The High Road? There’s A High Road?
Nancy Pelosi, shame on you:
Today’s guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual.
This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.
There is not a true word in the above statement: the trial was ALL about the actions of one individual, there was not an allegation that national security information had been mishandled (nor was the matter of Plame’s alleged ‘covert’ status under consideration), and no charges related to ‘smearing’ anyone.
This was about lying to investigators and the grand jury – period.
Enough with the spin, already!…
UPDATE 1:10 p.m.: Gag me – Jane Hamsher (no, wait – there’s more) has this headline: “We can be heroes” – uggh!:
You never know what’s going to happen with a jury until they come back and all I can say is — it was worth every bit of effort we put into being here. There haven’t been a lot of days in the past 7 years when you could say that justice triumphed, but the system worked and it felt damn good to be there when it did.
Thank you all.
Cripes – what is this, the Oscars? Oy, it’s going to be a long day!…
UPDATE 2:42 p.m.: The AP’s Tom Raum joins in the overreach:
The case laid bare the inner workings of a presidency under siege and the secretive world of Vice President Dick Cheney.
It showed the lengths to which Cheney went in early summer 2003 to discredit administration critic Joseph Wilson. The former ambassador’s assertions had cast doubt on the administration’s justification for having taken the country to war in Iraq. And the Libby case showed the president assisting Cheney in the leaked attacks on Wilson.
Libby, who was Cheney’s chief of staff, was found guilty on Tuesday of four of five counts of obstructing justice, lying and perjury during an investigation into the administration’s disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA official Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife.
The verdict “does great damage to the Bush administration,” said Paul C. Light, professor of public service at New York University. “It undermines the president’s pledge of ethical conduct. But the most serious consequence is that it will raise questions about Cheney’s durability in office. It may be time for Cheney to submit his resignation.”
Please – none of these allegations are supported by the facts of the trial. The trial did NOT show Bush “assisting Cheney in the leaked attacks on Wilson”, whatever the hell that means, and the jury, according to juror Dennis Collins, most emphatically did not consider matters of speculation regarding the roles of higher-ups:
Was he covering for the VP? We didn’t discuss it because it wasn’t in front of us. Opinion had very little to do with it, the facts were right in front of us.
The counts of the indictment were very particular – they concerned the statements of Libby to the grand jury and FBI investigators regarding conversations with reporters – and the result of the jury’s verdict is that it found that Libby lied about these conversations, and as a result, obstructed the investigation into the other allegations.
Now, you may say, why obstruct if there is no fire? But the fire, though it may be assumed, was not proven. The question before the jury was not whether there was fire, but whether there was smoke.
And Patrick Fitzgerald has made it clear that this is over:
At the press conference today, Fitzgerald was very clear that he does not expect to bring additional charges in the case. They are all going back to their day jobs. The investigation is now inactive.
Even Joseph Wilson, for cryin’ out loud, understands that the spin from many in the MSM, reading straight from the Democrats’ talking points, is incorrect:
The Wilsons will continue to pursue the civil case against Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage because it hinges on additional and different facts from those underlying the criminal case. The criminal trial was about whether or not Mr. Libby obstructed justice and committed perjury by lying to FBI agents and the grand jury about the fact that he had disclosed to reporters that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA. The civil suit, on the other hand, hinges on whether or not the defendants violated the constitutional rights of Valerie and Joe Wilson by making those disclosures in a concerted effort to retaliate against Joe Wilson for revealing the falsity of the president’s rationale for the Iraq war.
When even the alleged ‘victim’ is spinning less than the Democrats, that says something – and it ain’t good…
UPDATE 3:04 p.m: Never one for understatement, Glenn Greenwald plays the ‘neocon’ card and argues that the Bush Administration is on the very brink of annihilation:
The implications of this trial are likely to be far-reaching and long-lasting. There were few officials with greater influence or power during the first four years of the Bush administration than Libby. He was not only the vice president’s chief of staff, but also assistant to the president himself in national security matters. But Libby’s importance in the Bush administration is reflected by far more than his formal titles.
