Sunday, October 23, 2005
I also think we are seeing grand juries and US attornies and district attornies that go for technicalities: sort of a gotcha mentality in this country, and I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully, and not just jump to conclusions because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward.
A few thoughts:
1. Technicalities. To suggest Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to bring someone down on a technicality is ludicrous. However, if someone isn't forthcoming in their testimony, thus has to make multiple trips as they "remember" additional facts (egs. Judith Miller's "finding" notes from previous meetings with Libby, Karl Rove's FOUR trips to the grand jury) there could be convictions due to technicalities created by people who obstructed justice. If they'd just tell the truth, they would only have one mess to deal with.
2. What does Hutchinson mean by, "...without being able to put their case forward." Is there something preventing Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, "Scooter" Libby, George W. Bush, Judith Miller, Tim Russert, Steven Hadley, Robert Novak, etc., etc., etc., from calling ANY news organization so they could tell their story? What news organization wouldn't let them tell their story? It's been a LONG time coming, and none of them have been forthcoming with what they knew and when they knew it. To suggest - as Kay Bailey Hutchinson has - that they haven't been able to put their case forward, is absolutely idiotic.
3. Weighing both sides of the issue: See #2. If they assused would simply tell us the truth about what happened and when, we could weigh both sides of the issue.
4. Jumping to conclusions. Here are a few observations:
1. The White House used to boldly deny any involvement in the Plame case, then they quit talking once it because clear that both Libby and Rove were involved, and maybe many others.
2. Rove has been less visible in recent weeks. Why is the White House separating him from the president?
3. It has been reported that Bush rebuked Rove for his involvement in the Plame case. Depending on when that took place effects how long the president witheld information he knew about this case from the public.
4. As Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out at least a month ago on the Huffington Post, there would be no grand jury if it wasn't first shown that Valerie Plame Wilson was indeed an undercover CIA agent. Had that not been shown, the case would have stopped a LONG time ago.
5. Judith Miller still hasn't revealed who her second source was in the case. Did she "remember" who this was in her second trip to the grand jury? It's amazing what someone manages to remember once they're possibly facing obstruction charges.
Comments: Post a Comment