I dont understand why a pardon insulates someone from being compelled

to testify?

It seems that a pardon strips away any possiblity of a 5th amendment claim.
If Libby was subpoenaed to testify in a Plamegate prosecution what grounds would he have to refuse?
If he refused to testify he would be in contempt. If he lied again he would be up for another perjury rap.

Kicking for someone who might know or who will research. (at work now)

If the Scoot is pardoned.. he won't have to serve any time ... for this LAST conviction... which MAY insure his silence. But I am not aware of any law that says he cannot be compelled to testify again... as long as it isn't the same case... which I think was Fitz's plan all along. Heh.


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE

as I understand it, you're right. *IF* he were to appear, under oath, before a grand jury or a court, he would not be able to refuse to testify. Such refusal, at that point, would, indeed, open him up for at least contempt of court charges. (Lying would, of course, then be a separate perjury charge, if proven).

The bigger issue, though, following any (currently hypothetical) pardon is who would be conducting the investigation. Would Fitzgerald see a Libby pardon as providing him reason to re-open the investigation into who really leaked Plame's name (and, consequently, damaged Brewster-Jennings)? Dunno...

But there is a difference between a pardon after a conviction and a preemptive pardon.

If Libby is pardoned now for his recent convictions, he could still invoke his 5th Amendment rights if subpoenaed by Congress, since he could still be charged with crimes related to the original leak. But if he is issued a blanket pardon for all his actions related to the leak, even those for which he has not been charged, then he could not claim his 5th Amendment privilege.

from further testimony arises from the prosecutor being left in the position of having no leverage at all to use over the convicted in order to develop further facts to bring about more indictments.

A pardon is just about moot anyway, Fitzgerald already said all but "case closed." This bothers me a great deal because it is as plain as day that Cheney and others are guilty of the crime of leaking the classified status of Plame. I am hoping someone can explain convincingly why Fitzgerald is not pursuing indictments of these people.

What is lacking in the info already on hand about Cheney that is precluding getting his ass indicted? The "sand" is out of the eyes. It's easy to see now. I just don't get it.

the vp office with knowledge of the pres.

and then they lied in our faces. repeatedly.

Unfortunately, Fitz has said quite clearly that there won't be any. I adore Patrick Fitzgerald and believe him to be among the best of the best when it comes to prosecutors. I also believe him to be a forthright and honorable man. When he says that there are no further charges anticipated, I think it's pretty clear that there will be no further charges in the Plamegate affair.

I think it is also obvious that there was never any super secret sealed Rove indictment last May, contrary to the breathless yet unsubstantiated stories written by a couple of hack writers, and that there aren't going to be any charges laid in the future against Rove, Cheney, Armitage, or anyone else in connection with Plamegate. While I would prefer that it were otherwise, I trust that Patrick Fitzgerald knows what he's talking about and that there is insufficient evidence to indict anyone else in connection with Valerie's outing. I think that the best we are going to get in this whole sad affair is the pleasure of seeing Scooter convicted.

So, I'm simply going to enjoy his conviction. It's WAY better than nothing, and it's probably more than could have been expected had there been a lesser prosecutor at the helm. Fitz rocks!