> Sam wrote: > Lying under oath is a serious charge and Libby's in huge trouble for it. > But nothing here says he leaked the name or that if he did it was a > crime. He wouldn't even say weather she was covert. >
In order to prove that a crime was committed you need be able to fully investigate it. If a key witness is not telling the truth, then you can't fully investigate, and if you can't fully investigate then you can't prove the leak. What we do know is that: 1.) The CIA told Cheney, Cheney told Libby, but Libby said the press told him. 2.) Cheney and Libby discussed how to handle the PR. 3.) Cheney and Libby's MO was to leak data on Fridays so that Cheney could discuss it Sunday Morning. "VP Cheney, did you know X?" "Yeah, gee, I've heard that." Put another way, Cheney and Libby had a time proven method of leaking information to the press and used it often. Circumstantially, Libby is guilty of the leak, but Mr. Fitzgerald will need to get cooperation from Libby to continue fully investigating. The case against him looks solid: the indictment is unusually detailed and the evidence and confidence seems high. The case against Mr. Rove doesn't look so good. My feeling is if Mr. Fitzgerald could indict Rove he would've done so. Even if Libby turned evidence, a soon-to-be convicted perjurer is not a good witness. That being said, more investigating may turn up new sources. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Save $10 Download ZoneAlarm Security Suite http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=66 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:179010 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
