Jeez, what a delightfully hormonal response. I love it when folks just let it all hang out.vbg.
Yeah, take it from somone who's read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, the 2004 CIA Report--addenda and a minor errata, to boot--some of the briefs in the case, studied the statute carefully, including its legislative history, followed the media stuff, analyzed the thing 'til it spun in my head, and finally got to what I think is its core distilled and unadorned essence which is that it is a godawful dumbass case for an alleged unlawful outing of a covert operative who was probably not covert during the required time frame.
If the statute don't fit, you can't convict. vbg. And it looks to me like the statute doesn't fit, which makes it a dumbass case since it is elementary that a case under the criminal laws requires a violation of the specific terms of a statute.
But I can see you're no lawyer, just a pissed off guy or gal who's ranting, so I won't bother with the technical stuff.
The probable reality of the thing is that it was a typically incompetent CIA attempt to set up the White House, a set up for which it has paid dearly. There lies the real story, one we'll probably never know, one involving relations between the White House and a puffed-up yet incompetent intelligence agency populated by folks who think they are in control of policy and not merely adjuncts to the Administration which they are sworn to serve.
If there's perjury, I cannot yet tell and neither can you. If there is such a charge that arises from Fitzgerald's investigation, I hope my guys will get the same treatment Clinton got for his perjury and suborning of perjury, namely, a walk and a by-your-leave. vbg.
Thanks for reminding me of Clinton's walk, I had almost forgotten about it.
If you want to look for true treachery, check you good old George Galloway. |
