Blue Crab Boulevard

Guilty Verdict

A jury has found Scooter Libby guilty of four of five counts.

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

I think it is wrong to prosecute someone when the underlying crime that supposedly occurred to set the entire investigation in motion has never been proved to have occurred. (I felt the same way about the Martha Stewart matter.) I think the people who will be cheering this verdict might want to step back and think about how this kind of precedent will be used against one of their own in the future.

And it will. Bet on it.

UPDATE: No, it is not a threat. It is a very obvious prediction. Apparently, Maha is afraid of the awesome might and power of Blue Crab Boulevard to wreak havoc on the American body politic. I'm pointing out the obvious to all but the Clue Proof™. I thought the pursuit of Clinton was a waste of time, effort and (a hell of a lot) of money. Because, in the end, the outcome was predictable. So it is with the assault of the administration this time. Which led to the conviction of a staffer. That's all. A staffer. Not the administration, not the evil Mchitlerbushliburtincheney.

A staffer. Convicted for supposedly telling a lie about something that likely was not even a crime. Joe Wilson published his wife's occupation. How was she covert?

If you start from the premise that someone, somewhere did something wrong at some point, it tends to color all the rest of your perceptions. But the big Karmic wheel has a way of coming back around. If you extract a pound of flesh from someone – say a staffer – do you really think it won't get paid back later against one of your own? When you open the door to politically motivated prosecutions, you must be willing to face the inevitable consequences. They will be remembered, they will be repaid. You cannot argue that Bill Clinton was railroaded and then claim the moral high ground when you cheer the railroading of a staffer.

Legal | Gaius March 6, 2007

By cfaller96, March 6, 2007 @ 12:05 pm

Gaius said:
I think it is wrong to prosecute someone when the underlying crime that supposedly occurred to set the entire investigation in motion has never been proved to have occurred

Umm, are you talking about the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? Because he was prosecuted for perjury about sex (which still isn’t a crime). And the initial investigation was about, what? Whitewater? Paula Jones? There were so many investigations of Clinton that didn’t pan out, that I’ve lost track.

So, since the underlying crime (Whitewater, Paula Jones, etc.) was never proven, you thought it was wrong to bring articles of impeachment against Clinton, right?

Or is it only wrong to prosecute perjury when a Republican perjures himself? Perhaps you should clarify, because I’m getting the feeling that in your mind, it matters who did it, not what was done.
By Gaius, March 6, 2007 @ 12:15 pm

You are becoming tiresome. I have said before that the whole pursuit of Clinton was a waste of time and money. Either quit trying to put words into my mouthor go somewhere else.
By mrgone, March 6, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

Gaius,

Keep in mind that the investigation is NOT closed. There may yet be an indictment wrt the actual outing. Fitz may have been waiting for a conviction to get Libby to “give a little.” I don’t think this is over.

As a side issue, you and many seem to be upset that Libby was prosecuted for perjury etc and no one has been charged with outing Plame. Would you be happier if there was such an indictment?
By Gaius, March 6, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

The charges against Libby would have made at least some sense had the so-called crime had been charged. (It is not at all evident any crime was committed.)

But you really want to think about how this can come back on you. Prosecuting for “lying” to a Federal official is a major problem in my mind. That has always been my stance, as I mentioned. Charging perjury without there haveing been a charge brought for the offense that was allegedly lied about is a real problem, too. Again – think about how it can be used against someone in the future.

As far as other indictments, I doubt it very much. Fitzmas is over and this is all you got in your stocking.
By mrgone, March 6, 2007 @ 1:29 pm

It’s not Fitzmas for me. In spite of your claim that she was a cia desk jockey, I find the whole affair an abuse of power. I was just pointing out that the investigation has not been closed and didn’t Fitz say about a week ago that there was a cloud hanging over Cheney? You may be right but you may be wrong.

Regarding the underlying crime stuff, perjury and obstruction are independently listed offenses. It’s hard to imagine going to jail for 25 years over petty crimes(unless they’re drug offenses of course). If you don’t want to be charged, plead the 5th and shutup or at least say “I don’t recall.” Certainly that one has been used by many.
By Quilly Mammoth, March 6, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

I find the whole affair an abuse of power.

By whom? By Fitz? By the MSM which howled for the investigation?

I think it’s pretty clear that the person who revealed Plame’s name wasn’t doing so to punish Wilson, as that liar claims. And Libby was a moron to lie.

