On Loyalty

Today at Tigerhawk, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy offers an explanation for Armitage’s behavior:

First, while it now seems abundantly clear that the leak of Plame’s identity did not violate the covert agent identity protection act (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.), this was a subject of considerable debate for the first several months after the story broke. It was not obvious back then.

Second, it is still not crystal clear to this day that the leak could not have been charged under the espionage act (18 U.S.C. 793(d)). This statute has been used in the past to prosecute leaks of government records (as you can see, there’s no requirement under the statute that the record even be classified). Again, I think it was absolutely the right call not to test the parameters of this statute in connection with a leak that really did not harm national security, but it is anything but obvious to me that its employment by a prosecutor would be wrong as a matter of law. Here, again, Fitzgerald made a policy judgment not to enforce this statute as if it were a state-secrets law … even though, literally, it may well apply. (Embezzlement, by the way, is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.) [snip]

Third, although there has likewise been very little discussion of this (it is mentioned in Gabe Schoenfeld’s Commentary piece which analyzes whether the New York Times should be prosecuted), there is another theory of guilt here. The federal embezzlement of public property statute (18 U.S.C. 641) targets, among others, “Whoever embezzles … or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority … conveys or disposes of any record … or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof[.]” [snip]

Fourth, any competent criminal defense lawyer advising Armitage and others at the time these events occurred would have had to take note of the political climate (Democrats and the media calling for a prosecution) as well as a rule-of-thumb which is followed by many, but happily not all, prosecutors: namely, when all the acts necessary for the commission of a crime have occurred, and guilt turns on state-of-mind (i.e., did the defendant act with criminal purpose?), the safest thing for a prosecutor to do is indict and let the jury do the mind-reading part….

McCarthy has always been a staunch defender of Fitzgerald, and while this was written ostensibly to indicate Armitage’s dilemna, he certainly tries to make the decision by Fitzgerald to proceed further more measured than it was. Victoria Toensing had been screaming from the outset the continued investigation was idiotic and Fitzgerald was just trying to find a “creative” way around the clear language and precedent. Indeed, the Department of Justice had twice refused to proceed.

As to the defense of counsel suggestion, up until very recently Armitage had publicly stated that he was so unafraid of being prosecuted he’d not engaged counsel.

In any event, the “defense” of Armitage is more base if we consider it in the context of another crime.

Let’s assume that in the evening on a dark street you were driving, heard a thump, imagined it was a tree branch and continued, and then sat on your hands while the newspapers indicated someone else was being prosecuted for a hit and run which occurred at that very spot at that very time on that very night.

I take it that I need not detail the history of hit and run legislation to persuade you that not coming forward with what you knew was not a moral course of action.And if you had gone in late to confess to the prosecutor and he told you not to tell that it was you as he proceeded with the criminal prosecution against another, it would not be a bit more moral to keep quiet about your role.

Elsewhere, John Burtis, an ex-cop, offers another view of loyalty—one I do agree with:

The idea that a Secretary of State, fourth in line to assume the office of the Presidency in case of a national emergency, should choose to openly allow an unprecedented three year attack on the Presidency, utterly diminishes Colin Powell in stature, character, and in the professed love of his country, to say nothing of totally abrogating his oath of office.

As far as I can see it, with as forgiving a soul in the White House as George Bush – who seems to have put so many obvious prosecutions on the back burner, including the likes of a Mary McCarthy or a dastardly Sandy Berger, out of a form of compassionate conservatism – it seems that Colin Powell simply stabbed the President of the United States in the back because he could, because he would get away with it, because he would not be held to task for his grave misdeeds by a man known to turn the other cheek, and because an acceptable form of loyalty in American government to the United States of America, above all else, simply no longer exists.

With Colin Powell, as with Mr. Armitage, loyalty has finally gone the way of the Model-T.

I have always thought is was real honorable to let others be punished for a crime you committed.

This looks to me like an attempt by Powell and Armitage to get the Bush admnistration. And they got it done. But not without people knowing what a piece of crap both Poweal and Armitage are. I think they thought that with Fitzmas set to keep the secret, their role would never be revealed.

Someone needs to look for the links between Plame, Wilson, Fitzmas, Armitage and Powell. I bet you would find some.

Bears repeating....often, to shame Colin Powell.

"The idea that a Secretary of State, fourth in line to assume the office of the Presidency in case of a national emergency, should choose to openly allow an unprecedented three year attack on the Presidency, utterly diminishes Colin Powell in stature, character, and in the professed love of his country, to say nothing of totally abrogating his oath of office."

I think The Dick is covering for The Colin. Novak said we would all LAUGH when we found out who it was, and that it was VERY hard to get an interview with this VIP and he was SHOCKED that he got an HOUR interview, and Armitage doesn't fit that bill either!!

I imagine our President reading about Armitage and Powell. I'm quite sure he's known the basic facts for years and yet done nothing, mostly because he had no good options.

I imagine him reading of these events, and in the quiet of the Oval Office, or his residence (with the First Lady), or even on Air Force One, just for a moment, sitting back, closing his eyes, and simply relishing the moment.

Our President takes one body blow after another, often from conservatives, despite all the good work and amazing results. I worry about his mental health. And so this image gives me great comfort. My God, he deserves this moment.

I would encourage Bush's conservative critics to imagine this, as well. I hope you pause, even when objectively you are 100% right, with the moral high ground, and all of the facts on your side. At the end of the day, this is a man. We need to remember that from election day in 2000 until now, there has been no respite from baseless allegations, endless criticism, and complete distortions of the facts. And I'll agree that Bush has often disappointed. At the end of the day, though, we must all make clear that his leadership has been all that has stood between security and disaster.

I have lost all respect for Andy McCarthy who has contorted himself into a virtual pretzel in trying to justify what Fitzgerald has done here. For example, here is one of his points in defense:

"All of the acts necessary for the commission of a crime" had not occurred, certainly not under the statute authored in part by Victoria Toensing, as she so eloquently described on a number of occasions. McCarthy's attempts to reach out to other statutes that might have been used to prosecute Armitage as a reason for Armitage to stay quiet are so farfetched as to be laughable. As everyone well knows, the political clamor for someone to be prosecuted was based on the hope that it would be someone in the White House, not the State Department.

Bush is a good Christian man....he turns the other cheek waaaaay more than any person I've ever watched. God rewards people like that.....his enemies be will shown for the creeps that they are, and he will be standing tall. THAT"S the picture that I love!!

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.