The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

Alex · 03-06-2007, 05:04 PM

Then why hasn't he been charged with a crime for holding those conversations? Fitzgerald went out of his way to explicitly say that he had made no determination as to whether revealing Plame's name was in itself illegal.

So first I'd like his agreement. ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, PBS and 28 other news organizations filed amicus briefs saying that in their legal opinion leaking Plame's name was not itself a crime. While not legally important, considering how much time they spent covering, it is interesting that they do not think there was an underlying crime. And remember that when Bob Novak called the CIA to verify that Plame worked there that they did in fact confirm it (meaning that if it was a crime then the CIA just committed it too).

No branch of the criminal justice system has determined that an underlying crime was committed. That is what Fitzgerald was drafted to do and he hasn't done that. The CIA said they thought it was a crime, they referred it to DoJ which punted for conflict reasons to a special presecutor.

Since Fitzgerald knows who first leaked the information (Dick Armitrage) to a reporter, it seems like there is an obvious candidate for an indictment if Fitzgerald could support the argument that simply saying her name was a crime.

There may very well have been an underlying criminal act and there certainly was an underlying despicable act (which is not the same thing) but as to the former there is not general agreement. Except among those who have already decided that there was. If a crime was committed then I hope those guilty get charged.

By I stand by my original point. If this is all that is going to come out of the whole affair (and it looks like that will be the case) then it was a whole lot of hassle for not much benefit other than nailing someone on technicalities.

03-06-2007, 05:04 PM	#11
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Then why hasn't he been charged with a crime for holding those conversations? Fitzgerald went out of his way to explicitly say that he had made no determination as to whether revealing Plame's name was in itself illegal. So first I'd like his agreement. ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, PBS and 28 other news organizations filed amicus briefs saying that in their legal opinion leaking Plame's name was not itself a crime. While not legally important, considering how much time they spent covering, it is interesting that they do not think there was an underlying crime. And remember that when Bob Novak called the CIA to verify that Plame worked there that they did in fact confirm it (meaning that if it was a crime then the CIA just committed it too). No branch of the criminal justice system has determined that an underlying crime was committed. That is what Fitzgerald was drafted to do and he hasn't done that. The CIA said they thought it was a crime, they referred it to DoJ which punted for conflict reasons to a special presecutor. Since Fitzgerald knows who first leaked the information (Dick Armitrage) to a reporter, it seems like there is an obvious candidate for an indictment if Fitzgerald could support the argument that simply saying her name was a crime. There may very well have been an underlying criminal act and there certainly was an underlying despicable act (which is not the same thing) but as to the former there is not general agreement. Except among those who have already decided that there was. If a crime was committed then I hope those guilty get charged. By I stand by my original point. If this is all that is going to come out of the whole affair (and it looks like that will be the case) then it was a whole lot of hassle for not much benefit other than nailing someone on technicalities.
	Submit to Quotes