I hate to throw corrections at you, but I think you mean Patrick Fitzgerald, not "Fitzpatrick."

I just wanted to point that out before left wing bloggers pick up on it and use such a small error as proof that you don't know the first thing about the case, and that your opinion is therefore illegitimate. It's their MO.

There was no actual crime at the core of the investigation. No one has been charged with actually violating the laws in regards to the revealing of Valerie Plame's CIA employment.

If no one is charged then no crime occurred. Interesting.

Other interesting crime notes:

- The murders attributed to Jack the Ripper did not happen.
- Tupac Shakur was not murdered.
- Jimmy Hoffa is still alive
- There was no Zodiac Killer
- The Hall-Mills Murders did not happen

Fitz was unconstitutionally appointed and the whole trial will get tossed. I want to know if the distinct damage done by Fitz's precedents to the ability of a journalist to protect his sources will stand if he is bounced.
====================================

When will we get to see the heroes (Plame and Wilson) cross-examined? That would be worth the price of admission.

Commutation or pardon at this stage is an error. Respite of sentence, yes, if need be to keep Libby out of jail, but retrial with vindication or dropping of charges is the only way to get justice done in this case. Libby didn't even lie, Russert did, and Fitz suborned his perjury.

And Joe Wilson and Val Plame are traitors.
=========================

OK, now I'll see what JC has to say.
===================

Well, I agree there is a pardon trap. Walton, Fitz, Wilson, hey, everyone involved but Libby wants a pardon. What is with that?

Read the defense's response to Fitz's argument to jail Libby pending appeal. By now, Walton's probably committed him to jail, and the emergency appeal process started. This will be Walton's last official act with this case. The adults have arrived. Details in Just One Minute.
==================================

I can't wait for the Plame movie. It should be out soon since the fictionalized version was written first.

JT, if you want to see the nutroots reaction, it should be coming here anytime now. ww

If I were Bush I would pardon him now. And then tell anyone if they don't like it to stick it.

An easy thing to remember is that whatever a Huffington Post writer advocates, it is probably wrong or illegal. Even if it agrees with you, they are probably doing it for completely stupid reasons.

Underlying crime of Libby's was obstruction of justice. BUT, the entire prosecution team and the Justice dept understood that there was no crime there to obstruct when they were repeatedly dragging Libby and Rove in front of the grand jury. gc

I know this is a little OT, but that USDOJ link in Crittendon's post got me thinking..

If Hillary gets elected, will Susan McDougal have to spend the entire time Hillary is President in prison too?

I'd love for someone to ask this of candidate Clinton: "So how did you get Susan McDougal to sit in prison until the final days of your husband's Presidency, when all she had to do to get out was simple tell the truth about you two?"

From Jay Tea:
"The response of the Nutroots alone will be worth weeks of entertainment."

As is the entertainment of the "nutroots" watching the "wingnuts" -those folks who believe in the rule of law and personal responsibility - rationalize, minimize, justify, and deny abject intentional criminal behavior of one of their darlings. Our entertainment has been going on for 2 weeks now. I had some today.

New Laws: You're not even in the same ballpark with your "examples".

There was no crime found in the revealing of Plame's name. Not only does the person in question have to be a covert agent within a certain time frame, but the person revealing their identity has to have done it with full knowledge that their name cannot be revealed.

Your examples are actual crimes with no perps. I can't believe that has to be spelled out.

JFO, your impassioned plea for respecting the rule of law might have more weight if your moronic friends in the Netroots hadn't spent the last 6.5 years saying the SCOTUS only stopped the counting in Florida because they were evil Republicans.

Besides, a Libby pardon/commutation will royally piss off a lot of people I don't like, and angry people tend to do stupid things. The response of the Nutroots alone will be worth weeks of entertainment.

Pissing off the Dems is all you guys have left isn't it? That is kind of sad actually.

There was no crime found in the revealing of Plame's name.

But was there a crime committed?

