Will Pat Fitzgerald be asked to testify before Congress

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

[Pakuni]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

Fun? Not for the members of Congress. Counterproductive. Embarrassing. Humiliating, perhaps. But not fun.
Going after a highly respected federal prosecutor who has put terrorists, mafiosos and corrupt polticians of both parties behind bars is not likely to endear the fine (cough, cough) senators to their electorate.

[tower912]

One can only hope they ask him to testify.   Maybe the president will tell him not to.

[spiral97]

One can only hope they ask him to testify.   Maybe the president will tell him not to.

Well sure.. cuz the justice department is really part of the executive branch and covered by executive privilege.. except where the national archives are concerned in which case he's really covered by somehow being a member of the legislative branch. 

[ilovefreeway]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

Why should he be?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

Why should he be?

Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One can only hope they ask him to testify.   Maybe the president will tell him not to.

Well sure.. cuz the justice department is really part of the executive branch and covered by executive privilege.. except where the national archives are concerned in which case he's really covered by somehow being a member of the legislative branch. 

Who's the President of the Senate?

[spiral97]

One can only hope they ask him to testify.   Maybe the president will tell him not to.

Well sure.. cuz the justice department is really part of the executive branch and covered by executive privilege.. except where the national archives are concerned in which case he's really covered by somehow being a member of the legislative branch. 

Who's the President of the Senate?

Currently it depends on who you ask, when you ask them, what the immediate implications are for them if they answer in a particular way, and how much grease they have on them in case they get cornered into doing something they don't want feel like doing.

[Pakuni]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

Why should he be?

Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.

1. The guy that "leaked" the information hasn't been "brought to justice" because Fitzgerald determined that he had not committed a crime, or that he could not prove he had committed a crime. Isn't this what you guys have been saying all along? Now you want a guy "brought to justice" for something you don't believe is a crime? Hmmm.

2. As you well know, Scooter wasn't convicted and sentenced for leaking, he was convicted and sentenced for lying. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the probe, it's still illegal to lie in order to impede a federal investigation. The fact Fitzgerald ultimately opted not to bring charges regarding a leak doesn't justify Libby's lies.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One can only hope they ask him to testify.   Maybe the president will tell him not to.

Well sure.. cuz the justice department is really part of the executive branch and covered by executive privilege.. except where the national archives are concerned in which case he's really covered by somehow being a member of the legislative branch. 

Who's the President of the Senate?

Currently it depends on who you ask, when you ask them, what the immediate implications are for them if they answer in a particular way, and how much grease they have on them in case they get cornered into doing something they don't want feel like doing.

Let me rephrase the question....according to the United States Constitution, who is the President of the Senate.

[ilovefreeway]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

Why should he be?

Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.

What do you want him to tell Congress?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

Why should he be?

Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.

1. The guy that "leaked" the information hasn't been "brought to justice" because Fitzgerald determined that he had not committed a crime, or that he could not prove he had committed a crime. Isn't this what you guys have been saying all along? Now you want a guy "brought to justice" for something you don't believe is a crime? Hmmm.

2. As you well know, Scooter wasn't convicted and sentenced for leaking, he was convicted and sentenced for lying. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the probe, it's still illegal to lie in order to impede a federal investigation. The fact Fitzgerald ultimately opted not to bring charges regarding a leak doesn't justify Libby's lies.

That is partially correct...you can't be guilty of a crime of outing a "covert" agent if they aren't "covert" according to the statute.  But hey, Fitzfong got a scalp.   I just find it interesting how virtually no one goes after Armitage, the actual leaker, and we all know why that's the case.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here's what I was taught at MU and at the University of Kansas in graduate school (Political Science)....this was part of one of my text books.

Now people may not like what the Constituion says but the Vice Presidency is different then the Presidency.  Perhaps because this VP has a more active role then any VP perhaps ever is this causing people  concerns, but the way the US Constitution reads and the role defined by the government, the VP's office is neither part of the Executive or the Legislature.

-----------------

APPENDIX NO. 5
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part
of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs
functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive
branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title
3 of the United States Code).

The annual legislative branch appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–83) and the
annual transportation-treasury appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–199) provide funds
for the Vice President to hire employees to assist him in carrying out his legislative and executive
functions. Executive branch employees also may be assigned or detailed to the Vice President (see
3 U.S.C. 112) and the Vice President may employ consultants (see 3 U.S.C. 106(a)). The Office of
the Vice President (OVP) consists of the aggregation of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is
disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the Vice President’s legislative appropriation, Vice Presidential
employees employed with the Vice President’s executive appropriation, employees assigned or
detailed to the Vice President, and consultants engaged by the Vice President.

The numbers, titles and salaries of OVP personnel change with some frequency. The salaries
of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the
Vice President’s legislative appropriation cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 2 U.S.C.
60a–1). The salaries of Vice Presidential employees whose salary comes from the Vice President’s
executive appropriation also cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 3 U.S.C. 106). The authority
to appoint, administratively determine the pay of, and discharge Vice Presidential employees rests
with the Vice President.

