[TBP]

You know how often the evidence is manipulated. Take teh Libby case, for example, where Libby is not allowed to bring in memory experts or to discuss the FACT that Valerie Plame was not covert, but the persecutor is allowed to rant about the war.

If he's convicted, will it be on the strength of the evidence or just the evidence the governmetn chooses to allow for its own reasons?

[SuziQ]

We already know that Libby's indictment was politically motivated; it's likely the jury will see that, too. If Libby is convicted, he'll have the chance to appeal.

Libby, on the other hand, didn't shoot an unarmed man, as these officers were accused of doing. A jury having seen the evidence, convicted them of it, and the officers have every right to appeal. I haven't read anything that says their arrest or conviction was politically motivated. Those who oppose illegal immigration have jumped on the case to beat up the President with it. That's the only politics I've seen about it.