Finding Libby Guilty
Joe and Val Ride Scooter
By California Yankee Posted in Law | Scooter Libby — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A federal jury convicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby of obstruction, perjury, and lying to the FBI in the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity.
The conviction of the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney is almost all there is to show after Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent two years and more than $1.5 million investigating the 2003 leak of the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The total reported cost of the investigation would be much greater, but the bean counters didn't include the salaries of FBI agents doing all the investigation's leg work
Plame is the wife of Bush administration critic, career diplomat, senior director for Africa policy for the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, and one-time official in John Kerry's failed presidential campaign.
The Wilsons complained that Plame's identity as a CIA agent was made public in retribution for the opinion piece Joe Wilson wrote for the New York Times in July 2003, nearly three months after the fall of Baghdad. In the Times article, Wilson complained that, on behalf of the CIA, he investigated and found "highly doubtful" the report that Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa in 2002. The famous sixteen words mentioned by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union address. Thus started often refuted but never ending lie that we were "misled" into the War in Iraq.
Read on...
A week after Wilson's article appeared in the Times, Robert Novak wrote that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative and that it was Plame who suggested sending Wilson to Niger. Two months later, after a CIA request, the Justice Department launched a criminal probe into the leak of Plame's identity. After another three months, more than six months after Wilson's article appeared in the Times, Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the leak probe, citing an appearance of conflict of interest, and named Fitzgerald, to take over the investigation.
After a year long legal battle between Fitzgerald and the New York Times, Reporter Judith Miller was jailed by a federal judge for contempt of court. Miller's contempt was her refusal to humor Fitzgerald and testify before the grand jury regarding her source for the information that Plame was a CIA agent. Miller stayed in jail for twelve weeks until her source, Libby, called her in prison and released her from her pledge of confidentiality.
On September 7, 2006, more than three years after Novak published the fact that Plame was a CIA agent, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage publicly acknowledged that he was the source who first revealed Valerie Plame's identity to Novak. The Armitage revelation was not news to Prosecutor Fitzgerald. The prosecutor knew from his first day on the case that Armitage was the one who "leaked" that Plame was a CIA agent.
After Armitage finally came clean, the New York Times questioned the prosecutorial integrity of special counsel Fitzgerald:
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.
Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.
Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.
Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.
Moreover, Mr. Fitzgerald’s effort to find out who besides Mr. Armitage had spoken to reporters provoked a fierce battle over whether reporters could withhold the identities of their sources from prosecutors and resulted in one reporter, Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, spending 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify to a grand jury.
Back to Libby. Prosecutor Fitzgerald, got convictions on four of the five charges he brought against Libby:
Obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative;
Making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;
Perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;
A second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.
Fitzgerald failed to get a conviction on a second count of making a false statement relating to a conversation he had with writer Matt Cooper, formerly of Time magazine.
The prosecutor didn't see fit to charge Armitage, or anyone else with leaking Plame's status as a CIA agent. As the Washington Post editorialized, it turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband:
But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
This tragedy isn't over. Mr. Libby will fight his conviction, first seeking a new trial, then if that fails, by appealing the convictions. Then there is the "civil" suit the Wilsons have brought to harass Mr. Libby and Vice President Cheney. The President's opponents will be able to keep this chapter of the politics of personal destruction going for the rest of the President's term, and beyond.
One other point that needs to be kept in mind as we continue to wallow through this absurd abuse of the legal system.
According to the Washington Post, Wilson's assertions about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information were exposed for the lies that his claims are in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report:
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
[. . .]
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
[. . .]
The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Finally, think about the 25 years in jail faced by Libby, if he is unsuccessful in the efforts undo his convictions. Compare that to the slap on the wrist received by former National Security advisor to President Clinton, Sandy Berger.
Berger stole classified documents and lied about the theft. The Justice Department negotiated a guilty plea to a misdemeanor, a $10,000 fine and loss of security clearance for three years for Mr. Berger. A settlement which was so lenient it was rejected by the Judge Deborah Robinson and replaced by a $56,000 fine, two years probation, 100 hours of community service and loss of security clearance.
