Libby had the advantage of a Bush appointee for a prosecutor. He had the advantage of a Bush appointee for a judge. He had the advantage of a set of criminal procedures specifically designed to favor letting the guilty go rather than jailing the innocent. He had the advantage of lots of powerful friends and contacts to help with his defense. He had the advantage of a very high-priced defense attorney and practically unlimited resources. And he had the advantage of having twelve of his peers decide his fate. With all those advantages, he was found guilty and sentenced to prison. And yet he still has the advantage of an appeals process. If that doesn't work out for him, exactly why should any of us regard this as a miscarriage of justice? If you want to find a miscarriage of justice, look for defendants who weren't blessed with all those advantages.

What Libby should be doing is counting himself lucky he got to face off against a Republican prosecutor, who didn't have the balls (or the political inclination) to go after him for betraying a CIA agent. It reminds me a bit of Capone being convicted of tax evasion. It would be interesting to know how this would have gone if the prosecutor hadn't been naturally sympathetic to his politics, and if the federal judiciary weren't absolutely packed with Republicans (including a 7-2 split in favor of the Republicans on the highest court).

"And he had the advantage of having twelve of his peers decide his fate."

How does this add up to being advantageous? I would quickly concede the other advantages that you mention, but having peers decide your fate is never an advantage. Why we don't have TRAINED justices examining the evidence at hand, and using expert opinions on every circumstance possible (they know more then the layman or the judge just about every time) would yield a more accurate verdict then twelve people penned up deliberating together. Those twelve people might as well be one person. One untrained person!

Arkady, you didn't know this when you posted this but he had an additional advantage: he knew where the skeletons were buried and Cheney was at risk. The Bush decision to commute his sentence was very smart. Because his appeal goes forward, his 5th Amendment rights are retained. They would not have been had he been pardoned. Without the prospect of prison time, Fitzgerald has no leverage for obtaining truth from him.

Those, like Glenn Greenwald who think the commutation decision results from a two tiered attitude toward the law, are wrong. The decision resulted from good old fashioned survival instincts.

Too bad you didn't get the word that it was Armitage that "outed" the CIA agent Plame and that no crime was committed.

Fitzgerald is no better than Nifong because Fitzgerald withheld the info and did not disclose it early on - the case should have been dropped immediately. But NO, Fitzgerald just had to "get" someone and his malicious ego obstructed real justice and hung an innocent man. Fitzgerald should be investigated and disbarred just as Nifong was.

As far as Plame/Wilson goes, it is clear to many that Wilson and Plame conspired and abused their positions in order to plot to overthrow the government (POTUS) of the USA. Wilson had the motive and Plame used her influence and power of the CIA to make it happen. THAT is an investigation worth watching.