Submitted by Timothy L. Pennell, Jan 27, 2007 09:08

Let's look at what we have here. We have Scooyer Libby on trial for "not recalling" who it was he first discussed the name of the "covered!!!" secret agent, Valerie Wilson, with. For this he is being tried for perjury and obstruction of justice. Let me see if I've got that right. If you give false testimony in front of a Grand Jury or you can't recall things or give misleading testimony, you go on trial and might go to jail? I thought you just paid a fine, couldn't argue cases before the Supreme Court and lost your law liscence in the state of Arkansas. Right? And then you travel the world stuffing your pockets with bocoup bucks who'll pay to listen your sophistc drivel, laced with attacks against your own country's handling anything and everything in a time of war. Right? Did I mention that there was really no crime committed in the first place? Did I mention that special Grand and infallable Prosecutor, Patrick Nifong, sorry, I mean Fitzgerald,(I keep getting those two confused), knew all along that there was no case. Mrs. wilson was NOT a "covered" agent and therefore the statute in question didn't apply to her. Mrs. Wilson. Oh, by the way, Nifong,(there I go again), supposedly took all this and spent ALL this TAXPAYER money, supposedly, to find out who was the FIRST person to disclose the name to the press of said Mrs. Wilson. But lo and behold, Mr. Infallable KNEW who did it on the very first day. Also, he knew that Mrs. Wilson's identity was not protected by the statute that protects "covered " agents, because she wasn't a covered agent. How do I know this? Because after all this time and all OUR money and all the media hysteria and the news conferences, "NOBODY", let me repat that, "NOBODY,NOBODY,NOBODY" has been charged with that. Mr. Libby is being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for not recalling certain dates and times or who he spoke to and when in a certain order, in a case where no crime was committed. There was never a crime in the first place. You can't have an investigation toward a crime that didn't occur. If the money that's reported missing from the bank ,is found out later to have never have been missing in the first place, than you don't go on with a bank robbery investigation. Let alone a prosecution. It's not complicated. All you have to do is look at the Duke rape case. Do you see any difference? I don't. I see two politically driven prosecutions with out of control prosecutors who withhold evidence and information that doesn't suit their agenda. How's that you say? I didn't know, til just a little while ago that Fitzgerald KNEW that the original "leak" came from Richard Armittage. Did you? I thought that Valerie Wilson was a covered secret agent who's secret identity was protected by the statute that this whole case is based on. Didn't you? Oops. Do over. Never mind. And yet, the trial goes on.(Just like Duke) If I can't get somebody on the original charges, I'll get them on something else.(Just like Duke) If no crime was ever committed in the first place I won't stop.(Do I have to say it?) Because I CAN'T. Like a shark, if I stop swimming, I die. (see Michael Nifong) This case is no longer about this case. This case is about a man with ambitions who thought he saw his chance at the gold ring. This was it. He was in the Super Bowl. Next stop, Disney World. Only one problem, it's not first and goal on the one yard line. It's fourth and fifty with two seconds left. Can you say.......Hail Mary?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.