Submitted by serena1313, Feb 25, 2007 03:07

With all due respect, i beg to differ. This case is about finding the truth.

Iam not an attorney, but my understanding is this: because Libby allegedly made false statements to federal investigators in 2003 he was charged with obstruction of justice with additional charges for committing perjury while testifying to the grand jury. His testimony contradicted that of previous and current administration officials, reporters and even his own notes... strongly suggesting Libby was being less than candid. So no this is not about outing Plame. Basically the jury is tasked with determining whether Libby merely forgot or did he fall on the sword as the loyal soldier?

Fitzgerald's comment, 'you cannot discuss something on Monday and Tuesday while claiming to have learned about it on [the following] Thursday,' sums it up nicely. How could the prosecutor not indict when testimony and evidence suggest Libby broke the law?

First Fitzgerald must establish a crime was committed: if the jury finds Libby intentionally and knowingly lied to obstruct the FBI's investigation and lied to the grand jury means he committed a crime for impeding a criminal investigation. Notwithstanding whether Fitzgerald continues or ends the investigation at this point is anyone's assumption. Does it hinge on Libby's indictment or acquittal is another guess.

And that is what this trial is about.

Theretofore it explains why others were not indicted [for outing a covert agent].

However there is another sub-level regarding the truth. What emerged from the trial is that an effort was made to cover-up the WH knowingly used unsubstantiated information to justify a war. During the campaign to discredit the messenger -- in retaliation for that information made public -- an NOC agent was sacrificed. So, was it deliberate or accidental? Either way someone should have lost their job for incompetence at best if the latter. If on purpose it necessitates a more severe punishment.

Fitzgerald is doing his job, seeking the "truth," but how far will he take it or will it stop here remains to be seen.

This trial raises more questions than answers.

Ending the investigation without answers would be unfair to the public. Justice is served only when accountability to the public and taking responsibility for breaking the law are enforced.

That requires the truth.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.