That's funny, but what do you say about the judges' comments - - their statement that this is a serious case, with serious evidence?
Uh, that referral was made two years ago. In the interregnum, it appears that neither Rove nor Libby actually revealed Plame's name or status (in fact, many have suggested she was not covert).
If there was no underlying crime, then perjury over no underlying crime seems to be a silly thing to persue.
Martha Stewart redux.
If there is any indictment, i'm willing to bet it wont be for any outing of Valerie Plame.
It's serious because it involves Republicans. That is the only reason IMO.
The suggested gravity could well translate to the pursuit of a CIA-based conspiracy to undermine a sitting President during time of war.
Given that a.) an IIPA case seems inappropriate, b.) an Espionage Act charge against Rove/Libby seems a far stretch and c.) the SP was broadly charged with "following where the evidence leads", "the gravity of the reported crime" and invoking "national security" suggests a far deeper and more serious affair is under investigation.
I say this is a serious ham sandwich
"That's funny, but what do you say about the judges' comments - - their statement that this is a serious case, with serious evidence?"
I wonder if the Judge's comments really mean anything. So often in Washington, it is not the seriousness of the evidence that counts, it's the gravity of the charges alleged...
We'll know this week.