[T]he few loose ends he’s still tying up may include squeezing Libby until he coughs up the whole hairball of the conspiracy, including the vice president’s role in it. Right now, though, it doesn’t look like justice has been well served, or even fully baked.
Back to Main
October 29, 2005
WB: Why Did Fitzgerald …
Comments
Fitzgerald is a republican.
The Neocon’s have mob like reach.
Bush can pardon Libby any time he wants.
This means that Libby will become the new Miller. He may go to jail, but he won’t spill the beans on the neocon conspiracy against American/The World. As long as Libby keeps his mouth shut, the Neocon ship is still safely afloat.
My hope is that the controversy will cast enough dispersions on Bush that it will cause a big swing over to the Democrats. String the investigation along long enough for the balance of power to swing away from the administration. Then Bush and Cheney and Rove go on trial after they leave office, and spend the rest of their lives in jail.
But that won’t protect them from being put on trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
The whole neocon movements assault on humanity needs to be fault, tooth and nail and exposed and throughly discredited for the evil that it is.
Posted by: Timka | Oct 29 2005 20:40 utc | 1
Also, the fact that it was Libby who ferreted out the info on Plame signifies nothing. Scooter committed no crimes in asking; his contacts committed no crimes in telling.
People keep saying this, but I don’t think it’s necessarily true. Access to classified information requires both clearance and the “need to know”.
I’m no expert, but I did have a secret clearance once. It was more than 20 years ago, but our instructions in regard to that “need to know” bit were emphatic enough that I still remember.
Posted by: synykyl | Oct 29 2005 20:44 utc | 2
Fitz opened the door with the big bag of money behind it.
I realise there is a certain reluctance to believe that institutions have become that corrupt but as Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier .
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 29 2005 21:21 utc | 4
Comeon you lightweights— it takes proof! What are you thinkin’ ????
Posted by: Soandso | Oct 29 2005 21:28 utc | 5
publius over at Legal Fiction has a good post sort of along the same lines, the conclusion of which is the question: why didn’t Fitzgerald indict under the IIPA?
Posted by: jonnybutter | Oct 29 2005 21:57 utc | 6
They did not violate the IIPA, otherwise known as the Agee-Wolf(e) Act. I heard an interview this week w/Phil Agee. He said he didn’t see how they could be prosecuted under it. It was specifically tailored to get Wolfe to stop writing his column “Naming Names”, in which he was regularly outing CIA agents who were running the Empire’s Torture States. To be prosecuted under this, Fitz would have had to demonstrate a pattern of behavior – One Instance Was Not Sufficient. That’s why Fitz said he didn’t prosecute under it ‘cuz to do so would have created de facto an Official Secrets Act like Brits have, where it would be illegal to leak anyone’s name. His concern for our rights in this was touching in light of the Criminals working overtime to destroy them all.
Synkyl is right on though. Robert Parry weighs in on how furious CIA guys, etc., are that NOC agent was outed. link
As an outsider to Washington, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to have misunderstood the finer points of how national security classifications work when a secret is as discrete – and sensitive – as the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
In his five-count indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, prosecutor Fitzgerald leaves the false impression that it was all right for White House officials with security clearances to be discussing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, a counter-proliferation official under deep cover.
Under the rules of classification, however, to see such secrets an official must not only have a top-secret clearance but also special code-word clearance that grants access to a specific compartment governed by strict need-to-know requirements.
…
“The CIA is obsessive about protecting its NOCs,” one angry former senior U.S. official told me after Libby was charged only with perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice. “There’s almost nothing they care about more.”
Posted by: jj | Oct 29 2005 22:27 utc | 7
I dont agree with the assessment that he didn’t have enough evidence to bring an indictment on the charge of providing classified information to one not auhorized to recieve it (the easier to prove of the two statutes)- namely, Judith Miller.
