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

To: oceanview

I confess, I'm surprised and disappointed that the focus appears to be on Libby and Rove and that it's looking like Fitzgerald is focusing on the idiotic Plame and her blasted name.

It makes no sense if he could establish early on that she was not undercover---and/or that even if she were that the other elements of the statute were not even close to being violated by anything Rove or Libby did.

The good guys have a right to defend themselves and it makes me sick to think he is really looking into that aspect.

We shall see.


51 posted on 07/24/2005 10:32:26 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: cyncooper

We need to keep in mind that neither Rove nor Libby nor anyone else in the admin had any reason to believe that revealing Plame's role in the Niger trip would ever lead to this huge brouhaha, and that their recollections of how and from whom they learned this info might indeed be fuzzy. Plame's identity was known to many, and was probably circulating through personal gossip, through reporters, and through official or semi-official channels, all of them forming a huge feedback loop. I really don't think Fitzgerald is going to try to turn any inconsistencies in who-told-who-first into a perjury rap, especially if there is no underlying crime to begin with.


55 posted on 07/25/2005 12:55:34 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | 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