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

To: Sam Hill
Any indictments, we are told, will be based on the "cover-up" of this non-crime. """

Not according to the federal judges who ruled on the reporters' jailing. And unlike you, me or the NY Times, they've seen Fitzgerald's evidence.

15 posted on 10/22/2005 7:40:50 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: churchillbuff

BS.

This was from last February, when Fitzgerald was trying to throw Judy into jail for not revealing her source. All he had to do was show that she might have been able to prove that Libby had leaked Plame's name.

Guess what, Bucko? Judy said Libby wasn't her source for Plame's ID. That she got it from somebody else she can't remember. She swore to that under oarth.

Why are you dredging up in this no-longer even slightly relevant material from last February? Are you that desperate?


21 posted on 10/22/2005 7:44:04 PM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: churchillbuff

If Fitz had slam-dunk evidence of a "serious threat to national security" nearly a year ago, what the hell is taking him so long to wrap this up? And NOTHING I've heard about this leak case suggests a "serious threat to national security." That's either overblown rhetoric from partisan judges or the real evidence and the real crime is something we haven't even heard about in the press.


109 posted on 10/24/2005 7:07:21 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | 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