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 ...
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
You're missing my point big time. For Fitzgerald not to be sure of Plame's CIA classified status at the time in question, at this point in the investigation, is to me, absurd.
Why did he go out of his way to accuse Libby of a crime he wasn't charged with? Why did he go out of his way to not say if Plame was covert? And why did he not clear the names of the rest of the people he hauled into his inquisition?
That's one silver lining here. These MSM types are going to be made to squirm. And run up big legal bills.
The frustrating part is that this approach to the law, while right, makes for an uneven playing field. If the field were level, half of the previous administration and the entire DNC leadership (plus everyone associated with Jesse Jackson) would have been charged with a crime in the last ten years. But principles are only needed when it is harder to do the right thing than the wrong thing.
That's one silver lining here. These MSM types are going to be made to squirm. And run up big legal bills.
You're right, he literally can't under the law.
If she was legally "covert", and Fitzgerald revealed that, he'd be breaking the law.
Saying that her position was/is "classified", though, is not a breach of the law.
Because it's entirely possible to give a wrong answer without knowing that you're giving a wrong answer - something that's entirely possible when you're talking about conversations that took place years ago.
I agree that Libby should not lie. What makes absolutely no sense is that a lawyer would not know that. What on earth could Libby expect, he surely had to know that he would be indicted for lying?
After all the evidence was in. And there is evidence OTHER THAN reporters' testimony, that implicates Libby in a lie.
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.
The resolution of that underlying matter is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Libby lied.
This would be a fact easily discovered by Fitzgerald and the investigation should have been over at that point.
Without Libby's lie, assuming there aren't other liars involved, the case is over. Without the lies to the GJ, there would be no bill, because 50 USC 421 et seq were not violated.
He does know. It's implausible that he doesn't.
But he can't reveal whether Plame has or did have covert status, because that would be a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Saying that Plame's position was "classified" is not a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
"Covert" and "classified" are two very different things under the law.
What is this about Plame living in France now? I keep reading that here on FR, but are there links that explain what she's doing there and for how long, etc.
I agree. And, as I've said, this is one way we are different from the Rats:
If a crime was committed (perjury or whatever), I say, hang 'im high. Even though it is unfair because other people (Bubba) get off on something worse simply because of their political position. I remain committed to the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial/investigative process.
That said, note I said "IF" a crime was committed. One element of proof in perjury (besides intent) is that the lie has to be about a "material fact." So far, I don't see that.
The basic thing this all comes down to is: Plame ain't worth all the fuss.
I suspect we've been had.
I was just looking it up, can't find any validation it's true.
I guess someone has injected bogus information into FR, and I was naive enough to believe it.
If Libby were employed by the Clinton Administration...those words would be a death sentence for Libby.
A few people William Jefferson Clinton didn't have to Pardon
BEFORE Novak printed his article, Joe and Novak talked. Joe told Novak "Leave my wife out of this". They had played musical phones. All Joe had to do was call the CIA and Novak would have been stopped.
WHY DIDN'T JOE CALL THE CIA?
He chose instead to dicker with Novak over the phone?? Doesn't make sense.
That is, to insinuate themselves personally into the news as major players in the cast of characters, to manufacture the news from whole cloth, and to spin the news with their own personal biases. In addition, by various dramatic tricks, to make non-news into earth-shaking news...and to do the opposite, also.
Most egregious of all is the license granted to reporters by their amoral media bosses to kick aside journalistic restraint aside in the hopes of being noticed and becoming highly-paid media "stars" and sought-after speakers on the lucrative national creamed-chicken circuit.
If Libby opts for a trial, at least some of these "stars" will be grilled and exposed for what they are, amoral bastards who don't have the public good or "freedom of the press" uppermost in their minds at all.
Leni
Wow, if Fitzie said that, he's setting the bar pretty high.
The only path to the truth on Plame was Libby?
AND, if the leak was not a crime (if Plame was not covert, etc.), then how can whatever Libby did be relevant to a "material fact" in the case?
It's like this:
Let's say "info x" is classified (covert).
It then is de-classified (no longer covert).
A SP is appointed to investigate who leaked "info x," which was not "covert" at the time it was leaked.
Since "info x" was not "covert" at the time it was leaked, no crime was committed.
A person has conversations about "info x", which at the moment is not "covert" info.
In the investigation into who leaked "info x," which was not "covert" at the time it was leaked, the person lies about who told him about "info x."
If it was not a crime to leak "info x," since it was not "covert" at the time it was leaked, WHAT CONSTITUTES A "MATERIAL FACT" IN THE INVESTIGATION?
Even if the person's lies obstruct the SP's ability to find out who leaked "info x," do those lies go to a "material fact" just because they might obstruct the SP's investigation of a non-criminal act?
Someone, tell me: how is what Libby allegedly lied about relevant to a "material fact"?
He does know. It's implausible that he doesn't.
Then explain his statement: "I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003"
But he can't reveal whether Plame has or did have covert status, because that would be a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Saying that Plame's position was "classified" is not a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Notice he didn't say, "I can't comment on that." He SPECIFICLY SAID HE WAS NOT SURE OF HER CLASSIFIED STATUS AT THE TIME.
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.