sioux,
this is so interesting, not good news, but interesting... the 5th amendment has some info in it that may shed light on what Carville was eluding to: Fitzgerald's hands may be tied as far as ever getting anything out of Judy for more than one reason under the 5th:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Does this mean Judy could have actually been on the war department payroll perhaps, and so is exempt for having to answer anything cause she was "in actual service of time of war"? It's not as far fetched as it sounds... just this weekend was the story on William Laurence, the New York Times reporter who covered the Japan bombings who was also on the US government payroll.
Does this mean that if the investigation needs to proceed with Judy (by asking her questions about what she knew about the lead-up to war), is she exempt from answering because she was indeed intimate with the "war forces", and what she says could be argued a "public danger", so she has the right to remain silent?
This situation sure buffers the players in the whitehouse... Judy seems like a possible patsy almost, people in the white house get to indirectly evoke the first amendment through her it seems, knowing she won't talk, they are off any hook.
I can't believe Libby isn't being pressured to give Judy the proper waiver after the news reports last week... the white house could ask him to, ya know, the full cooperation thing?
Did scotty do a press conf. today? Or is he still hiding <g>.
wuli |
