Posted on 10/22/2005 7:16:36 PM PDT by churchillbuff
BS.
This was from last February, when Fitzgerald was trying to throw Judy into jail for not revealing her source. All he had to do was show that she might have been able to prove that Libby had leaked Plame's name.
Guess what, Bucko? Judy said Libby wasn't her source for Plame's ID. That she got it from somebody else she can't remember. She swore to that under oarth.
Why are you dredging up in this no-longer even slightly relevant material from last February? Are you that desperate?
Fitzgerald. Of course, he has to get the GJury to agree. My point in posting this judicial opinion is that, unlike a lot of folks who haven't seen Fitzgerald's evidence (and who are saying Fitzgerald has nothing of substance), the three federal appellate judges who HAVE seen the evidence, said that it was "grave" enough to justify jailing Judith Miller to procure her cooperation.
Uh, lots of folks testified who hadn't testified then.
If the evidence was so rock solid, why has Fitzgerald STILL not indicted anybody?
The "outing" of Plame is not necessarily the national security issue that was discussed in the ruling, and which the judges ruled upon.
The NYT finally admitted a day or so ago that Fitz decided early on that there was no exposure of a covert spy.
What of the info about the Niger trip that Wilson leaked to the press, and then wrote about under his own byline? Was the other source(s) of Cooper and Miller (neither Libby nor Rove) the target?
"No, the ruling - and the judges' statement that the secret evidence alleged a "grave" crime -- was last February."
The word "grave" does not appear in that opinion.
So much for your credibility. Sheesh.
It's serious because it involves Republicans. That is the only reason IMO.
Since fully one-seventh of Tatel's opinion was redacted, presumably because it discussed secret evidence -- evidence that neither you, bucko, nor I have seen -- you're in no position to say that it's not "revelant" - since YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, or to whom it might point.
It really irritating having to respond to taunts from somebody, like you, who shoots "knows it all" when he doesn't know jack.
Check me on this, but I believe two of the appellate judges are Republicans.
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. We'll find out if Fitzgerald brings indictments. If he doesn't, we might not find out.
We all know that at ONE time Plame was 'covert.' That has nothing to do with National security now that would require the portions to be blocked out on the judges ruling. There is more here than is being discussed in the msm. Some has been touched on here. I believe there was an attempt by Plame/Wilson to subvert the interests of the United States by having Plame get Wilson to go to Niger, with the intention of trying to discredit the Administration's forign policy in prosecution of the War on Terror, and I think in a treasonous way. It is now well known that the Wilsons have lib dimo connections, and these connections exisited before wilson rode off to Africa. What dim libs had knowledge of Plame's attempt to get Wilson on this mission, and did anyone conspire with Wilson/Plame to try to get Plame to seek her husband for this mission with the purpose of compromising the security of the US for political results that Plame/Wilson and lib dims wanted
The word "gravity" does - - - "crime of this gravity" Read the opinion before spouting.
LOL.
You're just doing what most of the DNC/MSM and their mouthpieces on the internet are doing: trying to make it look like some huge crime was committed that is going to be swept under the rug when Fitzgerald doesn't indict anyone.
Fitzgerald has commented about what this was about. It was that he needed Miller's testimony to wrap this whole thing up. Since he was charged to investigate the leak of Plame's name and the only law that would apply to that is the IIPA of 1982, we are safe in assuming that that is what this was all about.
You can jump up and down and go Larry Crazy O'Donnel, but there's all there is to it.
So sorry it didn't work out for you. Better luck next "crime."
Not real bright, are you?
I think you've got it.
If what Sandy Berger did is diddly squat in this justice system, then this is nothing more than a charade.
Thanks, Perdogg.
This certainly would merit national security interest and "graveness". And wasn't it Fitzgerald who was investigating this case in the first place when Judy tipped of the Holy Landers about the warrant?
anytime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.