Redstate

Fitzmas no more!

And on Monday when Alito/Luttig is announced, and the base boils over with joy, this administration starts over.

Tooooo bad moonbats!

Sounds like it's all over.

The guy spends 2 years and a ton of money and the only indictments are for alleged lying about what happened even though what happened was not a crime. These Martha Stewart types of investigations need to stop. It can be assumed that if a prosecutor setup a GJ and "investigated" someones family reunion picknick, 2 years earlier, he could indict some participant(s) on these type of charges. This is an embarrassment to the justice system.  

I wouldn't say that.  Fitzgerald will have to close down this grand jury, but he could request that another one be empaneled, read them the testimony, and start all over again.  And five counts is a lot -- he may yet be hoping for a further capitulation from Libby to implicate Rove, or someone else.  This is probably just the beginning.

I hope I'm wrong, but what are the odds that Fitzgerald is going after Libby in an attempt to get him to roll over on others in the White House?

That seems to be the M.O. of a lot of successful prosecutors.

My favourite comment from DKurse, who are disappointed:

-----------------------------------------

Don't worry (none / 0)

Orthodox Fitzmas is coming in two weeks.

--------------------------------------

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/10/28/125013/27/64#64

Funny!

Looks like Fitz has leased office space for the next 2 years and sounds like an announcement coming up about panneling a new GJ.

Rove is still in jeopardy.

Not confirmed, but that's what I'm hearing. Should find out in the next couple of hours.

Gotta admit, that's pretty darn funny!

Are perjury and obstruction in a WH advisor serious or not?  They used to be.  

Conservatives must stand for the rule of law, or they stand for nothing.

It's ironic (to me, anyway) that you posted this just above a post titled "PSST, CNN! Your Bias Is Showing". I was in the lunchroom at work where CNN HN plays constantly. During the half hour before they broke the news of the Libby indictment, they were reporting their speculations of it, while showing Rove and Libby on a split screen. (Why show Rove when reporting a Libby indictment?) They interviewed an attorney who made a claim along the lines that Libby could get out of this if he would just assist against Cheney, but because of loyalty he would take the fall. Later, the same attorney admitted that if Cheney told Libby about Plame, but did not expect Libby to leak it, then Cheney did nothing wrong. (Funny, I thought that Libby was not being indicted for leaking Plame, but for obstruction of justice and perjury.)

They also parrotted Wilson's line about Plame being leaked as retaliation against him for blowing their yellowcake story.

CNN seemed to imply that Cheney and Rove were guilty as hell of something, but that Libby would take the fall.

Of the 22-pages of indictments, here.

You can except full throated calls for impeachment hearings of Bush over the next several months. People are already connecting the dots to Bush, Libby, Rove and  Cheney. Who needs facts when you have a good imagination?

The good news is the Dems are going to run Hillary in 08. Hillary the only first lady ever to come under criminal investigation. She carries more baggage than a fully loaded 747.

This may be a Martha Stewart type of thing, but the man lied to a grand jury and he should be punished.  If Rove lied to the Grand Jury I don't care if it's petty or not, he needs to be punished as well.

With absolutely no joy whatsoever.  It's just the way it seems to me right now.

Wow, so a senior aide to the VP was indicted for potentially not recalling correct information after 2 years.  He should resign, they should try him and if found guilty, book him.  Next.

I know it sounds callous and I'm sure this is causing him and his family intense stress, I feel for him, but this is not that big a deal politically.  And, if cleared, he will have a lucrative job waiting for him in DC.  Move on.  

I want to talk about something that matters to me and others in our country, such as:  the next SCOTUS nominee, cutting taxes, over spending, illegal immigration and, oh yeah, that Iraq thing.

I read somewhere that there were sealed indictments handed out, and those who were indicted have been informed.  I don't know if that is true or not, but it sounds like he is holding indictments over people's heads in hopes of getting them to talk.  This late in the game that would signal another jury is on the way.  I forget where it came up.  So it could have been all bunk anyway.  I think we'll find out for real in a half an hour.

Why is Scooter Libby walking with crutches in the photos?

about Clinton.  The guy (Starr) spends a whole lot more money than Fitz to find out Clinton lied about something that wasn't a crime anyway.

In Illinois, Fitzgerald issued his first indictments in the trucker payola scandal in 2001, I believe.  The indictments slowly marched up the food chain as more evidence emerged and more people flipped, and it wasn't until 2003 that Governor Ryan got indicted.

Maybe this investigation follows a similar pattern, or maybe it ends here.  But keep in mind, Libby lied (allegedly) in an attempt to protect Cheney.  Doesn't mean Cheney committed any crime, but there's good reason to think matters may go higher.

Are perjury and obstruction in a WH advisor serious or not?

Is anyone here suggesting otherwise?

If Scooter is convicted/pleads to any of these things than he should - and likely will - spend at least as long in Club Fed as Judy Miller.  Good enough for you?

The point has to be made however that what has turned into in investigation of A SERIOUS BREECH OF NATIONAL SECURITY THROUGH THE OUTING OF A SUPER-SUPER SECRET SUPER SPY has morphed into an investigation into who can and cannot keep their story straight over a two year period - a fishing-expedition akin to who is good or bad at the childhood game "Pass-Along".

