He's done his adjutant's job very well: fell on his sword to protect his commander.

Point of order, Alan -- your link points to the City of Ottawa's bilingualism policy, not a media report regarding the Lewis Libby case. There might be some synchronicity there but I'm not getting it. =)

Well hopefully a pardon soon, or at least at the end of Bush's term.

Do you even know Gordo, what he was convicted off?

And to continue the questions, who exactly are the bloggers who sold you a bill of goods and where/when did they sell it do you?

Human Code: zakgas

Human code: ookpmm. Which is exactly the sound I made when I read Chris's comments. That is what you get for lunchtime multi-tasking. <p>Those bloggers know who they are, David. Check for the tear streams down cheeks, for the teeth that have been a'gnashin'.

Common Al, pony up. Give us a link, luv.

I thought you just did.<p>And Jay and all those other places I stop reading about three words in.

"my secret time"? Sounds like a 1970's Woman's novel.

I hear Jay smells of lavender.

David, he's been convicted of following orders. He leaked an undercover CIA agent's name to the press, but because that was too hard to prosecute, he's going to the clink for lying about it.

Do you know why that's illegal, David? Much less, care?

I see my unbroken streak of spot on predictions remains, well, unbroken.

I've had great fun watching this case closely and, for many rather technical reasons, expect it will be appealed successfully. And I note that Fitz has been quoted as saying that the investigation is over. However, we can now enjoy the spectacle of lefty glee and have, as the take away that, under no circumstances, should anyone ever talk to the FBI without a) video taping the conversation, b) having a lawyer present, c) being entirely uncertain as to one's name, the day of the week or one's favorite colour.

Lavender...Hmmm.

"He leaked an undercover CIA agent's name to the press, but because that was too hard to prosecute, he's going to the clink for lying about it."

It was too hard to prosecute because, to this day, the question of Ms. Plame's "undercover" status remains open. Fitz couldn't prosecute on that because it was not obvious Plame was what her oily husband loudly proclaimed her to be.

And I am willing to wager that, other than a purely formal processing visit, Libby will not spend a day in the clink.

As opposed to the spectacle of rightie glee were the verdict to have gone the other way.

[Ed.: <i>Isn't the lavender on those handkerchiefs you keep in your shirt pocket? That is what the rumour mill is saying anyway</i>.]

As long as it is not in the right, or is it left, pocket of my jeans.

For the record, in the interests of fairness and full disclosure, I reek of elderberry except in August when it is a mix of fig and leek.

No Gordo. The prosecution made sure that the defense could never mention Plame's non-existent "covert"/"undercover" status at the trial, nor the fact that her name was almost certainly well known to the press, and that the particular instance of "leak" that Fitzgerald was investigating came from a non-Bush friendly Richard Armitage, or the Fitzgerald knew who the "leaker" was all along. I do know why it's illegal to lie about it, though I don't think ... and just like with Clinton ... special prosecutor-types should be allowed to investigate non-crimes that they already have the facts for.

He's guilty of obstruction and perjury. No more and no less. Just as with Clinton the case wasn't about sex but about what one did during the investigation, and Martha Stewart going screwy in the investigation of her imClone stock trades. Nothing more and nothing less.

ANd don't hold your breath on the restitution thing, Al. Malkin is already running stuff about one of the jurors trying to imply it was stacked against Libby unfairly. Be prepared for this to be thrown in thine face all day tommorrow (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006998.htm)

Let me get the terminology straight:<ul><li>"The prosecution made sure" = the things the court ordered you do not like.</li><li>"non-crimes" = crimes proven which you do not like.</li><li>"they already have the facts for" = elements of a crime that are not hidden well enough by the criminal.</li></ul>Have I got that right?

Ry, that is why I do not bother with that sort of site. It leaves me much happier and smelling only of elberberry and not the sort of stink one have layered upon oneself there.

And they say there is not full disclosure in blogging...

Fair enough Al, though this has to be evaluated in the context of Gordo's conspiracy theory. However, just to set you straight:

<ul>
<li>
non crimes: things that are not crimes.

