Originally Posted By gadzuux >> And Chuck of course, is the same guy who's been trying to deny the existence of the Second Amendment for years. << I'm hoping he runs for president.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But there certainly was an awful lot of wishful thinking...<< True. And there was a lot of nasty things said about Fitzgerald by a few Rove supporters. But now they think he;s fair and balanced. LOL!
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon Actually, I don't think Fitzgerald has been "fair and balanced" because making Rove twist in the wind this long, and coming up with one piddling indictment in 2.5 years reveals much about how much of a giant waste this "investigation" has been. Ken Starr at least after a comparable length of time got some serious indictments...and convictions for that matter (Jim Guy Tucker, Webb Hubbell).
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon "I'm hoping he runs for president." So am I, because then that means another GOP landslide.
Originally Posted By woody >>Ken Starr at least after a comparable length of time got some serious indictments...and convictions for that matter (Jim Guy Tucker, Webb Hubbell).<< And Hillary did a super job of destroying the evidence!!!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And there was a lot of nasty things said about Fitzgerald by a few Rove supporters.> I don't remember too many nasty things said about Mr Fitzgerald. Certainly he wasn't demonized by the right the way Mr Starr was demonized by the left.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon Keith ("Don't Quit Your Day Job") Olbermann was evidently too distraught to address the story of Rove not being indicted last night, since he chose not to be on his own program.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Did you say Plame was outed Dabob? Did you say Rove was in Trouble and the ivestigation was not over, over and over and over again?> I said she was outed by someone, as obviously she was. And the Rove investigation WASN'T over till yesterday, now was it? And the Libby one is still on. Sorry to have been right, Beau.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I don't remember too many nasty things said about Mr Fitzgerald. Certainly he wasn't demonized by the right the way Mr Starr was demonized by the left.> Fitzgerald didn't give anyone reason to demonize him. He kept the investigation focused, didn't "accidently" let leaks happen from his own team, and didn't let investigation on one matter morph into half a dozen others until he finally found a sex scandal he could actually play "gotcha" with.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon That this investigation can't produce results after 2.5 years, and even isn't related to the issue of "outing" Valerie Plame any longer shows how its had not much of a focus. The Libby indictment in fact reminds me of the expression, "You could even get a ham sandwich indicted" but the substance of what's at risk shows that a ham sandwich is all Fitzgerald is coming up with in an investigation that never should have been. By contrast, Ken Starr revealed that Bill Clinton's handpicked heir as governor of Arkansas was a crook, that his close crony given a top job in the Justice Department that he wasn't qualified for was a crook, and that Bill was guilty of perjury and attempted to abuse the power of his office. Bigger resume of results than even Lawrence Walsh came up with, let alone Patrick Fitzgerald.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Fitzgerald didn't give anyone reason to demonize him.> Neither did Starr. Considering we still don't know if anyone actually broke a law by "outing" Ms Plame, I'd say Mr Fitzgerald didn't keep the investigation focused. And the reason Mr Starr investigated a sex scandal is because he was ordered to by the Attorney General.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Considering Bush's association with the likes of Ken Lay, you think Fitzgerald might have come up with some crooks and cronies if he'd let his investigation range as wide as Starr did? Of course it wouldn't mean that Bush himself was dirty, any more than the fact that the next gov. of Arkansas meant Clinton was (that would be guilt by association). Fitzgerald, admirably, kept his focus on the investigation he was charged to investigate.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon I mentioned Jim Guy Tucker and Webb Hubbell to point out that substantively, Ken Starr came up with results that Fitzgerald has not. And people have had a tendency to accuse Starr of never having come up with anything, but the fact is, his indictments and convictions were far more relevant than the fishing expedition Lawrence Walsh went on with his shameful indictment of Cap Weinberger in a blatant attempt to influence the results of the 1992 election.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Considering Bush's association with the likes of Ken Lay, you think Fitzgerald might have come up with some crooks and cronies if he'd let his investigation range as wide as Starr did?> No. Ken Lay was a political acquaintance of President Bush. Those found guilty during Mr Starr's investigation were close friends and associates of President Clinton's.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Fitzgerald may (or may not) have been given a case where no law was broken. If that's the case, it's not his fault if he comes back with nothing. In fact, it would speak well of him if he accepted that, and didn't go fishing for something else, like some. Of course, he has accused Libby of perjuring himself.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Those found guilty during Mr Starr's investigation were close friends and associates of President Clinton's.> And "Kenny Boy" Lay, the single largest contributor to Bush's campaign, wasn't?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Fitzgerald may (or may not) have been given a case where no law was broken. If that's the case, it's not his fault if he comes back with nothing.> No, it's just his fault that it took him 2 and 1/2 years to do it, and it's his fault he made reckless statements in an indictment and at a press conference about it. <Of course, he has accused Libby of perjuring himself.> And might not have enough evidence to convict. <And "Kenny Boy" Lay, the single largest contributor to Bush's campaign, wasn't?> No, he wasn't. I thought my earlier post made clear that fact.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Fitzgerald may (or may not) have been given a case where no law was broken. If that's the case, it's not his fault if he comes back with nothing.>> <No, it's just his fault that it took him 2 and 1/2 years to do it, and it's his fault he made reckless statements in an indictment and at a press conference about it.> He was actually quite measured in his responses. Why did it take 2 1/2 years? I think more likely some combination of thoroughness and difficulty in getting testimony form various sources. Or do you think he's got a vendetta or something, because few people have said that about him, even hardcore conservatives. <<Of course, he has accused Libby of perjuring himself.>> <And might not have enough evidence to convict.> And he might. <<And "Kenny Boy" Lay, the single largest contributor to Bush's campaign, wasn't?>> <No, he wasn't. I thought my earlier post made clear that fact.> Maybe in your mind only.
