Quote:
Originally posted by dtb
I posted the link before I read the article, so I didn't know which side could claim triumph from it. I think neither. There are nuggets in there for all, although probably more for those who think Rove was inappropriately involved.
|
I just read the timeline and agree. I think its pretty clear the only potential crime is obstruction or perjury. I don't see any willful disclosure of Plame by Rove.
I love using timelines as exhibits in litigation/trial. They're so impossible to dispute. If you read the Factcheck.org timeline, its impossible not to see a clear pattern of retaliation and covering up a lie.
That Bush used the Yellowcake story even though it was weak indicates that he really had no evidence to support taking us into Iraq. Ostensibly, his best evidence for going to war would be what he cited during his State of the Union speech. So his best evidence was junk, and he later admitted it was false.
In any court except before a California jury, I'd be pretty confident a good prosecutor could convict Bush of lying to get us into Iraq. And I'm pretty confident a good prosecutor could nail most of hiss staff for a variety of conspiracy charges. If not criminally, were there civil liability for what Bush did, I'm sure he'd be found liable.
Its unfortunate thhat the court of public opinion doesn't operate on facts or follow rules of evidence. Bush would have been cooked long ago.
