<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12988030\x26blogName\x3dDon\x27t+Trust+Snakes\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://donttrustsnakes.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://donttrustsnakes.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-4673447362931781663', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


DON’T

TRUST

SNAKES

“I know where I'm headed.”
ROGER THORNHILL


« Home »


Friday, October 28, 2005

We now return you to our regularly-scheduled topic

I see now that Fitzgerald did not seek any indictments for violations of the two statutes possibly applicable to the underlying leaks:
"Mr. Fitzgerald had initially been expected to seek charges under a narrow statute that makes it illegal for a government official to knowingly disclose the identity of a confidential government agent. Another possibility that had been the subject of some speculation was that he might seek to apply a broader provision that makes it a crime to disclose classified information.

"Mr. Fitzgerald would not say on Friday whether he believed that Mr. Libby had in fact violated either law. He said that question had been impossible to answer, because Mr. Libby's misleading answers to investigators and the grand jury had obscured what actually took place. He likened his problem to that of a baseball umpire who was unable to make a call because of sand thrown in his eyes." New York Times, October 29, 2005
I think this is another inapposite metaphor. Prosecutors must frequently form conclusions about whether to indict without the benefit of truthful elocutions by potential defendants. If this were a murder investigation and it appeared that Libby had disposed of the body where it couldn't be found, and then lied about it to investigators, would you expect a prosecutor to shrug off the possible murder because Libby had "obscured what actually took place"? I realize this is not a perfect analogy, but you take the point.

The same Times article notes that "Mr. Fitzgerald, with a bit of bravado, said he did not expect that further investigation would produce revelations beyond what he already knows." That's just inconsistent with the sand remark.

Fitzgerald's first statement above kind of suggests that he doesn't think other people violated the statutes, although he would undoubtedly deny suggesting that.

Just watching "Hardball." Pat Buchanan is making the point that if this is all there is, the White House should be breathing a sigh of relief. I have not heard this observation much today except from me (I said if this is it, there should be champagne corks popping in the West Wing.)


posted at 11:54 PM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home