Posted on 10/28/2005 5:00:46 AM PDT by kcvl
Per Fox News...
I think he dreamt up the charges first and worked his way backwards, ignoring details at will along the way.
According to him Libby is guilty of THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY.
He's now saying that is doesn't matter what statute you get them under, just as long as you get 'em!
Fine distinctions --- he is a Jesuit. Can't really grasp much of what he's saying. Looks like a school boy, which plays in his favor.
Has anyone kicked sand in his eyes or hit him in the head with a baseball yet?
Can't stand to listen to this Fitzgerald idiot.
I'm going down to Murphy's Bar
Libby had to know she was covert to charge him with that crime. I think....
If I went before this guy I wouldn't talk...he clearly has no sense of context or perspective. Impressive? Hardly.
One thing for sure, his little "investigation" sure shot the chit out of Joe Wilson's "they tried to punish" me rant..........
Now Fitz is actually saying that if Libby can be convicted for perjury, then that will be his punishment for his leaking.
Fitz has gone bye-bye.
No. Let me go slow. With regard to the Russert allegation, the GIST of it is that he told the GJ he learned Plame worked for the CIA from Russert, and was SURPRISED by the information, when it is shown by documents and/or other testimony that he had already had multiple conversations with government officials where her employment at CIA was told to him, and Russert told the GJ he didn't tell Libby. IOW, he flat-out lied to the GJ about where he learned about Plame.
Perhaps my original post was confusing. The impeachment comment was based on Nadler and the Dems screaming that this leads to President Bush lying about getting us into war in Iraq, this plays into that scenario.
Why the hell did he not put Wilson under oath for some background?
Comparing discrepencies between multiple interviews is an old Stalinist interrogation technique.
Sorry, one can not read that indictment and come to that conclusion.
He simply ignores the underlying law while implying that Libby somehow broke it and leaves empty the vessel marked, was she or wasn't she covered by the law.
I mean it's a joke.
Trial One:
Prosecuting Attorney: Did you Mr Russert mention Valerie Plame to you?
Libby: That is my recollection.
Prosecuting Attorney: Did Mr Russert mention Valerie Plame to Mr Libby?
Russert: Not to my recollection.
Defense Attorney: I move to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
Judge: Case dismissed. Next!
lol
This is a joke.
This guy realized VERY quickly that Plame was not covert and the original charge was moot. So he spent 2 years delving into a POLITICAL fight, trying to find any crime that he could.
He is reaching to claim that Plame's employment at CIA was "classified". And on THAT house, he charged Libby with lying about the details of discussing her name.
Libby may have lied. But it is OBVIOUS that Fitzgerald is prosecuting a POLITICAL case. And he sounds like he is reading DNC talking points.
"And I want to say one more thing..."
"And I want to say one more thing..."
"And I want to say one more thing..."
"And I want to say one more thing..."
This guy can't stop talking.
Enough! My brain is hurting.
We love her to death!! Be wise!!
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.