Travesty

This Libby verdict just irritates the fire out of me. The Democrats' response to it is as bad as the verdict itself. Predictably, they are trying to make this an indictment of the entire administration rather than what it was, a desperate attempt by Fitzgerald to look credible when there was no crime committed in the first place, i.e., the "outing" of Valerie Plame. From Mark Levin at NRO:

This morning the jury didn't understand two of the counts. Yesterday it didn't understand what was meant by reasonable doubt. Let me suggest that in the end it still didn't understand the two counts or reasonable doubt.

Please, spare me the lectures about the jury system and a fair trial. This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom. The witnesses were universally pathetic. The judge was overly restrictive in the testimony he allowed on behalf of the defense. But most of all, I object to this case because it was political from beginning to end. Patrick Fitzgerald's closing argument was as much about Dick Cheney and George Bush as Libby. He wanted the jurors to consider the war. He wanted them to look at more than the evidence. So, it's perfectly legitimate for some of us to conclude that they did. We might call this jury nullifcation in reverse.

There has been considerable damage done to traditional Justice Department procedures, the free press, and the political system by this nothing-burger of a case.

Yes, lying before a grand jury is a crime. So, too, is lying on the witness stand. When can we expect some of the government's witnesses to face the music?

So, the Democrats get another scalp. And aren't they gleeful? The lack of integrity and character on that side of the aisle is saddening. Our Republic is supposed to be represented in the halls of Congress by honorable men and women, but those are becoming harder and harder to find there. Instead we have power-hungry, detestable liars in the leadership. We have a man on the Homeland Security committee who will probably be indicted (after this latest travesty though, maybe not) for taking bribes. We have Sandy Burglar who gets off practically scot-free after stealing classified documents from the National Archives. The leader of the Senate has been involved in unethical land deals which barely get any coverage.

Here's a little background on one of the jurors, Denis Collins. Does this not scream "biased" to you?