Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: YaYa123
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Fitzgerald dodge the question that was central to the investigation? That question is:

Was the "outing" of Valerie Plame the violation of any law"?

This question is independent of who may or may not have been doing the "outing". It is not an issue of sufficient evidence. It is not an issue of whether Libby could have obstructed Fitzgerald's investigation as was claimed. It is the simple question of whether Plame was covered by the law. I think she wasn't. I think Fitzgerald knows she wasn't and that is why he dodged the question. It also the reason for that strange lecture on the importance of keeping CIA employees identities a secret. He wasn't telling us what the law says. He was telling us what the law should say and it was the latter that was his guide in his investigation.

If I was Libby's new lawyer I would attack Fitzgerald on the grounds that he conducted a witch hunt for nearly two years when he should have or could have or probably did have enough facts to realize that no laws were broken regardless of who "outed" Valerie Plame.

96 posted on 10/29/2005 5:40:18 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: InterceptPoint
If I was Libby's new lawyer I would attack Fitzgerald on the grounds that he conducted a witch hunt for nearly two years when he should have or could have or probably did have enough facts to realize that no laws were broken regardless of who "outed" Valerie Plame.

If Libby hadn't lied (assuming the facts as laid out in the indictment), the GJ would have disbanded with no bill.

99 posted on 10/29/2005 5:44:16 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson