Fitzmas will continue -- or not?? Please explain.

[Leopolds Ghost]

Nobody wants to celebrate Fitzmas more than I do, but I read
something in the MEDIA RESPONSE thread talking about what
Pat Buchanan's talking points were. Sadly I have to say that
I noticed the same things that Buchanan noticed (and Buchanan
cretinly didn't seem to mind seeing Bush go down a week ago.)

So I want to talk about the following aspects of Fitzgerald's press conference in context of the following "observations" and maybe we can shed some light on what is actually going on here?

- Nobody has been charged with the original crime.
- Looks like Fitz doesn't think the crime was committed.
- Fitz ruled out "the path to war" investigation.
- Fitz seems to be wrapping things up.

Please -- No rumors or speculation! Just inferences from
the press conference itself -- or other statements from Fitz --
that support or disprove the points quoted above (originally
posted to the MEDIA RESPONSE thread).

I'll start out with my own observations:

- "Nobody has been charged with the original crime" -- YET.
But... why not? Obstruction? Will not be remedied.

Scooter is extremely unlikely to flip, especially
if no-one else is under indictment who could potentially
be used to create a prisoner's dilemma.

- "Looks like Fitz doesn't think the crime was committed."
I can see where Buchanan got that impression, but I don't
agree. The problem is, there's been no indictment on
the original crime, and Scooter's the footsoldier.
Difficult convict someone else on conspiracy if no one
proved the crime was committed, whether by Scooter or
another footsoldier.

- Fitz ruled out "the path to war" investigation.
Yep. That right there eviscerates his own case. :-(

- Fitz seems to be wrapping up. -- or at least, said so.
The question is, could a new GJ be PURELY to consider
last-minute bullshit filings presented by Rove? If so
then Fitzmas is over -- won't go beyond Rove.

Please, folks, argue from what was said in the press conference, thanks. I am trying to figure out if there was some indication in there that this is bigger than Rove doing a little payback number.

[meganmonkey]

1. See the quote in my sig line

it's from the press conference. I really think there is much more to come.

:shrug:

[tatertop]

7. I think you are right

That sig line says a lot

[meganmonkey]

10. Maybe I should make it clearer that the monkey thing

is not related to the Fitzy quote? ;)

[cassiepriam]

12. Yes!

[tatertop]

15. You mean he's not a monkey who can go anywhere

;)

[meganmonkey]

16. LOL

For the time being I have taken out the monkey thing :blush:

I am giggling madly at the thought there may be others who inadvertently clicked on that link thinking it was something..er...relevant at all to that quote :rofl:

[tatertop]

17. I failed to click on the link while I had the chance

I'll have a go at it tomorrow

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I smell frozen pizza.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. And Peter Parker has a sudden headache.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. Well that is certainly what we'd like to see Fitz do

I'm not talking about Spidey sense, I'm talking what is most likely based on the press conference (which I watched). Sadly Fitz does not strike me as the "cheerfully devious, says one thing and does another to keep the perps off guard" type. Most of those types are high-paid defense attorneys. There's no money in government for people whose entire talent is grabbing the bad guys by the balls and twisting them, unless you go to work for someone like Rove. Fitz is more "by the book" type and if you're gonna take him at his word you need to take what he said on Friday, at his word! I don't like it but I'm not gonna go grasping at straws.

[Botany]

4. Really?

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Really what??

Let's look at the facts about where the investigation is at, please.

I'm not referring to the facts we all know -- I'm talking about how far is the investigation gonna go? Or is the WP gonna be "vindicated" with their "the good thing is, the investigation is almost over" garbage?

I'm all for keeping up the Fitzmas cheer, but I'd like to have some sense of where this is headed before I do any more songs. Right now I can't even bring myself to do the cheerful postmortem I had worked up on Libby. :evilfrown:

Can't we stop speculating for five seconds and use Occam's Razor here?

