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

To: Cboldt

Lying here depends on whose version of the conversations one accepts as truthful, doesn't it?

As for Fitz, I think if he knew early on there was no way this case met the threshhold for an IIPA matter, it seems ripe for a misconduct charge. Because it then looks like he was calling and recalling all these people hoping he'd get them to contradict eachother or their earlier testimony, a classic perjury trap.

I have read the indctment numerous times and studied the various statements of the three reporters and if what is publicly known is presented to a judge I think the counts will fall:I think Russert did know about Plame and, therefore, his recollection of the conversation is as likely mistaken as Libby's is..and he weaseled in public about it. I think Andrea Mitchell, who worked for him, knew well before Libby did and told Russert.
As to Cooper, twice before his appearance before the gj, he charged the WH had a smear campaign going against Plame. His testimonhy is dubious because of obvious bias.

Miller's testimony is utterly incomprehensible and she made it obvious that she had some information about Plame ("Flame") in her notes from someone other than Libby and quite likely before they even spoke.

I would not place a big wager on his conviction.


60 posted on 02/01/2006 1:56:28 PM PST by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: the Real fifi

What do you think is up with Rove's status in this investigation? No new news/leaks in quite some time.


62 posted on 02/01/2006 1:59:36 PM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: the Real fifi
Lying here depends on whose version of the conversations one accepts as truthful, doesn't it?

As between Libby and reporters? Not really. The indictment depends on and is driven by Libby having knowledge of Plame independently from conversations with reporters.

The "faulty memory" problem that gets Libby off the charge would be the memory of investigators. Libby might assert that teh investigators forgot or withheld that Libby DID tell them that he (Libby) checked Plame's status at CIA.

But his direct testimony (in the indictlment) leads away from asserting that fact.

Investigators have independent evidence that Libby checked with CIA. That is, independent of conversations with reporters.

I would not place a big wager on his conviction.

I give it better than even odds -if- the case goes to trial. I don't see the charge being dropped, but a plea bargain is possible.

66 posted on 02/01/2006 2:16:15 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | 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