Bush Commutes "Scooter" Libby

[Decker]

I doubt Libby is different than many other persons being investigated for a serious crime.  Of course you keep your mouth shut when the feds are after you.  Take the Fifth, etc.

I thought there was a disagreement over whether or not an underlying crime was actually committed? 

I have not researched presidential pardons well enough to know about pardons that shield the president from investigations for treason, but I don't recall Reagan, Bush Sr. or Dubya being investigated for treason either. 

Sounds like you think Libby is the only person who has information about this so-called crime? 

If Libby were fully pardoned, he would lose his 5th Am right to not incriminate himself.  But he wasn't pardoned so his 5th A right remains intact and his obstruction of the investigation is complete.

Was an underlying crime committed?

When is a crime not a crime?

Here is the US Code that was violated by the outing of Plame destroying her NOC status:
US Code Title 50 Chapter 15 Section 413b as

(e) ''Covert action'' defined :

As used in this subchapter, the term ''covert action'' means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include -

(1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence, traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;

(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities

She was covert.  There is no debate about that fact.  Her identity was blown by a big mouth from the Bush Administration.  All her intelligence work on WMDs and our enemies was destroyed as was her career.

But what if you are correct that no crime was committed.  How could that be?

Libby: Bush Authorized Plamegate Leak
Indicted ex-Cheney aide told grand jury of White House approval
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html

If bush declassified her status (for reasons of crushing opposition to the war--read Joe Wilson, her husband--and revenge) then the leak is not a crime.

It's very nice to know that our president is undermining the war on terror and the effort to curb the proliferation of WMDs to score political points while ruling with an iron hand to make his illegal invasion of iraq happen.

Publicly here's what Bush said about the crime: President vows to fire anyone who committed a crimehttp://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/

What a piece garbage this man is--there is no crime if he, the president, declassified Plame's identity. 

The man hurt america....made us less safe.

[Straw Man]

There absolutely was a crime. the only thing we don't know at this point is who is (are) the actual criminals.  I believe the law requires proof that the covert agent was knowingly outed.   Given that Libby's original defense was going to be that the White House authorized the leaking I think we can safely assume that they KNEW she was covert.   Does anyone here think that Cheney/Bush/Libby/Rove actually learned this fact from reporters or from Armitage.  Frankly, they should all be tried for obstruction. 

Bush admitted yesterday that someone in his administration "perhaps" leaked the name of a CIA operative but now it's "time to move on"

I say it's time we actually got to the bottom of this ACT of TREASON

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118426038242564851.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Decker]

There absolutely was a crime. the only thing we don't know at this point is who is (are) the actual criminals.  I believe the law requires proof that the covert agent was knowingly outed.   Given that Libby's original defense was going to be that the White House authorized the leaking I think we can safely assume that they KNEW she was covert.   Does anyone here think that Cheney/Bush/Libby/Rove actually learned this fact from reporters or from Armitage.  Frankly, they should all be tried for obstruction. 

Bush admitted yesterday that someone in his administration "perhaps" leaked the name of a CIA operative but now it's "time to move on"

I say it's time we actually got to the bottom of this ACT of TREASON

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118426038242564851.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Well said!

[Straw Man]

Well said!

thanks

[rockyfortune]

i'm wondering when he's going to get around to pardoning the two border patrol agents thrown in jail for ten years for shooting a drug dealing, border running, mexican in the ass.

[ieffinhatecardio]

i'm wondering when he's going to get around to pardoning the two border patrol agents thrown in jail for ten years for shooting a drug dealing, border running, mexican in the ass.

Fantastic question, I've been wondering the same thing myself. Talk about a disgrace.

[Dos Equis]

If Libby were fully pardoned, he would lose his 5th Am right to not incriminate himself.  But he wasn't pardoned so his 5th A right remains intact and his obstruction of the investigation is complete.

Was an underlying crime committed?

When is a crime not a crime?

Here is the US Code that was violated by the outing of Plame destroying her NOC status:
US Code Title 50 Chapter 15 Section 413b as

(e) ''Covert action'' defined :

As used in this subchapter, the term ''covert action'' means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include -

(1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence, traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;

(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities

She was covert.  There is no debate about that fact.  Her identity was blown by a big mouth from the Bush Administration.  All her intelligence work on WMDs and our enemies was destroyed as was her career.

But what if you are correct that no crime was committed.  How could that be?

