Wednesday, October 26, 2005

PlameGate roundup – Tom Maguire has owned this story and tonight he makes his bold predictions: Rove walks, but Libby will probably face perjury and obstruction of justice charges along with some kind of conspiracy charge. Rick Moran encapsulates my take on Joe Wilson who was shopping his false Niger trip story to anybody that would put out a cheese plate in the green room: “Now, put yourself in the White House’s shoes. Here you have this loose cannon [Wilson] running around town 1) blabbing about a classified matter, and 2) spreading falsehoods about what actually happened.” Yet the media coverage has been all about Rove and Libby with nary a word about Wilson’s intentional mendacity to undermine White House policy.

We'll probably see indictments tomorrow but my prediction is that both Rove and Libby will face perjury and obstruction charges, while Libby will face an additional conspiracy charge. All will be revealed by Friday (unless Fitzgerald is petitioning the federal judge for an extension).

2 comments:

reliapundit said...

if libby gets indicted then they'd better indict WILSON - after all, he outted himself and his own covert CIA mission.

his defense? that he's a whistleblower. BUT, a whistleblower who LIES - as you pointed out - aint whistlebower, but a political hack. and that ain't no defense.

PLUS, his whole rap is that bush hyoed the intel so he could make war on saddam. ONLY: the sotu in question was 1/03 - THREEE MONTHS AFTER Congress gave bush authority to make war; therefore, the supposed niger/yellocake "hype" COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HELPED BUSH. REPEAT: he already had authority to wage war. and this authority was COMPREHENSIVE; the Joint resolution listed a dozen reasons why Saddam had to go, and why we had to use force, if necessary.

which is why this whole investigation is stupid. merely an exercise of leftist anti-American BDS.

since this non-issue has taken TWO YEARS for fitz to investigate, HE MUST BE A DOPE. or a dove.

TomK said...

The indictments won't have anything to do w/ the original charges -- they will be because somebody misremembered the details of a conversation he had two years ago (i.e. perjury or ???).