Novak: Sorry End To A Sorry Affair
Here’s Robert Novak’s take on the Libby verdict:
The Libby trial uncovered no plot hatched in the White House. The worst news Tuesday for firebrand Democrats was that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was going back to his “day job” (as U.S. attorney in Chicago). With no underlying crime even claimed, the only question was whether Libby had consciously and purposefully lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned of Mrs. Wilson’s identity.
…The trial provided no information whatever about Valerie Plame’s status at the CIA at the time I revealed her role in her husband’s mission. No hard evidence was produced that Libby ever was told she was undercover. Fitzgerald had argued that whether or not she was covert was not material to this trial, and Federal District Judge Reggie B. Walton had so ruled. Yet, in his closing arguments, Fitzgerald referred to Mrs. Wilson’s secret status, and in answer to a reporter’s question after the verdict, he said she was “classified.”
In fact, her being classified — that is, that her work was a government secret — did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former Deputy Secretary of State Armitage) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage.
Some questions asked me in television and radio interviews after the verdict implied that I revealed Armitage’s name to Fitzgerald. Actually, in my first interview with Fitzgerald after he had been named special prosecutor, he indicated he knew Armitage was my leaker. I assumed that was the product of detective work by the FBI. In fact, Armitage had turned himself in to the Justice Department three months before Fitzgerald entered the case, without notifying the White House or releasing me from my requirement of confidentiality.
On Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” Tuesday night, super-lawyer David Boies said Fitzgerald never should have prosecuted Libby because there was no underlying criminal violation. Boies scoffed at Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby had obstructed him from exposing criminal activity. Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election dispute, is hardly a Bush sympathizer. But neither is he a Democratic partisan trying to milk this obscure scandal.
George W. Bush lost control of this issue when he permitted a special prosecutor to make decisions that, unlike going after a drug dealer or mafia kingpin, turned out to be inherently political. It would have taken courage for the president to have aborted this process. It would require even more courage for him to pardon Scooter Libby now, not while he is walking out of the White House in January 2009.
Of course, Novak is hardly a disinterested party, but still…the one thing that keeps sticking in my craw is this: Armitage was the leaker. He turned himself in. Fitzgerald knew about him. Why did the investigation continue at that point? Libby lied and thus deserved his verdict, but he wouldn’t even have been put in that position if Fitzgerald and Armitage had both stepped forward and brought things to an early conclusion.
Now, I’m not knocking Fitzgerald completely – prosecutors prosecute, that’s their job…but they’re also human and they love big headlines, and this was a big headline.
The more I think about it, the more certain I am – Libby MUST be pardoned, if he loses his appeals…
Is lying to a grand jury about adult consensual sexual relations similar to or different than lying to a grand jury about your involvement in a crime that wasn’t committed and, therefore, needn’t be investigated?
Let’s play “spot the disconnect”:
Y’all see it?
There’s not a disconnect there, Fargus – I’ve been totally consistent that the jury reached the right verdict, given the evidence. I’ve also been totally consistent that Libby is the fall guy, and even the jurors think so.
But as you said, he was a fall guy who did something wrong. He lied to federal prosecutors. Why does that deserve a pardon? And isn’t a fall guy typically somebody who’s set up to cover up wrongdoing by another party? Who are you saying is the real culprit? Or are you just saying nobody did anything wrong and Libby was just thrown to the wolves for the hell of it?
That’s the disconnect.
I think you’re misunderstanding the point of this post.
Libby was stupid, and if he goes to jail, he deserves it – but as I said before, courts are for justice, and pardons are about mercy.
Now, having said that, the reason I posted on this subject yet again is I can’t get away from the unfairness of the following:
Armitage is the leaker.
Armitage knows it.
Armitage turns himself in to the Justice Department.
Patrick Fitzgerald ALSO knows Armitage is the leaker.
Yet, the investigation continues (??) and Libby stupidly lies in what is no doubt a ‘good soldier’ knee-jerk reaction to deflect investigators from his boss.
The disconnect is there, all right – but it’s the continuation of an investigation into the leaker of information that doesn’t even focus on the leaker OR the information…
That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage.
I think that’s a crock. The difference between Armitage’s and Libby’s (alleged) actions was knowledge aforethought. This is how the act reads:
I also fail to see how Armitage blabbing a few days before Libby gets the latter off the hook. There’s no such qualification in the statute.
Post 1: In my view, lying under oath regarding a consensual affair is no better or worse from a legal or moral standpoint than lying regarding a crime which did not occur. However, there are two essential differences between Clinton and Libby.
First, the context is different. Libby’s testimony came in a grand jury investigation of a potential crime. Clinton’s testimony came in a civil suit which was funded by and part of a larger effort by political opponents. The difference is that the first context is one of a normal government process and the second is a unique occurrence (a sitting President has never before been deposed regarding a private matter). The first is a legitimate exercise of government and the latter is a high-stakes game of gotcha directed to achieve political ends.
Secondly, the inference that a “crime wasn’t committed” in the exposure of Valerie Plame is incorrect. . A covert agent was exposed, which is prima facie evidence of a crime. The fact that an indictment was not brought does not mean that a crime was not committed. It only means that the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. To bring up a tired example: Al Capone’s conviction on tax evasion.