While I agree with Fitz that Scooter (and probably Rove and Miller’s) lies made it difficult to meet all the elements of the crime, keep in mind that for the purpose of a grand jury, he need only show probably cause that the crime was committed for the grand jury to indict- once they get to trial, the standard becomes “beyond a reasonable doubt” and much harder to prove, obviously. In other words, he doesnt have to prove each element of the statute at this point, but rather that its probable that each element was violated.
My lawyer’s instinct tells me that Fitz is still looking to indict on the original criminal charges for several reasons- the first being what Billmon argued in his post- even with just the evidence available to the public, it seems Fitz has enough to convince a grand jury of probable cause that the statute was violated. Second, Fitzgerald’s history as US Attorney shows that he doesnt give up easily and he often squeezes his targets to get at the bigger fish (and the larger crimes) in the pond. I think Rove’s 11th hour wrangling to avoid indictment was evidence of that.
Third, the fact that Fitz has continued the investigation tells us that he isn’t finished- remember, Rove and others are in serious legal jeopardy and will be testifying under oath in the libby trial- a very unpleasant circumstance for the White House, particularly as Cheney and Tenet are likely to be called as witnesses. I think this means that Fitz thinks he can pull another rabbit out of his hat.
I dont think he would have jailed Miller if he hadnt thought it was absolutely necessary. I am a huge believer in freedom of the press, but this miller bullshit was a joke- it was a total perversion of the REASON behind freedom of the press and confidentiality agreements- she wasnt protecting a govt whistleblower from retribution- she was doing the opposite- she was taking part in the govt’s plan to smear and seek revenge against the whistleblower and his wife and hiding behind a reporters shield to protect a crime- not exaclty a noble cause. Also, keep in mind that as the judge said, miller could have easily avoided jail had she availed herself of libby’s FIRST release of confidentiality which she chose to ignore, saying she wasnt sure about it.
I believe Fitz still has Rove and Libby and perhaps others in his sights for the underlying criminal charges- we just have to do something we arent very good at- we have to wait and see 🙂
I dont agree with the assessment that he didn’t have enough evidence to bring an indictment on the charge of providing classified information to one not auhorized to recieve it (the easier to prove of the two statutes)- namely, Judith Miller.
While I agree with Fitz that Scooter (and probably Rove and Miller’s) lies made it difficult to meet all the elements of the crime, keep in mind that for the purpose of a grand jury, he need only show probably cause that the crime was committed for the grand jury to indict- once they get to trial, the standard becomes “beyond a reasonable doubt” and much harder to prove, obviously. In other words, he doesnt have to prove each element of the statute at this point, but rather that its probable that each element was violated.
My lawyer’s instinct tells me that Fitz is still looking to indict on the original criminal charges for several reasons- the first being what Billmon argued in his post- even with just the evidence available to the public, it seems Fitz has enough to convince a grand jury of probable cause that the statute was violated. Second, Fitzgerald’s history as US Attorney shows that he doesnt give up easily and he often squeezes his targets to get at the bigger fish (and the larger crimes) in the pond. I think Rove’s 11th hour wrangling to avoid indictment was evidence of that.
Third, the fact that Fitz has continued the investigation tells us that he isn’t finished- remember, Rove and others are in serious legal jeopardy and will be testifying under oath in the libby trial- a very unpleasant circumstance for the White House, particularly as Cheney and Tenet are likely to be called as witnesses. I think this means that Fitz thinks he can pull another rabbit out of his hat.
I dont think he would have jailed Miller if he hadnt thought it was absolutely necessary. I am a huge believer in freedom of the press, but this miller bullshit was a joke- it was a total perversion of the REASON behind freedom of the press and confidentiality agreements- she wasnt protecting a govt whistleblower from retribution- she was doing the opposite- she was taking part in the govt’s plan to smear and seek revenge against the whistleblower and his wife and hiding behind a reporters shield to protect a crime- not exaclty a noble cause. Also, keep in mind that as the judge said, miller could have easily avoided jail had she availed herself of libby’s FIRST release of confidentiality which she chose to ignore, saying she wasnt sure about it.
