Fitzgerald in Full Retreat

That's the conclusion I've come to in light of two articles I read this morning. Here's what Clarice Feldman wrote about the Fitzgerald Fiasco:

Here are some things which caught my eye and are worthy of your attention:

The CIA's referral

I have always wondered how the CIA complied with the requirements of a proper referral letter. According to former federal prosecutor Joseph DiGenova, such referrals must establish that the person in question was a covert agent whose identity the agency had taken all reasonable steps to protect. The publicly known facts simply made it unlikely Valerie Plame met either of those tests. To date, the Special Prosecutor has refused to turn over the referral, and, understandably, Libby is fighting to get that document. In this pleading he argues:

To the extent that the CIA's documents suggest the Department of Justice hesitated to begin its investigation of the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity and that hesitancy was related to the Department of Justice's uncertainty that any crime had been committed based on the information provided by the CIA, the defense should have the opportunity to use such information to prepare to cross-examine CIA witnesses at trial.

In other words, Fitzpatrick won't follow the legal process of discovery. Fitzpatrick won't tell the defense what information the CIA provided. Fitzpatrick won't tell them which CIA personnel furnished him what information. In short, he's preventing the defense to prepare for trial.

Here's what Debra Saunders wrote about the Fitzgerald Fiasco:

On Tuesday, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had to take back a key sentence in a brief he had filed earlier with the court concerning charges against Scooter Libby, former top aide to Veep Dick Cheney, for perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. That sentence had spawned a spate of page-one Bush-bad stories.

Fitzgerald had written that President Bush had authorized Libby to tell former New York Times reporter Judith Miller about intelligence involving Saddam Hussein's attempts to procure enriched uranium in Niger, and that Libby understood he should tell Miller that an official "key judgment" affirmed the Niger story, even though the Niger item wasn't a "key judgment" and some administration officials disputed the Niger angle. "Iraq Findings Leaked by Aide Were Disputed" read the New York Times headline. Fitzgerald then corrected the record to read that Libby understood he could tell Miller about "key judgments" in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and that the NIE reported that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.

Fitzgerald's investigation has been unprofessional to say the least. He's made one key mistake after another. He didn't even bother finding out if the thing he was asked to investigate even happened. He was asked to find out if the IIPA was violated by leaking Valerie Plame's name. He got around to finding out if she was protected by the IIPA on the weekend before the indictment against Scooter Libby.

Remember Chuckie Schumer telling us that Fitzgerald was unassailable and that Fitzgerald was a "prosecutor's prosecutor"? If Fitzgerald is Schumer's idea of a "prosecutor's prosecutor", then we can't give liberals like Schumer more power than they already have. PERIOD.

Remember that these articles don't even talk about another key cornerstone of the Fitzgerald case. Fitzgerald said that Judith Miller was the first reporter told about Plame's identity and that Libby had told her that. Months later, Bob Woodward testified in front of the grand jury and said that he knew about Plame before Judith Miller did and it wasn't Libby who told him. OOOPS.

That's a few too many major mistakes made by a supposed "prosecutor's prosecutor." Maybe he should go back to prosecuting J-walkers or something more on his competence level.

Cross-posted at California Conservative

---

Posted Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:56 AM

No comments.