I haven't been following or blogging about the Scooter Libby trial, but Jeff Lomonaco, who's been covering it for the Prospect, makes a very good bottom-line point: "Vice President's main adviser has just been convicted of obstructing an investigation not just of himself but of the Vice President." Insofar as Libby looks unlikely to flip on Cheney, it appears the effort to obstruct the underlying investigation can be deemed a success.
« Rudy: Management Genius | Main | The Field »
What Does It All Mean
06 Mar 2007 02:31 pm
Comments (41)
"Insofar as Libby looks unlikely to flip on Cheney, it appears the effort to obstruct the underlying investigation can be deemed a success."
Not in any way, shape, or form.
Cheney didn't commit any legal crimes. Libby would have far better served his boss by not lying to investigators.
By lying under oath and getting caught, Libby transformed a minor political headache into a major political headache.
Yes, why would Libby do something as risky as lying? Could it be because he was trying to cover up for his boss? His boss who was afraid of Wilson and an uppity CIA blowing the lid off their intelligence cooking operation?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/26/MNG62FDUGL1.DTL
See also:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002
I guess the incentives to keep your mouth shut instead of providing evidence on your boss are different when your boss has the ability to pardon you after you get convicted.
"Yes, why would Libby do something as risky as lying? Could it be because he was trying to cover up for his boss?"
I'm in perfect agreement with you as to why Libby was lying. My point was that in lying under oath, Libby was not serving his boss well.
The risk in not lying was of political embarrassment to the administration. But in lying, greater political embarrassment was created for the administration.
putting aside whether, had libby told the truth, fitzgerald might have found cause to indict cheney, i think, petey, they assumed that the elite pundit class would cover for them and never be forced to testify under oath, which is to say they didn't think there was any risk in lying whatsoever.
"i think, petey, they assumed that the elite pundit class would cover for them and never be forced to testify under oath, which is to say they didn't think there was any risk in lying whatsoever."
It's a good point.
And given previous prosecutor reluctance to jail reporters to compel testimony, it may have even approached a good bet on their part.
But the Washington political cliche that It's Just A Bad Idea To Lie Under Oath has more than a grain of truth to it.
I am under the impression there never really was much of an underlying investigation to speak of.
"I am under the impression there never really was much of an underlying investigation to speak of."
Then you must have been asleep since 2003 or so . . .
Cheney didn't commit any legal crimes. Libby would have far better served his boss by not lying to investigators.
How interesting that you are privy to the details of both what Cheney told Fitzgerald and what Cheney discussed with Libby, considering that either could provide the basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
Setting aside the issue of obstruction, there's every reason to think that a more aggressive prosecutor could have sought indictments against the whole cast of characters in connection with the underlying outing, under the Espionage Act or other statutes of general application. The fact that Fitzgerald chose not to go there is a tribute to his philosophy of restraint, but that's not something Libby could have counted on.
Similarly, even if no one breached the Intelligence Identities Protection Act here, the reason is little more than a technicality - again, something of which Libby could not have been confident when he testified.
"Similarly, even if no one breached the Intelligence Identities Protection Act here, the reason is little more than a technicality - again, something of which Libby could not have been confident when he testified."
No. He could and should have been confident. There was plenty of time for high priced lawyers to study the legal issues and see that technically, there was no there there.
Everyone else with some exposure to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act testified truthfully because they understood that the real legal and political jeopardy lay in lying under oath.
And yet there is evidence against Cheney. When he described Libby (in writing) as "the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder" he was clearly accepting that:
1. What Libby did was dangerous (=illegal).
2. Libby "was asked" to do it.
At a minimum, Cheney should be questioned about this. If not by the courts, then by Congress.
It is sad that Fitzgerald decided not to act on this.
Petey,
The objective was to put any embarassment out past the 2004 election. Mission Accomplished. Pardon being prepared as we speak.
Similarly, even if no one breached the Intelligence Identities Protection Act here, the reason is little more than a technicality - again, something of which Libby could not have been confident when he testified.
