From what we already know, Cheney is almost certainly Libby's initial source. It seems almost certain that a large part of the motivation here was to protect Cheney - i.e. it's a coverup. Thus, Cheney knew all along who leaked. It defies credulity to think that he hid this from Bush (and given the NY Daily News report of Bush chewing Karl n' Libby's hide over this, the probability of this is essentially zero). So, Bush knew as well and all the while he was lying to the American people about it.

What a president! What a vice president!

As I said when this first broke, James, what spills out of this is going to shock even you hard core, oh-so-jaded, inside the beltway types.

In this case I think the grand jury process has helped us see through the “government approved” PR. (News reports just now are that Cheney told Libby/Rove "wife works at CIA.)

The problem with a blanked protection or denouncement of unnamed sources is that scoundrels can be found on either side of the line. A scoundrel could be acting as an unnamed source, or be undone by an unnamed source.

It would be nice to have a shield law ... but only for the good guys. Unfortuntely I don't thing can be written.

Regardless of your political viewpoints, the United States has had a very long history of an anatagonistic media towards the government. And rightly so. The media's role is to question who or what philosophy is in power at that time, and offer commentary. There is rarely an absolute "truth" when it comes to reporting any event.

The actions that have occurred in this case instead create a disincentive for journalists to actively seek out information, and act as a government watchdog. The threat of censorship through litigation and indictment IS real. And when THAT happens, we ALL lose, conservatives and liberals, for we then fail to hear about what happens, and instead end up with "government approved" PR.

Smaller organizations, right leaning or left, will no longer take the risk to find "unnamed" sources if they know that it will end up being challenged in an expensive court battle. Nor will "unnamed" sources feel safe in reporting those items that they see as unethical, immoral or illegal.

As Edmund Burke stated "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Second, it is not necessary that the agent work outside the U.S. to be considered a "covert agent", if that person was working as an agent of the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I don't know whether Ms. Plame worked in this department or not, but the fact that she may not have worked outside the US is not dispositive of the issue.

Take a look at United States Code, Title 50, Section 426(4), which includes the definition for covert agent. There are three separate alternative definitions (A), (B), and (C), and alternatives within each subdefinition (pay close attention to the relevant "and" and "or"):

"The term ''covert agent'' means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; OR

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, OR
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

If Rove-Libby or anyone purposely lied to a Grand Jury, they should be prosecuted. I thought that this should apply to Clinton when he lied but it didn’t turn out that way. Getting a fact wrong or not remembering every little detail doesn’t constitute perjury. None of us have a perfect memory. However if it can be show that anyone knowingly gave false testimony, persecute him or her.

Obstruction of justice is a charge that can be abuse since it is a vague statute. I thought Martha Stewart was railroad on this charge even though she is a liberal. Law should be apply evenly to everyone.Are there any liberals out there who will agree to condemn any reporter or democrat that get indicted for violating these standard?

Herb, you are an idiot.

Saner times.

As for Fitzgerld, he's just another politically oriented prosicutor that is out to make a big name for himself and don,t care whos toes he steps on or who he hurts to achieve it.

This Plame thing makes any good American sick. Sick of the poiticians and the games, Sick of the millions of dollars wasted for political gain and sick of those lying, kniving, Democrats.

I don't like murderers, thieves, rapists and liars, hence, I don,t like democrats.