For all of you that have libby tried and convicted already. The wheels of justice turn slow even if the liberals jump the gun.


"Pieces of Eight

Patrick Fitzgerald's modified limited hangout.

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Patrick Fitzgerald's probe is in an interregnum just now--at least as far as its public activities are concerned. The special counsel's investigation that led to the indictment of Scooter Libby continues under a new grand jury, which presumably is considering whether to bring charges against anyone else, including senior White House aide Karl Rove.

So it's a good time to update our readers on the status of the legal motion filed last month by Dow Jones & Co., owner of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site, requesting that a federal appeals court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times into the slammer last summer.

The redactions were approved in a concurring opinion by Judge David Tatel, who said the eight pages showed that, with his "voluminous classified filings," Mr. Fitzgerald "met the burden of demonstrating that the information [sought from Ms. Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper] is both critical and unobtainable from any other source." In our court filing last month, we argued that now that Mr. Fitzgerald has indicted Mr. Libby and said that "the substantial bulk" of his probe is "completed," there is no reason to keep those pages secret.

We're happy to report that Mr. Fitzgerald agrees with us--at least in part. In a brief filed on Friday, the special counsel asks the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to unseal the portions of the redacted material referring to Mr. Libby. "Continued secrecy does not appear necessary," he writes.

Even before we've seen the redacted pages, Mr. Fitzgerald's filing is revealing about the limited nature of his prosecution. Most notably, he more or less concedes that the information in the eight redacted pages is all related to contradictory testimony (hence the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice), not to any deep government secrets. He even notes that none of the redacted material is still classified. So much for the media and partisan speculations that this scandal was about a great national security cover-up. This also suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald very early in his probe concluded that there was no crime committed in leaking Valerie Plame's name, or any other classified information, to the media. Instead, his investigation focused on nailing Mr. Libby or someone else for making false statements.

All this took place, by the way, long before Bob Woodward came forward after Mr. Libby's arrest. The veteran Washington Post reporter said last month that a government source had told him about Ms. Plame's identity a week or 10 days before Ms. Miller learned about it from Mr. Libby. Watch for Mr. Libby's lawyers to use Mr. Woodward's revelation to cast serious doubt on the timeline that Mr. Fitzgerald gave in his indictment of their client.

It's now up to the court to decide whether to unseal all or part of the eight pages. In Friday's filing, Mr. Fitzgerald also asks that the pages unrelated to Mr. Libby remain secret. He wants to hold the rest--"related to individuals who have not been charged with crimes." That presumably means Mr. Rove, who has been named in public statements by grand jury witnesses. That alone is reason enough to unseal the information, since Time reporter Mr. Cooper has already publicly disclosed the substance of his grand jury testimony concerning his conversations with Mr. Rove. All the more so in light of the intense public interest in a case involving one of the Administration's most influential officials. Dow Jones plans to file a reply today making these points and asking the court to unseal the eight pages in full.

Whatever the court decides about those pages, Mr. Fitzgerald's latest filing is one more reason for him to wrap his case up quickly, give Mr. Libby his day in court, and let the government get on with its business."

"So much for the media and partisan speculations that this scandal was about a great national security cover-up. This also suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald very early in his probe concluded that there was no crime committed in leaking Valerie Plame's name, or any other classified information, to the media."

Running this Republican talking point through again, eh?

Maybe if anyone bothers to refute it again, it will divert them from something else. Is that the stategy?

If you repeat it enough it becomes true.

"I keep the bovine beauty title to remind me of a certain two individuals that were banned from PP."

Who were they? Was this recent?