Very Simple Question: Can We Trust Fitzgerald?

Is he truly independent? I don't have near the background on this many here do, but let me be clear, I believe rove should be indicted and prosecuted, and I believe he is beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty. I wonder where my fellow DUers stand on this. As for me, my vote is YES!

With the Libby case he's been a hard charger, but once the Rove thing started it's been like watching paint peel.

I smell a cover up

I'm sure the same guys who found a way to say that the President doesn't have to obey US laws could find a way to stymie and silence Fitz - especially now that Comey's gone.

indite rove. The judge is ambitious.

They're one step ahead and probably have enough dirt to shut him up.

Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

and how he lied. Like Clinton, but about far, far weightier things.....

Share your agenda or my agenda? Umm, no. Be analytically focused on the process of wringing the truth out of anything even remotely resembling evidence? I think so. Can you trust a bulldog to be a finely adapted but ultimately brute force of nature when occasion demands it? That's Fitzgerald, IMO. He's a machine. An exceedingly efficient one.

This isn't a judgement on his effectiveness as a lawyer or on him as a person, but people who thought a lawyer from the Dept. of Justice would be the one to bring everything down were being way overly optimistic, in my opinion.

I trust no one in the criminal "justice" system.

because of them. i'm not very good at giving or receiving compliments so that's all i'll say. keep up the good word.

Welcome to DU. Your username sounds rasta. Guidancy!

I, will never forgive him. But that's me. I'm not a forgiver when history was begging for justice. If anybody was obviously lying, and could easily be indicted for this, it was Rove. Is there someone who doesn't get the obvious?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640186857,00.html

And Turley, who has represented clients in cases prosecuted by Fitzgerald's office in Chicago, said, "This is not an investigation that seems in character for Fitzgerald."
"His office tends to indict everyone and let God sort them out," Turley said. "And Rove was given so many opportunities to correct his testimony. It seemed like there was a virtual turnstile on the grand jury door. I've never seen Fitzgerald give a witness so much time to work his way out of a criminal charge."

since Rove's lawyer said he was off the hook?

Fitz wants to enforce the law and do it right the first time. I want blood. Your goals may differ somewhere in between. And we all know where the GOP is headed.

I trust him....no evidence not to,IMO

he's a prosecutor without party affiliation. We can hope, but trust? Don't personally know the guy and don't have enough knowledge in law to really know what to think of the man. Some here, however say he is a great prosecutor.

nt

yeah... I have noticed that too.

he's a better chess-player thinker.

I say Fitz is giving Rove enough rope to hang himself.

And that could be after * leaves office so he's unable to pardon Rove along with Libby.

Dragging out process to avoid * pardon is what I foresee.

Fitz WILL nail these scum-bags. . .wait and watch.
:smoke:

TruthOut seem to be doing their utmost to screw Fitzgerald and this whole investigation. Now they even claim Fitzgerald's camp leaked information regarding the Rove indictment. If Bush ever needed an excuse to shut down the investigation, that is it.

...do you have some interest in promoting this position?

Especially not so that some web site can avoid admitting they lied.

>I believe rove should be indicted and prosecuted, and I believe he is beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty.<

Fitzgerald needs a witness at the upcoming Libby trial. That witness will be placed under oath and questioned in open court, most likely for quite some time. It is impossible for Patrick Fitzgerald and his team to get a conviction if they have NO WITNESS. To indict Rove at this point is to impeach him as a witness and render his testimony unavailable. (I don't think we'll ever see Cheney on a witness stand. Ever.) Right now, Rove's guilt or innocence isn't the question. The question is the ability to even try Libby on the narrowly drawn charges filed against him -- and those charges are narrowly drawn for a damn good reason, too. If he can't even try Libby, his efforts in other areas of this case are for naught.

Please go to www.firedoglake.com and read their archives on the CIA leak case, or read our own H2OMan's writings.

Those who keep insisting that we "can't trust" Patrick Fitzgerald can't see the forest for the trees. Would you like to be in his shoes right now? He's insisted repeatedly that he is not a partisan, and his actions prove this to be true. It's ignored. He's been working two full-time jobs for the past two years, along with five other attorneys who are also working two full-time jobs. Starr's group was exponentially larger and took SEVEN YEARS to find a stained blue dress, but nobody complained about that! I'm sure he wants this more than anyone else here would.

It was reported in the Chicago papers that when Patrick Fitzgerald talked to his staff a couple of years ago about taking on the CIA leak case, he said that they were "screwed" no matter what happened. Right now, he's looking like a psychic.

