Dissecting The Libby Case
Charles Krauthammer examines the Libby case and exposes the foundation of lies that the case was built on from the beginning. It is a harsh assessment.
Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for … what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.
Think about that. Can you remember when was the first time you heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? OK, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.
Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece, but precisely when they received every piece……
…..Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?
I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.
There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.
This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand — his perfect Fifth Amendment right — after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.
My position on this whole thing has not changed one bit. I am very uncomfortable with the notion that someone can be charged with "lying" about a crime that has not itself ever been shown to have occurred. I have seen the attempts to argue that Libby was somehow obstructing an investigation, but the fact is that Fitzgerald knew - with utter certainty - who had actually leaked the information. And he knew it was an accident. He did not pursue Richard Armitage but instead went after a staffer. But not for the crime Fitzgerald was originally given the task of investigating. Instead we were given a three-ring sideshow that revolved around different people having different memories of events.
There will be no more acts in the sideshow. Libby was the only victim Fitzgerald was able to claim in this particular special prosecutorial witch hunt. (I have been against the use of "special prosecutors" for a long time.) But another door has been opened. When the precedents set here lead to the next witch hunt directed at the opposite political party, do not be surprised.
Other Links to this Post
-
Divided We Stand United We Fall — Friday, 9 March , 2007 @ 10:55 am
By James, Friday, 9 March , 2007 @ 5:29 pm
rauthammer is wrong. The jury made a corrct assessment about Libby lying to the Grand Jury. In Fact, Libby was the only one to have stayed with his story; even Rove changed his story after Fitz popped up new information about Rove’s earlier testimony to the Grand Jury. Libby just kept going on, never wanting to update or change anything. Libby’s best bet was to simply say “I don’t recall”, on everything. He didn’t; and there was enough paper trail to show his version of the story didn’t hold up.
And the jury nailed him for it.
By Gaius, Friday, 9 March , 2007 @ 7:16 pm
What you are missing here is that Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed. He KNEW Armitage was the source. But he pursued his grand jury afterward anyway.
Put yourself in Libby’s place. If you were being grilled over a non-crime and then were prosecuted, wold you think you were treated fairly?
By Quilly Mammoth, Friday, 9 March , 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Gaius, I disagree. What is the difference between “everyone lies about sex” and “it doesn’t matter because no crime was committed?”.
Jeepers, the entire reason for such an investigation is to determine whether a crime _was_ committed. That whole meme is screwed if someone gets to lie about the events.
Put yourself in Libby’s place…if you _knew_ you had committed no wrongs would you lie? Would you lie just because a Special Prosecutor was involved? I think it’s the latter. Scooter didn’t release Plame’s name but couldn’t help but lie when the truth would have done. That’s a character flaw and he got punished for it.
By Gaius, Friday, 9 March , 2007 @ 8:12 pm
I once testified for the prosecution in a criminal case. The DA stressed - over and over - in preparation that under no circumstances must I change even a word of my original testimony under repeated questioning.
The defense lawyer kept trying to ask the same question with slightly different wording to try to get me to change even a comma.
It might not be a character flaw, it might be legal advice. Neither you nor I know that. But I still have a problem with Fitzgerald going forward after he knew the truth. That stinks of a political whack, not a real pursuit of truth.
By Quilly Mammoth, Friday, 9 March , 2007 @ 8:38 pm
I agree. Fitzgerald’s actions are reprehensible. He knew the answer to the question he had been asked to find _early_ on. No one will ever be prosecuted for releasing Valerie Plame’s name because it wasn’t a crime.
But this should be a separate issue with regards to Libby’s conduct. I think he lied. I think that those we empower to exercise our power should be held to the highest standards. Whether it is Bill Clinton lying about his peccadillo’s or Scooter cravenly trying to cover his butt.
I guess it must be the military in me. I require that those “above” me serve honestly and honorably because lies kill. I just don’t see any shades of gray.
By Gaius, Friday, 9 March , 2007 @ 8:53 pm
I understand your point. I am not convinced he was actually trying to lie from what I have seen. There are a lot of charges and countercharges flitting about the internet. That doesn’t make any of the opinions stated as fact correct.
For me, the problem is that absent a real crime as the foundation for all other cases derived from that investigation, no other crime should be charged. In this case what Fitzgerald did amounts to entrapment. He knew - absolutely - that no underlying crime existed. But he pursued charges against Libby anyway.
I think there is something deeply - very deeply - wrong with that. Fitzgerald should never have put Libby in the position to lie in the first place. Fitzgerald set the “crime” Libby was convicted of up already knowing that the original crime he was supposed to investigate did not occur.
Do you see my position on this?