Just saying.

Every Fitzmas Carol needs a Tiny Tim.

is that it's serious, in the sense that fishing expeditions relating to the game of "Pass-Along" are serious.  Gotcha.

Yes, I'd say it's very clear that some people believe it is not serious at all.  That's what is generally meant by statements like "These Martha Stewart investigations need to stop."

people went to jail on felonies based on the investigations, and if Clinton wasnt President he would have gone too.  (Remember Hubbell, McDougal, Tucker, et al?  Some of them are still sitting there as I type)  No, this is not the same thing at all.

. . .should be named in honor of Gachnar the Fear Demon.

must admit, that's a good one :)

That is precisely not what I am saying - or perhaps you missed the "if he's guilty he should do a stretch in Club Fed" (paraphrasing) remark.

If you're going to snark, at least be accurate in what other people have actually said, sporto.

This talking point has been refuted over and over and over.  Either you're not listening, or you don't care.  

I can hear you now, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

sent quite a few people to jail and convicted 15 people on felonies.

You're saying he should go to jail, but you're also saying it was a technical violation of the law, along the lines of a children's game.

I get the sense you don't understand what is being alleged here.  The claim is that Libby lied to the grand jury and said that he got the Plame information from reporters, when in actuality he got it from Cheney.  This cover story was leaked to the press, and you might recall dozens of conservative blogs dutifully reporting that there was no story here, as the press was the real villains.

If the allegations are true then that's a serious and wilful lie.  The guy is not being indicted because he forgot what he had for breakfast.

Every now and then, in someone's life, they have an opportunity to accomplish something that will matter.  The stars line up, they have the power, authority, ability, and knowledge.  All they have to do is pay attention to "The Thing That Matters".

Fitz had the chance and failed.  

We are a nation at war and at risk.  There are people, groups of people, and nations that would destroy us and have capability to do much harm to us.  We have security apparatus in the CIA, FBI, Military, etc. to protect us from those risks.  Inside those agencies, there are people with a political agenda and lack of morals or patriotism or whatever it is that makes a good public servant.  

These agenda driven people are leaking classified national security information to the press constantly.  Fitz had the chance to strike a blow for the importance of confidentially of national secrets and instead decided to go after a WH manager for failure to keep his story straight.  

Divulging information about Val was not a crime.  The CIA spooks who were releasing targeted data to the press are criminals.  He should have gone after them.

There is a lot of wishful thinking among my fellow conservatives that the recent troubled days of the WhiteHouse will simply burn off the undergrowth for a verdant second term.  Second terms don't normally get second chances to plant and harvest even when the fire doesn't take every structure on the homestead.  

The Republican bleeding (new lame metaphore) involving: Frist, Meirs, DeLay, Katrina (Rita, Wilma), Budget, SS, Gas Prices, Gas Profits (which the Dems will make plenty of hay from) Libby and Rove may be not be mortal but sure ain't good.  This "luck of the Irish," - "I stepped in crap - good thing it wasn't my Sunday shoes!" "my porched collapsed and killed my dog, I needed a new porch and the dog couldn't hunt anyway!" - take on events is surreal.  

The only good news I've seen lately is the Iraqi Constitution and economic growth rates.  The Dems applification of every fresh casualty mutes the political credit which should go to Bush for the relative progress in Iraq.  

So we're left with the economy - which is quite a strength (it saved Clinton from removal).  We have to hope that the rising tide of economic growth may  drown the embers (back to first lame metaphore) and wash away the evidence of one of the worst runs of political fortune I've ever even heard of.  

First, technical violations of law can still be quite serious, no?  I mean, a President was actually impeached recently for commiting those sorts of offenses, right?

Second, I understand perfectly what is being alleged.  I also understand that most of these charges stem from the belief (among the GJ, at least) that Libby has changed his story and not "corrected" himself (as Rove is alleged to have done).  If true, that's bad - not kiddie bad - but real, live, grown-man bad.  OK?

Finally, if you're going to put a great deal of stock in my use of the phrase "pass-along", then I can only gather you either 1) don't have kids, and/or 2) don't spend a great deal of time around them.  FTR, it was not meant to minimize what I believe in regard to the seriousness of the crimes.

This does not, however, change the fact that this affair (The Joe Wilson Scandal™) now evidently has very, very little (other than perhaps tangentially) to do with the "outing" of Mr. Valarie Plame's wife - in spite of some peoples' best efforts to spin it so.

We'll see what happens with the SCOTUS nomination, but this is NOT over.  It is just beginning.  Unless Libby cops a plea, there will be a trial.  Even if he does cop a plea, it is likely that there will be congressional hearings and perhaps most damaging, a civil 1983 (depravation of civil rights) lawsuit by Joe Wilson.  The burden of proof is much lower for a civil case, and you can force anyone, including POTUS, to testify (Remember Paula Jones?).

I see a lot of people here at RS burying their heads in the sand.  Do not kid yourself, this is bad.

what I remember was that the issue was Clinton lying to Congress about having an affair with Lewinsky and that the specific felony was lying to Congress.  Did those 15 go to jail for lying to Congress about Clinton's affair, or for some other totally unrelated felony?