Julie

I'd not heard this. Do you have a link?

and get back to you with it.

Julie
still president for life of the PFEB

I was wrong about where the information was first reported. I'm not sure if this was in any of the Chicago papers, because I (unfortunately) don't have time to read probably several hundred articles to find it again.

Hat tip to the gorgeous and talented Cat_Girl for helping me find the following, though, and I liked the blogger's description of the event. We're also treated to Patrick Fitzgerald's sly sense of humor :loveya:

Julie

>http://www.brendanloy.com/2005/11/quotes-of-day.html
Posted by Brendan Loy on Sunday, November 6, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Today at the Chicago Athletic Association building, during our Federal Criminal Practice forum featuring special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, rainwater started dripping into the room through a crack in the ceiling. When one of the other panelists pointed it out, Fitzgerald quipped, “I’m in charge of leaks.” Heh.

Later, in response to a question from fellow 2L David Mathues regarding how he handles being potentially criticized by both sides regarding his investigation — caught between a political rock and a hard place, as it were — Fitzgerald said that at the very beginning of the investigation, he told his staff (close paraphrase): “We’re going to be damned if we do anything, damned if we don’t do anything, and probably damned by both sides if we do some combination of the two. We’re screwed.” :)<

Julie

I will never abandon my support for him.

If he's not trustworthy, what was with the 8 month time difference between the Libby indictment, and the supposed Rove non-indictment.

Did he just wait 8 months so DU types would think he really really tried?

I doubt it.

He could have just as easily stopped looking at Rove back in October.

The fact he went to a second grand jury proves to me he was just following the facts as he saw them.

He has given no reason not to. We all wanted a Rove indictment, because we did not get one, for reasons not known to us, all of a sudden, his credibility is questioned? Sorry, I don't walk away that easily. Fitz does not do his job according to our instructions.

He ANNIHILATED the republican party in Illinois with his corruption investigations and prosecutions.
The Professor

Not low level operatives. The gov and his chief of staff. Them's some pretty big fish!
The Professor

For what?

"and I believe he is beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Of what?

I am certainly no fan of Karl Rove, but there are things called statutes. What statute are you indicting him under and what evidence do you have that he violated said statute?

Are you sure? :eyes:

Born and raised to a politically active Democratic family.
My mom won a landmark West Virginia civil rights case in order to run for office.
Worked on my first campaign at five.
Attended my first campaign strategy meeting at six.
Knocked on more doors for more candidates than any 9-year-old should.
Campaigned for Clinton in WV and NJ.
Jay Rockefeller would recognize me if he saw me in the grocery store (assuming Jay Rockefeller goes to grocery stores).
Could have had a job on Robert Byrd's staff but chose real employment over idealism at age 28.

The question was that if the guy could not be indicted because insufficient proof existed to convince a grand jury, exactly what reason would Fitzgerald have to put him in jail?

The question is straightforward, and simple. Questioning Boss's dem credentials neither answers the question nor adds to the discussion.

You know better than that!
The Professor

Just so you know, I only asked that question judging by his other posts and not just this one in particular.

I said from the beginning it would give me great pleasure to see Karl Rove indicted, just because I think he is an ass hat.

I don't want him to be indicted just for the sake of being indicted though. If he broke the law and a prosecutor can prove that he did, go for it. If not, I can live without him being indicted.

Frankly, this site has turned Rove into a combination of Machiavelli, Dracula, and Merlin. He's not all powerful. I don't think he's particularly good at his job in fact. He's not THAT important in the big scheme of things.

My guess is that either Gonzales shut him down (very likely) or that there was simply not enough evidence (also very likely.)

Do you read DU?

but he will do a thorough job. His past results speak for themselves.

Seems like two different questions to me.

Kinda like: "Are you honest?" and "Are the people you work for honest?". Now, if the people you work for are TOO dishonest, it falls upon you to resign. But, in the real world, there's usually a HELL of a lot more that goes into that kind of decision.

connect the dots

If you mean Peter Fitzgerald, i think you have forgotten your recent history.
The Professor

I mean, Ramsey Yousef and his gang threatened to bomb his car with him in it. The Mob and the Chicago political machine threatened him indirectly, but with no less finality. Yet, he got his indictments, his trials and his convictions. It's a little hard for me to see how the Bush Administration is gonna put more pressure on him than a death threat by car bomb.

Tells me all I need to know about his trustworthiness. Well that and the fact that he ignored the evidence and let Roves treason go unpunished and rewarded/

But he is pretty cute. :)

getting even bigger fish.

That's good enough for me.