in love at first sight of the beautiful Yukiko, one of a roving band of actors who have come to stay. Trapped at the inn by a blizzard is a larger group of strange travelers. Emotionally wrought by his feelings for Yukiko, Setsuo cannot see that he is getting involved in political skulduggery as he tries to fathom the increasingly odd behavior of the guests. The finding of a corpse and a mysterious small box keep the reader guessing too.

10/30/2005 12:43:46 PM

Quote :

"God forbid anyone should suggest to Smoker4 that Patrick Fitzgerald gets paid whether or not he brings indictments against Libby or none at all--you know, for all that work he's done over the past couple years?"

Smoker4:

Quote :

"Right. Because Fitzgerald is a fucking SAINT. Let's call the Pope now! A prosecutor who doesn't care about his career!"

(emph. mine)

Are you familiar with the concept of a career versus a paycheck? No? Let me see if I can illustrate this for you:

Paycheck: "I got paid last Tuesday!"
Career: "I indicted Scooter, and now everyone thinks I have balls of brass! Time to run for <governor, senate, house, mayor, etc.>!"

Quote :

"So, you think he's only bringing indictments to serve the media (whom he has conspicuously ignored during the entire investigation and to whom he owes nothing) and the parts of the Democratic and Republican establishments to whom he also owes nothing?"

I think he is trying to further his own career by presenting an image of himself to the general public: the "honest" broker who's keeping the establishment in check. It's certainly very hard to have the image of "keeping the establishment in check" if you don't bring any indictments after a two-year investigation -- and more so when you admit that you don't think anyone did anything wrong in the original matter.

Frankly, given the nature of the independent counsel law (excuse me, it's now Special Counsel), we should expect no less -- honestly it should be renamed the "Prosecutor Career Furtherance Act" so we can be more clear on its purpose.

Quote :

"Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts"

Reworded slightly: "independent counsel doesn't have an actual obligation to serve a real public interest, just an unlimited mandate to investigate and investigate and investigate until they find something they can pin on someone, somehow."

Maybe I missed the point of this whole Special Counsel thing -- I could've sworn Fitzgerald was appointed to serve a matter of national interest.

How exactly is Libby's recollection of Tim Russert a matter of national interest deserving of a special prosecutor with the whole delegated authority of the Attorney General?

10/30/2005 1:26:16 PM

Quote :

"and this is what you say"

Now you're just being disparaging for the sake of being glib -- you know very well that a phone conversation from a top White House official is a passing occurrence. You can't investigate a matter like this with the assumption that the only thing Libby was doing on a given day was talking about Valerie Plame on the phone.

10/30/2005 1:31:35 PM

Quote :

"How exactly is Libby's recollection of Tim Russert a matter of national interest deserving of a special prosecutor with the whole delegated authority of the Attorney General?"

Because there's anyone who claims that.

Quote :

"Now you're just being disparaging for the sake of being glib -- you know very well that a phone conversation from a top White House official is a passing occurrence. You can't investigate a matter like this with the assumption that the only thing Libby was doing on a given day was talking about Valerie Plame on the phone."

I doesn't matter. He should not have talked about it at all. Again, it's only relevant to the whole unfolding legal process so long as your defense for him has become that he's not stupid. He talked

a) to a reporter
b) about a potentially very sensitive issue
c) without even knowing the facts.

If it's true, he's unprofessional.

I do share your concerns about the lack of indictment though. I didn't heart even a formal expanation why the charges weren't brough.

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2005 1:31:42 PM

^

Quote :

"Because there's anyone who claims that."

It's inherent to the whole investigation!

Fitzgerald isn't just some prosecutor; he is appointed to a position that is basically independent of every branch of government. He's been given an AWFUL lot of power and a lot of money and time.

The implicit expectation of the office of Special Counsel is that they are dealing with matters of gravity and public interest; otherwise, it makes no sense to even appoint one.

In Gamecat's quote, Fitzgerald seemed to be saying that he didn't have some special mandate to seek out a specific charge -- except that, by virtue of being a _Special Counsel_ with all the power in the world, he very well DID.

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 1:38 PM. Reason : foo]

10/30/2005 1:36:00 PM