In reading the timeline as Fitzgerald lays out in his press conference from yesterday, I am struck by two things: 1) while he notes, on several occasions that a CIA agent was “outed” he does so in a way that leaves unclear her exact legal status, hence continuing the confusion over the underlying issue of this entire affair (at least I remain confused), and 2) while as presented it is clear that Libby was not properly forthcoming about when he knew what, there isn’t any allegation that Libby violated the law regarding the identity of CIA operatives.
In other words: Fitzgerald sets up Problem A, and then goes on to describe Problem B. I do understand that without the allegations about Problem A, Problem B would not exist; however, the presentation by Fitzgerald focused very heavily on Problem A, but the charges are all about Problem B.
It is not even clear that the allegations are that Problem B was a cover-up for Problem A. This should the inference, I will grant, but that argument is not made. This is especially true, given that the Problem B timeline has to do with discussing Plame. My point is (and it is not an issue of defending Libby, but in trying to understand the situation) it is unclear whether discussing Plame as alleged was a crime. There are times that Fitzgeralds inferred that it was, but it was never made clear–and that is an issue I was hoping these indictments would clarify.
Having said all that, Libby has no excuse to lie/obscure the facts to the Grand Jury. And, I concur with the following (all from Fitzgerald’s statements from yesterday):
it’s equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.
[…]
Any notion that anyone might have that there’s a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.
If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it’s a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.
Update: Andy McCarthy notes the following at The Corner:
The indictment does not allege an offense of the espionage act (18 USC 793), but it does indicate there may well have been one.There are several crimes laid out in the espionage act, but the one that applies most closely on these facts requires the government to prove that a person (a) obtained classified information lawfully (e.g., in his official capacity), communicated it to someone not entitled to receive it, and (c) did so willfully.
The indictment charges the mere fact that Plame worked at the CIA was classified information. (“At all relevant times … Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.”)
This is a legitimate and important point that does tie together Problems A & B as discussed above.
Further, McCarthy rightly notes
the prosecutor’s job at this stage is to announce charges, not vouch for them,
As such, asking for a full connection between Problems A & B is likely unrealistic.
In a separate post, McCarthy continues:
This is not a case where a person has not been charged with any crimes at all, where the government doesn’t have the nerve to put its money where its mouth is, or where the government itself is leaking out damaging innuendo. The government has not filed a bare-bones indictment, as it could legally have done. Instead, the special prosecutor has given Libby elaborate notice, extensively describing his alleged conduct. We are not at a loss here to make our own judgments about what the conduct means if it is proved.Like it or not, the mere fact that Plame was employed by CIA is alleged to have been classified. Libby is alleged to have learned this fact in his official capacity. He is alleged to have told it to Judith Miller of the New York Times, a person not entitled to receive classified information (and to have implicitly confirmed it for Matthew Cooper of Time, another person not entitled to receive it). Here on Planet Earth, this is known as leaking classified information.
McCarthy’s post did not sit well with Mark Levin. However, given that Levin tends to view US politics as us versus them, I find his position to be less credible.
An explanation for this:
Many others who have viewed the press conference (admission: I haven’t) have commented that they were struck by the fact that Fitzgerald was very, very careful not to allege things, unless he was actually bringing the charges. He’s not grandstanding, and he didn’t provide willing reportes with a torrent of juicy, illegally-leaked grand jury info (behavior we all find puzzling, because our reference point is Starr).
So that’s one reason that he didn’t make stronger allegations - it’d have been improper.
The other, of course, is that he still has things going on, and doesn’t want to give the other targets in the Administration more info than they already have.
Comment by Barry — Saturday, October 29, 2024 @ 11:00 am
Watch the rightwingers pedaling in their own shit. All those high and mighty, huffy and puffy, moral types who screamed “high crimes and misdemeanors” when Clinton lied under oath about a — perfectly legal — activity: a blow job… Now, THAT was really a threat to national security.
