Posted on 10/29/2005 3:10:01 AM PDT by YaYa123
Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White House's senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff--not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire "scandal," but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used.
Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a criminal investigation into a "national security matter" of this sort hinged on "very fine distinctions," and that any attempt to obscure exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
How so? As far as I know, the prosecutor is under no obligation to refrain from accusatory rhetoric.
And it's Fitzgerald.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
Do you think he deserves to be dropped in the water as hot as it is? Some talking heads were saying Libby could do 30 years if convicted on all the crimes. This for a man that testified freely, multiple times and turned over all his notes. Fitzgerald, fair minded or not, charged Libby like a child molester. Throwing in every little charge he can think of. Time will tell what Libby did but I don't think he should be facing 30 years. Libby may very well want to end all of this but what kind of a deal are you going to get from a guy who charges with enough crimes to serve 30 years?
Fitzgerald didn't even charge him with outing a CIA agent. But he basically but accused him of doing so. And Fitzgerald wouldn't even answer the question to if Plame was actually a covert agent or not. This guy doesn't sound that fair minded to me. And so far, we have only heard Fitzgerald's side of this. Libby very well could deserve to be in some trouble. But he also could have just made a mistake. How sure are you of something that happened a month ago? 2 months ago or even a year ago? Also if this thing ever does go to a jury, I don't think a judge will let in all the charges.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Libby is not even indicted for "lying to the media." He is indicted for not accurately recollecting (allegedly) all the conversations he had two years ago.
Possibly so.
But was the timeline? At what point in the "investigation" was it clear that either Libby or the reporters were lying? Do we know? This seems important to me since it was clear at a very early stage that Plame had been stationed in the U.S. for over 5 years and was not covered by the applicable law. This would be a fact easily discovered by Fitzgerald and the investigation should have been over at that point.
If accusing people of crimes you didn't indite on is impressive, I guess there is something wrong with me. And Bush didn't appoint him.
See, I just do not get this argument. You can't lie under oath even if the investigation later turns up nothing. You just can't lie. You cannot obstruct the judicial process regardless of the outcome of the case. Do we really want oath takers to be able to think, "well, this investigation is bogus so I'll just lie..." I really do not get that argument.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Fitzgerald danced all around that. If Fitzgerald had a clone and his clone asked him all the questions he got in the press conference room, in the grand jury room. Fitzgerald himself might be facing 30 years.
Fitzgerald isn't a partisan hack....... He is just a hack.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Not just reporters. It is apparent from the indictment that many government officials gave an account at odds with Libby's.
Out of everything about the indictment this probably confuses me the most.
What Fitz is saying is "I can`t prove the original crime because Libby lied to me."
Well if that is the case than to know it is a lie means that one has to know what the truth is,which at that point would cause his statement to be illogical and false.
If he couldn't accurately recall it, why didn't he say that instead of trying to answer?
Some one else mentioned that. I may have them mixed up, but I'm pretty sure there was a thread about Russert's "memory failure" yesterday. In the Rove case, an e-mail seems to have disproved Cooper, but in the case of Russert, it was his own notes (after they were subpoenaed) that disproved his contention that he did not talk about welfare reform with Libby.
I could certainly be wrong, because I've read so much about this it's possible that it has all run together in my mind. But if I'm not (faulty memory - thank goodness not before a GJ!), I do think it was coordinated. This would explain why in each case the ostensible topic was welfare reform,which was a legitimate news issue in the news at the time, but a little attempt was made at the last minute to winkle out some information about Wilson.
What frosted me about the press con yesterday was Fitzie's monologue about how outing CIA agents will affect recruiting of agents, etc.
HELLO. Recruiting of agents is impacted ONLY if someone INTENTIONALLY compromised the cover of a COVERT agent. Otherwise, this is just in the category of "it happens."
No one thinks Libby intentional compromised a covert agent. Fitzie can't even answer the quesion of whether Plame was a covert agent!
Fitzie's pontificating about how Libby's alleged conduct had this horrible effect on national security because it made people afraid to become CIA agents was lame and embarrassing.
He is claiming an effect without bothering himself with whether the "cause" occurred.
If Libby or anyone else actually intentional lies about a material fact under oath, well, hang 'em high. That's the difference between us and the Rats. We don't overlook wrongdoing/rule of law because of political agendas (although, admittedly, it's very disappointing when a good man goes down and someone like Bubba, a known and proven liar, gets off simply because of his political position).
But it's the commitment to the rule of law that requires us to evaluate whether this is simply the criminalization of politics, an act that actually UNDERMINES the law and NATIONAL SECURITY.
It sures looks that way at the moment.
Getting a BJ in the Oval is not a crime, either. But that doesn't mean it is okay to lie about it under oath.
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.