Was it crapping on the rule of law when Colin Powell withheld the identity of the real leaker, R. Armitage (Democrat) for months,while the investigation went forward?

Was it crapping on the rule of law, when Prosecutor Fitzsimmons diverted the investigation to continue pursuing the Bush White House even after he learned that they were not involved in the leak?

Was it crapping on the rule of law, when both Plame / Wilson lawsuits were thrown out of court for lack of substance?

Was it crapping on the rule of law when CNN recently announced(almost sub rosa) that the last tons of Yellowcake Uranium, from Iraq, had been successfully shipped to Canada to be used for reactor fuel?

Come to think of it, this last one was just a small acknowlegement of all the crap that the MSM have dumped on the American public for 5 years, in claiming that no WMD materials were found in Iraq. The rule of law has, absolutely, nothing to do with it.

- Yes,yes. Fortunately for the Wilsons, the very first time they had to testify in open court they were able to avoid jail time for outright perjury by “forgetting”.

“Mrs Wilson, is it true your husband bragged to friends about your CIA employment, and listed details of same on his blogsite a full year before the Novak story was published?”

Wilson: “I don’t recall that.”

WHAT????? WE ONLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY TELL US TO BELIEVE AFTER THE FACT.

SHE IS A SERIAL IDIOT.

PLEASE REPLACE HER. I CAN’T WATCH THIS LOUD-MOUTHED BROAD.

Not according to Mr. Fitzgerald’s court filings, as I have explained endlessly.

I don’t know and I am experiencing now Libby-Plame fatigue. ‘Speck you are too.

You missed your calling, Dugs. You should be getting $200 an hour like the big shots.

Now we’ve come full circle. That’s not what Mr. Fitzgerald says.

Once some is outed, they are out! They can’t be outed again.

Armitage told Novak - who was not cleared and a notorious political gossip.

And yes I don’t quarrel that there was a legal finding of obstruction against Libby. I just think the punishment was not just. Verstanden Sie?

Why won’t you read what I write?

No and no again. There can be more than one leaker. There are laws on the books that prohibit disclosing the identiity of covert agents under certain circumstances! (Oh that we mortals could craft one-sentence laws with perfect clarity!)

And it could be perfectly proper for Libby to mention Plame to other cleared people. To reporters, no. Big difference.
That is correct both before and after Mr. Armitage talked to Novak. What is illegal is for Mr. Libby to lie to the FBI and the grand jury about who told him about Ms. Plame.

Entiende?

You can’t have it both ways: that we need an investigation to see who outed an agent, but that the outing of the agent is not a crime - doesn’t even warrant censure. You would agree, right, that an agent can only be outed once and that occurred from Armitage to Novak.

And if I had did that (what Armitage did) in the AF I would have been sent to jail.

And it could be perfectly proper for Libby to mention Plame to other cleared people. To reporters, no. Big difference.

However, that still wouldn’t put him in the clear for making up stories about where he got the information and telling them to the FBI and the grand jury. They have laws against stuff like that.

So? You’re arguing that classified status is impossibly fragile. If Mr. Y goes to the bar and tells Mr. Z a classified secret, no one else can ever be charged with spilling that same secret? How about if Mr. Y tells his wife? Or his wife AND Mr. Z? Does that mean Mssrs A through X can all blab their heads off about this secret?

That Armitage went first is of no consequence and Mr. Fitzgerald has said as much in his filings to the court.

If you know of a point whre Libby spilled the beans (to someone uncleared) on Plame prior to Woodward/Novak, my mind is open.

Fitzgerald was investigating (among other things) how Mr. Libby learned about Mr. Plame’s job, from whom, and what information he received.

That was the “investigation of the underlying crime” you keep saying isn’t there.

A jury found that Mr. Libby deliberatly obstructed that investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald is supposed to just drop it?

the man who outed the agent- and told Novak- (IYO) deserves no punishment

False. I only said that it is my belief that he escaped punishment because he broke no law. I have offered no opinion on whether that is just.

What an Alice in Wonderland world! In an investigation set up to see who outed Plame, the man who outed the agent- and told Novak- (IYO) deserves no punishment because he admitted that he outed the agent and Fitz says that was OK.

He also explained where he got the information and what he knew at the time he told Novack. If you read that statute, you’ll see that state of mind is a requirement of the law.

Whether or not it’s OK with me or OK with Fitzgerald is immaterial–it’s the law!

You keep referring to Armitage as “the man who outed Plame” as if he was the only one. That’s just not true. Mr. Libby discussed her identity and her job with several reporters, separately from Mr. Armitage.

Mr. Fitzgerald was assigned by the Attorney General to find out if anyone (not just Mr. Armitage) had broken the law in doing so.

You evidently have no independent judgenmnt here - Fitz says Ok to out an agent, then OK.

Why is this about my judgment? I thought we were talking about the jury’s judgment–the one you keep saying is so unfair, but can’t tell me why. At any rate, you’re quite wrong. I do have independent judgment on this–you just don’t like my opinion because it was a Republican who was found guilty.

You want a to out an agent? No problema amigo!

Hysteria! Of course it’s a problem. Is it illegal? That depends on whether you broke the laws currently on the books!

But if one of your buddies then lies about some of details of your outing the agent, don’t worry. We’ll throw him in jail.

Except that’s NOT what Mr. Libby lied about. He was not accused of lying about Mr. Armitage’s actions. He lied about his own actions and was contradicted by a long string of witnesses. Even when he had the opportunity to pull a Rove and “amend” his testimony, he stuck to his lies. Why? Who knows?

