BL611
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 01:54 PM
Original message |
Why I believe there will be no leak charge |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-28-05 02:04 PM by BL611
Fitz doesn't have the proof to indicte Libby or anyone else as INTENTIONALLY outing a COVERT agent, without intent there can be no leak charge, I think this may very well be it as far as charges. That being said a public trial could be VERY damaging...
|
Pachamama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message |
1. My take is he is going into this slowly & being thorough...I think that he |
|
will be making Libby squirm and see if Libby wants to "cooperate"...Meanwhile, he'll let the rest of the Cabal "squirm" and wonder what is coming next....
The best way to "out" conspiring people is to let them all squirm and wonder who's talking and in the end, who is going to protect their own hide...
Remember, this isn't over....
|
BL611
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Yes but since nobody else was charged |
|
with perjury, it seems that he now has the story straight, I'm not saying its impossible, but I would say unlikely...
|
longship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Fitz hasn't said anything to lead you to that conclusion. In fact, he has specifically said that he cannot comment on anything concerning the case other than the specific indictments issued today.
His minimizing of future events may be a misdirection. This guy's making sure that future indictments are not jeopardized. All we know is that Libby is the first indictee.
I would say one thing, though. If he weren't going to issue further indictments, why would he be keeping the investigation going?
|
BL611
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
its the sense I get, again we'll see, thats my take for now.
|
Nederland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Fitz charged Libby with Obstruction of Justice. I'm pretty sure you can't convict someone with obstructing justice unless you can prove that they hampered the investigation of a crime. If there was no crime, there can be no obstruction of justice. IOW, if there was no leak, Libby can't be guilty of obstruction.
Not only must Fitz believe that someone commited the crime of leaking the name of a CIA agent, he must also believe that in the long run he can prove it. If he didn't, I don't see him bringing the charge against Libby.
|
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. I have this sneaking feeling that if you obstruct things so that |
|
they can't determine if there was a crime, that counts.
I.e., I suspecti t's hampering the investigation; it's not necessarily hampering charging somebody.
|
Nederland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
In truth I don't know.
Any lawyers out there know if you can prove an obstruction of justice charge without proving there was a crime?
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 02:43 PM
Response to Original message |
7. What, did Libby accidentally hand the wrong folder to Novak? |
|
I mean, the information got out, and it couldn't have been an accident. And they KNEW she was covert.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 02:30 PM
Response to Original message |