Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

C itizen Spook:"TREASONGATE: FITZGERALD For SCOTUS " C itizen Spook

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:48 PM
Original message
C itizen Spook:"TREASONGATE: FITZGERALD For SCOTUS " C itizen Spook
CS loved by many reviled by ...

"TREASONGATE: FITZGERALD For SCOTUS
Fitz asked America to trust him yesterday. And he's earned our trust. The country and even the criminals are lucky to have this man at this moment in time. Turns out that Patrick "the bulldog" Fitzgerald is nothing more than a doe eyed fawn caught in the headlights...but they haven't blinded him.

The headlights of the world are focused right into the eyes a genuine pure soul. How many of that species are left on this filthy planet? Fitz took all the steam out of me. The venom is gone. I'm slightly ashamed of myself after listening to Fitzgerald and digesting his vibrations.

Later in the indictment, on page 9, he lists five laws as being relevant to his investigation, the IIPA, 18 USC 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 18 USC 1001 (false statements), 18 USC 1503 (obstruction of justice) and 18 USC 1623 (perjury).

And in the press conference he also mentions "793" specifically while not mentioning the IIPA by name although he certainly referred to it.Our man Fitz doesn't think like the rest of us. His vision of the law is pure. He knows, in his heart and mind, that without a Constitutional declaration of war, there is no way he can -- in good conscience -- prosecute under 18 USC 794."


http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
That is exactly the kind of person they should be looking for. A person of integrity who respects the law. Unfortunately, that is the last thing the current leadership of the Republican party wants to encourage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. He is their worst nightmare, an honest man who is much smarter than they!
AMF BushCo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. the international court intrigues
of the treason prone bushevik dynasty.

fascism american style.

1984 brought to U by carliars and hallbutton and a long list of corporat villains where your mess is our success
and of course the villains created the mess..oh yes

the court intrigues BUT wait a real COURT man comes along:

Day In Court starring DA P.Fitzgerald of Chitown,Brooklyn ,DC and wherever crooks are a crookin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. FITZ for SCOTUS!
Wouldn't that be lovely?! :applause:

Too bad * will find another useless tool to put into that office instead of someone like Fitz who would be the perfect man for the job. How sad for justice, how sad for the citizens of this country. :cry:

Thanks dbeach-You and Citizenspook ROCK!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Think Fitz enjoys the thrill of the Hunt to much to sit behind the bench

and that's great cause I want him to hunt this fucker
down !

THE DARK HEART OF DICK CHENEY

By Georgie Anne Geyer Fri Oct 28, 6:23 PM ET

WASHINGTON --
Dick Cheney is, by all accounts, probably the oddest -- and the most dourly ambitious -- duck in the administration's pond of wing-flapping, sky-diving and prideful birds.
ADVERTISEMENT

He rarely speaks, running things quietly and secretly from behind the White House's closed doors, where he maintains his own administrative staff (roughly 60 persons, almost as many as the president's). When he does speak, it is usually either a sarcastic observation or rejoinder. As to his knowledge of
Iraq, many remember how, on "Meet the Press" just before the Iraq war, he told Tim Russert, "I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."



There was always a brooding, Hobbesian Cheney just beneath the misleading openness he learned in his native Wyoming. But this week, the vice president took a turn into the deepest heart of human darkness. This week, unprecedented in history, an elected vice president of the United States of America proposed that Congress legally authorize the torture of foreigners by Americans.

The Washington Post titled its devastating editorial "Vice President for Torture." I would say that the deceptive man from sunny Wyoming has become the Marquis de Sade of America. Think about it -- he is insistent upon making torturers of many of our young soldiers -- your children.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20051028/cm_ucgg/thedarkheartofdickcheney
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. LOL Snarlin saurin chenman
the dearth of darkness..unbounded in his greed and ambition

a yale zoo failure who cheated for 1 yr there and knowing the yale courses were too hard transferred to U Wyomin .received 3 student deferrments and married and fathered a child when the laws changed that wouldha resulted in his losin one.

only poppy o himself is more vicious and thats cuz poppy has so many syndicate connections..

darth cheny stands alone as most vicious individual in US political history

USC 793 and USC 794 were created for unprincipled pols as represented by mr. cheny
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BamaBecky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm crazy about Citizenspook and Fitzgerald! Both have minds
like a steel trap! True Patriotic Red White and Blue Americans!
Bama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. i love this guy's "voice" -- he's no ideologue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. That would be one way to get him out of the way.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-05 04:15 PM by hootinholler
I'd rather have him prosecuting this mess.

Then appoint him.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EuroObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. What effing war indeed:
This CitizenSpook's is a voice I find myself increasingly paying attention to:

<snip>

I was really upset for a little while yesterday. I couldn't understand how a prosecutor -- and this goes for the AIPAC indictments as well -- could prosecute under 18 USC 793 but not also use 18 USC 794 when the country is in "time of war". The only real difference between 793 and 794 is that 794 -- which allows the maximum sentence of life in prison or death -- is available when the country is at war.

It sure seems like we're at war, doesn't it? 2000 soldiers are dead, we're occupying a foreign land and we're fighting "the enemy". So why no mention of 18 USC 794, Fitz?

I think I know why. Because this war isn't "legal". Congress did not "declare war" and Fitzgerald believes in the law. So he's not going to bastardize the law by sanctioning the war. If Fitz brought indictments under 18 USC 794, essentially he would be making a quasi-political decision. In order to prosecute under 18 USC 794, a prosecutor must establish -- as one of the elements of the statute -- that the illegal release of national defense information happened "in time of war."

But Fitzgerald knows that this Iraq conflict is not a legally declared "war". It was not declared by Congress which is required by the Constitution, and it does not rise to the level necessary under the statute.

The statute was written in 1917. And at that time the Constitution was still in use (sarcasm laced with truth). The framers of the Espionage Act understood that "war" could not happen without an official "declaration of war" as was intended by the framers of the Constitution.

And this is why we are lucky to have Fitz as the captain of this ship right now. Nobody can say that Fitzgerald hasn't exercised prosecutorial restraint. Citizen Spook would have charged the bastards with 18 USC 794 and hung them on their own words, "We are at war." "I'm a war president."

You understand what I'm getting at?

Our man Fitz doesn't think like the rest of us. His vision of the law is pure. He knows, in his heart and mind, that without a Constitutional declaration of war, there is no way he can -- in good conscience -- prosecute under 18 USC 794.

A headline grabbing irrational prosecutor would have ignored this technicality and hung them on their own words and actions. And this is why Bush, the neocons, and the media better show this young man some respect. Could you imagine the prospect of those indicted attempting to convince the court that we were not "in time of war" after all they've said and done to convince the American people that we are at war as the body bags come home on a daily basis.

</snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC