10 Random Observations on the Scooter Libby Trial
(10.) The relationship between some big-name reporters and Bush administration insiders gives fresh meaning to the term incest.
(9.) The damage wrought by the Bush administration’s divide-and-govern tactics is immense.
(8.) If the White House had initiated its purge of U.S. attorneys earlier, it wouldn’t have been embarrassed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
(7.) How Karl Rove escaped indictment remains the biggest mystery of the entire affair.
(6.) The next biggest mystery is whether investigators will explore further whether Vice President Cheney conspired to obstruct justice.
(5.) Libby’s conduct was not only not unusual, it was the norm in an administration where an extraordinary 11 officials have been convicted, indicted or pled guilty, and 16 have resigned because they were under investigation.
(4.) Bloggers covered the trial better than the mainstream media.
(3.) In a White House that values loyalty above all else, you’re still disposable.
(2.) Libby would not be practicing doing the frog walk had his boss not insisted in punishing a former diplomat who put the lie to one of the administration’s key justifications for going to war and outing his CIA agent wife.
(1.) It’s okay to lie. Just don’t get caught.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
33 Responses to “10 Random Observations on the Scooter Libby Trial”
Fitz says no further investigations or charges. Fitz was aRepublican US attorney who played it straight, neither the moonbats or wingnuts got what they wanted. JUSTICE pervails over partisan interests.
6.) The next biggest mystery is whether investigators will explore further whether Vice President Cheney conspired to obstruct justice.
Fitz says no further investigations or charges. Fitz was aRepublican US attorney who played it straight.
But if he played it straight, why were both Bush and Cheney allowed to testify before the grand jury without being sworn in? Should Bill Clinton have been allowed to testify about Zippergate in the same manner, or is it that Ken Starr didn’t play it straight? This case seems to be more relevant to our national security than Clinton’s felonious conduct!
KR Fitz was only going after Libby, Bush and Cheney were never going to be subject to his investigations. The Left had wet dreams that Fitz would do a Starr and try and bring in more people into his grasp, it never happened. Fitz is an example of an honest SP, he has the integrity the Bushinistas lack.
But Rudi- I totally agree that this will go no further, but isn’t the reason that Libby didn’t turn on Cheney to avoid jeopardizing a future pardon? While its true Rove and Libby carried out the smear campaign, didn’t the whole idea originate with Cheney? I consider Cheney an unindicted co-conspirator. Are you saying that since he had named Libby and Rove subjects of his probe, that it would be unethical for him to widen it when further information became available?
The problem with this investigation and trial is that everyone expected too much from it.
The initial cause was the ‘outing’ of a CIA agent, but that law is almst impossible to apply, because it requires proos of deliberate intent, an almost impossible barrier to cross.
That’s why we ended up with the truth telling trial that we got. It’s not an appropriate vehicle for bringing down the Bush administration, and it never was.
Nevertheless, the trial has been very insturctive about the way Washinton, including the press, operates. It’s an ugly picture we were shown.
More points to ponder =
The Starr performance was a national disgrace of a polotical attack job. I, for one, am glad Patrick did not do a reverse image job.
Trying to bring Cheney into this would have produced years of stalling on ‘national security’ issues, and I’m not sure keeping the grand jury installed for years on end would have been productive.
Is their a link that lists all of these officials? I was unaware there were this many?
domjat – This granjury was impaneled for years. If the Bushinistas actually cooperated this would have been done with in 2004. But elections were more important than justice.
[...] And all you guys who’ve got nothing but a “Libby’s guilty” short-post… What’s up? The Moderate Voice (though I see now they’ve got a Letterman-styled top ten list… so it’s something), True Blue Liberal, Pandagon, The Agonist, I know you’re the big league bloggers so it’s somewhat of a fight to get post hits amongst yourselves… But trust me, as a new blogger but longtime reader of all your blogs… we don’t like 5 word posts. If we wanted that we’d go to Atrios or Instapundit, and even Atrios has got longer posts today. [...]
Commanderogg:
Here’s a link to the list . . .
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002075.php
. . . which obviously now needs updating.
The Starr performance was a national disgrace of a polotical attack job. I, for one, am glad Patrick did not do a reverse image job.
