You know, until the Statute of Limitations runs out, conviction today of “crime A” does not preclude conviction tomorrow of “crime B.” If any new evidence comes to light? Lots of possibilities suddenly open up, don’t they? Bottom line, at no point in the tax evasion case would anyone be silly enough to suggest that there had never been a murder in the first place.

I hope that Scooter Libby and Harriet Grant are pondering, deeply, that last paragraph of lhp’s post. This would be a good time for some serious cost/benefit analysis, post-public confirmation of Valerie Plame Wilson’s (IIPA-covered) covert role as a WMD-fighting spy runner at the CIA [a public confirmation that has suddenly made a pardon more remote], in advance of June’s sentencing and before Congress perhaps digs up a few more home truths.

Karl Rove may have gotten there first, Scooter – but you certainly know your legal jeopardy doesn’t end with perjury and obstruction, and you probably have more goods to deliver than Rove had – might as well get in more or less on the ground floor for the next round – eh?

Amos @ 156 – You make some good points (as do Rayne @ 165 and lhp @ 178 in response). I’d just ask you to consider that what Fitzgerald may have on Bush is not Bush claiming that he waved his wand to declassify the covert spy – but only that he waved it to declassify a portion of the NIE. That’s a rather different prospect from the one you envision. The potential charge Fitzgerald is closest to, I and many others believe, is conspiracy – if not for a plot to out a spy, then to cover up the (now-confirmed) fact of her outing to the media by Executive Branch officials entrusted, at a minimum, with protecting classified information. That would mean at least double-barrelled action against some more of the very highest officials in our Executive Branch of government – a daunting prospect as compared to charging even the biggest mobsters in the Mafia, what with graymail, executive privilege, and the immense potential ramifications to our political process and balance of power (very much a concern of the powerful corporate sponsors of our government these days) all looming over a potential indictment.

No serious, good faith prosecutor could or would jump into such a prosecution just to try to make a point with the indictment (without concern for obtaining a conviction). Just consider the (off-blog) slander and abuse the government team undeservedly had heaped on them by the likes of Wall Street’s official editorial page: and now imagine if an acquittal or even hung jury had been the upshot of the Libby trial. Would the right message have been received by the public at large with that outcome – or does the conviction do the talking for the government? And now multiply the public rhetoric tenfold at least, for any potential defendants above Libby’s level in government. Our corrupt media gives no credence to such things as good faith indictments of powerful corporate patrons operating from public office – on the contrary, the media shields those patrons from exposure, and discounts and discredits their critics/prosecutors. Even the conviction of Libby was minimized to the greatest extent possible, by the likes of David “The Minimizer” Brooks and his ilk. And DOJ prosecutors are not Members of Congress – they have a different role to play under the law and the Constitution, and they can’t decide to substitute for Congress, just because Congress decided to violate its collective oath of office for the last six years.

We simply can’t judge from the outside the cards Fitzgerald is holding, much as we are tempted to. About all we can do is to conclude that, thus far, the cover-up(s) have largely worked, for those in our government who were most directly involved in the cutthroat betrayal of one of their own nation’s CIA WMD spy networks and its front company, and for those involved in concocting and concealing the fabricated documents that helped lead the “world’s only superpower” to invade and violently and corruptly occupy the defenseless, oil-rich nation of Iraq.

This certainly matches my sense of what went on here.

In fact, sometimes it seemed to me Fitzgerald must have felt like this was a really crappy case to have to bring all around – at least suspected that Fleischer lied even after getting immunity for all but perjury; Miller lied about not remembering June 23 (to say nothing of “Valerie Plame”); Grenier almost certainly lied initially, and then sort of found his way around it; Schmall conveniently omitted, at least; Grossman fudged; even honorable Addington gave a strictly speaking consistent but casuistically vague description of the key bit of his July 2003 conversation with Libby to the FBI initially; and on and on. And those are just the witnesses we learned about because they were good enough to use at trial for obstruction-type crimes!

Also, my lawyer friends tell me that federal prosecutors in particular have a lot more latitude to pick and choose the (more) slam-dunk charges, as per your post.

But in this case, I think there can be almost no question that Fitzgerald is done with Libby – it would be very difficult, I think, to bring additional charges at this late point. Same goes for Cheney, of course, as I think you suggested. October 2005 was the time to do it, and Fitzgerald passed. I remain somewhat mystified as to why. The damn indictment reads quite often like a conspiracy charge against Libby and Cheney. Maybe Fitzgerald simple couldn’t buck the prestige of the office of VP at the end of the day.

Compliments you on your knowledge, tact and presentation. I have yet to read a posting of yours that did not offer an insightful examination. I am awed by your ability to write acurately and concisely on topics that can be very involved. You set a tone for your threads that fosters good discussion, rather than simple partisan rancor.
The only thing that throws me is your moniker, “looseheadprop?” Nearly every loosehead prop, (and the entire front row, in general) I knew was stinky, foul tempered and built like a firehydrant. Somehow that disconnects from your writing?

I am concerned the White House is going to use this to justify resistance to any directive from the Legislature to initiate an investigation that they should have started the day after Valerie Plame was outed.

Also I wondered whether Patrick was actually putting feelers out there to get additional information to reactivate the case. Did anyone else notice this?

I heard it as a plea to the public at large.

193 – I believe 190 is sarcasm more than trolling – look at the name and the “or something like that.”

fwiw

These days it is so hard to tell the difference anymore. Same with parody/caricature and reality where movement conservativism is concerned from Bush all the way down throughout the GOP and their Canadian counterparts the CPC.

Capone?! Are you sure that isn’t a young Robert Novak?

ROFLAMO!

ZING!

*Rimshot!*

Matt; you card, you!