Quote:

the G-man said:
I've mentioned in the past that I have no problem with Libby being suitably punished if found guilty.

But that in no way explains why the investigation even got to Libby if, as reported, Armitage told his superiors, and Fitizgerald knew early on, that Armitage was the leaker.

What was left to investigate?




The Wall St. Journal seems to agree, noting that the case against Libby goes to trial "seemingly weakened by revelations that Mr. Fitzgerald knew early in his CIA-leak probe that the ex-White House official wasn't the original source of news-media disclosures."

    Those disclosures, and the search for their source, were the reason Mr. Fitzgerald was ordered to launch an investigation in the first place...

    Perjury prosecutions are notably difficult with a high rate of failure. In this case, prosecutors have the added challenge of navigating a minefield of extraneous issues while asking jurors to interpret Mr. Libby's state of mind when he talked to investigators.

    Prosecutors suggest Mr. Libby, then Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, lied to investigators to conceal a White House campaign to leak Ms. Plame's identity in retaliation for her husband's criticism of the administration's war plans.

    But allegations of a cover-up motivation appear to be undercut by recent news that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby, was the source of the leak of Ms. Plame's name to reporters.

    Another problem for Mr. Fitzgerald: At the end of his two-year investigation, during which he fought high-profile battles to get reporters to reveal their secret sources, he didn't bring charges on the leak itself and instead brought the Libby perjury case.