Have you ever wondered why the Karl Rove attack machine that so wonderfully tore Gore and Kerry to shreds has never, ever bothered to attack Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald? If the Republicans had any reason whatsoever to fear Fitzgerald, particularly before the 2004 elections, wouldn't they have gone after him the way they went after Valerie Plame and her husband Wilson? Why was there no attempt whatsoever to "Swift Boat" Patrick J. Fitzgerald?
Is Patrick J. Fitzgerald a rare model of probity or a simply a common example of secrecy and loyalty among the Bush Administration's trusted players, a product of an Administration where team players are bound by intense loyalty? Looking at this in retrospect isn't it most likely that Rove never attacked Fitzgerald and never encouraged other Republicans and conservative groups to "Swift Boat" Fitzgerald because, unlike Wilson and Plame, Fitzgerald was a member of the team? The Republicans "Swift Boat" opponents, but Fitzgerald never was and never would be an opponent.
The fact is, the Republican re-election machine knew BEFORE the 2004 election that there was no reason whatsoever to attack Fitzgerald, because he could be relied upon to NOT leak, share, report or shed light upon any fact that would put the Bush Administration in a bad light. In terms of keeping his mouth shut and his briefcase locked to public inspection, Fitzgerald has as reliable as any member of the Bush Administration. In fact, his determination to have absolutely impervious grand jury proceedings is rivaled only by Dick Cheney's determination to have absolute secrecy.
Without knowing the details at this point, yet I say with absolutely certainly based on strong circumstantial evidence, logic and, yes, hindsight that Fitzgerald never posed any threat to the Republicans and the Republicans knew it explicitly. They knew it with absolute certainty. Otherwise, we know exactly what they would have done to Fitzgerald's reputation before he could release any damaging information. When they didn't attack him, we should have known the process was rigged, rigged from the beginning.
The above is based entirely on logic, reason and strong circumstantial evidence. Instead of waiting for the New York Times to publish confirmation of what I've said here, I think it's quite reasonable for Americans to draw inferences from the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Conspiracies are notoriously hard to prove, since the guilty parties are often unwilling to confess and it is the agreement itself that constitutes the crime. Circumstantial evidence is often the only available evidence of a conspiracy, but it is often sufficient.
To convict a defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, the government must prove a conspiracy existed, that defendant knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy, and that defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the conspiracy. United States v. Savaiano, 843 F.2d 1280, 1294 (10th Cir. 1988). Participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from a defendant's actions. [ http://www.kscourts.org/... ]
Although the assertions I make here have not yet been published in the New York Times or in a publicly available federal record, yet the type of circumstantial evidence I present would be admissible and probative in Federal Court.
I am suggesting that the Republican's diversion from their usual habit of attacking accusers is evidence of collusion. In the Federal Courts, at least, under Rule 406 "Habit; Routine Practice",
Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/... ]
In other words, evidence of how a person or organization usually behaves is perfectly good proof to show how they actually behaved on a given occasion, and why. Evidence of how they USUALLY behave under certain specific circumstances must logically also be useful to determine whether they perceived those circumstances to be present. We know that the Republicans attack anyone and everyone perceived as a threat. Logically, anyone they perceive as a BIG threat will be attacked mercilessly while those who are not attacked at all must not be perceived as a threat at all.
If readers consider the definition that Federal courts use for "relevant evidence", it might free readers to take the blinder off, even before the NTY announces that there was collusion between the Republicans and Fitzgerald.
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/... ]
The fact that the Republicans never attacked Fitzgerald is "relevant evidence" of a conspiratorial relationship between them.
I have said nothing knew here factually. I made an argument to draw new conclusions from what is already common knowledge. Some of you may want to wait until a conspiracy is announced in the NYT before you believe it exists. But let's not allow our heads to be bound in the gauze of journalistic standards, waiting for the guilty to confess so that reporters can dutifully report their confessions. We need not wait for those who are guilty and complicit to confess so that what is logical and rational can finally also be considered "true". Fitzgerald was never a threat to the Republicans and somehow, somehow, they knew it with absolute certainty.
In spite of the hopes and dreams of many DailyKos contributers, it was just as likely that Santa Claus was coming as it was that Fitzmas was coming.
When I made these assertions a couple of days ago in a DK diary [ http://www.dailykos.com/... ], the response was almost entirely negative, but one commenter said,
Oddly, I think this is one of the better threads (1+ / 0-)
Sure, it needs to be rewritten but it's important: One way or the other, the administration wanted Fitzgerald to continue. They knew, more or less, what was going to happen and even if Fitzgerald wasn't on their team, he was very helpful. [ http://www.dailykos.com/... ]
Another commenter said,
diarist hits a nerve (0 / 0)
Otherwise so many duped pigeons wouldn't be trying to crap on his head.
Like I've said many times, Fitz was and is a Republican, appointed by a Republican. I don't give a rat's ass if he's a "registered Independent" (seems like an oxymoron to me).
He's a Repug, pure and simple. That's why he got the job.
So many naive people here [at DK] thought a Repub would take down a Repub president. So many were disappointed, especially after all the breathless O'Connell/Schuster/Tweety hype about multiple indictments. And it's safe to say that more than a little hero-worshipping seemed to be involved.
Fitz fizzled. That was the plan. He's a bag man for the same mob that put him there.
Fitz is a fixer, pure and simple. Get over it [you Fitz admirers at DailyKos] and get over yourselves. The diarist is right, albeit badly in need of some basic composition courses. [ http://www.dailykos.com/...
In a poll of DailyKos readers who read my diary of yesterday, I asked if Fitzgerald was an "integral part of the problem". Forty-eight percent of readers agreed that Fitzgerald was "a part of the problem" and not a part of the solution.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. In this case, my opinion, as published in my diary of a couple of days ago and added to today, is based on all of the facts. It is also the most logical interpretation of the facts that we have today. Other interpretations of the facts leave you scratching your head and wondering why the Republicans and Fitzgerald have behaved and continue to behave as they do. But when you finally accept that Fitzgerald has always been a member of the Bush team, then everything else false neatly into place. As I said in the previous diary, [
http://www.dailykos.com/... ] the most logical, obvious and comprehensive interpretation of a set of facts is usually the right one.
Waiting patiently for the end of this "investigation" is like waiting for a decision from the National Labor Relations Board. Although you might eventually get a "favorable" decision, the waiting itself will have made the whole case moot and nothing that will be decided will make up for the advantages that have been lost. Some commentators have argued that the Board itself (like the Fitzgerald investigation) was really established for the purpose of forestalling other tactics like strikes (or voting in the Fitzgerald case) that would have been much more effective if employed immediately.
Unfortunately, DailyKos has unwittingly been complicit in this snow job by buying in and encouraging America to wait, like Bush has requested, "until the investigation is complete".
To my detractors I say this: If you stop minutely examining the bark on each Ftizmas tree, you might realize how completely you have been led into the forest. Don't be so credulous and get ready for even more shocking surprises. If the Administration has pulled the wool over your eyes with the Fitzgerald investigation, they're going to throw the whole fleeced sheep at us in the November elections of 2006 and 2008.