Libby Errata

The unseriousness of this juror who sat on the case is astounding. She played a role in the conviction of Libby but wants to see him pardoned for the sheer fun of it all.

Let that sink in folks.

She thinks that a trial that could send Libby up the river for a significant chunk of time thinks it would be fun to watch the President pardon him.

Did she think that he was guilty? Libby's lawyers have to be salivating all over this kind of stuff.

Then, there's the story in today's Washington Post by Robert Novak, whose original story way back started this whole mess in motion. The prime points raised:

The Libby trial uncovered no plot hatched in the White House. The worst news Tuesday for firebrand Democrats was that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was going back to his "day job" (as U.S. attorney in Chicago). With no underlying crime even claimed, the only question was whether Libby had consciously and purposefully lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned of Mrs. Wilson's identity.

While my column on Wilson's mission triggered Libby's misery, I played but a minor role in his trial. Subpoenaed by his defense team, I testified that I had phoned him in reporting the Wilson column and that he had said nothing about Wilson's wife. Other journalists said the same thing under oath, but we apparently made no impression on the jury.

The trial provided no information whatsoever about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA at the time I revealed her role in her husband's mission. No hard evidence was produced that Libby was ever told she was undercover. Fitzgerald had argued that whether or not she was covert was not material to this trial, and U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton had so ruled. Yet in his closing argument, Fitzgerald referred to Mrs. Wilson's secret status, and in answer to a reporter's question after the verdict, he said she was "classified."

In fact, her being classified -- that is, that her work was a government secret -- did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former deputy secretary of state Armitage) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage.

Some questions I was asked in television and radio interviews after the verdict implied that I had revealed Armitage's name to Fitzgerald.

Actually, in my first interview with Fitzgerald after he was named special prosecutor, he indicated that he knew Armitage was my leaker. I assumed that was the product of detective work by the FBI. In fact, Armitage had turned himself in to the Justice Department three months before Fitzgerald entered the case, without notifying the White House or releasing me from my requirement of confidentiality.

On Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" Tuesday night, superlawyer David Boies said Fitzgerald never should have prosecuted Libby because there was no underlying criminal violation. Boies scoffed at Fitzgerald's contention that Libby had obstructed him from exposing criminal activity. Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election dispute, is hardly a Bush sympathizer. But neither is he a Democratic partisan trying to milk this obscure scandal.

So, Fitzgerald knew from the outset of the investigation that Armitage was the leaker, and still engaged in the investigation despite the fact that no laws were broken - specifically the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That is a curious position to be in, although it was still within his right and purview to ensure that there were no other contemporaneous leaks.

Some would argue that this is yet another case of prosecutorial misconduct, and Libby's lawyers will be sure to raise this in their appeal as well. With no underlying crime to investigate, there was no reason for further investigations into the case, let alone the Libby prosecution on unrelated matters that only arose in the course of an investigation after Fitzgerald already knew no criminal acts occurred by the release of Plame's name.

I think the defense will look at all the information that is filtering out about the deliberations, the trial, and the process and put together an appeal that hits upon many of the points raised by critics of the case. I find myself largely in agreement with Patterico over the handling of the case. Much of the criticism that Fitzgerald is receiving is over a judgment call that could have gone either way - namely whether to proceed to see if there were contemporaneous leakers or not, and then once that was determined, whether or not to prosecute Libby for the statements made to the grand jury and FBI that conflicted.

Meanwhile, Lorie Byrd wonders why so many still think that Joe Wilson is a trustworthy character since so many of his statements have been debunked by Congressional committees and the 9/11 commission report. Partisanship plays a big part in that.

Others commenting on this situation - and specifically questioning why a juror who just spent 10+ days deliberating and finding Libby guilty would now want to see him pardoned: AJ Strata, Ed Morrissey, Blue Crab Boulevard, Wizbang,