Libby: Bush Authorized Plamegate Leak
Indicted ex-Cheney aide told grand jury of White House approval
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html

If bush declassified her status (for reasons of crushing opposition to the war--read Joe Wilson, her husband--and revenge) then the leak is not a crime.

It's very nice to know that our president is undermining the war on terror and the effort to curb the proliferation of WMDs to score political points while ruling with an iron hand to make his illegal invasion of iraq happen.

Publicly here's what Bush said about the crime: President vows to fire anyone who committed a crimehttp://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/

What a piece garbage this man is--there is no crime if he, the president, declassified Plame's identity. 

The man hurt america....made us less safe.

There is indeed a debate over whether an underlying crime was committed:

Conservative Presidential Candidates Back Libby Pardon

During tonight’s presidential debate, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked all the candidates to say whether they would pardon Scooter Libby, who was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison today for his felony convictions related to the CIA leak case.

Former mayor Rudy Giuliani said the case “argues more in favor of a pardon,” calling today’s sentencing “way out of line” and “grossly excessive.” Giuliani said the case against Libby was “incomprehensible” because “ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved.”

Likewise, former governor Mitt Romney said it’s “worth looking at a pardon,” because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald “clearly abused prosecutorial discretion” by going on a “political vendetta” against Libby despite knowing he was not the original source of the leak.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said definitively they would pardon Libby. Former governor Tommy Thompson said he likely would. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) answered, “He’s going through an appeal process. We’ve got to see what happens here.” Former governors Jim Gilmore and Mike Huckabee and Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) said they would not pardon him, at least without learning more about the case.

. . .

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/pardon-libby-debate/

Even if you assume an underlying crime was committed, Libby wasn't charged with that crime.  How do you know he is the only person on the planet with knowledge about who outed this woman? 

[Decker]

There is indeed a debate over whether an underlying crime was committed:

Conservative Presidential Candidates Back Libby Pardon

During tonight’s presidential debate, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked all the candidates to say whether they would pardon Scooter Libby, who was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison today for his felony convictions related to the CIA leak case.

Former mayor Rudy Giuliani said the case “argues more in favor of a pardon,” calling today’s sentencing “way out of line” and “grossly excessive.” Giuliani said the case against Libby was “incomprehensible” because “ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved.”

Likewise, former governor Mitt Romney said it’s “worth looking at a pardon,” because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald “clearly abused prosecutorial discretion” by going on a “political vendetta” against Libby despite knowing he was not the original source of the leak.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said definitively they would pardon Libby. Former governor Tommy Thompson said he likely would. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) answered, “He’s going through an appeal process. We’ve got to see what happens here.” Former governors Jim Gilmore and Mike Huckabee and Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) said they would not pardon him, at least without learning more about the case.

. . .

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/pardon-libby-debate/

Even if you assume an underlying crime was committed, Libby wasn't charged with that crime.  How do you know he is the only person on the planet with knowledge about who outed this woman? 

I don't understand this entire "no underlying crime" line of reasoning.  Could you explain it to me?  We're like two ships passing in the night.

In my opinion we are all looking at the dead body while you are saying, "No homicide occurred here."

By the fact that Plame's NOC status was exposed, i.e., that you and I know about her undercover status, a crime was committed:  somebody exposed her undercover identity to the world.

That is the underlying crime. 

Libby's interference in the investigation of that crime is also a crime.  This is well-established long-standing law.  Giuliani knows this and he is pandering in the worst way.

Again, it doesn't matter if Libby is the only person with knowledge of who outed Plame.  Libby discussed Plame w/ NY Times's liberal reporter Judith Miller several times prior to Novak's publishing her name in his column--the Armitage connection is dry.

Now I would agree with you if Libby is right and the President declassified Plame's undercover status so that his cronies could villify Plame's husband in the press.

If that's the case, then Bush really is actively hurting this country purely for political purposes.

Either way, the Bush administration comes out of this looking at best, criminally negligent and at worst, treasonous.

[Dos Equis]

I don't understand this entire "no underlying crime" line of reasoning.  Could you explain it to me?  We're like two ships passing in the night.

In my opinion we are all looking at the dead body while you are saying, "No homicide occurred here."

By the fact that Plame's NOC status was exposed, i.e., that you and I know about her undercover status, a crime was committed:  somebody exposed her undercover identity to the world.

That is the underlying crime. 

Libby's interference in the investigation of that crime is also a crime.  This is well-established long-standing law.  Giuliani knows this and he is pandering in the worst way.

Again, it doesn't matter if Libby is the only person with knowledge of who outed Plame.  Libby discussed Plame w/ NY Times's liberal reporter Judith Miller several times prior to Novak's publishing her name in his column--the Armitage connection is dry.

