Infuriating AP article about the Plame investigation, under this headline:

White House Defense Crumbling in Leak Case

Wow, sounds like prosecutor Fitzgerald must have assembled a pretty good case, huh?

Oh, wait:

In light of all the disclosures, "it's going to be as difficult for the defense to prove the theory that the White House got the information from reporters as it is for Fitzgerald to prove that the White House leaked the information about Wilson's wife," said Washington-based white-collar defense attorney James D. Wareham.

Okay, legal experts, and people who have watched more than three Law and Orders:

1. In a criminal trial, which is what this would be if the grand jury returns an indictment, must the prosecution prove its case is
A: more probable than what the defense says? OR
B: true beyond a reasonable doubt?

2. If an expert thinks that the prosecution is going to have a difficult time making its case, well, does that headline make a ding-blasted bit of sense?

Ooh, sorry, AP Reporter Mark Yost, would you like to try for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?

(Besides the fact that Fitzgerald will have trouble making a case, the main news here seems to be that there is a swearing contest forming up between Tim Russert and Scooter Libby, each of whom says he learned about Plame's covert job from the other. )

Posted by: seedubya at 01:20 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.