Why Fitzgerald went off the rails

Clarice Feldman
Azaghal is a new poster at Just One Minute who has made an interesting point I wish to share:
"Ranger, I was thinking over your earlier remark:
That brings up an interesting question: why was only one person indicted for lying to the FBI or GJ? Based on the testimony so far, Fitz could have indicted virtually everyone he interviewed (and some he didn't).
One issue that tends to get lost in all the discussion over the evidence (or lack thereof), the credibility of witnesses (or lack thereof), etc., is this whole question of bringing a perjury charge against Libby. What's lost is the fact that the only reason that Fitz was able to bring this charge is almost certainly because as Special Counsel (in so many senses) he was exempted from the DOJ guidelines for prosecutors.  Those guidelines would have precluded Fitz from indicting Libby from perjury because it is Department policy not to charge perjury unless the false testimony pertained to some criminal violation. For example, knowingly lying to a GJ about the weather would not be chargeable--unless the weather was directly relevant to some criminal violation.

Libby's dealings with Russert had nothing to do with any criminal violation that we know of, and certainly none that Fitz even alluded to in his marathon press conference. Now, some might say, well didn't Libby's purported lies make it more difficult to come to an understanding of the WH conspiracy to out our gal Val? Well, what we're seeing now in the prosecution's case is that there clearly was no such conspiracy and that Fitz knew that from a pretty early date.

Fitz' exemption from Departmental policy actually played a major role in this whole charade. I'm sure others can bring up other examples. I believe Jane or cathyf got into that, in part, in bringing up the extra-constitutional nature of the SC. All this should be deeply troubling to anyone who gives a fig for truth, justice and the American way"
Azaghal is a new poster at Just One Minute who has made an interesting point I wish to share:
"Ranger, I was thinking over your earlier remark:
That brings up an interesting question: why was only one person indicted for lying to the FBI or GJ? Based on the testimony so far, Fitz could have indicted virtually everyone he interviewed (and some he didn't).
One issue that tends to get lost in all the discussion over the evidence (or lack thereof), the credibility of witnesses (or lack thereof), etc., is this whole question of bringing a perjury charge against Libby. What's lost is the fact that the only reason that Fitz was able to bring this charge is almost certainly because as Special Counsel (in so many senses) he was exempted from the DOJ guidelines for prosecutors.  Those guidelines would have precluded Fitz from indicting Libby from perjury because it is Department policy not to charge perjury unless the false testimony pertained to some criminal violation. For example, knowingly lying to a GJ about the weather would not be chargeable--unless the weather was directly relevant to some criminal violation.

Libby's dealings with Russert had nothing to do with any criminal violation that we know of, and certainly none that Fitz even alluded to in his marathon press conference. Now, some might say, well didn't Libby's purported lies make it more difficult to come to an understanding of the WH conspiracy to out our gal Val? Well, what we're seeing now in the prosecution's case is that there clearly was no such conspiracy and that Fitz knew that from a pretty early date.

Fitz' exemption from Departmental policy actually played a major role in this whole charade. I'm sure others can bring up other examples. I believe Jane or cathyf got into that, in part, in bringing up the extra-constitutional nature of the SC. All this should be deeply troubling to anyone who gives a fig for truth, justice and the American way"