I hope he's the first of many! Bet Junior will get into the pretzels tonight.

There's bound to be more coming.

How long before we can access the indictment on the web and print it off?

It's already on the Smoking Gun -- in full with the Clerk's file stamp on it. Happy reading!

And please God -- let the press focus on the key question -- why the perjury and obstruction -- focus on the underlying thing that they trying so hard to hide.

Not the fact that this indictment is somehow tainted because it doesn't focus on the underlying crime.

Thanks Judy!

welcome

Hello everyone. I have a TECHNICAL question. Is there a way to refresh this specific comments section?

Is it too much for me to hope that the pressure on Scooter gets ratchetted up enough for him to start singing and blow the whistle on the dark evil puppetmaster Cheney? Rove's wide smile of relief this morning is rather nauseating...

I think you can refresh with the F5 button. I just did it and it worked.

Thank you, Judy :-)

Looks like your favorite "former Undersecretary of State" is going to get dragged into this:

4. On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary
thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

That's Fleitz right? The guy who worked for Bolton?

If anyone wants, they can read the indictments and the upcoming press statement on the website below.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

This is HUGE, folks... Let's play fill in the blanks with references to who else may be caught in the net:

1. "an Under Secretary of State ("Under Secretary") (para 4);
2. "and another person in the Office of the Vice President" (para 5);
3. "a senior officer of the CIA" (para 6);
4. "the Vice President of the United States" (para 9);
5. "a CIA briefer") (para 11);
6. "his then Principal Deputy") (para 13);
7. "the Counsel to the Vice President" (para 18);
8. "the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs" and "another government official" (para 19);
9. "Official A" (para 21)
10. "other official aboard the plane" (para 22)

Also, para 28 implies that the Plame leak is only one focus of the investigation, meaning that they looked into other things - criminal conspiracy, anyone?

This ain't over, friends, not by a damn sight! :)

Would someone be good enough to apply their prophetic wisdom to this news and respond with where this might lead...

Specifically, what is Fitzgerald empowered to do beyond this point? How far might he go? Will he leave things to the trial? Will the trial open a Pandora's Box of implications which will lead to more indictments?

Or, and this is what I fear, is this the ceiling of the effort and Libby the fall guy for the higher-ups?

I think Fitzgerald is planning to bring down the house of cards, one by one. Dubya may be rambling around that huge House all by hiss-self with Cindy Sheehan standing at the gate.

Laura Rozen says that was a reference to Marc Grossman, not John Bolton.

My bad.

Paragraph 21 on the indictment is very interesting.

Why does the indictment not name "Official A," who spoke to Robert Novak about Valerie Plame?

from CNN - note last sentence. That's where this is going.

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that indictments in the case could have an enormous impact on the Iraq war.

"Because if there are indictments, it will not only be people close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war."

I think Official A is Rove, no?

By process of elimination, I say Official A must be Rove...in the conservatory with a rope, let's hope.

From One
From http://www.danchan.com/weblog/Cubbins/148879.

July 8, 2003 – Robert Novak conversation with Karl Rove in which Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, and her role at the CIA are mentioned.

July 8, 2003 – Robert Novak tells an unidentified person, who has since testified before the grand jury, that Joseph Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and had arranged Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger.

July 10, 2003 – Robert Novak tells Joseph Wilson that he has information from a CIA source that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA. Wilson does not confirm this information.

July 10, 2003 - Scooter Libby and Karl Rove discuss with each other their conversations with reporters regarding Valerie Plame. source

July 11, 2003 - Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger declassified.

July 11, 2003 – Statement released by George Tenet in which he states that President Bush’s claim in the State of the Union address that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger “did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed.”

July 11, 2003 – Karl Rove conversation with Matt Cooper of Time Magazine, in which he tells Cooper that Joseph Wilson’s wife works at the CIA and authorized Wilson’s trip to Niger.

July 11, 2003 – E-mail from Matt Cooper to his bureau chief describes Cooper’s conversation with Karl Rove.

July 11, 2003 – Karl Rove sends e-mail to Stephen Hadley regarding his conversation with Matt Cooper, saying he “didn’t take the bait” in response to Cooper’s comment that Joseph Wilson’s statements had been damaging to the administration.

July 11-14, 2003 – CIA spokesperson Harlow has at least two conversations with Robert Novak, in which he tells Novak that Plame did not authorize Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger, and that if Novak did write about the trip, Plame’s name should not be revealed.