Then there is former President Clinton who was disbarred from the Supreme Court, had his Arkansas law license for five years, and paid a $25,000 fine for some of his lies.
It hardly seems just that Mr. Libby should face decades in prison and more than a million dollars in fines if his convictions stand. Yes he was convicted. Convicted for statements made in the course of a two year investigation that should have been over the day prosecutor Fitzgerald took it over.
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | Libby Guilty — Comments (34) »
Finding Libby Guilty 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
However, I want to stand up for Fitzgerald a bit.
He is one tough bug who digs and digs to find where the evidence leads. For Libby, Cheney, and Bush supporters this prosecution might seem political, but Fitz. is just as determined when ripping into the corruption rampant in Democratic Chicago and Springfield.
Libby lied and got caught. I always thought there were bigger fish to fry, but evidently Fitzgerald didn't figure he could get a conviction of the others.
>>>>I always thought there were bigger fish to fry, but evidently Fitzgerald didn't figure he could get a conviction of the others.
If there were bigger fish to fry, Fitzgerald's job was to put on the cooking apron and fire up the stove. Choosing to nail Libby, just because he could get a conviction, is no better than sexually molesting a passed out member of the opposite gender just because you can 'get some.'
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
was your shining knight looking and digging for? He already knew who outed Plame, knew it before he even started. Knew it was not a "partisan", therefore could not have come from the White House. So what was he looking for? Why would it be important to know who else, after her "cover" had already been blown by someone else, confirmed what was already public knowledge? How does that help, or prove, anything? Please enlighten me...
That was to find who, if any one, violated the Outing of a Covert Agent law. Because of the nature of a special prosecutor, which is similar to the old independant prosecutor, there is no boss to tell him to keep to his narrow job if the SP wants to dig and dig and dig.
It was not Fitz job to find anything but who outed plame. That ignores the question of her covertness, which for discussions sake I ignore. Bush had th epower to terminate the investigation after it was determined that Armitage was the leak. It is a shame that Fitz did not take the high road. It is also a shame that Bush did not do so as well, regardless of the political fallout.
-------
America is the world's last best hope.
when the defense chose to allow a "former journalist" on the jury. I'm sure, in a credibility contest between fellow journalists and a government official, and a Republican one at that, the former journalist will side with the Republican government official. Right. And this "former journalist" would never, ever in deliberations tell his fellow jurors how conscientious and non-partisan all "journalists" are, and how they are, oh, say obsessive about "accurate" notes. The best the defense could hope for, with that clown on the jury, was that someone would be a holdout. It makes me wonder who they struck, since no defense attorney with a brain would leave a former Washington Post "journalist" on this jury. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a worse juror for the defense. I don't care how the evidence was presented, there is no way that "journalist" was ever going to vote not guilty, especially given his "fall guy" comments, which show that he wasn't focused on the trial, he was focused on what he thought the administration was responsible for. Sometimes, in trial, the facts matter little; it matters more what kind of jury you wind up with.
is that fact that Joseph Wilson, IV is a self-important politico married to a CIA desk jockey. The public might miss this and the Democrats won't do anything to educate them further.
As a RedState 'outsider' who visits often, I especially appreciate points 5 and 10. There is too much hypocrisy on both sides, too much tit-for-tat, too much political blood-letting, and too little rational thought. Of course the corollary of item 5 is that any conservative who called for impeachment of Bill Clinton and who called for severe punishment for Sandy Berger who now calls for a pardon for Mr. Libby is also guilty of hypocrisy.
I frankly don't know how to split the difference. Political arguments these days aren't about rational thought - they are about winning at all costs. I suppose the thing I regret most about the decline of political thought in the last 30 or so years (that being the time I've been paying attention) has been the death of nuance. Partisans tend to see the world in black and white, good and bad, usually using one-off incidents and straw-man arguments to 'prove' the unquestionable correctness of their side. RedStaters are just as guilty of this as Dkos'ers are (no offense, you have some very excellent writers and thinkers here), since both sites are essentially echo chambers.
