Prediction: Upcoming smear campain against Patrick Fitzgerald

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Update: Yesterday Hannity already questioning the motives of the prosecuter. Also referred to his friend the deputy attorney general as a "crony". Trying tactic to trivialize the possible upcoming indictments as just "purjury" which isn't important, ala Martha Stewart.

Stories coming out today say Cheney may be implicated. If that happens the smear will be nu-cu-ler!

Why are you listening to Sean Hannity?

Or could it be that you are one of these "lovers of right-wing media" you mention in your topic summary?

Just listening to the RWM so I can follow my prediction. Also trying to point out that these guys are fountains for Rebublican talking points. Don't know why so many people take them seriously.

The only ones that seem to be taking Hannity seriously are the left. Assuming the right marches in lock-step with Hannity is about as dumb as accusing the left marching in lock-step with Moore or Huffington.

 

[racebannon]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I think Fitzgerald is a saint compared to Starr.

You planning on revising your testimony next week?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: racebannon
You planning on revising your testimony next week?

Nah, I can always change it. I'm not under oath :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Jhhnn]

Strange that I'd largely agree with Pabster-

" I think Fitzgerald is a saint compared to Starr.

He's under enormous pressure right now. Damned if he does, damned if he don't. If he lets the grand jury expire and doesn't indict anyone, the Dems are going to go ballistic. If he indicts people, the Reps are going ballistic. And he'll have a lot of explaining to do either way.

Let's just hope he tells the people the straight story, instead of slinking away like Starr and writing a book."

Fitzgerald just needs to do what the law and the evidence tell him to do, which will obviously be to issue indictments for whatever crimes he thinks he can prove, let the chips fall where they may. It'll be tough for Repub partisans to whine effectively with their heroes behind bars. Even if he doesn't seek indictments on the national security charges at this time, it's amazing what the prospect of a plea bargain can do to loosen perjurers' tongues. That's part of what happened in Watergate, and about a zillion other criminal conspiracy cases... take the fifth or tell the truth, just don't do anything as stupid as lying to a grand jury...

As for Starr, he didn't have a straight story to tell. Slinking was his basic MO all along. He set out to get Clinton for something, anything, and it really didn't matter who else got hurt in the process... History will reveal his tenure as special prosecutor as a partisan hatchet job.

 

[HomerJS]

Here are the response plans as I know them...

Trash Joe Wilson. Limbaugh yesterday calling him every name in the book.

Purgury is no big deal. Kay Bailey Hutchison tried on MTP last Sunday. It didn't work and she retracted later.

Trash the prosecutor. I still think this will happen but they are having difficulity. Bush has already praised him and his reputation is very good. The RNC and the right wing media will handle the dirty work.

My head is going to explode because I've od'ed on right wing talk and TV following this story. Noticed Bill O'Riley is ignoring it totally. Other Fox News channels won't lead with the story

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As for Starr, he didn't have a straight story to tell. Slinking was his basic MO all along. He set out to get Clinton for something, anything, and it really didn't matter who else got hurt in the process... History will reveal his tenure as special prosecutor as a partisan hatchet job.

Another interesting comparison between Starr and Fitzgerald is that they both expanded the scope of their original investigations. Starr much more widely, of course. But Fitzgerald was originally cited to look at whether a crime(s) had been committed in the release of Plame data, which then expanded in to any other offenses which may have occurred in the same time period. That said, I'm far more confident in offenses that might be uncovered and brought to light by Fitzgerald than Starr.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's a bigger difference than that, Pabster. Nobody has yet to offer any credible notion that the Lewinsky or Jones imbroglios had the slightest connection to Whitewater...

But when witnesses questioned by the FBI and/or called before a grand jury are demonstrably lying, there's an obvious connection between the inquiry at hand and those falsehoods.

You also understate Fitzgerald's mandate- it wasn't just to figure out if a crime had been committed, but also to prosecute the perps if possible. Fitzgerald obviously believes there was a crime, or he would have ended his inquiries long ago. Any charges of perjury, obstruction of justice or conspiracy brought in this case bear directly on the efforts to effect a coverup of the original criminal act...

If there had been no crime, then a coverup would not have been required...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
There's a bigger difference than that, Pabster. Nobody has yet to offer any credible notion that the Lewinsky or Jones imbroglios had the slightest connection to Whitewater...

I don't believe they did, and I don't believe we should have had a special prosecutor looking at the women. But that's another story...

But when witnesses questioned by the FBI and/or called before a grand jury are demonstrably lying, there's an obvious connection between the inquiry at hand and those falsehoods.

I think that might be called "cover up", and I agree.

You also understate Fitzgerald's mandate- it wasn't just to figure out if a crime had been committed, but also to prosecute the perps if possible. Fitzgerald obviously believes there was a crime, or he would have ended his inquiries long ago. Any charges of perjury, obstruction of justice or conspiracy brought in this case bear directly on the efforts to effect a coverup of the original criminal act...

True enough. That goes to the old Washington saying "It ain't the crime that gets you; It's the attempts to cover it up." Although, one could argue, Clinton skirted by that one on both accounts. 🙂

If there had been no crime, then a coverup would not have been required...

Agreed.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If there was any smear campaign from the vast right-wing conspiracy against Fitzgerald, why would they wait until now? btw, what should we call the pimping of him (and Earle) as bastions of righteousness and fair play? Is that an anti-smear campaign meant to preemptively deflect any potential criticisms?

Odd how many on the left want to question anything and everything down to the smallest detail, and claim it's the righteous and patriotic thing to do, except when it's someone questioning the left or their political allies.

Question him, look into his background and his resume. You won't find anything or else they would've already, I'm 100% sure. But I'm not worried about Fitzgerald being questioned, just lied about. That's is an inevitability.

I like the contrast between this thread and this one. There's a certain irony and hypocrisy wafting through their entanglement. It's kind of like how a reporter can claim Cindy Sheehan can whine and complain because she has absolute moral authority after losing her son, except when people who lose their son (or daughter) don't have absolute moral authority.

It's amazing how opinions change when the wind blows in a different direction.

Spin Meister Chicken is here early before even an incitement is in. Gee and I'm still waiting for the story to come in. Might it not be there will be no evidence of a crime at all and he will close the case. Hehe, and Fitzgerald is a Republican, hardly the left's political ally. But then we knew you are no meat and all feathers.

LOL. More of Moonie's little personal smear campaign of his very own.

Poor widdle baby. Maybe you should do a little soul searching and question your petty motives, Moonpie? Or are you too busy looking inside everyone else to look inside yourself?

Awwww everyone is always out to get chicken little. Cry me a river. Wahhh haaaa.

 

[Pabster]

Where is this big smear campaign against Fitzgerald???

Hannity has dug up some dirt on the guy, nothing I didn't already know. Frankly none of it bothers me. Prosecutors are bound to have friends and favors are exchanged. Starr was no different.

I guess I'm wondering where this "barrage" of attacks is that the OP said was coming?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the only reason we haven't seen an all out smear campaign is that when they ran it up the flagpole, nobody saluted...

Repubs have been pretty adept at doing things that way, testing the response before going full bore. In this case, it's apparently a loser, but they have tossed it around a little bit to find out, to see if it would work. Which doesn't preclude a return to it, at all, if things appear to change.

From all accounts, Fitz is a hard nosed hard working prosecutor who's non-partisan to a fault... a very tough target for a smear campaign, which could easily backfire in a disastrous way...