Why so little said here on "Plamegate"?

[Campy]

This'll be my last post in this thread, but I'll just reiterate that people tend to obstruct justice for a reason. Whether enough evidence can be compiled to indict may be another matter, but people generally don't, I wouldn't think, lie and hide the truth unless the truth would be damaging. I'm of the opinion that Rove and Libby did, but that's only based upon what I've been able to piece together from various news reports.

 

Of course, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that nobody perjured himself, nobody lied, and the events of the past couple of years were more of a mutual misunderstanding than anything else. As an American, that would be my best-case scenario.

[Mickey]

I think if we step back from the partisanship, and analyze the case on the merits alone, I don't know how far this thing should go.

 

I was not kidding when I said we're in for another round of definition of "is."  If you want the obvious answer, yes I think it was prosecutorial overreach of Orwellian magnitude to spend $ millions to investigate a sitting President's business dealings a decade before he became President, with the only tag that could be placed on him being an inopportune spillage of man butter.

 

While I'm certain that headlines will trump up national security complications caused by Libby & Rove conversations, in all likelihood the actual charges will be some sort of obstruction of justice.  This would make an interesting continuation of prosecutorial offensive when investigators are determined to obtain a charge, no matter whether an underlying crime was committed or not.

 

Ask anyone on the street why Martha Stewart went to jail, and I'll bet my house that the vast majority of responses will be "Insider Trading."  Few realize that she was brought up on obstruction of justice charges, and insider trading wasn't even part of the indictment.

 

Which leads to the natural question of the propriety of bringing up obstruction of justice charges when there is no apparent underlying crime to which obstruction occurred.  (As a corollary, I haven't for the life of me still figured out the connection between a bj & a land deal.)

 

There is the natural response, "A crime is a crime, and needs to be prosecuted."  But, when the prosecutor is a direct participant in the "crime scene," perhaps we should temper our excitement over such crimes.

 

We also have to look at the ramifications of these cases.  Despite the inanity of the Clinton case and the serious concern that it was taking some of his time away from the real job of being President, there was the constant pressure to continue the investigation, which had nothing to do with his Presidency.  We now know that there were many things missed on his watch, and I certainly don't want to think that all these externalities contributed to the inaction, but it's certainly in the back of my mind.

 

Similarly, there's an equally vocal tide coming from the left, in the name of national security and justice.  To me, it's not so much the issue of Rove & Libby's guilt, but springback retribution for what was done to Clinton.  You don't have to go far in the blogosphere to find the "Finally we got them" posts.

 

Whoopie.  Hooray.  Let's feel happy about taking down key national advisors in the time of a national crisis.

 

If we are really concerned about carrying out the justice, what should we say about a prosecutor who's spent nearly two years investigating serious charges about national security, but now appears to bring up charges on Rove & Libby because they didn't tell him which reporters they spoke with at which time?

 

I'm sure his fellow prosecutors are thrilled with the developments of this & Martha's cases.  The script is set, if a prosecutor comes knocking on your door, the only answer is, "5th Amendment."

482890[/snapback]

On a philosophical note, I have always been very suspect of investigations that do not start with a crime. Watergate began with an obvious crime which triggered an investigation to see who was responsible. What is very troublesome to me is when a person is investigated to see if they have committed a crime somewhere along the way.

 

This particular investigation began with the public outing of a CIA agent and the CIA itself asked for an investigation of the matter. Given the nuances of the IIPA, you can't really tell if a crime has been committed without knowing the details which you can't know without an investigation. This episode at least began with a definable event, something that we absolutely know occurred. This was not an investigation in search of a crime and clearly, the prosecutor has doggedly stuck to this one event. He hasn't strayed into personal relationship, extraneous events and what not.

 

I think by comparison, this investigation is a good example of how these things should be handled and the Clinton investigations, a good example of how not to conduct them.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Thoughful post, GG. That being said, I strongly disagree.

 

In my opinion, an obstruction of justice charge is as significant, perhaps more significant, than the underlying charge, as it represents an allegation of a direct attack on the justice system.

[Mickey]

Thoughful post, GG.  That being said, I strongly disagree.

