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 was watching PBS Jim Snare report. I put up with listening to Fitzgerald's explaination of what Libby's supposedly said to reporters etc.. Sounds like they caught him on a technicality as to the time frames when he shared info with any given reporter at any given time. Perhaps he (Libby) screwed up. But then as I was finishing up the last few bites of food on my plate, the put on Ben Venista, at which point I cried out I can't take this shit anymore and shut the tube off. Snakes begat snakes.
We most certainly do know some of what he said. If you read the indictment there is a verbatim transcript of some of Libby's testimony.
Have you read it yet?
That's what I am saying. In order to get them to play around; they had to give them some room to manuver around in and what better way than a non signed confidentiality agreement. Something most people are not looking for.
If it isn't a crime then what in the world is the point????
Truth is, because of the focus and all, Libby could with an impressive defense fund honestly take this back at the folks who started this whole thing.
Ben Venista always appears to me as a slimeball!
Perhaps you feel that way because he really is a dirty rotten no good slime ball.
He is obviously a good Beltway DemonicRat!
I think Libby may have fallen on a sword for others.
Levin states Fitzgerald, when asked if it was proven that a covert operatory was outed, he said "No".....but any classifiedCIA agent should be expected to to have their anonimonity guaranteed. Is the janitor or parking attendants convered. EVeryone at Langley is classified according to Levine. Classification means nothing regarding being outted. Being covert does.
When any form of smoke screen must be set up one finds the snake's face show up on the fly. Billy Boy naturally would have seeked out the lowest life but cleaver lawyer he could possiblly find to represent him way back when. Notice how the demorats made sure he was a member of the 9/11 commission, to make sure everything stayed within the boundaries the demorats wanted to commission to steer.
And I am NOT getting that. What I am reading is that Libby was playing dumb with the reporters. Which is not a crime.
So tell me - if you said under oath that you told Tim Russert that you didn't know that Plame was CIA when you did, is that perjury?
I've read the indictment. Printed it out and am going to read it again and mark it up. But I still think Fitz simply got cute here by making it perjury that Libby said to Russert that he did not know - when it is NOT a crime to lie to a reporter.
pg 4: 6. On or about June 11 or 12,2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involveed in the planning of his trip.
pg 5: 9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Pg 5: 11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.
Pg 6: 14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting...LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
Pg 7: 17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. ... During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Pg 7: 19. Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.
Pg 8: 23. On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too.
Pg 9: 26. ...LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that: a. ...LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President. c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meething with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.
P. 18 (Transcript of Libby's grand jury testimony regarding his conversation with Tim Russert on or about July 10, 2003: "...because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known (that Plame worked at the CIA), and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning."
P. 20: a. (Transcript of Libby's grand jury testimony regarding his conversation with Matthew Cooper on or about July 12, 2003) "I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact (that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA). I thought I was - all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters."
P. 21 at bottom (transcript of grand jury testimony given on or about March 24, 2004 regarding conversations with reporters) "I didn't know it was true (that Plame worked for the CIA)."
P. 22 "I didn't know he had a wife. ... And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us."
It seems pretty clear to me that Libby was being less than forthright when talking to the FBI and the grand jury and using "other reporters" as a source for information that he knew from the State Department, from the Vice President, and from the CIA.
Did you mean to say Plame worked for the CIA ?
Yeah, that was a type - sorry.
Meant to say "typo" - sheesh. I better go to bed.
Either way, he had an obligation to the taxpayers to drop the case. Tricking Scooter into perjury over a trivial matter was not worth $750,000.
The Demonic Rats and the MSM thought it was and want more effort.
If Libby wants a trial, the 'Rats and the MSM are gonna get more than they wished for.
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.