Skip to main content

View Diary: NRO writer: 'Fitz is apolitical' (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  funny (4.00)
    - why is a prosecutor who probably have evidence that senior Bush administrators committed a crime in 2004 but DIDN"T release this information before the election considered non partisian?

    in other words he let suspected criminials be reelected - sounds pretty partisan to me .. in favor of republicans

    •  I prefer to think (none)
      he 'just' let the reporters' lawyers drag things out.  Delay almost always works in our legal system, and trying to rush things may buy a big hazard that you'll mess up.  Also, it wasn't at all clear that they were going to be re-elected anyway.  

      We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better.

      by david78209 on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 09:47:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or (none)
      he could've announced that his investigation was complete, that there was nothing to pursue and that would be the end of it. He could even do that now, plugging a hole in Chimpy's sinking poll numbers ship.

      But let's say that he did leak information before the 2004 Miscarriage of Sanity. We'd have unsubstantiated rumors--because Fitzgerald couldn't exactly get on TV and confirm them--that members of the BC administration may have participated in a crime. That's all they'd be. Rumors. Rumors that possibly, maybe, would get airtime on the news networks that were dutifully fellating Chimpy; the networks that, instead of pointing out the truth behind the TANG memo, took the opportunity to point and laugh at Rather; the networks that clearly directed their energies to sliming Kerry's service record rather than digging into the facts about Bush's.

      And Fitzgerald was supposed to risk, if not blow up, his own case, for the possibility some leaks would get airplay?

      Come on.

    •  Sounds to me like he was doing his job. (none)
      Which is to investigate the facts until he feels he has a strong case. Sorry, this doesn't fly with me. If he took it out with a half-assed case just to make political points with Dems before the election the Repubs would have buried him.

      This is what apolitical integrity looks like. This is what a good prosecutor does. See Ken Starr for how to go about it the wrong way.

      Sure, we got stuck with the worst. president. ever., but frankly, I find it refreshing to find someone not partisan on either side. If he's a boyscout, they are going to have a hell of a time trying to successfully smear him. The fact he didn't take half his case public before the election is telling and not in the way you infer.

      "As you get older, you get less willing to buy the latest version of reality." Leonard Cohen

      by mentaldebris on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 09:55:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The key word was "most" of the evidence (none)
      Having some evidence doesn't mean you'll make the case for indictments, much less a trial conviction. He needed to line every little rubber ducky in a row to nail everyone.

      For the nonpartisan part - if he had been charged with investigating a case against a Democrat, he would have done the same exact thing. He doesn't care "who" they are; he cares "what" they are: lawbreakers.

      So many indictments, so little time.

      by PatsBard on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 09:57:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Patience, Grasshopper (4.00)
      You suggest that Fitzgerald is partisan for the Republicans because he didn't indict before November 2004.

      It seems to me, rather, that he was trying to build an airtight, unimpeachable case.

      Rock-solid investigations take time. What did he have in 2004? Did he have Miller's notes on Libby? Libby's notes on Cheney? Nope. Can you imagine how high the Republican spin machine would have kicked this thing if he had come out with less-than-airtight indictments?

      One Nov. 2004 scenario: Indict little fish with reasonably solid evidence. And/Or indict bigger fish with skimpy evidence.

      One possible October 2005 scenario: Indict little fish, big fish, and VERY big fish based on rock-solid evidence, and have a strong possibility of convicting them, while simultaneously pre-empting the Republican spin machine.

      Which scenario would you prefer?

      We don't know that the October 2005 scenario is going to play out as I've outlined, but because of Fitzgerald's patience and tenacity, it has become a very real possibility.

    •  In The Face Of Strong Evidence (none)
      to the contrary -- namely the Clinton circus -- I still believe that most prosecutors are just very, very careful with their work.  I only know a few, tangentially through a brother who is a county detective (poker games), but the ones I know are excruciatingly anal!  

      But you know what?  These guys put bad people in jail.  For a living.

      Yes, yes... I know that the sum of all anecdotes is not data.  BUT... maybe this guy is just one of those "anal retentive" types that checks all of his "i's" for dots and that all of his "t's" are crossed.  

      I hope so.  

      A water-tight case next __ (fill in the blank... week, month, year) beats a sloppy one today.

      The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair

      by PJBurke on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 10:34:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's making a list (none)
        Checking it twice;

        No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. – Winston Churchill

        by subtropolis on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 10:39:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a defense lawyer.... (4.00)
        ....I pull threads for a living.  Loose threads, properly pulled, can unravel a strong case.  Lazy prosecutors leave loose threads. I don't get the impression Fitz is a lazy prosecutor.  All good things in the fullness of time, my friends.

        "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H. L. Mencken

        by roxtar on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:35:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Chalk it up to due diligence. (none)
      He didn't have the tee's crossed and the eye's dotted back then.  Give him credit for being thorough and doing his job like a goddam professional.

      With a nod toward Mark Twain, he stands out in a crowd, like an honest man in Congress.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site