Chron on Libby verdict
by Owen Courrèges · 03/07/2007 7:43 amThe Chon has an editorial out on the conviction of Scooter Libby of lying to FBI investigators and perjury. Regrettably, the entire editorial proceeds from a very stupid and very false assumption:
On the 10th day of deliberations, the federal jury weighing the charges against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby rendered the only verdict that matched the evidence.
Numerous news media figures and government officials testified that Libby divulged the identity of covert CIA employee Valerie Plame, apparently to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
[...]
Although special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said in his closing argument that the case created “a cloud over the vice presidency,” after the verdict he told reporters he had no plans to take the probe further. Apparently the investigation will end with no one being charged with divulging the identity of a covert government agent. Once again, the cover-up brings the conviction, not the shameful behavior that preceded it.
The evidence? According to the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald: “I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent.” Accordingly, the Chron’s talk of there being “evidence” of Plame’s covert status is nonsesne.
Secondly, for a convicting for “outing” a covert agent, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires that an agent have “served outside the United States” in the past five years and that the agency take affirmative steps to conceal their identity. Finally, it requires knowledge that the agent is, in fact, covert.
At the time of her supposed “outing,” Plame was an analyst tied to a desk in Washington. There has been conflicting information as to whether she worked on overseas assignments during the previous five years, and in any event, there were no plans to ever use her overseas again. By all accounts, Plame was very willing to disclose her own identity — to her friends, and to her future husband, Joe Wilson, after a few dates. Her status was an open secret of the first order. And as for efforts to conceal her identity, they were very minimal.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Plame had not been based overseas for more than five years, although she had performed overseas missions (this depends, I suppose, on one’s parsing of a complex statute). Fred Rustmann, a former CIA covert agent who claimed that he supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career, took issue with referring to Plame as “covert,” noting that “[s]he made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat.” If Libby or anyone else in the Bush Administration was compromising her identity, you can’t say that she didn’t do so first.
In any event, based on Plame’s current status, it was difficult to tell whether or not she was “covert,” and thus it would be nearly impossible to prove that the act was done “knowingly.” Both Plame and the CIA were playing it very fast as loose with her identity if they truly wanted it protected. Moreover, given the lack of clarity in the statute (does the language “served outside the United States” require an overseas assignment, or just a few overseas missions?) I don’t see how you could convict anyone of “outing” Valarie Plame.
Just my two cents.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
72 Responses to “Chron on Libby verdict”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
The minor complexities of the case made it easy for the Left to play up the conspiracy theory. No one has been convicted of outing Valerie Plame and no one will be, because she wasn’t outed.
Libby didn’t appear guilty to me, but even if he was the Dems grandstanding is disgusting. Where were they when Clinton was impeached for lying under oath? Seems to me we had a referendum in the late 90’s about lying by government officials and the Dems decided it was OK.
Then there is William “Cold Cash” Jefferson, still in Congress and getting plum committee assignments!
P.S. And where was the outrage over Sandy Berger, who committed a much greater crime than Libby was accused of and who was caught red handed?
As much as I am dismayed over the whole thing
Scooter was talking to a lot of people about Plame - alot
you are correct in the outing but in the investigation - he didn’t tell the truth
Got to tell the truth - especially - if you are a Republican
I always wondered how you can accuse someone of obstructing the investigation of a crime when no crime was committed.
If we were after the person that actually outed the non-covert agent why do we not prosecute him sense his idenity is known?
In the liberal media’s mind, it depends on what your party affiliation is as too how guilty you are and how damning your crime is. Let’s face it, they all do it, some get caught but only the Republicans get any bad press.
Chalk this one up to: So what’s new!!!!! The double standard is alive and doing well in the liberal media.
Predictably, the DOTI™ are out in full force.
God, how long are we going to have to listen to this? Please deliver me.
Gang: It really doesn’t matter if Scooter was guilty or not. If the government want’s to get you they will and there’s really nothing you or I can do about it! Remember Martha Stewart? They didn’t convict her of insider trading as she was accused. She was convicted of not being genious to the FBI while NOT under oath. It’s a hard reality, but we are at the government’s mercy whether we want to believe it or not.
/I’m packing up and going to Sarge’s compound now.
Headshaker
DOTI Moi?
#9 EPJ - no, not you. At least you understand why he was convicted, no matter what the other “facts” are.
Today is a very wierd day, I find myself in agreement with EPJ and Headshaker. Watch out for dive-bombing porcines.
duhmoose
Its time you told everyone that we are first cousins…
Glad your moms okay BTW
As for Libby lying…
Libby’s argument was based on a faulty memory. Convenient, perhaps, but a defense he was allowed to present to show reasonable doubt. However, after Libby refused to testify — as was his right — the judge turned against him and began limiting the evidence he could produce on the memory issue. The result was that the defense was not permitted to offer impeachment evidence against Tim Russert, the prosecution’s star witness, to show that Russert also had a faulty memory and offered contradictory testimony.
Add to all of this the fact that you had a liberal forum and jurors who apparently wanted to take down the whole Administration (as evinced by one juror asking, “where’s Rove?”) and I think the trial was less than fair. At the very least it wasn’t a slam dunk case, and certainly not one in which so much effort would generally be invested. Libby may have been guilty, depending on how credible you believe his memory theory was, but this trial was a circus.
In any case, when a judge berates a defendant for not testifying, and then apparently retaliates by keeping evidence out, you can bet he didn’t get a fair shake.
Well done, Owen.
I heard on the Savage Nation last night that Libby was in on the Mark Rich pardon and that the prosecution was payback.
Any thoughts?
#17 DJ
Libby was his lawyer for 15 years.
Isn’t Fitzgerald a Republican?
I understand that “you people” don’t like it when the law is broken and Republicans are punished, even though you continually spout rhetoric to the opposite.
Bottom line is he was found guilty, just like the BP agents. There was a trial, there was a jury, there were witnesses, there was a judge, there were long deliberations, etc. etc. etc.
It’s amazing how the judicial system isn’t working when it doesn’t go the way you want it to. But if Libby were a Democrat, you’d be rolling in your own urine right now from all the joy.
You wonder why I shake my head™
Owen
Its not a stretch he lied. Also just watched the jury give comments looks like the ones I saw were sympathetic, intelligent and weighed the evidence.
No one has been a bigger Bush man than I and Libby for some unknown reason, miscalculated and ended up in prison.
I have quit two very nice jobs, one in law enforcement because I don’t bob and weave, I will not do the perjury thing (of course unless its on a blog)
Its also not a stretch that the case was political but in the end did Libby do a Martha?
When Federal investigators show up or you are in front of a grand jury, you need to be accurate.
Bigjolly gets the BIGSLAM award
oof….
#21
Eh?
Confession is good for the soul, Eric.
Hallelujah and you da man.
>)
Bigjolly
Yes my uunderstanding was the Libby was the attorney and Fitzgerald was the prosecutor that wanted to put Rich away. Is this correct?
If so I think the pardon would be more than enough fuel for vengeance.
#24
Actually, it was Giuliani that filed the charges in 1983. Fitzgerald became an Assistant US Attorney in 1988.
Let’s get this straight:
Libby is convicted for allegedly lying to the grand jury when:
Mrs. Plame-Wilson was actually outed by the State Department by a guy name Armitage, making it so that there was no cover up and no motive for Mr. Libby’s alleged perjury.
The outing does not appear to violate any law.
The only evidence against Libby is the word of leftist/liberal “news” advocates (you cannot really call them reporters, because they skew and spin more than they report)
The prosecutor has no further investigation and no other prosecutions on this whole sordid matter because, evidently, no crimes have been committed. Again, this belies any motive for the alleged perjury.
What a stupid waste of tax money!! Talk about khafkaesque!!
BigJolly
The Rich and Libby connection…..
Robert Headford,
Look, I’m just saying what happened. You can argue that my perceptions are wrong, but you need to make that argument.
I might be that I’d be less critical if the roles were reversed; I’d prefer to think that I can be more objective than that, but I’m certainly willing to admit that I’m capable of bias.
But you’re biased too. Fitzgerald being a Republican is clearly irrelevant. Just because he’s GOP doesn’t mean he can’t be a zealous prosecutor. Moreover, my criticism was directed against the judge and the forum (i.e. jury pool) not Fitzgerald, so I don’t even know why you brought him up.
Shannon
I’ve lied soo much I’ve actually told the truth once or twice
willsin
Libby was talking about her and lied about conversations to a grand jury
Not a good move
What if Plame was killed?
Some regimes, terrorist groups, nut case dictators are not real gentle with CIA personnel
How many were kidnapped in the 70’s and 80’s and found dead?
Its a serious thing, people in government have to take security seriously and personal political gain second.
Owen, I don’t have time to make arguments. I just have time to stir things up like that SmackTool guy.
#30;
Don’t be silly. The biotch was not covert.
That’s common knowledge.
She was just another CIA employee.
rj
Eric,
Her identity was already compromised, both by herself and her husband. Her neighbors and friends knew that she was CIA, her cover was weak (i.e. listing the US embassy as her address), she told Wilson of her identity after a few dates — in short, this was not a woman fretting about her own security.