If Libby had not committed any crime, why did he need to perjure himself?
Id does not matter whether an underlying crime can be proven or not; what matters is that Libby lied under oath. What’s good for the gander…
Perjury is perjury, even when Republicans commit it. I know that this is news for your double-standard crowd.
Comment by Evil Progressive — Saturday, October 29, 2024 @ 11:04 am
Thanks for this post and the link to McCarthy’s comments. It’s ridiculous to me that many intelligent conservative commentators are pushing so many blatantly false conclusions. For example, Powerline tells us that because Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby under an espionage offense, this means that Plame wasn’t covert. Bob Woodard claims that it’s no big deal because outing her did no damage (although how he knows this when the CIA hasn’t completed a damage assessment report- I don’t know).
We know from the indictment that Libby purposefully spoke of Plame’s job at the CIA with multiple reporters. But as McCarthy smartly points out, unless it can be proved that Libby did so “wilfully” he cannot be convicted of the underlying crime. The facts point to Libby acting recklessly or negligently, but this is not enough. Either he didn’t know her status and acted negligently by not checking into it before speaking with outsiders, or he knew her status but it’s unclear that his motives were “willful.” In either case, his conduct was serious and wrong, even before he allegedly made up a story to the FBI and perjured himself twice. And saying so should have nothing to do with liberal/conservative identity. Politicians and pundits who try to spin this will regret it when the rest of the facts trickle out, either during Libby’s criminal trial or the Wilson’s civil suit they intend to bring.
Comment by PM — Saturday, October 29, 2024 @ 11:32 am
“…hence continuing the confusion over the underlying issue of this entire affair.”
I believe that the underlying affair is one where a (not terribly secret, if one has been paying attention) cabal of government officials set out to govern for their own interests, and the interests of their benefactors, including the decision to declare
a war, the only rationale for which was based on clearly doctored evidence, and consciously set out to destroy anyone who interfered with their efforts.
This is corruption of a high degree by people who set out from the beginning to rule, not govern. this is the underlying issue.
Comment by Joseph Tysl — Saturday, October 29, 2024 @ 11:56 am
McCarthy makes a rather odd defense of Libby:
“So, while Libby may have had a bad purpose as far as the law is concerned, he did not have a purpose to do damage to the country or help an enemy. That is what the espionage act is most concerned about. ”
So apparently, violation of the espionage act is somehow benign if the purpose was not to achieve political advantage, rather than to do damage to the country or help an enemy. So how about the person who betrays classified information, not out of a desire to do damage to the country or help an enemy, but rather for personal advantage–say, for for money? Should this also be regarded as benign? Or is it perhaps the case that the act really is about the action rather than the purpose?
Comment by tgibbs — Saturday, October 29, 2024 @ 4:36 pm
What is it that you don’t understand about Patrick Fitzgerald’s words? This attempt by wing nuts to keep spinning is insane.
Fitzgerald News Conference
The following is the transcript of a news conference with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, special counsel for the Justice Department, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.
FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I’m Pat Fitzgerald. I’m the United States attorney in Chicago, but I’m appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.
Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.
A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff.
The grand jury’s indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.
Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I’d like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2024, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
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.
Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2024. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2024.
But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson’s wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.
In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2024 about Valerie Wilson.
Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.
Comment by anne — Monday, October 31, 2024 @ 11:50 am
I believe problem B is why Fitz cannot determine the answer to problem A. That is, the lying is obstructing the view of whether Libby knew that Plame was a covert agent. Thus, we have to try Libby to determine what he knew. Then we can get to problem A.
The indictment appears to establish a prima facie case of perjury and obstruction. The trial will illuminate whether Libby’s statements were innocent (faulty memory - which appears to be his main defense right now) or calculated to divert the investigation from the truth. It would be premature to conclude that Problem A is resolved until after Problem B is tried in court.
Comment by Matt Burr — Monday, October 31, 2024 @ 11:58 am