garybeck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-08-07 11:40 AM
Original message |
A murderer is walking the streets, and the investigation is over! |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-08-07 11:51 AM by garybeck
If this were a murder trial,
Would a prosecutor end the investigation on a perjury charge of a friend of the suspect?
Would a prosecutor end the investigation if the perjurer admitted in his trial that the murder suspect told him he did it?
Would a prosecutor end the investigation simply because some of the people involved are lying?
Isn't it the prosecutor's job to weed through the lies, determine what really happened, and try to prove it in a court of law?
If this were a murder trial, we have a suspect (Cheney). We have an accomplice (Libby) has been convicted of lying to cover up the crime. Now that that's been determined, I just don't understand why the investigation is over.
Libby admitted under oath that Cheney told him about Plame.
It seems to me, if this was a murder trial, Cheney would be called in now and asked, "Did you tell Libby about Plame? Where did you get this information? What were your intentions in telling him about Plame's identity? Did you tell Libby to leak this information to the press?"
I'm just not getting it. All the evidence is there now, as told under oath. Why is the investigation over?
Fitz doesn't need a plea bargain from Libby to continue. He's already got enough on Cheney to call him in.
Let's say this was the Scott Peterson trial. Let's say his friend provided an alibi. Then in the investigation the prosecutor determines the alibi is a lie. He prosecutes and convicts the friend for perjury and he goes to jail. Does he then pack up his suitcase and let Peterson walk, just because he's proven that his friend lied for him? Wouldn't people think it a little strange if Peterson was walking the streets today just because his buddy got convicted of providing a false alibi?
A murderer is walking the streets.
|
dave123williams
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-08-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message |
1. To build a foundation.... |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-08-07 12:08 PM by dave123williams
If you want to get Cheney, you have to prove Libby's affidavits and testimony were both bogus and purposefully duplicitous.
You have to illustrate, as a finding of fact, that Libby lied for no other reason than partisan loyalty.
Specifically, you'd want to show Libby lied in a manner designed not so much to cover his own ass, but rather to protect his political betters.
I think Fitz did just that. These convictions are no joke.
As testimony has been entered in to the public record in the Libby trial, a foundation has been built that shows that a) Rove confirmed the Plame identity to Cooper, that b) Libby learned the identity from Cheney, that c) Cheney's notes on his personal copy of Wilson's NYT Op-Ed piece was the genesis of the lie that Plame sent Wilson to Niger, when in fact the CIA did so at Cheney's behest, and that d) there was a coordinated administration smear of a lifelong civil servant whose only crime was telling the truth in such a way as to cast legitimate doubt upon our little naked emperor's demagoguery playbook.
|
solara
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-08-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Not to mention putting Wilson's wife and hundreds of other covert operatives in extreme peril |
|
and don't forget these operatives were keeping track of the bad guys who sell nuclear weapons, systems and material to other bad guys....
It is clear that this administration will sacrifice anyone to protect their lies... even their own agents and apparently they will even undermine the security of this nation and the world to achieve their own insane agenda.
They are convinced that no one will even try to stop them and a year ago they were right.
Anyone challenging this administration had better be damn careful and make sure they always operate within the law. Speaking truth to power is a very dangerous proposition these days.
INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE
|
OPERATIONMINDCRIME
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-08-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Ummmmm, But It Wasn't A Murder Trial. |
|
Furthermore, Fitz has explicity explained why he could not get to Cheney, due to Libby's false testimony. Have you missed the multiple threads on that? Furthermore, if new things come to light then the investigation continues. Who knows what the future may bring?
Hopefully though, Congress will come through and investigate this further on their own. Fitz did his part and did it amazingly well. It's time for Congress to now do their part.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 03:12 AM
Response to Original message |