Is this not Libby's problem?  Doesn't at least one of the indictments stem from lying about the issue, not the issue itself, and if so, how is that essentially different from Clinton's case?

Libby is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.  You can't read this five count indictment, however, and conclude that this was a technicality or some mere memory lapse.  As alleged, Libby told a knowing, material lie with an intent to deceive the public and the grand jury.  If the allegations are proven, it's a serious offense.

But I agree with the general point that a 22 month investigation into an alleged leak of a matter of national security would, hopefully, reach a conclusion as to whether there was or was not such a leak.    

For all we know, the only reason Fitzgerald can't indict on serious crimes, is that Libby is lying to the grand jury.

that an indictment is not a conviction.

That she was employed by the CIA with her identity classified information.  And that her identity was not previously known to the public.  That, to me, makes the matter pretty serious.  

What seems missing is the intent to harm national secuirty.  Which is an extremely hard one to prove.  But based on the removal of a couple names from the indictment where everyone else is named, makes me think there is more to come or a deal was already made.  If there is a second jury, my guess is that he is trying to get an indictment on the outing.  And that purjury and obstruction indictments are leverage for that investigation.

Now I'm not so sure, because the Libby indictment asserts that Plame's position at the CIA was classified and unknown to others outside the CIA before leaks to the press.

NPR played a bite from a Bush 2000 campaign speech this morning:

"My administration will ask not only what is legal, but what is right. Not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves. And my administration will make it clear there is the controlling legal authority of conscious."

Even if Rove and Libby shouldn't be indicted, they should be fired. I've been a registered republican all my life, but I want my party to be better than this.

on FoxNews.  He was indicted for saying that he didn't tell the reporters that Joe Wilson's wife was CIA agent Valerie Wilson and the reporters said that he did.  

That food chain goes no higher.

Clearly Libby lied to some reporters . . . no crime there.

He told the GJ he lied to some reporters, but Fitz thinks he didn't really lie to them.

Also, Libby says Russert and other reporters told him Val worked for the CIA.  The reporters apparently deny this.  Unless they have tape recordings of all the conversations . . . and I really doubt that . . . then this is just who's memory do you believe and do you trust their notes and did they produce all the notes.  I certainly don't automatically believe Miller, Cooper or Russert.

I read the statement to the GJ that Libby was "surprised" to hear about Val from some reporters.  Fitz says he couldn't have been surprised because he already knew.  That is true, but that's not what he said.  He was surprised to hear it from reporters.  Maybe because he thought they didn't know or that they were too incompetent to know . . . but who cares.  There seems to be reasonable doubt on the face of this indictment.

In sum, although the counts overlap and have multiple charges within them, basically four of the counts are for faulty memory: whether he told a particular reporter something and how the reporter answered . . . he surely talks to dozens of reporters . . . and memory is often fuzzy.  I see lots of reasonable doubt.

The other count is whether he was surprised by what the reporters said: that everyone by then knew Val worked for the CIA . . . and those statements are facially ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. I think he was surprised they knew . . . not of the fact itself.  Clear reasonable doubt.

One last issue is whether he was truthful when he told the GJ that while he was speaking with Russert, he forgot he'd heard of Val's employment from the V.P.    Heck, who doesn't temporarily forget things all the time?  The indictment essentially alleges he could not possibly have forgotten this.

It seems to me it would be just as sensible to indict Russert, Miller, and Cooper.  When I think of the $$$ this prosecution will cost . . . and the harm to this man and his family, I can't help but be angry.

I don't expect it to be dismissed . . . but it should be.  

Shame on the prosecutor for bringing an indictment like this.

Whistleblowers should not be punished unless they break the law to do it. If there's punishment here, it'll be for lying under oath. The underlying law required knowledge of covert status and an intent to damage security. Their intent was to show just one of the ways that Joe Wilson was lying.

perhaps most damaging, a civil 1983 (depravation of civil rights) lawsuit by Joe Wilson

Perhaps you meant "deprivation."

In any event... such a suit would be, in the most charitable terms possible, bizzare.  I have yet to see anyone explain - and I've looked - what basis a suit might have in fact or in law.  

The only thing suit of that kind is likely to prove is that Joe Wilson lied to Congress about his findings.    Wilson would have to have some serious brass anatomy to try and pull off a Sect. 1983 suit, and a lot more brains than that to have any hope of winning it.

It does say that.  

What's so interesting is that the Special Counsel is convinced that Libby disclosed this classified information about Valeries Plame's identity to reporters, and then lied about it under oath... but indicted him only for the lie, not for the disclosure.

As we lawyers sometimes say, whiskey tango foxtrot?

Sure, the subject matter you cite is serious indeed.  Problem is, this indictment doesn't get to that.  We still have precisely no idea, after almost 2-years, who "outed" Plame and wether or not said "outing" was a crime.

And while I'm no lawyer and make no attempts to play one on at RedState, I have to agree with Steve Wills (down thread) - to the layman, the indictment reads like some really, really weak charges against Libby.  Obstruction seems like the most credible (and strongest) - the rest look like either he-said/she-said or a misinterpretation of what Libby is likely to have actually said.

