[Cboldt]

... with regard to the Libby case, is it your position that lying to the investigators (not only by Libby, but by ALL of those questioned) is okay?

It's my position that Fitzgerald was responsible to determine if there was even a potential for a violation of the laws referenced when the request for an inquiry was made, and that since he appears to not have done that, that he should be held responsible and potentially fired. That is not to say that the case should be closed, but that without that foundation yielding a plausible "yes", there really isn't an investigation to compromise and that Libby could have told him truth or lie, and it would not have been remotely germane to the prosecutors decision that a crime had been committed - which is the first element required for a perjury conviction.

Is that a "yes, it's okay to lie to investigators in this case?"

Firing Fitzgerald would be additional remedy, but should Libby get off? And what about Miller? Sounds like she ought to be reimbursed, rehired, etc. since Fitzgerald caused her some pain as well.

[lepton]

Is that a "yes, it's okay to lie to investigators in this case?"

Firing Fitzgerald would be additional remedy, but should Libby get off?

Darn. Thought I had reposted before I clicked on another link.

Anyways, here's the gist:

But enough with parallels - with regard to the Libby case, is it your position that lying to the investigators (not only by Libby, but by ALL of those questioned) is okay?

Sorry, I realized that I didn't directly answer your question.

It is not my position that lying to the investigators is morally O.K. That is a different question from "illegal," and a different question as to whether Fitzgerald should be held accountable for not making this fundemental determination. Note that when I posted "He should be invited in to explain himself to the AG and the President. If he can't explain why he didn't carry out the first elements of the investigation, he should be fired," I specifically did not discuss the dispensation of Libby's case.

If a Fitzgerald replacement conducts the review and finds that Plames identity plausibly fits the criteria under the law, then proceed. If it does not plausibly fit, then nothing Libby said was relevant one way or another, as there was no investigation.