Witness against Scooter Libby tells how she was snookered by prosecutor Fitzgerald

Judith Miller rejoices in Libby’s pardon by Trump, even though her testimony led to his conviction. She explains.

So why would I be pleased with Libby’s pardon? Because after leaving jail [for protecting sources] and investigating the case, I unearthed information that convinced me not only that my testimony was in error, but that Libby was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor whose investigation should have ended before it began. I described my findings in a 2015 memoir about high-stakes journalism, The Story, A Reporter’s Journey.

The first thing I learned was that John Rizzo, the CIA’s former general counsel and an agency lawyer for over 30 years, disputed prosecutor [Patrick] Fitzgerald’s assertion that Valerie Plame had been a super-secret covert agent, not well known outside of the intelligence community, and that the leak of her name had caused grave, if unspecified, harm to America’s national security.

Rizzo told me in an interview and subsequently wrote in his own book that “dozens, if not hundreds of people in Washington” knew that Plame worked for the CIA. Even more significantly, he said, a CIA damage assessment of the leak had produced “no evidence” that her outing had harmed any CIA operation, any agent in the field, or “anyone else, including Plame herself.”

I also learned that the CIA assessment had been finished in late 2003 or early 2004, long before Libby was indicted or I went to jail. Though Fitzgerald knew this, Rizzo’s crucial CIA finding became public only after his book was published. But if the leak had caused no national security harm, why had Fitzgerald continued the inquiry? [Italics mine]

Why indeed?

Read the rest here Belated Justice for Scooter Libby | City Journal

Further questions about Cardinal Cupich’s erasing Fr. Phillips from pastors’ rolls

Isn’t this the first such peremptory punishment for a priest suspected of consenting-adult homosexual acting-out? To expel him forthwith from his job as pastor?

Related question: Is Fr. P. the first such celibacy-violator to be discovered in the archdiocese?

There are no others whom this or any previous cardinal archbishop has missed in their ongoing pursuit for the welfare of parishioners?

How did the cardinal learn of the Fr. Phillips case? Not a question of accuser — no criminal prosecution is mentioned. So we ask not about the accuser but about the informer. Who is Cardinal Cupich’s informer? Will he come forth to testify?

Should gay Chicago priests be worried about some sort of crackdown? One would not think so, the cardinal being so completely on the side of gay tolerance. Ridiculous to think that of him who has hosted the nation’s prime gay advocate Fr. James Martin SJ to the cathedral.

It’s also ridiculous that he would target the most successful and best known Latin Mass advocate in the archdiocese for special condemnation. This is such a mess, when you get down to it.

Finally, Fr. P. has a lawyer. His congregation, the Resurrectionists, is examining his case. Years ago, sitting in a meeting of Weber High alumni and several Resurrectionists including the provincial, I heard the latter list almost comically among his problems one of his priests who was founding a new religious order, obviously Fr. P.

He was musing in relaxed fashion, and there was no animosity in what he said, just a simple declaration to show how many problems he had in addition to Weber, then in trouble and soon to be closed.

Can we imagine Fr. P’s fellow Resurrectionist Fathers concluding that there’s nothing in the announcement and (presumed irrevocable) ousting of a pastor, contradicting the cardinal?

How messy can this get? Messier yet, it seems.

Jordan B. Peterson: Leftists failing to identify ‘markers of pathological extremism’

Libs do not have a handle on this problem of theirs:

Clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson says the time has come for liberals and “left-leaning” individuals to “identity the markers of pathological extremism.”

The author of the best-selling book “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” told the popular YouTube channel “Big Think” this week that liberal activists and academics have not found a way to “box in” radicals as their counterparts on the right have done. He told its 2.2 million subscribers that right-wing groups embracing doctrines of racial superiority are easily spotted and ostracized while left-wing radicals benefit from a dearth of widely accepted identifiers.

Well they wouldn’t. They never were big on principles, standing ever for the next big thing on which to hang a grievance or cause.