[conservative in nyc]

Fitz had ZERO evidence to back up any lying, unlike with Stewart who tampered with phone logs.

It was a he said she said, it was faulty, confused, and erred memories of everyone who testified.

Unfortunately for Libby, Fitzgerald had enough evidence to get a jury to convict Libby on 4 of 5 counts. And it's harder for a jury to see this as a he said, she said when she (the reporters and other prosecution witnesses) testify, but he (Libby) doesn't. She said and he didn't. I think the defense made a big mistake not putting Libby on the stand.

Fitz had discretion, like all Pros, he did not use it because this was political, and he knew he could get a political jury in DC.

Perjury is perjury. If DC juries are so political, did Libby's lawyers even try to get the case moved outside of the Beltway? If not, why not? I honestly don't know the answer to that question - or if they even could have asked in a federal case.

[roses of sharon]

Oh please, the liberal DC jury had hours upon hours of tapes of Libby testimony before the GJ on the way he remembered things.

Unlike the jury who admittedly are anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Cheney, anti-Republican, I would never consign a man to prison for remembering conversations differently than others.

Fitz had no evidence of Libby trying to suborn perjury, notes asking or admitting to lying, no testimony of him planning to lie deliberately, over and over and over again.

To the contrary, there was PLENTY of evidence that Libby and other gov officials were trying to explain to the press that Wilson was not specifically sent by Cheney, as he had claimed in his oped, and that there was no report on the trip to Cheney as Wilson said, which led to the talk of Val Plame, because she was the one who sent Wilson.

I'm sure he and his lawyer believed they could bring this jury along with common sense, but like most Republicans in DC, Libby has not a clue how ruthless his enemies are.

[CutePuppy]

Yes, they tried to move it out of DC, unsuccessfully. DC jury was the only hope and consideration of Fitzgerald when he started this sham of "investigation, because he knew who the "leaker" when he took over the case from FBI - Armitage.

And if you think the verdict had anything to do with "enough evidence", you should listen again to the WaPo reporter who spoke for the jury : " WHERE WAS ROVE, WHERE WERE THE OTHERS...? "