 

In my opinion, an obstruction of justice charge is as significant, perhaps more significant, than the underlying charge, as it represents an allegation of a direct attack on the justice system.

483034[/snapback]

I write this after having read that Republican senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson referred to perjury in the context of the possible coming indictment in Rovegate as a "technicality".

 

I think that if we are going to bring on a constitutional crisis in trying to impeach the President of the United States over a perjury charge concerning intensely private conduct ultimately ruled irrelevant in the case in which it occurred, there would be no reason not to pursue perjury charges against mere aides in a case involving national security. If Clinton's perjury was important enough to paralyze the executive office and begin a national seizure, certainly perjury by a handful of polical hatchet men easily replaced, involving national security no less, should be pursued.

[Johnny Coli]

I write this after having read that Republican senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson referred to perjury in the context of the possible coming indictment in Rovegate as a "technicality".

484616[/snapback]

It was on Meet The Press. I watched it, and this was part of her response:

 

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena.  I do not think we should prejudge.  I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are.  Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.

 

She actually said that with a straight face. I, however, laughed so hard coffee shot out of my nose.

 

 

EDIT: Forgot to post the link....MTP transcript

Edited October 24, 2005 by Johnny Coli

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It was on Meet The Press.  I watched it, and this was part of her response:

She actually said that with a straight face.  I, however, laughed so hard coffee shot out of my nose.

EDIT:  Forgot to post the link....MTP transcript

485047[/snapback]

 

 

 

Why don't we just elect lab mice to public office from now on. They've got to be smarter than the people we're choosing now...

[N.Y. Orangeman]

I write this after having read that Republican senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson referred to perjury in the context of the possible coming indictment in Rovegate as a "technicality".

 

I think that if we are going to bring on a constitutional crisis in trying to impeach the President of the United States over a perjury charge concerning intensely private conduct ultimately ruled irrelevant in the case in which it occurred, there would be no reason not to pursue perjury charges against mere aides in a case involving national security. If Clinton's perjury was important enough to paralyze the executive office and begin a national seizure, certainly perjury by a handful of polical hatchet men easily replaced, involving national security no less, should be pursued.

484616[/snapback]

[/quote/ ]

 

Classic quote..do you think she wishes she could have that one back?

 

I believe all perjury, regardless of scenario, should not be dismissed as a technicality. Perjury and/or obstruction of justice, no matter what context, cannot and should not be dismissed as political gamesmanship.

[Kelly the Dog]

Libby, at least, is probably going down. It was learned today that Dick Cheney first told Libby of Valerie Plame and that she worked for the CIA, weeks before the Novak article. Cheney found out when asking questions about Joe Wilson from George Tenet. None of that is illegal, obviously. But then Libby told the Grand Jury that journalists told him first. His notes from his meeting with Cheney are where this is known from and Fitzgerald has them.

 

http://nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25l...artner=homepage

[Taro T]

Libby, at least, is probably going down. It was learned today that Dick Cheney first told Libby of Valerie Plame and that she worked for the CIA, weeks before the Novak article. Cheney found out when asking questions about Joe Wilson from George Tenet. None of that is illegal, obviously. But then Libby told the Grand Jury that journalists told him first. His notes from his meeting with Cheney are  where this is known from and Fitzgerald has them.

 

http://nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25l...artner=homepage

485706[/snapback]

Looks like GG's quote about this becoming another "definition of what 'is' is" is coming to fruition.

[Kelly the Dog]

Looks like GG's quote about this becoming another "definition of what 'is' is" is coming to fruition.

485723[/snapback]

How do you figure? Learning something from the Vice President and then telling a Grand Jury under oath that you learned it from a completely different source, journalists, is hardly a semantic argument. It's a flat lie and perjury.

[Wacka]

And the NYT knows this how?- it is supposed to be secret grand jury testimony. Who are the leakers of this supposed info- indict them.

[Mickey]

With apologies to Don Corleone:

 

"Libby's a pimp, he never coulda out fought Fitzy but I didn't know, until this day, that it was Cheney all along."