Trying to bring Cheney into this would have produced years of stalling on ‘national security’ issues, and I’m not sure keeping the grand jury installed for years on end would have been productive.
I would not have liked to see that, either domajot. But it would have been nice if at least Fitz had sworn Cheney in at the grand jury proceeding, especially since he himself admits there ‘s a cloud of suspicion over Cheney, and keeps going on about how no one is above the law.
Now a lot of conservatives are going on about how much time and money was wasted to prove that Libby lied after the fact, and how Armitage was never charged with the initial crime.
Definitely agree with point #4 — blogs covered this better than the MSM because the latter were too busy with doing breaking news live feeds on the poor Anna Nicole Smith’s latest state of decomposition :-/
As far as the bigger picture goes, the sad part about this for me isn’t so much that it’s a glimpse of the inner-workings of the Bush Administration, but rather what I fear to be a glimpse of the greater ugly behind-the-scenes political machinations that go on inside the Beltway. It’s my understanding that many of the initial events of this story were politics as usual…
Look on the bright side, Scooter… W’s out of office in 21 months and you’ve got a good shot at a pardon!
I thought this was a blog for a moderate. You gave it away when you said the bloggers covered the trial better than the MSM. You people should try to diversify your news sources. If anything this is an example of a trial that never should have occurred, but did because of a partisan media and a bunch of self righteous bloggers. You people seem to know so little about this trial that you repeat a variety of claims that are demonstrably false
1) there was no crime in the first place. Libby didn’t leak the name and that is what the original prosecution was about. Any responsible prosecutor would have ended the investigation right then. Comey and fitzgerald had a bone to pick with libby over the mark rich pardon.
2) everything Joe Wilson said was a lie. He was sent by his wife, not cheney. His “report” actually strengthened the case that Iraq had been in Niger (according to Senate intelligence report). Both the Butler commission and journalists such as Christopher Hitchens have shown that Iraq had a long history of trying to get uranium from Niger. His wife was not covert at the time and had not been for a while.
3) to pronounce one sentence about Iraq and Niger as a key justification for going to war is the stupidest and most disingenuous thing I have ever heard. the war was based on a variety of arguments not least of which was 18 UN resolutions. One can debate what arguments should have been used, but to pretend that what Iraq-Niger connection was an overriding justification is just flatly wrong.
4) was it a purge when Clinton removed almost all of the federal prosecutors when he took office? Or is it only when bush does that to a lesser extent. How can anyone take you seriously when you say that with a straight face?
5) Rove should have been indicted for what? Being rove? Being conservative? Because you don’t like him?
the sad part is that this trial will have a negative effect for years to come. A journalist was jailed (unprecedented), government sources will be less likely to talk to the media and the public’s right to know will be adversely affected.
So it’s a smear campaign when someone claims something about you (that is false) and then you try and clarify the story. Once Wilson lied, Cheney, libby, etc had every right to set the record straight. And will someone please tell me why they would have leaked Plames name to hurt Wilson? She wasn’t covert and if you wanted to get back at someone, there are probably a lot better ways. Why would they leak the name of someone that they thought was covert (when she wasn’t), a crime which would be easy to identify and trace to its source. You don’t think they could have come up with something better than that. You people can’t have it both ways, if these people are as sinister as you want to believe, then it is unlikely that they are as stupid as you imply.
It is obvious that cmbennett23 is a stranger to the reality-based community. The percentage of his assertions that are the opposite of true is at, or close to, 100%.
My question is whether a House subcommittee will obtain Fitz’ files and investigate for an impeachable offense by Cheney — just on matters connected to this case.
what is not true? try actually addressing them. Are you saying that Wilson didn’t lie? Are you saying that plame was covert? It seems that you people have only listened to yourselves and therefore can’t even address what i said. what did I say that was untrue?
I mean, in a “reality based community”, shouldn’t you be able to explain what is reality and what is not?
Plame was under ciover at one time. Her operation had a front company to track WMD’s. The leak rendered those assets useless. The Bush administration damaged CIA assets for political purposes. All Scooter had to do was admit playing hardball, he lied to coverup a attack on a dissenter to Whitehouse spin. He deserves all that this conviction will bring.
Just because she was covert at one time, doesn’t mean she was during the leak.