I am an independent specifically because I don't believe that either party is better than the other. Both are corrupt, lazy, and impotent. Just as I don't want a Democratic congress with a Democratic president, the Republicans proved that a Republican congress with a Republican president is a really bad idea. For me, I hope for the return of nuance, a return to divided government. Call me out on it if you must, but I thought that a Republican majority in Congress with a Democratic president worked pretty well right up to the impeachment fiasco.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic facts. The three situations are completely different. Both Berger and Clinton ADMITTED (I could be mistaken about Berger) their perjury - unless they were lying when they admitted it (an unusual concept, but I suppose anything is possible, particularly with Slick Willie). Libby has gone to great pains and expense DENYING that he is guilty of anything - and your anointing of the jury as all knowing and all seeing is naive at best. Simply because a jury said something happened does not make it so - (nor does a jury's acquittal mean that something did not happen) juries, and yes even prosecutors, are human and make mistakes. You say you are convinced, because the jury was convinced, that Libby is guilty. I'm not, and neither are many others. If we were on the jury, and the case turned the other way, I wonder if you would be so enthralled with the jury system...
Nevertheless, calling for a pardon is NOT hypocrisy. Jury verdict notwithstanding, it cannot be claimed that Libby's guilt has been established beyond ANY doubt.
that Bill Clinton should not have been impeached AND that Mr. Libby should be pardoned.
However, I would also wager that if it were a Democratic aide that were in Mr. Libby's shoes, a large majority of the people on this site would be lauding the jury's verdict as 'obviously' correct and that the people on Dkos would be crying foul. In essence, if the roles were reversed, the reactions would be reversed as well. People have such short memories.
Like I said, I'm an independent for good reason. I guess you might say that partisans rely on situational ethics a little too hard. You also might call it hypocrisy.
1) You charge that anyone who says Libby should be pardoned, who also felt Clinton and Berger should be punished, is guilty of hypocrisy.
2) I respond that the situations are different, because Clinton and Berger admitted their guilt, while Libby maintained his innocence, and that you were too deferential to the jury.
3) You respond with, "Well, if it were a democrat, you all would be praising the jury. So it's hypocrisy." This is entirely ridiculous:
To make the situation entirely apposite, you would have to find 1) a former Republican President who admitted perjury who was not only not criticized, but defended by all or nearly all the Republican establishment; 2) a former Republican National Security Advisor who snuck into the National Archives, secreted out documents, lost or destroyed some or all of them, lied about it, then struck a deal with Democrat DOJ officials who let him off the hook, who was then supported and defended by all or virtually all the Republican establishment; 3) a former Republican ambassador sent on a mission by the CIA via his former super secret agent wife to specifically debunk the Democrat President's foreign policy; 4) get the former Republican ambassador to lie about the genesis of his trip, and his findings, in the op-ed page of the NY Times, and have all the MSM pick this up and trumpet how the Democrat administration is full of liars; 5) have a marginal Democrat within the administration tell a reporter about how the former Rep. ambassador's wife sent him on the trip and that his super secret agent wife works for the CIA; 6) when the info in #5 is printed, Congressional Republicans feign outrage and demand a DOJ investigation of the super secret agent's outing; 7) the MSM actually listens to #6 and falls in line, and makes the same demand; 8) the Democrat DOJ learns the truth of the "leak", that it is not actionable and it was not a partisan who did the leaking - and it then recuses itself and appoints an independent prosecutor and gives him uprecedented power to pursue the leak, with no oversight - oh, and he holds a grudge against the Democrat VP's chief of staff over an old case; 9) the special prosecutor, who knows he has no underlying crime, nevertheless commences a laborious investigation into, well, whatever he wants to; 10) the Democrat VP's chief of staff testifies that he was told by reporters about the Republican ambassador's wife; 11) MSM reporters wilfully engage in the attempt to trash the Democrat administration, and testify that their recollections are different; 12) the Democrat appointed prosecutor thinks this is a crime, and not only charges the VP's chief of staff, he hints that it is really the administration that he is after, even though he knows the administration was not responsible for the initial leak; 13) the prosecutor brings the case in a Federal Judicial District that voted 92% Republican in the last election; 14) the trial is held, and only one witness maintains any consistency in his testimony, and the judge refuses to allow the defense to impeach him with prior statements that are contrary to his trial testimony; 15) the jury comes back guilty, and the only juror talking is a former aide to Jerry Falwell, and registered Republican, who in explaining the guilty verdict declares that the VP's aide was a "fall guy" for someone else.