 

There is likely nothing at all illegal about this most recent revelation but, as I emphasized in a discussion with KRC, the political ramifications are just as important if not more so than the outcome of the criminal cases that are brewing. I haven't analyzed Cheney's public statements on this issue to compare what he has said with the allegations raised in the Times story to see how dishonest he was being. Certainly though, that is going to happen soon enough and he will be in political hot water if it turns out he was lying in his public statements. A good comparison is that the American people were probably more upset with Clinton's bold faced lie that he "...did not have sex with that woman..." than they were with the cat and mouse deposition testimony he gave in the Jones case. Likewise, Cheney may have more trouble politically than he will when it comes to any criminal charges.

 

As for Libby on the other hand, he looks to be in real danger of being indicted. It looks like he may very well have lied to the grand jury, in theory, to protect his boss from having his perfectly legal lies exposed. That theory would be valid if Cheney publicly denied any knowledge that Plame worked for the CIA and again, I have not had the chance to go through all he has said on the matter so its just a theory. It makes sense however. Why would Libby lie to cover up something that wasn't even illegal save to spare his boss from a major political mess prior to a re-election campaign?

 

I wish Fitzgerald would save us from all this speculation and either indict or not already.

[Taro T]

How do you figure? Learning something from the Vice President and then telling a Grand Jury under oath that you learned it from a completely different source, journalists, is hardly a semantic argument. It's a flat lie and perjury.

485729[/snapback]

I agree, and have stated all along, that if he did perjure himself he belongs in jail. My guess is that he probably didn't perjure himself on some technicality. I'm looking at this from the point of view that this guy is a lawyer, and I'm assuming a fairly smart one to have moved this far up the political food chain. He knows (my assumption) what perjury is, he also knows what he knows about all this and when he learned what he knows. Being a lawyer, he is used to using "weasel words" to say one thing when he means another. Probably something along the lines of him learning that Wilson's wife worked at CIA from Cheney but not knowing her last name was Plame and/or that she had been a covert agent and getting told by a reporter what the last name was and the specific question that Fitzgerald asked was "when did you learn and from who did you learn Valerie PLAME was a covert CIA agent". Technically, he would have learned about Plame from the reporter; realistically he would have learned from Cheney. If my guess is correct, is that perjury? Mickey could help me with this one, but I don't believe that it technically is perjury.

 

Again, as I've stated before, I don't like people working in the Executive Branch taking liberties with sworn testimony.

 

Considering nothing official has been released from the grand jury yet, I am willing to wait a couple of more days to see what indictments, if any, are handed out. The NYT is, or should be, speculating at this time on what is in Fitzgerald's possession at this time.

[Kelly the Dog]

And the NYT knows this how?- it is supposed to be secret grand jury testimony. Who are the leakers of this supposed info- indict them.

485761[/snapback]

Don't sweat it, Wacka. You have nothing to worry about. When Rove and Libby get indicted all they will need to prove their innocence to the Grand Jury is to show them pictures of Rove grinning whenever the cameras were on him outside the White House. That was all the irrefutable proof you needed.

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree, and have stated all along, that if he did perjure himself he belongs in jail.  My guess is that he probably didn't perjure himself on some technicality.  I'm looking at this from the point of view that this guy is a lawyer, and I'm assuming a fairly smart one to have moved this far up the political food chain.  He knows (my assumption) what perjury is, he also knows what he knows about all this and when he learned what he knows.  Being a lawyer, he is used to using "weasel words" to say one thing when he means another.  Probably something along the lines of him learning that Wilson's wife worked at CIA from Cheney but not knowing her last name was Plame and/or that she had been a covert agent and getting told by a reporter what the last name was and the specific question that Fitzgerald asked was "when did you learn and from who did you learn Valerie PLAME was a covert CIA agent".  Technically, he would have learned about Plame from the reporter; realistically he would have learned from Cheney.  If my guess is correct, is that perjury?  Mickey could help me with this one, but I don't believe that it technically is perjury.

 

Again, as I've stated before, I don't like people working in the Executive Branch taking liberties with sworn testimony. 

 

Considering nothing official has been released from the grand jury yet, I am willing to wait a couple of more days to see what indictments, if any, are handed out.  The NYT is, or should be, speculating at this time on what is in Fitzgerald's possession at this time.