Unless someone is going to make a credible argument based on this indictment that Libby holds the key to who "outed" Plame, it would seem to me that Fitzgerald is either simply not going to get to that answer or has already determined that there was no crime committed in that regard.

but you ought to read the indictments.  It looks to me like Fitzgerald had enough evidence for more serious charges and backed off - either he's a wimp or he flipped Scooter and there's more to come.

I read the 22 pages and I came to the conclusion that Libby was charged because Fitzgerald felt pressure to charge someone with something.

If there is no alleged crime concerning the disclosure of an undercover agent, and it is doubtful that there will be or it would certainly be alleged by now, then Bush should immediately pardon Libby. The reason is that to defend himself against the allegations in the indictments would very likely open confidential meetings concerning real issues of national defense to full discovery. Consequenty, he can not mount an aggressive defense without compromising national security. This is patently unfair to him as an individual. Bush should say forcefully that there was no underlying crime, that the crimes alleged are the result in part of his inability to fully disclose all facets of conversations previous, that to expose all those facets in discovery and trial is not in the Country's best interest and take the heat.

As a patriotic American I cannot wait for this to end. Any of us who respects those who put their lives on the line to protect Americans (such as Ms. Wilson) - knows that those that work undercover have only their secrecy to protect their lives.  

Please stop the lameness of people like Hannity who insist that the whole world knew Plame was an undercover agent.  

The weirdest was those who somehow call this investigation nothing because it ended in a perjury charge- Huh.

Does being a conservative need to include a double standard.  I believe that Jefferson would turn over in his grave (after stopping his laughing at the likes of senator Hutchinson) at this behavior.

Real conservatives don't attack like this

if Bush pardons him, that would probably be an even worse move than the Miers nomination.  This investigation is not over (from the horse's mouth) and it would look blatantly protective and awful to the American public.  Libby doesn't need to disclose national security issues for his defense because he was indicted for lying to the grand jury about what he told reporters and lying to the FBI when they were investigating it.  It's real simple, if he didn't lie to them, then he should prove as much with corroborating testimony from reporters who say "no, he didn't tell me anything."  The fact is, the reporters have said the opposite, which is why he has been indicted.

troll or moby? moby or troll? troll or moby?

Eh, who cares

In fact didn't Fitz just say in his news conference that a conviction would justify his investigation (no transcript yet)?  He may have a real crime but he must seemingly pursue something.

What do you think Rove and Libby did that wasn't "right" in your mind?

If Libby lied to the grand jury - which is possible yet still unproven - then you've got something to hang your hat on.  But what of Rove?

committing.  The whitewater investigations didn't find against Clinton and then decide not to prosecute because he was President.

In any case, if you assume that there is no love lost between Wilson, Rove and Cheney, he might do it anyway.  

The first paragraphs allege this . . . but they do no more.  Haven't her neighbors been quoted in the media as knowing?

Anyway, the indictment has nothing to do with whether she was with the CIA or even whether Libby outed her.  It essentially has to do with what Tim Russett told Libby and whether Libby or Russert has a better memory.

That is not a serious matter.  That a prosecutor would waste our time with this is indeed a serious matter.

Also, if he is issuing essentially phony indictments to bring leverage, that is an abuse of his prosecutorial duties.  That, too, is a serious matter.

He said Russert told him something.  Russert denies it.  I have doubt either one is lying, but I'm sure not going to assume it was Libby.

Nothing in this indictment looks serious.

the sweet aroma of fresh blubber.

That's the best laugh I've had in a week.

I'm still giggling...

Unlike some blatant Bush haters, huh?  What about the little bitty fact that Joe is a complete phony and lying sack?  He wouldn't bring any charges as this would expose himself to more ridicule.  If you are out of the loop on this, because your head is somewhere, the Senate Intelligence Committee has a rather long and boring report that takes Joe to the cleaners.  And he still hasn't accepted it.  But you will notice that even the socialist mainstream liberal Bush hating journalists won't actually touch Joe anymore.

Sorry: Phil Foglio reference.

As I understand it, disclosing classified information is not in itself a crime.  In order for the disclosing of classified information to be a crime, it would have to meet the additional criteria of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act or the Espionage Act.  However, if Mr. Libby did disclose classified information, he would lose his security clearance, and it would no doubt have a negative impact on his career.  Thus he would have a motive to lie about this.  However, lying under oath is a crime and needs to be taken seriously.  Also, as a matter of principle, I think we need to take a stand regarding the disclosure of classified information by individuals with a security clearance: it should not happen.

I hope someone proves me wrong but I think the indictment can be summarized as follows:

There are 3 reporters (Russert, Miller, and Cooper) whose accounts of their conversations with Libby directly contradict what Libby testified to.

And as I was reading the indictment, I started to remember how Cooper and Miller refused to testify believing that their source had not released them from confidentiality. Then the thought occurred to me that Libby had to know that his statements to the Feds did not jive with what Russert testified to and that they would not jive with what Cooper and Miller would testify (if he released them from their agreement) to either.

Is it possible that Libby knew he would be nailed on this but, given the opportunity with Miller and Cooper's court fights, intentionally dragged it out so that it would be resolved after the election? And if so, could this have been a strategic response that others may have been involved in? Is that why Rove is still under investigation?

I have a bad feeling that the real danger here is that this could lead conspiracy charges.

that the idea of blaming it on the reporters had to be based on the assumption that the reporters wouldn't testify.  But as for a conspiracy, who knows.

Conspiracy to leak the name, that would be a big deal.  Conspiracy to get a cover story straight, ehhh, doesn't add a whole lot, and it's kinda hard to prove.

before they are convicted of a crime?

I'm struck by his reference to the cover of Valerie Plame and how it was blown.  To me this means that he believes that she did have cover and that the said blowing of that cover was a crime.  Whether he can prove it or not is another thing.  I have a feeling that he will be leaning on Mr Libby and that is why he indicted the man.  

Seems like there is a lot of comments denigrating this indictment simply because it is for lying and perjury.  We went after Clinton for the same thing and I didn't see conservatives talking then about how insignificant the charges were.  Let's cut the hypocrisy and get on with holding our officials to a high standard, and don't give me the story about the press and how they blew this out of proportion. My Mom always told me that if I lied that in the end the truth will out.  THis is not the end of this little imbroglio and I think we will find that this is the first installment of the story.

"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything"

Mark Twain

"Trust, but verify."

Ronald Reagan

"No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar."

Abraham Lincoln

Exactly why the real investigation should be how in the hell did the CIA send a unqualified retired ambassador on a fact finding mission, and then let him spout obviously classified information in a oped piece.  Classified information should remain classified, shouldn't it?  Especially classified information that is possibly hatched in a political hit mission?  So it turns out this was a witch hunt.  Just as predicted.

the president can grant a pardon without even an indictment

Seems like there is a lot of comments denigrating this indictment simply because it is for lying and perjury.

Huh?  I read people taking cracks at Fitzgerald's indictment because it reads like some pretty weak back-up for some rather serious charges (Libby says A / Russert says B / Libby is lying - QED) and that none of this gets to the heart of what was supposed to be the focus of his investigation.

Not to be snarky, but at least Starr got some felony convictions before he went after Clinton on tangential subjects - this indictment is tangential from the word go.

First of all, simian simpleton, don't say stupid stuff like "I've been a republican all my life" because that blows your cover in a second.  Next, no conservative sits around listening to NPR for Bush bashing statements.  Are you ashamed of being a liberal?  Just shout it loud and proud!

like he said, she said, charges. You won't get anyone ever to talk to a reporter again and you won't get good people to serve in government if the are going tobe subject to "Fitzing", ie the scuffing around raising a dust cloud and then charging people for getting lost in the cloud.  

in these lies when he told them. And he did it anyway. Why? Maybe to hide the fact that they outed Plame knowing she was undercover. Not in revenge against Wilson, but to discredit him. Maybe, knowing they had to respond to Wilson's lies, the admin took a risk.

I don't know, but I keep imagining Fitzgerald badgering Libby like so; "Come on Scooter, you knew you were lying, and you did it anyway. Why? And why did you wait until this summer to allow Cooper and Miller to testify? DID YOU DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY OR THE DECISION TO RELEASE COOPER & MILLER FROM CONFIDENTIALITY WITH ANYONE ELSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION?

As deteremined by Fitzpatrick anyway.  One of which is that her identity was classified and working for the CIA.

The neighbors were quotes as having know idea who she really worked for as far as I have heard.

During the press conference, and in the indictment, Fitzpatrick did state that Libby was the one who identified her identity to the press.  When asked why this in and of itself does not constitute a crime, he replied something to the effect of that the giving of classified information to the press was not a crime unless he did so knowingly.  And that that is very hard to tell until they have the truth.

And also, the charges certainly don't appear phony, but it is quite common to leverage charges in hopes of getting more information or bigger prey.

did he "allegedly" lie, knowing he would get caught. I mean they're blatent contradictions of what three other people are saying.

<And also, the charges certainly don't appear phony, but it is quite common to leverage charges in hopes of getting more information or bigger prey. </cite>

We're tired of reading this on every single post.

That is not a serious matter.  That a prosecutor would waste our time with this is indeed a serious matter.

Also, if he is issuing essentially phony indictments to bring leverage, that is an abuse of his prosecutorial duties.  That, too, is a serious matter.

Our system of justice -- the rule of law (not to put too fine a point on it) -- requires that people testify honestly when placed under oath.  Perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements to a Grand Jury are therefore serious matters if you believe in the rule of law.  Which, apparently, you do not.

I know you were just giving a technical answer, so please tell me you don't think a pardon is a good idea?  Pardons are the most blowback prone weapon in a President's arsenal.

that this incident, the 9 year vendetta against Cisneros, Lawrence Walsh, and indeed to a certain extent, Ken Starr have convinced me that the current system is just broken beyond redemption and the rule of law is in danger each time a prosecutor stands in front of a grand jury.

I don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty sure this isn't it.

You misconstrue me as much as you misconsture the indictment.

Perjury is serious, of course.  

But this does not allege anything that isn't facially defensible.  Libby says Russert told him something.  Russert says he said something else.  Who knows . . . it was 2 years ago.  Did Libby remember the V.P. told him or someone else told him . . . at the moment he spoke with Russert?  The indictment itself says Libby heard from several sources . . . so he easily could have forgotten which was which.

