Marty Perez must be vacationing in Tahiti this week.
They used to be a fairly honest publication, for a bunch of Left-wingers.
I subscribed to it years ago, but let it slide back in the seventies.
Yeh - "The New Republic". I used to read it in the 60s when I was a Liberal.
They're not typical of Liberals. They actually think for themselves and also try to look at a balanced view of things.
I'm glad to see they're still trying to do that.
One mistake: Clinton perjured himself to prevent being found guilty in the Paula Jones case.
Starr didn't charge Clinton with Perjury, he sent the records to the House, and let them decide what to do.
After Clinton was caught lying, the judge in his case sanctioned him for the perjury in that case.
Then Clinton settled the lawsuit, paying Jones money but not "admitting" guilt.
So to suggest that Clinton's perjury charge was bereft of underlying charges and was a prosecution without a crime is wrong.
The entire White House (Libby, Rove, et al) were being investigated for 'outing' CIA officer Valerie Plame who was not a covert agent
Gee. Better ping the tiny cabal at FR that was ready to lynch Scooter Libby a few days ago...
Well, Glenn, I guess you don't know Chris Dodd and Richard Lugar.
It's really gonna hurt if three MSM reporters have to testify against their source under oath. They are going to regret this.
Why is anyone concerned about the 1st amendment? The reporters testified to a SECRET grand jury. They chose to expose their sources afterward all on their own.
1. And, although Libby's alleged lies to protect his boss may appear more serious than Bill Clinton's self-interested lies about sex, neither Clinton nor Libby prevented the special prosecutor from proving an underlying crime.
Painfully deceiving. Libby was indeed investigated for criminal activity, although no underlying crime was committed. Clinton, on the other hand, was being sued in a civil case brought by Paula Jones. Clinton's false testimony was material to Jones' civil case. And in fact, paid a significant sum of money to settle Jones' civil case after his lies came to light.
2. Instead, his [Fitzgerald's] indictment makes a relatively strong case that Libby lied repeatedly before the grand jury about when and how he first learned that Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's case for the Iraq war, was married to Valerie Plame, a CIA agent.
Flat out false. Libby told the grand jury that he originally learned of Plame's status through government sources. The indictment makes that clear. What Fitzgerald believes is untrue is whether Libby's statement that he did not recall learning of Plame's status at a later date. Fitzgerald seems confident that Libby is telling the truth about when and where he learned of Plame. Fitzgerald doubts that Libby had forgotten it by the time he talked to reporters. Did the author even read the indictment?
3. Showing prosecutorial experience that Starr lacked, Fitzgerald at least brought a false statements indictment that is easy to understand.
This is an incomprehensible opinion. Clinton admitted his testimony was false and accepted civil contempt punsihment for it. It is easy to understand that he lied about his relationship with Lewinsky to avoid being held accountable in the Jones suit. Libby claims he didn't recall that he originally learned of Plame's status from government sources when he talked to reporters. It is difficult for me to understand how we're supposed to enter Libby's mind back in 2003 and determine whether or not he actually recalled the origin of his knowledge at the time. Furthermore, while it is easy to understand Clinton's motives for lying (to avoid culpability in the Jones suit), it is not easy for me to understand why Libby would lie about whether or not he remembered where he first heard of Plame's status. There would have been no crime even if Libby remembered correctly when he talked to reporters.
4. And, even if you assume the worst about Libby, it's hardly obvious that the question of who first told him that Plame worked for the CIA--was it, in other words, his government colleagues or NBC's Tim Russert?--would cast much light on whether he broke national security law
Painfully deceiving. The question of who first told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA is not in dispute. Again, did the author even read the indictment? I do agree that it isn't relevant as to whether he broke any national security law.
Instead, his indictment makes a relatively strong case that Libby lied repeatedly before the grand jury about when and how he first learned that Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's case for the Iraq war, was married to Valerie Plame, a CIA agent. Showing prosecutorial experience that Starr lacked, Fitzgerald at least brought a false statements indictment that is easy to understand.But the idea that Fitzgerald should be praised for the charges he didn't bring is absurd. Fitzgerald's main justification for bringing the perjury and obstruction charges was that Libby's alleged lies made it harder for the special prosecutor to know whether a crime had been committed. "What we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes," Fitzgerald said, using a labored baseball metaphor. "He's trying to figure out what happened, and somebody blocked their view."
The metaphor, however, is unconvincing: "It's more like criminalizing someone for arguing with the umpire's ball or strike call," says Harvard Law Professor and tnr contributor William J. Stuntz. Libby's alleged obstruction did not block Fitzgerald's ability to decide whether he violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act; Fitzgerald could have concluded months ago that there was no violation. To breach the meticulously drafted law, a person with access to classified material who learns the identity of a covert agent has to intentionally disclose information identifying the agent, knowing that this information will blow the agent's cover and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent's identity........And, even if you assume the worst about Libby, it's hardly obvious that the question of who first told him that Plame worked for the CIA--was it, in other words, his government colleagues or NBC's Tim Russert?--would cast much light on whether he broke national security law.
"...Libby lied ...about when and how he first learned that Joseph Wilson..... was married to Valerie Plame, a CIA agent."
Libby says he learned from Russert. Fitzgerald says he learned from colleagues.
Let's say that Fitzgerald is correct.
Does the fact that Libby learned from a colleague that Plame was the wife of Wilson mean that someone intentionally revealed the name of a covert agent in order to reveal her as a covert agent?
This strikes me as a sophomoric charge, and it does appear to be a CYOA thing after 2 years of investigation that led to a dead end.
The Score in the Race to Judgment at the White House
Clinton Democrats:
61 indictments or misdemeanor charges
33 convictions
14 imprisonments
7 independent counsel investigations
72 congressional witnesses pleading the Fifth Amendment
19 foreign witnesses who declined interviews by investigative bodies
17 witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying
Bush Republicans:
1 indictment, not even on the primary issue