Sorry BB, perhaps I wasn't clear.

I was trying to figure out what Krauthammer's gripe was about the Libby verdict, because he wasn't terribly clear about it. Krauthammer wrote: "This is a case that never should have been brought. . . That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial." Now, it seems clear to me that there was enough evidence that a jury -- the selection of which was done by both the defense and prosecution -- believed believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter committed 4 crimes by lying to the FBI and to a grand jury. So, if a prosecutor has evidence that a crime has been committed -- felonies, no less -- why shouldn't the prosecutor prosecute them? Of course, the evidence was disputed, but that's the case in almost every trial, and is certainly not a reason not to prosecute -- otherwise, there never would be any prosecutions at all.

So, I figured that the fact that there was disputed evidence couldn't be what he was talking about and there was something more to it than that. Perhaps I was reading more into Krauthammer's complaint than was there. Then again, that's why I put the question mark at the end -- merely my speculation as to what the columnist was thinking.

Or not.

michael

PS -- "'It was no big deal and shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place?' And where have I heard that comment before?"

Wherever you may have heard it, it wasn't from me.

PPS -- And just so my position is clear, I agree with Peace, who wrote: "I agree with Greg. Clinton should have told them to fuck off. In that many words."