en(un)lightened
Originally Posted by Skizo
Not to put too fine a point on things, but, while Libby had represented Rich dating back to 1985, he was not retained by Rich at the time he importuned Rich's wife to intercede.
In other words, he was not Rich's attorney when he did this.
Just so that's clear.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
Armitage was one leaker, not the only leaker.
Perhaps if there was no obstruction of justice then a prosecution could have occurred over the leaking.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
Armitage was determined to have done the leaking which instigated the entire issue.Armitage was one leaker, not the only leaker.
Perhaps if there was no obstruction of justice then a prosecution could have occurred over the leaking.
Unmitigated fact.
I cannot make any sense of your last...the fact of Armitage's complicity was known to Fitzgerald at the absolute outset of his investigation.
What was there about anything that followed that would preclude Fitzgerald prosecuting Armitage?
Apart from politics, I mean.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
Ok let's say that this is correct (just for the sake of the debate)
The investigation that this spurred found out that he wasn't the only leaker. Had fate played a different card perhaps rove's or libby's leaking could have set the investigation off.
No matter how you try to spin this the fact remains that there was more than one leaker.
If someone is attacked on the street and has their wallet taken, we still go after the person that came soon after and took the victims watch.
As I've said before I think they all should have been prosecuted, however to secure a prosecution there has to be proof. In this case not just that there was a leak but that it was done intentionally with knowledge of Plame's status. The investigation was obstructed so that proof was no achievable.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
So, by your reckoning, if Libby had originated the leak, and Armitage had "lied" to the Grand Jury, Libby should have skated, and Armitage should be facing prison time?
Okay.
If your theoretical "someone" is Ms. Plame, and Libby has thieved her watch, then Armitage walks off with her wallet scot-free.
Strange notion of justice.
Proof?
Armitage's self-incriminating confession doesn't suffice?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
FFS
Libby was not convicted of the leaking, the two are unconnected as crimes and to try to link the two is a false defense with no legal bearing
However if Armitage had been found to have lied under oath and/or obstructed the investigation then yes he should be convicted and punished.
But the answer to the complete balls up of an interpretation is NO
Who leaked first doesn't matter. I don't think Armitage,rove or Libby should have gotten away with it.
I suspect the commutation has more to do with concerns that Libby could cut a deal and tell the investigation what he really knows.
This is nonsensical. Libby was not convicted of outing plame, nobody was charged and nobody was convicted. You are making an argument on a conviction that didn't happen.
Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice
No.Proof?
Armitage's self-incriminating confession doesn't suffice?
Armitage admitted (as did Rove) that he leaked the name, he (and Rove) didn't admit that they knew she was covert.
The law was written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to convict as it has to be shown they knew her status.
I'm guessing that if Armitage and Rove had said under oath they didn't leak they would be up on perjury and obstruction of justice charges as well. The document release of the investigation showed that Rove was within a gnats hair.
Last edited by vidcc; 07-04-2007 at 11:53 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
My analogies are perfectly applicable and accurate.FFS
Libby was not convicted of the leaking, the two are unconnected as crimes and to try to link the two is a false defense with no legal bearing
However if Armitage had been found to have lied under oath and/or obstructed the investigation then yes he should be convicted and punished.
But the answer to the complete balls up of an interpretation is NO
Who leaked first doesn't matter. I don't think Armitage,rove or Libby should have gotten away with it.
I suspect the commutation has more to do with concerns that Libby could cut a deal and tell the investigation what he really knows.
This is nonsensical. Libby was not convicted of outing plame, nobody was charged and nobody was convicted. You are making an argument on a conviction that didn't happen.
Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice
No.Proof?
Armitage's self-incriminating confession doesn't suffice?
Armitage admitted (as did Rove) that he leaked the name, he (and Rove) didn't admit that they knew she was covert.
The law was written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to convict as it has to be shown they knew her status.
I'm guessing that if Armitage and Rove had said under oath they didn't leak they would be up on perjury and obstruction of justice charges as well. The document release of the investigation showed that Rove was within a gnats hair.
BTW-
A false defense?
Whom do you believe I am attempting to defend?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
No, your analogy is that the first to steal from the victim got away with it but the second thief didn't.
When the reality was that both (actually a third thief as well) got away with it.
Libby wasn't convicted of the analogical theft. He was convicted of a different crime that the other two had no hand in.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
And no one (please allow me to repeat this: NO ONE) was convicted of the crime for which the investigation was undertaken, even though the crime's perpetrator(s) - chief amongst them a certain individual named Armitage - were known to the prosecutor right from the get-go.No, your analogy is that the first to steal from the victim got away with it but the second thief didn't.
When the reality was that both (actually a third thief as well) got away with it.
Libby wasn't convicted of the analogical theft. He was convicted of a different crime that the other two had no hand in.
So, then, to sum up:
Pat Fitzgerald, at huge taxpayer expense, convicted a peripheral character, but not the one(s) he should have, though to no ill-effect, as it happified liberals across the land.
It strikes me that a more apt analogy would be Cheney's misguided hunting expedition, wherein the ostensible targets were field fowl, but I'm sure you remember that outcome, don't you.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
It doesn't matter that fitz was unable to prove the exposure of a covert agent was intentional, it doesn't matter who you think did the leaking first, all 3 were equal, it doesn't matter one bit.
Libby (and I repeat) was convicted properly and given all due process for A SEPARATE CRIME all your bitching is pointless, THE TWO CRIMES ARE UNCONNECTED. Get over it
Last edited by vidcc; 07-05-2007 at 01:56 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks