From Sher Zieve in The Conservative Voice:

Question: If Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald brings indictments for non-crimes against members of the Bush/Cheney Administration, will the Dems use him—again—to indict President Bush and/or VP Cheney for additional non-criminal behavior? We’ve already seen Democrat partisan D.A. Ronnie Earle getting away with using bogus documents, and non-criminal charges to indict conservative Rep. Tom DeLay.

Besides, this is the same Fitzgerald who praised the outcome of the Martha Stewart case; the case where prosecutors couldn’t legally charge her with the original (AKA underlying) indictment of “insider trading”. So, the prosecutors “got her” on “lying about it”. I still can’t figure out how she could be convicted of lying about something that she was judged not-guilty-of in the first place. But, it now appears that convictions of selected individuals, for “crimes” that aren’t crimes is the new-and-ever-burgeoning prosecutorial delight of the moment. If this Stalinesque new-and-devolved legal tactic is allowed to continue, everyone could be charged and convicted with multiple non-crimes. The ramifications are staggering. Also, the Clintons were never indicted for lapses of their respective memories. This is another case of, at least in the political arena, only conservatives being prosecuted for that “offense”.

In other words, conservative politicians will be prosecuted for being “political” but, liberal politicos will not. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi was recently found guilty of campaign fraud. Do any of you remember reading anything--anything at all about it in the mainstream press accounts? I didn't think so.

Not only do we now have an activist judicial system that has gone wild but, we also have prosecutors who have gone over the edge. Allowed to continue to charge, prosecute and convict US citizens of crimes that aren’t crimes will more quickly than anything else bring the country to its knees—and lead it to absolute destruction. Keeping the Second Amendment intact was never more important than it is now.

Yikes.

More from Investor's Business Daily:

Whatever fate befalls White House adviser Karl Rove, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and any other administration official caught up in the prosecution over the leaked name of a CIA officer, there's a back story to this case that should not be ignored.

It's about the CIA itself.

This is a story that most of the media will be trying hard not to cover. They share former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's stated desire to see Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "frog-march" Rove out of the White House in handcuffs.

So Congress should leave the media no choice. Hold hearings. Put the CIA on the spot and blow the lid off any politically motivated funny business. Bring some transparency to what has become a very murky issue.

We believe that someone needs to answer the questions raised recently by Joseph F. DiGenova, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel:

Was there a covert operation against the president?

If so, who was behind it?

These aren't the musings of the tinfoil-hat brigade. A sober-minded case can be made that at least some people in the CIA may have acted inappropriately to discredit the administration as a way of salvaging their own reputations after the intelligence debacles of 9-11 and Iraqi WMD.

Yow.

More, from Michael Barone:

The Espionage Act is less narrowly drafted. But it does set out specific things that cannot be disclosed -- ''information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, Navy yard,'' etc. The list does not include identity of CIA agents -- there weren't any in 1917 -- which is why the drafters of the 1982 IIPA felt the need for a new law to protect a very limited class of covert operatives.

So it seems clear to me that an indictment under either of these statutes would be a gross injustice. It is a general principle of law that when the government wants to criminalize acts other than traditional common law crimes like murder or theft, it must set out with great specificity the conduct that is forbidden. To visit the rigors of criminal indictment, trial and punishment on someone who has done nothing that is specifically forbidden is unjust -- the very definition of injustice.

Yowza!