To top all this off, her husband wrote a controversial op-ed in the NY Times regarding an assignment she had recommended him for, creating intense public scrutiny. If you have a secret identity, these just aren’t things you do.
In any case, there weren’t any plans to station her overseas again, as she’s been a domestic analyst for some time now. I’m sorry, but to wonder aloud “what if Plame was killed” is simply hysterics under these circumstances.
#30 They were going to assassinate her while she sat in her office in CIA headquarters? She was not a covert agent at the time she was outed. Ergo, Mr. Fitzgerald’s lack of any prosecution or indictment on the alleged crime in this whole matter.
Also, lie implies intent and, thus, motive here. There is no evidence of motive. Not recalling something correctly is not the same as telling a lie.
Telling a lie is something like: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . . .” Libby did not even try to weasel out by saying something like: “It depends on what the definition of is is.”
This shows the problems with the special prosecutors, whether they are investigating Reps or Dems:
Prosecutors like Fitzgerald spend tens of millions of dollars on investigation only to conclude, as was the case here, that no underlying law had been broken. Reluctant to say, “I spent $10 million in tax money and couldn’t find a thing,” they fall back on perjury/cover-up charges. In other words, they prosecute for lying (or attempting to cover up) about a crime that never occurred! (It escapes me logically how one can cover up something that never happened.)
This is not sour grapes. A lot of Republicans long ago were critical of the special prosecutor system because it invites these kinds of tangential prosecutions. At the time, the Democrats laughed and said it was only because the Republicans (Watergate, Iran/Contra, etc.) were being prosecuted that we whined. Then along came Bill Clinton . . .
Now the Dems are already saying that Reps thought it was fine when Clinton was investigated for perjury about a noncriminal act but are crying about the Libby verdict. Of course, one difference is Clinton lied and never faced jail time.
Also, I wish we would be consistent. If we consider lying to be such a jailable offense, why aren’t there several hundred congresspeople behind bars???
The bottom line is the Bush WH has made the same mistakes the Dems make. They think they can operate in secret like the good ol days before the Internet and bloggers.
Cheney thought he could covertly hurt Wilsons cred and get info out there that Bushco didnt have anything to do with him. They forgot about how easy it is now to get info. In the old days they could do this behind the scenes but not anymore and they still make the same screw ups over and over.
All Cheney had to do was hold a press conf and tell the world he did not send Joe Wilson to Niger as he claimed and that a relative of his in gov recommended him for that job and then list what he said compared to the known facts and this would have been over with. No he had Libby leak info to the press to cover his arse. These guys are idiots and they deserve to all rot in Fed prison. Not to mention sending 3000 Americans to die in a botched war.
gregg, none of that is born out in any credible evidence I have seen. Can you show me where the smoking gun is that shows Cheney told Scooter to try to discredit Wilson by “outing” Plame?
#37 Libby did not leak anything. It has already been established that Armitage in the State Department was the one that did it.
It has also been clearly established that Plame and her husband told numerous people she was CIA, and that she outed herself to her husband early in their pre-marriage relationship.
#35 Rick G,
You are right to point out what a tax-wasting quagmire the whole Kenneth Starr debacle was. As much as a bunch of crooks Bill & Hill are, letting Mr. Starr stray so far from the original task–investigating Whitewater–was an absolute waste. And that is not meant to condone anything Bill & Hill did.
If the government wants to waste $30 million +, they can just cut a check directly to me next time.
Do you deny Cheney had Libby leak info to certain people in the press so they would go out and tell the truth about Wilson? The outing of Plame isnt the point. Libby lied to protect Cheney. Even the jury said Cheney should have been the guy up there.
Libby was the fall guy and took the bullet like a good soldier.Had Cheney done what I said it would have been over and done with from day one. They think they are the smartest people in the room. Im sick of all of them. Its time to get rid of these career scumbags.
They didnt have the stones to take on Wilson publicly so they tried to get him behind the scenes. Its not the crime that gets them. Its the cover up. Get over it.
40. willsin
I want my share, too! Special prosecutors are not the way to generate economic activity.
41. gregg
C’mon Gregg. Who would be afraid of that dandy Joe Wilson? Besides, even the Senate committee (both parties) basically said Wilson was full of crap.
Thats my point. Cheney should have come out and slamed him (Wilson) in the press publicly. Not send Libby to leak things behind the scenes. Then Libby had to lie to protect Cheney.Thats what got him. Dont you see that?
It seems very clear to me. I dont care if its Dems or Repubs. This was just plain stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Forrest Gump.