Specifically, what is Fitzgerald empowered to do beyond this point?

He can investigate the leak and any related crimes as long as he needs to.

How far might he go?

As far as the evidence will take him ;-)

Sorry to keep pegging away here...

Para 22 - "LIBBY discussed with other officials aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries..."

So now we have evidence that multiple WH officials, including the VP, discussed what resulted in Libby making statements in furtherance of a cover up, including those statements which underlie the charges.

From Henry Mark Holzer (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8240):

To prove a federal conspiracy, the government need only prove an agreement between at least two people to commit a federal crime, and that any one of them performed an act--even a perfectly legal act--in furtherance of that agreement. Once there's an appropriate agreement and an act, there has been a consummated conspiracy. Nothing more need happen for a jury to convict.

Seems like some federal conspiracy charges could be coming down the pike...

Not much here, basically a he said she said...to me it looks like Libby crossed up his conversation with Novack with Russert. Where he claims Russert told him all the media knows about Plame, was actually a statement that Novack has made.

With an exception of an outline reference, there was absolutely nothing about outing the agent.

I read the 22 pages, and see a very light purjury charge...the administration is for all intent and puposes cleared.

Unless Rove gets indicted (probably not going to happen)...By the end of next week this story will run out of steam.

Merry Fitzmas

Looks like Bolton is caught up in this too. See page 4 in the indictment about an unnamed "Under Secretary of State". Things only get better!

"Official A" could also be Cheney himself. The indictment is very careful not to mention him by name, referring only to Darth as "the vice president" or the "Office of the Vice President." It's really a stretch for me to believe that Libby was operating unilaterally without Cheney's knowledge.

Re: No Fitzmas Presents for the Democrats post...

dude, turn over your copy of the indictment and read the side with the funny lines of black marks on it...

dude, turn over your copy of the indictment and read the side with the funny lines of black marks on it...

LOL!

The indictment is so carefully worded with regard to others involved that I can't help but think that that implies smoking guns elsewhere. If Fitzgerald were indicting Libby (acting alone) as his coup de grace, why would he hesitate to use VPs name, etc as he does journalists, Wilson, etc.

Last comment, then I've got billable hours to make...

These indictments are like sort of like when you go out drinking with your buddies - there's often a long wait before you have to hit the john the first time, but once you break the seal, that's it. Fitzgerald just broke the seal - I don't think we'll have to wait too much longer for round 2.

So, if today's Fitzmas, what do we call the day the next set of indictments come down?

Any news from the news conference? can someone update? Will the grand jury be extended?

The Grand Jury went home not much left can come out of this. Bush won in 2000, Bush won in 2004. Get over it, there was never a case!

By the way Novak who has always maintained that his sources (which by the way are multiple)were not top administrative officals.

Dave you can continue to dream up conspiracies but at the end of the day this will come down to a not guilty or perhaps a plea deal with a slap on the wrist. This thing is pretty much dead. After the weekend news frenzy, I bet this fizzles, simply put there is nothing else here.

Merry Fitzmas.

Look at it this way, it's like a jelly of the month gift "it the gift that keeps on giving the whole year through".

Is it live on network news?

If tradition holds, there will be 12 days of Fitzmas.
Now, I've got to do my billables!

Remember your "uber-insider source" and his news?

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

So we found out that the shoe is not dropping after all, as you have suggested. what a waste of time and energy the media has spent on this...!! How can the left even justify this, the guy is not charged with "Intelligence Identies Act"..so what's the news hear? Clinton's Sandy Berger charges was much bigger than this and MSM let it pass.. go figure!

After Fitzmas, it's Happy Fitz Year everyone!

``Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously and we must stop them before their crimes multiply,'' he said.

- President George W. Bush, speaking in Norfolk, Virginia, October 28, 2005 (from AP).

NoFitz, You used the KEY phrase. "THIS Grand Jury" is, indeed, done. That does not preclude Fitzgerald from impaneling a new GJ or using one that's already been impanelled to continue his investigation. Not that he WILL, but he could.

"By the way Novak who has always maintained that his sources (which by the way are multiple)were not top administrative officals."

My bad. I'm sure Fitzgerald is waaay off base in paragraph 21.

Seriously though - the Red Party Line has changed from "there is nothing there" to "it's not like we eat babies and puppies" - at least get with the new Official Indoctrination Script.

How about "it's not as if we lied the country into a war?"..oh wait...

