Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to Fitzgerald Refuses to Turn Over Evidence of Plame Name Crime
Good comments!
Professor, you're up first. The Nixon analogy doesn't quite apply. There were indeed crimes committed, and the coverup - and the crimes committed there as well - only compounded the situation. And, Clinton was impeached for both perjury and obstruction of justice (that coverup thing again).
Right about what Libby was indicted for, but there's another angle that you didn't account for. He was undergoing intense detailed questioning, relying solely on his memory and doing so without benefit of legal counsel. It is entirely possible that he inadvertently and innocently contradicted himself under pressure during prolonged questioning. That's what the trial will bring out. The point of my posting was that Fitzgerald has not even indicated that any crime had been committed, thus the idea of a coverup is moot - why cover up a crime that didn't happen?
Flogger, I don't think I was being misleading at all. No wrongdoing is implied, it's just a simple statement of fact - from all indications, he has no evidence to disclose. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out as compared to your thoughts, but 2007 is the year before an even bigger election. (BTW: I sometimes doubt your assertion that computers don't have minds of their own. I sometimes think the pile of circuits and chips on my desk at work is deranged!)
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 8, 2006 at 6:26 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight - Your post title is totally misleading. You're implying
wrong-doing by Fitzgerald, where none has occurred.
Fitzgerald was tasked by Congress to investigate the identity leak of Plame, a CIA operative. During the course of his investigation Libby lied to Fitzgerald and to the Grand Jury, which resulted in his charges of “perjury and obstruction of justice”.
Libby has not been charged with the leak of Plame’s identity. Further, Plame’s CIA status is not in question as related to the charges against Libby. Under law, the prosecutor is not required to turn over any information not relating to the charges.
If, during the course of the on-going investigation, Fitzgerald unearths proof that Libby was involved in leaking Plame’s name and brings additional charges, he will then be required (by law), to provide the defense with supporting information in relation to the new charges.
Further, there is information he’s still requesting, emails and their attached documents, which the White House has reported that somehow got “missed” in the White House information backup system. Fitzpatrick has indicated that all pertinent information to the Libby charges will be turned over to his defense team, in the event the White House is somehow able to locate the missing information.
NOTE: I have been in IT (information technology) since the 70’s, and I find it highly implausible that White House automated backup systems could miss “some” data for “some” dates. Without human intervention, a backup script does not know how to change its defined data backup process.
NOTE: The trial of Libby has been delayed until 2007, avoiding trial prior to the mid-term election in 2006.)
posted by
blogflogger
on February 6, 2006 at 12:59 PM
| link to this | reply
A little history lesson...
We often find out, it's not the crime but the coverup of the crime that hangs them. Remember Nixon?
But let me refresh your memory about more current events:
1) Special prosecutor established to investigate a failed land deal (Whitewater) Leads to a
2)Sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, which begets
3)Monica Lewinsky & the stogie, which leads to
4)Deposition about this affair, which leads to perjury and impeachment.
Yet no underlying crime was ever committed!!! Until Clinton lied under oath, he had broken no law.
Remember, "Scooter" was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury. If he was covering up no crime, why did he lie? That is, itself, a crime. (Just ask Martha Stewart).
Please respond; I've got more.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 5, 2006 at 10:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for bringing this to light, writer!
Again, you have done a wonderful job of getting to the bottom of an issue. Do you think the big media will report this?
posted by
sarooster
on February 5, 2006 at 7:35 PM
| link to this | reply