All the noise about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act comes from Libby defenders. Neither the DOJ nor Fitzgerald ever said that what they were investigating was a breach of this specific Act. Fitzgerald has said that the fact that Plame was working at the CIA was classified. He didn't say she was a covert agent as defined in the IIPA. So the implication is that other laws were broken -- not this specific one.
And the investigation was originally requested by the CIA, which is in a better position to know if outing Plame was illegal. And the DOJ, when it agreed to investigate, obviously also looked into the legal basis.
So the implication is that other laws were broken -- not this specific one.
Could be. But if so, then why isn't Armitage being prosecuted? I mean, he's the guy who did the actual leaking.
No. He could and should have been confident. There was plenty of time for high priced lawyers to study the legal issues and see that technically, there was no there there.
The pertinent issues were not legal, but factual. The "high priced lawyers" in question were not privy to the details of Plame's service with the CIA, and were in no position to opine with confidence that she would not be covered by the IIPA.
More to the point, you didn't even address the bulk of my comment, in which I made the point that in no event could Libby have been confident that there was no violation of statutes other than the IIPA. Nor did you address the point that none of us have any way of knowing whether, if all the facts were known, there would be sufficient basis to charge Cheney with obstruction of justice. You ignored all that, and chose to pluck only the low-hanging fruit, and you ended up 100% wrong about that as well.
"The objective was to put any embarassment out past the 2004 election. Mission Accomplished."
I could be wrong about this, but I don't Libby's testimony was public as of 11/04.
I mean, he's the guy who did the actual leaking.
This undying talking point that Armitage was "the" leaker is really breathtakingly dishonest. There is no principle that says, once classified information is revealed to one person not entitled to know it, it's suddenly fair game for everyone else to reveal it. In point of fact, a lot of people were guilty of leaking the same information here.
why isn't Armitage being prosecuted?
That is a fair question. Maybe because they felt that he did not realize he was disclosing classified information. It would be good to hear an answer on this from Fitzgerald -- though he has said he will not talk about people he has decided not to prosecute.
Let me rephrase - the objective was to avoid anything that would lose them the election - Mission Accomplished.
"This undying talking point that Armitage was "the" leaker is really breathtakingly dishonest."
The point that Armitage wasn't prosecuted is incredibly important in legal terms. I think a busload of people in the administration are culpable in moral and political terms for outing Plame, and should be bashed for putting their political prospects over destroying WMD covert operations.
But the moral and political realms are separate from the legal realm. And understanding the lack of legal jeopardy faced by everyone is important in looking at their behavior. For example, the reason everybody but Libby didn't perjure themselves is related to the never-ending stream of hubris that comes out the OVP. Everything they decide there is always wrong.
Also, when Cheney asked McClellan in writing to say that Libby had not leaked Plame's name, when he obviously knew that he had (because he "was asked" to), Cheney was clearly ordering a subordinate to lie to the public.
This may not be legally a crime, but it sure sounds like a "misdemeanor" Congress should be looking into.
There is no principle that says, once classified information is revealed to one person not entitled to know it, it's suddenly fair game for everyone else to reveal it. In point of fact, a lot of people were guilty of leaking the same information here.
I don't get your point. IF it were a crime to leak Plame's identity, then Armitage would be being prosecuted right now, since we KNOW he leaked that information. Since Armitage isn't being prosecuted, we can draw the conclusion that leaking Plame's identity isn't a violation of law.
when Cheney asked McClellan in writing to say that Libby had not leaked Plame's name, when he obviously knew that he had (because he "was asked" to),
Huh? Where's the evidence that Cheney asked Libby to leak Plame's name? Cheney asked Libby to leak the NIE.