Live video of press conference on msnbc.

Josh has Cheney's statement--apparently, now they can't comment not because it's an "ongoing investigation," but because it's a "pending legal proceeding."

This is rather pathetic. I'm sure he's commented on a case under trial before. Didn't he have comments on Terri Schaivo? Wasn't that a "pending legal proceeding"? And I can't imagine a Republican campaigning for office never commented on a crime that was committed during his campaign.

As an Independent that has had enough of the outrageous and oft-illegal tactics of both Dumbos and Donkeys, I find laughable that anyone participating in a supposedly centrist discussion of this who also happens to be an American (with a nod to the Constitution) would attempt to excuse Libby's actions on the grounds that they [were not as bad as] Sandy Berger's, which were just plain stupid, but protective as opposed to vindictive. Berger's 'hey how did those get in my bag?' thievery did not put in jeopardy the life of a CIA agent, perhaps her family, nor did it compromise the confidentiality of the intelligence community, nor was it done out of a malicious revenge for outing a blatant lie by the cabal in charge.

I'm not using IE, so I can't watch the MSNBC live video. My burning question, will there be another grand jury, and how far will the investigations go? Anyone has the latest update?

Isn't it treasonous to destroy an entire network set up by the CIA for the purpose of pursuing national security interests?

And the "collateral" damage is 2,000 (and counting) U.S. dead soldiers in Iraq.

Well said, frankly.

Question: Does anyone know how long this grand jury was, for lack of a better term, on duty. I can't believe these people were on duty for two years. That means Mr. Fitzgerald was INVESTIGATING for some time before bringing what he had before the grand jury and pursuing charges. SO, Mr. Fitzgerald NOT continue his investigation without a grand jury and then impanel a new one if and when he deems fit to bring charges? Just legally curious.

Uh the question is can Mr. Fitzgerald NOT continue investigating etc.

Its also at the washington post website.

I am not a lawyer, but I think he could extend the term of the present GJ. I don't think he's done investigating. Why would he move into larger quarters if he were packing up to go home? Nope, he's in D.C. for quite a while. Lots of work to do.

Judy: I'm not a lawyer either (I almost was :-) )
Now, Fitz has said the GJ is good for 18 months plus they can be extended for 6 months. That extension expired today. So, I guess my question is does he really NEED a grand jury to continue investigating. Cuz so far he's not asking for a new one. I'm wondering he NEEDS one to continue his investigation. Can't he just keep working at things and when he has SOMETHING request the new grand jury. I'm not sure what is called for legally. He DID say he's not finished. That he wont' stop until he can look people in the eye and, essentially, tell them his work is done.

I GOT my answer...Happy Fitz Year everyone! He was being very cautious, but he said that a new grand jury can be enpanelled, or an existing one that has not expired can be asked to continue with any investigations, when the need arises. I'm speechless....wow...

Yep, this is just the beginning. I didn't hear his press conference--I'll have to catch a replay later this evening. However, just by the way the indictment is worded, you can tell that he's very careful and cautious. He is an extremely good prosecutor, IMO. "WOW" is right. I wouldn't want to be one of his targets.

I heard part of it, and he was fending off really fierce questioning about whether more charges are coming, will there be more to this case, the politics of the WH's case for war, how long will the next jury last, etc. and he really told them "no comment".

I think he is trying to cool the feverish pitch, but then it is telling that he did not give the impression that this is over.

I suspect this low-key approach is needed, or he will be inviting the vicious neocon pitbulls in the media to attack.

I'm still optimistic, because he was very clear and very specific about the charges involved, why perjury matters, and he gave a really strong case about why the CIA and those who work for it should be protected, to the point of sounding like he spewed paleocon integrity and patriotism. He strikes me as an old-fashion moral type, but in a good way. Very straight, very principled, very clear about the law, and why it should be protected and he's not going to let crooked issues that lie within his jurisdiction go unchallenged. He sounds like a protector, which makes me think that he won't go for a whitewash.

He never gave anything away and his answers were carefully phrased to cool and lower expectations for those looking for vindication. Nonetheless, I feel goosebumps, because he really appears to be a principled and thorough, meticulous person, and thus, not likely to be a Pat Roberts or Lord Hutton.

Very good summation, Qwerty. I will be anxious to hear it. Just from his writing (the indictment), I can tell he is very no-nonsense and not easily intimidated. "Old-fashion moral type" and "protector" are characteristics which are very good in this situation. At least he's not a flamboyant, media-hound. This is good news. Thanks.

