|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Where is your proof that there is more? Of course his investigation isn't over yet, bush hasn't resigned and rove isn't in jail. If they had more, after 2 years there would be more indictments on actual matters actually referring to the actual war in iraq, not small potatoes. Keep digging, eventually you'll hit something.
|
1.)Rove was not indicted for perjury because Fitzgerald cannot present him at Libby's trial, as an indicted liar, testifying against Libby.
2.)Fitzgerald stated that Libby's crime is similar to a player throwing sand in the umpire's eyes, making it impossible for him to see and then rule on the play...
3.)Fitzgerald stated that Libby's crime delayed results of his investigation by at least a year.
It is ludicrous for you to attempt to downplay the seriousness of this still ongoing investigation, with an argument that <b>"If this is all you got, after two years of digging, then....."</b>, when the prosecutor in the case charges the accused with obstructing his investigation for an additional year!
The accusation that Libby's obstruction enabled the knowledge of the actual crime to be kept from American voters in the November 2004 presidential election, is undsiputed, if Fitzgerald's statements are considered.
You have to ignore most of what Fitzgerald himself said, to post what you do here, stevo. I don't recall reading arguments intended to question his credibility.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102802234.html
The Case Against Libby
His Word vs. That of Reporters and Officials
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A10
If this were a theater of war, the obstruction-of-justice case against I. Lewis Libby could be described as a pincer movement......
....Taking reporters' questions, Fitzgerald declined to discuss his findings on the broader questions. He noted the complexity of federal laws prohibiting the outing of covert officers and said Libby prevented a full assessment because of his allegedly misleading statements. He likened Libby's actions to throwing sand in an umpire's eyes.
.......Taking reporters' questions, Fitzgerald declined to discuss his findings on the broader questions. He noted the complexity of federal laws prohibiting the outing of covert officers and <h3>said Libby prevented a full assessment because of his allegedly misleading statements. He likened Libby's actions to throwing sand in an umpire's eyes.......</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true
November 1, 2005 latimes.com :
Robert Scheer:
<b>What Judy forgot: Your right to know</b>
THE MOST intriguing revelation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's news conference last week was his assertion that he would have presented his indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a year ago if not for the intransigence of reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury. He said that without that delay, <b>"we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."</b>
Had that been the case, John Kerry probably would be president of the United States today.
Surely a sufficient number of swing voters in the very tight race would have been outraged to learn weeks before the 2004 election that, according to this indictment, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff — a key member of the White House team that made the fraudulent case for invading Iraq — "did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice."
It is deeply disturbing that the public was left uninformed about such key information because of the posturing of news organizations that claimed to be upholding the free-press guarantee of the 1st Amendment. As Fitzgerald rightly pointed out, "I was not looking for a 1st Amendment showdown." Nor was one necessary, if reporters had fulfilled their obligation to inform the public, as well as the grand jury, as to what they knew of a possible crime by a government official.
How odd for the press to invoke the Constitution's prohibition against governmental abridgement of the rights of a free press in a situation in which a top White House official exploited reporters in an attempt to abridge an individual's right to free speech...........
|
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...overup_worked/
<b>The coverup worked</b>
By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | November 1, 2005
WASHINGTON
NO ONE really noticed, but Patrick Fitzgerald made an unassailable point last week about the timing of the indictment that his CIA leak investigation has produced so far.
''I would have wanted nothing better," he said, ''that when the subpoenas were issued in August of 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October of 2004 instead of October of 2005."
Give or take a nuance and some garbled syntax, the prosecutor was in effect showing that the quixotic pursuit of a nonexistent right or privilege by some news organizations is one reason President Bush was reelected last year.
John Kerry is still easy to lampoon, as if his narrow loss were in fact a 20-point landslide. But imagine last week's astonishing developments unfolding in the fall of 2004. Imagine not only the large book of perjury that Fitzgerald threw at I. Lewis Libby, but also the still-tangled web of the infamous Official A in the grand jury's indictment and imagine President Bush trying to explain in the midst of a presidential campaign what that official is still doing on the public payroll.
Karl Rove's management of a campaign based on government-inspired fears of imminent terrorist attacks and of a cartoon portrait of Kerry as Osama bin Laden's soul brother, Rove's friends' assaults on a distinguished military record during the Vietnam War, and his allies' efforts to make the entire nation fearful that gay people who love each other might get married, not to mention Kerry's own mistakes as a candidate, might have been seen in a very different context...
......I would add that <b>the obstruction of justice alleged in this case kept us from knowing material things about our leaders at the moment we were deciding whether to keep them in office.</b> In more common speech, obstruction of justice is a coverup, and the coverup worked -- just as the Watergate coverup in 1972 kept facts from the public that would have guaranteed Richard Nixon's defeat.
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103101386.html
What the 'Shield' Covered Up
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; A25
Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?
In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."
Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. <h3>Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.</h3>
As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.
And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Libby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the Bush administration's coverup.
Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life, abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only official facing legal charges and that political interest in the case will dissipate.
You can tell the president worries that this won't work, because yesterday he did what he usually does when he's in trouble: He sought to divide the country and set up a bruising ideological fight. He did so by nominating a staunchly conservative judge to the Supreme Court..........
|
Last edited by host; 11-03-2005 at 11:33 AM..
|