Fitzgerald is just milking this assignment for as long as he can and for as much income as he can.
Any beat cop in America could have determined in a day that Plame was nothing more than a desk jockey at CIA; nothing more, nothing less.
Great posting ...........
The headline says just about everything there is about this sorry saga.
To be honest, Scooter is in the same boat previously sailed by Martha Stewart - indicted for lying about a No-Crime.
Preposterous. Lewis Carroll would love it.
IMO this writer misses the biggest news -
The judge told Libby's lawyers, and thereby the public, we don't need to know who the first leaker to Novak was.
It's too late. The jury pool has been tainted.
Funny, but the CIA standards are clearly out of step with the law itself - otherwise Fitzy would have cited a violation of the covert status law.
By the time this is all said and done, Fitz will have so many layers of egg on his face he'll never be able to peel them off.
Bookmark.
Fitz:Mr Libby Lied.
Libby's lawyer:About what?
Fitz:About who said Valeria Flame was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she a covert agent?
Fitz: I don't know it's not germane.
Libby's lawyer:If it's not germane what did Mr. Libby lie about that is germane to this case?
Fitz: About who said she was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she?
Fitz:It's not germane.
Libby's lawyer: But Mr Libby lied about something not germane to this case?
Fitz:Yes.
Libby's lawyer: Did Mr. Libby lie about something germane to this case?
Fitz: That's what I'm saying.
Libby's lawyer: Saying what that is germane?
Fitz: That's right, germane.
Libby's lawyer: To this case.
Fitz: Yes.
Libby's lawyer: What.
Fitz: No, What's on second.
Did Fitzgerald perjure himself when he claimed to actually have investigated this case?
So, Fitz wasn't running an "investigation," he was running a perjury trap. My tax dollars at work.
I'm still miffed as to how Fitzgerald could investigate her status for two years without finding out whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated. A simple questionaire sent to the CIA asking for yes or no answers to the statute's requirements, with a request for supporting documentation would have determined in less than one month whether the statute had been violated and further investigation would not be needed. The same could be done with the espionage act of 1917, if he wanted to.
The question of whether reporters knew her identity before Libby told them or whether libby himself learned it from reporters is immaterial at that point. In fact, it never would have needed to be asked.
This case gives me heartburn.
"Does the government intend to introduce any evidence of damage or her status?" Walton asked.
"We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage," Fitzgerald responded"
*snip*
...We are just going to send him away for political reasons.
big bttt
"....nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby"...According to who? The Kangaroo Court prosecutor?