If I claim, under those circumstances, that the prosecution was "obviously correct", you may loudly brand me a hypocrite. Until then, try addressing the obvious differences that I mentioned, and which you completely ignored.
I'm not really up for a long argument so I will let it go after this but will commend you for your vigorous defense of your point of view.
But I will reply and then let you have the last word.
First, in my reply to the original post, I was only stating the corrolary to item 5 of the original post. If you accept item 5, then I would posit that the corrolary must also be true. If you do not accept item 5 as being true then I can understand your rejection of its corrolary.
Second, I will agree that the situations are not identical, but since nearly all situations are unique, it is unlikely that two would ever be found to be identical, particularly to the level of detail that you assert. Therefore the argument that lack of a completely duplicate scenario is proof of the falsehood of my thesis is a straw-man argument.
Third, it's ok with me if you think it ridiculous that I think that both sides engage in one-sided debate with a heavy helping of situational ethics. I don't posit that as a fact. It is an opinion - my opinion. I have arrived at it from 30+ years of watching politics with interest. I understand you disagree with it. But claiming that without identical situations I have no logical basis for that opinion is disengenuous.
Last, just because Mr. Libby proclaimed his innocence and defended himself is not proof of innocence. If it were, we could just take everyone at their word and do away with the court system. I personally believe that the jury reasoned their way through this (and spent a lot of time at it) and probably came up with an appropriate verdict. They brought in a mixed verdict, which indicates to me that they thoughtfully considered each charge. However I will concede your point that being found guilty is not necessarily absolute proof of guilt.
All this being said, I will let you have the last word. Thanks for the debate.
here's the "last word":
1) I don't follow you here. The OP says anyone who thinks Clinton perjury was OK, and now calls for Libby's scalp, is a hypocrite. I can't really tell what you think is the reverse of this that must be accepted - unless you are demanding that the jury verdict be accepted as truth. I reject that notion. Juries don't establish truth. They simply decide what they think is correct, and often on baseless and ridiculous things - that's why most cases settle - no one can really be sure what a jury is going to do. I really don't know if he lied or not - it's a he said/he said case, and I'm simply not convinced. Why does that make me a hypocrite?
2) My argument isn't that the situations must be identical - it's that these situations are so completely different that they render comparisons worthless. If we're going to point out that they are similar, how are they? They both involved lying? My ten year old lied about finishing his homework last night - I didn't ask Fitz to prosecute him (didn't even take away his dinner)- am I a hypocrite for that, too? The context in which the cases came matters, and the admissions also matter.
3) I said no such thing. Of course there are echo chambers on both sides. But you paint with too broad a brush - and I don't believe RS is an echo chamber.
4) Of course his protests of innocence don't prove him innocent. But they at least allow for the possibility. Neither Clinton nor Berger have that option.
I generally don't comment much around here, but I am an avid reader. I'll be watching for you...good luck on your stay.
is there anyone here who would like to argue that a role reversal would have no impact on their analysis? That if it were a Democratic aide to a Democratic VP that was indicted and convicted that you would post a defense of a pardon from a Democratic president? That you would denounce the prosecutor for over-reaching?
My point is not to denigrate anyone or pick a fight. This is a conservative site and I understand that and still come here frequently, mostly because of my respect for the directors and the many contributors who I enjoy reading (and if this is considered a thread-jack, then I apologize and will give up on the line of argument).
But going to RedState or Dkos is like listening to one-half of a good college debate match, or an interesting court case. Conservative and liberals alike argue their points as if ALL of the facts are on their side and the other side is a complete farce.
The reason this concerns me is that this is what has polarized the political debate in this country. If each side denigrates the opposing side as being complete idiots, then it seems that compromise becomes out of the question and winning becomes everything.
