Free Scooter!
Posted on 10/28/2005 10:23:21 AM PDT by FairOpinion
But Fitz is saying THAT NEVER HAPPENED! So how can Fitz simultaneously indict Fitz for making a false statement and never making that statement?
I'd just like to add that, regardless of whether people lied under oath or obstructed justice (crimes that if they occurred should indeed be punished), the widely-believed Democrat notion that this somehow shows the corruption of the Bush administration or shows that the entire Iraq War was fought under false pretenses is ridiculous. Nor did the revelation of Plame's name lead to any actual damage to US intelligence.
This whole thing should be a page 2 story.
Let's not forget that Russert was a Democrat operative who worked for Moynihan and the oily Mario Cuomo. It is 99% sure that Cooper is a Dem. Their word against the word of Mr. Libby and this twerp thinks he can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Venue is his best hope. Must be moved.
I did see in the background info that PLame was 'covert', only that her employment status was classified. I assume there is a big difference.
Because he is the media, and he is a democrat. Next question
Say that again?
Got it. Thanks.
There is a difference, because "covert" has additional connotations. However, it's still illegal to reveal classified employment status, so the difference is basically immaterial to the investigation.
All of the Plame/CIA/Joe Wilson background doesn't really have any impact on the charges against Libby though. He's not being charged with exposing classified information. He's being charged with perjury and making false statements during the investigation. That's illegal even if the original investigation goes nowhere.
So Fitz is saying this on Page 19:
That Russert never asked the question, and
That Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
BUT YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY INDICT LIBBY FOR BOTH.
If Russert never asked the question, Libby could not have answered it in the manner stated. If Russert did ask the question and Libby answered it in the manner stated, then he cannot be indicted for the first part.
And it is ALL boiling down to what Russert said versus what Libby said. Basically, Fitz is trying to indict Libby for making a false statement in response to a question that Fitz said Russert never asked!
He assumes Russert tells the truth and Libby is lying.
I don't see how they can indict someone based on something like that.
That doesn't sound right.
If you know 10 people who work at NSA or NRO or CIA, but completely unbeknown to you have "classified employment status", and you then say "Sally and Fred work at NSA", can you be prosecuted?
If so, why wasn't Russert indicted?
In any case if Libby couldn't on one or even several occasions recall the sequence of his coming to know about Valerie Plame, or where that info came from, how the heck is that a "false statement"?
And meanwhile, Fitz shades the truth by saying it wasn't widespread knowledge outside the intel community that Plame worked for the CIA.
I guess he considers "everyon knew" ONLY, if literrally every single person in the US has that knowledge. Which, of course, is ludicrous.
Valerie Plame's ex-supervisor at the CIA said everyone outside knew, I guess his word doesn't mean anything to the prosecution, but Russert's word is sacred.
What a travesty!
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.
In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years."
"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r_page2.htm
Look, if Libby was lying to the investigators, he should have his hand smacked for that alone. Nonetheless, from listening to what Fitzgerald was saying, there are several logic gaps. Maybe things will match up when the case is made, but at this time, there are several instances where he is arguing that "if A notequal B; notA = B".
Further, aside from the possible lying, Wilson was attempting to misuse the law protecting CIA agents identities as a shield against uncovering his lies. It is a total and complete abuse of the law to even denounce someone as violating it for defending themselves against false accusations, and frankly, I question Fitzgerald's ethics for not making that clear.
Yup.
It is certainly less offensive than Kerry's outing of an agent that was clearly actively being protected, on national television...aside from being a rather more minor figure.
Yes. That's another Fitzgerald comment that is misleading to most folks.
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.