Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message

My reading comprehension must be seriously damaged, could you
point out where in the article that it was implied, or stated,
that she set up the whole scenario herself?

All I saw was the judges ruling that it was normal for persons
in high political office to discuss such things with the press,
and that the case was out of the court's jurisdiction.

How is it that everyone forgot who actually named her? Or that the
prosecutor was told early in the investigation who it was but went after
Libby anyway? Or that she was working at a desk because she had been outed
years before, so the law in question didn't apply? Or that her husband, who
actually was working overseas outed himself when he published his story in
the NYT instead of submitting a written report to his superiors? Or that he
claimed to have submitted a report and the 9-11 Commission determined that
he lied?

I'm not forgetting any of that, I just asked how Jim came to the
conclusion he did from reading the article he posted. I read it,
and my synopsis is above. I may have missed something in the article,
and was asking to be clued in.

-Chuck