Posted by Curt on 4 November, 2005 at 8:11 am. 2 comments already!


Surprise surprise, I guess good ole’ Fitz isn’t so unbiased afterall:

Democrats are lamenting the fact that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wasn’t able to indict Lewis “Scooter” Libby on Leakgate charges a month before last year’s presidential election – a move that Fitzgerald acknowleged was his original plan last Friday.

“I wish the truth had come out one year ago,” said Bob Shrum – campaign manager to presidential loser John Kerry – on MSNBC’s “Hardball” Thursday night. “Because as Patrick Fitzgerald said, he would have indicted in October of 2004, and you wouldn`t have a [second] Bush administration.”

Announcing the Libby indictment on Friday, Fitzgerald made it clear that he wanted to spring his Leakgate October Surprise a year earlier – at the eleventh hour of the 2004 presidential campaign:

“I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, [that] witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005,” he told reporters.

Instead, the top Leakgate prober blamed the New York Times and other media outlets for not cooperating in an expeditious manner, which delayed his investigation beyond the presidential election.

Four days before the 1992 presidential election, a similar scenario played out – when Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh indicted Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the Iran-Contra case.

Before news of Weinberger’s indictment, polls showed that President Bush 41’s reelection campaign had narrowed the gap with challenger Bill Clinton to one point.

But the indictment stopped Bush’s momentum dead in its tracks, and he lost election, 43 to 37 percent.

I’m glad we had such an impartial prosecutor.

The news that the indictments we’re coming a year ago may have been the news Hillary called “something unforeseen”:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is predicting that this year’s presidential election will be very tight and the victor will win because of “something unforeseen.”

“It will be very close,” the former first lady tells the New York Post’s Cindy Adams.

On how the contest will ultimately be decided, Clinton said, “It will be outside forces – something unforeseen that suddenly happens – that tilts the election one way or the other.”

In 1992, Clinton’s husband won the White House after Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted on Iran-Contra charges four days before the vote. Though the indictment was later overturned, the charges were enough to reverse President Bush 41’s last-minute surge in the polls to within one point of Clinton.

In 2000 – again four days before the vote – a Democrat operative in Maine uncovered court records from Bush 43’s then-24-year-old DUI stop. Bush’s 5-point lead in Florida dwindled to a mere 537 votes, with the DUI news making Gore the popular vote winner nationwide.

Now I have no idea about the context of the question that was asked of Fitz and his answer, it could very well have been that Fitz was lamenting the fact the investigation too long and the MSM wants to spin it. Would be hard to believe since the liberal MSM doesn’t usually spin things in favor of Conservatives but you never know. But if this is true, that he wanted to influence the election then he needs to be removed and sanctioned immediately.


Looks like the context of his answer wasn’t so sinister:

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.

I didn’t have a vested interest in litigating it. I was not looking for a First Amendment showdown. I also have to say my job was to find out what happened here, make reasoned judgments about what testimony was necessary, and then pursue it.

And we couldn’t walk away from that. I could have not have told you a year ago that we think that there may be evidence that a crime is being committed here of obstruction, that there may be a crime behind it and we’re just going to walk away from it.

Our job was to find the information responsibly.

We then, when we issued the subpoenas, we thought long and hard before we did that. And I can tell you, there’s a lot of reporters whose reporting and contacts have touched upon this case that we never even talked to.

We didn’t bluff people. And what we decided to do was to make sure before we subpoenaed any reporter that we really needed that testimony.

In addition to that, we scrubbed it thoroughly within ourselves. And we also, when we went to court, we could have taken the position that it’s our decision whether to issued a subpoena, but we made sure that put a detailed, classified, sealed filing before the district court judge, the chief judge — Hogan — in the District of Columbia.

So once again, the MSM is at it again.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x