Posted on 03/07/2007 12:39:05 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Nobody but daily attendees knows everything the jury does in the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby case, so we are reluctant to criticize the seven women and four men who found him guilty on four of five counts related to obstruction of justice and lying to investigators and a grand jury. The more important question is whether the case should have been brought at all.
--snip--
Prosecutors have discretion, and one could argue that it was reasonable to bring Mr. Libby to trial simply judging by the result: The jury found him guilty so the case must have been worthy. There is, however, another way to look at it.
Much of the outrage that surrounded what does seem to have been an administration campaign to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had criticized the justification for the war in Iraq in an op-ed column, centered on the suggestion that the campaign resulted in "outing" Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was said to be a covert CIA operative. ...
The fact of the matter is, however, that nobody has been charged with the crime of leaking Ms. Plame's CIA employment to the press – specifically to columnist Robert Novak, who mentioned the fact in a July 14, 2003 column. And, independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew by October 2003 that the person who leaked it to Mr. Novak – apparently in the course of a long, rambling phone conversation – was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
No and Hell No!
It was the "Seinfeld" of trials, a trial about nothing.
Why are people so reluctant to criticize a jury? They blew the case.
Fitzgerald should lose his law license for malfeasance.
Any questions?
Seinfitzfeld
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.