huge difference. OJ was actually tried, and indictmentwas handed down, and the nation was privy to an extraordinary amount of real evidence that never made it before the jury, due to an incompetent judge and a verbally dazzling defense attorney. MJ? too soon to tell, he's on trial, let the system play itself out. but there's a massive difference between lack of an indictment and lack of a conviction.
In this scenario an indictment has little to do with whether a felony was committed. Nobody was ever indicted for the Jack the Ripper murders, yet there is little dount that crimes were committed. The same thing is going on here.
Please enlighten me with your detail knowledge of the judicial system. What is the standard used to indict?
Essentially, I think an indictment can be handed down if the prevailing facts make it "possible" that the person committed the crime, regardless if reasonable doubt exists.
exactly. the lack of an indictment would seem to indicate the facts do not support such a possibility.
The manolo she has nothing to do with the logic of this. Anyway, why is that logic tortured? Are you contending that there were no Jack the Ripper murders? We know that nobody was ever charged with the crime. There was never a trial. By your logic that means there was no crime committed. There is a motive, an outing of an undercover CIA agent, and story by a reporter sympathetic to the whitehouse that all points to a felony being committed. Yet despite all the evidence listed above in addition to that found other investigations which eventually led the grand jury, you want to claim because they aren't sure which one of the possible suspects committed the felony that a felony wasn't committd at all? Pointing to a shoe blog and saying logic is flawed in no way exposes the flaw, or explains your position in the slightest. Again were there no 'Jack the Ripper' murders committed? I'm anxious to hear your answer.
Incorrect. The lack of indictment only indicates that they aren't sure which of the limited number of possible suspects to indict. They can't indict 20-30 people. American justice doesn't work like that, even though a felony has been committed. Indictments aren't made because crimes are committed. Indictments are made against specific individuals for allegedly committing those crimes. Currently they aren't sure which specific individual committed that crime. They are sure that a crime was committed.
What is the supposed advantage gained by outing Plame? To punish or intimidate Joe Wilson? After the fact?
That is correct. It was the same exact thing the Bush administration did to Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, and others. They have a modus operendi and the Plame case follows it like a treasure map.
Why didn't the Bush Administration commit felony-level retribution against those folks? Isn't that their modus operandi?
Their modus operendi is getting revenge on people who say things that they don't like/exposes them. That can but doesn't have to include a felony. If you don't believe the whitehouse committed the crime, please tell me who else with top level security clearance has the motive to out a undercover intel figure working on WMD cases? I'd be happy to hear your ideas. If I hear one more probable than the the whitehouse, I'll stop talking about the topic.
what you fail to realize, or perhaps you, like andy, are just too willfully obtuse to admit, is the act of 'revealing' plame to novak doesn't in and of itself constitue a crime. there are several additional thresholds which must be met. go back and read the WaPo article. "legal experts", and i'm assuming you're not one, agree- there was never a crime here.
Bingo! I'm not quite so willing to say that there was no felony crime. I haven't done all the required reading. There have to have been other factors lined up, though, for it to be so. Even a guy with a knife in his back could have fallen on it...
I'm no legal expert, but I can read. I read the article. The WaPo article mentions people who ask 'what if there was no crime...'. There isn't one that says clearly no crime was committed. Yes there must be other criteria met for this to be a crime. The criteria have been met and spelled out link by link in this very thread. It was based on the legal statutes that you posted. There is no legal agreement that a crime was never committed here. It seems like you are seeing what you want to see, and not what actually exists.
may i suggest that your reading of the statute, which may not be the only relevant one, is perhaps less informed than mr. fitzgerald's?
The experts from the article never agreed, nor said the felony wasn't committed. They said that they didn't expect an indictment to come down on the felony charge of leaking Plame's name. They did expect indictments for perjury though. Al Capone was indicted for income tax invasion. Do you believe that is all he was guilty of? It was already discussed that with out reporters spilling the beans he wouldn't be able to narrow down the suspect, and an indictment might never come. That doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed, and the article doesn't offer accounts of any legal experts claiming that no crime was committed.
You can suggest that all you want. Mr. Fitzgerald never claimed that Plame's name wasn't leaked, and that a felony wasn't committed. If Mr. Fitzgerald ever does, then I will be happy to listen to his rationale behind the situation. May I suggest yet again, that a lack of an indictment in no means that the crime wasn't committed. 1. example 1 = Jack the Ripper 2. example 2 = Al Capone Could example 3 be the Plame case?
basso- this is the best you've got: "He might have fallen backwards on the knife." Even if the knife belongs to his friend and has a stong motive for murder. This is the best you have. Ignoring basic principles of logic is nothing new to Bush apologists. Honsetly, seriously: you think Plame was outed on accident? Someone 'accidentally' outed plame to a journalist at that specific point in time? Pull your head out of the sand.
No that was mine... and it is irrefutably true. It's not the best I (we) have. That's why I chose it. It is actually a silly illustration that does a completely adequate job of pointing up the problem here: just because you think you have a felony (and want to have a felony) doesn't mean that you have a felony.