Having said that, I don’t want to see Libby go to jail. However, I don’t see any equivalence between the two men.
And Andy, I’m sure you’ll direct me to both the evidence and the count of the verdict that proved that Libby believed and/or knew Plame to be a covert agent…
Peter, good God, you’re back to step one, for cryin’ out loud. You can’t just say “a covert agent was exposed” – that’s not at all proven, and it was never even attempted to prove it, AND the evidence is very much in favor of the conclusion that she was not covert (and there’s a difference between classified and covert status).
You act as if all the months of analysis and commentary on this very point had never occurred…
Furthermore, Peter, the exposure came at the hands of Richard Armitage and not Scooter Libby…
And the evidence is also very much in favor of Libby having lied to defend his bosses, whose aim seemed to be to discredit anyone who had anything critical to say about them at all. And Cheney’s note heavily implied that the President had some knowledge, at least, of what was going on.
I like how all of that is dismissed in your view, because of lack of evidence, but the points that YOU want to make are de facto strongly supported by the evidence.
Fargus, show me the statute that says it’s illegal to try to discredit your critics. If so, we’re all about to go away for a long, long time…
Peter, or Post 7 if you prefer: we agree that lying to a grand jury is bad and should be punished. The punishment need not – should not – be uniform and may vary according to the seriousness of the situation. I’m not sure which is more serious, but would add that all the facts should be taken into consideration before sentencing, such as: Libby was not the leaker, the leak was not proved criminal, and the identity of the leaker was known long before Libby was brought into the investigation.
Given that Fitzgerald knew a crime was not committed I can only conclude that his investigation was, to use your phrase, a high-stakes political game of gotcha. No other explanation makes sense to me.
I’ll address the covert matter later…I’ve got a quite relevant link…
Post 13: To emphasize peter’s point, you presume far too much to say “Fitzgerald knew a crime was not committed.” He didn’t bring charges, to be sure, but that’s a different thing.
She was undercover and she was exposed, as was the front company she worked for. The grand jury indictment against Libby charges that she was covert (to be precise, she is described in the indictment as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”). She was covert under any reasonable definition of the word. Her close friends and family did not know she worked for the CIA. The standards for a grand jury to consider a crime is probable cause, which is a very low bar. When Libby was deposed, there was certainly probable cause that a covert agent’s identity was revealed.
As for Armitage: he leaked first, but Libby leaked to Judith Miller when Plame’s identity was still a secret. Regardless, my statement is that a crime was apparently committed, not that Libby himself is culpable.
And Peter, as you know, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. What is ‘alleged’ in a grand jury indictment and what is proven are two far seperate things…
Steve: I have to declare some bias here (Fitzgerald and I went to the same college – Amherst – so I would probably support the guy no matter what he does). However, I wouldn’t assume that he thought no crime was committed. My guess is that if he brought charges for exposing a covert agent, the defense could subpoena a wealth of classified documents which would tie up the case in procedural issues. Why not go with the charges which are slam-dunks?
But Mark, just because one thing wasn’t proven doesn’t mean that the opposite thing WAS. If you’re going to go saying that the case wasn’t even about whether or not Plame was covert, and then turn around and say that it was “proven” that she wasn’t…..disconnect time again!
Okay, it was not proven that she was covert – but the justice system carries the presumption of innocence.
Even if that question had been before the jury (and we all agree it wasn’t), it would be up to Fitzgerald to prove she was covert, and not the other way around.
If the question wasn’t asked, the justice system carries the presumption of indifference.
I’m sure you’ll direct me to both the evidence and the count of the verdict that proved that Libby believed and/or knew Plame to be a covert agent
As I’ve said repeatedly, this is what was being investigated by the grand jury. Fitzgerald explained that Libby’s lies were equivalent to tampering with evidence. Without that evidence, they could not proceed. That’s way different than Fitzgerald deciding there wasn’t sufficient evidence, and you can’t say he didn’t know about Plame. We don’t know one way or the other.
Okay, there’s a point we all agree on – we don’t know one way or the other whether Valerie Plame was covert, and whether Libby knew she was, if she was…right?…and there are conflicting interpretations…so without a ruling by the court or a jury, the question is still up in the air.
Fair enough?…
Peter: thanks for the disclosure but I think your argument stands up either way (whether I agree or not is another matter).
I think Mr. Fitzgerald found himself in an untennable position once he knew Armitage was the source of the leak – with all the scrutiny and political pressure/interest, how could he possibly end the investigation at that point?
Now, when it was that Fitzgerald knew he couldn’t bring charges of outing a covert agent is up for debate, but quite important because that determination either helps make Andy Vance’s argument that Libby’s obstruction prevented the charge from being proved or lends credence to the case that Libby was entrapped. Any entrapement resulted mostly from Libby’s foolishness but that behavior was driven by his belief, created by Fitzgerald, that there was still a legitimate investigation underway. If Libby had known Armitage was the leaker then he would have no reason to lie. That he felt compelled to lie leaves open to speculation his motivation and piques the immagination of the conspiracy minded.
that behavior was driven by his belief, created by Fitzgerald, that there was still a legitimate investigation underway.
Ummm, Libby was lying like a cheap rug long before Fitzgerald was involved.
Well, you’re probably correct on that score – lying has been shown to be a life-long pursuit rather than a one-time behavior.