Now I would agree with you if Libby is right and the President declassified Plame's undercover status so that his cronies could villify Plame's husband in the press.

If that's the case, then Bush really is actively hurting this country purely for political purposes.

Either way, the Bush administration comes out of this looking at best, criminally negligent and at worst, treasonous.

A dead body doesn't always = homicide.  Could be natural causes, suicide, self defense . . . .

I said there is a debate about whether an underlying crime was committed.  There are two issues in this regard:

1.  Libby was not charged with outing Plame. 

2.  No one has been charged with or even accused of outing Plame. 

This is why Rudy says "ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved." 

[Decker]

A dead body doesn't always = homicide.  Could be natural causes, suicide, self defense . . . .

I said there is a debate about whether an underlying crime was committed.  There are two issues in this regard:

1.  Libby was not charged with outing Plame. 

2.  No one has been charged with or even accused of outing Plame. 

This is why Rudy says "ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved." 

Thanks for the explanation.

I understand now.

I think that reasoning is specious and here's why.
 
There are two options here: 
1. Somebody leaked classified information re Plame's status--that's a crime or
2. Somebody leaked declassified information re Plame's status--that is not a crime.

But for the leaked information, no one would know Plame's true identity/status.  There is no middle road here.

If No. 1 is the answer, then Libby's obstruction of Justice made it impossible to charge the real culprit.

If No. 2 is the answer, then Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice just for the heck of it.

Can you see why I have a problem with this case and the "no underlying crime" rationale?

[Dos Equis]

Thanks for the explanation.

I understand now.

I think that reasoning is specious and here's why.
 
There are two options here: 
1. Somebody leaked classified information re Plame's status--that's a crime or
2. Somebody leaked declassified information re Plame's status--that is not a crime.

But for the leaked information, no one would know Plame's true identity/status.  There is no middle road here.

If No. 1 is the answer, then Libby's obstruction of Justice made it impossible to charge the real culprit.

If No. 2 is the answer, then Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice just for the heck of it.

Can you see why I have a problem with this case and the "no underlying crime" rationale?

Decker I understand your point and why you are concerned.  I agree that if anyone broke the law by disclosing this woman's identity they should be punished, whether that is Bush, Cheney, or a member of their staff. 

Re your No. 1, I'm not sure how you conclude that Libby's obstruction of justice made it impossible to charge the real culprit?  Assuming a covert agent was illegally outed, how do you determine that Libby is the only person who knows the culprit's identity? 

Libby lied about his conversations with reporters.  I don't know why he did, but his lies don't reveal much. 

[Decker]

Decker I understand your point and why you are concerned.  I agree that if anyone broke the law by disclosing this woman's identity they should be punished, whether that is Bush, Cheney, or a member of their staff. 

Re your No. 1, I'm not sure how you conclude that Libby's obstruction of justice made it impossible to charge the real culprit?  Assuming a covert agent was illegally outed, how do you determine that Libby is the only person who knows the culprit's identity? 

Libby lied about his conversations with reporters.  I don't know why he did, but his lies don't reveal much. 

Here is what Libby lied about:
...Libby’s “faulty memory” caused him not only to deny where he had learned about Plame — a note produced in the trial showed Vice President Cheney had told him she worked in the Counterproliferation Department of the CIA (where the majority of employees are covert) — but to invent stories saying he HAD leaked to reporters when he hadn’t. He claimed to have been the first to tell Matt Cooper about Wilson’s wife, thereby covering up the fact that Karl Rove had done so. And he shielded Fleischer by falsely claiming to have told the Post’s Glenn Kessler as well, apparently trying to cover for the Post’s October 12, 2003 report that a journalist for the Post (who turned out to be Walter Pincus) had been leaked to — a news story that was found, with key passages underlined, in Libby’s files.
Thus Libby was convicted not just of perjury but of intentionally lying in order to obstruct the investigation, and rightly so.http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/14/why-the-trail-of-plame-leads-to-or-through-scooter-libby/

 The prosecutor for the case said as much:
Rebutting the defense's assertion that Cheney was not behind the leak, Fitzgerald told jurors, "You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

Libby's lies obstructed and killed the investigation.

[Straw Man]

Decker I understand your point and why you are concerned.  I agree that if anyone broke the law by disclosing this woman's identity they should be punished, whether that is Bush, Cheney, or a member of their staff. 

