Posted on 07/11/2006 2:06:27 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
Edited on 07/11/2006 2:56:48 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Novak's testimony on 1/14/04 merely confirmed what Fitz already knew.
This assumes Fitz was acting in good faith, which he was not. I don't contend that Fitz targeted Rove as the source. I contend that Fitz targeted Rove.
So, whatever Fitz was doing, he couldn't have been looking for the person who outed Plame.
No, and he never was. That's my point. He knew from the beginning there was no real crime. Novak's report makes this 100% clear. Listen to Fitz's press conference. People will usually tell you what they're doing, if you listen. Fitz makes it clear that he intended to punish someone for outing Plame, even if no crime actually occurred. Indeed, Fitz himself pretty much says this in his self-satisfied, sanctimonious little lecture.
He was after Rove--but not for violating the Identities Act, and indeed not for any crime at all. He was after Rove because he was on a crusade to punish someone in the administration for doing something he didn't like. Eventually, he "got" someone. But the person he wanted was Rove.
It should be so obvious to everyone now that this whole case was about nothing to begin with. But when I read some of these other articles (wapo, nyt) or flick though the channels tonight (hardball) it is amazing how these media morons are coninuing to attempt to spin this story as a big deal against Rove & the Administration. The media looks like complete idiots, but they don't seem to care.
Now we just need to wait for the Libby charges to be dropped. Even though I would like to see some of the players in this story be forced to take the stand (e.g. the reporters).
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.