Not only does the person in question have to be a covert agent within a certain time frame,

Fulfilled:

"At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information."

- CIA director Michael Hayden, as read in House Commmittee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on CIA Identity Leak

but the person revealing their identity has to have done it with full knowledge that their name cannot be revealed.

Very hard to prove. That's why no one was charged. Doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

Your examples are actual crimes with no perps. I can't believe that has to be spelled out.

Tell Jay Tea. He's the one that seems to think no charge=no crime.

Fitzgerald needs to join Nifong this week in his ethics hearing down in Carolina.

Both need to be disbarred.

mantis, be honest, it was Waxman saying that as he waved a paper purporting to be from Hayden around in the air. The CIA has not yet rendered an opinion on her covertiness, and probably won't now that she and hubbie are suing the CIA.
==========================

Walton denies request to be released pending appeal.

Scary times -- it's the criminalization of crime!

mantis:

Very hard to prove. That's why no one was charged. Doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

I could be wrong, but according to law, isn't that exactly what it means?

AB, this was expected. Look upthread, I predicted this action by Walton. He's still hoping for a pardon. Note the 'unless I'm overuled' in his decision? He know he's had it.
=======================================

mantis, kim, et al

The standard for "covert" is spelled out in the law. Whether or not the CIA says Plame was covert is immaterial. That's why Fitz tried to increase Libby's purjury sentence with the "outing" accusation instead of actually bringing it as a charge. Nobody broke the law in telling Novak Plame worked for the CIA.

Yes, mantis, a crime was committed. Joe and Val released classified information. It was the manipulating of that information, IN THE TIME OF WAR, that makes the crime capital.
=====================

Right, Eric, and on that tactic alone Fitz ought to be disbarred.
================

It is an accusation that Libby was not allowed to confront, in the trial, nor in the sentencing phase. And Fitz claims to be a US Attorney? This is what has a lot of US Law Professors steamed. There was a lot of Sixth Amendment abuse in this trial, and only Jeralyn Merritt, of virtually all leftists, admits it.
======================================

There is a poorly monitored border somewhere around Old Mexico, or New, or whatever.
===========================

Angelina Jolie can play Plame in Heart of Darkness.
============================

Well, once the Dems throw those liars under the bus. Again. You know they'll have to. It's the only way out for them. The House of Cards is collapsing. Even the peacock can't stop it this time. Nor Alan.
====================

But if wishes were horses, beggars wouldn't have to scoot off to Appellate Court.
===============

How was I dishonest? That's what was read in the hearing. Did Hayden deny that he cleared the comments? Are you accusing Waxman of making all this up?

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

The CIA has not yet rendered an opinion on her covertiness

Except for the aforementioned comments submitted to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and that there was some reason why Justice believed this:

"it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the
relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity
had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."

But I'm sure you're right, and the Justice Department and Waxman and/or the CIA are making it all up.

I could be wrong, but according to law, isn't that exactly what it means?

According to the law, if you cannot prove a crime was committed then none was? Tell it to Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson's families.

This case is not about 'covert'. It is about the handling of the elephant 'classified' by at least eight blind men. The blind Fitz is hoist by his mishandling of the trunk.
==========================

I guess there is no such thing as an unsolved crime. Right Kim and Jay?

Also:
-She was covert, that has been established over and over.
-I love how the right always conveniently forgets the obstruction of justice crime
-Libby is going to the big house
-Haa Haa

"Pissing off the Dems is all you guys have left isn't it? That is kind of sad actually."

Excuse me? Is that all you have left?

What you meant to say was you acknowledge that President Bush was REELECTED TO A SECOND TERM and you Rats have yet to stop crying like babies.

What truely is sad is are the lives that are loss at the hands of the Democrat Party from their lies and smears that are spread by their propagandist partners who for years now have infested the MSM. While the democrat media is spewing democrat talking points they are also helping their terrorist allies with their recruiting shortcomings and spreading their Propaganda by willingly providing them with access to our livingrooms.