He has long been one of the most well-connected neoconservatives in the country. Along with Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and Norman Podhoretz, Libby was one of the 25 signatories to the founding statement of Bill Kristol’s empire-embracing Project for a New American Century in 1997. PNAC called for an invasion of Iraq long before the 9/11 attack was seized on as the “justification” for that invasion. When it comes to the political movement that has dominated the American government for the last six years, Scooter Libby was at its very crux, a close intimate of America’s most powerful political officials.
Today’s event sends a potent and unmistakable message, one that is absolutely reverberating in the West Wing: If Libby can be convicted of multiple felonies, then any Bush official who has committed crimes can be as well. Not only are Bush officials subject to the rule of law (their radical theories of executive power to the contrary notwithstanding), they are also vulnerable to legal consequences (the defeatist beliefs of some Bush critics notwithstanding). Having the nation watch this powerful Bush official be declared a criminal — despite having been defended by the best legal team money can buy — resoundingly reaffirms the principle that our highest political officials can and must be held accountable when they break the law.
Some of the future events in the Libby case are easy to foresee, while others are more uncertain. Almost immediately after the verdict was announced, Libby’s counsel, Theodore Wells, vowed that Libby would request a new trial and if that is unsuccessful (as it likely will be), he will appeal the conviction. Those are routine steps in a case of this magnitude. What is both less routine and less certain is the question of whether prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is planning to leverage this conviction in order to secure additional indictments against other possible defendants, possibly the vice president himself. Fitzgerald stressed after the verdict that he had “no expectations” of further indictments, but he left open that possibility in the event that new information came to light that warranted further proceedings.
Ummm…sure, Glenn, whatever you say. Fitzgerald says “his investigation into the outing of Plame was “inactive” when Libby’s trial began and that he does not expect any further indictments to come out of it now,”, but it’s all a clever feint! Fitzmas lives!
Yeesh…
The trial was about one person, but the facts which emerged in the trial showed how Cheney, Rove, Armitage, Addington, and others were involved in disclosing Plame’s identity in an effort to weaken an administration critic. It is true that they were not indicted, nor were they unindicted co-conspirators, so in the narrowest sense the trial was not about them. However, Libby was by no means a loose cannon operating on his own: he was the VP’s right hand man and was part of a team. I think Pelosi is referring to testimony and evidence of how the team operated, and there is nothing untrue about what she said. Claims of Fitzmas notwithstanding, when the VP’s Chief of Staff is convicted on multiple counts, it’s a Big Deal, and it reflects on others besides Libby.
Ain’t it the truth, Brother.
“And I’d like to thank my Mom and Dad for believing in my dream. And Germaine Greer for inspiring a little girl of the 60′s. And Ghandi and Jesus. And, of course, Woody and Oliver…”
No one is saying it’s not a big deal, Peter, but it’s quite clear there is already a concerted campaign by Democrats to make this trial into everything it most definitely was not, to wit: a trial about outing a covert agent and smearing a war opponent.
That was the allegation that spurred the investigation, but the charges were clearly found to be either (a) without merit, or (b) far too nebulous to bring to a court of law.
No one was on trial for ‘outing’ Plame, and no one was on trial for ‘smearing’ Wilson.
That’s not spin, it’s indisputable…
the charges were clearly found to be…
By whom? There hasn’t been a legal determination one way or the other. Fitzgerald said the law in question – the Intelligence Identities Protection Act – turns on intent, and that Libby’s actions made such a determination impossible. He compared it to a beanball – a pitcher can be ejected for deliberately targeting a batter’s head, but not for a wild pitch (ala Armitage). And if someone throws sand in the ump’s eyes, he can’t make a judgment one way or t’other.
That’s correct — however while the charges were not directly related to the outing of Valerie Plame, there was a wealth of testimony and evidence which concerned her exposure.
