Plame Lawsuit Dismissed

Valerie Plame, whose name launched a federal investigation into who leaked her identity to the press and netted Scooter Libby in a tangled web of contradictions leading to his conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice charges (and commuted by President Bush after Libby was ordered to prison), had her lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration dismissed.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

The fact is that Richard Armitage admitted to being the first person to leak the name to the media, and that no one in the Administration purposefully leaked her name or violated federal law in discussing Wilson's wife.

Expect the whining to begin from the Left and the spin from the Right.

UPDATE:
This story has more details:

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.

It would have been entertaining had this case actually gone forward as the discovery portion would have been a complete hoot, especially when the defense teams would have gotten their licks in on Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie. I suspect that Wilson is secretly relieved that this matter has been dismissed because he can now claim that it was not only an uphill fight, but the cards were stacked against him, and the Libby conviction shows that he was in the right. Of course, the fact is that Libby was convicted on the basis of not being able to keep his story straight - the same problem that faced various other witnesses against him including Tim Russert. Only Libby was prosecuted, and that came after Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the leaker. Fitzgerald was busy tying up loose ends in dealing with Libby.

So, once again, I'll trot out an old favorite because this is the one scene that the Left will not get to enjoy - No Fitzmas for you!



UPDATE:
Hot Air wonders whether anyone should be surprised that the AP screwed up its legal analysis of the rationale for the dismissal of the case. They completely ignored pages of the decision? When you have an actual case or document to work from, it's always a good idea to go back and actually read what it has to say. The AP screed ignores key evidence and legal reasoning behind the dismissal. Plame and Wilson failed to state a cause of action and the evidence was stacked against them, including the fact that the defendants were operating in official capacities at all times due to the nature of their jobs. The only thing this decision doesn't address is the actual leak itself - or its legality. It's characterized as unsavory, but that is when seen in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

Others blogging this circus: Macranger, Outside the Beltway, Tom Maguire, Michael van der Galien, Paul at Wizbang, Wake Up America, AJ Strata, and memeorandum is keeping tabs on the reactions.

Michelle Malkin wonders whether they'll now go away. Don't count on it one bit. They'll be making the talk show circuit this weekend and expect a movie deal before long too. The inconvenient fact is that the only person who actually leaked matters was Richard Armitage.

President Bush Commutes Scooter Libby's Sentence

Oh, what a way to start the week. After a federal court refused to delay the imposition of his sentence, Scooter Libby got the get out of jail free card from President Bush.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

Here's the text of the proclamation of clemency by President Bush. You can bet that Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson will have something to say about this and the media will be knocking down doors to get their opinion on it.

I can already tell you what they're going to say; they're going to claim that the commutation of the sentence is a gross miscarriage of justice and that President Bush is engaging in a cover up of the situation and should be further investigated.

All this comes as a result of an overzealous prosecutor who could find no evidence that a crime was committed in the original intent of his investigation - to determine whether someone leaked Valerie Plame's identity. It turns out that it was none other than Richard Armitage who leaked the name, but it was deemed inadvertent and therefore did not rise to the level of a crime.

Libby was grilled and caught in a perjury trap, where his testimony at different points in time differed.

This also ends speculation over whether Bush would wait until the end of the legal appeals by Libby or until the end of his term in office before issuing a pardon. I had expected him to wait until the end of the legal process before going forward with the pardon/clemency at the earliest, but this also has the effect of providing some salve to the wounds caused by the bitter fight over the immigration bill.

It is a political decision as much as it is a legal one. Bush needs to regain currency with the GOP base, and this may help in mending fences with the base. It doesn't really matter what the left thinks on this, since they already oppose everything the Administration stands for, so there was really little downside for him here.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has more. President Bush could still issue a pardon, which completely wipes the slate clean, but I get the feeling the clemency will stand. If Libby wants to continue the appeals process, he'll get that opportunity.

UPDATE:
To give some context to this decision, President Bush has used the power of commutation or pardon far less than his predecessors. This is only the fourth commutation of sentence, while President Clinton commuted the sentences of 61 people. It is possible that the number will pick up as Bush prepares to leave office, but it is interesting to see when and how Bush does use this power.

30 and Away

Scooter Libby is getting 30 months in prison plus is being fined $250,000 for obstructing justice in the only case brought by Fitzgerald who looked into who outed Valerie Plame.

For the record, Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, who was never charged with any criminal acts. Plame's status as a covert agent was alleged, and Fitzgerald appears to have inserted her status into his papers in support of a harsh sentence, despite the fact that Libby was not on trial for identifying Plame.

Sticky Notes sums things up succinctly.

I expect this to be appealed, and the sentence to be reduced in the process. I get the feeling that the judge was swayed by Fitzgerald's introduction of information not in evidence at trial, which claimed that Plame was indeed a covert agent at the time.

In other words, he was trying to get Libby sentenced for a crime he did not commit.

Had Libby been sentenced pursuant to the "Sandy Berger" standards, Libby would have gotten off with a slap on the wrist, a small fine, and might have had to give up his law license.

That's what bothers me. Libby was convicted of a far less serious crime, and yet is doing more time than Berger - who destroyed and stole classified documents, and then lied about it and never served a day in prison and will be able to regain his clearance in 2009.

Others blogging: LGF, Macranger, Lorie at Wizbang, Ace of Spades, and Memeorandum has the rundown.

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,

How Should Libby Get Sentenced?

Drawn and quartered? To the four winds? Strung up? Tarred and feathered?

None of those punishments are available and they obviously are not going to happen no matter where you reside on the ideological spectrum, so how about looking at what the law dictates under these circumstances. Jeralyn Meritt who has been covering the trial from the outset does a pretty good job laying out the setencing guidelines.

As she correctly notes, the talk about 25 years prison is the maximum authorized by law, but not what he will most likely receive. She thinks that the lowest the guidelines offer is 15 to 21 months while the high end would push out to 24 to 33 months. The sentencing guidelines are further explained by White Collar Crime Blog and the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, who notes how the guidelines operate.

Based on the guidelines alone, I think those numbers are reasonable. However, this is a case with political ramifications as well, and it would be wise to examine similar and/or contemporaneous acts.

How the courts have dealt with other high profile cases involving perjury or obstruction of justice is a good place to start. Former President Bill Clinton comes to mind. After all, he was impeached for giving false and misleading statements in relation to the Lewinsky matter (itself a sidebar issue arising from the Whitewater investigation). Losing the law license is a definite possibility with no time served.

Then, there's the case of Sandy Berger, who received nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I found that to be a travesty of the law considering that he was involved in the destruction of classified documents and quite likely impeded the federal investigation into the 9/11 attacks by destroying documents that might have shed an uncomfortable light on the acts of the Clinton Administration. Those actions are just as, if not more, dangerous and undermine the legal system and national security, as any claimed against Libby.

Take the sentencing guidelines and combine with the political component, and you begin to get the idea in the complexity of the issue facing the judge. If a harsh sentence comes down, those who argue for a strict adherence to the guidelines - many of whom are Republicans - would complain that one of their own are getting hit in a way that a Democrat never was (see Berger and Clinton), while if he gets a slap on the wrist Democrats will complain that it was a miscarriage of justice. And both sides would be right. This is the hypocrisy of the Beltway political dance. There were miscarriages of justice here on both sides of the aisle, but not in the way that the partisans think.

Clinton and Berger got slaps on the wrist when their acts actually warranted much more serious punishment. Both will be able to practice law again and Berger will even be able to review classified documents in the near future. Libby's career would be seriously harmed by the imposition of an appropriate sentence under the guidelines. There's a reason that the sentencing guidelines are there and why judges should follow them - to prevent abuse and arbitrary sentences handed down.

However, that dichotomy (the political considerations and the guideline recommendations) leads me to think that the Libby sentencing will go the way of a slap on the wrist, though if the judge thinks that a pardon might be in the offing, might push a harsher sentence within the guidelines. This is Beltway politics after all.

Still, before we reach that point, there's the not insignificant point of the appeals process. Libby's defense team is more than likely going to appeal the decision on the facts and the law. They feel that there is more than enough here to merit an appeal and Libby's lawyer was quite clear that he believed that Libby was innocent. Things that work in his favor is the Cooper charge where he was found not guilty, the exclusion of certain evidence that the defense thought would be exculpatory, and various other details and inconsistencies in the witness testimony.

Of course talk will drift to the notion of a presidential pardon, but I think such talk is premature. Things have yet to play out fully on the appeals process, and in any event, Bush would not pardon Libby until after the November 2008 election on his way out of office.

Guess the date of the pardon and win a prize. Heh. If he receives one, it's going to be December 24, 2008.

UPDATE:
This editorial from the Washington Post should not be missed. The biggest loser in the entire kerfuffle? The media. The problem is that many of them don't even recognize it just yet.

And the Verdict Is....

The jury has reached a verdict in the case against Lewis "Scooter" Libby. It will be read in court shortly, but it remains to be seen whether there will be a Fitzmas or not.

My gut feeling is that the jury couldn't find him guilty. The jury itself was wrestling with the same issues that dogged Libby - the ability to recall specifics of the case and details that may have been central to Fitzgerald's case.

UPDATE:
Firedoglake, which has been providing daily coverage of the trial, will be liveblogging the verdict as soon as it comes down.

UPDATE:
Firedoglake is swamped, but Drudge is headlining that Libby is guilty of some charges. No word on which ones or any other details. As they say, this is still developing.

UPDATE:
NYT: Jury Finds Libby Guilty on 4 of 5 Counts, Including Obstruction of Justice

UPDATE:
Obstruction of Justice: GUILTY
False statements to FBI investigators (about Russert conversation): GUILTY
False statement to FBI investigators (about Cooper conversation): NOT GUILTY
Perjury to the Grand Jury (about Tim Russert conversation): GUILTY
Perjury to the Grand Jury (about the Matt Cooper conversation): GUILTY

The perjury charges flow into the obstruction charges, so in that respect this make sense facially. Still, it will be interesting to read what the jury thought was the determining factor in the guilt.

It is curious that the jury thought that Libby was less trustworthy than Tim Russert or Matt Cooper, when it came down to it though the jury did find that Cooper wasn't nearly as trustworthy as Russert. All had motives here to be less than forthcoming - for Russert and Cooper, it was their journalistic careers and for Libby it was being a member of the Administration.

It was the word of one man versus the word of another.

This case leaves much to be desired considering that the key detail that got the ball rolling - the supposed revelation about Valerie Plame's CIA status, was a nonissue. No laws were broken in relation to that fact, and Libby's charges were all related to the investigation that turned up no wrongdoing for which Fitzgerald was originally charged to discover.

Sentencing will bring this sorry chapter to a close. Still unanswered by all this is who exactly prompted Joe Wilson to go to Africa and whether his wife had anything to do with it.

UPDATE:
For those who have forgotten what the original charges are, here's the original filing.