[Botany]

27. But what about these girls?

I'm all for keeping up the Fitzmas cheer, but I'd like to have some sense of where this is headed before I do any more songs. Right now I can't even bring myself to do the cheerful postmortem I had worked up on Libby.



Can't we stop speculating for five seconds and use Occam's Razor here?

[pacalo]

5. I watched most of the Fitzgerald press conference again today.

I noted that for any questions related to anything outside the 5 charges listed in Libby's indictment, the answer was no comment or noncomittal.

The press conference was strictly in regard to the 5 charges of this indictment. Period.

Fitzgerald is continuing the investigation; he's not talking publically about anything other than what he presented to the public on Friday; we'll have to be patient.

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. He wasn't noncommittal about the justification for war issue :-(

How the hell does he intend to get to the bottom of why if he is willing to overlook the obvious? The answer to me is that Fitz does not see this as a conspiracy case. One or two bad apples = no need to bring in the justification for war or the forgeries to explain motive. Conspiracy = justification for war is at the heart of the issue. If Fitzgerald goes for the former and does not pursue conspiracy, then we have the Bush Guard Docs all over again, a failed investigation that failed to get at the heart of the matter.

[Igel]

6. Fitzgerald was very careful not to say there had been no crime

committed. He was very careful not to say a crime had been committed. Since there was no indictment for the leak itself, that is precisely the most he could say.

He was very cautious in general, but clear that he was firm in his belief that his investigation was to determine if a crime had been committed in the leaking of Plame's name, and unclear as to whether he was sure he had all the information. But he was clear in that he he believed he had most of the information.

From a researcher's perspective, I can say this: It's possible to have reams of data and to believe that your investigation is 97% over. But then there's the analysis: you comb through your data, you organize it into appropriate categories, you ask it questions, and you try to figure out what that last 3% or so of the research is that'll prove--or disprove--your point. And sometimes you realize your investigation isn't over, you were asking the wrong questions, and you get to go back, investigate a lot more, reorganize it all over again, and *then* ask it the right questions.

Until an investigation is over, it's not over. But there's also little point in speculating as to what's not been said, what might be said, or what will be said. Reality's a work in progress; wait for it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. My mother was a researcher, I understand what you are saying.

I would like to point out that Fitz was being scrupulous about the crime of obstruction as well. If obstruction exists, I think Fitz made it VERY clear that the obstruction had successfully obscured the evidence up until present; otherwise he would have charged for the underlying crime AND the obstruction.

The prohem is that the only way to connect this to the war is

(a) to establish the underlying crime and charge one or more footsoldiers and get them to turn on each other. Obstruction does not help them get at the conspiracy to out Plame or the conspiracy to spread knowingly false information about the war (which apparently Fitz isn't comfortable doing; see point b. I just read the quote where he said this and it's unfortaunately quite clear.)

(b) to establish justification for the war as a motive, which Fitz said he is unwilling to do, thus tearing down the ENTIRE FRICKIN' REASON we were so ecstatic about this investigation to begin with.

Remember, anybody who doesn't understand the Niger connection or what it's about does not really understand that there IS stuff to prove -- beyond the fact that "Cheney undermined the CIA in a buraucratic turf battle". If you're not willing to look at what Brewster-Jennings was doing and WHY Plame was outed then there's no point in asserting that "it was a crime to do so, and I can't tell you how much damage it caused or whether or what, I can't be specific." Espionage is not what it once was, as a mortal offense during the Cold War. If Fitz won't discuss even the broad outlines of what Wilson and Plame were up to, even to give people an IDEA of the harm this caused -- consider the fact that Plame's name obviously meant something to the people in the VP's office. Otherwise the fact she was his wife would have been meaningless, as would the fact that she recommended him for the job!!!

On Edit: And there is NOTHING wrong with that. Seriously, there is absolutely no reason why the fact that his wife was a covert CIA agent who was an expert in WMD would be percieved as a liability by the White House unless they were out to damage Plame as well.

[skids]

8. WELCOME TO DU!

:hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. Thanks!!!

