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

Skip to comments.

Fitzgerald: Was Any Damage Done By the Valerie Wilson Leak? I Don’t Know.
NRO ^ | Byron York

Posted on 02/02/2006 11:32:04 AM PST by hipaatwo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-130 next last
To: Enchante

All those reporters seem to have forgotten Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson lately, maybe they realize they don't want to be called to testify.


61 posted on 02/02/2006 8:47:33 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Therein lies the real rub.


62 posted on 02/02/2006 8:48:11 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

Good point, I think they're all in hiding, hoping that if they stay away from the story for awhile they might be forgotten. I'm sure there are a slew of MSM names who are quaking and shaking and spilling their Chardonnay, hoping they will not be subpoenaed and required to make a choice between testifying and going to jail. Every reporter who touched this story should be grilled and required to barf up all sources. After all, this is a matter of grave national security as leading Demagogues and MSM babbling heads assured us so many times.........


63 posted on 02/02/2006 8:57:23 PM PST by Enchante (Democrats: "We are ALL broken and worn out, our party & ideas, what else is new?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Your absolutely correct. The wording of Fitz's indictment against Libby was loaded with implications that Libby did something illegal - without stating the crimes. He's hiding behind the fig leaf of those implications as justification that the testimony was material.
64 posted on 02/02/2006 8:59:45 PM PST by Nevermore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oneofmany
Ian't it a judges job to determine if evidence is or is not relevant to a case? Fitzgerald says he doesn't think it's relative so he won't turn anything over

Okay, so who is the judge in this case ?

65 posted on 02/02/2006 9:00:25 PM PST by oldbrowser (We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow......R.R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

If it is demonstrated that Fitzgerald already knew that no crime was committed, how could his investigation be legal?

I mean, that's like the police pulling you in before a grand jury to find out who robbed your neighbor's house, when no robbery had actually taken place, and then charging you with lying about the last time you visited your neighbor.

Or like the old example, interrogating you about when you stopped beating your wife.


66 posted on 02/02/2006 9:06:58 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

perjury shmerjury. Lying to investigators is only bad if Clinton does it.


67 posted on 02/02/2006 9:09:08 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

I think I'm being obtuse, especially for someone who followed this fairly closely :)

As natural as that progression of thought should have been when Fitzgerald first skirted the issue of Plames status, I guess I had never quite thought of it from the angle that Libby didn't know.


68 posted on 02/02/2006 9:10:32 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
As natural as that progression of thought should have been when Fitzgerald first skirted the issue of Plames status, I guess I had never quite thought of it from the angle that Libby didn't know.

You're not being obtuse. At this point, it's entirely understandable if we are all confused -- all, that is, except for the attorneys among us.

69 posted on 02/02/2006 9:13:16 PM PST by Wolfstar (Someday when we meet up yonder, we'll stroll hand in hand again, in a land that knows no parting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
What the heck is this investigation all about?

At this point, I have to question whether or not there ever was a genuine investigation. More and more, I think the charges against Libby are a malicious prosecution, if not for political reasons than to cover the fact that Fitzgerald never conducted the investigation he was employed to conduct.

70 posted on 02/02/2006 9:19:39 PM PST by Wolfstar (Someday when we meet up yonder, we'll stroll hand in hand again, in a land that knows no parting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: All

His legal staff anticipated all of these issues. It is a very narrow prosecution. As long as it remains narrow, and he defends how narrow it is, Libby's attorneys will have trouble.

The instructions to the jury will not involve anything about the underlying investigations. They will focus strictly on whether or not all statements by Libby to the GJ were accurate. Why the investigation is being conducted will be of no interest to a jury.

The only time that question could have merit is with a judge. If this goes to trial, and entirely different defense will be necessary.


71 posted on 02/02/2006 9:33:02 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

How did you determine Libby lied?


72 posted on 02/02/2006 9:35:53 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

IF Libby committed perjury he will have to face the legal consequences (and he should). Whatever the story of the Libby's testimony turns out to be, that will not change the fact that this is a sham investigation driven by a ludicrous effort by MSM reporters and Demagogues to concoct a case against the administration that never should have been taken seriously in the first place (Joe Wilson's asinine and incoherent recitations of nonsense, etc.).

Libby is responsible for any legal consequences he may have incurred IF he gave any untruthful testimony, but that should not distract from the far more important issue: the shameless charlatans who concocted and sustained the whole ludicrous "Niger uranium" story in the media.


73 posted on 02/02/2006 9:40:39 PM PST by Enchante (Democrats: "We are ALL broken and worn out, our party & ideas, what else is new?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
Libby should prevail because it shouldn't be too hard to impeach the credibility of weasel MSM reporters like Russert and Mrs. Mandy Cooper.

It will be a D.C. jury.

Libby is a Republican.

In other words, his best shot is to get the case thrown out...before it goes to trial.

Which is beginning to look like a cinch...

74 posted on 02/02/2006 9:56:30 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
The one good thing about all this is that Libby is not going down without a fight and his lawyers are being very, very aggressive in his defense.

One suspects that the worst thing that could happen to Fitzgerald's career would be for this case to go to trial.

75 posted on 02/02/2006 9:58:52 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
I agree, and also think that Libby did perjure himself. He had a security clearance, and appears to have revealed info that he received from the CIA. This info was about Plame and was marked classified. Seems like he tried to cover this by saying reporter A B and C mentioned it to him, before he told them. OK, if that's correct, just why isn't he charged with violating his security clearance? Is the punishment for that less than the obstruction-perjury charge? Did Fitzgerald think the leak was so minor, causing no real harm, and just continue the investigation to trap Libby into a lie?
76 posted on 02/02/2006 10:02:38 PM PST by pnut22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
At this point, Fitztgerald is the one who ought to be investigated.

He ought to be brought up on charges for defrauding the American people out of $2 million.

This is disgusting!

77 posted on 02/02/2006 10:33:33 PM PST by McGavin999 (If Intelligence Agencies can't find leakers, how can we expect them to find terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Good analysis and questions by Levin.


78 posted on 02/03/2006 2:49:03 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

Good questions, Carolyn. Wish I knew the answer.


79 posted on 02/03/2006 2:49:29 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo


Didn't see it ... SORRY
I'm a morning EST (NY) viewer

GOOD POST


80 posted on 02/03/2006 5:03:05 AM PST by IrishMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-130 next last

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.

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