It wasn’t Whitehouse spin, no matter how much you say it, Wilson was wrong on all of his accusations about Niger and Iraq relations. Period. So maybe they played hardball when someone lied about them. that is hardly new in Washington. At least they didn’t use the FBI to thwart investigations like some former presidents.
The point is that the criminalization of politics on both sides of the isle, but in this case the left side is dangerous and so are over zealous prosecutors. There was no damage to Plame (many argue that she had already outed herself to neighbors and who’s who is Washington) and no one has been able to provide any examples of how her imaginary outing hurt any CIA’s operations, even though the MSM has tried. IF she was so concerned about her cover, maybe a cover on Vanity Fair wasn’t the best idea. Oh and by the way, the person who “outed her ” was armitage, not libby.
CMB Please supply some links to newspapers to backup your assertions. Your Republican talking points are nice, but facts are better proof. The CIA requested the trial, not the “driveby media”.
Kritter-
The problem about trying Cheney, as I understand it, is the wording of the law: deliberate intent. ‘Intent’ is a subjective phenomenon, locked away in someone’s heart. It can so easily be camoflaged by claims such as not realizing the circumstances or significance of the target involved (PLame).
That’s how Armitage got away clean. He admitted giving the information, but claimed it was an innocent (not malicious) mistake.
It’s next to impossible to prove otherwise.
And what with ‘executive privelages’ and everything being classified, well, you get the idea.
I’m even surprised by the Libby conviction, since so much depended on a he said, he said scenario.
Given the circumstances, I think Patrick did a great job. Plus, we got a look at the belly of the beast in the process.
Charge Cheney with what? How come you guys can’t bother to mention what crime you would charge him with?
Rudi:
Some of my comments are informed opinions obviously, but here are some links:
Regarding the inaccuracies of Joe Wilson’s op-ed and various claims and in general the possibility that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.
1) The British Butler Report (not based on forged Italian docs)
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/
2) The senate intelligence report 2002
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
3) Various articles by Christopher hitchens ( google him)
4) Clifford May article (yes he is a conservative, but he knows the issue intimately and he makes various points)
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
5) common sense about saddam Hussein’s regime, its past dealings with trying to get uranium.
Regarding Plame’s Status (granted this is still being debated by minds far greater than mine, but no one was charged of a crime, which suggests that fitz didn’t think there was a crime committed or that he thought it would be too difficult to prove.)
1) Oped by victoria toensing in wash post
2) articles by cliff may and Andy McCarthy for national review
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
3) the fact that Fitzgerald didn’t charge anyone with the crime.
4) Washington time articles and Chicago tribune articles claiming Russians outed her 7 years ago
The most important thing is that Fitzgerald knew who leaked her name from the beginning and still brought charges (after he changed the perimeters of the indictment). If anyone should have been indicted for the major crime (if it even was a crime) was Armitage. This was a political trial pure and simple. The idea that they would out a CIA agent as payback suggests more about the motives of people who believe this. Don’t you think that people so sinister would have come up with a better way to get Wilson back? There is plenty of blame to go around including to the bush administration, but it would be interesting to hear why fitz decided to pursue the claim so vigorously and went as far as jailing a journalist.
factcheck.org has a good summary (up to 2005) for a basic timeline.
I know the CIA requested it, but a combination of liberal bloggers and some of the Media (Newsweek, NY times, the nation, etc) lobbied on behalf of a special investigation making it a national issue, desperate to catch the evil karl rove and cheney in something dirty. Instead we get a jailed journalist, a chief of staff indicted for charges barely related to the original concern and an episode that detracts from important government responsibilities. In a town like Washington there are plenty of dirtier and damaging things to make into national scandals. Plus it will have adverse effects on the relationship between journalists and GO’s and could actually serve as a backwards step as far as their access to government information is concerned. But hell if you get in some political points, then so be it.
to me it doesn’t make sense that the vice president would go out of his way to silence one particular critic (who was wrong) in such an irrational way that didn’t even provide the revenge that you people accuse him of seeking.
I heard a really interesting question about this case for which I can’t remotely guess and answer.
The defense kept saying that Libby and Cheney would testify – up until the last few days.
Why the change of heart?
Any ideas?
The defense kept saying that Libby and Cheney would testify – up until the last few days.
