Quote:
Originally Posted by wheresmy50
How do you figure that?
He was convicted of purjury, not for the original crime (i.e. the scope of the investigation).
From what I've read, several people had inconsistencies in their testimony, but they went after Libby and not the rest. If that's true, it does raise some questions.
|
Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice (etc...) in the original investigation...just because there were not other indictments could mean there weren't other crimes, or the prosecutor didn't feel he had a strong enough case to bring to a grand jury.
Think about it, if you're going to go after Rove for instance...you'd better know you're going to win.
-spence