PlameGate: The Fitzgerald Press Conference and Prosecutors Run Amok
Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference yesterday makes it clear that the reason Libby was indicted was his insistence to the grand jury that he learned about Valarie Wilson from Tim Russert, when in fact the investigation shows that there were:
…at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.
Meanwhile, David Rivking, Jr. and Lee Casey argue in the Washington Post that the Fitzgerald investigation shows the need to shut down special prosecutors:
Fitzgerald, a highly respected federal prosecutor from Chicago, was given the task of investigating whether Bush administration officials had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by “leaking” the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame.It is clear that, at least by sometime in January 2004 — and probably much earlier — Fitzgerald knew this law had not been violated. Plame was not a “covert” agent but a bureaucrat working at CIA headquarters. Instead of closing shop, however, Fitzgerald sought an expansion of his mandate and has now charged offenses that grew entirely out of the investigation itself. In other words, there was no crime when the investigation started, only, allegedly, after it finished. Unfortunately, for special counsels, as under the code of the samurai, once the sword is drawn it must taste blood.
Indeed, without in any way minimizing the apparent crimes of Libby, this prospect must be clear – and dreaded – by officials of both parties. Changes may indeed be in order. Rivkin and Casey go on:
…[I]n the future, the investigation of high-level misconduct should not be removed from the normal processes of the Justice Department. The U.S. attorneys, and the department’s Criminal Division, are fully capable of investigating and prosecuting alleged wrongdoing by important government officials, and can do it with proper perspective. Almost all federal prosecutors are, in fact, career lawyers quite capable of balking if their political supervisors abuse their authority. They should be left alone to do their jobs.
I don’t know if that really is the solution; I do know that the prospect of these endless investigations of public figures is a somewhat disturbing one to contemplate, regardless of party affiliation.
Am I the only one who could care less about the weenie indictments and the continuing investigation?
Crap that the media churns over silly “lying to reporters” does not instill a burning core of anger that will motivate me to vote out the republicans in righteous vengeance….
What the hell do they think they’re going to accomplish other than revulsion at their inane focus on something so sensationLESS?
I didn’t think there had been anything serious, only because the media was making such an enormous deal over it. I tuned it out long ago. If someone was a criminal, then they serve the time.
How about the media focuses on Hillary’s policy ideas and Kerry’s double-speak ramblings and on Gore’s imitation of Dean?
After two years of investigation the underlying accusation is found to be BASELESS! The key part – “WAS NOT WELL KNOWN”
From the Fitzgerald press conference. “The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.”
I think the prosecuter was very dissapointed that he could not ‘nail’ anyone on the charge of ‘outing’ Plame.
1) The case is not about “lying to reporters.” It’s about lying to the FBI and a grand jury.
2) It is unclear whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert, or whether the law was violated. The fact that there was no indictment does not indicate this — prosecutors go for the strongest cases, and a perjury charge is much simpler for a jury to understand and also much easier to prove. Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion.
3) Her status, while not irrelevant, is unimportant. The issue is that her identity was revealed in a political vendetta. I don’t know whether this fits the legal definition of treason, but it certainly fits the moral definition of treason.
4) The fact that the charges grew from the cover-up and not the initial cause of the investigation is also unimportant. The Nixon Presidency was (justifiably) brought down not from the burglary but from the obstruction of justice which followed. Joe Wilson is the modern-day equivalent of Daniel Ellsberg: a vocal critic which the administration tried to initimidate using extra-legal means. If one accepts your argument that there was no initial crime in revealing Valerie Plame’s identity, then had Libby told the truth, Fitzgerald would have shut down the investigation with no indictments.
5) I think it is naive to think that a career lawyer in the Justice Department would have been able to conduct the investigation with the intensity and thoroughness of Fitzgerald’s team. Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself because of the obvious conflict. It is unimaginable to me that those who reported to him would have the independence to do the job properly.
Well, peter, regarding your point five, that is indeed why I hedged at the end, when I said I’m not sure what the answer is. I do think there is a fundamental tendency of prosecutors to (quite naturally) want to prosecute, it’s their job…and I also think that it’s telling that Fitzgerald didn’t go for overkill, and speaks well for him (as contrasted to my own local D.A. and his trumped-up vendetta against Tom Delay).
I agree that prosecutors want to prosecute, but they also don’t want to bring indictments which don’t end in convictions. You don’t want to throw a punch if it’s not going to land.
Re Ronnie Earle: well, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. We haven’t seen the evidence and the trial hasn’t started. If a jury convicts, then Earle is doing his job –