Re your No. 1, I'm not sure how you conclude that Libby's obstruction of justice made it impossible to charge the real culprit?  Assuming a covert agent was illegally outed, how do you determine that Libby is the only person who knows the culprit's identity? 

Libby lied about his conversations with reporters.  I don't know why he did, but his lies don't reveal much. 

Hey Bum,

News Flash - Libby lied about his conversations with reporters because he knew that he (and others) had broken the law when they outed Plame

Given that this was an act of treason I think they should all be declared enemy combatants and shipped off to Gitmo.

Sure some of them might be innocent but we just have to take that chance.

I'm sure Rove/Libby's memory would improve with a little bit of water boarding

[Dos Equis]

Here is what Libby lied about:
...Libby’s “faulty memory” caused him not only to deny where he had learned about Plame — a note produced in the trial showed Vice President Cheney had told him she worked in the Counterproliferation Department of the CIA (where the majority of employees are covert) — but to invent stories saying he HAD leaked to reporters when he hadn’t. He claimed to have been the first to tell Matt Cooper about Wilson’s wife, thereby covering up the fact that Karl Rove had done so. And he shielded Fleischer by falsely claiming to have told the Post’s Glenn Kessler as well, apparently trying to cover for the Post’s October 12, 2003 report that a journalist for the Post (who turned out to be Walter Pincus) had been leaked to — a news story that was found, with key passages underlined, in Libby’s files.
Thus Libby was convicted not just of perjury but of intentionally lying in order to obstruct the investigation, and rightly so.http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/14/why-the-trail-of-plame-leads-to-or-through-scooter-libby/

 The prosecutor for the case said as much:
Rebutting the defense's assertion that Cheney was not behind the leak, Fitzgerald told jurors, "You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

Libby's lies obstructed and killed the investigation.

So what are you saying?  Rove leaked the name?  Fleischer?  Cheney?  What is stopping the special prosecutor from questioning those and others?  I fail to see how Libby lying about whether he leaked information "killed the investigation."  I think that could be true if he was the one who outed this woman.   

[Dos Equis]

Hey Bum,

News Flash - Libby lied about his conversations with reporters because he knew that he (and others) had broken the law when they outed Plame

Given that this was an act of treason I think they should all be declared enemy combatants and shipped off to Gitmo.

Sure some of them might be innocent but we just have to take that chance.

I'm sure Rove/Libby's memory would improve with a little bit of water boarding

Thanks for clearing that up.   

[Decker]

So what are you saying?  Rove leaked the name?  Fleischer?  Cheney?  What is stopping the special prosecutor from questioning those and others?  I fail to see how Libby lying about whether he leaked information "killed the investigation."  I think that could be true if he was the one who outed this woman.   

We don't know b/c Libby's lying killed the investigation.  Libby lied about his own leaking and then lied about the source of whom provided him with the material information.

Count 1 - Obstruction of Justice: Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

Count 2 - Making a False Statement: Libby intentionally gave FBI agents false information about a conversation he had with NBC’s Tim Russert regarding Valerie Plame Wilson, who is married to Joseph Wilson.

Count 4 - Perjury: Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about a conversation he had with Russert.

Count 5 - Perjury: Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment.

It is impossible to investigate anyone if a prosecutor does not have the power to prosecute for perjury or obstruction.  You know that.  What good is an investigation if the accused and all materially connected witnesses lie to the prosecutor?

Fitzgerald's predecessors in the case already suspected that a number of officials lied to federal investigators (including Karl Rove).  It was on those grounds that Atty. Gen. Ashcroft recused himself from the case and implemented the special prosecutor investigation under Fitzgerald's stewardship.  http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0533,waasweb1,66861,2.html

So Fitzgerald was appointed to specifically find liars and obstructionists corrupting the ongoing investigation and you are criticizing him for doing his job.

Whatever the reason Fitzgerald chose for not charging someone with the crime is secondary to the fact that Libby broke the law repeatedly by lying to the feds.  Whether someone's charged or convicted of an underlying crime is irrelevant to that conclusion.  Libby's lies killed the investigation and it is very likely that someone in the Bush administration got away with a crime thanks to the Code of Silence...Omerta.

If the criminal justice system in this country adopted the principle of your defense of Libby, we could kiss off conspiracy crimes and RICO crimes.

Laws against lying and obstructing justice to insulate others from culpability would be rendered quaint.

[Dos Equis]

We don't know b/c Libby's lying killed the investigation.  Libby lied about his own leaking and then lied about the source of whom provided him with the material information.