I disagree with Gaius’s statement”wrong to prosecute someone when the underlying crime that supposedly occurred to set the entire investigation in motion has never been proved to have occurred.” Because that’s the _point_ of an investigation…to determine if there was a crime. That outcome will be flawed if the people answering the question lie.

Which is why Libby broke the law as did President Clinton.
By cfaller96, March 6, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

Gaius, are you saying that Republicans were wrong to bring articles of impeachment agains Clinton? “Wrong” (how you described the prosecution of Libby) and “waste of time and money” (how you described the prosecution of Bill Clinton) are not always the same thing in people’s minds. I’m just making sure I heard you right, because in a quickie search I couldn’t find any posts where you unequivocally stated that the impeachment of President Clinton was wrong. But perhaps I missed it.

In any case, I don’t think Gaius (or others) have anything to worry about WRT precedent. Let’s stop pretending that we must “think about how this kind of precedent will be used against one of [our] own in the future”- perjury prosecutions have been used against Dems and Republicans, and perjury prosecutions will be used against Dems and Republicans. In terms of precedent, there’s nothing new here.

I do think there are other aspects to this case that merit further discussion. Specifically:

- manipulating intelligence to bolster the case for an unnecessary war;
- sacrificing a national security asset in an act of political retribution;
- an inappropriate closeness between media figures and government leaders;
- general dishonesty and “above the law” attitude exuded by some government officials.

Perhaps I’ll get flamed for bringing these things up, but if we’re supposed to ’step back and think for a moment,’ as Gaius seems to urge us to do, then I believe we should step back and think about more important arguments than whether “your guy” or “my guy” got shafted in an unnecessary prosecution.
By Quilly Mammoth, March 6, 2007 @ 2:54 pm

- general dishonesty and â€œabove the lawâ€ attitude exuded by some government officials.

You’re right CFALLER 96…that bothered me about the Clinton’s as well.
By Gayle Miller, March 6, 2007 @ 4:07 pm

We can stop playing the Dems favorite game here folks – moral equivalency has nothing whatsoever to do with this farcical prosecution. Millions of OUR dollars were spent, and for what? Joe Wilson had identified his wife as as “CIA Employee” long before any of this crap happened in his own “Who’s Who” entry. Her identity wasn’t a secret. She wasn’t undercover. Libby shouldn’t have been prosecuted, nor should Martha Stewart have been prosecuted. However, what they were trying to make clear is you don’t LIE to Federal investigators when they come a calling.

WORD TO THE WISE: Standing MUTE is a good policy.

As to President Clinton – HE LIED TO A GRAND JURY and he lost his law license (which he has never bothered to retrieve) and he admitted those lies only when he was forced to do so. Again, the man whose duty it was to defend and protect the people and the CONSTITUTION of the United States LIED TO A GRAND JURY. And as an attorney, he really, truly should have known better and behaved more appropriately. But then, he was a lawyer – what can you expect!?
By syn, March 6, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

How come none is interested in finding out why the CIA sent a retired foreign diplomat (Wilson) to find out information as to Niger’s potential sale of yellowcake to Saddam then lie about sending such retired diplomat by claiming that retired diplomat was sent by the White House whne in fact the perosn who suthorized the retired diplomats trip to Niger was none other than the retired diplomat’s wife who was not a covert CIA agent?

How come none is concerned with a covert shadow government operating within the Washington Beltway?
By Tom, March 6, 2007 @ 5:55 pm

I think it is wrong to prosecute someone when the underlying crime that supposedly occurred to set the entire investigation in motion has never been proved to have occurred.

Help me out here. Prosecutors are supposed to be able to prove their cases even when there’s obstruction of justice?

Prosecuting obstruction itself is “wrong,” and of course the crime will never be found out as long as the accused can lie with impunity!

Excellent social model described here; no conviction of anything, ever.

Everyone on board with that?
By James, March 6, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

Crimes were committed. Lying before a grand jury is a crime.

Any crime about outting CIA personnel is still possible, but the Libby trial wasn’t about that issue.

All Libby had to do was say nothing, or simply say I don’t remember, he didn’t. He activly answered the questions put to him. He blew it. But Libby is just a minion of the VP office. If you’ve been around the world long enough little fish problems are always linked to big fish troubles.

