I've been following the Fitzgerald investigation following the Palme outing for some time now.

I suspected that Fitz was stopped in his tracks, and the media has managed keep it away from the public (compared to Clinton/Monicka, hardly anyone knows about it). But it could continue - even the judge seems to suggest this.

This is a blog from a Lawyer, who has been saying from the start that the charges are very serious, not minor as reported by the media. The Inteligence Identities Protection Act is very clear - this is a very, very serious violation, the charge is treason.

This is an interesting read that lists 3 significant developments this month:



Second, the Acting Attorney General James Comey testimony about the illegal wiretaping:

And then the Illegal Military trials:

Who cares?

Well why it might be boring to some, I think there are important aspects of the "bigger picture" at play here - like whether or not senior officials can really be held to account for their actions. I've certainly followed the case with some interest.

Hmmm.

There are plenty of corrupt and shady politicians world wide.
Not exactly an endangered species.

Cash for honours in the UK?
The WMD report fabrications?
Political party donors in the UK (eg Bernie Ecclestone and ciggie advertising)?
UN Cash for Oil?
World bank, Wolfovitz(?) and his wench.

Why focus on Cheney?

Well just because everybody else is at it doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue something when there is a mountain of evidence and it is clear cut. In all those cases you mentioned I also believe that they should be pursued to the fullest extend and those in power should not be allowed to get away with corruption, etc.

Now this particular case with Cheney is interesting, because this case is linked closely to the political and "intelligence" issues at the center of the (now) bogus justification to prosecute the war in Iraq. It doesn't look like any of the neo-cons will ever have to answer for their actions (except perhaps to history), but at least in this case we might actually be able to get Cheney on SOMETHING.

That is of course if Bush doesn't issue a presidential pardon on his last day of office.

Cue in Mark Rich.

Wasn't his lawyer Scooter Libby? And wasn't it Libby who made the representations to Clinton to get him pardoned?

It does make you think they're all in it together sometimes

Shoot them all I say

[Bush et al.]

Mark Rich was indicted on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran, which in my book is nothing. I don't care who you trade with or where you pay your tax.

Cheney (and the neo-cons) could be charged with treason.

Libby being a lawyer would not have lied on several occasions to the Grand Jury, knowing full well the consequences, also knowing Fitzgerald who had jailed others for perjury in the past, unless there was a crime even more serious. What could be more serious then perjury and obstructing the course of justice for which he has been sentenced for 30 months?

Even the Grand Jury that indicted Libby asked why is Cheney not here? Why is Bush not here?

Well the law's the law and this whole "pardon" business stinks a little to me of the "ruling class" looking after their own.

I've no time for Cheney. I've huge suspicions about him regarding Halliburton. He made an absolute fortune with them, and then claimed that he had no financial interest with them after his departure. But I think he had an enormous financial interest...not so much in what he stood to gain, but what he stood to lose.

I'm not so sure that without Iraq war and the build up to it, Halliburton would have even survived. They were in the doldrums, their stock was priced at about 20% of what it was when Cheney left them and sold all his holding. And the reason they were doing so badly was much more then just the depressed nature of the stock market at the time. There were concerns about how previous SEC filings had been done. And concerns about the asbestos liabilities taken on board with the previous purchase of another company.

Both concerns centered very much around decisions made by Cheney as the CEO at the time. Had the stock price not recovered, there's a chance that stockholders would have sued the pants off him.

Is it believeable that a man would commit his country to a war on dubious evidence simply to avoid such a personal loss, in face as well as finance?

If anyone had asked me that before Cheney came along I would have been extremely doubtful. Now, well let's say I keep an open mind....

Uhmm, I think there's also a neocon angle in there.
A couple of years ago there was a documentary on the BBC about their (neocons) rather unwholesome manipulation of the system and the pubic which rather scared me a little.

I just googled and it appears to be in the archives (there's more than one part)

http://www.archive.org/details/BBCNeoConDocumentary

The Judge says that he won't delay the prison sentence, and that he has received threatening letters and phone calls - threats were made to himself and to his family.

Though, I believe all of them are criminals any legal action
will never see the light of day. As a US citizen I am
embarrassed by their behavior and how they have represented my
country.

and as if by magic ... George sprinkles some fairy dust ...

apparently he produced one of these ...

From that article: A leading Democratic politician said Mr Bush's decision was "disgraceful".

Mild understatement.

What a shame. And the U.S. is trying to bring justice and democracy to the rest of the world? "Do as we say, not as we do."



Makes me somewhat glad that I got out of there.

I love my country. Political coruption is as wide spread in Europe and Asia as in the US. Citizens of this country are waiting for terms to end and a chance for new leadership. Most people I know think globaly but not in terms of political domination unfortunatly all we feel we can do is wait and hope positive change will happen.

A few years ago very few Americans would have believed this about their own country - that their own leaders are criminals. I think though that justice will prevail - there are some good people working for the Justice department, some good senators, the public is seeing through the smokescreens, and the wheels are in motion.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-29.html

This is the kind of stuff that make good people stay out of politics. Everybody has to cover their behinds to make sure the folks that our out to get you don't have an angle.

I believe we think the worst of people not the best to often. Libby lied but what was really obstructed other then the political agenda of the other side. We have become so polarized in our thought that the world has become black and white or right and left, red states and blue states, or how about radical or terrorist that the middle can't find any solid ground to stand on.

The Libby investigation was political at its core and Fitzgerald did his job. Lets leave it at that and not try to build some vast conspiracy around this issue.

I imagine that this is the stuff that would make good people get into politics, to clean up, to make a difference, to remove the psychopaths.


It was not a political agenda that was obstructed. The charge, remember, is treason - that is selling ones country to the enemy. Libby lied to cover up the worst crime that is possible. Palme's team worked in many countries, some hostile. Their task was to stop weapons proliferation, and they were very, very good at it - outing her meant that her entire team was outed. The persons that did this knew exactly what they were doing.

It was nothing to do with 'Politics'.

Fitzgerald was appointed by the Bush administration - he is NOT a political person. He is in the business of Justice and will convict criminals - democrats as well as republicans.

If I am not mistaken Libby was not accused of outing Plame just perjury and obstruction. I believe Richard Armistead admitted he is the leaker and no charges have been brought against him. Why?? Could it be that no case exist for Treason.

By the way I was not accusing Fitzgerald of being politcal poor sentence structure on my part. I meant to say he did his job as a prosecutor well.