The current duty station of all OVP positions is Washington, DC.

[Pakuni]

That is partially correct...you can't be guilty of a crime of outing a "covert" agent if they aren't "covert" according to the statute.  But hey, Fitzfong got a scalp.   I just find it interesting how virtually no one goes after Armitage, the actual leaker, and we all know why that's the case.

Why is it an outrageous, impeachable offense to lie to federal investigators about a sexual encounter with an intern, yet the prosecution of someone who lied during a far more serious inquiry is worthy of derision (i.e. "Fitzong got a scalp")?
Is perjury and obstructing justice OK in some instances, criminal in others?

Don't you realize how ridiculously hypocritical and partisan your arguments are in this matter?
Again, I must ask, where's the consistency in your arguments?

[ilovefreeway]

Oh, I hope so.  This is going to be fun


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862853/posts

Why should he be?

Oh, I don't know....perhaps because the guy that actually LEAKED the information has yet to be brought to justice while someone else that didn't leak the information was sentenced to prison.

1. The guy that "leaked" the information hasn't been "brought to justice" because Fitzgerald determined that he had not committed a crime, or that he could not prove he had committed a crime. Isn't this what you guys have been saying all along? Now you want a guy "brought to justice" for something you don't believe is a crime? Hmmm.

2. As you well know, Scooter wasn't convicted and sentenced for leaking, he was convicted and sentenced for lying. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the probe, it's still illegal to lie in order to impede a federal investigation. The fact Fitzgerald ultimately opted not to bring charges regarding a leak doesn't justify Libby's lies.

That is partially correct...you can't be guilty of a crime of outing a "covert" agent if they aren't "covert" according to the statute.  But hey, Fitzfong got a scalp.   I just find it interesting how virtually no one goes after Armitage, the actual leaker, and we all know why that's the case.

Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?

[ChicosBailBonds]

That is partially correct...you can't be guilty of a crime of outing a "covert" agent if they aren't "covert" according to the statute.  But hey, Fitzfong got a scalp.   I just find it interesting how virtually no one goes after Armitage, the actual leaker, and we all know why that's the case.

Why is it an outrageous, impeachable offense to lie to federal investigators about a sexual encounter with an intern, yet the prosecution of someone who lied during a far more serious inquiry is worthy of derision (i.e. "Fitzong got a scalp")?
Is perjury and obstructing justice OK in some instances, criminal in others?

Don't you realize how ridiculously hypocritical and partisan your arguments are in this matter?
Again, I must ask, where's the consistency in your arguments?

I'm not sure 100% he lied, but the jury did so it's their call....simply a matter of believing if he did or not.  The jury said he did, so I guess he did.  I know for certain 100%, however, that Clinton lied because there is a stain on a blue dress to prove it.   

Both cases were political in nature.  One is undeniably true because of physical evidence, the other might be true.


I think I'll start a website called moveon so we can get by it all.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?

That's what I want Fitzmas to answer.  Personally, I believe because he was part of the "anti-administration"...he becomes unimpeachable at that point.  Just my two cents, but I believe Powell and Armitage have permanent Get Out Of Jail Cards with this Congress and with Fitzfong.

I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage.  I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he?  Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?

[Pakuni]

I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage.  I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he?  Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?

Couple points ...

1. Outing an agent can be against the law, and part of Fitzgerald's orders (note: he was ordered to do this, it wasn't his idea) was to determine who said what when and whether it violated the law. Obviously he determined at the end of the probe that Armitage's actions did not amount to criminal conduct. It seems you and he agree, which is why I can't figure out why you're arguing for the prosecution of a man you believe to be innocent.

2. How did it get to this point? Here's the letter appointing Fitzgerald. Perhaps you could find for me that part that reads "Identify who talked to Bob Novak and stop there."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_december_30_2003.pdf

Of course, it doesn't say that. But just to clarify matters, Comey sent Fitzgerald a second letter further detailing his orders.
The key phrase:

"includes the 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://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

As you can see, Fitzgerald was acting fully within the express orders of his superiors. Nowhere in either communication does it state that the investigation was solely about Bob Novak's source, nor does it state the investigation can pursue only that person.

It's funny ... the Bush Administration, and particularly Ashcroft (who I believe is as straight shooter), chose Fitzgerald for this assignment because of his reputation and record as a non-partisan, apolitical prosecutor. And then, the instant he comes up with results they don't like, the right is trying to make him out to be some kind of political hack. Their mistake, it seems, was appointing someone who wouldn't bow to their wishes.

[ilovefreeway]

Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?

That's what I want Fitzmas to answer.  Personally, I believe because he was part of the "anti-administration"...he becomes unimpeachable at that point.  Just my two cents, but I believe Powell and Armitage have permanent Get Out Of Jail Cards with this Congress and with Fitzfong.

I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage.  I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he?  Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?

