[FreedomPoster]

Good luck. I don't think even Fitzgerald could summarize it.

[Paloma_55]

Her husband lied
A member of the media went to the administration and mentioned that his wife was a CIA agent
A different member of the media noted a comment claiming that she was a CIA agent
A special prosecutor was called for to investigate the latter
The witch hunt yielded nothing
but perhaps...perhaps, a case can be made that someone who forgot a conversation of two years ago intentionally failed to remember it.

Got it?

[dirtboy]

Here's the problem.

Grand jury testimony is supposed to be secret.

Therefore, any revealation of what is going on in the grand jury has to be from an anonymous source or else they're going to jail.

However, you cannot tell a real anonymous source with actual information from a bogus anonymous source that the reporter made up. So you have no idea if the latest article based on an anonymous source is factual or pure BS.

So we're all just speculating.

[pleikumud]

Read the latest copy of The Weekly Standard Magazine, which has an article about it. www.weeklystandard.com

[Itaintwhy]

I think this Stephen Hayes Weekly Standard article wraps things up quite nicely:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6217&R=C74D314E5

[Misty Memory]

This is actually a pretty decent summary... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Where can I find a brief summary on the exact points of this Plame case?

Carefully review the following image...

[John Valentine]

This Victoria Toensing analysis in Human Events Online pretty much sums it up. And, this is the woman who authored the law that was supposedly broken regarding "outing" a CIA "agent". It's worth a read.

http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=9742

[the Real fifi]

This is the very best source..start by hitting the Timeline on the right..then go to any topic for more details-- http://justoneminute.typepad.com/

[Enchante]

Wolfstar, freeper extraordinaire, still has one of the best overviews (from 2 years ago):


http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993741/posts

[USS Alaska]

Rooster,

Ever hear of google?

[zeestephen]

rooster,

There are two essential articles to read on this.

(1) Stephen Hayes - "The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons" - from The Weekly Standard - this will provide you a great historical overview

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp

(2) Victoria Toensing - "The White House's Legal Katrina" - from Human Events Online - this will provide a great legal overview

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9742

[Air Force Brat]

Well - I'm no expert, but here's what I understand (trying to be as neutral as possible):

1. Wilson goes to Niger to look into yellowcake issue. There is much controversy over who sent him and why.

2. Apparently of the opinion the Administration hadn't been accurate in its claims about yellowcake, Wilson writes an opinion piece in a major newspaper claiming to set the record straight (I don't remember where, but I think it may have been NYT or WaPo).

3. Bob Novak writes an article revealing that Wilson's wife works for the CIA. There is much controversy about whether this already was publicly known and what her exact status at the agency was.

4. The CIA requests that the DOJ look into the background on Novak's article to see if any laws were broken.

5. Ashcroft recuses himself and some underling at DOJ (don't remember who) appoints Fitzgerald to look into it. There is much controversy over whether Fitzgerald is an honest prosecutor or a partisan hack.

6. Fitzgerald has asked numerous journalists and administration staff to testify before the grand jury. It turns out that the testimony indicates several contacts between the White House staff and various reporters. There is much controversy over who told who what and when. I suspect this is a major part of Fitzgerald's work - trying to compare stories in an attempt to ferret out what actually happened.

7. Because of her unwillingness to testify and reveal sources, Judith Miller spent a few months in prison. There is much controversy over whether her source(s) had given her clearance to testify or not, and whether that clearance was voluntary or given under duress.

8. Eventually, Judith Miller agrees to testify, provides additional notes, and this triggers a series of further questions and testimony by various people, including administration staff.

Again - trying to be as neutral as possible - the key issues seem to be:

1. Who sent Wilson and why?

2. Was Plame's revealing Plame's employment at the CIA a crime?

3. Was Plame a covert operative (this directly bears on question 2)?

4. Who, if anyone, is telling the truth about who spoke to whom and when?

5. Is anyone guilty of obstruction of justice?

6. Does any of this really rise to the level of deserving prosecution?

I have to say I don't know if anyone other than Fitzgerald (and possibly not even him) can fully answer those questions. I think we're all hoping for the best, though.