Its possible that when Wells saw what Fitz intended to present at the trial, and heard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, that he realized that having either testify would guarantee conviction for Libby and put the VP in legal or political jeopardy. I actually wonder alternatively, if this was just PR and they never intended to have Libby, Rove or Cheney testify. Certainly, the fact that Cheney was in Australia at the time of the trial (could you get any farther away,lol) seems to support that theory.
domajot- Good points, and I especially agree about getting a look at how Cheney’s office operated, and how beltway journalists interact with their sources. I do think that Fitz did an admirable job, considering the political pressure he was under- I don’t see him as a shill of Gonzales. It just bugs me to think that there has been so little accountability for the misinformation campaign by Cheney, the WH and Feith at DOD, that got us mired in Iraq. That was always the deeper meaning of the case for me.
I am so tired of hearing right-wing apologists claiming that they believe that Plame’s status was not undercover and therefore no harm done. Ergo: the law doesn’t apply to those who are think they know better than the CIA who is undercover and whose ID needs no protection.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LAW is that it’s not up to YOU to decide which CIA operatives need protection and which you can blab about BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT CALL! Nor is Cheney; nor is Libby; nor is Novak.
Libby: “how would you know if someone is undercover?”
Addington: “You wouldn’t.”
PERJURY AND LYING TO A GRAND JURY are real crimes. They disrespect the Rule of Law and all of us. (Consider this: IF THERE WAS NO CRIME, truth would have enabled Fitzpatrick to determine that early on and go home – lying OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE.
cmbennett (God, there are 23 of you?) needs to stop being an apologist for an administration that has never regretted anything nor acknowledged the consequences of its behavior. Ask any forensic shrink: knowing the difference between right and wrong and the ability to experience remorse are the keystones of REALITY. The absence of both defines serial offenders.
The problem with this argument, JP, is that the CIA confirmed Plame’s identity to Novak, so obviously they didn’t think her identity needed to be protected.
Who at the CIA?
Armitage = Deputy Sec’y of State; Karl Rove = WH political advisor
July 8, 2006: Columnist Robert Novak interviews Armitage, who tells him that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA. Novak says this was confirmed the next day by White House political adviser Karl Rove.
July 14,2006: Columnist Novak reports that Wilson’s wife is a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction and that two senior administration officials, whom Novak did not name, said she suggested sending her husband to Niger to investigate the uranium story.
Sept. 7, 2006: Armitage admits he leaked Plame’s identity to Novak and to Woodward. Armitage says he did not realize Plame’s job was covert.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/
That’s the problem with unidentified sources: credibility and qualifications to make such an judgement (about Plame’s status and the wisdom of leaking it) is also unidentified. Perhaps Novak’s unidentified source was not at a paygrade that understood the difference between Official Cover (pretends to be affiliated with a gov’t agency) and Non Official Cover status (pretends to be affiliated with a non-gov’t agency) –both are covert. See below:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/993/81/
“…Valerie Plame was undercover until the day she was identified in Robert Novak’s column. I entered on duty with Valerie in September of 1985. Every single member of our class — which was comprised of Case Officers, Analysts, Scientists, and Admin folks — were undercover. I was an analyst and Valerie was a case officer. Case officers work in the Directorate of Operations and work overseas recruiting spies and running clandestine operations. Although Valerie started out working under “official cover” — i.e., she declared she worked for the U.S. Government but in something innocuous, like the State Department — she later became a NOC aka non official cover officer. A NOC has no declared relationship with the United States Government. These simple facts apparently are too complicated for someone of Ms. Toensing’s limited intellectual abilities.
“…Richard Armitage told Novak (who confirmed the story with Karl Rove) and Novak ultimately exposed not just Valerie but her NOC cover company, Brewster Jennings. That leak by the Bush Administration ruined Valerie’s ability to continue working as a case officer and destroyed an international intelligence network. You do not have to take my word alone that Valerie was under cover. Other members of our training class also came forward in 2003 and vouched for Valerie’s covert status…”
Maybe so, JP, but I’d say that points to a systemic problem in the CIA rather than attributing blame to “right wing apologists” as you did in an earlier post. Unless Novak is making this up out of thin air, the CIA has some splaining to do. Why would employees at all pay grades not be made to understand what they can and cannot disclose to the press?
cbennet listens to Sean Hannity too much.