I was glad when I read of the verdict, but reading the story I felt sorry for Liddy who is clearly taking the fall for Cheney.
The article seems quite good to me, but there is an amazing snippet
Cheney was motivated in part by Wilson's erroneous allegation that the CIA had undertaken the mission to Africa solely at the vice president's request.When exactly did Wilson make that allegation ? In his op ed he wrote that he was told that the OVP had expressed interests. I don't recall any mention of Cheney the individual, or the word "solely". Of course Wilson's claim is known to be true, and, indeed, Cheney publicly conceded (refrained from denying) that he personally had expressed interest. It seems to me that even wth a verdict, Journalistic standards of balance require some hint of partial agreement with the convict and some criticism of the victim.
This too is interesting
The case also broke controversial new ground when prosecutors forced journalists to cooperate in a criminal probe.[snip]
By the trial's end, journalists, all but one of whom testified about once-confidential interviews, accounted for 10 of the 19 witnesses to appear at the trial. . Seven of the nine defense witnesses were journalists, including Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, and Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist who was the first journalist to disclose Plame's identity in print. Three of the government's 10 witnesses were reporters.I assume that the one journalist who did not testify about once confidential interviews is Tim Russert (who appealed to the first amendment in an attempt to quash his supoena but who never promised Libby confidentiality). Note 7 or 10 journalists called by the defence and (by my count) 7 of 9 who broke confidentiality. Still only "prosecutors" actions are controversial.
The testimony of witnesses for the defence was all irrelevant to the case (Libby's defence team really had nothing to work with).