But there is investigation, and there is investigation. As a former Federal investigator, I know the difference between pulling out all the stops, and letting somebody slide because an investigation isn’t worth it.

This whole thing falls into the category of the latter.

I guess I missed that paragraph in the Constitution.

Also, Libby was found to be guilty. For lying. From an administration with a big reputation for lying. Who wouldn’t want them under oath?

Scooter Libby was completely above board (note nobody was indicted for “outing” the “secret agent” valerie plame?), but he was entrapped by a grand jury because he was TRYING to answer their questions.

If the democrats were interested in the truth, they would simply take the presidents offer and question people in private…but they aren’t, they want a show trial and a fishing expedition. Now they will get nothing…

And it’s far from obvious that these abuses are not criminal - obstruction of justice and lying to congress are crimes.

If what Rove and company was doing was completely above board, let them come and testify, under oath.

He could fire them because he didn’t like their hair….

My impression is that at least in the case of the San Diego USA, she simply wasn’t re-upped at the end of her term.

Seeing as she indicted and convicted a sitting republican, the white house didn’t do a good job of “obstructing justice” did they? If they were really interested in protecting him, they would simply have removed her immediately.

Doesn’t pass the “sniff” test…

Actually, I think Pedro’s hit upon a can’t-miss slogan for the Bush team:

“We may be unethical as hell, but we ain’t criminals!”

Witch. Hunt.

I’ll see your two words, Pedro, and raise you to four:

That. Dog. Won’t. Hunt.

Frank, Libby was guilty. The White House itself gets smeared with the conviction and it’s hard to credit your opinion that it stinks as the administration promised an investigation and never undertook one. Furthermore, with any security breach, not to mention one that plays out in the newspapers, involved parties are duty bound to step forward and report their actions in the matter, which of course did not happen here.

You can whine all you want when every bit of evidence points at coverup and CYA.

Three words:

Obstruction. Of. Justice.

Two words:

Witch. Hunt.

No, it’s more like “I’m not letting the Democrats get any closer to uncovering our shoddy contempt for the justice system.”

That sounds about right.

If the President, as I do, views l’affaire Libby as a fiasco, then he doesn’t want a repeat (we’re talking about the President’s thoughts, now — not mine).

I really don’t think this has to do with anything as heady as “separation of powers” or “executive privilege”.

This is more like,”I’m not stepping into a Democrat(ic) buzz saw.”

“But aren’t claims of executive privilege usually reserved for national security matters — in particular, matters of state secrets and foreign affairs? ”
- Paul Gigot

“Now, if the public increasingly sees this scandal about their right to know, so much for executive privilege and Secret Service privilege, and no one is above the law, [The President]’s in a lot of trouble.”
- Kate O’Beirne

“I think the President knew this claim on a matter unrelated to national security was a loser all along, but made it in lower court to run down the clock. Smart; it bought him four months.”
- William Safire