And spare me the Fitz is a Repub schtick (everything Zell M says about Dems is ubiased right?).

No, I won’t. You keep insisting this is a “political vendetta” but a vendetta by who? Not the attorney general. Not the prosecutor. Not the judge, the jury, or the appeals court. Who is running a vendetta? You keep refusing to tell.

Remember Lil Joe crowing about seeing Rove frog marched. It was a political vendetta (Rs caved) from day one and Libby will be a true (legal) political prisoner.

Wait! Do I understand correctly? Wilson makes a comment and the entire Republican establishment of Washington D.C. rushes to carry out his wishes? Is that your vendetta?

Really, Dugs, this has gone past ridiculous. Let’s recap. You can pick any one of the following and tell me where I’m going wrong. But stamping your little feet and shouting “It’s not fair! It’s not fair!” doesn’t provide much opportunity for adult discussion.

Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate who revealed Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters.

Patrick Fitzgerald ran his investigation and found three people who had discussed her identity with reporters: Armitage, Libby, and Rove.

Fitzgerald apparently did not find evidence that Mr. Armitage broke any laws.

Fitzgerald did NOT “know it was a non-crime” because he was not investigating ONLY who revealed Plame to Novak.

Libby discussed Plame with many people over the course of 5 weeks. However, he lied to the grand jury when he was asked how he learned about Plame’s job at the CIA.

Mr. Libby was found guilty by a jury and sentenced according to current sentencing guidelines.

Now:
How is this a “political vendetta”?

Which part isn’t fair?

Is it only “not fair” in Mr. Libby’s case? Or is it also not fair when applied to others?

Get a hold of yourself, man!

Hey, I’m not bawling. I think the legal, within-sentencing-guidelines punishment meted out to Libby was flat out unjust.

What an Alice in Wonderland world! In an investigation set up to see who outed Plame, the man who outed the agent- and told Novak- (IYO) deserves no punishment because he admitted that he outed the agent and Fitz says that was OK. You evidently have no independent judgenmnt here - Fitz says Ok to out an agent, then OK.

You want a to out an agent? No problema amigo! But if one of your buddies then lies about some of details of your outing the agent, don’t worry. We’ll throw him in jail.

And spare me the Fitz is a Repub schtick (everything Zell M says about Dems is ubiased right?). The left has been screaming for R heads to roll on this thing from day one. Remember Lil Joe crowing about seeing Rove frog marched. It was a political vendetta (Rs caved) from day one and Libby will be a true (legal) political prisoner.

Bush appointees Alito and Roberts voted with the majority.

OK, I’ll ride around one more time with you.

why it is moral and ethical to spend millions and millions of taxpayers dollrs

Millions of dollars? That’s what it costs to run a special prosecutor’s office these days. Did the same in the Clinton administration, and Bush I, and Reagan.

to investigate a ‘crime’ that the special prosecutor knew was not a crime

Bad assumption. If you’ve been keeping up with the links I’ve been providing to Mr. Fitzgerald’s court filings, you already know that Mr. Fitzgerald did NOT know anything of the sort. He was appointed to investigate by Mr. Ashcroft and he tried to fulfill that obligation.

and then send a first time ‘offender’ family man to jail for three years

Happens all the time. Some first offenses get jail time. Some don’t. There are federal guidelines in place for perjury and obstruction. You just don’t seem to want them to apply to Mr. Libby.

for lying about of conversations with reporters re a non-crime.

Not quite. For making up a story and repeating it to the FBI and at least twice to the grand jury in which Mr. Libby said he learned about Ms. Plame’s identity from Tim Russert. This was, in fact, a lie. (I know how that word galls you, but you’ll have to live with it this time. The jury said so.) And your supposition that the conversations were about a non-crime begs the question. Re-read the second point above. No one knows whether it was a non-crime or not. Mr. Libby obstructed the investigation to find out.

Meanwhile the man who actually leaked the agents identity to both Novak and Woodward goes scot frappin free.

See, now there’s a “non-crime.” The statute on revealing the identity of covert agents says it’s against the law to knowingly out an agent. Mr. Armitage realized he was the source, stepped forward, identified his source, and explained his actions. He did NOT make up a tale that was contradicted by every other single witness interviewed on the matter!

you don’t damage my case at all by noting there is at least one more bad case out there
Hey, you started it. You’re the one who dragged Genarlow Wilson into it.

Nevertheless, I’m not sure Mr. Rita’s case is a “bad case.” His circumstances are quite similar to Mr. Libby’s however, so I’m curious as to whether you think he was railroaded also.

where the system that you seemingly wish to not question seems to make a mistake.

I’m perfectly willing to question. I just don’t see the “mistake” other than Mr. Libby’s political affiliation. That’s immaterial to the facts and conduct of the trial.

the nasty little game of sending the political opposition to jail

The political opposition? What the heck are you talking about? A REPUBLICAN attorney general chose a REPUBLICAN-appointed U.S. Attorney to act as special prosecutor. A REPUBLICAN-appointed judge presided over the trial and two REPUBLICAN appointed judges upheld the decision that he had to go to jail pending appeal. Where’s this “political opposition” you’re bawling about?

At any rate I guess I’m a bad, bad person for believing that the investigation and trial were fairly conducted and a reasonable sentence issued. You’ve yet to offer even the mildest evidence that anything else occurred.