“For many weeks, Washington watched, transfixed, as the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. cast Cheney, his former boss, in the role of puppeteer, pulling the strings in a covert public relations campaign to defend the administration’s case for war in Iraq and discredit a critic.”
The key word there is “covert”. That caused Libby to lie to the FBI when they came looking for answers. If Cheney did this out in the open he wouldnt have needed Libby to protect his arse.
Thats what got them.
44 gregg
I do see your point. This administration in general seems to be bi-polar. Early on, it was “go it alone” and “bring it on”, etc., etc. (which is fine with me). Then GW gets a bit beaten down and finds his sensitive side and suddenly can’t stand up to anyone.
I agree that these guys don’t realize how many points they score in “flyover country” when they stand up in public and say, “The other guy is dead wrong and here’s why.”
Rick, its just like Nixon Watergate, Regan and the Contra thing. When they pull this stuff in secret they seem to always get busted when someone tries to find the answers and the lower end guys have to lie to protect the big shots. I am sick of all of them and I refuse to defend this admin anymore. Ill leave that to Hannity and Rush.
47. gregg
Unfortunately, this admini and the GOP as a whole are on a serious downhill slide. The shame of it is it is all of their own making. The Democrats didn’t even have to have a brain waive to win.
re 48
I apologize. The Democrats had to have enough of a brain waive to do nothing while the GOP committed suicide.
And we haven’t bottomed out yet, folks.
Rick, I agree totally. Did you hear Hannity yesterday? His reason for us to vote Republican is to keep Hillary out of the Presidency. That should tell you the state of the Republican party. They have nothing to offer except “hey, the other guys are worse, sort of, well, just trust us, they are.”
Any prosecutor with an ounce of integrity would weighed the facts in this case and declined to pursue it. Both parties came to the conclusion the Act creating the Special Prosecutor’s office should expire and not be renewed. Then the Bush administration Justice Dept. appoints Fitzgerald and allows him more scope, less restraints and virtually no oversight as compared to the previous official Special Prosecutor’s office.
I speak with experience when I say that anyone who posted here today could have very similar charges brought against them by a special prosecutor and I will guarantee you will end up in the same boat with Libby. It doesn’t what your political affiliation or positions might be.
Gregg, are you actually so naive as to believe that politicians don’t try to manipulate the press ? This has been a fact of life in democracies long before the American Revolution.
Everyone in politics runs “covert” public relations campaigns to promote their positions and discredit their critics. So what ?
Anyone with any political savvy and a working knowledge of Washington, regardless of party, knows this charade for what it is, with the exception, of course, of Eric P Johnson.
Also, the only time Fitzgerald ever registered to vote, it was as an Independent. His former colleagues I have seen interviewed all said he appeared to be apolitical or, at least, very reticent about his political leanings.
I am disgusted with the entire special prosecution apparatus and have been since Lawrence Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger five days before the Clinton-Bush election day in 1992. I thought much of the Starr investigation was out of control as was the investigation of Clinton’s Ag Secretary.
tex, you make my point again. It used to work. Now with the Internet, Google and blogs these clowns get caught. GWB brought in his dads retreads and they went back to the old ways of trying to bring people down who gave them trouble. They got busted. When will they learn?
#44 Gregg, what is Libby lying about for Cheney? No law was broken here!!!! He is lying to cover up something that does not need a cover up? That makes no sense. The lack of intent goes to the lack of actual perjury.
#47 Gregg, the difference between this situation and both Watergate and Iran-Contra is the fact that there were laws broken, and the cover up was to hide the fact that laws were broken. In Watergate it was the burglary that was the crime that needed to be covered up. In Iran-Contra, the illegal sale of arms was the crime that needed to be covered up. In Libby’s case, there is NO CRIME that he is covering up.
Since President Carter outed most of the covert CIA agents and their contacts during his tenure, causing the CIA to lose valuable ground against our enemies and also for some of those individuals to be assassinated, why wasn’t he ever jailed for that? Could it be that he is a commie lib?
Robert Headford/Eric/Et Al -
Here’s the deal: Libby was convicted of lying and “obstruction of justice”/interfering with an investigation. THAT’S IT. And if that’s what he was convicted of, then fine, he should serve the time.
He was NOT convicted of “outing” anybody. He wasn’t even being tried for “outing” anybody. Predictably, however, the Chron and others are out there suggesting that what he’s guilty of is “outing and endangering a super-secret agent that just got back from missions with James Bond and Ethan Hunt”, even if they don’t say so in so many words.
Objecting to that is not DOTI…
Gregg:
What is worse is that is the way the Dems won big last time around. That’s all that ANY of them have is “we’re better than those other jerks”.
