I really haven't commented a whole lot on the case of Valerie Plame other than to say I was (and still am) disturbed by indictments for perjury and lying to investigators when no underlying crime has been committed. Judging by the story in the Washington Post today, I think everyone should be worried about this trend.
Fitzgerald does not allege in his filing that Cheney ordered Libby to disclose Plame's identity. But he states that Cheney's note to Libby helps "explain the context of, and provide a motive for" many of the later statements and actions by Libby. Libby was indicted last year for making false statements to FBI agents, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on Libby's testimony that he did not confirm Plame's involvement in conversations with the two journalists.
Not as a partisan, but as a citizen of this country, if this is the kind of evidence they are planning to use to convict someone, we have a major problem. This is pathetic evidence by any measure. If this is what years of investigation and millions of dollars can come up with, it says more about the special prosecutor than about the alleged crime.
I think your opening statement is inaccurate because of your phrase “when no underlying crime has been committed”
To be precise, you need to change that phrase to “when no underlying crime has been proven”, which accuracy allows your readers to begin to understand why we have enforceable laws against perjury and lying.
Both perjury under oath and lying to investigators are actions which derail the search for the very facts needed to prove the ‘underlying crime’.
Shown to have been committed might be a better phrasing, you have a point on that.
I disagree with your contention that a prosecuter needs cooperation from the people under investigation to prove a crime. That’s absurd under our system. You have an absolute right not to incriminate yourself. This is a very bad precedent and I have never agreed with it – it is not political at all. I dislike Martha Stewart and still think she was wrongfully convicted of the same sort of charges.
You have an absolute right not to incriminate yourself.
No, you have the absolute right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself.
Libby and Rove testified of their own free will, and opened themselves to perjury when their testimony didn’t match other tesimony and evidence.
Yes, a person has an absolute right to not incriminate himself.
The correct response to use in not incriminating oneself is called, ‘taking the 5th’. It is not legal to lie or perjure oneself instead of taking the 5th, because those responses, by pretending to be cooperative, do mis-direct and can derail an investigation.
While a prosecutor may not command ‘cooperation’ from a person who ‘takes the 5th’, our laws say that a prosecutor must hold deponents who do agree to answer, as Libby did, to being wholly truthful.
I agree that the Martha Stewart situation seemed unfair. But then, I think of Moussaoui’s lying to federal agents…..and what his lying might have derailed [preventing 9/ll]. I think the Plame investigation falls somewhere in between these two extremes……
Just a reminder, in September 2003 Scott McLellan said that the President would fire anyone involved in outing Valerie Plame.
He hasn’t fired Karl Rove and he hasn’t fired Dick Cheney (though he can’t actually do that–he’d have to ask him to resign).
I guess the height of the bar has been changed.
Juggler, come off it. There is no proof at all – and you know it – that either was involved at this point.
Gaius, do you really believe that they weren’t?
Actually, I believe that there have been emails from Time Magazine correspondent Matt Cooper that establish that Rove was involved. Those emails caused Rove to testify again before the grand jury, to “correct” his previous testimony.