Moreover, there is an option c): the prosecutor thought he had a stronger case with the perjury and obstruction charge than exposing a covert agent. Al Capone did a lot more than evade taxes, but that is the charge which was brought against him.
So while nobody was on trial for outing Plame or smearing Wilson, those actions were inextricably linked to the charges, and the information which was revealed by testimony under oath shed light on how the White House operated.
Andy – I didn’t word that well, to be sure. Let me try again: Fitzgerald obviously didn’t feel that the evidence regarding the more serious charges was such that it could be proven in a court of law.
He certainly didn’t prove the allegations – rather, he declined to even try…
Scooter Libby stands convicted of lying to a grand jury investigation into a crime that it is (was) known hadn’t been committed. Now I’m no apologist for people who lie to grand juries, and am perplexed that Libby e’ffed himself so thoroughly over nothing, but in the pantheon of crime this is way down the list with those of Martha Stewart.
If this was such a big deal then why didn’t Fitzy go after Armitage? How do we square this with the slap-on-the-wrist given to Sandy Berger – who actually committed a crime? And are you really complaining that the White House “TEAM” went out of their way to discredit that hack and critic Joe Wilson? Come on, that’s what adults do.
Yet another collossal waste of time and money by our government. Makes for interesting dinner party conversation though, doesn’t it?
I have a suggestion: let’s suspend all the money being spent on government investigations and, instead, spend it on making sure our fallen military heroes get the medical care to which their selflessness and heroism entitles them.
Peter, in case you missed my update above, let me repeat that even Joe Wilson, of all people, acknowledged today that the verdict was NOT about the underlying charges. From his statement:
The Wilsons will continue to pursue the civil case against Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage because it hinges on additional and different facts from those underlying the criminal case. The criminal trial was about whether or not Mr. Libby obstructed justice and committed perjury by lying to FBI agents and the grand jury about the fact that he had disclosed to reporters that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA. The civil suit, on the other hand, hinges on whether or not the defendants violated the constitutional rights of Valerie and Joe Wilson by making those disclosures in a concerted effort to retaliate against Joe Wilson for revealing the falsity of the president’s rationale for the Iraq war.
too many steves, I’d be all for that…
He certainly didn’t prove the allegations – rather, he declined to even try…
Yes, and he explained why: Because of the nature of the charge – which require establishing context and proving intent – and because of his central role in the matter, Libby’s lies to both the FBI and the grand jury were tantamount to destroying/altering evidence.
Andy, you can argue with me all day, but we’re talking about the same thing – I’m not saying he didn’t have good reason not to try, but you can’t say he proved what he didn’t even try to prove, regardless of why he didn’t try to prove it…and that’s just what the Left Wing Noise Machine is in the process of doing…
Right. It doesn’t prove anything one way or the other (isn’t that what I just said?) But that’s Libby’s fault, not Fitzgerald’s.
It’s also Libby’s fault for dragging this out. If he had released the reporters from confidentiality in the beginning, and if he had not lied to investigators, this case would have been wrapped up two years ago.
I’m not trying to fault Fitzgerald – he had a job to do and he did it. I’d prefer he didn’t pursue this, but as you say, Libby certainly gave him the rope…
Gosh, I can remember back when Fitzmas was a big dud among the left, who were upset that Rove didn’t get indicted. I guess they figure they’ve got to dance with whatever scalp they can find.
The reality of this case is it won’t change anything. The people who hate the administration will still hate it. Those who don’t won’t start hating it. No more indictments are coming, Dick Cheney isn’t resigning, George W. Bush isn’t going to cry out from the witness stand, “Yes, I did it! I’m guilty of everything you say!”…
And Scooter Libby will probably stall this out until he gets a pardon around Christmas 2008. Then there will be more howling for a week or two, and then everyone will forget it as attention turns to the new administration.
Mark: the charges brought against Libby were not smearing Wilson or exposing his wife. We agree on that. My point is that when evidence and sworn testimony are introduced in a trial, we can be reasonably certain of their accuracy. When numerous people testify to the same thing, the degree of certainty increases.
