Second, Fitzy also said (and this concerns me) that they are still investigating who leaked (in so many words). Just because he didn't reveal this today doesn't mean he won't reveal it later, or prosecute, or decline to prosecute, something related to the "underlying crime." I don't think that means a lot.
Libby, I'm sure, will have a good defense, and the matters seem sufficiently murky to me that even IF he were guilty, the prosecution would have a hard time convincing any jury of that.
Agreed- which puts Libby/White House in a difficult position. If he took it to trial- he might well be found not-guilty. If he took it to trial it would ALSO keep this front and center for the libs/media for 3 years. So- Libby may have to take the hit and go to federal prison for a year or so?
I disagree with this somewhat.
"Special Prosecutor" in this case indicates limited and/or directed investigation.
All it took was 1 day to read the statute and it was clear that no one "outed" a covert operative. Investigation over.
These special prosecutors take on a life of their own. That is why they are a BAD idea.
Totally different.
IN your scenario, the bank robber would have ALREADY committed the embezellment crime.
In this scenario, Libby and the reporters were discussing politics, THERE WAS no underlying crime which everyone, including Fitzgerald, knew in the first place.
This is a travesty, the criminilization of gotcha politics, pure and simple.