I believe Fitz still has Rove and Libby and perhaps others in his sights for the underlying criminal charges- we just have to do something we arent very good at- we have to wait and see 🙂
Stacy, the issue wasn’t Scooter’s release. It was Fitz agreeing to limit her testimony to one meeting. So, she’s still protecting these guys.
Posted by: jj | Oct 29 2005 23:08 utc | 11
for Billmon’s To Be Photoshopped Stash Judy, Valerie, Anyone & Fundie Pharmacist…This is Magnificent…(French of course.)
Posted by: jj | Oct 29 2005 23:10 utc | 12
The word that comes to mind is “Taguba”, as in Major General Antonio M. Taguba who so thoroughly investigated the Abu Graib trorture scandal. But somehow all the responsible actors managed to dodge the bullet and continue with their daily misdeeds. I think we just got tagubad. But to tell you the truth I wasn’t expecting much anyway. I do think that, with the investigation continuing, the disgruntled old-timers have a set at the table in this game now. If anything off color was to happen Fitz will get a mysteriouse phone call and Roves ass will be indicted faster than you can say Karpinsky. I think Syria just got a reprieve.
Max
Posted by: Max Andersen | Oct 29 2005 23:54 utc | 13
I see Fitzgerald as getting a for-sure strong case (with possible real jail time) and at the same time enhancing his own political position, eg dispatching the moronic ‘perjury is a technicality’ talking point. Maybe Rovie gets popped too. There’s a trial. Cheney is still vulnerable. Maybe literal justice wasn’t done, but I do see Fitz’ point about our not having an official secrets act – he HAS to play it by the book. Even if it’s not prosecuted, there might be a lede one of these days reading, ‘Cheney admits revealing CIA operative’s name’ or other stuff. I don’t care if Cheney goes to jail or not, really. He deserves to, but I’d gladly settle for resignation and shame for the ages. Everyone knows what this is really about. Cheney and others are in fact skating on a ‘technicality’; there’s legal traitorousness and then there’s the ‘real’ kind.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Oct 30 2005 0:01 utc | 14
First, I agree with Stacy that there’s more to come, and that the trial itself may be the way Fitzgerald plans to get the information he needs to lock up either IIPA or conspiracy charges, or both.
The people who testify won’t know what the grand jury’s been told and what Fitzgerald knows, so they don’t know what they can say on the stand without implicating themselves in some way. And they now have about ten months to worry about it, too.
Second, he *did* have to go after every reporter Libby contacted in that period in order to run his well-constructed story to ground.
Let’s suppose Fitz got all except one reporter to cooperate. Wouldn’t that leave reasonable doubt that maybe it was the one we didn’t hear from who told Libby about Wilson’s wife?
In other words, it was absolutely essential to get them all to testify to what Libby *didn’t* hear from them. Otherwise there’d always be a break in the circle.
Posted by: Altoid | Oct 30 2005 0:13 utc | 15
Fitzgerald did have enough information to indict on IIPA, but probably not enough to ensure a conviction. Libby has testified under oath that he forgot his conversation with Cheney, and it is that conversation that proves that Libby knew Plame was convert.
Fitzgerald is also smart enough to know that he is far better off starting with the “slam dunk” indictments of perjury and obstruction alone, than with charging Libby with a crime that has a strong possibility of resulting in an acquittal.
The coverage of the indictment would focus on the IIPA violation, and the perjury and obstruction counts would be seen as secondary. If Libby was acquitted of the IIPA violation, but convicted of the other counts, there would be talk of a “Martha Stewart” conviction, of an “over-reaching prosecutor”, etc. etc….
