Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

parados wrote:

Why do you think it was pre-existing prejudice okie? The defense argued at the trial that Libby was the fall guy for Rove and others. It seems the jury got the message and want to know why Rove and the others weren't charged as well.

I am not naive to think these people did not have any knowledge or prejudice of this case before the trial, Parados. Can I prove it? No. I just found it strange an ex newspaper reporter found his way onto the jury.

If the defense team was satisfied with it, fine, thats the way things are. We will have to live with it.

If the jurors thought Libby lied beyond a reasonable doubt, then he has to suffer the consequences. But as I said, the case is not over, and if Fitzgerald is telling the truth about no more to do, it is still a big fizzle, a huge bomb of a case apparently over nothing. Like a very bad joke with people still waiting for the punch line.

Fitz said it accurately - without new information, they aren't going to move forward from here.
Cycloptichorn

Great, cyclops. I think Fitzgerald owes us, the taxpayers, one simple little honor, and that is tell us whether he thinks that the original law was broken. Until he does that, this whole thing is a gigantic failure and nothing more than politics.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fitz said it accurately - without new information, they aren't going to move forward from here.
Cycloptichorn

Can you provide a link that quotes all of what he said?

Mmmmm sour grapes. Yummy.

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fitz said it accurately - without new information, they aren't going to move forward from here.
Cycloptichorn

Can you provide a link that quotes all of what he said?

I suppose I could - but can't you find it yourself?

Cycloptichorn

okie wrote:

Great, cyclops. I think Fitzgerald owes us, the taxpayers, one simple little honor, and that is tell us whether he thinks that the original law was broken. Until he does that, this whole thing is a gigantic failure and nothing more than politics.

So you aren't satisfied until Fitz breaks the law?

Prosecutors are barred from revealing that information. Congress could require him to do such a report but that would be the only way.

Great, cyclops. I think Fitzgerald owes us, the taxpayers, one simple little honor, and that is tell us whether he thinks that the original law was broken. Until he does that, this whole thing is a gigantic failure and nothing more than politics.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, the Republicans previewed some talking points in anticipation of your indictment and they said that if you didn't indict on the underlying crimes and you indicted on things exactly like you did indict -- false statements, perjury, obstruction -- these were, quote/unquote, technicalities, and that it really was over reaching and excessive...

FITZGERALD: I'll be blunt.

That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.

And I'd say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time...

...If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it's a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly...

... We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight...

then what are we poor serfs supposed to conclude about this?

parados wrote:

okie wrote:

Great, cyclops. I think Fitzgerald owes us, the taxpayers, one simple little honor, and that is tell us whether he thinks that the original law was broken. Until he does that, this whole thing is a gigantic failure and nothing more than politics.

So you aren't satisfied until Fitz breaks the law?

Prosecutors are barred from revealing that information. Congress could require him to do such a report but that would be the only way.

So that means we are all back to Square One on this case? If Armitage was the first leaker, with everything we know so far, and apparently Fitzgerald knows this as well, then what are we poor serfs supposed to conclude about this?

okie wrote:

then what are we poor serfs supposed to conclude about this?

one of the things that will hopefully, eventually be learned is that lying by people in the White House is not acceptable. For any reason.

I guess Joseph Wilson lying is acceptable?

What did Wilson lie about?


Wait, I know you are going to repeat the RW talking points that have proven to be false.
1. Wilson was sent in response to questions Cheney asked of the CIA. That is what Wilson said and what the facts have shown to be true. Wilson never said "Cheney sent me."

okie wrote:

then what are we poor serfs supposed to conclude about this?

one of the things that will hopefully, eventually be learned is that lying by people in the White House is not acceptable. For any reason.