The law you quote is relevant only to electronic intercept of communications to which you are not a party.
Posted on 10/30/2005 1:44:37 PM PST by libstripper
And he was right, because the meeting did not involve Interstate communication (or any electronic communication at all), and the only law that applied was Iowa law which did not prohibit the tapeing.
Next!!
The law you quote is relevant only to electronic intercept of communications to which you are not a party.
This garbage is really beneath FR.
All this money and time spent and all they can do is bust a Scooter.
A lawyer.
"...in the Plame leak..."
I still don't understand why there was a grand jury investigation in the first place. The law they were citing to do the investigation was for covert operatives in FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Plame was in Langley, VA...besides which, everyone...her neighbors, et al, knew she was CIA; she was NOT in a foreign country!
Even so, if Libby had just told the truth each time he was questioned, they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
I don't even want to see Fitzgerald run for dogcatcher. He is a hack.
Seems to me that he has missed at least half of the territory of his investigation and taken about 8x too much time to get to Friday's point.
Did we watch the same press conference? It doesn't seen so.
The Special Prosecutor made absolute statements that Libby DID all these things, not allegedly did them.
I got the distinct impression that Fitz had at best a weak case, knew he had a weak case and also knew that what he presented sounded as if he knew the results would be perceived as a mountain laboring and producing a very small mouse.
Far from prounouncing Libby innocent, I thought he was doing his damndest to a priori convict him by press conference.
(((This starkly contrasts with Fitzgerald’s investigation of the Plame leak case. Here the alleged underlying violation was of either the 1992 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Identities Act) or the Espionage Act. The Identities Act prohibits disclosure of the identities of “covert” CIA agents, 50 USC § 421, and narrowly defines a “covert” CIA agent as an individual whose “identity . . . is classified information and . . . who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States[.]” The Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793 is equally narrow in that it applies only to a specifically listed set of disclosures, not including the disclosure of covert agents’ identities and prohibits such disclosure only if it is done “with intent or reason to believe the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation[.]”
Plame wasn’t a “covert” agent since she had returned to the United States more than five years before her identity was disclosed. There couldn’t have been a violation of the Espionage Act because “covert” agents’ identities aren’t covered by that act and any disclosure of her identity was to protect the United States from the damage she and her husband were doing to it, not with intent to use the knowledge to injure the United States or help a foreign power.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald went ahead with the Plame investigation without any reasonable chance of discovering any underlying statutory violation)))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh for Pete's sake. He wasn't just empowered to investigate that one statute. He was empowered to investigate any illegal leaking. That could have meant the covert identity act, the espionage act, misuse of classified information, violating Wilson's civil rights, etc etc etc
Ashcroft & Gonzales both thought it warranted an investigation and chose him to do it. I'll trust that they had more info about the case than any of us.
And all of the griping ignores a point Fitzgerald made strongly. That Libby's lies made it difficult (or even impossible) to discover whether any of those laws had been broken. That's why people get charged with perjury or obstruction.
If Fitzgerald was the partisan hack some are making him out to be - he could have indicted Libby under those laws, he could have indicted Rove, he could have dragged Cheney back in under oath. Even if he lost the cases 18 months from now the damage would have been enormous. I've seen ambitious prosecutors indict on flimsy charges knowing that they probably won't hold up. They hope that more evidence will come later, or that the perp will plead, or someone will flip. Fitzgerald didn't do any of that...did he?
If it weren't for the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln, Langley, VA, would be in a foreign country (to the U.S.). Of course, the CIA headquarters wouldn't be located there.
If Fitz is such a clean upstanding Prosector, just exactly what has he been doing for two years to get to a he said / he said situation?
Did you watch his press conference? You know..the one where he said that if all of the people who received subpeonas had just shown up to testify that news conference & indictment would have happened in October 2004 instead of Oct. 2005. He spent a year traipsing through courts to force people to testify.
Would you like to keep griping about him spending 2 years at the investigation? Would you have been happier if this indictment and controversy happened last october just weeks before the election?
OK, maybe Fitz isn't a partisan hack. Maybe he is a bipartisan hack. He presented this crap to the "grand" jury when he could have just told them the media was lying as usual and it was beneath them to waste their time on it.
Then again, Fitz is a lawyer, and his lips have been moving................
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.