That being said, the fact that I can post a dissenting view without getting flamed mercilessly speaks well of the people who frequent this site and those who run it. I think you have it over Dkos on that point.
with the above voluminous response is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a role reversal here. There is simply no way the MSM would ever marshall forces to take down a Democrat president. And while I cannot speak for everyone, I have seen the long end of far too many misguided prosecutions to ever take glee over someone else's political prosecution.
Surely you jest. The media had nothing to do with the echo-chamber that was the Clinton impeachment? Nothing?
The Media MADE that story. Go back and do a LN search for the time period. Its flat out disgusting. The Media reports what sells. President having sex in the oval office = lots of newspapers being sold and ratings through roof.
Both cases are out of line. In both cases the media was vastly irresponsible and made for far worse situations. In both situations - any objective person living on the defensive side would feel that the media was 100 percent responsible for everything - would feel that the media was 'trying to take down the executive branch'
There is a corollary. And everyone here knows damn well that if the roles were reversed, those on the right would be up in arms when the word 'pardon' was uttered.
...with the Clinton impeachment, are you really contending that the media was in the lead in promoting the charge? That it had operatives out seeking to prove that Clinton lied? That Republicans would never have pursued impeachment if not led on by the MSM? That, somehow, Clinton would never have engaged in the lying if the media did not report the story? The media reported it, no doubt - it had everything that sold papers - but the media did not help create Clinton's sex drive, nor did it goad him into lying about it, any more than Libby can blame the media for what he said to the grand jury and the FBI.
The difference here is that it is the media in the Libby case that has provided the basis for conviction. Clinton cannot blame his lying and philandering on the media. Yes, the media reported it. But the MSM completely created Libby's problems. Libby's "lying" (and I put it in quotes for the reasons cited in my other posts) can only be established by believing the media. And exactly what is it that sells about "VP's Chief of Staff said he learned of CIA agent's name through reporters, when they say it isn't true"? How can that compare to "President getting his freak on in the oval office with intern?" If you don't see a difference there, I can't help you.
Finally, I'm sure that there are many on the right who would scream if the situation were reversed and "pardon" were mentioned. I would not be one of them, again for reasons I cited above. I don't think that it would be as widespread as you believe, but I doubt we will reach agreement on that one...
The MEDIA will sellout their own mothers for a juicy headline.
Bill Clinton was not saved by the MSM. IMO, the American People didn't want the trauma---for ourselves---over a guy lying about sex. Maybe we secretly hoped that Hillary would chop off Bill's willie in retribution but we didn't want to disrupt all of our lives for the First Couple's problems.
If the people had any interest, the MSM would have gladly been there to cheer them on, and make the fortune that comes with capturing our attention, ADVERTISING DOLLARS.
...where they may. Libby was charged, tried, and convicted. If one thought Clinton deserved to be removed from office for his crime--and I did--complaints about Libby's fate ring hollow. If he's successful on appeal, great. If not, let him serve some time, and hope it has some in terrorem impact. Surely there are more productive things to talk about than one, well-represented felon and the cruel hand of fate?
that an administrations aide to the VP be held accountable for lying under oath? Regardless of what side you are on, any politician that is crooked or lies under oath should be dealt with.
as long as you realize that the effective result of this is that no administration official will ever again cooperate with a grand jury.
"I'm sorry, but I simply don't remember the events well enough to risk being charged with perjury by an overzealous prosecutor."
That's what Libby should have said, and what any future people in his position will say. Of course, the rule of law suffers in this case, but nothing's perfect.
will result in.
The reality is that Fitz should have closed shop the day he got into office.
Once he determined that A Armitage was the source and B whether Plame was or wasn't a covert agent under the law, he should have written a report saying such, and left.
Instead he decided to investigate something that was already a known-why? Because he wanted to justify his existence with some kind of conviction, so he basically went perjury shopping, and found a taker.
So now, the result is going to be that in future wise officials will just refuse to cooperate. They can sit in the chair and just say "I don't recall" over and over and over again.