You should be grateful that in response to the democrats attacking our Country and our Commander in Chief in a time of war that you are even alive to shamelessly utter those words:

"Pissing off the Dems is all you guys have left isn't it?

What this proves is undeniable , the Rats are at war with the terrorists against US , TRUE AMERICANS.

The busher, seeing an elephant eat for the first time, went home and told his friend the amazing spectacle he had seen. That one is specially for OB/is our.

bD, can't you strike up the band for the Mulberry Street Parade with Val and Joe strutting together as birds of a feather?
================

BG2, she was covert by informal usage in the CIA, not for purposes of prosecution under either possibly relevant statute. She was 'classified'. See my note about blind men and elephants above. She was blind, too.
============================

For the lefties let me type slower: Libby was not charged with outing a covert agent because the government cannot prove it. If they can't prove it, he did not do it. Unless you are in Niphongs camp. Hell with the evidence, they are guilty.

For the really slow lefty who told us to tell Nicole and Ronald Goldman: No one said they weren't murdered. No one says there was not a crime that took place. The government just didn't prove it was Simpson. Like it or not, and I don't at times, thems are the rules.

Libby did not out Plame by the letter of the law. ww

Libby did not out Plame by the letter of the law.

No, he obstructed justice and perjured himself. What is so hard to understand about that?

Like a crimial who has been run down and apprehended we often here culprit with shortness of breath uttering "I didn't do it". Umm... do what sir?

Criminals lie when caught and so do democrats. Democrats lie for a living and act like children.

-She was covert, that has been established over and over.
-I love how the right always conveniently forgets the obstruction of justice crime
-Libby is going to the big house
-Haa Haa

Good example Barney , thanks.

mantis, you link at 2:33 to Fitz's misconduct. Libby was not allowed to defend himself from the allegation that Plame was covert in the sentencing phase. This was Fitz trompling all over the Constitution Bork and Dershowitz love. You are not paying attention, but they are.

Besides, Fitz was unconstitutionally appointed. By his handling of classified material, the CIPA stuff, he demonstrated that his appointment had to be confirmed by the Senate. Wasn't done. Not kosher. Slam dunk.

The real question is whether or not there will be a new trial, or an investigation into the Plame/Wilsons.
===============

Blue one, Fitz obstructed justice, and Russert perjured himself.
=====================================

Well someone purgered themselves... That much we know. And the jury was strong armed by some devout leftist members of said jury to convict Libby... That much we know too.

I once heard that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a diffent result. If any right thinking people on this blog thinks they are going to get any devout leftists to deny their dogma and objectively look at the facts of this case then they are insane. Not gonna happen.

Blue one, Fitz obstructed justice, and Russert perjured himself.

You can believe that if you want but a US Attorney, a Jury and a Judge don't, and as a result, Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators. Either that is a HUGE miscarriage of justice or you are very wrong.

Your welcome rob, it's nice to stick it to you since you are such a reasonable bloke.

For the even slower WW:

Libby was convicterd of lying under oath. He was convicted of obstruction of justice. Those 2 things are serious felonies. Got it now?

Should he go to prison? That's a debatable issue. The rest is not.

To go even slower for JFO: Your lefty friends are saying Libby outed Plame and is paying the price for that. No he is not. Unlike democrats I think if you lied you lied. If you get caught, pay the price whatever that is. To all reasonable people though, this whole thing stinks. I agree with KIM, this will get straightened out on appeal. ww

Yes, Blue, it has been a huge miscarriage of justice. Why do you think twelve, count 'em, jury sized for symbolism, law professors have weighed in that the Constitutionality of Fitz's appointment is an excellent question for the appeal court?
=====================================

And they also, all twelve, wonder why Libby wasn't allowed to question Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan, about Russert's contention that Plame couldn't possibly have come up in the Libby conversation. This was the heart of the perjury charge, and I maintain that Russert lied, not Libby, and Fitz helped him do so. Where are Eckenrode's notes?

