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

To: smoothsailing

I've read the indictment, and can't figure out why Libby
would lie to the GJ about when and how he learned about
Ms. Wilson. We await his version of the events and timeline.

It's possible that Libby screwed up. He needed the wife-
arranged-trip detail to help discredit Wilson, but
apparently considered it classified. It appears that
instead of having Cheney ask Bush to order it declassied,
he relied on the old trick of finding an "open source"
report of the fact.

And if there wasn't one, or he got confused and merely
thought there was one, or relied on an actual open
source from an unrecorded phone call with a hostile
member of the legacy media, then he's got a problem.

And had Libby admitted to the GJ that he didn't have
an open source for the admitted discussions with
reporters, would Fitzy have then tried to charge on
the supposed original leak?

The Fitzgerald indictment is as political as anything
Ronnie Earle would have coughed out.

But yes, this has troubling parallels with the Stewart
case, and these persecutors had better realize that we
are watching all this, and the lessons we are taking
from it are:
- render no aid to the FBI - it's dangerous to talk to them
- always take the 5th in front of a jury, even if you are
supposedly a non-target friendly witness

Fitz & pals are wrecking the legal system in order to
carve notches on their resumes.


9 posted on 10/30/2005 9:02:17 AM PST by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Boundless
had Libby admitted to the GJ that he didn't have an open source for the admitted discussions with reporters, would Fitzy have then tried to charge on the supposed original leak?

Plame (not Libby) has to meet three conditions for there to be a charge for revealing her identity: (a) her status must have been classified, (b) there must have been active government measures to conceal her status and identity, and (c) she must have operated overseas within the last five years.

All three conditions must be met.

Given that he's working out of the long-established Counter Espionage offices at the DoJ, it's implausible that Fitzgerald *doesn't* know beyond question what Plame's status actually was. He never even *hinted* at her actual status in his one-hour+ press conference (yet that has been the central scope of the investigation).

Since Libby did receive his information though classified channels, and he also holds clearance, there's no doubt that he could be charged if Plame met the above criteria.

And since Fitzgerald went instead for five lesser charges, we must infer that Plame did not hold the necessary status. After all, the entire 2-year investigation revolved around this central issue.

15 posted on 10/30/2005 9:27:38 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Boundless

I think the prosecution does have a problem with motive. That will be a major defense, I suspect.


18 posted on 10/30/2005 9:30:19 AM PST by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Boundless
- render no aid to the FBI - it's dangerous to talk to them
- always take the 5th in front of a jury, even if you are supposedly a non-target friendly witness

Fitz & pals are wrecking the legal system in order to carve notches on their resumes.

That's it, in a nutshell. The MSM is part and parcel of this wrecking, because they are willing to ignore the destruction of the law in order to pimp their political agenda.

An effective and unbiased media would be trumpeting the true miscarriage of justice instead of burying it.

45 posted on 10/30/2005 12:41:32 PM PST by Valpal1 (Crush jihadists, drive collaborators before you, hear the lamentations of their media. Allahu FUBAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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