Libby Indicted For Contradictions – - Not For Anything Else
Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White House’s senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff–not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire “scandal,” but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used.
Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a criminal investigation into a “national security matter” of this sort hinged on “very fine distinctions,” and that any attempt to obscure exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.
Let us stipulate that impeding a criminal investigation is indeed a serious matter; no one should feel he can lie to a grand jury or to federal investigators. But there is a question to be asked about the end to which the accused allegedly lied. The indictment itself contains no motive. And Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003 column, in which Valerie Plame’s employment with the CIA was revealed.
Rather, according to the indictment, Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson’s wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak’s column had run. What’s more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn’t tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.
If this is a conspiracy to silence Administration critics, it was more daft than deft. The indictment itself contains no evidence of a conspiracy, and Mr. Libby has not been accused of trying to cover up some high crime or misdemeanor by the Bush Administration. The indictment amounts to an allegation that one official lied about what he knew about an underlying “crime” that wasn’t committed. And we still don’t know who did tell Mr. Novak–presumably, it was the soon-to-be-infamous “Official A” from paragraph 21 of the indictment, although we don’t know whether Official A was Mr. Novak’s primary source or merely a corroborating one.
To the extent that the facts alleged in the indictment can be relied upon, the story goes something like this.
Continue reading HERE – - it is definitely worth a full read.
It is clear that the statement made by Fitzgerald “very fine distinctions” is exactly that. This investigation was targeted at much higher offices than that of Libby – - and when the “very fine distinctions” couldn’t get beyond Libby they had to give it up and let it fall on his shoulders.
I do find it interesting that the indictment has been built completely on charges of obstruction of justice and that of making false statements and perjury and for the most part the testimony of the mainstream media. But then hey aren’t they an honest lot?
I can not find fault with Patrick Fitzgerald at this point. He had a job to do, and it appears he did it. Do I think he started at the top and wound up with Libby? You bet! Are we going to find out “officially” who outted Plame? Nope.
Do I think Libby’s alleged defence of “I can’t remember” will be brilliant? You bet. Proving a he said she said is very difficult!
When Ken Starr went after the Clintons it was just and deserved to you folks.
Patrick Fitzgerald, it’s agreed by both parties, has no political motivation. Do the homework.
Odd when your “boy” is on the hot seat you get just as irate as the Democrats were when Mr. Starr was tirelessly trying to undo the Clintons. When we see the same phenomenon within the ranks of the Bush White House you guys cry foul. You’d think you’d apply the same rules in both contexts; DUE PROCESS
Ken Starr? Political agenda.
Patrick Fitzgerald? No political agenda.
As the saying goes guys: “what’s good for the goose…. ” Doesn’t feel so hot when it’s happening to your ‘fella’ does it?
Funny how alike we really are. It’s like a tug-’o-war on a playground politics these days.
Horatio – - funny how “your boy” was President of the United States and lied under oath (more than once) and lied to the entire nation and came out of it without a scratch – - while “our boy” faces 30 years because a few mainstream media reporters say that isn’t how it happened. Hmmm, are you sure it is really the same?
Peejz, I can find fault with Fitzgerald – - he is trying to make this a Libby thing when in fact don’t you think it odd that Plume’s husband also outted her and no one much cares about that? Fitzgerald spent a couple years and millions of dollars to get to the White House and all he got was Libby. If he could have crippled the WH he would have and the MSM would have eaten on it like red meat and would have even devoured the bones – - but for now they have to settle for chicken – - that is until Fitzgerald can make some other “distinctions” based on the words of journalists who we both clearly know who they stand behind.
Even if Scooter Libby did mislead investigators, the investigation was about a crime that simply did not occur. The investigation should’ve first determined if a crime had occurred and when it concluded that none had, it should’ve been dropped right there. As for making “Substantive false statements” to prosecuters, Hillary did that according to the investigators and was never indicted because of her position. Bill deliberately LIED under oath while the subject of the investigation, had his lawyer submit a false deposition for Monica Lewinsky and didn’t even defend himself when found in Contempt of Court for doing so. She should’ve been prosecuted. He should’ve been impeached. I believe it’s completely possible that Scooter Libby completely forgot about being told Valerie Plame’s identity by Dick Cheney. As a member of the National Security Council, his knowing the name wouldn’t have been out of line. Who here can remember every conversation that they’ve had with their boss for the last 2+ years? There is a huge difference between forgetting a conversation or the date of a conversation and flat out lying like Bill did. How do you forget getting a Blowjob from an intern in the oval office? On multiple occasions?
The underlying fact that all liberals refuse to face here is that if Scooter Libby and Karl Rove had gone on MTV and done a rap number naming Valerie Plame as a CIA employee, it wouldn’t have been illegal for them to do so. She wasn’t covert, she hadn’t been overseas in over 5 years hence no outting of a CIA operative. A better thing to investigate would be how Joe Wilson got sent on an intelligence gathering mission for which he wasn’t qualified, and who let him do so without signing the standard confidentiality agreement. Both of those are MAJOR breaches of protocol for CIA operations. Someone needs to lose their job and pension over that one.
martha stewart did not trade on insider info – at least she was never charged with that crime.
your understanding of the law may be superior to the special prosecutor’s – & if so – your position will be written in all the law reviews.
if not – scooter will be a felon like the other powerfull, smart men who have fallen.
Reilly-I do not like the fact that after 2 years he can’t come up with who did in fact out Plame. I believe it was Wilson. I believe that as an Ambassador to a turbulent area of the world, with a wife that is supposed to be covert, it isn’t the brightest idea to have ones picture taken with your names listed!
Proving these charges against Libby will not be a walk in the park. I think they are using him as another Martha scapegoat. Can’t get them on the crime they are being investigated for, so get them on something else.
Lying to the Feds is against the law. proving the lie is another story!
FAO- You bring up a good point in the last paragraph of # 5. I just read an article on the bad blood between the CIA and this administration. It dates back to Bush 41′s adm, and it alluded to specifically those that now serve Bush 43. It basically said what you did. Rules were broken at the CIA, and then there was the cover-up etc. I will try to find it for you.
Shiloh, my understanding of the law is based on the fact that the woman who drafted the law for Congress has flat out stated that the conditions necessary to be in violation of the law have NOT been met. Hence no broken law. I doubt the prosecutor understands the law better than the woman who drafted it, do you?
George Herbert Walker Bush was, at one time, the Director of the CIA. The main problem with that organization is that far too many of the senior staff were recruited and promoted during the Carter and Clinton regimes. Political appointees have a disproportionate amount of power in the promotion area in many of the bureaus of this country. Good people never get promoted because they have disgreements with their bosses about things that have nothing to do with their work quality. Political appointees then use their power to surround themselves with cronies who then become entrenched and nearly impossible to get rid of. Sort of like political cock roaches. Hopefully Porter Goss will get to the bottom of this and get rid of these political hacks disguised as intelligence officers.
9- I keep going over that. After I re-read Reilly’s response to me, I had to go over a bunch of the literature available on this, and that woman that wrote the law kept coming to mind. I will not yield on my stance that the investigation was necessary. I hold the Right to a higher standard. I am not sure why it dragged out as long as it did as everyone that needed to testify, with the exception of Miller, testified. There was no stonewalling and hiding of evidence by the administration. They called for the investigation and they cooperated. As it should be. But if the law is as it is written, then this goes back to the rift between the CIA and the administration, as there was no law broken and this could have been determined immediately.