[colorado tanker]

I can't find the WSJ piece online, but it was written by counsel involved in the case whose names I recognized. I have a hard time believing they misrepresented their case since that issue among others will be going up on appeal, but I suppose that's possible.

I do think this was essentially a political prosecution once it was known no crime was committed by the leak, so I hope Libby gets off the hook by appeal or pardon.

[lugsoul]

Are you saying that Libby's counsel wrote it? They were the only ones who presented it to the court. I have a hard time believing his lawyers wrote a piece arguing their position in the WSJ.

I'm not really concerned with what they said and whether it is an accurate representation of the issue presented to the court - the most accurate representation is what was actually presented to the court. And what was actually presented to the court was based primarily on studies on eyewitness testimony, which is a bit different than the question of whether one will remember multiple conversations, or will continue to 'forget' them even after they are reminded of them by another source.

It is extremely odd to me how a group of folks who pillory the media will rely on media sources when it suits their purposes.