...watching Sean Hannity and ex Cheney aide Mary Matalan complain about an overzealous prosecutor, assigned to investigate a crime, who then after an expensive 2 yr investigation, brought forth no indictment on that crime, but dragged in the mud and embarrassed the family of someone who has spent his career serving the public for a "mere" charge of lying to a grand jury.
even oreilly had the decency to point out that it is almost exactly what happened to clinton
in case you forgot Starr's assignment was to investigate the Whitewater real estate deal
I guess Sean dozed off during this part of Mr. Fitzgerald's news conference:
QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, the Republicans previewed some talking points in anticipation of your indictment and they said that if you didn't indict on the underlying crimes and you indicted on things exactly like you did indict -- false statements, perjury, obstruction -- these were, quote/unquote, "technicalities," and that it really was over reaching and excessive.
And since, when and if they make those claims, now that you have indicted, you won't respond, I want to give you an opportunity now to respond to that allegation which they may make. It seems like that's the road they're going down.
FITZGERALD: And I don't know who provided those talking points. I assume...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
FITZGERALD: I'm not asking -- OK.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
FITZGERALD: I'll be blunt.
That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter
Columnist Rober Scheer appearing on NPRs Left RIght and Center called attention to this provocative part of Fitzgerald's news conference
QUESTION: In the end, was it worth keeping Judy Miller in jail for 85 days in this case? And can you say how important her testimony was in producing this indictment?
FITZGERALD: Let me just say this: No one wanted to have a dispute with the New York Times or anyone else. We can't talk generally about witnesses. There's much said in the public record.
FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.
in other words the top aide to the VP who also holds the position of senior adviser to the Prez (same rank as NSC head) would have been indicted for perjury a month before the 2004 election !!!!
thanks for nothing Judy Miller !!!
Cover for your source (Libby) who helped you sell the Iraq war until Fitzgerald calls you back in with documentation ( a visitors log to the VPs office) hat you were lying about your contacts with him. Facing the prospect of a long jail term, you "find" an additional notebook with notes about that meeting, check with Libby one more time that it's ok if you flip on him and save your butt. Then tell the prosecutor what you could have told him in August 2004. So much for journalistic principle.
Recent Comments