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.
2 counts of contradicting reporters, 2 counts of doing so in a grand jury testimony, and 1 count of doing the 4 counts with the purpose of misleading the investigation.
All regarding his statements to first the FBI investigators, and later the grand jury, regarding 3 contacts with reporters.
"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."
That's right, they could blame a lot of their troubles on a news media that's incompetent, biased, or both.
They better watch out or they may cause a controversy!
Someone, please answer me this: If a crime had never been committed, how can one lie about it?
Exactly....good one!
I believe that people can come to an unbiased conclusion whether they are black, white, male, female, Dem or Rep.
If you intentionally lie to a grand jury, that is perjury and obstruction of justice. They could have asked, "What does 2+2 equal?" If he says "5" when he knows the answer is "4", then that is a crime.
Libby told the FBI and the Grand Jury that when he talked to the reporters he didn't know that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. That is not true - he did know that she worked for the CIA as he had been told by a State Department official, by Cheney and had confirmed it with the CIA as well.
Answered myself! Never mind!
And I'll add this.....why did Judith Miller willingly go to jail for all that time????
And everyone knows that reporters never lie!!!! Being the saints that they are!!!! sarc/off
Really? You might be interested in this bridge I have . . .
He he he he he....
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
What the hell kind of idiotic statement is that?
We are paying Fitzgerald to do this job. That would imply a certain obligation that he let us know whether or not a crime was committed prior to the time he started gathering evidence in the case.
Exactly. Gergen accidentally told the truth.
When are you up for parole?
You don't believe in the American judicial system?
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.