Decius wrote:

The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political."

I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

In the end, frankly, I have no idea what happened, and I have nearly everyone screaming partisan talking points at me and absolutely none of it is credible. There is no simple summary of facts and I do not know who to beleive. Everyone is equally insistent that they understand the truth and their version of events must be believed and they are the ones who should be trusted and its the other guys who are the crooks. Perhaps if I devoted months to reading all of the court filings and press reports I could come to an understanding that I was comfortable with, but I don't have time for it. Basically, as far as issues upon which to form political views, I'll stick to things that are a lot more clear than this.

that's chicken shit
edit
of course the problem with sitting on the fence is that you get shot at by both sides
i still think you're wrong but my language was inappropriate and i apologise for that
the question arises about the extent to which any of us can be in complete command of the facts and the extent to which we make calls based on faith -- be it faith in a jury, or an "expert", i'm not convinced that since the time of Leonardo anyone could be in complete command of the facts because for centuries the realm of knowledge has been too big for one person. Therefore we take things on faith however the extent to which this is achievable, case by case (literally in this instance), is something to ponder.

RE: The Volokh Conspiracy - Was the Libby case political?