Calling Fitzgerald to testify?
Well, this ought to be interesting. From this morning’s Face the Nation:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): One thing, and I’ve spoken to [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat] Leahy about this, that we’re thinking about doing is calling Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, before us.
You know, he’s not allowed to talk about what happened before the grand jury, but he did interview the president and the vice president, not before a grand jury, and [Fitzgerald] might have some very interesting things to say.
He issued a rare statement after the commutation that was very harsh in condemning it — and with good reason. […]
CBS: When would you like to see Mr. Fitzgerald come to Capitol Hill?
Schumer: Well, you know, this would be Sen. Leahy’s call, but I talked to him about it yesterday and he seemed inclined to do it. It would be very interesting and we’d like to hear what he has to say. Obviously he can’t talk about anything that occurred in the grand jury, but there’s a lot else that he might be able to tell us. Because obviously, with the commutation of Libby, and with no one else meeting a criminal standard, but still something terrible being done in the name of an agent being leaked…we sure want to get more answers.
Stay tuned.
Does Leahy really think the DOJ is going to allow Fitzgerald to testify? DOJ would be happy to lend Congress someone to talk about sentencing guidelines, and procedures for issuing pardons, but it sure isn’t going to be Fitzgerald.
Anne, I don’t know that the DOJ has any choice in the matter. The department is cabinet level with its head and senior leadership subject to Senate approval. The executive privilege argument won’t fly here. On what basis legal basis could DOJ argue a case against Fitz’s testimony?
rege – all I remember is that DOJ had to give permission for all of those present and former employees to testify – just going off that.
The ‘rare statement’ issued by Patrick Fitzgerald:
So, now that Bushbat in his wisdom has declared the sentencing guidelines for perjury and obstruction of justice to be “harsh”, and should indeed be zero days rather than the thirty to thirty-eight months officially stipulated, I guess a flood of appeals can be expected to hit the courts any day soon, in the same way that indictments are now being challenged on the grounds that the prosecutor acted through political bias. What a merry-go-round! Funny if it were not so sad.
After watching this morning’s talk shows I was wishing that David Shuster could be everywhere. I am so tired of the Libby argument about “no underlying crime” and “Richard Armitage”. On Fox News Sunday (meet the Press was on at 8 here) the female member of the “power panel” from NPR stated that “Richard Armitage was the REAL leaker.” Richard Armigage was one of several leakers. CB stated earlier in the week that Libby had been leaking Plame’s identity before Armitage had even talked with Novak. What makes Armitage the REAL leaker? On Meet the Press the same comment about Armitage was made and the “dancin with Karl Rove” commentator let it pass…like most talking heads. I would think that David Shuster’s appearance would be required viewing by those at NBC. Fat chance! Fitzgerald has to start talkin soon!
Mr. Fitzgerald can testify to what the president and vice president told him, oath or no oath. What makes us think that he’ll have any information other than more lies, because that’s all he was told?
I would be more interested in their calling Libby, and giving him immunity.
Why not–after all, he won’t be serving any jail-time, whatever happens.