What Fitzgerald said in the press conference is not in the indictment.  If he wants to charge that, he should; otherwise, he shouldn't assert such things he cannot back up.

Issuing indictments about which reasonable doubt appears clear . . . as is true of most such memory cases . . . is abusive.  It is extortionate.  Yes, it is common.

I grow so weary of practicing lawyers who like to throw around accusations just to scare and intimidate people.  Now that is wrong and that undermines the rule of law.  Please don't lecture me, especially if you believe a power play like this . . . on easily defensible charges . . . is appropriate.

and, in retropect, it was the right thing for the country.

I agree it was the right thing for the nation, but Ford's defeat is widely attributed to his pardon of Nixon.

Also, are you putting politics above good of the country?

is to have serious, non-partisan individuals like Fitzgerald in charge of these things.  Unfortunately, they don't grow on trees.

I don't know if the prosecutor in the Cisneros investigation is a partisan witch-hunter but I can tell you he should be a hero to every lawyer who ever whacked a file.  11 years to investigate a guy who lied about a payment to his mistress.  That's Hall of Fame material.

Probably wouldn't have stuck, but he certainly asserts that Scooter (intentionally or not) disclosed classified information to reporters... what caught my eye was the information that he'd apparently declined to reveal Plame's affiliation early on.  The references to an unnamed other person in the VP's office suggests Fitzgerald might have been considering conspiracy charges, also.

Who do you think is in a position to pressure Fitzgerald to issue charges?  I suppose it is human nature to want to seem productive, but he doesn't seem the sort.  If he was done, I'd expect an unambiguous "I'm done."

OTOH, I didn't have access to the press conference, so maybe it is more clear now.  I'm just sayin' I'm not convinced the fat lady is done...

The indictment itself says Libby heard from several sources . . . so he easily could have forgotten which was which.

I'm sorry, now you're spouting nonsense.  If the allegations of the indictment are proven, there is no way Libby could have forgotten that each of his "several sources" were from inside the government (not journalists); nor could he have forgotten that it was he who told journalists about Plame, not the other way around.  

Scooter wasn't the one who outed Valerie Plame.

I think it becomes a ego contest where the prosecutor feels like he has to indict to validate his existence.

BTW, I don't agree with your moving up the food chain thesis and the various pettifoggers I'm listening to now don't either so take that into consideration when reading the rest of this.

If Fitzgerald had indicted anyone on the original charge I'd have a lot more sympathy for the Libby indictment. I don't think Fitzgerald is partisan or a hack or a bad lawyer, I just think the investigation should have ended when a decision was made that the orginal allegation or similar allegation was no-billed. I see this as a serious issue for Mr. Libby as win-lose-or-draw in court Libby loses. But I see Fitzgerald's decision to do this absent a substantive indictment as pretty low rent.

Fitzgerald is the real deal, but I concede that he is the exception that proves the rule:  In general, the continued criminalization of politics is a real danger to the rule of law.  

I also went and read a lot about pardons, it is interesting!

"Starting with a breathtaking 71% job approval, his support dropped 21 points in the Gallup Poll after his decision to pardon Nixon. Declaring that Watergate had been "an American tragedy" and "someone must write the end to it," Ford hoped the pardon would turn public attention away from Nixon and toward more pressing matters -- including high energy prices and a stubbornly persistent inflation rate. But, according to Louis Harris & Associates, 60% thought Ford was wrong to issue the pardon, and 62% said it condoned two standards of justice: one for the rich and powerful; another for the ordinary citizen."

I have been amazed at some of the thinking on this thread, especially by docj.  you seriously need to read the indictment because you have no concept of what is going on here.

the indictment is not a matter of Russert said A and Libby said B. Libby was told on up to 7 separate occasions that Plame was a CIA agent by several different government officials, including his boss Dick Cheney. This all occured before he talked to Tim Russert.

Libby then testified to the grand jury that he learned of Plame working at the CIA from Russert.  He then went on to testify to the GJ that he told Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper that he had learned about Plame from other reporters.  THESE ARE ALL LIES.  get it?

another thing -- while many on this thread are saying someone is innocent until proven guilty, which is absolutely true and something I beleive in, Libby is toast.  He lied under oath. Fitzgerald will now trot out witness after witness to describe to the jury how Libby was told about Plame from government officials before he ever talked to Russert.

Libby can't then say, "well, ok, I lied in my sworn testimony before, but here's what REALLY happened."

he's toast.  get used to it.

then at least attribute it to who tried to do so first, and call it "Starring"

Fitzgerald argues:

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

He makes the case that 1) the obstruction / perjury / false statements prevents him from getting to the truth and 2) telling the truth under oath is essential to the rule of law.  Letting the matter drop because he couldn't indict on the original charge just rewards lying under oath.

Bill Keller was correct in "entanglement" and Judy Miller told Libby before all the government officials. People lie about relationships all the time; that may be what Libby sought to conceal.

In which case the "Bill Clinton Defense" comes into play; some punishment (lose the law license) but that's it. Clinton sought to conceal an affair and lied under oath.

