Posted on 10/29/2005 3:10:01 AM PDT by YaYa123
Mr Fitz saying that Libby's testimony prevents "knowing" is making an assumption. There is no conclusion visible and Mr. Firz's statement is only valid IF a conclusion can be reached. "Faulty logic".
...Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.
Bingo!
didn't we hear, early in this whole matter, that she was no longer covert, by the paperwork in the CIA personnel dept. had not yet changed this designation? if so, they could say that she was officially covert, but only on paper.
Who told Novak?
How can the prosecutor charge anyone publicly and not publicly state who told Novak?
Could you elaborate?
Does it not matter under the law whether what is being investigated is or is not a crime?
In other words, can a person violate the false statements/obstruction of justice statutes if he lies during an investigation of whether the sky is blue?
Maybe that's the case, based on the idea that no one should ever impede ANY official investigation. But is that the law?
If someone launched a SP investigation into who left sensitive, but not classified info in the trash can and early in the investigation it became clear that no crime was committed, what lines of questioning are based on facts *material* to the investigation, such that lying or obstructing investigation into the facts constitutes a separate crime?
I believe resignation is required or "required" (expected) whenever a high executive offical is indicted.
They give the appearance that liberal Democrats have hijacked federal criminal law and process in a vicious attempt to win in the courts what they could not win at the ballot box in 2004. Their star witnesses this time are three media whores whose allegiance to the left is deep and well-rooted. The endgame is the removal of Bush from office, nothing less.
It might appear as if they have lost that larger opportunity now that only Libby has been indicted. But they will continue to blow on that glowing ember with maniacal javertian zeal in the hope that it will ignite a administration-destroying conflagration.
We've seen this before, and we will see it again. It is politics as usual inside the Beltway.
In the January 2004 issue of Vanity Fair it says that in the spring of 2003,Valerie Wilson is in the process of moving from "non-official" to "official" status,State Dept.cover.
Since she moved back to the U.S.in June 1997,that puts her in the U.S.for more than 5 years.
Joe's big mouth must have ruined her chances.
My question is, if it's clear that no crime was committed (and that's the presumption until there's more evidence that Plame indeed was covert), what difference does it make if we ever know exactly what happened in this case?
How can ANYTHING that happened in this case (the alleged outing of Plame) be a "material fact" if no crime was committed? "Material" to WHAT? A general desire to know a fact of political interest?
If someone lies to a GJ, it's a terrible perversion of justice. Period.
But for it to be a crime, the lie has to be on a "material fact."
Is how Libby learned of Plame's status a "material fact" even if revelation of her status, by anyone, at the time it was revealed, did not violate any laws?
What if that lie was in month 15 and it was known that there was no crime because of the 5 year rule in month 2 wouldn't you question the motives of the prosecutor in keeping up the investigation?
That is why I'm interested in the timeline.
Isn't what's missing here evidence that Plame was a "covert" agent within the meaning of the law?
My understanding FWIW: Having a "classified" position is different from being "covert."
An employee at the CIA may have a "classified" portfolio, meaning the part of their personnel file that covers them moving in and out of covert operations, their different covers over the years, etc.
A person can have a "classified" portfolio and still not be "covert"--within the meaning of the law-- at any given time. What I understand.
But your post raises an interesting issue. What if an investigation or grand jury were ginned up not because the criminal investigators or prosecutor had a good faith basis for believing that a crime had been committed, but solely to lay a trap to catch a suspect in the hope that he would lie under oath or try to persuade other witnesses to lie under oath?
I seem to recall looking at some case law on that point many years ago and that the consensus was that the entire perjury or obstruction of justice case could be thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct. That would be the most sensible result.
Where are the word's "not sure" or "don't know" in a Fitzgerald quotation?
Sorry, it is inconceivable that Fitzgerald doesn't know.
Anyway, why is it so important to you?
I agree with you, but my understanding of the law is that it is not a crime to lie under oath about facts that are not material to the investigation.
So what facts here are material to the investigation?
If it's clear early on that there is no crime (Plame was not covert at the time her identity was revealed), how is it material to the investigation to have information on how a particular person learned of Plame's (non-covert) status?
If it's not a crime for the sky to be blue and a person lies about when/how he learned the sky is blue, what fact material to the investigation does that person's lies go to?
I agree, this is confusing.
Every crime has "elements of proof" that must be met for the crime to be committed.
By saying this, Fitzie is intimating that all the other elements of proof---including that Plame was in fact covered as a covert agent within the meaning of the law at the time her identity was revealed---are provable.
He is intimating that the only element on which he does not have evidence is the identity of the person who revealed Plame's status. And, further, that Libby's acts kept him from learning who revealed Plame's covered status.
But no one, anywhere, at any time, that I am aware of, has claimed that Plame met the statutory requirements for "covert" status at the time her identity was revealed.
Thus, even if Fitzie learned the id of whoever revealed Plame's status, he still would not meet the elements of proof for the crime of revealing a covert agent's status.
As far as we know now, there is NO indication that he could EVER meet the THRESHOLD ISSUE for such a crime: that the individual in question was, in fact, covert within the meaning of the law at the time the person's status was revealed.
Please. The whole bleating of the Left revolves around the point that poor Plame's status has now been IRREPARABLY BLOWN.
If she's "legally covert" even now---such that, as you argue, it would be illegal for Fitzie to reveal her status---then both she and her hubby have violated the law many times.
No self-respecting covert agent would do a photo shoot for Vanity Fair while in a covert status.
No covert agent worth her salt would conclude that her husband can write op-eds for the NYT attacking the current administration without foreign operatives nosing around and discovering that the author's wife was CIA.
Etc.
What you are arguing is that, irrespective of the practical fact that Plame's cover (such as it was) has been blown, Fitzie can't reveal her (for the purpose of argument) covert status without violating the law.
Would not the acts and statements of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson have violated the same law?
Or are we going to make a "very fine distinction" here and claim that all Mr. and Mrs. Wilson did was acknowledge that Plame worked at the CIA, not acknowledge her "covert" status.
"I will confirm" implies "I'm not sure" or "I'm not certain", i.e. "I need to check".
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.