<li>
things they already have the facts for: things they already have the facts for
</ul>

For example, to illustrate, if a special prosecutor is investigating "who slandered Libby on GenX@40 in <a href="">this post</a>" and they find out that (a) this post isn't slander and is by no means illegal, and (b) Al Mcleod posted it then (a) satisfies the first point and (b) the second.

"The prosecution made sure" = the things the court ordered you do not like = appealable error of law

"non-crimes" = crimes proven which you do not like = selective prosecution on process crimes when you are SOL on the substantive crime

"they already have the facts for" = elements of a crime that are not hidden well enough by the criminal = full knowledge of who leaked Plame first which was the proper subject of the investigation (two hints - it wasn't Libby, it came from State)

I witnessed a man once get 60 days for opening his door with a beer in his hand (probation or bail) and another get sixth months for his 12th conviction in a sequence of suspensions of a license to drive his car, the original suspension being a consequence of a failure to get a brake light fixed. As the judge always says, if there is no respect and obedience of the legal process, there is anarchy.

So give me a big "boo-hoo" for the idea of a "process crime". Perjury is one of the greatest crimes there is - especially by a high public official.

How about a cop who spends all day following you around waiting for you to roll through a stop sign or go 52 in the 50 zone or improperly signal a turn. A hero of the justice system? No one's disputing the crime.

What should "shock" you is that such a prosecution should be allowed to proceed...<p>[Ed.: blah, blah blah - later review identifies this as a likely banned comment maker.]

I'm not _that_ upset about it :-)

I think my point was just made about "the right-wing foil-hat yak-yak conspiracy set", no?

I agree with Jay, curiously enough. This will either be tossed by the Bush family's Supreme Court, or failing that, Bush will sign his pardon on the way out the door. Libby will then write a book and make millions. Gotta love American justice.

Oh, there's no doubt that Libby will walk the same day Bush does. Sword-falling adjutants are usually rewarded handsomely for loyal service.

ry, is that the same, single juror who spoke to the press, that said Libby was a fall-guy for the administration? Or did someone else go to the mic when nobody but the right-wingnut blogosphere was listening?

I just love the fact that his nickname is Scooter. Makes me think of the son of the owner of the theatre on the Muppets. How can anyone with a nickname like Scooter be a bad man.

To not remember a conversation in a conversation with the FBI for which the notes were lost is not, to my mind, grounds for a felony conviction.

Fitz won the lucky jury lottery which is how the system works.

That Fitz was allowed to proceed at all given that the source of the "leak" was known on day one of his investigation suggests a purely political agenda at play. Which is fine; but it is not justice nor is it healthy for our friends to the South.

I would recommend the book Origins of the Bill of Rights including for the point that the very reason for having juries relates to the prosecution of high officials. Also note that he was not believed. Hard to appeal a finding that a defence is not credible.

No, no, no.

What's going to happen is that Libby will run out the clock with his appeal so that he stays free till after the first Tuesday of November 2008, and then Bush will pardon him and walk away whistling.

This is how American politics works.

"ry, is that the same, single juror who spoke to the press"
Same guy. Which is why I go to many places and read many things.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that the jury supposedly asked, 'Where's Rove?" Why Rove? It was Armitage who outted Plame. If there was anything or anyone to nail for Plame it was Armitage. Why did they want Rove when it was Armitage that staged the outting of Plame? That makes little sense to me, but i haven't followed this that closely.

Jay, I have to disagree. We want Special Prosecutors to do a very thurough job. Very. We want them to take the engine apart and put it back together again. We want them to be proctologists(yuk!!). Libby made a mistake and he's paying for it. You don't lie to the FBI and you don't lie to the SP. That's just smart. I can't stand that people are trying to make this into Kafka.

What I do think sucks is that a perp of similar dastardliness is getting his security clearance back and didn't serve one minute of prison time.

"Why did they want Rove when it was Armitage that staged the outting of Plame? That makes little sense to me, but i haven't followed this that closely."

This is an entirely reasonable question. What it seems to come down to is that the Powellites at State where Armitage worked are seen as less odious than the Bushies controlled by Bush's brain, Rove. Poltically, the prosecution would have been a failure if it had reached the conclusion that the source of the leak was Armitage, which it was, as this would have let the Bushies off the hook.

