Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You say "the cover up" is the problem. What was covered up? the administration "outed" Plame in retaliation for her husband's attempts to discredit the case for war. The folks in the office of the VP where the key players, including Chaney. Fitzgerald did not bring the case to trial for some reason. Fitzgerald had the power to force the issue, but he did not do it. He went after a fringe player. You should be asking him why.
|
I don't know how many dozens of times this has been explained to you.
You know what happened. I know what happened. Fitzgerald
knows what happened. NONE of that is the point. Without evidence, without some people talking, the legal process goes nowhere. Fitzgerald is a good enough prosecutor to know what makes a case and what doesn't. And the White House was utterly unwilling to come forward and put people under oath. And one of the only people they could get under oath lied in a provable way.
What do you do about that if you're Fitzgerald? You do the best you can--you nail the one person whose malfeasance you can
prove: Scooter Libby for obstructing justice.
It's how the law works. "Beyond a reasonable doubt", it's called. If you trot out the "I don't know why Fitzerald didn't...." line again, all you'll be doing is proving the willfulness of your ignorance.
What I don't know is why Fitzgerald didn't nail Rove just like he did Scooter. He took evidence from Rove too. Maybe Rove was careful to keep his hands far enough off the outing that he could deny it and avoid actual perjury and obstruction. Maybe he's just a better liar.
Edit: Actually, I remember when they got done questioning Rove. It was a few hours, they had him there, and then when they were done, they quickly announced that they wouldn't need to talk to him anymore. This is the conspiracy theorist in me talking, but... Anybody else wonder what dirt Rove had on Fitzgerald to get himself off the hook of the investigation? Blackmail is VERY much within Rove's MO.