And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make. . . .
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important.
Libby's alleged crimes all occurred after the investigation began.
aps said:think again.
All the republicans/conservatives are arguing that Fitzgerald was unable to find a violation of the statute. If you read the transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, you would understand that he was saying that he was unable to find a violation of the statute because Libby essentially threw sand in his eyes. Thus, it's possible that there has been a violation of the statute but that the special prosecutor has been unable to find such violation but for Libby's lying (and probably Rove's lying as well).
Also, Rove is unquestionably NOT off the hook. Fitzgerald would not be continuing with the investigation if he had nothing on Rove.
Stinger said:His baseball analogy was the weakest part of his presentation and still makes no sense. Rove is NOT accused of perjury. Rove did NOT blind Fitzgerald. So is he cleared of outing her and why. If Fitzgerald had the evidence he would have indicted him.
Fitzgerald skipped ahead, the first thing he should have done is prove Plame was the batter at the plate and then prove that she actually got hit. THEN he could see who did it and it they did it intentionally. What he said instead was that since Libby seems to have lied about whom he heard about it from first (not a very important aspect to begin with) then the investigation can go nowhere. Libby's problems have nothing to do with Rove.
danarhea said:I will debunk this piece of delusional :spin: with one simple question.
If what you say is true, then why did Fitzgerald say that Rove was still under investigation?
Stinger said:His baseball analogy was the weakest part of his presentation and still makes no sense.
Rove is NOT accused of perjury. Rove did NOT blind Fitzgerald. So is he cleared of outing her and why. If Fitzgerald had the evidence he would have indicted him.
Fitzgerald skipped ahead, the first thing he should have done is prove Plame was the batter at the plate and then prove that she actually got hit. THEN he could see who did it and it they did it intentionally. What he said instead was that since Libby seems to have lied about whom he heard about it from first (not a very important aspect to begin with) then the investigation can go nowhere. Libby's problems have nothing to do with Rove.
It seems fairly obvious that this is an act of treason carried out directly by the Bush administration, and Libby is simply the first subbordinate to be thrown under the wheels of the investigation. But I'm sure that they all know how important loyalty is to Bush, and that if they mind what they say, they'll be well taken care of whatever may happen. Thus it's harder to get someone to admit the direct involvement of Cheney, Powell, Bush, etc. But Fitzgerald has a reputation as an agressive investigator, so let's see how far he can take it.
aps said:Rove has not been accused of perjury. Whether he will in the future be accused of perjury remains to be seen. How you can say he has been cleared is beyond me when Fitzgerald, under no uncertain terms, stated Rove was still being investigated.
Hmmm, Stinger, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Libby's lies prevented Fitzgerald from being able to determine whether the statute had been violated.
He made ZERO conclusions as to Rove's actions/words and what kind of impact they have on this investigation.
FinnMacCool said:I actually said a while back that I thought personaly that Karl Rove was going to allow someone else to take the blame. It seems like my prediction was correct because Libby is going to jail.
mike49 said:Just to throw an idea in here:
How many Republicans are going to be on this Jury?
If I was on the jury I would believe Libby. I would want to believe Libby. Therefore I would believe Libby.
Faulty memory...case closed.
scottyz said:When this goes to trial Fitzgerald will get discovery and Libby may want to make a plea bargain to avoid 30 years of prison time.
Using your analogy, Valerie Plame got shot. The only question is who pulled the trigger. Libby claims he didn't have a gun, but he did. It's not that he had a gun, but the fact he lied (or misspoke) about having a gun makes him a suspect in the shooting, in my view. It's quite possible he didn't mean to "lie", but Plame's identity was still leaked to the press by someone. Even if Libby is innocent, someone is not!Stinger said:If a prosecutor is going to investigate a shooting isn't it best to first determine if someone got shot?
That could be because the Republicans are the ones who put Fitzgerald on the job.Stinger said:I think the Republicans deserve credit for not demonizing the prosecuter like the Dems done with Judge Ken Star in the Clinton admin.
A CIA agent doesn't have to be actively working as a covert spy for it to be a crime to reveal their identity. I don't know of any official statement that implies revealing Plame's identity was not a crime, so I'm pretty sure a crime was committed.Stinger said:Since it's obvious that initially there was not a crime committed because the CIA agent was not an active covert spy, why wasn't this investigation over days after it started?
You may be right about that. But you have to admit that the statements Libby is accused of lying about directly apply to the origional investigation. Libby's statements may have hindered the investigation and prevented Fitzgerald from getting an indictment on leaking classified info.Stinger said:If Fitzgerald had a good case it wouldn't have taken him two years to get an indictment
Dunno, but they have no concept of justice if they're being hypocritical here.Stinger said:During the process Libby probably did make conflicting statements. What happened to the "It's no big deal to lie under oath" Clinton apologists?
Fitzgerald only had subpoena. Now that it's going to trial he gets discovery and so does Libby.Stinger said:Oh geez. Discovery comes to the defendent not to the prosecutor. Fitzgerald has had full supena power all along and has gotten everything he asked for. Now LIBBY gets discovery, not the other way around.
His perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice charges came after the crime
scottyz said:Fitzgerald only had subpoena. Now that it's going to trial he gets discovery and so does Libby.
Binary_Digit said:Using your analogy, Valerie Plame got shot.
The only question is who pulled the trigger.
It's quite possible he didn't mean to "lie", but Plame's identity was still leaked to the press by someone. Even if Libby is innocent, someone is not!
That could be because the Republicans are the ones who put Fitzgerald on the job.
A CIA agent doesn't have to be actively working as a covert spy for it to be a crime to reveal their identity.
I don't know of any official statement that implies revealing Plame's identity was not a crime, so I'm pretty sure a crime was committed.
You may be right about that. But you have to admit that the statements Libby is accused of lying about directly apply to the origional investigation.
Libby's statements may have hindered the investigation and prevented Fitzgerald from getting an indictment on leaking classified info.
Stinger said:Investigators don't "clear" people. If Fitzgerald had the evidence and the grand jury had voted to indict then there would have been an indictment. There was no indictment. My point being that contrary to other statements here under no uncertain terms did Fitzgerald state that Rove was still under investigation.
And that is somewhat bogus. There are other ways to find out if he knew her status than just what he said. What did the people whom testified they told him about Plame say. But maybe I didn't make myself clear more important than what did Libby know was whether or not Plame came under the law about covert status in the first place. If a prosecutor is going to investigate a shooting isn't it best to first determine if someone got shot?
You have no basis for that statement. He made ZERO statement because he would only comment on illegalities and none were mentioned vis-a-vis Rove. We can conclude that the grand jury did not indict, therefore the evidence if any that Fitzgerald presented was not convincing to the grand jury. Fitzgerald stated that he had little left to wrap up, I would not think he would characterize a still pending indictment against Rove as a "little" matter.
Stinger said:Oh geez. Discovery comes to the defendent not to the prosecutor. Fitzgerald has had full supena power all along and has gotten everything he asked for. Now LIBBY gets discovery, not the other way around.
mike49 said:Just to throw an idea in here:
How many Republicans are going to be on this Jury?
If I was on the jury I would believe Libby. I would want to believe Libby. Therefore I would believe Libby.
Faulty memory...case closed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?