In Reply: "...it doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime. It just means they couldn't be tried for doing so."

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the Common Sense Political Thought post "Pool Reporter Banned For Publishing Video Of Protest":

Hube says:
30 April 2011 at 11:36

"No, only Armitage. Cheney and Libby were not involved in outing Plame.

What Hitch said, Perry.

Nevertheless, let’s play a game and actually agree with your point. So what? It wasn’t a crime now, was it? Else, Armitage would have been prosecuted, would he not? And that’s my point: Armitage was not prosecuted for outing Plame, which the Left claimed consistently was a crime. Yet Libby was convicted of lying about a non-crime. Still, perjury is perjury, right Perry? Just ask Bill Clinton."

It's my understanding that it was in part Libby's dishonesty that prevented other people (including, perhaps, the actual leaker(s), and perhaps including Armitage.) from being prosecuted. Because Libby committed perjury, Fitzgerald was unable to gather the evidence required to charge other targets of his investigation. There's knowing a guy is guilty, and then there's being able to prove his guilt in court.

So, while these others may be legally presumed "innocent," it does not mean they did not commit the crime. It just means they couldn't be tried for doing so. Nor does it mean that intelligent folks can't weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions as to those responsible for leaking Valerie Plame's name, or their reasons for doing so, in the same way folks judge the moral guilt of OJ Simpson, in spite of what the jury decided. There will always be a cloud hanging over the head of Cheney, Rove, and a few others in this regard... ...though legally, they never were charged, tried, or found guilty.
---
Posted 30 April 2011 at 14:12