Also, if it goes to trial (it should) imagine a circus with Russert, Cooper, and Miller under oath and all sorts of questions from defense attorneys. Cooper in particular seems weak based on his marriage to Mandy Grunewald. Jury will get a Defense picture of a witness with great economic motive to lie (his Wife's employer is running for President and his Wife could be Chief of Staff potentially). In the Michael Jackson trial ONE witness obviously lying for money tainted the whole thing; I expect someone like Tom Messareau or Gerry Spence to make mincemeat out of the reporters.

Fitzgerald mentioned it in passing in the Q&A and I would like to find a

transcript to reread exactly what he said in regards to it.  Its the relevant

section on disclosing classified info and is mentioned in the indictment as a

reason along with the Title 50 Sec 421 (covert agent) for seating the grand jury.

IANAL but I would guess Libbys purported perjury and obstruction might have

trumped him being charged under this section, or sufficiently clouded things to

make it harder to prove.  As Fitzgerald noted, if the current charges stick it

does not matter if they failed to prove violations of any of the classified

statutes.  

It sounds like Rove is mostly clear, unless there is something Fitzgerald can

squeeze out of Libby.  Like why he went to such lengths to obstruct.  He may be

innocent until proven guilty, but the indictment reads pretty strong.  

In the mean time though, can somebody please muzzle Chris Matthews?

Haven't her neighbors been quoted in the media as knowing?

Fitzgerald: "Not only was [the fact that Plame was an agant] classified, it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."  He said her neighbors did not know.

Anyway, the indictment has nothing to do with whether she was with the CIA or even whether Libby outed her.  It essentially has to do with what Tim Russett told Libby and whether Libby or Russert has a better memory.

No.  Fitzgerald said specifically that the Russert phone call was Libby's 'cover story' testimony, one that Fitzgerald can apparently prove is a lie so many different ways it's amazing Libby decided to lie about it.  Fitzgerald said Libby talked about Plame on at least SEVEN other occasions BEFORE his conversation with Russert where he testified he 'learned about' Plame.  So rather than being just a guy at the tail end of some 'gossip' about someone at the CIA, he was the 'first government official' to disclose her identity to the press.

That is not a serious matter.

Fitzgerald seems to think it is, and I agree.  Libby had no business giving the information to reporters; national security was compromised (and Fitzgerald said exactly that).

Starr was investigating a number of other crimes, mostly financial.

He got on the Monica thing because he saw a repeat of a fact pattern (of obstruction) that was similar and relevant to a suspected cover-up of the financial crimes.

Fitz was not authorized to pursue the leakers within the CIA. He can seek to have his commission expanded or he can refer this to DoJ to pursue with a separate investigation.

that I have not read the indictment.  I did - twice - and I still cannot follow it.  What I am able to follow is that 1) it looks weak (except for the Obstruction charge, which looks pretty solid), and 2) it has nothing to do with the base crime Fitzgerald was supposed to be investigating.  Disprove.

That Libby was told by government officials that Plame (or Wilson's wife - it's not entirely clear to me when Fitzgerald thinks Libby knew her name) was CIA on several occasions is not in dispute.  The issue seems to be WHEN he was told and that Libby's time line does not jive with Russert's (or Cooper's and/or Miller's, I suppose) time line is one of several reasons why he's in deep doo-doo.

another thing -- while many on this thread are saying someone is innocent until proven guilty, which is absolutely true and something I beleive in, Libby is toast.

Nice presumption of innocence on your part.

And perhaps you should read my entire comments - like the parts where I say if he's convicted he should to time, real time - but hey, be as selective as you wish.

Libby was the one who told Miller and Cooper about Plame.  When confronted by a grand jury, his excuse for doing so was that he heard the information first from Russert, which as you know is in contention.

If the indictment proves to be true, Libby lied about where he originally heard about Plame, before passing the info on to reporters.  The one and only motive I can think of for doing so would be to avoid charges of leaking classified information, etc.  Can you think of a motive for Libby lying that wouldn't have to do with protecting himself from the "base" charges?

Rule 11.

Also, and this is the fun part, in Federal Court -- you know, where the 1983 would be brought -- no one gets out until everyone agrees.

I expect Wilson will have to pay Rove's attorneys fees out of the money they earned for the Vanity Fair piece.

this had happened during a Gore or Kerry presidency, if we conservatives wouldn't be screaming bloody murder and calling for indictments.  It seems both sides have double standards.

and Fitzgerald agreed to limit the scope of the questioning.

When it comes to a jury trial, Russert gets to cut no deals, and he gets crossed by a defense attorney who isn't going to care about Russerts sources remaining secret (or Miller's either for that matter).

and no one is screaming for his sorry hide.

If the indictment turns out to be true and Libby lied to try and save his job then this is not serious? Wow. Using classified information, no matter how insignificant, for political gain is pretty serious to me.

And one of the main reason it took so long was the obstruction of Libby and Miller.

It is the thinking "Nothing in this indictment looks serious." comments that keep me up at night.

"Nothing in this indictment looks serious"

When did Kerry do this? Recently?  If so, why are Democrats, not to mention Republicans, okay with it?  Or was it one of those things that only came to light during the campaign, kinda like some of

Bush's peccadillos, nor more or no less?

I think you are mistaken. It is a crime to purposely reveal a undercover CIA agent. (I know everyone knows this but some seam to forget) Even the President wanted to know who did this. Just because you can't indite someone dose not mean it didn't happen.