UPDATE:
The matter had been closed for months since there was nothing more to investigate. The identity of the person who first exposed Plame's name was known: Richard Armitage, and yet Fitzgerald declined to prosecute Armitage primarily because there was no crime committed.

The investigation still continued because they needed to cross and dot. Libby got caught up in all this because he gave conflicting statements that affected the course of the investigation. To Fitzgerald and his team, this presented a problem - would it be unethical as a prosecutor to let this stand. They decided to prosecute Libby on those grounds.

I don't totally buy it since the facts and circumstances appeared to be slim at best - and it came down to he-said v. he-said. However, the jury saw things differently. They spent more time examining matters and heard only bits and pieces of the whole story - as per various rulings on testimony and what was introduced as evidence. That definitely plays a role in the verdict.

Looking at the jury instructions and finding out what led them to rule in this fashion will be interesting exercises in the coming days.

UPDATE:
Pajamas Media has a huge roundup of reaction. Others weighing in on the Libby verdict include: Blue Crab Boulevard, AJ Strata, Outside the Beltway, Flopping Aces,

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, stikNstein... has no mercy, Adam's Blog, Overtaken by Events, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Departed

It is being reported that one of the jurors on the Scooter Libby perjury and obstruction of justice trial has been dismissed by the judge. He had quizzed jurors over whether they had seen any of the media coverage over the weekend and one responded in the affirmative. The deliberations will proceed with 11 jurors instead.

Passing Shots

Mugabe in Zimbabwe is continuing to act like dictators always do: he basically tells Zimbabweans to eat cake while he and his minions party like it's 1999. Oh, and did I mention that he's taking a cut from everyone's wages to pay for his party?

Police in Zimbabwe imposed a three-month ban on political rallies and demonstrations across large parts of Harare today as Robert Mugabe, the world’s oldest head of state, celebrated his 83rd birthday.

The blanket ban, announced in state-controlled newspapers, came as supporters of the hardline President prepared a lavish cake-and-fizzy-drinks birthday party in the central city of Gweru, to be held on Saturday to mark…

The party has been deducting money from civil servants’ wages and bullying near-bankrupt businesses for donations to raise the 300 million Zimbabwean dollars (about £30,000 at real exchange rates) to pay for the celebration on Saturday. In attendance will be the 21st of February Movement, an organisation of children established with the sole purpose of gathering on this day each year to pay homage.

Iraqi insurgents detonated the third bomb attached to a chlorine gas canister in recent weeks. They're trying to cause a mass casualty incident with a chemical weapon. The insurgents are trying to escalate the violence to a level beyond the carnage that they already have been able to inflict with conventional weapons alone. Where are the Muslims calling for an end to this carnage? After all, the insurgents are targeting other Muslims. The silence is deafening.

Somalia will get a contingent of African Union troops, which will be followed by UN peacekeepers in the near future. All the same, the threat posed by the Islamists remains.

Don Surber thinks that the Brits may show the way to win in Iraq. The handover of Basra means that the British task in Southern Iraq may be coming to a close. This means that they've accomplished what they set out to do. Considering that the level of violence there was never anywhere close to the violence in the Baghdad/Anbar region, the Brits were able to focus on other aspects of rebuilding besides security. The situation facing US forces in and around Baghdad and Anbar is far more complicated than what the Brits have dealt with. This isn't to minimize what the Brits did, but puts it into context.

Tom Maguire has more on the Libby trial now that the case has gone to the jury to deliberate.

This is just horrific - an honor killing in the UK.

Well Deserved Kudos

Sometimes the big media outlets do the right thing and deliver kudos where they are deserved. Today, the gang at firedoglake got a shout out from the New York Times for their ongoing coverage of the Libby case.

Even the Web-savvy may ask, Fire dog what? A collective of liberal bloggers, fueled by online donations and a fanatical devotion to the intricacies of the Libby case, Firedoglake has offered intensive trial coverage, using some six contributors in rotation. They include a former prosecutor, a current defense lawyer, a Ph.D. business consultant and a movie producer, all of whom lodge at a Washington apartment rented for the duration of the trial.

All day long during the trial, one Firedoglake blogger is on duty to beam to the Web from the courthouse media room a rough, real-time transcript of the testimony. With no audio or video feed permitted, the Firedoglake “live blog” has offered the fullest, fastest public report available. Many mainstream journalists use it to check on the trial.

But the bloggers’ fun is almost over. Mr. Libby’s lawyers rested their case yesterday shortly after the judge said he had been misled about whether Mr. Libby would take the stand.

For blogs, the Libby trial marks a courthouse coming of age. It is the first federal case for which independent bloggers have been given official credentials along with reporters from the traditional news media, said Robert A. Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association. Mr. Cox negotiated access for the bloggers.

They've done an excellent job of providing news and analysis as the case was presented, and while they may be on the other side of the aisle ideologically, it is still good to see that bloggers' good works are appreciated.

As this case goes to the jury, it will be interesting to see their reactions once the verdict is returned. Also, it is a useful exercise for all bloggers to see what others are doing in this medium.

The Defense Rests

Plamegate's sole criminal prosecution will be going to the jury shortly as the defense team rested without calling the big names that some were hoping. No Rove. No Cheney. No Libby.

The Times would like folks to believe that the case against Libby is strong. Note that they've latched on to the judge's rulings against Libby.

Mr. Libby faces five felony charges that he lied to a grand jury and F.B.I. agents investigating the leak of the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, to reporters in the summer of 2003 .

Mr. Libby denied under oath that he had passed information to reporters about Ms. Wilson, and his lawyers have put forward as a part of his defense that he was too preoccupied with the crush of vital national security issues to have remembered any conversation about Ms. Wilson or her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador.

Judge Walton said his ruling meant that the chief defense lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., would not be able to make that argument to the jury. Mr. Wells will be permitted to tell the jury that Mr. Libby had “a lot on his plate,” Judge Walton said. But because Mr. Libby is not testifying, Mr. Wells cannot argue that those issues were of greater importance in Mr. Libby’s mind “as compared to the issue of Valerie Plame and Ambassador Wilson.”

The identity of Ms. Wilson, who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, first became public in July 2003 after The New York Times published an op-ed article by Mr. Wilson asserting that the White House had distorted intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

The conclusion of the defense case today means that jurors will hear closing arguments when they return Tuesday and probably begin deliberating next Wednesday after instructions from the judge.

Tom Maguire has been following the trial extensively, and the key to Libby's defense is reasonable doubt. All the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt as to the fact pattern laid out by the prosecutor and bring it below the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is as simple as putting enough questions into the minds of the jury about the facts and circumstances so as to make it possible that Libby didn't commit the crimes alleged.

At this point, I tend to believe that Libby will be found not guilty of the charges, though once it passes to the jury, anything is possible.

Opening Arguments in Libby Trial

Despite how the media is attempting to frame this trial as a political trial against Libby and the Bush Administration, the criminal charges and what the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in and of themselves are anything but political.

Mr. Libby, widely known by his nickname Scooter, is charged with lying to a grand jury and to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who were trying to find out who leaked to journalists the identity of a C.I.A. operative and why. Neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else was charged with disclosing the name of the operative, Valerie Wilson.

Instead, he is charged with lying about the fact that he discussed Ms. Wilson with journalists and thus impeded the investigation.

In addition to the 12 jurors, Judge Reggie M. Walton seated four alternates to replace any of the 12 who may fall ill or have other problems.

Did Libby commit perjury or obstruct justice? That's what Fitzgerald must prove. That's what this group of jurors must consider.

Considering that Fitzgerald spent more than two years trying to find the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity (and apparently knew early on that there was not only no leak, but that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the name to the press), this is the only charge stemming from the entire investigation and it has nothing to do with the original investigation but rather stems from Libby not being able to recollect all the information all the times he met with the investigators such that Fitzgerald believes there was sufficient evidence to bring charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. No charges were brought against anyone in connection with the original focus of the investigation because no crime was committed. Plame was not a covert agent and her identity was apparently well known among many - from Armitage on down to the Who's Who publication.

The voir dire of the jurors took longer than expected because of the political dimensions and who might be called to testify. Everyone from Vice President Cheney to media figures like Bob Woodward are expected to testify. Can you say media circus? I knew you could.

With all that, Fitzgerald has an uphill battle to prove the elements of the crime. The defense has nothing to prove here - it is simply required to rebut or shoot down prosecution theories and the elements of the charges.

UPDATE:
Along the lines of my statement above, one cannot take defense opening statements to imply anything other than an attempt to debunk Fitzgerald's theory of the case. Also, keep in mind that this isn't about the leak, but a perjury and obstruction case pitting Libby's testimony against witnesses who happen to be media types (Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchel). Macranger has more thoughts.

According to MSNBC, prosecutors revealed that Vice President Cheney was much more deeply involved in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Wilson's identity than previously known. This may be part of laying the groundwork of undermining Cheney's forthcoming expected testimony. Problem is that if there was anything to this claim, Cheney or others in his office would have been brought up on the charges Fitzgerald had been considering. Right now, Fitzgerald is grasping at straws hoping to salvage more than two years worth of investigations into whether Plame's name was leaked with a perjury and obstruction case against Libby.

UPDATE:
It might be worth considering the following video to remind folks of what name dropping can do in a trial. This includes name dropping Cheney, Rove, and anyone else either prosecutor or defendant throws in there. Without further ado, the Chewbacca defense:

Wayback Machine Should Hit Joe Wilson Hard

It wasn't long ago when Joe Wilson said he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the Tooth Fairy in order to get to the bottom of L'affair Plame.

So, when faced with the opportunity to confront the very folks that he claims outed his wife, Joe Wilson is trying to fight a subpoena to testify in the Lewis 'Scooter' Libby case.

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force him to testify in the CIA leak case and accused former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to harass him on the witness stand.

Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction charges, subpoenaed Wilson as a defense witness this month. Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, said in court Tuesday that was a precautionary move and he did not expect to put Wilson on the stand.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame and Wilson have sued Libby and other Bush administration officials, accusing them of plotting to leak Plame's identity as retribution for Wilson's criticism of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

"Mr. Libby should not be permitted to compel Mr. Wilson's testimony at trial either for the purpose of harassing Mr. Wilson or to gain an advantage in the civil case," Wilson's attorneys wrote.

While Wilson and Plame are at the center of the CIA leak scandal, Wilson is a minor figure in Libby's perjury trial. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has sought to keep much of the back story of the leak out of the case.

Walton might try to keep much of the back story out of the case, but the problem is that without that backstory, there was no case to begin with as the Patrick Fitzgerald searched for nearly two years without a single indictment for the actual leak.

There was no Fitzmas. No one was indicted for violating federal law. Richard Armitage was fingered as the person who first mentioned Plame's name to a media source, and no charges were filed against him.

Instead, we get a dog and pony show to somehow justify Fitzgerald's investigations. For his part, Libby has every right to bring in witnesses to testify to the criminal acts asserted and/or factual circumstances that would show that there was no criminal act. Wilson knows that he's fighting a lost cause on his own civil suit, and doesn't want to have to run the gauntlet twice - perhaps irreparably damaging his civil case before he can get to trial.

Others picking up the story: California Conservative, Bullwinkle Blog, Joe's Dartblog, and Let Freedom Ring.

All Over But The Whining

L'affaire Plame is toast, as Richard Armitage has been identified at the initial person who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the media.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That doesn't speak well of Fitzgerald, who was conducting the investigation and only managed to find someone, Scooter Libby, whose inability to recall certain details of conversations had years prior led to a perjury charge that will likely not stand the scrutiny of a trial.

And who else should be blamed for this fiasco? Joe Wilson. Ed Morrissey has the details. AJ Strata has details on Wilsons other trip to Niger, and a potential connection to the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network. Macranger notes that when the WaPo bails on you, that your 15 minutes are nearly up. And yet, we know that this will not close this sorry chapter in intel follies.

Tom Maguire wraps up the latest revelations in a bow.

UPDATE:
There was no Fitzmas. There will be no Fitzmas. There's no chance that there will be a Fitzmas. If that means I'm the Grinch, so be it.

So, what about those odds I had set on the primary figures? Well, looks like I wont have to pay out because I correctly chose no odds for the possibility that no crime was committed.

The hard left was dreaming the impossible dream, but just to refresh your recollection:



I wish I could say that this will mark the end of this sorry chapter, but the hard left is too vested in this nonsense to let it go.

UPDATE:
The wailing from the left is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard. They can't believe that Plamegate was a nonscandal wrapped in a media hailstorm.

Hot Air has more. James Joyner points out (as many others have done) that Joe Wilson is most to blame for the end of Plame's career at CIA, not anyone at the White House.

Others blogging: Flopping Aces, Tigerhawk, and The Real Ugly American.

Others blogging

Technorati: Plame, wilson, niger, yellowcake, judy miller, rove.

Funny Story of the Day

If someone said that Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson would find a way to brighten up an otherwise gloomy day, I'd have said that you were talking crazy. However, the fact that Plame and Wilson plan on suing Vice President Cheney, Louis "Scooter" Libby, and Karl Rove, just hits my funny bone.

Can they be any dumber than to open themselves up to discovery? Can you imagine defense questions during depositions? This is a sitcom waiting to happen.

Tom Maguire is surprised that they went through with the filing.

Macranger sees this as having his prayers answered.

AJ Strata thinks that this is all to further the book deal. I concur. The book needs a closing chapter, and suing Cheney, Rove, and Libby would be the way to go out in a blaze of glory.

Mark Levin notes that these buffoons file this kind of lawsuit on a day when the Middle East lurches towards war saying that they're after 15 more minutes of infamy. Well, the wheels of justice do grind on regardless of what is happening overseas.

Pardon What?

So, we're now witnessing speculation that Louis "Scooter" Libby will be pardoned by President Bush at some point for lying about telling the truth about a serial liar in a case where no crime was actually committed. What kind of loony logic is this?

WASHINGTON -- Now that top White House aide Karl Rove is off the hook in the CIA leak probe, President George W. Bush must weigh whether to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only one indicted in the three-year investigation.

Speculation about a pardon began in late October, soon after Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald unsealed the perjury indictment of Libby, and it continued last week after Fitzgerald chose not to charge Rove.

"I think ultimately, of course, there are going to be pardons," said Joseph diGenova, a former prosecutor and an old Washington hand who shares that view with many pundits.

"These are the kinds of cases in which historically presidents have given pardons," said the veteran Republican attorney.

The White House remains mum on the president's intentions. Spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to comment Friday.

Bush has powerful incentives to pardon Libby, however. They range from rewarding past loyalty to ending the awkward revelations emerging from pretrial motions, a flow that could worsen in his trial next year.

President Bush has no reason to pardon Libby - as an trial would clearly exonerate Libby and shed light on the journalistic stylings of many of the critics of the Administration and reveal the true identity of the person who may have revealed Plame's game.

Libby himself may be off the hook as Fitzgerald's case keeps getting weaker and weaker. That's why he wasn't able to indict anyone under the original mandate of his office - to determine whether someone violated federal law - Intelligence Identities Protection Act. As it stands, too many people in the media and on the left were absolutely certain of Rove's guilt, and presumed as much. When that didn't come to pass, they have had to invent new rationales for the lack of an indictment.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one - there was no crime committed. Hence, no indictments.

Step Away From the Ledge

There will be no Fitzmas. There will be no Rove perp walk. Karl Rove will not be indicted, much to the chagrin of the rabid left. More to the point, there was no crime committed by anyone actually 'leaking' the name of Valerie Plame. The only indictment obtained by Fitzgerald was for obstruction of justice and perjury for Scooter Libby, who contradicted himself in testimony before the Grand Jury.

AJ Strata calls this quitting while behind. Stop the ACLU notes that the DUers are shocked. Well, if they weren't blinded by their partisan hackery, they would have seen that the facts simply didn't support any contention that the alleged crime of leaking the identity of a CIA agent had occurred.

Tom Maguire has a good roundup and notes that while he had considered a Rove indictment, he had been lengthening the odds as time went on because Fitzgerald simply didn't have a case and couldn't get anyone to flip on anyone else.

Others noting the Left's bitter disappointment, and otherwise commenting on the lack of Fitzmas: Tigerhawk, Don Surber, Rick Moran, and Hot Air.

Scott Ott at Scrappleface has the best headline of the week:

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed. Poor Jason Leopold, who still clings to hope beyond all hope that a Rove indictment will come. No truth for you.

UPDATE:
Decision 08 has a roundup of the top 10 themes running at the Lefty websites. From conspriacy to bad timing, with a smattering of hopeful holdouts, the Left has it covered.

UPDATE:
Christopher Rose, of megafirm Proskauer Rose LLP, who represents Wilson and Plame, issued a statement today:

We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.

Last time I checked, truth is an absolute defense to the tort of defamation. Unless they've got some novel legal theory cooked up (and would be a dubious one at that), this is sound and fury signifying a big nothing. It's a pandering to the holdouts on the Left hoping for some kind of legal action against Rove (and in effect Bush) for Plame's 'outing.'

Can you imagine the circus surrounding any legal action taken by Plame or Wilson against Rove or Cheney or anyone else in the Bush Administration for that matter? Those folks would have a field day with a witness list that would include everyone from Matt Cooper to Judith Miller, Woodward to Russert, and that's before getting into the likes of Armitage and Novak.

No, this statement is nothing more than saving face - knowing full well that there will be no further legal action because it can't possibly help their cause.

UPDATE:
Roger L. Simon asks the salient question that has remained unanswered all these years - who sent Joe Wilson to Africa and why was he chosen.

Super Fun Power Hour has the mother of all Rovian roundups.

Jeff Goldstein and Pajamas Media note this has been a pretty bad week for the left.

Others blogging: Big Dog's Weblog, Politburo Diktat, Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, Confederate Yankee, Pretend Pundit.

Something to Think About

It's interesting the kinds of folks who visit this humble little blog and take my words so seriously. This story about Rep. Cynthia McKinney seemed to get quite a few folks into a tizzy.

One poster complained that I was a right winger who was interested in taking a break from the constant stream of controversies and scandals. Nope, that's not it. Scandals are a great thing to write about, regardless if you're for or against the party involved. Bloggers, like newsies, love scandals because it makes for an easy narrative.

One poster divined that I was a right winger because I chose to write about McKinney instead of writing about the creep at the Department of Homeland Security who was caught in a child pornography sting. Well, besides the fact that I do this blogging thing not as a job, but as a hobby, there are limits to how much time I can devote to any matter. Should I have posted something on the official involved, Bryan Doyle? Possibly. As it is, there aren't that many people commenting on the story now, despite the fact that the House is now looking at holding hearings on the DHS hiring practices. There's a story there, and some bloggers on the right and left are taking it on. The fact is that if this guy did the crime (and it certainly seems that way), and should do the time. And those who hired him and supervised his activities need to be reprimanded or fired because of their failures.

Meanwhile, the Plamegate moves on, and I haven't devoted too much time to that recently, but plenty of other people who are doing it.

Because I spend more time writing on rebuilding at Ground Zero - which is the one true constant on this blog, it means that I have less time to devote to other issues, which are also important. Just because my priorities don't match with yours doesn't mean that I'm a right winger or a left winger (hey, because my leanings don't go far enough for some). It's because I'm a solo blogger for the moment who blogs about the things that interest me. That you, my readers, keep coming back shows that these items interest you as well regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

It means you feel deeply about the issues, and that's a good thing. You should have the courage of your convictions and stand and debate about them. And I welcome the debate.

But as an aside, there is one thing I will not tolerate. Simply tossing a couple of curse words or other such nonsense in the comments will not be tolerated. Keep the comments PG-13 (and no, this doesn't apply to today's commenters and I applaud your civility, but to some posters in the past).

Going Wobbly?

Why? What has changed in the last 24 hours that has turned some folks into weak-kneed gelatinaous masses? It surely can't be the multi-year mantra repeated ad nauseum by the Left that says Bush lied. The meme is slightly longer than that, but it still boils down to Bush lied.

What is interesting is that there are folks who have to await John McCain to reinforce that staying the course is the right and moral thing to do. The facts more than support the cause for going into Iraq, and that hasn't changed - WMD included.

One would be wise to create a Venn diagram to keep all the seemingly disparate pieces in order. Able Danger, Plame, WMD, UNSCAM, Iraq, terrorism, 9/11, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden all affect how and why we're in the position we're in right now. These issues are related to each other, and there is some overlap between some issues, and others tightly related.

In fact, we're learning more about the relationship between Able Danger and 9/11 each day, despite the fact that we should have learned of this information through the 9/11 Commission's Report. The failure of the Commission to do its statutory duty is a shortcoming that should be investigated in time. The more important details are those that relate to the national security picture that the Administration operates with. Was the intel flawed.

There has been a steady stream of information about the relationship between Iraq and international terrorism, and specifically al Qaeda, but this has been discounted under the heading of "Bush says that Iraq was involved in 9/11," which not only is untrue, but Bush and the Administration never made that case. Heck, it's something that even the 9/11 Commission managed to include due to its significance:

“Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the [intelligence] reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.”

Now, there are surely lots of qualifiers in the report, and our humint was quite limited on the matter, but after the 9/11 attacks, could the US take the chance that OBL wasn't going to seek refuge in a place where earlier credible reports suggested that he would go?

This doesn't mean that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It means that Iraq and Saddam would harbor terrorists, including al Qaeda (the same al Qaeda that attacked the US on 9/11 and damaged the USS Cole and killed more than 200 people at the US embassies in Africa). And that threat required a response, since the linkage between state actors and terrorist groups would enhance the ability of both - in terms of material support (al Qaeda's need) and plausible deniability (Iraq's need).

Now, throw in the fact that the UN had been essentially bought off through the UNSCAM (oil for food scandal). We've seen numerous indictments come down, and several plea deals already among businessmen and diplomats. The circle of those under investigation keeps widening, though those at the top remain under a cloud of suspicion (here's looking at you Kofi and Benan).

Concurrent with all this other stuff, you get Joe Wilson sent to Africa to investigate whether Iraq was seeking nuclear materials. Now, Iraq was prohibited from doing this under the 1991 cease fire agreement - and any violation would be cause for a resumption of hostilities. There are serious questions that have gone unanswered as to how and why Wilson was chosen for this assignment by the CIA and all roads lead back to Wilson's wife who worked at the CIA. Media reporting of her position at CIA and that she may have been involved in the trip led to the Fitzgerald investigation, and the Libby indictments (which in and of themselves are unrelated to the original charges of outing an agent).

Media pundits keep frothing about the importance of the Plame investigation, but this seems to be minor peanuts compared with the key information - why would Wilson be directed to go and investigate this crucial information.

So, we now come back to the present and calls from the Left to abandon ship, tuck tail and run, and to give up on the endeavor in Iraq and the Middle East. Hogwash.

I don't pretend that all has gone well with the reconstruction of Iraq. But I also don't pretend that things will get better if we leave early. In fact, they will get far worse.

We have prior examples in history to show this to be true: Vietnam. The US departure, and subsequent withdrawal of aid to the South Vietnamese led to the collapse of the South in 1975, mass killings, and the Vietnamese boat lift. More than 2 million people were displaced, and hundreds of thousands killed in the turmoil. If there's a lesson to be drawn from Vietnam it should be to make sure that you stay til the job is done. Last time I checked, we're still in Germany, Japan, and outposts throughout the world that were forged during and after World War II.

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) stated:

"It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region,"

What exactly is in the best interest of the US, Murtha does not say. Withdrawing from Iraq at this juncture certainly isn't in the best intersts of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis. Who would benefit from such a withdrawal? Not the Shi'a? Not the Kurds? Not even most of the Sunnis.

Jihadis would benefit. Anarchists and Ba'athist remnants who are loyal to Saddam would surely benefit. Iran benefits tremendously, as would Syria. How would any of that benefit the US?

The simple answer is that it doesn't. It can't. Nature abhors a vacuum and the US withdrawal would mean that enemies to the US would benefit from inhabiting the areas that we are leaving.

Rep. Murtha has served in the military, and some of his criticisms of Cheney are directed at his lack of military service. Last time I checked, military service is not a prerequisite of leading this nation into war, or being a member of Congress, let alone the President or Vice President. I refuse to disparage Murtha's service, but his 'chickenhawk' based arguments are empty in that they do not address the substantive position that he has now taken.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid says that we need a commander in chief and not a campaigner in chief. Sorry, but I'm sorry to say that FDR would be hit with that smear as well. So would Harry Truman and LBJ. Sometimes defending the decision to go to war means reminding people of the facts, and the Democrats have decided that they are going to define the terms of this political battle - such that they're going to call any defense of the war on the part of the Administration as campaigning, whereas the Democrats are simply doing the morally upright thing. Again. Hogwash.

However, the fact that a former supporter of the war is coming out against it is troubling. One can only surmise the reasoning behind the 180. It isn't the facts on the ground since the situation is gradually improving and reports from the ground are mostly positive (despite what the media focuses on).

It's purely political theater on the part of the Democrats and it does have real-world consequences in the field. al Qaeda and the other jihadis worldwide are watching the media intently to see who wins this domestic political battle, since it will have an effect on the battlefield in Iraq. For if the Democrats have their way, the Iraqi battlefield will be ceded to the terrorists in short order.

Kevin Drum seems to think that the December election will be the way for the Adminstration to back out of Iraq in short order and that Murtha was privy to information that the situation in Iraq is far worse than we're being led to believe by the Administration. Well, if you're already predisposed to believing that the Administration was wrong, this about face is par for the course. Drum also makes the following political observation:

The public is looking for answers, not administration attack dogs on the evening news every day, but this particular White House doesn't know any other way. It's going to cost them.

I disagree. There are those in the GOP who will be bolstered by the fact that the Administration is really starting to do the heavy lifting that it should have done all along to make the continuing and ongoing case for US involvment in Iraq - and making sure that the Left couldn't revise history without consequences of their own. While it may be too late for the Administration to turn things around politically at home, the 2006 elections are still a year out.

A lot can change between now and then.

UPDATE:
A lot is being made out of Rep. Murtha's statements made earlier today. Problem is that history suggests that Murtha isn't exactly the staunchest supporter of the war in Iraq. In fact, he's actually called this war unwinnable. That extraordinary statement was made May 10, 2004. And Republicans assailed his comments just as quickly as they did today:

A pro-military Democratic congressman's description of the war in Iraq as "unwinnable" unless changes are made sparked anger in House Republicans Thursday.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, in a news conference with Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said the problems in Iraq are due to a "lack of planning" by Pentagon chiefs and "the direction has got be changed or it is unwinnable."

Republicans seized on that word, ignoring Murtha's overall point: that more troops and equipment should be sent to Iraq.

What people don't quite realize is that a person can be pro-military and still be anti-war. Murtha is anti-war, and hasn't changed his position one bit in over a year. The only difference is Murtha is capitalizing on the added coverage due to Bush's pushback to reair his earlier sentiment. That's not a change in position. It's a reassertion of old news.

Also commenting on this story: Lorie Byrd, Instapundit, who also notes the 2004 statements by Murtha and wonders how Murtha could be considered a Democratic hawk, Hugh Hewitt, Don Surber, Mudville Gazette, Sister Toldjah (still one of the coolest pseudnyms online), Big Lizards, Confederate Yankee, California Conservative, The Political Teen, Joust the Facts, Basil's Blog, The Moderate Voice (who comments on sagging poll numbers), and Donklephant.

Can You Hear Me Now

Well, it would seem that since the Libby indictment didn't really resonate with the public that the Plamegate matter would slide into the fringe of media coverage as the opening stages of the trial are still well into the future. However, the revelation that Bob Woodward (yes, Bob Woodward of the Watergate Woodwards) may have known more about Plame and her status far earlier in the timeline than Fitzgerald put forth throws a huge wrench into the works. And puts the Plamegate matter back into the blogging consciousness - on both sides of the issue.

Before we continue, let's recap what basic journalists must be asking of this story:
Where did Woodward learn about Plame?
How did Woodward come to learn this information?
Who told him?
Why did Fitzgerald not call Woodward to testify sooner?

Those questions go to the heart of how Woodward learned of Plame and affects the timeline, which was part of the Libby indictment. That raises additional questions:

Does this information help Libby?
Does it hurt someone else in the Administration?
Who else in the Administration talk to Woodward that would be considered a 'senior official'?
Are there other journalists who knew of Plame's status well before the Kristof article or even the Novak article but haven't come forward?
Why would any journalist willingly come forward to testify about their sources, knowing that they may put themselves or others into legal jeopardy?

Woodward's testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official -- not Libby -- the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. It would also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.

Curious. Thus far, many of the questions remain unanswered, or pose conflicting information.

What we do know is that this investigation just took a very interesting turn.

There are tons of other people blogging this story. A sampling: Wizbang, Myopic Zeal, Tom Maguire, Marc Cooper (who's more concerned that Woodward will try to hawk another book out of his involvment), AJ Strata

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin's guest poster Betsy Newmark makes the smart observation:

So, if Woodward and Pincus both testify to different memories of their conversations, how is that different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? If we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn't it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something, too? Or that Scooter Libby could? Why is one discrepancy worthy of indictment and the other one chalked up to "confusion about the timing"?

The answer is that it all depends on the prosecutor's confidence in the statements made by all the parties. And Woodward's comments should send up red flags to everyone that the issues are far from clear.

UPDATE:
MacsMind seems to think that there's going to be a race among editors and reporters to get their version of the story out there first - Woodward's comments being the opening salvo. Ace thinks that Woodward may have set Pincus up for perjury. Ace may be right.

Is It Friday Yet?

The Senate Democrats pull out Rule 21 out of their bag of tricks to try and get the attention focused back on the War in Iraq and Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, and the Libby indictment.

Good for them. They've managed to turn themselves into a sideshow.

They have to resort to tricks and procedural actions instead of principled debate because they've lost on the principles and many of their own members had been for the war, before they were against it. Or was it that they were against the war before they were for it. One can never quite tell.

It all depends on the facts on the ground - and those facts are mostly positive despite the repeated noise from the media about the casualties that we've sustained since starting combat in 2003.

And Patrick Fitzgerald has already stated that the Libby indictment has nothing to do with the war, or even the outing of Plame, but rather what Libby said and did during and after he was called to the Grand Jury to testify. His inconsistencies became his downfall, not because he actually leaked any classified information. As Byron York notes:

Perhaps the best explanation for the Democrats' decision to virtually shut down the Senate today can be found in one passage from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference last Friday:
This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Fitzgerald's statement, and his decision to confine the indictment of Lewis Libby to charges of lying and obstruction, threatened to dash the Democrats' hope of using the CIA leak case as an opportunity to re-debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq. So the party, or at least its leaders in the Senate, has decided to use another route, the shutdown of the Senate, as a way to achieve that goal.

That, in a nutshell is why the Senate Democrats are behaving badly.

And would it be wrong for me to point out that the Senate Democrats are pandering to the Far Left wing of the Democratic party. You know, the moonbats, leftists, and communists. Actually, I will point that out since the major media outlets wont.

This is one of the few ways that the Senate Democrats can rally the base these days. They know they don't have the votes on Alito to filibuster and they can't stop the process, they can't get the indictments they want on Plame, and they don't have an actual platform on which to run in 2006. So they're rehashing the anger at Bush '04, and it simply wont work.

Michelle Malkin has more.

UPDATE:
So does Ankle Biting Pundits and Polipundit.

UPDATE:
Powerline wonders just what this stunt has accomplished for Democrats. I concur. I don't think it's done much of anything. Meanwhile, Dave at Garfield Ridge wonders when we'll start hearing leaked information from the closed sessions.

UPDATE:
AJ Strata calls this Civil War in the Senate. I think that's a bit overblown. I think it's parlimentary parlour trickery, and not much else. Macsmind calls this a hissy fit by the left. It's hard to disagree with that.

UPDATE 11/2:
Continuing the hissy fit trend, Confederate Yankee triple dog dares the Democrats to go as far as they think they can. He figures that most Americans will recoil as the Democrats expose themselves to be nothing more than obstructionists. I'm not quite sure that most Americans are even paying attention to what the Democrats are doing these days. This is a red-meat issue. Partisan political creatures are lapping this stuff up but mom and pop in Podunk, Iowa aren't engaged in these issues. They see that the Democrats have tried to shift the debate from the Alito nomination to pre-war intel, which has already been rehashed over and over in their eyes. They wonder why the Democrats have switched away from Alito, and they can only wonder whether the Democrats have already caved in because they're not attacking Alito, but going to other, potentially more fertile political ground.