I don't know if "Scooter" Libby is guilty or not. A jury in the highly-politicized District has said that he is.
Nevertheless, a couple of questions come to mind. For one, why --- other than to criminalize policy differences --- was an investigation pursued after the Special Counsel learned that the "leaker" of Valerie Plame's ties to the CIA was Richard Armitage? Why was an investigation pursued after the Special Counsel determined that no charges could be pursued under the Identities Act, because Valerie Plame was not a covert operative within the meaning of the Act? Why did a New York Times reporter spend more than three months in jail for contempt after the Special Counsel learned that the "leaker" of Valerie Plame's ties to the CIA was Richard Armitage?
In short, why was the question of whether "Scooter" Libby's possibly faulty memory --- certainly a plausible explanation --- ever made an issue by his grand jury testimony when the ostensible purposes of the "investigation" --- learning whether the Identities Act had been violated --- had already been answered in the negative?
And it is more than entertaining to listen to Clintonista Kool-Aid drinkers calling in to talk radio shows (i.e., "seminar" callers) have rediscovered that perjury is a crime, in an attempt to beat Conservative hosts over the head with their statements regarding Clinton's knowing and willful perjury.
No comments:
Post a Comment