A Partisan Prosecutor?
As this New York Times story highlights, it seems clear that Patrick Fitzgerald is no longer simply content to prosecute those who may (or may not) have committed crimes.
He has positioned himself as a political enemy of the Bush Administration. Take the quote in the linked story from his filing: "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.' "
Really? Because releasing information that is aimed at correcting deliberate misinformation on the part of Joseph Wilson, as noted here by the Weekly Standard, doesn't seem to me to be an effort to "punish" anyone. No one is releasing evidence of alleged extramarital affairs or alleged gambling debts or alleged drug use or anything else of a "personal" nature, if such evidence existed.
Punishment is what James Carville dished out against Ken Starr.
Simply correcting misinformation and putting out the facts isn't "punishment," unless, of course, the person whose veracity is being challenged is actually and provably a liar.
Update: As the invaluable Investors' Business Daily points out, the irony is pretty thick:
[I]t's deemed first-rate, Pulitzer-worthy journalism when a major newspaper prints classified information that our enemies find useful, but when the commander-in-chief authorizes the release of declassified material to defend his administration's position it is treated as a betrayal of the public trust, if not an impeachable offense.
Read the whole thing.
He has positioned himself as a political enemy of the Bush Administration. Take the quote in the linked story from his filing: "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.' "
Really? Because releasing information that is aimed at correcting deliberate misinformation on the part of Joseph Wilson, as noted here by the Weekly Standard, doesn't seem to me to be an effort to "punish" anyone. No one is releasing evidence of alleged extramarital affairs or alleged gambling debts or alleged drug use or anything else of a "personal" nature, if such evidence existed.
Punishment is what James Carville dished out against Ken Starr.
Simply correcting misinformation and putting out the facts isn't "punishment," unless, of course, the person whose veracity is being challenged is actually and provably a liar.
Update: As the invaluable Investors' Business Daily points out, the irony is pretty thick:
[I]t's deemed first-rate, Pulitzer-worthy journalism when a major newspaper prints classified information that our enemies find useful, but when the commander-in-chief authorizes the release of declassified material to defend his administration's position it is treated as a betrayal of the public trust, if not an impeachable offense.
Read the whole thing.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:03 AM
1 Comments:
See Libby's
Third Motion to Compel Production, where the defense says,
"The defense further intends to demonstrate that Mr. Libby did
not participate in any supposed plot to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking his wife's identity."
Fitz's reply brief is phrased in the same terms as the Motion to Compel, and
isn't properly taken as an accusation that there was a plot to "punish Wilson."
Another statement in
Fitzgerald's answer is, "Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided
to defendant, and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong
desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and
after July 14, 2003."
Post a Comment
<< Home