I am writing a ltte to refute this one.

Some help with sources would be appreciated.

Published: Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The editorial, Libby pardon suggests Bush finished agenda , is wrong on every essential point. Bush deserves criticism for many things, but not for commuting the sentence of someone who committed no crime.

Valerie Plame, referred to as a "senior agent," was only an employee of the CIA. She was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because she was not a covert agent; this explains why "there have been no convictions on the leak."

It is also inaccurate to describe Patrick Fitzgerald as a "public prosecutor" in this case, for it gives the incorrect impression that he acted impartially. Fitzgerald knew at the beginning of his investigation that State Department official Richard Armitage was the source for Robert Novak's column that identified Plame.

The jurors weren't much better, with one juror telling the media that they were wondering why they had to listen to underlings such as Libby and asking where are those who were "really responsible?" Never mind, apparently, that even if Vice-president Dick Cheney or Karl Rove or Scooter Libby had been Novak's source, it still would not have been a crime to "out" someone who wasn't "in."

Fitzgerald set up a perjury trap for Libby, specifically that Libby's recollection of dates about when he talked to which reporter about when he first learned of Plame's identity as a CIA employee was at odds with the recollection of NBC's Tim Russert. The absurdity of the charge and conviction are brought into sharper focus when one realizes that perjury is a crime only if the lie is germane to the underlying criminal charge, which is not the case here.


http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/letters/story.html?id=75f3d637-9bff-41ae-b817-1860bd6e2b45

How does the writer of the LTTE know that Valerie Plame was "only an employee of the CIA"? This is belied by the fact that the CIA asked to open the case; that Fitzgerald provided evidence in the case that she was covert; and that she herself testified under oath to Congress that she was, indeed, a covert CIA agent. Furthermore, one has to ask, why was her covert company's name also trotted out for all to see? For even if her service had long since ended (which it had not), the covert company was still in business, with many affiliates worldwide helping to ensure nuclear nonproliferation -- an effort that was busted wide open when Novak's irresponsible column was published.

Mr. Fitzgerald himself said that Libby's lies were like "throwing sand in the umpire's eyes" -- in other words, it was the act of obstruction that prevented more charges from being filed against others in the Administration.

Whether or not Richard Armitage was one source, does not in any way absolve others who leaked her identity. Furthermore, testimony at trial made it clear that Armitage was not the first to divulge Ms. Plame's identity to Mr. Novak; rather, it was Karl Rove and (I think) Libby who told Novak before Armitage did.

The writer's opinion of Fitzgerald's impartiality, or lack of same, has no bearing on what his actual title is. On the other hand, it is rather amusing to hear someone complain that Fitzgerald cannot be a public prosecutor because he is not impartial, when we have recently seen evidence of massive politicization of our country's DOJ under the aegis of this, the most corrupt and criminal administration ever to sully the White House.

And of course, when all else fails, blame the jurors. Oh and don't forget to reiterate that no crime occurred, in spite of that fact that Libby was duly convicted by a jury of his peers, and that even the redoubtable Mr. Fielding could not find a basis to claim that these convictions were in error.

Finally, about the "perjury trap" and Libby's testimony being at odds with that of Tim Russert. In fact, Libby's testimony was at odds with that of 8 other witnesses. Now one, sure, it's he-said / she-said. Two, you might still claim both were lying. But eight other people, whose recollection is at odds with Libby's? Hard to argue that they're all lying. And it's hard to argue that Libby is just "misremembering" (in a way that works to his advantage, imagine that), when during his career he has been noted for his impressive ability to remember details.

HTH