The FBI one morning
Lost its notes suborning.
Eckenrode,
Where is that toad?
He's wanted at a harrowing.
=========================

Kim, I believe you broke a record here with 7 consecutive posts, congratulations!

Won't Scooter look guiltier if The Pardoner Guy gives him a pardon?

PB, I don't have to convince them. The march of events will do so. Libby wants vindication, and Bush will get it for both of them. Fitz is exposed as unethical, Walton as biased and not bright enough, Russert perjurious, and NBC disinformational. And I haven't even started in on the Democrats and the thug CIA elements.
======================

Precisely, AB, which is why he doesn't want one, and Bush hasn't stopped this charade, yet.

Bush is an expert poker player. Fitz's appointment could have been challenged earlier, but the proof that he was unsupervised, and a train wreck, came out in the trial. I hope Fitz gets a more honest prosecutor than he is.
==========================

Tom Maguire has this, too, at Just One Minute, and he is just as hot off the presses as I am about the Mitchell business. There are peacock feathers all over the place.
====================

Why do you think twelve, count 'em, jury sized for symbolism, law professors have weighed in that the Constitutionality of Fitz's appointment is an excellent question for the appeal court?

Even if Fitz's appointment was inappropriate it doesn't change the fact that Libby is guilty of the crimes he was convicted of. To me, a miscarriage of justice is convicting an innocent person.

Also, Judge Walton didn't seem impressed by the 12 law professors. He said this about them:

Walton never appeared to waver from his opinion that a delay was unwarranted. After 12 prominent law professors filed documents supporting Libby's request, the judge waved it off as "not something I would expect from a first-year in law school."

Blue, you are leaning on a thin reed there with Walton. He's being led whimpering out the door by the adults. Do you think an appeals court is going to listen to Dershowitz and Bork, or this Walton, who pinned Libby's arms behind his back while Fitz whaled away, Ahab-like, at him?

Walton was out of his league here, and you can tell by him whining about the professors being in it for the money. That was my key that he knew the jig was up.
==========

And son, if Fitz's appointment was unconstitutional, then the trial is void. I'd like to know if the legal precedents against the press made in the course of his investigation stand, or if they are also out the window. Where does Judy Miller go to get her reputation back?
===============================

That's an amazing statement, Blue "it doesn't change the fact that Libby is guilty of the crimes he was convicted of".

I have learned through the years that if you are telling somebody something they don't want to hear, then they don't hear it.

Believe, boys and girls; I claim expertise on little but this stuff I know.
====================================

"Where does Judy Miller go to get her reputation back?"

To Hell. She'll have a lot of company with the other cheerleaders.

By the way, you taxpayers may get to cure Miller's damages, directly caused by Fitz's dereliction of duty.
================================

Nothing's inevitable but Hell and taxes.

AB, half an oath is better than none.

Feminists, half an oaf is better than none.
======================

Kim,

The next time the "adults" stop Fitz or Walton will actually be the first. To date, Team Libby has done pretty poorly.

That's an amazing statement, Blue "it doesn't change the fact that Libby is guilty of the crimes he was convicted of".

I don't think it is amazing at all. Claiming Libby's conviction is a miscarriage of justice because the wrong guy prosecuted him is a stretch to be sure.

Yes, this is the first time. Walton and Fitz are stymied. I can't help but believe Bush and Libby are playing this for dramatic timing. Note the absence of a pardon. Note the distant trumpet of the law professors, signaling the arrival of the Cavalry. Read Libby's response to Fitz's motion to deny bail.

Aren't you a little shocked that Walton calls these law professors's output unworthy of first year law students? It is Walton who is shell-shocked, and the big guns are just sighting in. They've loosed exactly one round, and look at how it shook up Walton.
===============================

"criminalization of politics"

Jay Tea usually at least keeps the religious right/Republican talking points to a minimum. What a dissapointing article.