I wanted to come up with a Fitzmas skit for Scooter, but this stuff has been gnawing at me. :-)

[Ksec]

9. Its not the crime, its always the coverup that gets you

So lets hope the talking penis, rove gets his .... Until he does I aint happy.

[AnnInLa]

11. Huh?

Just sayin'

Whack?

[Jane Austin]

13. If Fitzgerald still has fish to fry,

why would he telegraph that to you, me or Pat Buchanan?

Hmmmm?

[Ilsa]

14. Have we had a poll on this yet? eom

[TalkingDog]

19. Yep, I think you're right...a poll would clear it right up.

*I don't use emoticons, so you'll have to guess if I'm kidding*

[janx]

18. From Fitzgerald's press conference:

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.


But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. Now, see, that is extremely helpful.

I've read the transcript, although I'm still uneasy about where this is headed. My uneasiness stems from bits like the last sentence you quoted:

"If is true, then is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here."

In other words, that alone would be worth the price of admission.

Could Fitzgerald be bluffing? Maybe the reason he's so successful is that he is just exceptionally po' faced, putting on a Sam Waterston routine when he is in fact more of a drawn-daggers strategist in private.

But his outward persona is certainly honest and sincere and by-the-book, leading me to wonder if he's HONESTLY decided that obstruction is all he can get Scooter for, (and Rove, based on the alleged content of the supposed last minute BS which gave Fitz "pause", all of which related to Rove's state of mind relating to false testimony, and does not challenge the verity of the claim that Rove leaked the name, meaning Fitz held off charging him for the underlying crime... why??)

which leaves ...

what path to the underlying crime of conspiracy to out a cia agent and conspiracy to subvert classified intelligence gathering in order to justify an immoral war?

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. Here's an example of the sort of discussion I was hoping to have

From the Walt Starr "EXCELLENT" expectations game thread, someone posted:

He's behaving the same as he did in the Illinois investigation

Indict, wait. Indict higher, wait a bit more. And so on.

This does several things: it gives time for the people involved to screw up, it gives time for the people involved to crack, turn, flip, or whatever you want to call it, it slowly turns up the heat on the people at the top of the crime tree, AND it makes it much harder for "them" to do anything about it vs. indicting en masse, thus allowing a single day of pardons for the whole lot.

Six or seven pardons in a single day is forgotten more quickly than six or seven spread out over months, and provides less of an indication that there's a concerted effort to "get people off" for the crimes they've done.

On Edit: My whole focus is, based on fhat Fitz said, how does he get from obstruction alone to... well... anywhere? Don't you need another indictee to play off of??

Is Fitz being po' faced when he suggests that indictment on obstruction would, as he said, "serve justice as much as if the initial crime were provable were it not for the obstruction" or words to that affect?

(A sentiment I'd agree with, but it does not jibe with efforts to go any higher unless there's an unindicted co-conspirator, in which case... why obstruction?) Why Libby? Even if Libby's the only guy that would be pardoned, it'd be enough to keep him from flipping and prevent him and Karl Rove from ratting each other out, as a prosecutor would normally seek to do.

For that matter if crimes related to justification for the war (motive) are off the table then conspiracy is off the table, too, unless we're talking conspiracy to deprive Wilson of his civil rights, which... frankly... is not a marquee indictment. This admin routinely deprives people of civil rights, that's what the Repubs LIKE about Bush.

Conspiracy to commit the act of outing Plame however, would be almost impossible to prove if you take motive (lies & forgeries related to the war, why was Brewster Jennings targeted) off the table.

Outing a CIA agent is an INDIVIDUAL crime, it does not require resources beyond the people doing the outing, and Fitz specified that in his opinion Cheney telling Libby the name was not illegal (he didn't seem to qualify this). Beyond the civil rights violation of punishing a whistleblower, something which the Gov't commits EVERY DAY, the conspiracy was in taking the country to WAR. Why Plame? Why Brewster Jennings? Did it have some significance for Cheney that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? If so, what?