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

To: dogbyte12

I think there's another side to this issue, though - abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Miller was given the chance to correct her testimony after being prompted by Fitzgerald's revealing evidence of a meeting she forgot. Why wasn't Libby given the same opportunity and/or latitude?

If one side gets a pass, both need to. In theory, neither should be given that much latitude.


244 posted on 10/28/2005 10:15:57 AM PDT by MortMan (Eschew Obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: MortMan

PARDON SCOOTER!!


247 posted on 10/28/2005 10:16:36 AM PDT by H. Paul Pressler IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]

To: MortMan
Miller was given the chance to correct her testimony after being prompted by Fitzgerald's revealing evidence of a meeting she forgot. Why wasn't Libby given the same opportunity and/or latitude?

I think Miller should have been indicted too. She lied, plane and simple. She was trying to cover for Libby, denying the June meeting happened. But to get the goods on Libby, Fitzgerald had to get her notes, and her testimony. Libby wasn't about to testify against Judy Miller.

402 posted on 10/28/2005 10:46:52 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | 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