Posted on 10/28/2005 5:00:46 AM PDT by kcvl
NO- did Gergen REALLY say that? I was just listening to Mark Levin and David Boies on Hannity- they agreed- LOL. Although Mark was obviously more upset.
Boies said- what's notable today is what we HAVEN'T seen. No Rove (and he doubts Rove will be indicted now) and no indictment on the original charge.
The best question asked by a reporterette was, if Libby had not lied or obstructed the investigation, i.e., told the truth, would charges be filed against him for divulging Plame's name. Fitzgerald couldn't give her an answer, because the process couldn't be completed. He did indicate however, that it would have been a difficult call because of the law. Personally, I think Libby would not have been charged if he had been truthful.
Of course! That is why today was an utter defeat for liberals and their media whores because they did not get Rove but someone called Libby and on charges not related to the “Leak itself”. Today is their worst disappointment for them since the 2004 elections. They will keep going on with their delusions and hallucinate about the end of President Bush as they have been doing for five years, but today was yet another bitter reality for them.
It might also explain why all their sources are drying up
What is your problem? Do you like people calling you liberal? Do you like people calling you a DUmmie? Im neither. Ive been a member here for more than six years. My hope was that no one would be indicted. However, I made the mistake of standing up for people earlier this morning that were reporting that Libby was going to be indicted and worse yet I made fun of those who fully expected Wilson to be indicted today. Geez, I wonder who was right.
Wow, that says something! But be careful. He was Gore's attorney I believe.
they all argree that there is no chance of a plea deal
Yes, it is. I heard some talking heads on one of the news channels asking why Libby would lie to the FBI and Grand Jury when it was clear that there was documentation otherwise. I guess he could argue on exactly what "knew she worked at the CIA" means, ie. he never saw her employee badge, but that's Clintonesque.
I guess he thought that he could deflect the FBI investigation and that it would blow over. Once he tried to do that, he couldn't contradict his FBI statements in the later Grand Jury. Still, the guy's no dummy, he had to know that all the details would be found out.
Sheesh...so where does he end up?
I don't know
Your points are very good and relevant. Fitzgerald began with a conclusion that Plame had been outed, that a crime had been committed.
As you point out, he apparently began with the conclusion that Wilson was right all along, and that is very suspect.
I agree fully. I was afraid he was going to get charged on some minor technical discrepancy in his testimony but its pretty damaging to say Tim Russert ammong other reporters told me and then find out four government officals told him prior to talking to Russert and that he discussed it with six government officials and Russert said he didnt know about Wilson and didnt tell Libby.
CIA and State saw an opportunity to take the King down. They missed. Look for Porter Goss to speed up the weeding process at CIA forthwith.
And now a question that's been bothering me for quite some time. Why would the CIA bureaucracy, obviously "outraged" at the "outing" of one of their "classified" employees, send that employees husband on a politically charged "covert" mission to Niger if they were so damned concerned about his wife being exposed to the press?
These are things I wonder about.
Well, let's add up the indicts during this administration and the indictments during the Clinton Administration AND the crimes and jail time on each side. It'll put things in perspective.
What Fitzgerald proved, or will prove, is he lied to the reporters and really heard it from people in the WH.
Can anything be more bizarre. The original case was about outing a secret agent -- given up now. What we do have now is Libby was remiss in not telling the reporters the actual source of his information.
Well, no it isn't. There are people who work for the CIA openly; there are people that work for the CIA quietly; and there are actual deep cover agents. It is not even remotely illegal to tell people about the first; only in extreme circumstances illegal for the second; and only sometimes illegal to tell people about the third. ...And knowingly telling that they are part of the third group is only illegal under certain circumstances.
Regardless, the law that protects the identity of a deep cover agent is NOT intended to act as a shield against their participation in a lie such as Wilson made in misattributing why he went to Niger. Her name was a direct answer to a point of the debate, and she was not in a physical location where she was under the unprotected control of a foreign country - which is what the law was about.
Not only that, he was sent on a mission which would be included under HER work....WMD. That alone I would think would be an illegal exchange of information. That's like "Here, honey. Is this what you wanted". "Yes, but make sure you don't sign a non-disclosure (because of me) and burn anything you have....receipts etc.."
Very true! I just would have thought he would have been smarter then this but then a smart person wouldn't have written that note to Miller either. They would have had a one line statement that she was released to tell everything.
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.