Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Another light goes out on the Fitzmas tree!
The affidavit is an eye-opener in other respects, for it reveals that the investigation was, as I have always claimed, utterly one-sided, that Fitzgerald is at a minimum a gullible fool who fell hook, line and sinker for the notion that Kerry partisan and serial liar Joseph Wilson IV was a “whistleblower” who deserved special protection by his office.
Here are a few of the gems in this affidavit by Fitzgerald, an affidavit without which Judith Miller would never have been jailed. Paragraph 9:
Since Kristof’s first meeting was with Wilson and his wife, and because Pincus has long been believed to have known the Wilson’s socially, I’d bet money that in both cases that redacted name person who shopped the tale with Wilson was none other than Valerie Plame herself. Paragraph 94 should, however, prove the death knell for the case. That’s because it establishes beyond doubt the prosecution’s predisposition and the one-sided nature of this “investigation.”
Here’s what Fitzgerald says:
Here are a few of the gems in this affidavit by Fitzgerald, an affidavit without which Judith Miller would never have been jailed. Paragraph 9:
“Wilson, who was not a government employee at the time of the trip and [REDACTED] spoke to several reporters including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post….”
Since Kristof’s first meeting was with Wilson and his wife, and because Pincus has long been believed to have known the Wilson’s socially, I’d bet money that in both cases that redacted name person who shopped the tale with Wilson was none other than Valerie Plame herself. Paragraph 94 should, however, prove the death knell for the case. That’s because it establishes beyond doubt the prosecution’s predisposition and the one-sided nature of this “investigation.”
Here’s what Fitzgerald says:
“One key factor in deciding whether to issue a subpoena has been whether the ‘source’ to be identified appears to have leaked to discredit the early source (Wilson) as opposed to a leak who revealed information as a whistleblower’....The First Amendment interests are clearly different when the ‘source’ being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who, correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House.”
