How long til Fitzmas?
And what kind of presents can we expect in our stockings? For what it's worth, John Dean doesn't expect much.
For my part, I would bet Euros to beignets that any indictments handed down will be of the conspiracy/perjury/obstruction variety. I do believe that special prosecutors feel pressure to "show results" in order to justify all the time and money put into the investigation, but if senior administration officials are stupid enough to walk into the "cover-up" trap, they deserve what they get. Sometimes I think nobody has learned anything from Watergate and Whitewater.
On the other hand, Fitzgerald may have learned something from Kenny Starr. Starr was able to pull out some indictments and convictions in the end, but the whole process destroyed his career. That could be a cautionary tale for Fitzy as he weighs whether to issue these nickel-and-dime indictments just for the purposes of "showing results."
Comments
I don't expect there to be a finding of wrongdoing with respect to the central Plame issue. But I suspect that not unlike the Martha Stewart episode, Fitzgerald found other things during his investigation that warrant indictment; like obstruction and/or improper handling of classified documents.
Posted by: CRB | October 24, 2005 11:16 AM
Nice to see you're on the same page with Kay Bailey Hutchison, that when it's a Republican, perjury is simply a "technicality", but when it's a Democrat, it's impeachable.
I know you pride yourself on not marching in lockstep with the wingnuts, but you've disappointed me here.
Posted by: Jill | October 24, 2005 02:37 PM
No, Jill, you have disappointed me.
I'm really tired of people deliberately misrepresenting my viewpoints.
1. I thought Clinton's impeachment was a stupid idea, born of mindless partisan politics. If you use the handy "search" feature on this site, you'll see that I've said as much in this very blog.
2. I said in this very post that if White House officials were stupid enough to perjure themselves or obstruct justice, that they deserve everything they get. Now how can you possibly construe that as the "Kay Bailey Hutchison" position?
In other words, you're completely wrong. I am neither inconsistent nor hypocritical on this issue.
I am curious, however. Are you consistent? Did you believe Clinton's impeachment was appropriate? Do you view perjury as a "technicality?" Or was it a technicality for Clinton, but not for Rove and/or Libby?
Please elaborate. I want you to be as forthcoming as I've been. Because unless you surprise me in answering these questions, it looks to me like you a major consistency problem of your own here.
Posted by: Barry | October 24, 2005 02:55 PM
I'm disappointed in ALL o' yas! Youse can all suck my HUGE HORSE dick!
Posted by: FarmerJohn | October 24, 2005 04:23 PM
You didn't really think Jill would answer, did you?
Posted by: CRB | October 26, 2005 08:46 AM