Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hipaatwo
In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false."

At least Mr. Fitzgerald is admitting that the purpose of of his inquisition was not to find the truth, but to manufacture prosecutable crimes.

6 posted on 02/02/2006 11:38:27 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: E. Pluribus Unum

If it is demonstrated that Fitzgerald already knew that no crime was committed, how could his investigation be legal?

I mean, that's like the police pulling you in before a grand jury to find out who robbed your neighbor's house, when no robbery had actually taken place, and then charging you with lying about the last time you visited your neighbor.

Or like the old example, interrogating you about when you stopped beating your wife.


66 posted on 02/02/2006 9:06:58 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

perjury shmerjury. Lying to investigators is only bad if Clinton does it.


67 posted on 02/02/2006 9:09:08 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson