Wilson and Plame Strike Out Again

Who can forget the Left's wishful thinking in the wake of Plamegate:


If the left couldn't get President Bush, they were hoping to get Bush's brain, Karl Rove. Sadly for them, they'll get no one because Richard Armitage admitted to being the leaker of Valerie Plame's name to Richard Novak. There was no criminal action on the part of the Administration, despite the protestations of Joe Wilson and his wife, whose work at the CIA was a known fact.

Now, the Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed the dismissal of the case brought by Wilson and Plame against Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and others for releasing the name of Plame in the course of discussing Wilson's exploits in Niger. The court affirmed that all those named defendants were acting in their official capacities and could not be personally liable.

Awwwww.

Despite this second setback to their case, Plame's legal team still thinks they have grounds on which to appeal. They simply don't realize how foolish they look trying to sue the Administration when the guy who outed them was against the war in Iraq - Richard Armitage. Scooter Libby was caught in a perjury trap, and was not charged with any crimes directly relating to outing Plame.

They simply refuse to admit that they don't have an actionable case and that they have only themselves to blame for their situation. The appeals court refused to find a constitutional right and refused to create a cause of action for them.

UPDATE:
The comments at Think Progress (a misnomer if there ever was one) are priceless. They cannot stand the fact that the courts will not let the Plame case move forward against the Administration. They are so consumed with unending hatred of the Administration that they can't see that the facts and the law simply do not support their position.

Armitage's Foolishness

Former Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage was the first individual to link the true identity of Valerie Plame. It wasn't anyone in the White House.

It was Richard Armitage.

He admits it was a foolish mistake.

It was foolish that Patrick Fitzgerald spent nearly two years trying to find out whether someone leaked the identity of Plame when Armitage was quick to admit this to him. And yet, the Left harbored fantasies of Fitzmas and perp walking members of the White House, especially Karl Rove, for a non-crime.

Indeed, no crime was committed by revealing her identity, despite the protestations of her husband Joseph Wilson. Scooter Libby was not found guilty of leaking Plame's name but rather obstruction of justice and perjury for misleading investigators in the course of the investigation - and was a victim of a perjury trap.

Darth Rove To Resign End Of August

Karl Rove, who has been the man with the plan for President Bush since before his election as President in 2000, is resigning at the end of the month. One has to wonder how long he's wanted to do so, and why he would wait until Monday to make the announcement. After all, Friday is the preferred day to do a news dump for the Sunday talk shows.

Expect Congressional Democrats to lick their chops over this development as some have been gunning for him since 2000. They may get their chance.

However, there is something else in play here. The 2008 elections. Is Rove setting himself up to be available to another candidate? That's something worth pondering.

UPDATE:

Somehow I don't get the feeling that Darth Rove will be reading want ads on a street bench anytime soon.

Besides, if someone were truly as evil and omnipotent as the far left claimed (that's a Blogs of War roundup of reactions), how come those on the right have such poor opinion of the guy? See Michelle Malkin's takedown of Rove, who also notes that Rove should have left in the wake of the 2006 election debacle.

Memeorandum has ongoing coverage.

Oh, and who can forget the Left's wishful thinking in the wake of Plamegate:


Finally, on a more serious note, who will actually take over Rove's duties for the Administration? I get the sense that no one person will take over all his duties or responsibilities.

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.

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.

The Left's Atwitter

There's a reporter floating the idea that Karl Rove is being indicted for his involvment in some aspect of the Valerie Plame investigation. The Left, naturally, seems to love this idea thinking that it will somehow get them one step closer to impeaching President Bush, or VP Cheney.

As others note, there's more than a few problems with the story - namely that there's no proof of any wrongdoing. It is quite likely that this is just a lot of fantasizing about what the Left will do if and when an indictment comes down. And that's assuming that one will come down - which is far from clear.

Don Surber wonders whether someone will investigate who purportedly leaked a sealed indictment, which itself is a criminal act.

Synchronicity

Is Mary McCarthy a scapegoat or being held to a double standard on leaking classified information? Stephen Green thinks that, if anything, she's being treated far too leniently. If he had leaked classified information, he would have been fired and tossed in jail. He thinks McCarthy deserves no different a treatment.

Meanwhile, Fitzgerald is back at the grand jury and Karl Rove even made another appearance.

