This verdict makes me sick. They'll go after Dick Cheney next. Black is white and white is black.
I Don't Agree [Mark Levin]
Ashcroft's cowardice in passing the buck to Comey, who then passed it to Fitzgerald, does not excuse what I and many view as Fitzgerald's over-the-top investigation. Most prosecutors that I know try to determine what crimes they are looking into. Since Fitzgerald didn't charge anyone with revealing Plame's identity, he must have concluded early on that there was no such crime relevant to his investigation. And he knew Libby hadn't "leaked" to Woodward or Novak. That's where it should have ended. But it didn't. I find his conduct very troubling. He sought special authority from Comey to drag reporters before the grand jury (authority no prosecutor to my mind has ever exercised let alone sought). His press conference announcing the indictment was grossly misleading. He knew Libby hadn't been the source who revealed Plame's identity. He knew that many of his own witnesses had poor memories. He knew that Joe Wilson was a liar (if he reads newspapers or Senate Intel report).His closing argument was politically charged as he referenced Cheney repeatedly and Bush as well. And he went back to the conspiracy theory he chose not to bring in a formal indictment, i.e., that Cheney led an effort to put out information about Wilson. This is the most absurd prosecution in my memory, and the idea that the man in charge of it should be viewed as simply following the law and addressing the circumstances before him is not credible to me.
As for the juror, I watched him carefully as he spoke, and spoke, and spoke.
I can see that the former journalist had a lot of sway in the jury room. I can see why Fitzgerald wanted him there. He said they were sympathetic to Libby but wondered where Rove was. Yes, Wells brought it up first during his opening, arguing that Libby was the fall guy. So what? That was Wells's theory of the case. Rove never testified, for either side. An entire trial had subsequently occurred. The jury instructions had nothing to do with Rove.
It was a very odd statement for the juror to make — "where's Rove" — when he and the others are supposed to be focused on the evidence before them.
This suggests to me that they weren't solely focused on the evidence. And they were encouraged to look elsewhere at the end of the trial by none other than Fitzgerald in his closing statement — who sounded like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. I have no idea if the jury was faithful to its mission, as Andy insists. Let me suggest that they may well have swallowed the bait Fitzgerald threw them in his closing respecting the Republican White House out to settle a score with poor Wilson and Plame. The "where's Rove" comment by this juror, after the trial was over and the verdict was in, brings me to a different conclusion than Andy.
More generally, as long as cases with political overtones are tried in the District of Columbia, Republicans will be at a severe disadvantage. I don't believe that jurors are more perfect than the rest of society. I don't believe in every case they are able to ignore their own biases. And that's especially true when they're being prodded in that direction by the prosecution.
Until something is done about this, people like Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger will get what amounts to a pass and Lewis Libby will be facing prison time.
You're right about that, Utah Girl. And the media will report that Libby outted a CIA agent, even though that isn't what he was even charged with.
So I have kept to my vow to keep all news off since the verdict. And I will continue until I sense that it's safe to listen to the news again.