Oh Blue, you hopelessly misunderstand me. This was a miscarriage of justice because Fitz was biased from the beginning, constructed a perjury trap with Eckenrode, then suborned Russert's perjury to close the trap on Libby. The appointments business may be the easy way out for all concerned, except that it doesn't reveal the truth of the case. I'm actually afraid Fitz will be pitched and the trial voided and that will be the end of it. Sort of the back-up to the pardon trap.

Only with retrial, or new trial, or re-investigation will justice be served in this case. But I am certain that Walton is through in this case, maybe elsewhere too, and Fitz's days are numbered.
=================================

ww

My lefty friends are intelligent enough to understand the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice - we learned all about it from another Republican named Nixon. We are intelligent enough to understand the judge and the jury said the evidence was "overwhelming." We are also intelligent enough to know he has appeal rights and if he deserves a reversal he'll get it. Unlike you law and order folks who think a female crack addict with 3 children who gets caught deserves the 20-30 year sentence she frequently gets as a result of the "laws passed by the law and order" party.

If ever you wing-nuts had a red herring it's the "he didn't out anybody" defense. You folks sound as pathetic - actually more pathetic - than Bill Clinton did when he did the meaning of is is.

This was a miscarriage of justice because Fitz was biased from the beginning, constructed a perjury trap with Eckenrode, then suborned Russert's perjury to close the trap on Libby.

I doubt we will ever agree on that. Thanks for clearing it up for me though.

It should be out soon since the fictionalized version was written first.

Yep. Libby helped write it. I hope he enjoys the vacation it earned him.

Cathyf, whose exposition of the case on Just One Minute has been most brilliant, also worries that the appointments business will bring all of this to a grinding halt, and justice never done. Oh well we have the Plame/Wilsons' civil suits to toy with.

You're welcome BN. Your input was good.

JFO, not so good. You should be appalled at Fitz's work.
==============================

She was covert, that has been established over and over.

Rob, what evidence would you accept that she was covert?

Kim, let's say that there was proof that actually satisfied you, that Plame was covert; and there was proof that actually satisfied you, that Libby had perjured himself and obstructed justice in this investigation.

Under those circumstances, would you think that Libby should go to jail?

Are you interested in defining the term 'covert', jim, or just in throwing it around?
==============================

jim, I'm not interested in playing games with you. Follow up your own hypotheticals. And read what I said about 'covert' upthread.
===================================

hint, jim, 2:54 PM.
===========

jhow66 at 12:19,

If you were Bush, you wouldn't know how to spell "pardon".
And you'd probably tell anyone who didn't like it to "stick with me".

Kim, they don't get it. ww

Kim - You're getting to be a real pain in the modem. Is it really necessary to post 7 consecutive comments in the span of 10 minutes?

Is your attention span in such a state you can't collect all those thoughts into a single post?

A Brown:

Won't Scooter look guiltier if The Pardoner Guy gives him a pardon?

Possibly, he might even look as guilty as commodities trader Marc Rich who just happened to be on the lamb when Clinton's form of "justice" intervened.

Or as guilty as Hillary's brother who may have collected 100 "Gs" as a result of a Clinton pardon.

Libby lied, no one died, but he deserves his jail term. However the entire process stinks of political opportunism from top to bottom.

What's the game? I just want to know if you're committed to the rule of law, or if you just want Libby to get off because you like the Bush administration.

I mean, IF someone is actually guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, they should go to jail, right? Why is asking that a "game"?

And Kim, that's quite an interesting interpretation. It reads as, "She was classified, ok, but the CIA didn't really mean it".

What's the difference between a prosecutor who knows no crime was committed but continues to carry out an investigation in hopes of carrying out a politically motivated witch hunt and a catfish?

Ones' a slime sucking, bottom feeding, scaly, repulsive, cold blood creature and the others a fish.

Let me post this again for jim and other slow readers.

It does not matter, in the slightest, what the CIA says regarding the "covert or not covert" question. Not. At. All. The CIA uses a different definition of the word than the law in question.

