Hell no, sir. If I lied to a federal grand jury about my role in covering up a crime, I'd be locked up before I could say "b-b-but Libby!" This is unequal justice.
The simple fact is that a crime was committed, a fair trial was conducted, an appropriate punishment was handed out, and a President helped out his buddy.
*tsst* Go back and see my earlier post. You obviously don't understand the salient details of the case.
I am not interested in whether a fair trial was conducted. If bogus charges are prosecuted fairly, the result is still bogus -- the fruit of a poisoned tree.
Understand: Libby didn't leak (Armitage did). If he had leaked, it still wouldn't have been a crime. What he was convicted on was obstruction of justice related to his faulty recollection of a conversation with Judith Miller, a third party with almost no relevance to the case at all. The only evidence submitted against Libby was transcripts of what he said as opposed to what Judith Miller said he said -- which she openly said she wasn't really
sure he said.
Here's the kicker: the only relevance of Libby's conversation with Judith Miller to the case was that it might prove Libby knew Plame was a CIA agent early enough to leak it. But we already know he didn't leak it
The end result is that some harmless patsy was convicted, with he-said/she-said evidence, on charges only somewhat related to the investigation of a non-crime that everyone knows he didn't commit. John Jay himself could've presided over the trial; there is still no justice in convicting the man of anything. (It is, in fact, profoundly unjust).
An anti-war State Department official leaks the name of an anti-war CIA bureaucrat (the husband of an anti-war political malcontent whom she got a job at the anti-war CIA) to an anti-war reporter. And now we're expected to believe the whole thing is an exercise in pro-war CYA? Ugh.