With all the information out there and I had to place bets, I’d bet Cheney was up to his eyesballs in this;
Which is stupid because all Cheney had to do was ignore Wilson’s report.

As Washington insiders like to note: “It’s not the crime, It’s the cover up that kills you.”

Very interesting trial, but I have to agree with the jury on this one.

I have the feeling Fritz is like a wolf lurking in the dark awaiting the VP’s office next move.
By r4d20, March 6, 2007 @ 6:25 pm

How come none is concerned with a covert shadow government operating within the Washington Beltway?

How come no one is concerned with the secret alien technology stored at Area 51?

It’s because we’re not interested in wasting our time with stupid conspiracy theories.
By Cody, March 6, 2007 @ 9:41 pm

Respectfully, you would acquit those accused of perjury if the underlying crime was not proven. But here the purpose of the perjury is to interfere with the investigation into that underlying crime. So if I am accused of a crime, and I lie to interfere with the investigation of that crime, and because of my lie it becomes impossible to prove the crime but it can be proven that I lied, then you would acquit me as long as I successfully derailed the investigation with my lie? It seems to me that you are simply rewarding those who lie well enough to successfully derail investigations into these underlying crimes.
By Gaius, March 6, 2007 @ 9:50 pm

Cody, you are convinced that Libby lied to obstruct an investigation. But you do so with no proof that a crime was actually committed for Libby to have lied about in the first place. You do not see this because you have a predetermined verdict already in place.

Prosecurors have an almost unlimited ability to get an indictment. The old saw about the ham sandwich comes to mind. But Fitz could not get enough information from all the people that he grilled? He had to settle for claiming Libby lied. There is, whether you see it or not, something very wrong in that.

And Wilson’s Who’s Who entry negates everything about Plame being covert, does it not?
By syn, March 7, 2007 @ 6:58 am

Libby didn’t commit the original crime by not outting Plame’s identity so Fitzgerald found something else with which to prosecute Libby who is on Cheney’s staff.

Wilson and Plame, the reason for this travesty, are about to become Hollywood’s new dream heroes who will re-enact the their crime of setting up the Bush administration as liars.

Plame was not a covert CIA agent at the time, Wilson lied in his NY TImes op-ed about yellowcake and Niger but Libby is convicted, not for the original crime but a new Fitzgerald manufactured crime, Libby’s perjury for failing to remember exactly what he said to a reporter about Plame’s non-covert identity.

How come there is no concern that the CIA claimed that it was the White House (specifically Cheney) who sent Wilson when it was Wilson’s wife who set up the trip? And, how come Wilson conveniently returned with an accessment that Niger/yellowcake had nothing to do with Saddam (a lie itself since Bush stated that British intelligence have determined that Saddam was attempting to procure uraniumn from Africa) and published this lie in an op-ed of the NY Times.

The Bush Lied crowd was conned by some world-class con-artists but their hatred of Bush is so profound they accept the con without hestitation. In other words, blinded by groupthink.

It is easy to see how Bushhaters believe without question in Al Goracle’s Global Warming hoax.
By Bill Franklin, March 7, 2007 @ 7:08 am

Libby is just a tool that the bulldog needs to get the big fish. Now that the conviction is in we’ll see what kind of deals are made… Even the jury recognized this trial was just a means to an end.

Cheney’s retirement “for health reasons” over the next couple weeks would be quite coincidental.
By Gaius, March 7, 2007 @ 8:27 am

Sure, Bill. This would be along the same lines as the absolutely gauranteed, no-fooling, any second now, really, honest, indictment of Cheney that was all the rage a short time ago?

Dream on.
By Gayle Miller, March 7, 2007 @ 9:34 am

ARMITAGE “outed” Plame and, whatever nonsense being spouted here might claim, she was NOT an undercover agent of the CIA and thus her identity was NOT protected. Wilson is pathetic, his wife is an enabler and they are BOTH liars. What is more, Fitzgerald KNEW who the leaker was long BEFORE he even spoke with Libby – so can we say POLITICAL PROSECUTION here folks? Fitzgerald was hired to find the leaker – Armitage was the leaker and Fitzgerald knew it. So what was this lengthy trial all about? Politics, my friends, nothing more nor less than politics. Dirty politics at that!

And on CNN last night, despite the FACTS in evidence, Larry King still was wanting to interject Karl Rove into the mix! Pathetic BDS sufferers!