On 3/8/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is the possibility of *more than one* leaker. And given > multiple leakers, as the law is written, some may be guilty of a crime > and some might not despite they all may have leaked the information.
The case was about who leaked to Novak. Nothing else. > Fitzgerald was investigating *multiple* leaks. He knew of one, > Armitage, and knew that, based on the law, Armitage had not committed > a crime. That fact, however, does not exonerate everyone else. Because no crime was committed. > In Fitzgerald's investigation to see if others had committed a crime, > Libby obstructed him. Fitzgerald could not, therefore, proceed. This > is why he prosecuted Libby. Fitzgerald continuosly lied about this investigation and should be put on trial himself. > A jury of 12 people agreed that Libby not only lied to the Grand Jury, > but obstructed justice. And they convicted him. End of story. Funny how the jury foreman already posted his book preview on Huffington post, a blog about as rabid left wing as you can get. You can't sell books if the verdict is not-guilty. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:229764 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
