The Volokh Conspiracy speculates--

On an entirely speculative front, Miller and Cooper might have refused to testify because they knew Libby had lied to investigators and the grand jury, and therefore knew that their testimony would directly contradict Libby's and lead to obtstruction and perjury charges. That might explain Judith Miller's reticence to believe that Libby had released her from her duty of confidentiality: Why on earth would Libby volunteer to let Miller hand over evidence that would lead to his felony conviction?

Two mysteries solved, really. 1-- Why Miller wouldn't testify, despite Libby's supposed release of her to do so. (While hoping she actually wouldn't.)

And 2-- Why Maureen Dowd and the New York Times despises her so. She knew that Libby didn't really want her to testify, so she tried to avoid doing so. And they wanted her to sing like a canary, baby, confidentiality of sources be damned.

Makes so much damn common sense it's likely to be true.

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, Russia still seems solidly in Iran's corner, so this is probably just make-nice-with-Bush window-dressing.

But still:

Iran should realize the risks of propagandist rhetoric and confrontational approaches to the situation in the Middle East, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday.

"We hope that Teheran realizes the danger of confrontational approaches and will demonstrated political foresight and pragmatism," the ministry said in a release...

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Co-host Karol noted that there was a strong, syrupy smell in the air in Manhattan and some of the outer borroughs (aka, "fake NY.")

It's noted today on AP. The smell has been likened to freshly baked cakes, waffles, and other such sweets.

Actually, it's all just the preamble for the greatest practical joke I've ever pulled.

But, seriously, mystery smells, whether pleasant or not, are not welcome in the current Age of Sacred Murder.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Although my first reaction was a knee-jerk semi-defense of Libby and semi-attack on Fitzgerald, here are some second thoughts. Still tenative, still half-formed:

1) Libby is charged with misrepresenting, multiple times, under oath, the source from which he got the Plame tip. According to Fitzgerald, he repeatedly claimed he just got it from reporters-- under oath. According to Fitzgerald, too, he got the information from government sources, and he thinks he can prove that.

If this is true, then this is genuine perjury, and he's not being charged for merely having a hazy memory.

2) Fitzgerald answered my question regarding why the long investigation without any charges for the underlying crime (if one existed). He says (by analogy and implication) that he could not tell if Libby satisfied the criminal intent requirements of the laws against divulging classified information. (He says he's convinced Plame's status was classified, even if not covert.) Thus, while he seems convinced that Libby committed the "bad acts" of the statute, he cannot ascertain if he had the "bad motive" (crimnal intent, intent to harm the national interest, etc.) so that's why he couldn't bring charges against him on these grounds.

This would in fact be a fact-intensive inquiry, and would justify interviewing the relevant witnesses. So, if we take this as true, then Fitzgerald did not act in a partisan or overzealous manner by conducting this long, long, long grand jury inquiry.

So, as of the moment -- and again, assuming Fitzgerald is being straight with us -- Fitzgerald acted responsibily and Libby did commit some very stupid criminal perjuries, for which he should resign and be prosecuted.

I hope he can reach a deal; I don't really want to see him behind bars for a lengthy jail sentence, but, again assuming that Fitzgerald is being straight with us, he did commit the crimes he's charged with and must leave the government.

The Berger Precedent: Why is it that Democrats are offered sweetheart deals for serious, proveable breaches of national security, and Republicans are threatened with thirty years in the clink for perjury?

The Warden notes Libby should be offered...

A plea bargain, $50,000 in fines and removal of his security clearance for 3 years, just like Berger got. I'm sure this will be ok with the lefties, as they seemed satisfied w/Berger's sentence.

Won't happen. It's a Republican. Democrats get very generous benefits of the doubts, Republicans get the slammer.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

The New York Times reports some of what Corporal Starr's letter said.

Michelle Malkin tells you what these cocksuckers left out.

Is this the way we honor heroes? But censoring their last letters in order to give a false impression of their true feelings?

Posted by: Ace at 11:39 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

More lies from the metrosexual gestapo at Reuters.

Also, it's known that alcoholic men can develop signs of low testosterone, including shrunken testicles and enlarged breasts.

Hmmm... well, if you drink enough, you get fat, so there's the "enlarged breasts" thing. (If you drink even more than that, you get skinny, so you just have to make sure you don't half-ass things. If you're gonna destroy yourself, get thin doing so.)

The big upshot seems to be that drinking reduces one's reproductive capacity, for both men and women, which would suggest -- you heard it hear first -- if you want surefire birth control, just get really sloshed and sleep around.

I'm guessing that most people would say that alcohol actually tends to increase the odds of pregnancy, especially of the surprise variety.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

So, obviously, she wasn't. Odd that he won't just say so.

If he's non-partisan, and he can't sustain the claim that she's covert, why does he not say so? Why, to keep that charge alive for the left, of course!

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

...at Instapundit calling this lame indictment either a "mouse" or, more charitably, a "large rabbit."

Self-righteous prick.

God, I hate Andrew Sullivan. What a fucking tool.

Thanks to Allah.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Arthur hips me to this:

In the regular Marvel Universe (as opposed to Ultimate) they have a new, standard explanation for his and (everybody elses) lack of aging. The 15 year rule. The Big Event (the creation of the Fantastic Four when Reed & friends were exposed the cosmic rays) happened 15 years ago.

ALWAYS 15 years ago.

So for a comic taking place today, the BE happened in 1990. 5 years from now, in a similar comic, the BE happened in 1995.

I suppose there's some explanation for why that should be. That's just what they've always been sort of doing, without explaining it.

I think the DC Universe similarly restarted the clock and claimed (for some reason or another) that the previous continuity was scrapped and that Superman first appeared about fifteen years ago. Probably something to do with Crisis on Infinite Earths. It's the Big Cosmic Explanation that keeps on giving.

Meanwhile, James Bond just turned 118 years old.

Posted by: Ace at 10:14 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

For making a false statement, perjury, and obstruction of justice... all charges which could very well arise from the same misstatement.

The Threshhold Question: The first question Fitzgerald needed to answer was whether or not there was even a possible crime committed, even assuming the facts to be the most harmful to Libby.

This is a question of law, not fact. You don't need to empanel a grand jury to decide if Valerie Plame was a covert agent, or if any of the various national security laws were broken.

This question could have been, and should have been, answered in the first month of legal investigation, using no greater investigative resources than a law library.

And yet, two years later, Fitzgerald apparently finds there was no violation of the IIPA, the Espionage Act, or any act involving the dissemination of classified information.

And during those two years he's had people in jail for contempt and questioned many witnesses before the grand jury.

Why was he doing all that when month's work of legal research should have told him there wasn't a crime committed?

And so here we are. No crime was committed BEFORE the investigation, so he indicts someone on five charges (?) for statements made in the course of the investigation.

Without an investigation, no possible crime, apparently.

Straight shooter? I don't think so. Andrew McCarthy says he's "non-partisan," and perhaps he thinks of himself that way, but I can't help thinking that he knew what the New York Times and the rest of the media & university-club swells would have said had he wrapped up the investigation after a month. Their opinions matter to him, so he kept at it for two years, until he finally came up with what I'm guessing will turn out to be a rather debatable and ticky-tack perjury claim.

Had these been Democrats under investigation, the inquiry would have ended a month in, as it should have.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.