Count 1 - Obstruction of Justice: Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

Count 2 - Making a False Statement: Libby intentionally gave FBI agents false information about a conversation he had with NBC’s Tim Russert regarding Valerie Plame Wilson, who is married to Joseph Wilson.

Count 4 - Perjury: Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about a conversation he had with Russert.

Count 5 - Perjury: Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA employment.

It is impossible to investigate anyone if a prosecutor does not have the power to prosecute for perjury or obstruction.  You know that.  What good is an investigation if the accused and all materially connected witnesses lie to the prosecutor?

Fitzgerald's predecessors in the case already suspected that a number of officials lied to federal investigators (including Karl Rove).  It was on those grounds that Atty. Gen. Ashcroft recused himself from the case and implemented the special prosecutor investigation under Fitzgerald's stewardship.  http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0533,waasweb1,66861,2.html

So Fitzgerald was appointed to specifically find liars and obstructionists corrupting the ongoing investigation and you are criticizing him for doing his job.

Whatever the reason Fitzgerald chose for not charging someone with the crime is secondary to the fact that Libby broke the law repeatedly by lying to the feds.  Whether someone's charged or convicted of an underlying crime is irrelevant to that conclusion.  Libby's lies killed the investigation and it is very likely that someone in the Bush administration got away with a crime thanks to the Code of Silence...Omerta.

If the criminal justice system in this country adopted the principle of your defense of Libby, we could kiss off conspiracy crimes and RICO crimes.

Laws against lying and obstructing justice to insulate others from culpability would be rendered quaint.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws prohibiting perjury and obstruction of justice.  What I have a problem with is prosecuting people for perjury and obstruction of justice if there was no underlying crime.  You think the issue of an underlying crime is irrelevant.  I don't.  I had the same problem with the Clinton investigation.  Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, which was relevant to nothing.  I see the same kind of issue here.  There is a lot of talk about someone breaking the law, but no evidence that a specific person broke the law.

And no I don't believe a person should be able to lie under oath with impunity. 

You keep saying Libby killed the investigation.  I don't understand your position.  Help me understand this.  Are you saying no one else has information about the alleged crime that some unnamed person committed?   

[Decker]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws prohibiting perjury and obstruction of justice.  What I have a problem with is prosecuting people for perjury and obstruction of justice if there was no underlying crime.  You think the issue of an underlying crime is irrelevant.  I don't.  I had the same problem with the Clinton investigation.  Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, which was relevant to nothing.  I see the same kind of issue here.  There is a lot of talk about someone breaking the law, but no evidence that a specific person broke the law.

And no I don't believe a person should be able to lie under oath with impunity. 

You keep saying Libby killed the investigation.  I don't understand your position.  Help me understand this.  Are you saying no one else has information about the alleged crime that some unnamed person committed?   

The underlying crime is irrelevant to the finding of Libby's perjury and obstruction.  You'd have to ask Mr. Libby why he lied if there was no criminal wrongdoing.  Why risk years in prison?  You tell me.

The crime was obvious:  someone outed an undercover WMD spy in a time of war.

What was not obvious was the criminal:  who did it?

The investigation into the criminal's identity was obstructed by Libby's lies.  Reread the first indictment:
Count 1 - Obstruction of Justice: Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

All subsequent leakers, including Armitage, got their info as a result of Libby's actions.  "Ari Fleischer testified during Scooter’s trial that Libby told him over lunch about Plame working for the CIA, and Karl Rove reportedly told a similar story to the grand jury that indicted Libby. Meanwhile, Armitage and ... Dan Bartlett both found out through a State Department memo that was produced in response to questions that Libby had asked a top department official about Wilson’s trip to guy."  http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/14/why-the-trail-of-plame-leads-to-or-through-scooter-libby/

The question is, who gave Libby the classified info? 

[Dos Equis]

The underlying crime is irrelevant to the finding of Libby's perjury and obstruction.  You'd have to ask Mr. Libby why he lied if there was no criminal wrongdoing.  Why risk years in prison?  You tell me.

The crime was obvious:  someone outed an undercover WMD spy in a time of war.

What was not obvious was the criminal:  who did it?

The investigation into the criminal's identity was obstructed by Libby's lies.  Reread the first indictment:
Count 1 - Obstruction of Justice: Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

All subsequent leakers, including Armitage, got their info as a result of Libby's actions.  "Ari Fleischer testified during Scooter’s trial that Libby told him over lunch about Plame working for the CIA, and Karl Rove reportedly told a similar story to the grand jury that indicted Libby. Meanwhile, Armitage and ... Dan Bartlett both found out through a State Department memo that was produced in response to questions that Libby had asked a top department official about Wilson’s trip to guy."  http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/14/why-the-trail-of-plame-leads-to-or-through-scooter-libby/

The question is, who gave Libby the classified info? 