Why did Nixon lie about watergate?

Why do kids tell their parents they didn't eat the cookie from the cookie jar, while they have crumbs on their face?

People lie all the time, and they often lie, even when the evidence is against them.

My guess is there is some mental block that makes them think they won't get caught.

I do think there is a lot of "he said, she said" to these indictments.  I think when it comes time for a defense attorney to start questioning these reporters, convictions are going to get harder to make.

But that you and/or I may not be able to come up with another motive does not mean there isn't one - I mean, it's pretty obvious that Libby was steamed about the coverage he was receiving in the media (particularly Russert's network), maybe he got carried away in trying to "set the record straight" and was too proud/stupid/stubborn (take your pick) to fess up.

Isn't that just as plausible?  I mean, why did Clinton lie to a grand jury about something so stupid and trivial about getting a little on the side?  He had to suspect there was a non-trivial chance he would get caught, right?

But you're presupposing the validity of Russert's (and therefore Fitzgeralds) claims opposed to Libby's.  That's clear enough in the indictment, but it's hardly proven - asserted certainly, but not proven.

If Libby pleads, he's guilty and we have to assume therefor that they are true - and the Administration had best hope it stops with Libby (overzealous prosecution of the Administration's case, etc.).  If not, it's going to be a long, long year for them.

If it goes to trial, then I'm willing to assume one of two things: 1) Russert is fudging the dates and is therefore in a bit of trouble, or 2) Libby believes he's right and unless someone has a tape with a date stamped on their conversation it's going to be a he-said/he-said battle in front of the judge.  In that case, we'll get to see how well Russert stands-up to cross-examination, and that will most certainly be interesting.

Time will tell.

It could very well be that if Libby didn't commit perjury, issue false statements and obstruct justice, Fitzgereld could have indicted on a crime committed prior to the investigation.  That is the reason we have these laws.  If you don't think it's valid to apply perjury, et. al. in this case, when would it be valid to?

I think you miss what the indictment alleges.  Libby said he denied to Russert that he knew of Plame's job.

Then the indictment says this was not true.  Of course it wasn't, but it is not a crime to lie to Tim Russert.

This all boils down to Libby said A and Russert said B.  And Libby said when he talked to Russert he'd temporarily forgotten he'd heard of Plame's job from the V.P..  And Libby said he was surprised to hear these statements from the reporters.

He probably was surprised.  But what emotion he felt at the time is unimportant . . . maybe he was irritated or astonished or pleased.  Who cares and who can prove one way or the other.

Read the indictment . . . don't just listen to the press conference.  This paper is flawed.  Maybe it will be fixed.  But as it stands, it is he said, he said about who said what 2 years earlier.

Lying to a GJ is bad.  But putting out an indictment that will be as difficult to prove as this one is also bad.

Agreed on your point in general.  But how do the specifics obstruct anything.

"I was surprised to hear that she worked for the CIA."

In and of itself, that does not say he did not know . . . it just says he was surprised to learn it from Russert in the manner he learned it.

Did Russert tell him a lot of reporters were talking?  Was he surprised?  Who cares . . . that is not significant information for the investigation.

READ THE INDICTMENT CLOSELY.

My point is that by lying during the investigation on several occasions about several important conversations, his testimony becomes meaningless.  Since he was at the very center of the disclosure of Plame's identity, his testimony is vital in determining whether or not a crime was committed.  Not just for him but for Cheney, "Official A" and others.  

For instance, when Cheney told Libby about Plame, Cheney might have said something to the effect of, "we need to get back at this guy Wilson by blowing his wife's cover."  So if Libby was truthful in his testimony we would likely see an indictment for Cheney for conspiracy or something of that nature.  Libby however led the Grand Jury to believe that he first learned Plame worked for the CIA through his account of his conversation with Russert:

". . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this - excuse me, did you know  that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by  that. I remember being taken aback by it.  And I said - he may have said a little more  but that was - he said that.  And I said, no, I don't know that.  And I said, no, I don't  know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in  any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that  I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was  first learning."

which Fitzgerald is alleging is false testimony.

Let's say now that Fitzgerald has discovered the truth about Libby first learning Plame worked for the CIA from Cheney,  Fitzgerald asks Libby about the nature of the conversation with Cheney.  Libby would likely say something to the effect of, " The vice president just wanted journalists to be aware that Wilson's wife was involved in sending him to Niger but he did not know she was undercover."  Now this testimony would be worthless because Libby has shown himself capable of perjuring himself to protect Cheney.   And since he is likely the only witness to this conversation except for Cheney himself, his truthful testimony is crucial in determining whether a crime was committed during the conversation.

One last related note.  If Libby hadn't perjured himself, no crimes were committed and everyone else involved in the case was forthcoming and honest, the investigation would surly have been a short one.  So it's pretty silly to say something to the effect of, "I can't believe this guy's spent two years on this case and he only has perjuries to show for it."  

I was not opining on the validity or seriousness of the alleged crime, just the implications of the prosecution for the Republican party.  

Anyone who thinks that this is just going to go away is engaging in wishful thinking.  There is a legal process here and it is not over.