The problem is that there's no way to tell who is getting this story right. The Times, Washington Post, and many of the other outlets have vested interests in the outcome of these investigations. Their journalists are deeply involved in these leak scandals, and these same journalists are often trying to get government employees to leak information all the time - both classified and unclassified information. The WSJ ran an op-ed to that very effect:

The deepest damage from these leak frenzies may yet be to the press itself, both in credibility and its ability to do its job. It was the press that unleashed anti-leak search missions aimed at the White House that have seen Judith Miller jailed and may find Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen facing subpoenas. And it was the press that promoted the probe under the rarely used Espionage Act of "neocon" Defense Department employee Lawrence Franklin, only to find that the same law may now be used against its own "whistleblower" sources. Just recently has the press begun to notice that the use of the same Espionage Act to prosecute two pro-Israel lobbyists for repeating classified information isn't much different from prosecuting someone for what the press does every day--except for a far larger audience.

We've been clear all along that we don't like leak prosecutions, especially when they involve harassing reporters who are just trying to do their job. But then that's part of the reason we didn't join Joe Wilson and the New York Times in demanding Karl Rove's head over the Plame disclosure. As for some of our media colleagues, when they stop being honest chroniclers of events and start getting into bed with bureaucrats looking to take down elected political leaders, they shouldn't be surprised if those leaders treat them like the partisans they have become.

Sweetness and Light notes that McCarthy and her mouthpieces have all denied what the CIA states:

A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both."

Ty Cobb, a lawyer representing Ms. McCarthy, said again on Tuesday that she never admitted divulging sensitive material. "She did not confess, orally or in writing, to leaking classified information," Mr. Cobb said.

Someone isn't telling the truth there and my hunch is that it's McCarthy though AJ Strata points out the latest theory by Cobb and McCarthy; the was authorized to leak the information. If that pans out, that suggests someone higher up thought this information should be released. That's a very small group of people - and therefore should be easily verified.

Tom Maguire notes that the media is finally getting the issue of campaign contributions right. Took 'em long enough. I guess they finally got their opensecrets.org memberships approved (it's a free service with no registration, though there is are premium pay options).

Max Boot busts out the World War II slogans in dealing with the leakage of classified information. It's as relevant now as it was back then.

UPDATE:
Fixed link to AJ's comments above. Also blogging: Gina Cobb, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Ace of Spades (who notes that the LAT is trying not to confuse readers by providing information that would denote that McCarthy's motives were less than pure - aka being a partisan hack).

UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee takes the Washington Post to task for its claims that Porter Goss made questionable use of his power and authority to search for leakers. Sorry, but making sure that the agency doesn't leak classified information, especially during a time of war, should be the top priority of an agency dedicated to finding out what the enemies know - and making sure that they don't give away what we know about our enemies. Expose the Left and Newsbusters may be one of the few folks still watching Olbermann - he's deep and not playable.

Granddaddy Longlegs has a roundup of views on matters, including a link to Hugh Hewitt who notes:

If the CIA employee fired today for leaking highly classified material to the press had instead taken a computer and given it to a reporter, the reporter would be guilty of receiving stolen goods, right?

And if an Apple employee leaked key design and development info to a competitor, the competitor would be in the wrong, right?

So, how can the journalists recipient of the pilfered info be a hero?

Becaue the reporters' colleagues are reporting the news about the leak?

Because government needs watchdogs?

But what if the leaked information compromised an anti-terrorist operation, allowing terrorists to escape and strike U.S. interests, or the homeland, later?

Earlier coverage: McCarthy's Mess, L'Affaire McCarthy, Web of Leaks, Cronyism at the CIA, Friday Night Link Dump.

AJ Strata updates and wonders:

So, where are we? It is clear Mary McCarthy has been provided one top-notch scandal attorney for someone who did not leak anything. This story had every indication of dying from lack of attention until Rand Beers, Kerry and the DNC’s Howard Dean started jumping into the fray. And WaPo is also hurting it’s cause and keeping this alive by NOT leaking like the CIA with regards to Dana Priest’s role in all this. As Tom Maguire so aptly noted yesterday, if there is no leak of classified data and McCarthy is not a Priest source, why are we have som much fun here? Why can’t Priest come out and say we are focused on the wrong person?

MacRanger has two pieces up - one dealing with Rove's testimony once again in front of Plame investigation grand jury, and one on what's going on with McCarthy. He's pointing fingers at a couple of senators - Rockefeller, Durbin, and Schumer. I say it's idle speculation, though I agree with the fact that a lot of people are sweating over whether McCarthy will flip and make a deal with prosecutors and start naming names.

Technorati: intel, leak, cia, nsa wiretapping, porter goss, bush.