I heard the press conference.

My impression was that Fitzgerald is trying to flip Libby and/or the other underlings involved. He kept saying we are not charging anyone with outing Plame because we don't know the truth. And he went to great lengths explaining why perjury and obstruction of justice were so serious in a National Security case like this and implied these charges would be vigorously pursued. In my mind his words were directed at Libby and/or other smaller fish. He seemed to be telling them if we find out the truth from someone else first you are going down hard. If you tell us the truth now there is wiggle room for you. In other words we really want the Godfather not the soldiers.

I like Fitzgerald. My gut feeling is that he really does seem to be after the truth and doesn't appear to be someone who will settle for less.

Thanks ronny. This is what I thought his strategy was. I like Fitgerald, too. He's patient and is waiting for Libby (and Rove) to sing. (Well, who are the bigger fish above those two?) I think there's an indictment that is sealed and has Rove's name on it.

Judy, there's a transcript of the press conference at NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28text-fitz.html?pagewanted=all

Qwerty, thanks. I'll print it out. I can't wait to read it. Thanks again.

In addition to the 2000 troops, let us not forget the 0ver 30,000 CIVILIAN Iraqis who have been killed. These bastards in the Whitehouse have lied us into an unwarranted war. Bush and Cheney should be tried right along side Saddam for Crimes Against Humanity. Freedom is not on the march, deciet is.

Well, it may be Fitzmas to some, but it's ChanuFitz to others, and there are a lot of candles left to light...

Fwiw, fitz did say he didn't want to enforce or set a precedence for a national secrets act. That may be telling, he may not be inclined to go after that act.

However, I actually prefer it this way. These are uncommon people who have committed common crimes, and they should be treated like common criminals. They are, quite simply, crooks. If treason could be proven, I'd gladly stand on the line and hope for a live round.

But whats been charged is just dumn thuggery.

Hopefully there will be more presents to open. But even if this is it, it will drag on long enough - even with a plea - to keep me happy.

So, Scooter Libby, the Vice President's number one man, gets indicted on five felony counts. I sign onto my Earthlink Welccme Page, and what does the "Breaking News" headline say????

"ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S DOGS BOYCOTT IAMS"

This ain't America, its the God damned Twilight Zone.

Yeah, you got to do your billables, alright.

Bulls-it ;)

You and every other law firm in America will piss two hours away just like you did with the Michael Jackson verdict. 0.6 x 20.

(Snort).

Fitzgerald is one cool prosecutor, who will never give up "Offical A" until he/she comes in. The amazing part is he left it to Novak to out his source. Did or did not Novak know? Did Novak give it up alrady? If not, he says -- if he is going to prove this paragraph of the indicetment -- who Offical A is and will be not be pretty when he does. I am amazed that paragraph 21 has captured less attention. It is the center of case and he has it in his cros-hairs. You know who you are!!

SO let me get this straight...the VP chief of staff is in trouble and this is going to be a gift that keeps on giving. This story's got another week tops. If you recall the prosecutors opening remarks Rove's not being brought in. There you have it an unrebutted indictment for a crime that wasn't being sought. Libby will have his day in court...remember this isn't a conviction as an indictment and the burden of proof is very small for an indictment. I would bet that most Americans before today wouldn't recognize or know who Scooter Libby is. So is the press going to go with a story about a VP's aid...come on get a grip, not even they can keep this alive. This isn't the president, or the vice president, this is a hired staffer albeit one that is high up but none the less no one anyone really cares about. Had he outed plame, you might have something, but this is not the case becuase you can't out someone who isn't covert.

Anyway the below is a well reasoned response to this prosecution posted by Mark Levin (Levin has a radio show in NY and used to work for Ed Meace former attorney General...the remarks are not Marks, but a source Mark trusts, I think the the below is very well reasoned...hopefully their are some reasonable people who read this blog,

________________

I have been following Pat's case, but admittedly I am not familiar with all of the nuances of his evidence. However, I have handled perjury prosecutions in the past and I know from personal experience they are extremely difficult to prove. I have to wonder, what evidence does Pat have that Libby consciously misled (or lied) to the Grand Jury, as opposed to simply making a mistake?

Compare this to the Martha Stewart case -- there she had a very strong incentive to mislead the FBI -- she had suspiciously dumped a load of Imclone stock just prior to a "bad" Imclone press release. Martha escaped an insider trading charge on a technicality. She got her "information" from her broker, not directly from an Imclone insider. If she had been contacted directly by Imclone's president with the information that led her to dump her stock she would still be in jail.