First, why do you think that Fitz is in on some great left conspiracy?  He has a history of being blind to party in his prosecutions in the past, he had a republican congressional sponsor, he was appointed by GWB and confirmed by a GOP congress  Second, if the answer is "there was not enough evidence" (and remember, by law a confession by itself is never enough to get past reasonable doubt), will that be enough for you?

[tower912]

So, Darth Cheneyous is not technically a part of the executive branch, but frequently invokes executive privilege.    Got it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, Darth Cheneyous is not technically a part of the executive branch, but frequently invokes executive privilege.    Got it.

That's the conundrum isn't.  I simply put the text book definition there for you.

Now, about Brown v Board being overturned....where exactly was that again Tower?  As you claimed the other day   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?

That's what I want Fitzmas to answer.  Personally, I believe because he was part of the "anti-administration"...he becomes unimpeachable at that point.  Just my two cents, but I believe Powell and Armitage have permanent Get Out Of Jail Cards with this Congress and with Fitzfong.

I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage.  I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he?  Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?

First, why do you think that Fitz is in on some great left conspiracy?  He has a history of being blind to party in his prosecutions in the past, he had a republican congressional sponsor, he was appointed by GWB and confirmed by a GOP congress  Second, if the answer is "there was not enough evidence" (and remember, by law a confession by itself is never enough to get past reasonable doubt), will that be enough for you?

Actually, I don't think he's part of a left leaning conspiracy....I think he had no case and to justify spending millions he had to get a scalp.  I find it very similar to the crap in the 1990's quite frankly...Whitewater basically yielded nothing so a bunch others went down.  Personally, I'd do away with the Independent Counsel statute completely.  I believe early on the case was going nowhere and that's when he asked for broader authority and got it so he coud fish more.

Now, on Armitage...yes, I do believe he was the leaker (he says so as do those that he leaked to...to me that is more than enough evidence...both sides of the conversation) yet he chose not to go down that path.  I find that interesting and would love for him to answer why he didn't.  It would clear up a good many things in my mind.

[ilovefreeway]

Enlighten me, why did Fitzfong, as you call him, not go after Armitage?

That's what I want Fitzmas to answer.  Personally, I believe because he was part of the "anti-administration"...he becomes unimpeachable at that point.  Just my two cents, but I believe Powell and Armitage have permanent Get Out Of Jail Cards with this Congress and with Fitzfong.

I would love to hear his reasoning for not going after Armitage.  I mean, if Fitz believes that outting an agent is against the law and Armitage admitted he did so (he ADMITTED IT), then he should have the evidence to go after him. Why didn't he?  Or, if Fitz believes there never was a crime to begin with (which is my belief), then how did it ever get to this point at all?

First, why do you think that Fitz is in on some great left conspiracy?  He has a history of being blind to party in his prosecutions in the past, he had a republican congressional sponsor, he was appointed by GWB and confirmed by a GOP congress  Second, if the answer is "there was not enough evidence" (and remember, by law a confession by itself is never enough to get past reasonable doubt), will that be enough for you?

Actually, I don't think he's part of a left leaning conspiracy....I think he had no case and to justify spending millions he had to get a scalp.  I find it very similar to the crap in the 1990's quite frankly...Whitewater basically yielded nothing so a bunch others went down.  Personally, I'd do away with the Independent Counsel statute completely.  I believe early on the case was going nowhere and that's when he asked for broader authority and got it so he coud fish more.

Now, on Armitage...yes, I do believe he was the leaker (he says so as do those that he leaked to...to me that is more than enough evidence...both sides of the conversation) yet he chose not to go down that path.  I find that interesting and would love for him to answer why he didn't.  It would clear up a good many things in my mind.

1) why does he need a scalp?  Who does he have to justify this prosecution to?  PF gained no friends in doing this.  His backing was all GOP before this and he never, in my knowledge, had any friends on the left or the "anti-administration".   

2) What people say while not under oath can be danced around pretty easily.  All it takes is for one witness to claim they were for whatever reason lying or even just embellishing or for one to take the 5th and your case comes falling apart before your very eyes.  (And let me tell you from experience, when you have 12 jurors in the box and your star witness answers your first question with "on the recommendation of my attorney, I'm going to evoke my rights under the 5th amendment" things go downhill quickly.  After you remove the poop from your pants and get over the urge to walk to the witness stand and place your hands tightly around the witnesses throat, you apologize to the judge and walk out of the court room with your tail between your legs.)  Without some guaranties of testimony, going forward on a case with nothing but statements is a very risky proposition. 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

freeway, are you a prosecutor?  You've never told us that before.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

The public demands a scalp...the public won't stand for $30 million spent and nothing to show for it.  Don't you recall the near salivation from the left when Nation magazine said Rove would be indicted (which he wasn't)...they were on DEFCON 1 when that was going down.  Same with the Republicans and Ken Starr...you have to have a scalp.  Just the political reality of it in my opinion.

And yes, when the 5th Amendment is uttered it usually doesn't look good ...like someone has something to hide...I don't disagree with you at all.