Pach at FDL did a really great job of looking at WaPo's bewildering choice to continue to further long-discredited lies about Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson in what appears to be an out-of-court defense closing statement for Scooter Libby.
Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation?
[..]There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.
If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby?
Now, if you can manage to get through that ridiculous hackery from the biggest cheerleader for Clinton's impeachment under the pretense of "standing for the rule of law" without beating your head against the keyboard, you're in better shape than me. Then Toensing continues her WaPo-enabled partisan hit piece to recommend some other possible indictments, including Patrick Fitzgerald, the CIA and Joseph Wilson.
Larry Johnson, former colleague of Valerie Plame Wilson, has more:
Congratulations to Victoria Toensing, former Reagan Administration Justice Department official, for plumbing new depths of delusion and crazed fantasies in her latest Washington Post op-ed. Ms. Toensing's piece--Trial in Error--should have been titled, "I Am Ignorant of Basic Facts".
Brent Budowsky goes even further:
I predict the Judge will not be a happy camper, but beyond this, the piece was a shameless attempt to present a nullification defense to the jury, by an officer of the court who has worked for the Departement of Justice. It is attempt to bypass the judge and jury and present arguments to the jury, through the Post, that would not be admissable for law or fact, which also included factual inaccuracy.
This is the functional equivalent of the Post editorial board and the Libby defense team standing outside the jury room, handing the jurors leaflets, ignoring the judges instructions, and handing the jurors inadmissable evidence and telling them to vote not guilty.
[..]I am astonished that someone of your stature would approve what is an aggressive and obvious attempt at jury tampering, that your fact checkers would permit factual inaccuracy, and that anyone at the Post would use tones of ridicule and derision more akin to an internet blog post than the Washington Post.