In Libby's case, it is clear the espionage law does not apply, Plume was not undercover, what possible motive would Libby have to lie or obstruct? While motive is not a statutory element of the crime, to prove perjury a prosecutor must give the jury a plausible reason for the defendant to engage in the charged conduct. The only possibility I see, is perhaps Libby "thought" disclosing Plume's identity to reporters violated the law. But as I understand the timeline, by the time he testified before the Grand Jury everyone was well aware that the Espionage Secrets Act did not apply to Plame.

As a career prosecutor I consider lying to the Grand Jury a very serious crime, it undermines our entire system of justice, but just as deleterious are weak cases that lead to bad rulings. Unless I am missing something, I don't see it here.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Rove_Official_A_Novaks_source_lawyers_1028.html

Yo - me and frankly called it!

To: No Fitzmas - you're just embarassing yourself. stop.

Evidently the 1982 act didn't apply, since that's not what Libby was indicted for. In fact it was only mentioned in the indictment as the reason the investigation started.

The folks still hoping for a Rove indictment should have stopped whooping and hollering long enough to listen to Fitzgeralds whole statement about the continuing investigation:
(from ABC News)

Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But … very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."

That reads as tying up loose ends, not looking for other indictments. Sorry Joe Wilson, no Karl Rove frog hop in cuffs.

As for "Official A", it's standard practice to not release all names, to protect those not indicted from retribution, or if they've already rolled.

"Oficial AZ" is standard practice when?

The person referrred to is in the White House?

Are you kidding us all?

If A outed B to Novak, what is your conclusion here?

If A did not out B to Novak, does he indictment collapse?

Why is paragraph 21 in there if it does not matter to the case?

A outed Plame to Novak. So what, you say?

Some of the comments from the defenders of the fascist Bush regime are downright hilarious not to mention quite delusional. How about that dumbfuck fool No Fitzmas Presents For Democrats, nothing much but some partisan drooling fool, he must have been all for impeaching Clinton. When your pal Scooter goes to prison what will you say then you jackass?

It's quite clear that the chicken-hawks' strategy is, " Hey, calm down, it's over. Nothing important happened. Cool it." because they can't afford to have this snowball any further or the American public will sit up, pay attention and keep chattering through Elections 2006, so I say, keep hammering away. Fitz's strategy of keeping mum and everyone on their toes is excellent for this purpose, you don't know what cards he's holding, and that keeps the game going.;) The "conspiracy" charge hasn't been raised yet because it would need Libby's testimony to implicate the others, of course. A plea bargain in exchange for neting the guys right at the top is exactly what will happen.

Libby is no small fish. He's deep in some really bad sh*t:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3005target_libby.html

To keep this going is the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME...it really gets them gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair like the proverbial slow torture while they are watching the calendar and seeing 2006 looms closer, so folks, keep it going like the Energizer Bunny:

O’BRIEN: So there you have it, Karl Rove apparently escaping indictment, but that’s the good news. The bad news is, on goes the investigation. What are your thoughts on that one?

COULTER: That is like the worse possible outcome.

O’BRIEN: Oh, an indictment would be better?

COULTER: I think so. I mean, I don’t think indictments are particularly big deal politically. They’re a big deal for whoever gets indicted, but I don’t think it really matters to the White House. I’ve just been thinking, this is going to be lancing the boil. Let’s just get it done one way or the other this Friday. Either they get indicted and they leave, or they’re not indicted and it’s over. To stay under investigation — that is not the best possible outcome.

Dear NoFitzmas -

Let's start with fundamentals, something that has obviously eluded you: if the crime of compromising national security by outing a covert agent of the CIA had not been committed, as you wingnuts seem incapable of grasping, as you continue to pretend it isn't so...then Fitzgerald would have stopped this a long time ago...it's the whole reason he's there; no crime, no investigation, just that simple. That crime was obviously committed or how could he continue? Especially him, who both left and right agree is a man of high integrity...(unlike other recent prosecutors, who when they could not find anything after years and years, went for the 'who really cares' behavior of illicit sex)

No my friend, this is going far deeper, and if you want to understand exactly where this is going, please check the following link, if you dare, if you are up to it, a rattling of the small world you live in, please read this and then check back, please share what you make of the line of thinking expressed in this article.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051019/dick_cheneys_covert_action.php

It doesn't get much clearer than this, every piece is there, a covert action against the American people, done not for National Security, but to protect themselves from being exposed for taking this country to war on a lie.