That is the $64 question.  There was a finite group of people in Libby's circle.  What is stopping them from questioning everyone in Libby's inner circle? 

[Straw Man]

That is the $64 question.  There was a finite group of people in Libby's circle.  What is stopping them from questioning everyone in Libby's inner circle? 

The answer is Cheney - Libby's own notes confirm this and it's one of the main reason why he got popped and the others (specifically Rove slipped through).

Libby lied even though he knew that the prosecutors had his notes and also knew that his (Libby's) testimony was contradicted by other people in the White House and various reporters involved in the case.   Libby took the fall because he was most likely promised that he would never see the inside of a jail cell.   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/12/AR2005111201085_pf.html

And they had something that law enforcement officials would later describe as their "guidebook" for the opening phase of the investigation: the daily, diary-like notes compiled by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, that chronicled crucial events inside the White House in the weeks before the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was publicly disclosed.

The investigators had much of this information before they sat down with Libby on Oct. 14, 2003, and first heard from him what prosecutors now allege was a demonstrably false version of what happened. Libby said that, when he told other reporters about the CIA operative and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, he believed he had first learned the information from Tim Russert of NBC News and was merely passing along journalistic hearsay. This was an explanation made dubious by Libby's own notes, which showed that he previously had learned about Plame from his boss, Cheney.

In the aftermath of Libby's recent five-count indictment, this curious sequence raises a question of motives that hangs over the investigation: Why would an experienced lawyer and government official such as Libby leave himself so exposed to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?
Libby, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, gave a false story to agents and, later, to a grand jury, even though he knew investigators had his notes, and presumably knew that several of his White House colleagues had already provided testimony and documentary evidence that would undercut his own story. And his interviews with the FBI in October and two appearances before the grand jury in March 2004 came at a time when there were increasingly clear signs that some of the reporters with whom Libby discussed Plame could soon be freed to testify -- and provide starkly different and damning accounts to the prosecutor.

To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability. The vice president is shown by the indictment to be aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA status long before her cover was blown. Even some White House aides privately wonder whether Libby was seeking to protect Cheney from political embarrassment. One of them noted with resignation, "Obviously, the indictment speaks for itself."

[Decker]

The answer is Cheney - Libby's own notes confirm this and it's one of the main reason why he got popped and the others (specifically Rove slipped through).

Libby lied even though he knew that the prosecutors had his notes and also knew that his (Libby's) testimony was contradicted by other people in the White House and various reporters involved in the case.   Libby took the fall because he was most likely promised that he would never see the inside of a jail cell.   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/12/AR2005111201085_pf.html

And they had something that law enforcement officials would later describe as their "guidebook" for the opening phase of the investigation: the daily, diary-like notes compiled by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, that chronicled crucial events inside the White House in the weeks before the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was publicly disclosed.

The investigators had much of this information before they sat down with Libby on Oct. 14, 2003, and first heard from him what prosecutors now allege was a demonstrably false version of what happened. Libby said that, when he told other reporters about the CIA operative and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, he believed he had first learned the information from Tim Russert of NBC News and was merely passing along journalistic hearsay. This was an explanation made dubious by Libby's own notes, which showed that he previously had learned about Plame from his boss, Cheney.

In the aftermath of Libby's recent five-count indictment, this curious sequence raises a question of motives that hangs over the investigation: Why would an experienced lawyer and government official such as Libby leave himself so exposed to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?
Libby, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, gave a false story to agents and, later, to a grand jury, even though he knew investigators had his notes, and presumably knew that several of his White House colleagues had already provided testimony and documentary evidence that would undercut his own story. And his interviews with the FBI in October and two appearances before the grand jury in March 2004 came at a time when there were increasingly clear signs that some of the reporters with whom Libby discussed Plame could soon be freed to testify -- and provide starkly different and damning accounts to the prosecutor.

To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability. The vice president is shown by the indictment to be aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA status long before her cover was blown. Even some White House aides privately wonder whether Libby was seeking to protect Cheney from political embarrassment. One of them noted with resignation, "Obviously, the indictment speaks for itself."

How dare you bring relevant material facts into this discussion!

[Straw Man]

How dare you bring relevant material facts into this discussion!

Don't worry. 

It won't make any difference.