Unabogie
Philosopher
Unabogie
Philosopher
I'd quibble with your characterization here. I think these guys did a horrible thing and they deserve to be exposed for it. This happened in 2003, and the Republicans had ample opportunity to hold "fair" or "non-partisan" hearings on it, and they didn't do a thing.
The evidence suggests that Bush and Cheney ordered this leak. Especially Cheney, but he also wrote that memo where he said that "This pres" sent Libby "into the meat grinder". Don't you think that this needs to be disclosed to the public, if true? If so, how can you call the only mechanism possible to elicit that information as being a "game"?
Can you describe a non-game way?
steverino
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2006
- Messages
- 3,686
Unabogie
Philosopher
Holy crap!!! Where did you get this letter?
I think there has been a Unabogie leak.
From Cheney, whence all leaks originate.
Duh.
Unabogie
Philosopher
Jokes are now verboten? This thing has you really rattled. Wait till the hearings start.
The hearings will find nothing.
Fitzgerald was brought in to find out if a crime was committed by outing Plame. And he ends up charging someone who was brought in to testify on a crime that turns out wasn't committed?
Great job by him. Nice to see Armitage not even be indicted.
SezMe
post-pre-born
We don't know that yet, Azure. If it was as clear-cut as you make it out to be, there would not be the continued interest in the case as there is.
Fitzgerald was brought in to find out IF a crime was committed, so once he found out where the original leak was(Armitage) he should have indicted him.
He didn't.
SezMe
post-pre-born
It's not as simple as that. Prosecutors indict when they think they have a case that can be won. Fitzgerald might have thought Armitage guilty but the case was to weak to get a conviction.
Oh, so it wasn't a crime to expose a CIA agent?
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
Tellin you, Waxman is currently my favorite congresscritter.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Azure, we've been chasing each other here and in that other thead.
To quote myself:
Yes, it is a crime to expose a CIA agent. And let us suppose Fitzgerald is convinced that Armitage did it. But that is just the middle of his decision-making process. The next step is to decide if his case is so strong that he can prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" because his job is not to find wrongdoing but to prove it in a court of law. Fitzgerald apparently decided a case against Armitage did not meet that very high standard.
There's nothing here that I haven't said already. What about the difference between "knowing guilt" and "proving it" don't you get?
SezMe
post-pre-born
I'm not sure what you are saying here, mostly because I don't understand the meaning of the word "involved" in the context you used it. Do you mean "indicted" instead? Because Libby has been "involved" in this mess from the get-go. If you do mean "involved" then please explain your meaning more explicitly. If you mean "indicted" read on...I'll bold my change to your post for clarity.
I would not argue this point at all. Fitzgerald might have thought he could nail Cheney by getting Libby to "flip" (the current buzzword) on his boss. Libby didn't go for it and so Fitzgerald went ahead with his prosecution. I'd speculate that Libby didn't take the bait because he already had a promise of a pardon in his back pocket.
If Fitzgerald thought he could nail Armitage for perjury, why would he not want to take him to court for it?
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
Slow down for a minute and consider these facts:
1 - Libby lied to cover up the leak.
2 - Fitzgerald went investigating, and the iron-clad case he could make was that Libby lied to cover up the leak.
Take a deep breath now and consider what the facts imply:
1 - Libby thought the leak was bad enough that it needed covering up, or
2 - he was directed to cover it up by his boss, who must have thought the leak was damaging enough that it needed covering up.
In case 1, Libby is guilty. In case 2, Libby was the goat and is still guilty.
Not for perjury, but for leaking the name in the first place.
Fishbob...Fitzgerald was not brought in to investigate the lies, he was brought in to investigate the leak.
Common sense would tell you indicting Armitage would be the first place to start. Unless of course, leaking her name isn't the federal crime people make it out to be.
And for the billionth time, I know Libby is guilty of lying, of perjury, and obstruction of justice. But Fitzgerald should have dropped the case after he decided there was not enough evidence with which to find Armitage guilty. Why go head-hunting after that?
SezMe
post-pre-born
Yes, you are right. That is what I should have said.