Um, how does the latter not entirely taint if not outright contradict the former:
“I’ll wait to judge but in the meantime I think there’s a possibility that Fitzgerald is a hack.” Gee, I wonder why so many people refuse to take up this provocative and oh so consistent line of thinking?

You will note the democratic reaction to Berger’s accepting responsibility was preceded by the rant “criminalization of politics” (heavy sarcasm)

Yes, a key issue separating the two parties is that of accepting responsibility. That’s like the difference between a lightning bug and lightning.

Oh please. Is this going to be the new talking point? Rove and Libby lied to cover up the real crime? If they’re indicted on perjury or obstruction of justice, it has to be related to the Plame case. If Fitzgerald has evidence of either of those two crimes, then it wouldn’t be difficult for Fitzgerald to indict somebody for revealing Plame’s identity. Additional charges against Rove and Libby would just be a side dish to the big meal. The “I didn’t get to indict on the leaked information because of Rove and Liddy” doesn’t wash.

Berger stupidly removed copies of items

Oh, he was just “stupid.” Please. He knowingly took copies of documents that had handwritten notes on them. Those notes weren’t on the originals.

and never stuffed them in his pants, no matter what Newsmax says

Berger admitted he put documents in his jacket, in his briefcase, and…in his pants. Probably in his pants pockets, but his pants nonetheless.

He purposely took them, purposely destroyed them, and then lied about it. And yes, he was punished (if one considers a fine and probation ‘punishment’), but you’ve given him a complete pass by writing it off as him “being dumb” or “stupid.”

What is your hypthetical exactly? That there s a possibility that Fitzgerald set out to deliberately entrap someone? What s your basis for this assumption  aside from total partisan hackery?

If you can for a minute step outside of your black-and-white world of “corrupt cons” and “brand Democrats,” can you entertain the notion that the potential for prosecutorial abuse exists, and that we ought to have safeguards against it?

I don’t have any idea what Fitzgerald is going to do. Neither do you. I’ll make a judgment based on his actual actions, of which there have not been many announced as of yet. I am, however, making a broader point about the potential of prosecutorial misconduct, which I’m surprised that a lot of liberals want to specifically deny when talking about the Plame case, especially since they’ve used the argument so many times in the past when it was their ax that was being gored.

Of course, they re citing Justice Ginsburg completely out of context. Justice Ginsburg s quote comes from a reference to Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code, known as the false statements statute, where lying orally or in writing to any executive branch employee, even not under oath, is a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Er, wrong again. The context is that, in her opinion, Ginsburg wrote that she had no choice but to interpret the law as saying what it said, but there was a not-so-subtle message to Congress that the law they enacted was unnecessarily overbroad and could lead to the fact set that she wrote about in my quote from her:

I write separately, however, to call attention to the extraordinary authority Congress, perhaps unwittingly, has conferred on prosecutors to manufacture crimes.

So, how exactly have I taken her quote out of context, again?

Uh, is it okay for me to lie to aiport security screeners if I haven t committed a crime?

I dunno. Is it okay if the security screener acted in an intimidating fashion and tried to trick you into saying something that wasn’t a security threat, but nonetheless wasn’t exactly true?

If I get pulled over for speeding, is it okay to lie to the cop if I know I wasn t speeding?

If you knew you weren’t speeding, why would you tell the cop that you were? You may want to try that again, otherwise, you’re just proving my point.

Is it okay to lie to the American people about Saddam s weapons capabilities if you know he deserves to be deposed regardless?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Nice strawman, all, but no one here has given any reassurance that there is no such thing, and there has never existed such a thing, and there could never ever be in the future any such thing as an overzealous prosecutor.

The reason we think these guys are guilty is because they have no morality. Immoral people don’t commit crimes on accident.

If Plame’s status was such a non-issue, why didn’t Rove (or Libby or whoever) simply stand up at the beginning of this mess and say, “Yeah, I mentioned Mrs Wilson to a reporter or two but everybody seemed to know she worked for the cia, so I had no way of knowing she was covert. I’m real sorry about that, but luckily no harm seems to have come of it. I’ll do my best to be more careful in the future.” No prosecution could arise from such an admission, since the law on outing agents specifies that it must be deliberate. Why the stonewall? Why the coverup? Why prolong this expensive investigation? Unless…. they actually do have something to hide.

Attacking The Prosecutor
by Oliver Willis

As I pointed out here, to much protest, the Republican strategy in the event of [...]

What is your hypthetical exactly? That there’s a possibility that Fitzgerald set out to deliberately entrap someone? What’s your basis for this assumption — aside from total partisan hackery?

Just wonderin’.

You would call that an out and out right wing smear. Berger never did any such thing. Only in the right wing echo chamber does that bullshit continue to fly.

I wouldn’t call it treason unless he intended to publish them or turn them over to the enemy. But at the very least it’s major-league stupid and probably illegal. If Sandy Berger had done it while in office, I’d call for his resignation.

Too bad our friends on the right here won’t have the integrity to do the same if Rove and Libby are indicted. Watch them twist. Watch them wrigggle. Pass the cheez twists.

You are essentially trying to spin an indictment that hasn t even occurred yet.

The hell I’m not. For about the tenth time, if anyone is chaged with and convicted of a criminal act, they should be punished accordingly.

Other than that, I’m positing a hypothetical, which no one (escept Jadegold, who would be very comfortable with a leftist dictatorship that tried to sweep the streets of its enemies by tricking people into perjury so they could be thrown into jail) seems to be willing to address head on.

That’s what makes you guys so scary. You’re unwlling to consider any alternative other than guilt, before any indictments have been handed down, before any jury has been sworn in (if there are indictments), and any verdict has been rendered (if there are indictments).

But it’s okay, I guess. It just solidifies my view that the left really isn’t into justice and fairness

Oliver’s still willfully and deceitfully spinning what I’m saying.

I did NOT say thay perjury about criminal acts by criminals was okay.

He’s also willfully and dishonestly avoiding answering the question: Is it okay to prosecute people for perjury when no other crime has been committed?

I don’t expect an answer. I just wanted to relish another opportunity to show how dishonest Oliver is.

Again, it’s difficult to prosecute any crime–be it murder, burglary, shoplifting–if material witnesses lie or conspire to falsify or conceal evidence.

And, of course, Jay C. fails to understand the history and legal import of ‘treason.’ The fact is ‘treason’ is a Constitutional term—treasonous acts are prosecuted in a variety of ways, including violations (including conspiracy) of the espionage act. Spies like Robert Hanssen (Novak’s buddy), John Walker, Aldrich Ames weren’t prosecuted under a chargeof treason but for violations of the espionage act.