Rich Lowry:

The jarring spectacle of jurors expressing support for, or at least indifference toward, an executive act to wipe away the conviction that they just handed down is a damning statement about Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It means that he had sufficient evidence to convince a handful of people drawn from Washington, D.C.’s liberal jury pool that Libby was guilty, but even they didn’t believe Libby should have been in the dock in the first place.

Libby might have deliberately lied or might have had a memory lapse, given that practically every witness had memory problems. Fitzgerald’s evidence against Libby was all he said/he said. In these circumstances, a judicious prosecutor would have committed an act of forbearance, and even moral courage: He would have let it go.

Fitzgerald couldn’t resist the temptation of every Washington special prosecutor, which is never to close up shop without at least one obstruction-of-justice indictment. Fitzgerald’s justifications for his pursuit of Libby have proven either false or tendentious.

As soon as Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the leaker he should have ended the investigation. I believe he learned about Armitage almost immediately which makes the waste of time and money let alone the reputation of Libby and others all the more criminal.

(finger wag) Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald you are a very, very bad man.

And what will be the result of this successful prosecution? Will it be (as the more ignorant Democratic wackos assume) that government officials will think twice about "outing" secret agents as punishment for her husband's opposition to Administration policies? Of course not, because none of that happened.

Will it be that government officials avoid covering up possible crimes they've committed in high office by lying to a grand jury? Of course not. Libby committed no crimes, at least until he (supposedly) lied to the grand jury. What was his motivation for supposedly lying? No one knows. It wasn't to cover up, because there was nothing to cover up, and it wasn't to protect someone, because there was no one to protect. We can only imagine the jury thought he lied for the hell of it, or because he didn't like the color of Fitzgerald's tie.

What I think will happen is that:

(1) Capable people who might think about serving in high government office will think twice. The Chairman of GE is used to giving orders and hearing important reports verbally. He certainly doesn't write down and time-stamp every fact that comes in and out of his awareness, just in case someday a grand jury might demand to know the precise timeline of some obscure sequence of events. If he did, he'd get nothing done. What will he think when he realizes this kind of nitpicky drone work is necessary to serve as the VP's chief of staff? He'll think that's a job he doesn't want.

(2) In addition to attracting more mediocre people to government service, we'll change the behaviour of those in office. Look for way more cautious, CYA behaviour. Longer delays in getting things done, because everyone has to have stuff on record, in paper, to protect himself just in case the opposition gets a special prosecutor appointed. In other words, look for less efficient, more bureaucratic government. What fun!

(3) Finally, anyone who is called in front of a grand jury is going to be advised to just say "I don't remember" as often as possible, even when he does, or might, because if anyone can successfuly portray your memory goofs as a deliberate lie, you're off to court for a $3 mil ride, and possibly jail and the ruin of your career afterward. So look for increasing difficulties in getting people in front of grand juries at all, and decreasing cooperation when they do.

Good work, Patrick!

The end of the Libby trial really says something about the
Bush Administration.

The white house senior staff was all leaking the Identity of
a CIA agent to settle scores against her husband,
A CIA Cover company was blown, compromising
a dozen agents, and instead of managing the Iraq
occupation, the Bushites were busy trying to defend
the WMD Story line.

The white house senior staff was all leaking the Identity of
a CIA agent to settle scores against her husband

We know you're going to live on in this fantasy, Anonymous Moron, despite the fact that the trial actually showed that it wasn't the case.

That's why you're a moron. As to why you're anonymous, it's probably because you're not quite stupid enough to want to attach your name to this idiotic and unsubstantiated (and in fact multiply refuted) opinion.

I see he has learn well at the knee of his idol, Herr Goebells. He thinks repeating big lies will make people accept them as truth.

Sadly, some will....but not here.

Simberg.

What was Fleischer testifying about? His leaking Plame's ID.

What did Rove Testify about? His leaking Plame's ID.

What did Armitage testify about? Same thing.

Simberg, If you were really honest, you'd be calling
for Armitage, Rove and Fleischer to have their
clearances pulled and for all of them to
be up on charges for leaking classified data.

Let's leave aside, for a moment Plame's nonexistent covert status at the time of the leaks. Even if we presume for a moment that she was in fact under deep cover personally ferreting out vital intelligence from under the very nose(s) of the bad guys, since when has the left in this country had any compunction about leaking inelligence data and putting our people at risk? Daniel Ellsberg, for instances, is still a dashboard saint for much of the left, and that isn't even counting the New York times and their various leaks in the last 18 months. Bottom line is that the only reason ANYONE on the left even cares about Ms. Plame is that she provided possible attack vector against Rove, Bush, etc.

More to the point, however, Armitage admits that he was the leaker in question, something confirmed by several other sources. How, then does this implicate Rove and Fleisher, who not even Fitzgerald (who obviously has a rather low trigger point for accusations) decided to indict?

Finally, we are asked to believe that this 'compromised a dozen agents' without a shred of evidence to support his contention.

I repeat Rand, please dispose of this pest. Failing that, pass along his IP address(es) to the rest of us, and perhaps we might engage in a bit of spontaneous collective response (just teasing)....

Posted by Carl Pham at March 9, 2007 03:02 PM

defending lying before a Grand Jury is not an American value....

When the cell door slams on Libby what will be the lesson?

Dont lie before a Federal Grand Jury...

If you do no matter who you are or what you did, you are punished by society.

Dont lie before a federal Grand Jury.

Repeat that a few times, read The Constitution and reveal in those who tell the truth...maybe one day that will be a GOP value again.

Robert

defending lying before a Grand Jury is not an American value

No one has defended lying before a Grand Jury. No matter how many times you repeat this.

Stop making up straw men.

Stop making up straw men.

Stop making up straw men.

Repeat that a few times, go back and read what we actually wrote, this time for comprehension.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 10, 2007 07:20 AM

then stop making excuses for lying to a federal grand jury.

why Libby didnt tell the truth is beyond me...

if he is that much of an idiot he deserves to go to jail.

Robert

then stop making excuses for lying to a federal grand jury.

One more time, Robert.

No one here has made an excuse for lying to a federal Grand Jury.

If you can't provide a single cite where anyone has done so, then stop posting at this blog, and slink off with your tail between your legs, where it belongs. All you do is whap your fingers at the keyboard, without thinking at all.

You don't seem to be reading anything that anyone else is writing, or you wouldn't continue to repeat such nonsense. We all grow weary of it.

then stop making excuses for lying to a federal grand jury.

why Libby didnt tell the truth is beyond me...

How do you know that he lied? Juries aren't infallible (see: OJ et al), so it's not enough to cite the fact that a jury convicted Libby. Libby contradicted Russert who contradicted Fleischer (or was it the other way around?). How do you know who was lying? How do you know that anyone was lying? Libby had no motive to lie, since he didn't think he had done (and didn't do) anything illegal. He could have avoided indictment by responding to the grand jury with a series of I-don't-knows, the way Clintonites like Harold Ickes did in response to grand-jury questions. Why didn't he? If there's a personification of reasonable doubt Libby is it.

Scott

Look up brewster - Jennings.