Nobody asked me, but...: So much for Fitzmas

Friday, October 28, 2005

So much for Fitzmas

In spite of all the glee surrounding a possible Fitzmas present, the Left has to be happy with only one indictment.

Mark Noonan at Blogs For Bush succinctly writes:

In a rather bizarre turn of events, the printing of the name of a non-covert employe of the CIA by a journalist - whom, as far I as know, still hasn't advised us who told him the name of the CIA employee - has resulted in the indictment of the Vice President's Chief of Staff. Indicted for lying to the Grand Jury...lying about something which wasn't a crime. Covering up, as it were, that which didn't need to be covered up. Strange world.

I don't have much time to get deep into this - and, of course, we really don't know all the facts of the case as of yet - but a couple things strike me as odd:

From news reports, it appears that Libby told the GJ that he heard Plame's name from a reporter, but then some notes turned up showing that Libby might have heard the name first from the VP - notes which were then voluntarily surrendered to the Special Prosecutor (in other words, they weren't destroyed or otherwise hidden...like Rose Law Firm billing records, or something).

It appears that Libby only in the last day or two sought legal counsel - meaning that he didn't think he'd done anything he'd need a lawyer for until just recently. Libby is, from all accounts, a pretty sharp lawyer in his own right - which means he knows that if he's in trouble, then legal counsel is needed right away. The fact that Libby didn't feel such a necessity speaks volumes.

The investigation was into whether or not any Bush Administration official illegally leaked the name of a covert CIA agent - should the Special Prosecutor at least advised us if that had happened? If it didn't happen, then shouldn't we get a detailed explanation of why he's bringing charges against a man for allegedly lying about something he didn't need to lie about?

Happy Nuptuals to Mark, regardless!