I don't understand this. The admin. gets absolutely smeared in the press (lie after lie) by Wilson & Co. and they just sit back and take it. Joe Wilson is demanding that Cheney APOLOGIZE to Plame over something that never happened. I'd LOVE to see Cheney just tell him to STICK IT.
I'm not saying that Libby didn't lie and maybe deserves some kind of punishment, but this has nothing to do with Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson and they really need to put this to rest.
Why not just call a press conference with either Vice Pres. Cheney or Tony Snow and refute these lies? Someone needs to put these loose nuts in their place. I'm getting really tired of this passive administration that I voted twice for.
1. When ever the independent prosecutor law and now the Special Prosecutor tactic are used, it is always a political question. That is because, for proprietary reasons, the administration feels that it should not direct the investigation. That results in a person not having a boss. Sure, the President can terminate the investigation once it begins but that is even more subject to political grandstanding.
2. The special prosecutor's entire job is to prosecute for an alleged violation of the law. The investigation should be as narrow as possible but that is not required. Unfortunately, in DC there is nothing like blood in the water and this Special Prosecutor showed that he was interested more in politics than justice.
3. The only person that could have been charged with outing Plame would have been Armitage. Plame though was not covert. So, even if he discussed her name and identity no law was broken. Or at least that is what Fitzpatrick concluded. The discretion that Fitzpatrick used is inherent in the nature of a prosecutor but he abused it.
4. The punishment should fit the crime and person that committed the crime. As a criminal defense attorney I can safely say that this is a lower level offense. I am not saying obstruction of justice, perjury, and lying to Investigators is not serious. I am saying that relatively speaking it is on the low end. In my experience most US Attorneys use these types of charges against a person that was not as cooperative as they could have been but there are no other charges that can be proven. Cynical. Yes.
5. Any liberal that did not support the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath that is now calling for the head of Libby or anyone else is hypocritical. There is no question that Clinton lied. He testified under oath and later admitted that it was not true. Any liberal calling for Libby’s head and did not call for even more severe punishment of Berger for his national security damaging crimes is even worse than hypocritical.
6. Any conservative that feels that Libby is not guilty should post factual evidence to show why they do not think he should have been found guilty. Conservatives deal with facts not wishes. To do otherwise does the conservative movement harm. One fact that needs to be dealt with is that the DOJ is not interested in justice most of the time when it comes to high profile and politically charged cases. The DOJ is more interested in comporting with and receiving adoration by the elite media. No other conclusion can be reached when comparing the Berger and Libby matters.
7. The defense of Libby may have made a huge tactical mistake to not have Libby testify. To just say that he was forgetful is a hard case to sell. If that was the case, Libby should have testified at trial. While the jury cannot use his silence against him, he did himself a disservice by not testifying. Clearly, after hearing some of the comments by some of the jurors, if he had testified saying that he made a dumb mistake and that he never intended to thwart justice, he would have had a greater chance at victory.
8. Wanting a lenient or severe sentence will be an opinion or value based upon your view of Libby. It should not reflect support or disdain of the Bush Administration. A person should be sentenced for the crime he has been convicted of. The Judge should consider the defendant's actions, character, record, and punitive and rehabilitative needs.
It is clear that Libby's criminal record is non-existent. Under the sentencing guidelines, he is likely to receive a lower sentence. Be it probation or a short time of incarceration.
9. Calling for the Bush administration to pardon Libby is foolish. If the Bush administration was willing to stand up for a person that actually did not commit a crime than it should have done so before the trial. By pardoning Libby now, especially before the appeal process is through, will harm the credibility of the administration because it will show disregard for the jury process and deliberation. Since GWB did not call to task Clinton for his pardon of Marc Rich and others I would not be surprised though if he does pardon Libby. Bush did a disservice to both Libby and the American people by not reining in Fitzpatrick. He also did a disservice for not directing the DOJ to more vigorously prosecute Berger, a person that truly damaged this country.
10. I do think it is hypocritical of the Libs to call for a severe sentence when most of them celebrated Clinton's perjury. The clear double standard is depressing but not shocking or surprising.
-------
America is the world's last best hope.