She even goes on to criticize Ashcroft, and for a moment I thought that she would be calling for Bush to be impeached (since Bush too let the trial proceed).

Toensing ignores evidence that Plame was covert.  Isikoff & Corn highlight in the book "Plame" the covert work Plame did for the CIA in Jordan in 2002.

Toensing should know that the investigation was about leaking to reporters (and not just to Novak).  The fact that Armitage leaked Plame's CIA affiliation to Novak does not mean that the investigation should be closed.  Incidentally a few days after his column appeared, and before there was calls for this investigation, Novak said that two administration officials came to him and gave him the name.

When Fitzgerald was assigned to the case, the FBI suspected Libby of lying and covering up.  And yet Toensing says that Fitzgerald should have closed the investigation on the first day!

And finally, in her smear piece, Toensing says that Fitzgerald made a factual assertion that turned out wrong.  Fitzgerald said then that "Libby was the first govt official known to have disclosed Plame's CIA affiliation".  That was true at that time.

Toensing charges the CIA with a conspiracy.  I guess the CIA knew that based on their referral, Libby would commit perjury several months down the line!

The charges made by Toensing against Wilson are the old talking points which have been repeatedly recycled.  We know that Wilson was sent to answer the VP's questions.  Evidence introduced in the Libby trial also supports this.  Wilson had already gone to Niger earlier on a CIA mission, and Wilson had the necessary qualifications (and the ironies of all in this adminstration where Elizabeth Cheney is appointed a deputy secretary in the State Dept without any mid east experience).

If Toensing wants to prosecute the other administration officials who leaked, and the media which was complicit with the Bush administration, I'd say please go for it.

And finally one question for Ms Toensing - if she is the ultimate authority on the IIPA statute and knows that Plame was not covert on the basis of not being stationed (a word which is not mentioned in the IIPA statute that she claims she helped write) abroad for five years - Why did she not state in Oct 2003 that the IIPA statute could not have been violated?  The Washington Post would have bent backwards to publish her story then - as they are doing now.  

Why did she not tell Libby in advance of his FBI testimony that the IIPA statute was not violated, and that he should tell the investigators that the IIPA statute was not violated, and that his testimony was not relevant.

Whatever they use in all the jails and prisons where cattle-prods are not used.  Which, legally speaking, means virtually every incarceration faciliy in the United States.