Wil, then why did Libby do what he did? He was covering Cheney from something. He could have told the prosecutor “Hey, Cheney told me to give the press some info on Wilson because he is lying about his trip to Niger. If you want anymore info ask Dick.”
“Thank you Mr. Libby, have a nice day.”
Period, end of story.
#61 - the whole thing, from the initial “crime” or incident or whatever, to the investigation, to the “cover-up” to the trial and conviction, stinks of dirty politics. It isn’t even a republican vs. democrat thing. They’re all rats right now.
I just hate the intellectually dishonest spin that too many people puts on it.
#62 jimb
I agree with you; the DOTI™ are those defending him for perjury and obstruction when it’s clear he was guilty of both.
I couldn’t care less about the “outing” issue, it’s irrelevant to the verdict.
59 jimb
You are right about the media. When it comes to reporting on legal matters, they are generally morons. I have been involved in, or been close to, a few (emphasis on few) publicized cases in my time. Excluding the legal press, I have found, with almost 100 percent consistency, that the media gets something seriously wrong in almost every case. Further, if it is more than a standard murder trial or plant explosion, they write things that make no sense whatsoever (let alone bear any resemblance to the facts). I guess the question is: Do they do it intentionally or because they are witless?
In the Libby case, I think it was clearly intentional. There was, in many publications, an intent to describe this as a trial about the “outing” of covert agent Valerie Plame. That is a lie, and I’m sure the people who wrote it know it. But journalists are among the most liberal, unchurched, amoral and self-righteous species on the face of the earth. And they’ll deny every word of it.
I was a newspaper reporter for a time before I went on to other things. It is a shame how woefully ignorant most reporters are. And I’m not talking abou the law - I’m talking about life.
Robert Headford,
It was hardly “clear” that Libby was guilty. The jurors deliberated for nearly two weeks. The whole case hinged on Russert’s testimony, and evidence was excluded that would have impeached Russert (or at least forced him to admit that people can mistakenly make inconsistent statements to authorities). Again, not a very clear-cut case.
As for the “outing” issue being irrelevant — well, sure it’s irrelevant to guilt to the crimes Libby was convicted for from a legal perspective, but if the investigation itself had no basis, then the conviction for hindering that investigation is at least dubious from an moral perspective.
65 Owen
Russert is swine. He wants to play the amiable, fair minded, thoughtful seeker-of-truth journalist, but he is in the same slime pit as the rest of them. I think he’s a liar.
Owen
From what I understand no one but her husband knew her identity the neighbors thing was not true, even though it was reported several times as. But that didn’t matter. Libby discussed her with Russert lied about it on the stand in front of the grand jury
Also a verdict is a verdict two weeks or two hours and is little grounds for filing an appeal.
Look, I like Libby, I Like Cheney, Cheney should resign immiediately and Libby needs to serve jail time (Not 25 years).
What they did was wrong on so many levels
Times of war does not give people extrordinary powers, they should have just wrote as cathing editorial debumking Wilson and left it there
Also, if Wilson gave that testimony in front of the 9/11 commission he should be criminally investigated as well.
Eric, I guess the other evidence to the contrary of your statements, the fact that Libby wasn’t tried for “outing anybody” and the fact that Fitzgerald himself says that there’s no further charges to be filed doesn’t mean anything to you?
The bottom line is, like Owen said, that Libby was convicted for obstructing and/or lying about an investigation that really had no basis. Is he technically guilty? Yes. Should he be punished? By the letter of the law, yes.
But morally, one could argue that he should never have stood trial in the first place.
Make no mistake, this whole stinking thing is politics first, law second.
Jimb
See my furst post, even in an investigation that yields nothing - if you lie in the course of it - you go to jail
Please understand that our justice is predicated upon people being truthful.
Libby as a career attorney knew that
More than anyone else
I agree it was a political attack but they are official and do not give people a reason to lie
Look, Fitzgerald concluded early on no crime was committed by disclosing Plame’s identity. Otherwise, he would have indicted Armitage, who admitted up front he was the source.
Instead, Fitzgerald spent millions of dollars getting sworn statements from individuals in hopes of finding one in a lie so he could justify his existence.
We have got to stop this practice of special prosecutors bringing inditments against people for lying about or covering up a crime that never occurred. (Again, I marvel at the concept of covering up something that never happened.) If you ask enough people enough questions, you will catch one of them in an inconsistency you can then call a lie and prosecute to save face.
This is not, and has not for many years, been a wise use of the taxpayers’ money.
#19 Robert Headford
If Libby were a democrat he would have never been charged in the first place.