Tweety on Fitz: "and then he goes for the vice president or someone else."

[sabra]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10467934/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Dec. 13th

<snip>

MATTHEWS: I‘ve watched this guy. We all have, Fitzgerald. He‘s amazing to watch. He‘s gone after Conrad Black, Lord Black, head of the big Hollinger empire. He‘s gone after the mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley. He‘s gone over the governor of Illinois, and what he tends to do is follow a certain pattern.

Find a number two or number three person, in some cases both, hit them with incredible charges, pile on with them. I mean, throw the book at them, and then listen and see if they would like to spend less time in prison, which means he then goes for the top guy. I‘ve heard it said he goes after Scooter Libby, he then goes after Rove, and then he goes for the vice president or someone else. That would be the pattern.

BRAND: Well, certainly that would the pattern. But, remember here, it‘s—if you‘re going to shoot the king, you‘d better kill him. And the risk for him is a misfire against a sitting vice president. Under the Spiro Agnew case, you know, you do not shoot at the vice president or the president of the United States unless you are 100 percent certain you‘re going to hit them.

MATTHEWS: Well, they nailed Agnew. He was taking the money in bags at DOV (ph).

BRAND: This is a different kind of case. And you‘ve got to be dead certain that you can nail it in front of the public and in front of the jury before you do it.

[redqueen]

1. What makes this Brand fellow think Fitz isn't dead certain?

Wishful thinking, perhaps?

[sabra]

2. perhaps, but the conclusion is Fitz is being careful and doing this

the right way.

[Missy Vixen]

3. Oh, this is rich!

>This is a different kind of case. And you‘ve got to be dead certain that you can nail it in front of the public and in front of the jury before you do it.<

Uh, guys, I feel fairly certain in my belief that Patrick Fitzgerald wouldn't even bring an indictment without rock solid evidence. Of course, the talking heads persist in underestimating him and believing that he's won so many times in court up to this point by sheer luck. Guys? GUYS? Not everyone flies by the seat of their pants. You know what they say -- if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit. It's been working for Tweety so far, hm?

Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[Richardo]

4. Brand should rethink his analogies, for Christ's sake.

"Shoot"? "Kill"?

Wonder if he's getting a friendly visit from the Secret Service about now.

[Kurovski]

6. Perhaps it's an attempt on Brand's part to frame the issue?

Portraying it as an attack or an "assassination" attempt rather than the process of legal justice.

Many true-believers in the cult of Bush will have their beliefs reinforced by such suggestible language.

No amount of evidence will ever sway those individuals, but more reasonable people may recall the investigations into Clinton's administration and begin to see more of the same.

Of course, reasonable people make decisions based on fact and could not be convinced of political motives once the evidence is examined--despite the best spin, framing, blame or excuses presented by Bush/Cheney defenders.

But the point Brand seems to be making is that it is important to be absolutely certain, and that Fitzgerald seems to be a careful prosecutor. strange choice of words, though.

[Kurovski]

5. Brand says:

"...you do not shoot at the vice president or the president of the United States unless you are 100 percent certain you‘re going to hit them."

Not entirely accurate, as we had all kinds of charges against President Clinton that never panned out. That stopped no one in the Republican Party from wasting time and money on the matter.

If one were to argue that it was the impeachment folly that vindicated the investigations, 70% of Americans would disagree, and much of the rest of the world would laugh in your face.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. That Brand guy must have been on the republican side.