October 31, 2005

Rejecting The Constitutional Standard Of Guilt

Dan Froomkin is arguing that a cover-up worked in the Plame-Wilson case. And one of his big complaints? The standard that Patrick Fitzgerald used to investigate teh case and to seek indictments.

Just because a lot of the things Fitzgerald discovered evidently fell short of his very conservative prosecutorial standards -- they weren't out-and-out, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt crimes -- doesn't mean they were up to the standards the public reasonably expects from its White House.

Yep -- that little "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard seems to have gotten in the way of the indictments and the release of confidential information. Froomkin demands that there be a sliming of everyone involved with the publication of the truth about Valerie Plame -- that she was a CIA employee (not currently operating under cover) who decided to feather her husband's nest (and thereby her own) by recommending him for an assignement for which he was not competent, and that her husband repeatedly lied about his wife's role in obtaining that appointment for him, about the data he had access to, and the CIA's conclusion about the reliability of his conclusions.

In other words, Dan Froomkin wants those who told the truth to the American people (Rove and Libby) punished and driven from Washington -- and those who lied (Wilson and Plame) held up as heroes. Why? Because Froomkin wants to see the War on Islamic terror undermined by any means necessary. It may not quite rise to the level of treason as set forth in Article III, but this column certainly qualifies as sedition in time of war.

And if this means using an investigation by a prosecutor for political purposes, thereby uundermining the credibility of the justice system, then Dionne is willing to sacrifice the integrity of an entire branch of government to bring down another.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Nice recitation of those republican spin points you simple fuck-tard. Answer this question hinestly you lying sack of shit, "If there was no crime, WHY DID THE CIA REQUEST THE DEPT OF JUSTUCE TO INVESTIGATE?" Maybe you better re-read that indictment of Libby again you jackass.

Posted by: EffU at Tue Nov 1 17:27:23 2005 (F+lBg)

2 Nice recitation of those republican spin points you simple fuck-tard. Answer this question honestly you lying sack of shit, "If there was no crime, WHY DID THE CIA REQUEST THE DEPT OF JUSTUCE TO INVESTIGATE?" Maybe you better re-read that indictment of Libby again you jackass.

Posted by: EffU at Tue Nov 1 17:27:41 2005 (F+lBg)

3 Gee -- not only do we have some on the Left demanding that we do away with "beyond a resonable doubt", now we have some foul-mouthed moon showing up here and arguing that the simple fact of an investigation means that there has been a crime committed.

And since when does the CIA determine innocence and guit in this country, anyway?

The clear fact is that no violation of the law related to the revelation of Plame's identity has been established by the prosecutor, and no indictment has been brought by a grand jury. What you have are charges related to statements that were clearly false by Libby -- but which may well not have been intentionally so, which would mean that there was no crime committed with those statements, either.

Now could we get into Joe Wilson's false statements -- as documented in both Fitzgerald's indictment/statement and the Senate report on the Wilson/Plame matter -- would you care to explain the clear divergence between his statements about how he came to be selected for the trip and those two sources?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Nov 1 18:08:28 2005 (ee5aY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0034, elapsed 0.0102 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0077 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]