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

To: lugsoul
Her employment was 'classified' information, whether she met the IIPA statutory definition or not.

Ok. Do we agree she was not OUTED by Libby?

Let me make this point, it maybe the case that he made a mistake and named her, but he is not charged with releasing classified info, he is charged with lying about it...So regarless, if he would have told the truth Fitz wouldn't have indicted him even for relaying "classified" info.

Fitz went fishing.

3,180 posted on 10/29/2005 6:57:09 AM PDT by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3176 | View Replies ]


To: sirchtruth
"Do we agree she was not OUTED by Libby?"

Nope. We agree that Fitzgerald didn't think he could make a case that he intentionally did so.

Which, if all of the factual assertions in the indictment are true, shows a fair amount of restraint. If those assertions are true, then Libby told reporters the SAME information that he KNEW he couldn't talk about on a non-secure telephone line. It wouldn't take a crazed partisan prosecutor to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that this shows intent.

3,182 posted on 10/29/2005 7:00:21 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3180 | 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