Posted on 10/28/2005 1:47:07 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's first charges in the White House leak case don't get to the heart of his two-year probe: the leak.
The indictment of vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. is built on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury _ and it will rest primarily on testimony from a handful of Washington reporters.
"In some ways it seems less satisfying," said Michael Cahill, a Brooklyn Law School professor, adding that false statements might have impeded the probe into whether top Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Steven Reich, a New York attorney and former senior associate counsel to President Bill Clinton, said Fitzgerald has his reasons for not charging anyone with the leak. "Either he thought there was not a crime, or he thought he couldn't prove it. No one will know which but him," he said.
It may have been smart strategy, however, for the prosecutor to go with safer charges, considering the stakes in investigating the highest levels of the White House.
"Perjury and false statement can be remarkably easy to prove," said Andrew D. Levy, a criminal defense lawyer in Baltimore who teaches at the University of Maryland. "So often it's the cover-up that ensnares people."
Levy said the indictment is "very narrow, very focused: it follows, very provable."
The indictment alleges that Libby lied about his conversations with reporters. Witnesses at the trial will likely include Tim Russert of NBC News, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, all of whom testified before the grand jury that returned Friday's indictment.
Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke Law School professor, said it is not unusual for criminal probes to change their focus.
"What brought down the Nixon administration wasn't the burglary itself, but the cover-up of it," Chemerinsky said, adding that what caused Clinton's impeachment "wasn't that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky but he lied about it."
The charges in the Friday indictment are similar to the ones used in Martha Stewart's criminal case. She was convicted last year for obstructing justice and lying about why she sold ImClone Systems stock, just before a negative government decision on an ImClone drug. She served a five-month prison term followed by home confinement.
"Very rarely do obstruction of justice cases and perjury cases come as neatly tied as Martha Stewart's ... it is by no means a slam dunk," said Viet Dinh, a law professor at Georgetown University and former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration.
The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby "knowingly and willfully" made false statements and lied to the grand jury. He could claim that any misstatements were not intentional.
"These are sophisticated people," Mark A. Godsey, a University of Cincinnati law professor, said of the top White House advisers. "Playing dumb, the jury might not buy that. At the same time they're extremely busy. Are they in the loop or not in the loop?"
Libby, a Columbia University law school graduate, has not been in trouble before.
"Although it always helps a criminal defendant not to have a criminal record, a D.C. jury will be open to the idea that politicians are willing to lie," said Gabriel J. Chin, a criminal law professor at the University of Arizona.
Wow! How did THIS get by the AP editors?
What? A correct headline?
They are correct; Joseph Wilson was not indicted today.
David Gergen said, just a short time ago, (on CNN or MSNBC) that the White House can't blame it's troubles on an overzealous prosecutor or on being "kn*cked-up" by the press.
I think he meant "knocked-about."
AGREED
WOW! Someone in the press is suggesting this is political?
Get ready, this reporter is going to be dragged to the woodshed by the rest of the "unbiased" reporters in the biz....
Until you look at the indictment itself and see it is about he said, he said situations.
there wasn't a crime until there was an investigation.
LOL! I did a double take on that too.
I imagine they relaxed their standards this time because the overall goal is to explain how they have a Republican in their cross-hairs.
Hat tip to Drudge on this one, by the way!
Wow! I can't believe someone got it right for a change.
Scooter was indicted on five counts of contradicting a reporter...
At least that's all I could garner from reading the indictment.
I know people here don't like him much Hannity is doing a great Job on this also. Good analysis, good guests and good points.
In retrospect, what did having been a senator have to do with the real reasons Ashcroft recused himself????
I didn't catch him, but in a way he's correct: when the leak charges first aired a couple of years ago, Bush, in Pavlovian fashion, rushed to appoint a Special Prosecutor. There was no need for him to do this. Had he declined (especially as it now appears that no "blown cover" statute was violated) the flap would have soon died. So, it can be argued that today's indictment is a direct consequence of Bush's lack of resolve early on.
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
D.C. jury
That is correct, Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with the crime of "outing" a covert agent. Is he required to? Of course not. If the evidence doesn't meet the requirements of the statute, he's not going to charge anyone.
I note that the news media still can't get this straight. ABC Radio News led off with, "Valerie Plame was a covert agent."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.