My point is simply that we now have reliable information which, in Pelosi’s words, exhibit “a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.” Was this decided by the jury? No. Can reasonable people look at the evidence that was introduced in the trial and draw this conclusion? Yes. The fact that Cheney and his group escaped legal culpability does not excuse them of moral culpability.
A question I have is why the jury only had eleven members after the twelfth was dismissed – don’t federal trials use alternate jurors?
I’ll listen to Nancy Pelosi and the rest of these characters just after they make these sorts of public pronouncements about Sandy Berger, Jack Murtha, and the guy with the cash in the freezer.
Doesn’t make what Scooter did right, just shows these people for what they truly are, and what our political system has become (or maybe always was).
[...] Original post by Mark [...]
The reason the jury had eleven instead of twelve is the judge elected not to use an alternate because he didn’t want to lose the several days of deliberation that had already taken place. It won’t be grounds for appeal because both sides agreed with the judge’s request…
Post 16: Sandy Berger was convicted of a misdemeanor, not four felonies. Jack Murtha was never charged with anything or indicted. William Jefferson (the guy with cold cash) was roundly criticized and House Democrats voted 99-58 to strip him of his committee seat.
Post 18: thanks!
The Scooter Libby Top Six
Here, without further ado, are the top five things VP Cheney’s former right hand man, Scooter Libby, was not convicted of: Lying about Iraq and it’s WMD, specifically, the desire to buy uranium from Niger. (It was, in fact, Joe
Ok, post 19: you make my (earlier) point, if Sandy Berger is not germane to this chat because he was (only) convicted of a misdemeanor, then neither is commenting on what this conviction says about the White House/Administration, which is to say: nothing.
Like Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in the investigation of a crime that was determined not to have been committed. That says nothing about President Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, et al.
I am, though, heartened to see how many on the Left are placing the right level of importance on the significance of the charge of lying to a grand jury.
I don’t claim that Berger is irrelevant here: only that there is a wide gap between one misdemeanor and four felony convictions.
However, the distinction between Berger and Libby is that Berger apparently was acting alone, and his actions hence do not reflect on others. Libby was acting as part of a team, under the (at best) tacit or (at worst) explicit direction of the Vice President. An analogy would be the distinction between Watergate (which involved many) and William Jefferson (which involved only him).
I also dispute the suggestion that Plame’s exposure was “a crime that was determined not to have been committed.” First, no such determination was made (nor was a determination made the other way: it wasn’t the crime being charged. My guess is that Fitzgerald chose not to bring the charge because it would allow the defense to subpoena classified documents in the discovery process, which the government was unlikely to provide. This would jeopardize the likelihood of conviction on an exposure charge and introduce a lot of extraneous legal issues about government secrecy which would delay the trial and obscure from the other charges. Why press a charge which may be derailed and which will cause a huge distraction from the four slam dunk charges you already have?)
Secondly, there is no correlation between declining to bring charges on exposing an agent and the statement that it “says nothing about President Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, et al.” It is true that the verdict itself is not a reflection on the others. However, as noted above, the evidence and sworn testimony which emerged in the trial says a great deal.
Peter, you keep going back to this notion that evidence presented at a trial is proof – of course, it is no such thing. Trials are adversarial processes, and that’s why we have juries – and judges to direct them as to what specific points they are charged with making a finding on…
When you make an informed judgment about anything, you look at the evidence and guage its reliability. If you were to have a Reliability-O-Meter, with gossip in the Drudge Report at one end, probably the other end of the scale would be testimony under oath.
We can only infer what went on in the White House, but in my view there is more than sufficient evidence introduced in the trial with a high probability of accuracy to make an informed judgment.
Well, I’m no Drudge fan, but I think gossip in the Drudge Report is pretty damn accurate – he broke the Lewinsky story, after all…
Well, I’ll be charitable and use Micheal Moore as the analogy instead of Drudge.
Very charitable, indeed…