Skip to comments.
Case against aides (doesn't have leg to stand on. (Valerie Plame case) (MUST READ: NO CRIME)
Chicago Sun Times ^
| Oct. 25, 2005
| MICHAEL BARONE
Posted on 10/25/2005 9:11:39 PM PDT by FairOpinion
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-132 next last
EXACTLY.
The investigation should never have gotten started. If you read the Acts above, it's clear that Valerie Plame did NOT qualify as a covert agent, therefore "revealing" her name is NO crime. So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!
To: FairOpinion
THAT'S what I've been wondering.....wondering what the Dems are trying to HIDE about others???? Decoy. Hillary's troubles?
2
posted on
10/25/2005 9:14:22 PM PDT
by
goodnesswins
(DEMS....40 yrs and $$$dollars for the War on Poverty, but NOT a $$ or minute for the WAR on Terror!)
To: FairOpinion
Are ya telling me that Chrissy Matthews has lathered himdelf into an unnecessary frenzy?
3
posted on
10/25/2005 9:15:31 PM PDT
by
umgud
(Comment removed by poster before moderator could get to it)
To: umgud
There may well be indictments, but there shouldn't be.
Someone said, "you can indict a ham sandwich, if you want to".
The point is that this has been nothing but a witch-hunt and a fishing expedition, to find something, anything on the President or his close aides.
4
posted on
10/25/2005 9:16:57 PM PDT
by
FairOpinion
(CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
To: FairOpinion
"So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!"
Because GWB can't help himself from making nice with Democrats!
He was really serious about the "uniter, not a divider" a few years back. But, outside of Texas, that's a fool's errand.
Reminds me of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football.
To: goodnesswins
There should never have been an investigation.
The special prosecutor should have examined the Acts, the breech of which would be a crime, but since they don't apply, no crime, and the conclusion should have been about 2 DAYS later, that there is nothing to investigate, period.
Instead, after 2 YEARS of fishing expedition they are going to try to find some minor discrepancies, which are NOT MATERIAL to the case, to indict innocent people.
6
posted on
10/25/2005 9:19:16 PM PDT
by
FairOpinion
(CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
To: Howlin; STARWISE
7
posted on
10/25/2005 9:19:20 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: FairOpinion
There should be indictments. Whoever falsely accused anyone of violating laws that they did not should be in trouble.
8
posted on
10/25/2005 9:19:37 PM PDT
by
isthisnickcool
(Get the incumbents out of politics!)
To: FairOpinion
There should have been an investigation. I agree no crime was committed that we know about. I don't rule out indictments against parties we have no knowledge about...ie. reporters/democrats/cia personnel...here's hoping.
9
posted on
10/25/2005 9:19:41 PM PDT
by
spyone
To: isthisnickcool
"Whoever falsely accused anyone of violating laws that they did not should be in trouble."
I would like to see that.
With some hefty damages for slander.
10
posted on
10/25/2005 9:20:32 PM PDT
by
FairOpinion
(CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
To: FairOpinion
The RATS are in for a surprise IMHO, I believe several people in the CIA will be indicted for conspiring to undermine the foreign policy of the United States of America, and Joe Wilson, his OVERT Wife, as well as her boss will be on the list
11
posted on
10/25/2005 9:22:05 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
(Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
To: FairOpinion
I never understood how they could appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this, when it seemed to me that it pretty clearly did not involve any crime.
12
posted on
10/25/2005 9:22:37 PM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: spyone
The indictments, if there are any, will come from the investigation testimony itself and not the underlying crimes for which the grand jury was commissioned.
Perjury, obstruction of justice, and the ilk will be the indictments that we will see. If this is the case, Fitzgerald had better hope that he has a clear trail to a conviction. If not, the role of the special prosecutor will be forever damaged. And if someone perjured them self to misguide the investigation, they should be punished as well.
13
posted on
10/25/2005 9:22:42 PM PDT
by
Carling
(http://www.marriedadults.com/howarddeanscreamaudio141jq.mp3)
To: FairOpinion
Barone is still one of the best thinkers/observers/pundits out there. Is it possible we're witnessing a lot of chaff to hide the real target of the prosecutor -- rogue elements in the CIA?
To: FairOpinion
15
posted on
10/25/2005 9:24:37 PM PDT
by
Enterprise
(The modern Democrat Party - a toxic stew of mental illness, cultism, and organized crime.)
To: FairOpinion
There are other laws this could fall under. Not to mention that there could be indictments for related crimes like perjury, obstruction of justice, or conspiracy. I doubt Fitzgerald spent all this time and effort over something we found out after about five minutes of reviewing the laws. He's nowhere near that incompetent and thinking he is is frankly, ludicrous. Not to mention a great deal of the information they're looking at is classified info that none of us know. Don't go jumping the gun quite yet on this...
To: FairOpinion
EXACTLY.
The investigation should never have gotten started. If you read the Acts above, it's clear that Valerie Plame did NOT qualify as a covert agent, therefore "revealing" her name is NO crime. So why do we have a special prosecutor digging for two years to investigate, when there is no crime?!
I've concluded that this isn't an investigation, it's a witch hunt. That gives us reason to worry because if they're willing to overlook the blatantly obvious fact that no crime could have been committed, they're certainly capable of overlooking any facts that might stand in the way of an indictment.
17
posted on
10/25/2005 9:27:39 PM PDT
by
Jaysun
(Democrats: We must become more effective at fooling people.)
To: Mo1; Howlin
I think it's going to be someone in the CIA. The indictments are going to be "sealed". If it was Libby or Rove what would be the point. The fact that they suddenly leave their jobs at the WH would make it very, very public.
18
posted on
10/25/2005 9:27:40 PM PDT
by
McGavin999
(We're a First World Country with a Third World Press (Except for Hume & Garrett ))
To: umgud
19
posted on
10/25/2005 9:30:33 PM PDT
by
wildcatf4f3
(admittedly too unstable for public office)
To: McGavin999
I think it's going to be someone in the CIA. The indictments are going to be "sealed". I'll admit .. Though I believe Rove did nothing wrong .. I really don't know how this will turn out
With that said .. I would not rule out the CIA
20
posted on
10/25/2005 9:32:27 PM PDT
by
Mo1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-132 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson