Comments on: The Great Hitchens on the PlameGate Kerfuffle

By: peter

peter — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:28:03 +0000

Knemon: I doubt that a 40-50% “unethical rating” is comparable to previous administrations. Some administrations were essentially scandal-free: Carter, Ford, Bush I. Reagan had Iran-Contra, which I think is perceived more as a bonehead move than an ethical scandal. LBJ had lots of problems, but ethical scandals were low on the list. JFK may have been sleeping with Mafia mistresses, but it was not public knowledge at the time. In my lifetime, I think only Clinton and Nixon come close to Bush on this criterion.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:45:16 +0000

Jacques, lest I be misunderstood – I do think perjury is serious, and I do think Libby should go down if convicted – but I don’t think there is some broad conspiracy here that will unravel – I may be wrong (it’s happened before)…

By: Knemon

Knemon — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:41:13 +0000

“So basically 40-50% of Americans think that the Bush administration is unethical. Are these numbers that you are proud of?”

Proud? No. Acceptable? Historically comparable to previous administrations? Probably.

By: Jacques Distler

Jacques Distler — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:44:44 +0000

I base this on nothing but my gut, so it’s admittedly next to worthless, but I see Libby as keeping his mouth shut like a good soldier, then being pardon on January 20, 2009 or thereabouts…

Odd to pin your “hopes” on the continued stonewalling being successful. The same hope was expressed during Watergate. It was only after G. Gordon Liddy was indicted that things began to fall apart for the White House.

Liddy … Libby … nice to keep the historical precedents in mind.

By: peter

peter — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:32:20 +0000

1) Not widely known: I think you are reading too much into this. Fitzgerald cannot say it was unknown outside the intelligence community – after all, her husband, Cooper, Kristof, and Miller knew it. Her friends, acquaintances, and relatives did not know it. “Not widely known” doesn’t mean “it was an open secret.” Fitzgerald makes the point that her position was a secret one and her exposure compromises national security. As Bob Dole used to say: where’s the outrage?
2) The press: well, they became aware because they were told by Official A and Libby. Your point?
3) Covert vs. classified: this is a distinction too fine for even Bill Clinton. Her position was a secret one. Her business card showed a CIA front company in Boston. She worked in a clandestine area of the CIA. This is a covert role, regardless of whether Fitzgerald used the word in his press conference. Bush I described the exposure of an undercover CIA agent to be an act of treason. Do you disagree?
4) Re the score, the inning, the future: well, we’ll see.
5) I’m not sure what the point of the second post is. 38% of those polled think the Bush administration has low ethical standards; 45% believe that Libby’s actions were illegal; 49% believe that Bush’s ethical standards are not good or poor. So basically 40-50% of Americans think that the Bush administration is unethical. Are these numbers that you are proud of?

By: mtl

mtl — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:24:21 +0000

Some numbers from Gallup? 10/28-10/30
http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

“Do you think these charges are a sign that the Bush Administration in general has low ethical standards, or do you think these charges are based on an isolated incident?”

56% isolated, 38% sign of low standard.

“As you may know, a special prosecutor has investigated the leak of the name of a CIA employee by White House officials. On Friday, a grand jury indicted Lewis Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. From what you have heard or read about Libby’s involvement in this matter, which of the following statements best describes your view of his actions? He did something illegal. He did something unethical but nothing illegal. OR, He did not do anything seriously wrong.”

only 45% believed it to be illegal.

“Overall, how would you rate the ethical standards of top Bush Administration officials: excellent, good, not good, or poor?”

51% Excellent or good.

By: mtl

mtl — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:18:49 +0000

“but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.”

Sadly, this is an admission that it was known. “not widely” is not really the adverb you want it to be. Seems this is an admission that her identity was known.

” Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.”
Good, that means the only people he did not exclude were the press.

You are using the word ‘covert’, but Fitz was distinctly clear in only using the word ‘classified’. Can you cite him using the word ‘covert’?

If this is the third or fourth inning, then the score is 25 to nil.

If more indictments come, it will to be prove to be for more perjury, in a perjury case, which may mean more indictments, and another perjury indictment…until all witnesses involved are charged with perjury, but are making deals to prove someone else perjured…please.

I’m dying to know Russert’s, Cooper’s, and Miller’s other sources. But it is pretty much irrelevant.

It comes down to the perjury against Libby. The prosecution lacks unimpeahable witnesses-only the notes are in play. The indictments are an ‘all or nothing’ proposition. One falls they all fall.

By: peter

peter — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:12:50 +0000

I think the key is in the last two paragraphs of Fitzgerald’s answer. He is implicitly saying that the object is to hold Libby accountable, regardless of which statues Fitzgerald uses his prosecutorial discretion to form indictments. For reasons best known to himself, Fitzgerald chose to use perjury and obstruction of justice rather than exposure of an agent. (These reasons may be: the perjury charges seem to be a slam dunk; the exposure charge might be difficult to pursue if Libby’s defense includes information about the CIA which is non-public; or he could intend to use the exposure charge to Rove and/or others. Also, he likened obstruction of justice to throwing sand in an umpire’s eyes – perhaps if he went for the exposure charge it would be harder to prove the obstruction charge.) Because Fitzgerald didn’t indict on an exposure charge, he was not going to leave “the four corners of the indictments” to discuss it. So I wouldn’t view the fact that there was no indictment for exposure to be an exoneration of Libby – I think it falls within the rubric of prosecutorial discretion.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:31:43 +0000

We’ll see, Jacques…I agree with you and peter that further indictments are possible, but I don’t see them as likely…I base this on nothing but my gut, so it’s admittedly next to worthless, but I see Libby as keeping his mouth shut like a good soldier, then being pardoned on January 20, 2009 or thereabouts…

And I agree that parts of Fitzgerald’s indictments seem to indicate an accusation that Libby did know, but we can play this game all day;

Let me give it more at length: QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson’s identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I’ll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I’m not making that assertion.

Then there’s this:

QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That’s a good question. And I think, knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government, not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified, is not enough.

FITZGERALD: You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness.

And that is sort of what gets back to my point. In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is.

So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.

But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn’t really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we’ve alleged — convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements — very serious felonies — will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he’s held accountable.

It’s not as if you say, “Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute.”

So you’ll excuse me if I continue to believe that Fitzgerald has not said that Libby intentionally outed Plame, I hope, since he said so twice with great emphasis in his press conference.

By: Jacques Distler

Jacques Distler — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:08:00 +0000

From the indictment:

"On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

Cheney and Libby, familiar with such National Security matters, know that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the Directorate of Operations (ie, that she was covert).

"Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."

In other words, Libby knew that her status at the CIA as classified. Why are these facts laid out in the indictment, even though corresponding charges are not made? In the parlance of prosecutors, this is a speaking indictment, a signal to the other side about the strength of your hand, and a not-so-veiled threat of further indictments to come.