Fitz was quite clear that due to Libby's lies, obfuscation, and refusal to cooperate, that it was impossible to determine precisely what happened -- which makes it impossible to determine precisely whether Libby "willfully" outed Plame ("willfully" being a rather high standard as defined in the statute).
That is why obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and perjury are crimes. Not simply to catch otherwise innocent people making stupid or careless mistakes while under investigation, but to reduce the ability of people who have committed crimes to get off scot free merely by telling lies or hiding the proof of those crimes.
To use your "stolen car" analogy below, this is NOT the same as pulling someone over thinking you'd found a stolen car, being totally wrong, and citing them for a broken taillight instead because you wanted to meet your ticket quota anway. It's pulling someone over, and finding that they've destroyed the VIN numbers on the vehicle and erased the security camera tapes back at the car dealership. You might not be able to meet a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard on the car theft charge anymore, but is it really unrelated and excessive to charge that person on destruction of evidence?
Flame » in reply to re: You know, with this general a statement...
If Libby hadn't lied, there might be PROOF of a crime
The whole thread (34 posts)
- Twas the Night Before Fitzmas...
- Wait for it. (n/t)
- Waited, waited, waited, opened, saw. Happy. (n/t)
- You know, with this general a statement...
- I told you so (n/t)
- re: You know, with this general a statement...
- If Libby hadn't lied, there might be PROOF of a crime
- So you are saying, then, that the Clinton impeachment was unfair? (n/t)
- Shall we now speak of "moral relativism"?
- "If the investigation had never taken place, there would have been no crime."
- "there would have been no crime"?
- " If the investigation had never taken place, there would have been no crime"
- Wait for it. (n/t)