Thank you. I appreciate the straight forward answer to my sincere question. I wanted to make sure I understood what the crime actually was before making any judgement as to the appropriateness of the sentence. I have since read one account of a juror who flatly said Libby was guilty but did not deserve to go to jail. From what I can see I would agree with that.

The President said he would take appropriate action against those who broke the law. I see a $250,000 fine and no pardon as pretty severe punishment for a man like Libby.

If he really believes that Libby's sentence was wrong and unjust, he should discuss it with the judge and jurors. Why is their reasoning wrong and his right? Maybe the president could convince the judge and jurors that the 30 month jail sentence was too harsh -- maybe they would convince him that it wasn't. I would just love to hear that discussion.

The president has a lot of power. Can he use it any way he wants? Sure. Should he? I don't think so.

And I would love to see you make fun of my spelling face to face.

Now, I too don't have the time or spare brainpower to sort through the transcripts, but here's the impression I get from what I have read: Armitage mentioned that Plame was in the CIA, but he had no idea what her actual connection to or job in it was; hence, his was not an 'illegal' leak. From the path Fitzgerald took in investigating the leak, it appears that either Libby hmself or the source Libby got Plame's name from (either Cheney or Rove; possibly both) did know she was covert and did know her identity was supposed to be protected. As for the lie, Libby's recollections flatly contradicted those of Russert, Martin, Cooper, Novak, etc. His assertions were unconvincing to the jury (and the appellate judge). It wasn't 'he said, she said'; rather it was 'he said, everybody else connected to the case said'. Ergo, he was convicted by a jury and the judge felt his performance was so tgransparent he had little chance of changing the outcome with an appeal.

I don't think your numbers are quite correct. According to SurveyUSA's latest figures, that would be 400 out of 1000. The other 600 are fairly sure a crime was committed, though I do recognise that this is not the answer you want or are willing to hear, despite your desperately obvious attempts to seem genuinely interested.

An important part of President Bush’s personality pundits and political analysts forget is he doesn’t care about polls or political popularity. If he did he would have abandonded Iraq and dumped the immigration bill. Commuting Scooter Libby...

I asked a genuine question that 999 out of a 1000 Americans cannot answer. I have not been out of the country so your comment is taken as a cute insult. Nice.

I thought the issue of the actual leak was never included in Libby's charges. Where is Armitrage's name in all of this since he is the leaker?

Ken,

That's the funny thing about liberals. You ask a sincere question and you get the same condescending attitude you normally get. Sometimes we ask here because we have work to do so we can't read every legal document on the web. I asked politely so why not answer politely?

So from what I gather Libby's timeline is the basis for the charges and the conflicting evidence is the memory of Russert and Cooper? Armitrage leaked the name but the leak was never established as an illegal leak? Cheney knew and Rove knew but no charges were levied against them? Many claim Wilson lied to Congress about his trip yet no charges there? It all sounds like a mess but not a crisis of law or the American way.

Patrick Fitzgerald is nothing more then another Libreal witch hunter who when faced with the truth of the investagation refused to go after one of his own, and should be charged for his misconduct, if any one is needs to go to jail it's him.

You have to love Republicans. If you dare put doing your duty over fealty to the Bush Administration, you are nothing but a Libreal, just like Richard Clarke, Matt Dowd, Paul O'Neill, etc. Refusing to be a loyal Bushie, is obviously evidence of a Libreal bias.

As President, Bush certainly has the right to pardon Libby but this disregard for the will of the majority of Americans in this situation is just business as usual for the politicians of both political parties. For too long they have generally ignored the will and views of productive, working Americans for the powerful special interests that control both political parties.

It is time to take control of Washington away from the special interests and return to a decentralized, limited federal government controlled by the voters. The best way to accomplish this is politically through the Ron Paul Campaign and by education of the American public on the benefits of direct democracy and limited confederation government like our first central government, The Articles of Confederation.

For more information, review the free, online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution” which highlights how Swiss style confederation government and direct democracy could restore limited government to the United States. Read Restoring America's Original Republic with the Swiss Confederation Institute at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve41.htm