Replies

That should have been his first act....determine if the statute covers Valerie Plame. If not, this should have stopped right there. No subpoenas for reporters' notes, no grand jury, etc.

This is the key which is being ignored. If the statute did not cover her, then there could have been no crime to investigate. If there was no crime, there would be no reason for a grand jury.

You could find out if there was a crime committed in about a day by interviewing her superiors at the CIA to find out what her job was.

I'm not like most on this board: if Libby lied to the Grand Jury, he should be indicted. We argued blue-faced that Clinton should have been prosecuted, no matter the underlying reason, for the simple reason that the most humble citizen doesn't get to lie under oath.

Having said that, I think these special prosecuters have a cushy job, with a huge budget and staff, and no boss to report to on a day to day basis, and so they naturally just DO STUFF BECASUE THEY CAN.

If she was not covert, the grand jury was illegitimate.

If the statute did not cover her, then there could have been no crime to investigate.

I still do not understand that. Fitz said he does not investigate statutes, he investigated facts.

I likened it to a neighbor accusing me of illegally watering my lawn on the 12th of October. Even days are my days. Bingo--no law broken, Game, set, match, I win.

But Fitzgerald is saying instead of investigating the water law as it applies to me and the day of the month, He can expand the investigation to anything any member of my household has done

Maybe it isn't always clear cut, but covert or not--that is clear cut. Once it was determined she was not covert (no one has been charged), it should have been over, Be we have paid for this to go on far longer than needed.