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.
I believe Wilson, his wife and whoever else are the culprits here.
When I heard Wilson had not signed a confidentiality agreement; I went WHAT? Most companies request of whoever works with or for them do.
This is a red flag and it makes me wonder if this obvious set up for whatever reason did not come from Wilson, his wife and whoever backed them. People sign confidentiality agreements or whatever especially when dealing with high sensitivty issues as Wilson has been spouting off to the world he was involved in. If they don't you have to wonder WHY?
If Bush and the Republicians don't go after this agressively; they are just plain crazy.
Why doesn't someone with some clout, like Bush, set the record straight about Plame's status? Scott McLellan, please, call a news conference to extract all the myths perpetrated by the lemmings in the MSM. Please. Someone, do something or I'll go stark raving mad.
Here's the problem with that. In reading this (and it's convoluted), Libby said that he told Russert, in response to his question about Plame being CIA, that he (Libby) did not know that.
But Fitz is saying that Russert never asked that question, and is saying that, since it never happened, that Libby is committing perjury.
However, HE IS ALSO INDICTING LIBBY FOR SAYING HE DIDN'T KNOW TO RUSSERT - for a question that Fitz says was NEVER ASKED! Fitz can have one or the other. He can't have both, and that IMO is gonna sink two charges on the spot.
"Wow! How did THIS get by the AP editors?"
Maybe they forgot what they said about Clinton's perjury when he was in office. Just like they forgot what they said about WMDs.
"Scooter was indicted on five counts of contradicting a reporter... "
Two lessons here!!! Never trust a reporter and never lie to a GJ.
Cross examination.
Of Miller
And Cooper
And Russert.
Take the 5th
Times three
Case dismissed.
I think it is going to dawn on the folks behind all this that they just got opened up to cross examination. Don't be surprised if you start to see calls for Fitzgerald to drop the charges once that becomes clear to them.
Russert, Miller and Cooper had best be certain that they did not ever say anything contradictory at any Washington party where Bush and Cheney people over heard them. Or have anyone who knows the truth about Russert.
Media people run their mouths way too much at parties. They never think that they can be challenged. I doubt that Libby beleived that Russert would lie for him. But to think libby is lying you have to beleive that libby believed that Russert would lie for him. That is a stretch.
I think there is a good chance that Russert was covering his own rump when he contradicted Libby. Libby said Russert was his source. Russert says he was not. I can't imagine Libby telling that kind of lie. If Libby knows Russert is lying then Russert could be in for a long hard ride come deposition and trial time.
I for one don't think Libby is lying. I think Russert is. The question is can Libby prove it. That depends on how much Cheney is willing to do to save Libby. I would bet a lot.
Did anyone but me notice how much Fitzgeralds voice shook at his press conference. He did not sound like a man who is sure of himself. He sounded like a man who just bet his rump on a weak bet.
This is going to get interesting as the trail apporoaches.
D.C. juries tilt heavily against white conservative Republicans. That is common knowledge. D.C. is about the worst place for a white conservative Republican to be tried, which is why defense attorneys for white conservative Republicans always try for changes of venue. (Ask Oliver North what he thinks of D.C. juries.)
Add this to the fact that it is almost impossible to overstate the hatred and paranoia felt by the citizens of Washington D.C. towards everything Bush. They'll get back at him for stealing the 2000 election by preventing blacks from voting and for dragging that black man behind his pickup truck in that TV ad.
I'm angry about the double standard between the way the Bush administration has been treated vs the Clinton administration, and Fitz doesn't think this alone isn't bad for the country, then he's a total fool.
Lawyers, salt of the earth, sure, sure, sure. Takes ten to screw in a light bulb, but they have a time finding the burned our bulb, and then looses the socket.
Once my brothers and I were discussing a case with our lawyer concerning a civil matter and in the middle of the discussion the Lawyer said wait a minute I don't think as fast as the three of you do. Well, we all looked at each other amazed. Next we took a short break and then informed him that his service was no longer required.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Ex-CIA Accuse Bush of Manipulating Iraq Evidence
********************************************
An excerpt:
****************************
This behavior is unethical, criminal and outright treasonous. Kind of makes one wonder what all of this might have to do with the Rove/Plame kerfluffle.
WASHINGTON — Invoking the name of a Pentagon whistle-blower, a small group of retired, anti-war CIA officers are accusing the Bush administration of manipulating evidence against Iraq in order to push war while burying evidence that could show Iraq's compliance with U.N demands for disarmament.
The 25-member group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, composed mostly of former CIA analysts along with a few operational agents, is urging employees inside the intelligence agency to break the law and leak any information they have that could show the Bush administration is engineering the release of evidence to match its penchant for war.
************************************************
The Ex-Chief of Staff for Colin Powell while he was in the State Dept was on Washington Journal yesterday accusing Rumsfeld and Cheney for being behind the non Geneva treatment of enemy combatants....at Abu Gruib and Gitmo....
Lots of Retirees out to bring down the Bush Administration....
See the link at post # 37. They may have just been bit players in a larger scheme!
You are correct in this statement. What you are leaving out though, is that Libby reiterated this statement to the FBI and the Grand Jury, i.e. he flat out told them "I did not know at that time that Plame worked for the CIA". That is a demonstrably false statement.
But Fitz is saying that Russert never asked that question, and is saying that, since it never happened, that Libby is committing perjury.
No, that is not what Fitz is hanging the false statements and perjury charges on. It is not because Libby made up a question that Russert didn't really ask. As I said above, it's because Libby told the FBI and the Grand Jury that he didn't know Plame worked for the CIA when he was talking to the reporters, when he most certainly and provably did know!
He apparently bolstered that claim by hurredly interviewing a few neighbors last week. Meanwhile, Joe Wilson reportedly introduced Plame to Andrea Mitchell as "my CIA wife." That can be found with a simple Google search, along with many other allegations that Plame was known as a CIA agent. So why is Fitz claiming this?
IMO because it's the only way he can bring perjury charges here. By making it seem that the only way reporters could have learned Plame was CIA was through Libby, he makes it appear that Libby was lying. However, what if the reporters are lying? Fitz already gave Miller an out by agreeing to limit her testimony to Libby and no one else. Why?
More and more, this is seeming like a last-minute attempt to pin a charge on someone in order to justify extending the grand jury. If he didn't have any indictments after two years, it would have been a lot harder.
I didn't say that.
However, like anything else, the judicial system is only as good as the people in it.
Fitz is a partisan hack. That's demonstrated by the fact he couldn't accomplish anything on the primary issue, and had to fall back on a technicality to justify the time and expense of his investigation. His incoherent babbling during the presser vividly demonstrated that his indictment house is built on a foundation of sand.
I work in forensics. I deal with attorneys on a daily basis, provide deposition testimony almost monthly, and appear in trials almost quarterly. The attorneys I go up against literally invent "facts" to try and trip me up and to mislead juries. When selecting a jury, these same attorneys seek to empanel the most ignorant individuals they possibly can in the belief that such people can be swayed, if not outright bamboozled.
In theory, the American judicial system is without peer. In application, it falls a little short; but it still beats everything else out there. Regrettably, it can be, and has been, manipulated (think OJ).
That's the only way to understand what the charges are really about.
By making it seem that the only way reporters could have learned Plame was CIA was through Libby, he makes it appear that Libby was lying.
READ THE INDICTMENT!! Your statement is NOT CORRECT - that is not what the false statement and perjury charges are about AT ALL!
If anyone is going to talk about this it all, they really need to read the indictment!! I see too many people characterizing this as a "he said, they said" with Libby saying one thing and reporters (specifically Russert) saying another. THAT'S NOT IT AT ALL!! Excuse me for shouting, but we here at FR really should be more informed - it's something we pride ourselves on, but it's just not happening in this case.
I'll say it one more time. Libby directly told the FBI and the Grand Jury that when he was talking to reporters (Miller, Russert, etc.) he did not know that Plame worked for the FBI. Fitzgerald includes a timeline in the indictment that outlines what Libby knew about Plame, who he heard it from, and when he heard it. From that timeline it is totally clear that Libby absolutely and positively knew that Plame worked for the CIA at the time he was talking with reporters about the situation. That is why he is being indicted - because the evidence blatantly contradicts his statements to the FBI and the Grand Jury about what he knew about Plame's employment by the CIA and when he knew it!
"he flat out told them "I did not know at that time that Plame worked for the CIA". That is a demonstrably false statement."
Time out, we don't know what Libby said to the Grand Jury.
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.