Posted on 02/02/2006 11:32:04 AM PST by hipaatwo
Fitzgerald was busy managing several other big cases at the same time he was managing this one. I'd bet it was his assistants that messed up the Plame case, and Fitzgerald ignorantly trusted them when he put his seal on the facts.
Either that, or he's incompetent.
1) If he was too busy to handle this case, he should not have accepted it.
2) It is his responsibility to, at minimum, review his assistants' work product.
3) It was Fitzgerald's mug in front of the TV cameras during that despicable press conference. It was Fitzgerald asserting those claims against Libby. It was Fitzgerald who sent Libby's lawyers those letters, later filed in court, which denied them access to case evidence, and which reversed some of his key claims made in the press conference.
4) There is another explanation for Fitzgerald's actions besides incompetence.
I'm not disagreeing with you, only saying that the bulk of the legwork was done by assistants, and by trusting them, Fitz made a serious error. From there, I agree 100% with you.
He should be invited in to explain himself to the AG and the President. If he can't explain why he didn't carry out the first elements of the investigation, he should be fired.
I think he can explain it.
Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years" -- representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.)Judge Tatel in the appeal Miller and Cooper took, as they asserted reporter/source priviledge.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf
That phrase is in a recently unredacted portion of the Court's opinion. All of the unredacted material is at ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571203/posts?page=9#9
Though if Plame was not covered under the law in question, then Libby's answers have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not discussing her was a crime.
In any case, regardless of Libby's fate for his answers, Fitzgerald should be asked to explain his not investigating the basic question he was assigned to determine.
Was she convicted of perjury? Or filing a false report CLAIMING a crime?
An affair with Lewinski wherin he uses his office to benefit her for engaging in sexual activities with him is certainly illegal - and the accusation that he did this (and its converse of punishing those who did not comply) as a pattern of behavior was the basis for the lawsuit.
I don't think she was convicted of anything. But you are right, the charge would not have been perjury. It would have been a flavor of "false statements." Libby was charged with "false statements."
And I realize that my inartful phrasing says that Wilbanks and others were convicted of perjury, naturally leading literalists to discredit the point entirely.
Isn't that one of the things he claimed his office had never sought?
On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'"
No it's not.
and the accusation that he did this (and its converse of punishing those who did not comply) as a pattern of behavior was the basis for the lawsuit.
No it wasn't. The basis for the Jones lawsuit was that Clinton came on to her. She wanted to use Lewinsky as evidence to establish "pattern" in the civil case. IIRC, Clinton wasn't charged either, although there were penalties.
The general point is a simple one - the law asks for participants to give truthful testimony, or none at all if you are the target of the case. And lying to investigators carries a risk of criminal prosecution.
That sound very logical. If true, Libby will walk.
Yeah - that reads like a repetition of language from a discovery request by Libby. Fitz is duty bound to turn over whatever he has to support his case.
But now Libby's in a tough spot because the case turned from a leak case into a lied case, and Fitz is arguing that "Plame's status, covert or not" is irrelevant to the point of finding a lie to investigators. There are motions before the Judge right now that go toward settling the question of whether or not Plame's actual status will be an issue at trial.
Well, the problem with the differences is that Wilbanks, for example, went to the police and made claims that a crime had been committed, which required them to initiate a case. That is not even remotely like what is described with Libby.
We all know kidnapping is illegal, and we know generally what it is. Now suppose that instead of saying she was kidnapped, Wilbanks said that someone "gently and politely asked her to go with him while wearing a pink shirt." On its face, there are no elements of a crime, and there is no investigation begun - at least until after there is a review of the law to see if wearing a pink shirt makes the other actions illegal.
Only in that if believed, the stories send the investigators down the wrong path.
But enough with parallels - with regard to the Libby case, is it your position that lying to the investigators (not only by Libby, but by ALL of those questioned) is okay?
No it wasn't. The basis for the Jones lawsuit was that Clinton came on to her.
And as her boss constituted sexual harrassment, as he didn't simply ask her, he used his position. One of her accusations in the suit was that he rewarded those who had sex with him - thus putting her at an employment disadvantage. If true, that hits violations of the law in several different ways.
She wanted to use Lewinsky as evidence to establish "pattern" in the civil case. IIRC, Clinton wasn't charged either, although there were penalties.
He wasn't charged, because it was a civil lawsuit, with civil penalties for the behavior.
By the way, the law that established that ability to establish a pattern in that way was the Violence Against Women Act, which ironically Clinton championed those very clauses.
The general point is a simple one - the law asks for participants to give truthful testimony, or none at all if you are the target of the case. And lying to investigators carries a risk of criminal prosecution.
The point with Libby, is that there appears to not to have been an investigated case - Fitzgeralds office appears to have jumped right past that - and that the other examples you cite have investigated cases as components. Without further explanation, it appears that Fitzgerald didn't look to see if there was even a potential of a crime. Also, Libby was NOT identified as a target of the case, which is also important - but in other ways.
It's my position that Fitzgerald was responsible to determine if there was even a potential for a violation of the laws referenced when the request for an inquiry was made, and that since he appears to not have done that, that he should be held responsible and potentially fired. That is not to say that the case should be closed, but that without that foundation yielding a plausible "yes", there really isn't an investigation to compromise and that Libby could have told him truth or lie, and it would not have been remotely germane to the prosecutors decision that a crime had been committed - which is the first element required for a perjury conviction.
He wasn't charged, because it was a civil lawsuit, with civil penalties for the behavior.
Perjury and false statements in a civil case are criminal conduct. Starr didn't pursue the charge out of deference to the office. THe Senate figured the conduct didn't rise to a level that warranted removing him from Office. But the underlying case where his criminal lying behavior happened was a civil case. Understandable behavior too, since the truth hurt both his chances in the case, and his public reputation. LOL.
The point with Libby, is that there appears to not to have been an investigated case ...
Miller raised this point, albeit too late, in order to avoid giving testimony. She went to jail over it.
Without further explanation, it appears that Fitzgerald didn't look to see if there was even a potential of a crime.
Either that or he trusted the word of the CIA.
Also, Libby was NOT identified as a target of the case ...
I don't know about being identified as one, but my read of the recently unredacted portions of Tatel's opinion in the "Miller Must Testify" case indicates that Fitzgerald considered Libby as a possible leaker in violation of the pertinent statute.
What's more, if Libby mentioned Plame's covert status in either [page 34] conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable. Thus, because Miller may provide key corroboration or contradiction of Libby's claims -- evidence obviously available from no other source -- the special counsel has made a compelling showing that the subpoenas directed at Miller are vital to an accurate assessment of Libby's conduct.
It's my position that Fitzgerald was responsible to determine if there was even a potential for a violation of the laws referenced when the request for an inquiry was made, and that since he appears to not have done that, that he should be held responsible and potentially fired. That is not to say that the case should be closed, but that without that foundation yielding a plausible "yes", there really isn't an investigation to compromise and that Libby could have told him truth or lie, and it would not have been remotely germane to the prosecutors decision that a crime had been committed - which is the first element required for a perjury conviction.
Is that a "yes, it's okay to lie to investigators in this case?"
Firing Fitzgerald would be additional remedy, but should Libby get off? And what about Miller? Sounds like she ought to be reimbursed, rehired, etc. since Fitzgerald caused her some pain as well.
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.