Scooter Libby convicted by jury that did not know what he was accused of

This article [from yesterday morning] has gotten lost in the Libby spin:

Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.

. . . .

In their questions, which were released Tuesday morning, jurors seemed confused about what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was alleging. Were prosecutors saying Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA by the time of his FBI interview, jurors asked, or does the government believe Libby's account of the Cooper conversation was untrue?

The jurors listened to the entire trial without knowing what the prosecutors had accused Libby of. This confusion was reported yesterday - the day that the verdict was announced - day ten (10) of deliberations.

This is a case where the prosecutors convicted a man for no reason other than political considerations. Wilson/Plame can now point to something concrete that came of the scandal that they invented and flogged over a period of three years.

As Ann Coulter wrote last month:

So why is there a trial [in the Libby case]? Because there is no penalty for using the threat of imprisonment as a political weapon against conservatives. Ask Tom DeLay or Rush Limbaugh.

If Libby were a Democrat, we would know the sexual proclivities of everyone in Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office, Judith Miller would be portrayed as a "stalker," Tim Russert's cat would be dead, and the public would know about every toupee at MSNBC.

Republicans don't have to kill cats to bestir themselves to defend their own from rank partisan persecution. But it never happens.

People who attack conservatives never have to worry about their own dirty laundry coming out. All they have to worry about is whether People magazine will use a good picture of them in its "Sexiest Man Alive" issue.

emphasis added.