Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

parados wrote:

Libby trial....
9 people say one thing.
1 person says another. That one person never states under oath he "forgot" anything. There is evidence this person's boss told him to investigate what his lawyer is now claiming he "forgot"

Who do you believe? The 9 people or the 1?
It is looking damn near impossible for the jury to aquit on all counts.

What reasonable person can accept the story of 1 person over the other 9?

By the way okie.. You haven't told us if you think Ashcroft was politically motivated in his investigation or his appointment of Fitzgerald. Or do you just think Ashcroft and all those career prosecutors and FBI agents are incompetent?

If you were one of the potential jurors, you would have been kicked off pronto, Parados. How do you know that without being there?

As far as Ashcroft, what does it matter? He recused himself from this. You act as if Ashcroft was the only guy working on this and it was his call, when in reality teams of people in the Justice Department was on this. I have always thought this was a political move between the CIA and the administration. In other words, its political, Parados. The ultimate proof that this is political will be the ultimate result of this whole mess, whether Fitzgerald will actually ever charge anyone with the crime he was charged to investigate. How many years has this case been going, and so far, not a hint of anything like that, so I have no clue how many more years Fitzgerald intends to carry this on.

John Ashcroft was a good Attorney General, far better than the previous administration, no contest.

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, What we wish and what will actually happen is beyond our control. We perceive issues based on our own perception of right and wrong - ususally based on our political leanings concerning "this" issue.

We will all have to wait and see what, if anything, happens concerning the outing of Plame.

It's up to Patrick Fitzgerald if he pursues the VP or not.

Not really.
According to the law,the President and the VP cannot be charged criminally for actions they take while performing their duties.
They have to be removed from office first.

So,Fitz cant do anything to Cheney,even if he wants to,till AFTER Jan 09.

We're willing to wait.

And don't forget about the upcoming Civil trial. Cheney has no special immunity for that.

Cycloptichorn

Q89. "If a President has civil litigation brought against him during his term in office must this be handled while he is in office? Or, can it be deferred until his term expires?"

A. A civil case can be deferred, and before 1997, most people would likely have guessed that any civil case filed against the President would be deferred. However, a Supreme Court ruling against President Clinton in 1997 allowed a civil case against him to proceed. The reasoning was that since the case against him concerned acts committed prior to his taking office, that the Presidency did not lend him a shield against such litigation. The decision would seem to leave in place the notion that a President cannot be sued for actions taken as President, protecting Presidents from frivolous lawsuits designed to tie up an administration's conduct of national business

I can't help but fantasize that, down the road, there will be a public execution by firing squad for the treason committed in the Plame matter.

If I remember correctly, most of the CIA who spoke on this issue did say it was "treasonous" to out Plame.

I can't help but fantasize that, down the road, there will be a public execution by firing squad for the treason committed in the Plame matter.

In my mind, there is little doubt that pardons will ensue following a conviction. However, a conviction would likely help the Wilsons in their civil suit against the traitors in the White House.