485803[/snapback]

I see what you mean now, and you're probably right. I don't think anyone is going to be found guilty of anything in court. It will just be a mess. And in all honesty, that is what probably should happen. Their punishment, because they likely did do something wrong, and immoral, and outside of the spirit of the law if not the definition of the law, will be the political suicide and not jail time.

[pope zimli]

On a philosophical note, I have always been very suspect of investigations that do not start with a crime.  Watergate began with an obvious crime which triggered an investigation to see who was responsible.  What is very troublesome to me is when a person is investigated to see if they have committed a crime somewhere along the way. 

 

This particular investigation began with the public outing of a CIA agent and the CIA itself asked for an investigation of the matter.  Given the nuances of the IIPA, you can't really tell if a crime has been committed without knowing the details which you can't know without an investigation.  This episode at least began with a definable event, something that we absolutely know occurred.  This was not an investigation in search of a crime and clearly, the prosecutor has doggedly stuck to this one event.  He hasn't strayed into personal relationship, extraneous events and what not. 

 

I think by comparison, this investigation is a good example of how these things should be handled and the Clinton investigations, a good example of how not to conduct them.

482990[/snapback]

 

This investigation started with something far worse than a run of the mill crime.  A CIA operative was outed to the press.  That has significant consequences for her (ending any further work as an operative) jeopardizes her colleagues and possible informants, and effects all other agents.  If ANYTHING should be investigated and vigorously prosecuted, this is it.

[Johnny Coli]

Their punishment, because they likely did do something wrong, and immoral, and outside of the spirit of the law if not the definition of the law, will be the political suicide and not jail time.

485839[/snapback]

Do you really think anything will happen to these guys? The way they are spinning it now, anything short of an indictment will be considered a huge victory.

[Kelly the Dog]

Do you really think anything will happen to these guys?  The way they are spinning it now, anything short of an indictment will be considered a huge victory.

485897[/snapback]

It's just speculation but I think that Rove and Libby both get indicted. Their careers will take a solid hit but not really bury them or anything. The media frenzy and public badmouthing and brief suspension of their jobs will be the biggest loss to them, but probably what it should be. Then they will be back to normal. Bush and his administration as a whole will probably take as big a hit as those two. And it may be enough to send some long time supporters over the edge because of the timing.

 

Then again, the press could be completely wrong and Fitzgerald has the guts to just pack it in and not indict anyone, but that is not my prediction.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This investigation started with something far worse than a run of the mill crime.  A CIA operative was outed to the press.  That has significant consequences for her (ending any further work as an operative) jeopardizes her colleagues and possible informants, and effects all other agents.  If ANYTHING should be investigated and vigorously prosecuted, this is it.

485844[/snapback]

 

Former CIA operative. Still serious, as it puts assets at risk...but I haven't yet heard that operations were blown and national security was compromised as it might be if an active operative were compromised. So let's at least be accurate with our vocabulary, shall we?

 

Wait...what am I saying? Never mind...let's all just play fast and loose with the facts and mold them to fit our preconceived notions. This is, after all, about political mudslinging, not justice. It's Monica Lewinski all over again, but without the salaciousness.

[Mickey]

I see what you mean now, and you're probably right. I don't think anyone is going to be found guilty of anything in court. It will just be a mess. And in all honesty, that is what probably should happen. Their punishment, because they likely did do something wrong, and immoral, and outside of the spirit of the law if not the definition of the law, will be the political suicide and not jail time.

485839[/snapback]

Exactly.

 

As far as the country is concerned, these guys getting canned is all that matters. Whether or not any of them goes to a Club Med kind of jail for 30 days is of little consequence.

 

From a political standpoint, their opponents will be able to credibly state that they orchestrated a nasty attack and political payback against Wilson for daring to speak out against the administration, even going after his wife and that they then lied and obfuscated to try to kill the investigation before they were revealed to be the bullies they are and they will be able to do so regardless of whether or not anyone is convicted of anything. At best, Rove and company will be reduced to a weak defense that what they did, no matter how despicable, was not technically illegal. If they want to call that a "victory" well then hooray for them.

 

I think the question will soon be reduced to determining whether they are merely thugs and liars or are they thugs and liars who should actually go to jail. Its a question of degrees and I am not sure there is much of a difference from a political standpoint whether there is or is not a conviction.