Of course, once Armitage was identified as the source of the leak Fitz should have closed up his shop and we would never have seen this bogus prosecution of Libby. And, when you think about it, where Armitage is the leak then the story would have been circulating in Washington and it would not have been out of the question for reporters to be asking Libby, en passant, for confirmation. Which was essentially the defence's postion but that position was not allowed to be put before the jury.

Alan, as you know, an appeal on a jury finding of fact is not on; however, Judge Walton's ongoing rulings to exclude defense witnesses and other evidence as well as Fitz's closing in which, at the very last minute, he brought up Plame's covert status (without leading any evidence whatsoever and contrary to the judge's earlier rulings) provide ample ground for appeal on questions of law.

Being in Indiana I have a much different view if Fitzgerald than most. Around here he's got a rep for being a straight shooter who cut his teeth gutting democrat corruption rings in Chicago. So the cries of 'political motivated hit' don't fly with me. It's not who Fitzgerald is nor is it what happened. Sorry, not buying that one today. Maybe that was the jury, but not Fitzgerald.

Again, we want the special prosecutor to go gonzo in their investigations--- so long as they are not under pol pressure to come up with something to justify the costs and are able to report that there's nothing there when there's nothing there. You don't know what's there until you look(schroedinger and his cat). you have to look and look hard. It's part of the way the system is supposed to work. I want them doing proctology on their suspects. The SP aren't called in for your garden variety crimes after all.

Because Rich Armitage is not being prosecuted for giving up Plame I can only conclude that giving her up did not run afoul of the law, unless there's some deal I haven't heard about. This wasn't about politics. This was about respect for the law and playing by clearly defined Rules. I don't personally like that Libby got nailed(particularly when Sandy Berger is walking around free as a jaybird), but the man screwed up. You pay a price when that happens. He messed up in a big stakes situation. He's paying big stakes.

I agree entirely.

"Because Rich Armitage is not being prosecuted for giving up Plame I can only conclude that giving her up did not run afoul of the law"

So Fitz had Armitage on Day 1 of his investigation. Which means he had found his criminal except that, as you point out, the criminal did not actual commit a crime; he was merely indiscreet. Not good enough for Fitz so he and the FBI go off to do further investigation on the non-crime of outing Ms. Plame. In the course of those investigations they ask Libby a bunch of questions and they ask the people Libby talked to a bunch of questions and when the answers did not line up exactly the straight shooter charges Libby with lying about something which was not, in itself, a crime. Now, remember, the White House demanded full co-operation and no taking the 5th as a condition of employment.

Once an SP can bring charges based on "he said/she said" testimony about a non crime the justice system has pretty much lost the thread.

The take away here is that when the FBI calls you lawyer up, shut up, take the 5th and answer every question with "I don't recall". You might lose your job at the Whitehouse but it beats the Hell out of serious time in a federal pen.

If this doesn't suggest...<p>[Ed.: changing puppets does not change who you are.]

It is sad when people are given access to the internet when they know little about what they are talking about. Perhaps we can create sectors and permissions and that sort of stuff.<p>Oh, hey - once I checked I saw it was the dope of IP 216.168.119.99! Most of the Kawartha region comments have to pretty much be deleted now but that is fine.

"So Fitz had Armitage on Day 1 of his investigation. Which means he had found his criminal except that, as you point out, the criminal did not actual commit a crime; he was merely indiscreet."
I'm unsure of when Armitage was known as the leaker to Fitzgerald. If it is established that Armitage was known before Libby was questioned it changes things only slightly. At the end of the day Libby lied when being questioned by authorities. You don't lie when at sobriety check points or random traffic stop. Why the hell would you lie here?

I take the exact opposite message away. Be a stand up guy and little will happen to you.

Look, I can understand Libby playing politics with media types. Pretending he didn't know something at times to move the pile. But when the FBI shows up it is time to stop bsing and do your best Joe Friday. Armitage did that and he's walking around Scot free.

I'm of the Right. i don't like how this makes us look. But Libby got what he deserved for screwing around in an investigation.

Bingo! That is the correct civic republican answer. There are duties that go along with citizenship despite what the neo-cons and libertarians will tell you.