Kenny, I had an e-mail exchange with this idiot and he will never understand. When one drinks as much kool-aid as idiots like this they can never see beyond the blinders worn to prevent the truth from pervading their feeble minds. This numb idiot still thinks Clinton did commit crimes of the Century. Sample:
You ignorant fool. In Clinton's case you have him clearly covering up FORHIMSELF by preparing a FALSE avidavit for Lewinksy then having his lawyer submit it (unknowing to the Lawyer) as fact.

Still hung up on the blue dress and ignoring the treason of the Bush regime.

More ignorant blather:
I would like to note that unlike the Star investigation where Clinton obstructed and launched an all out PR war against the prosecutor, Bush team has been very cooperative this echoed by the prosecutor himself during the press conference. Also note that during the press conference the prosecutor flat out said this is not about the war in Iraq, hence goes your fitzmas present.

The link you provide Kenny spells it out quite well, it is a shame some just don't get it. They are lost in the propaganda fed them by the neocon madmen, feeble minds follow and just can't seem to think for themselves.

Kenny you don't get it!

Libby was indicted for giving misstatements and perjury. That is it...there is no covert outing. There is no crime. Simply put the Grand Jury is finished and as Fitzgerald stated, its very rare that they will be called back. The investigation is just about wrapped up. Said another way barring an absolute miracle (for you)...This investigation is OVER.

Fitzgerald can opine all he wants in public about how the outing of a CIA operative is series etc... etc... Doing so does not change the fact...THERE IS NO INDICTMENT FOR SUCH CRIME. So at BEST if you are a democrat, you MIGHT, if a court of law finds Libby Guilty a Perjury charge.

Now the other numbskull that I corresponded with and he made public my statements (and did not edit them to which I thank him) Are exactly correct. Clinton was found guilty by a Judge to have impeded an investigation, he was given the chance to appeal this decision (and perhaps save his law license) CLINTON CHOSE NOT TO. This is a conviction of sorts.

Libby could well be in the same boat as Clinton, but Libby gets a trial first.

At the end of the day this story will die. It has to. Americans don't know nor will care about Scooter Libby. He is an aid to a VP. Also, keep in mind that Wilson is a liar, this the media knows as anyone who can read will find that Wilson's OP-ED piece directly contradicts his testimony to the CIA. The Administration had a duty to make this public. They could have done this a little better, but they had an absolute responsibility to rebuff the claims made by Wilson in his Op-ed piece, that were for all intent and purpose FALSE.

1.) Wilson was not sent by Cheney (as implied by Wilson in the Op-Ed)

2.) Wilson's wife did recommend he go on the trip

3.) In his discussions with the CIA. Wilson actually supported the notion that Saddam was trying to find a source for Yellow Cake Uranium.

4.) Bush State of the Union Address provided that "BRITISH INTELLEGENCE" has maintained (and still does by the way)....

Simply put if this goes beyond these perjury charges, the court of Public Opinion will turn on Wilson Fast. The Administration (to my dismay) has not taken this battle to the American People...I wish they would! Sadly outside of the Conservative Press, the Main Stream press could get its head out of its partisan ass and report the truth.

No Fitzmas you stated in your above post "There is no crime." Can I ask you why then has Libby been indicted? No crime? What was this grand jury doing if there is no crime? This isn't about twenty year old real estate deals and sophomoric fantasies regarding Clintons sex life, this is about treason. You need to get away from the left verses right crap and realize this is about real crime not partisan politics.

This has always been about partisanship. The central crime investigated was not charged, not even close. What we have is Perjury and Obstruction which in of itself is a crime (as I stated in all my posts). My point about the Fitzmas present, is the crime does not implicated the administration in anything that has to do with anything about the reasons to go to war and Iraq as a whole. The crime of Perjury has nothing to do with the crime of outing a CIA agent and thats what all the hoopla was about.

As for the politics, why are democrats calling for Rove to be fired or Rove to step down if he isn't being charged with anything?

Bottom line is this:

1. Based on Wilson's testimony to the Senated Intellgence committeee and what Wilson wrote in his Op-Ed piece...WIlson is a liar!

2. Administration has a right to defend its policies and get out the truth.

Sorry but those are facts!!!