Tom Maguire has some thoughts on the Libby outcome, and the absurdity of Fitzgerald’s case.

[Update at 11:30 AM EST]

Byron York imagines the Scooter Libby trial presided over by Judge Larry.

“Chicago, Chicago, Chicago,” he might say

Tom Maguire has some thoughts on the Libby outcome, and the absurdity of Fitzgerald’s case.

[Update at 11:30 AM EST]

Byron York imagines the Scooter Libby trial presided over by Judge Larry.

“Chicago, Chicago, Chicago,” he might say

Clarice Feldman has an emailer who says that, now that the Libby trial is all but over, it’s clear that it was nothing but a political witchhunting expedition:

…the investigation disclosed no violations of law whatsoever. Nevertheless, in his closing statement Fitzgerald made repeated references to the possibility that a covert officer’s identity had been disclosed maliciously and that people might die as a result–in spite of the fact that the referral letter apparently never referenced covert status as an issue.

…Beyond pointing up the essentially unethical nature of the Libby prosecution–long obvious–these factors suggest to me that there may have been a type of bait and switch at the heart of the entire investigation. The operation of this bait and switch relied on the public outcry in the MSM about the disclosure of a covert officer’s identitity. The reality, if the above analysis is correct, is that the referral letter did not reference such a possibility because it was known that Plame was not “covert” for purposes of the IIPA. The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation–especially in light of what those officials had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation. The bait and switch relied on the public hue and cry to provide cover for turning the White House inside out in search of a crime–any crime.

…The real targets of the investigation (Cheney, Rove, Libby) would be told that they were not targets as such but merely witnesses. They would be required by the President to appear over and over before the Grand Jury, ostensibly to give evidence to assist the investigation of what publicly appeared to be the disclosure of a “covert” officer’s identity. These targets would rely on the Special Counsel’s representations because they had not committed the acts that appeared from public statements–including Comey’s letter–to be the focus of the investigation. The Special Counsel had deniability in the form of Comey’s letter, although all Fitzgerald’s actions have revealed all too clearly that they were in fact targets and not merely witnesses. No doubt the Special Counsel hoped that the targets’ sense of their own innocence of what was publicly alleged would lead them to reveal some factual situation that could be construed as a criminal violation–or, failing that, become involved in a process violation. Had the investigation in fact concerned the disclosure of a covert officer’s identity, the true target would of course have been Armitage. The lack of prosecutorial interest in Armitage gives the game away.

Dr. Sanity has some thoughts about the “reality-based” community.

Dr. Sanity has some thoughts about the “reality-based” community.

Dr. Sanity has some thoughts about the “reality-based” community.

I previously speculated that Elizabeth Edwards might have been behind the hiring of the foul-mouthed anti-Christer bloggers. William Beutler thinks that theory “more than plausible.”

I previously speculated that Elizabeth Edwards might have been behind the hiring of the foul-mouthed anti-Christer bloggers. William Beutler thinks that theory “more than plausible.”

I previously speculated that Elizabeth Edwards might have been behind the hiring of the foul-mouthed anti-Christer bloggers. William Beutler thinks that theory “more than plausible.”

John Fund likes Brian Doherty’s new book on the history of libertarians in America:

Libertarian ideas have enjoyed a surge of respect lately, helped by the collapse of Soviet central planning, the success of lower tax rates and the appeals of various figures in popular culture (e.g., Drew Carey, John Stossel and Clint Eastwood) who want government out of both their bedroom and wallet. Even so, libertarianism is often not the people’s choice. Part of the problem is the inertia of the status quo. “In a world where government has its hand in almost everything,” Mr. Doherty writes, “it requires a certain leap of imagination to see how things might work if it didn’t.” Many people couldn’t make that leap when, for example, economists proposed channeling some Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts.

Yes, that’s the problem. People like the idea of the government leaving them alone, until they realize that in many cases, they’re on the dole themselves. As Fund notes, the net may help spread the idea of personal freedom and personal responsibility, and perhaps these ideas, on which the country was founded, can be reinvigorated, and fight back against the inertia of the past seventy big-government years.