Comments on: Plame Sues Cheney, Rove and Libby

By: BrianOfAtlanta

BrianOfAtlanta — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:19:07 +0000

So Fitzgerald got the name of the leaker from Novak but didn’t charge Libby or anyone else with a violation of the IIPA because Libby and/or the person involved denied everything? What a nice guy that Fitzgerald is!

Somehow, I still find it more likely that Fitzgerald didn’t press charges under the IIPA because there was no violation under the IIPA.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:29:56 +0000

I find it hard to believe that he would be charged with obstruction of justice if no crime had been committed.

I think Martha Stewart might disagree with you.

By: nykrindc

nykrindc — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:52:16 +0000

Exactly, and that is why he charged Libby with obstruction of justice and perjury, because what Libby told him did not accord with what everyone else was saying. That means that either Libby was possibly lying during the conduct of an official investigation, hence obstructing of justice charge against him.

By: BrianOfAtlanta

BrianOfAtlanta — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:25:22 +0000

But Novak has cooperated with Fitzgerald, and undoubtedly told the prosecutor who leaked to him. That name is all Fitzgerald would need to press charges – if there were a charge to press, that is.

By: nykrindc

nykrindc — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:24:44 +0000

Again, if there was obstruction of justice, someone prevented the investigation from obtaining all the evidence needed to bring charges under the IIPA.

By: BrianOfAtlanta

BrianOfAtlanta — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:50:06 +0000

If she really was covert, why haven’t charges been brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

By: nykrindc

nykrindc — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:21:00 +0000

According to Larry Johnson, the revelation that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative "destroy[ed] an intelligence network that was devoted to trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." See here. If true, the damage done to our National Security by this political play was tremendous and any partisan defense of the actions by people within the administration is untenable. I've heard the argument that because Libby was charged on his actions to cover up the leak, and not the leak itself that no crime was really committed. However, I find it hard to believe that he would be charged with obstruction of justice if no crime had been committed. I mean, he was charged with perjury, obstruction of justice for a reason, mainly that he was trying allegedly trying to cover up his participation in the leak of V. Plame's name to the media as political payback for her husband's opposition to the claims made by the President regarding Niger, and the aluminum tubes. Just because Fitzgerald cannot prove that Libby, Rove or Cheney or anyone else within the administration leaked classified information, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The obstruction of justice charge seems to point in this direction, as there could be no obstruction of justice if no crime had been committed.

By: john

john — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:30:26 +0000

You can not deny that there was damages. She basically can not perform duties that she once could minimizing her ability to do her job. I think she has a case, and maybe a civil suit will help to reveal a little more of what actually happened.

By: JP

JP — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:48:32 +0000

They undermined it, and there was a concerted effort to do so--regardless of whether it was illegal or whether there was evidence to prove a crime was committed. People are questioning Fitzgerald's "attack dog" reputation now, and rightly so.