Replies

I think that Libby's Lawyers need to immediately motion for a Judgment NOV. There is simply no way that a reasonable jury could come to this verdict. There is no question but that there was "reasonable doubt" as to Libby's guilt on any of the counts. It was all he said/she said and nobody could really remember what was said. On top of that there was no underlying crime so even if Libby lied, it was not material.

This is a travesty of justice. But unfortunately our justice system has become a travesty.

I just heard Dennis Prager compare Fitzgerald to Nifong and indicated that they are basically cut from the same cloth.

Anyone who is not frightened by this verdict has no sense of justice and no sense of history.

Why should any one cooperate with any governmental investigation and why would any one speak with a reporter?

Maybe that is the good that comes from this; keep your mouth shut. Refuse to speak without a lawyer and refuse to say anything since what you don't remember might tend to incriminate you as much as what you do remember. Always keep in mind that two people experiencing the same phenomenon will have different impressions about what they saw and/or heard.

I think materiality is the issue that most bothers me.

Fitz knew who the leaker was as he entered this case. He knew it was Armitage. He also knew that Plame was not a covert agent per the law on that issue. He knew no crime had been committed.

At that point, the case should have been stopped.

However, assuming the worse about Libby for a moment. Assume Libby did not know who the culprit was. However, Libby would have known it was not himself. His actions would then be taken to assure that someone did not FALSELY conclude that it was him.

He is asked "when did you first tell that Plame was an agent?" If he had told at week #1 to one person and also told at month #1 to another person, why did he place himself in his testimony to the FBI in the later incident? Perhaps to place himself further from the time of the incident itself. Perhaps he saw greater distance in time as being safer.

All along, Libby knows that Libby is not the one who outed Plame. What did he fear happening if he placed himself closer in time? I'd say he feared some kind of false accusation by an overzealous prosecutor.

At this point, what is his crime? He is guilty of lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury in an effort to distance himself from a crime that he is certain that he did not commit AND that the prosecutor will know that Libby did not commit.

He would have been far better off, now that we know Armitage's name, never to have spoken to the FBI or the Grand Jury beyond a pleading of the 5th Amendment.

From henceforth, I will never suggest otherwise to anyone who has to speak to authorities.

As for Libby, if we assume he lied to the FBI/Grand Jury, then he deserves some form of punishment. That punishment should be a wristslap since he is clearly innocent and has been known all along to be innocent. I'd give him a suspended sentence with lots of community service.

If I were on the jury, and if I had been permitted to consider that there was no crime committed and that it was definitely not committed by Libby, then I would have nullified this case. If they had had all the above information and Andrea Mitchell's testimony that disputed Russert's testimony, then I could not have convicted him.