I'm sufficiently persuaded Libby purjured himself on the stand, but I find the obstruction charge somewhat curious. Fitz knew there was no underlying crime within the first few days of the investigation. So what "justice" was being obstructed, exactly? That one seems like a railroad to me.

My lefty friends are intelligent enough to understand the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice - we learned all about it from another Republican named Nixon."-

What a pathetic bunch of punk ass liars. For starters you losers are too stupid and incpable of learning anything. That would require intelligence which you are sorely lacking , your support of criminals frauds is proof of that. You probably were not even alive at the time.

"You folks sound as pathetic - actually more pathetic - than Bill Clinton did when he did the meaning of is is."

Yet you still support the party of perpetual fraud.

Why?

What the hell is in it for you?

You just want to win something? I'll play a game of tic tac toe with ya , let you win and the world will be changed for ever.

marc, you're not paying attention. Russert lied, not Libby.

jim, are you still trying to conflate 'classified' and 'covert'?

mantis, boy am I disappointed. Despite prior notice that Waxman wavedf a paper purportedly from Hayden around, and spouted about 'covert', you still seem to think that is definitive
CIA opinion. I have warned you that the CIA has not rendered a legal opinion about Plame's covertness. Yet you repeat yourself, and still claim this is the CIA declaring her covert. Just try to find the letter that Waxman was waving around. Is is geschribben?

Again, after notice, you still link to Fitzgerald's unethical mention of Plame's covertness during sentencing, here referring to is as what 'Justice', presumably the Department of Justice, believes.

So here you've substituted 'Justice' for Fitz, and 'CIA' for Waxman.

Now I want to know whether such sophistical rhetoric is deliberate, or ignorant. If it was ignorant, why do you persist in believing you have a point when I've already explained why you haven't?

Are you not paying attention? I know this is an unfair battle, because I know a hell of a lot more about the Plame case than you do, but this right here isn't about Plame; it's about rhetoric.

There, all in one post. Stilted isn't it?

Style critics, bah.
=========================

Waxman waves his hands in the air, and Fitz insinuates that Plame is covert without allowing Libby to challenge that?

I'm beginning to see who your rhetoric models are.
================================

It was just not going to be constrained in one post. Just scroll through, marc.
=============================

I have warned you that the CIA has not rendered a legal opinion about Plame's covertness.

You've warned me, huh? Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Let me ask you a question: can you point to anytime in recent history (or anytime in history) where the CIA has testified in open court about the "covertness" of an agent? Ever? Just curious.

Yet you repeat yourself, and still claim this is the CIA declaring her covert.

Do you think the CIA doesn't believe she was covert and is just being coy?

Just try to find the letter that Waxman was waving around.

It was just his opening statement, as approved by Hayden. I'm pretty sure we got the gist of it.

Again, after notice, you still link to Fitzgerald's unethical mention of Plame's covertness during sentencing, here referring to is as what 'Justice', presumably the Department of Justice, believes.

Ooh, after notice, eh? Are you serious? Am I to be given demerits? Get over yourself. Fitzgerald is the representative of the Justice Department on this case, and he is not alone. He also took over the case while it was already underway, which to me means that Justice thought the case was worth pursuing from the initial complaint. Why would they think that if they didn't believe she was covert? Do you really think they don't believe Plame was covert and are willing to lie about it? Why?

So here you've substituted 'Justice' for Fitz, and 'CIA' for Waxman.

Fitz is the prosecutor, that makes him 'Justice' in this case, along with others who thought the case had merit and started the investigation two months before Fitzgerald came on board. Waxman, I was clear, was reading something approved by Hayden. I'm not substituting him for 'CIA'.

If it was ignorant, why do you persist in believing you have a point when I've already explained why you haven't?

Your explanations are entirely unconvincing.

Are you not paying attention? I know this is an unfair battle, because I know a hell of a lot more about the Plame case than you do, but this right here isn't about Plame; it's about rhetoric.

