White_Male_Canada
04-04-2007, 06:23 PM
Fitzgerald's Cover-Up
It's time to hold the special prosecutor accountable.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
For a prosecutor who claims to be a truth-seeker, Patrick Fitzgerald sure can be secretive. Even now that the Scooter Libby trial is over and his "leak" investigation is all but closed, the unaccountable special counsel wants to keep his arguments for creating a Constitutional showdown over reporters and their sources under lock and key.
Mr. Fitzgerald is fighting release of the affidavits he filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to justify compelling two reporters to testify about their conversations with Mr. Libby, and to throw one of them in jail for 85 days until she did so. Also under court seal are eight pages of a redacted 2005 D.C. Circuit opinion by Judge David Tatel that explained the court's decision to support Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit of the reporters.
His demand and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009895
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarice Feldman
In September of last year, I asked the Department of Justice to look into several actions of Patrick Fitzgerald in connection with the Libby case suggesting that on their face this conduct seemed unethical. To the best of my knowledge that investigation is continuing.
One of the areas of my concern was the apparent factual misrepresentations he made to the U.S. Court of Appeals in connection with his efforts to force reporters to testify in that case.
Today, the Wall Street Journal indicates that Fitzgerald is fighting the release of this information, information it rightly asserts the public is entitled to know, information which I think will prove my suspicion that he misled the Court to obtain this precedential ruling correct:
His demand and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.
The two reporters he subpoenaed and their lawyers did not know this at the time, however, and if they had it might have changed their arguments or decisions. At a minimum, prosecutors and reporters deserve to know what evidence the D.C. Circuit found so compelling so we can all avoid such future collisions. Congress also has an interest now that it is contemplating a "shield law" to protect media sources.
In his reply to the DJ-AP motion, Mr. Fitzgerald tries to hide behind rule 6(e) of grand jury secrecy. He claims the integrity of grand juries will be compromised by the release. But much of the material was already disclosed during the Libby trial, if not leaked earlier. And the far larger risk to grand jury integrity would be if Mr. Fitzgerald misled the courts about what he knew and when he knew it in order to coerce the two reporters to testify."
It is well past time for the public to know what Patrick Fitzgerald told the Court. I , for one, have every reason to believe he was as disingenuous and loose with the facts with that Court as he was with the public when he announced the indictment and with the jury in his rebuttal argument at the closing of the Libby trial.And I am not shy about saying what the Wall Street Journal hints at: The only conceivable reason Fitzgerald is fighting public disclosure of the redacted portions of the affidavit and opinion is to cover up his own failings in an utterly outrageous prosecution of a perfectly innocent man. (AT)
It's time to hold the special prosecutor accountable.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
For a prosecutor who claims to be a truth-seeker, Patrick Fitzgerald sure can be secretive. Even now that the Scooter Libby trial is over and his "leak" investigation is all but closed, the unaccountable special counsel wants to keep his arguments for creating a Constitutional showdown over reporters and their sources under lock and key.
Mr. Fitzgerald is fighting release of the affidavits he filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to justify compelling two reporters to testify about their conversations with Mr. Libby, and to throw one of them in jail for 85 days until she did so. Also under court seal are eight pages of a redacted 2005 D.C. Circuit opinion by Judge David Tatel that explained the court's decision to support Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit of the reporters.
His demand and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009895
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarice Feldman
In September of last year, I asked the Department of Justice to look into several actions of Patrick Fitzgerald in connection with the Libby case suggesting that on their face this conduct seemed unethical. To the best of my knowledge that investigation is continuing.
One of the areas of my concern was the apparent factual misrepresentations he made to the U.S. Court of Appeals in connection with his efforts to force reporters to testify in that case.
Today, the Wall Street Journal indicates that Fitzgerald is fighting the release of this information, information it rightly asserts the public is entitled to know, information which I think will prove my suspicion that he misled the Court to obtain this precedential ruling correct:
His demand and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.
The two reporters he subpoenaed and their lawyers did not know this at the time, however, and if they had it might have changed their arguments or decisions. At a minimum, prosecutors and reporters deserve to know what evidence the D.C. Circuit found so compelling so we can all avoid such future collisions. Congress also has an interest now that it is contemplating a "shield law" to protect media sources.
In his reply to the DJ-AP motion, Mr. Fitzgerald tries to hide behind rule 6(e) of grand jury secrecy. He claims the integrity of grand juries will be compromised by the release. But much of the material was already disclosed during the Libby trial, if not leaked earlier. And the far larger risk to grand jury integrity would be if Mr. Fitzgerald misled the courts about what he knew and when he knew it in order to coerce the two reporters to testify."
It is well past time for the public to know what Patrick Fitzgerald told the Court. I , for one, have every reason to believe he was as disingenuous and loose with the facts with that Court as he was with the public when he announced the indictment and with the jury in his rebuttal argument at the closing of the Libby trial.And I am not shy about saying what the Wall Street Journal hints at: The only conceivable reason Fitzgerald is fighting public disclosure of the redacted portions of the affidavit and opinion is to cover up his own failings in an utterly outrageous prosecution of a perfectly innocent man. (AT)