If you have not already, you should read Tom Maguire’s roundup of the trial testimony in the Libby case. What remains bizarre about the case is not that perjury charges were brought where there was no underlying crime – that does happen – but that perjury charges were brought where the prosecutor was investigating a whodunit and already knew when he started the investigation who done it.
Did Libby lie? I have to say, Maguire’s portrait of the testimony certainly suggests that Libby’s account was probably untrue, and difficult to square with the testimony – but also that (1) it would be very hard to have enough confidence in that conclusion to convict him, especially given how much trouble the prosecution witnesses had keeping their own stories consistent over time and (2) Tim Russert probably did not tell the truth either.
4 thoughts on “Rashofitz”
Comments are closed.
I am sure if you went through Washington and asked what color the sky was yesterday, you could inconsistancies in some of the replies you received. This whole affair is clearly a witch hunt and hopefully that has become clear to the jury. I find it very difficult to doubt anyone over what they do or do not claim to remember.
I’m still not clear why Fitzpatrick didn’t charge Armitage. If there was no underlying crime (because Plame wasn’t undercover, e.g.) he should have just wrapped up the investigation quickly.
That would not have served the agenda of bashing Bush. There was no crime, but we still had an investigation.
Fitzgerald wanted to be Ken Starr, except of course he would have the MSM on his side. He wanted to keep the investigation going so he would stumble into a real scandal with which he could then go after the Bush Administration.