You want it to be about rhetoric, not me.

It's real simple. I believe that the CIA (Tenet) would have been unlikely to make the initial complaint were Plame not covert, at least under their definition and not that of the IIPA. I believe that the Justice Department found the complaint enough to justify an investigation, implying that they believed she was covert. I believe that Hayden, and others at the CIA has at the very least approved of such language being spoken about her status even if they haven't testified as much in court. Further, I believe that the CIA is loathe to go under oath and talk about covert status of agents in general, because, well, they're the CIA. Now is this definitive proof? No, but Occam's Razor guides my path.

You, on the other hand, believe in a vast conspiracy. I can see why you miss bryanD.

In the last full paragraph it should read "at least under their definition if not that of the IIPA."

You still don't understand 'covert' and you don't understand how Fitz savaged Libby's 6th Amendment rights. You do seem to agree that the CIA and the IIPA have different meanings about 'covert'. Don't you understand that that is what all the handwaving is about? Furthermore, you make the mistake of assuming much about the referral from the CIA to the DoJ. You are right that that is an important document, but you can't find it, can you? That's because Fitz won't reveal it. I am sure you are smart enough to see these points if you wanted to, so I must conclude you are merely being sophistical and refusing to give up a lost point.

All that stuff about notice and warning were simply that I had already refuted your points about 'covert' and about Fitz's misbehaviour about suggesting that Plame was outed. That you refuse to see it suggests bad faith. If you weren't intelligent, I wouldn't accuse you of it. It's becoming characteristic, and tiresome.

Yes, I miss bD, but not for his conspiracies, which were predictable, and cartoonish. Did you notice that McNulty's chief of staff resigned today? MacRanger considers it a sign that Gonzales is winning and Schumer losing.
=================================

Look, if Fitz was so certain Plame was covert, why didn't he let Libby's defense try to prove she was not. This is a reversible error, and one of the items in the appeal, mantis, whether you like it or not, and it was put there by a better appellate attorney than you are.

Note the ad hom? ::grin::
======================

Roger of Ockham cuts to the marrow; why won't Fitz let us see the referral from the CIA to DoJ. Simplest explanation? Something there he wants no one to see.

I'm glad you've keyed on this, mantis, because it is important. Are you beginning to see the Star Chamber here? You cannot show me the writing which you believe underlies your two strongest beliefs, at least as laid out above: the letter from Hayden to Waxman, and the letter from the CIA referring the matter to the DoJ. You can't find them because they are not in the public record. Now seriously, doesn't that make you wonder, just a bit? Remember, 'tis a good time to be a skeptic, and if it ain't geschribben, then it ain't worth the paper it ain't written on.
===============================

A nice political point. With this absurd prosecution, and the comical 'investigations' the Dem Congress has attempted, it has now become acceptable to go the Goodling route. Take the 5th when subpoenaed. That's the end, or get immunity, which may backfire spectacularly, like Goodling's did on McNulty. Had the members of this administration been given free rein to take the 5th, this Fitzgerald miscarriage of justice might not have occurred.
========================

Notice I'm not trying to claim those two documents are not in existence. But you depend upon them as written documents; well, show me the writing. Failing that, you are speculating, and the good Roger has taken the blame for an enormous amount of mistaken speculation. He did not claim that the simplest explanation is ALWAYS the right one.
=============================

Oh, mantis, come on over and play.
=======================

Come help ChrisO on the next Libby thread. Maybe both of you together?
==========================

I'll just use one hand on the keyboard.
========================

With our other hand we'll help the surgeon find a non-pre-existing condition to justify the surgery, one which will be permanently repaired.
================================

Oh, Lady be Good. Where's bD to link to Ella?
=========================

What are the chances, after all, of something new, masquerading as something old, arising in ten years? Not inconsiderable, I'm sure. And even if it were the old, it's become something new. Good luck in your information acquistion post-op, and good skill contending with his insurance.
============================