I would suggest that Fitzgerald knows that Libby blew Plames cover, and is not going to accept any plea agreement that does not do two things
1) tells Fitzgerald something he can’t quite prove yet (i.e. Libby has to provide evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct)
2) plead guilty to the IIPA violation.
Once Libby starts co-operating, Fitzgerald can drop the perjury and obstruction charges, and accept the plea on the IIPA violation with a sentence of a couple of years in jail, and a six figure fine….
Posted by: p lukasiak | Oct 30 2005 1:02 utc | 16
There is no point in testing the strength of the case with the outing of the agent, until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary. Fitz has already indicated his doubts with the stuff about the official secrets act. This is not slam dunk. However as to lying about facts, it is easy in this case regardless of argument as to the seriousness of it all. The next thread would have to be conspiricy and obstruction. Bag the whole lot of them on other charges before testing the outing of the agent as to substantive legality.
Posted by: YY | Oct 30 2005 1:09 utc | 17
Over at Booman Tribune, Marty Aussenberg has made a post which answers some of the questions that Billmon has mentioned having.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/29/20254/872
He makes a case for why he thinks that we haven’t heard the last from Mr. Fitzgerald.
I had really begun to think that perhaps the media was right and that we wouldn’t be seeing anything more, that the whole thing was going to be wrapped up and nothing would actually be resolved, except for the charges against Libby. In particular Mr. Aussenberg mentions that more charges may still be brought against Libby.
Also, he answers a question I had as to why the indictment was so detailed, a “speaking indictment” when it didn’t need to be. It might also answer a question as to why Mr. Fitzgerald held a press conference. The speaking indictment is a tactic, and its one that says, he isn’t through with this by any means, even if he may wish that he were back home in Chicago. Finally some things make sense.
I don’t think there will ever be a trial for Libby. Neither do I think that Bush can pardon before Libby is convicted by law. Which means Libby is going to have to come to some sort of agreement, either to plead guilty and then be eligible for a pardon, or to give Fitz what he wants (and we don’t know what that might be). He already seems to know alot, and you can bet he didn’t put it all in the indictment. Just enough to let Washington know that he has the goods and no amount of “spin” is going to make it go away.
I think we wait and watch, neither with glee or disappointment, not yet anyhow. The play isn’t over, just Act I.
Posted by: pacos_gal | Oct 30 2005 1:55 utc | 18
Even if you think a case is strong, a trial is not a sure thing.
The stakes are so high. If Libby were acquitted on a leak charge, the perceived legitimacy of the whole prosecution would crumble.
Convicting on the other charges allows observers to liken this to Al Capone being nailed for tax evasion. That may be a disappointment, but it’s so much better than an acquittal on a leak charge.
They are all in legal jeopardy and there is still the hope that Libby will reveal some damning information about Rove, now that he knows Rove (Official A) likely did some last minute “remembering” to avoid an indictment.
The parade of potential witnesses will probably put pressure on Libby to plea bargain.
I think Fitz is still working on charging under the IIPA- I think he could have brought an indictment and used that as leverage, quite frankly. Again, the standard of proof for the grand jury is “probable cause” vs. “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I find it hard to believe that even with the information the public has (the memo from Air Force 2, Plame’s status as a NOC, etc) that he didnt have enough to indict.
But we’ll see. The spinmeister’s are out in force today- trying to minimize the charges- I dont think they will find a receptive audience for that line of rhetoric, particularly after that circus of an impeachment, which is still fresh in people’s minds.
The mainstream media should start asking the hard questions of Bush and Cheney- what did they know and when? Libby and Rove are their top guns, its ridiculous for the media to act like these guys act alone and without their bosses knowledge. Can you imagine if this had happened on Clinton’s watch? They’d be trying to find a way to pin it on him, not just his staff. But the media kind of acts like bush, arguably the most powerful person on the planet, only knows what is going on and is responsible when its something good that happens- but when top white house officials are working to smear a white house critic, suddenly he knows nothing…sorry, I dont buy it.