Al, as you well know (unless you're really not a lawyer), the intelligence identities protection act is written in an extremely ambiguous manner (it's almost as if toensing knew that someday someone on "her" side might be charged if the act were more sharply defined). you have to prove "intentionality" (always very difficult to do) or you have to prove that the leaker had "reason to believe" that the leak would "impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."
were i fitzgerald, i'd have gone ahead and rolled the dice and tried to make the case on all of the leakers, but i can understand why a rational prosecutor would choose not to pursue having to prove "intentionality" or "reason to believe."
the details of what cheney told libby are, of course, why he lied in the first place, and the only way we will ever know if if libby goes through a life-changing experience and decides to reveal all.
not bloodly likely.
"Since Armitage isn't being prosecuted, we can draw the conclusion that leaking Plame's identity isn't a violation of law."
You can draw that conclusion if you're using sloppy reasoning.
The truth is that it is it a difficult law to prosecute. Wikipedia:
"As of July 2005, there has only been one successful prosecution involving the statute."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act
And since Fitzgerald only has so much time and resources, he's got to focus on the crimes that he can best prosecute. Lying under oath to cover up for a crime--"throwing sand in the eyes of the umpire" as Fitzgerald put it--is itself a crime.
Huh? Where's the evidence that Cheney asked Libby to leak Plame's name? Cheney asked Libby to leak the NIE.
The evidence is Addington's testimony at the Libby trial:
Addington also testified about a note from Cheney about concerns that then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan was saying things to try to clear Rove of involvement in the leak of Plame's identity, but did not seem to be making a similar effort to clear Libby...Cheney's note was to direct the White House press secretary to offer the same assurances about Libby that McClellan had made earlier about Rove: Libby was not the source of the Novak column.
It seems to me that this is a clear smoking gun for Cheney attempting a coverup. And the note makes it clear Cheney understood Libby was in deep legal water.
Regarding the position that this investigation had to do with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: This is a Republican talking point.
The original DOJ letter appointing Fitzgerald does not make reference to outing a covert agent. It refers to "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity". And Fitzgerald, in his press conference after the end of the GJ, said:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. ...
Both the DOJ letter and Fitzgerald seem to be saying that there are CIA employees other than "covert agents" whose employment at the CIA is a classified secret. And the IIPA was evidently not what was breached. Otherwise why wouldn't they have made reference to it, or to a "covert agent", instead of a "CIA officer"?
JS: the excerpt you link does not say anything about Cheney asking Libby to leak Plame's name; rather it says that Cheney asked McClellan to say that Libby didn't leak her name.
Again, where's the evidence that Cheney asked Libby to leak Plame's name (as opposed to the NIE)?
Al, to clarify the Cheney / Libby issue a bit more:
1. Addington made it clear that the note Cheney wrote had to do with protecting Libby in the matter of the Plame leak.
2. Cheney's note makes it clear that Libby "was asked" to do what he did (i.e., leak Plame's name). Cheney wrote the words "was asked". If he wasnt't the one who "asked", then he should be in a position to say who did -- since he knew that Libby "was asked" to do it.
Yes, Libby was asked to leak the NIE. But where is the evidence that Cheney asked him to leak Plame's name?
OK, one more time:
1. The note Cheney wrote to McClellan was not about the NIE -- it was about the Plame leak (we know this from Addington, Wells, and others).
2. In this note, Cheney said that Libby "was asked" to do what he did (presumably, to leak Plame's name).
3. So Cheney knew someone asked Libby to leak Plame's name.
4. Since Cheney was Libby's boss, it's fair to assume that he did the asking. (If not, he must have known who did -- it would have to be someone more senior than Cheney, I would think).
Which of these points is not clear?
2. In this note, Cheney said that Libby "was asked" to do what he did (presumably, to leak Plame's name).
Presumably? Libby was asked to leak the NIE. You are presuming something completely different. You can presume whatever you want; I'm asking you for evidence that Cheney asked Libby to leak Plame's name rather than the NIE. Of which, apparently, there is none.
If you accept point 1 (that Cheney's note was about Plame, not about the NIE) then the "presumably" follows.
And point 1 is generally accepted, I think, by everyone. Do you dispute it?
Do you think the words "was asked" refer to the NIE?
"Both the DOJ letter and Fitzgerald seem to be saying that there are CIA employees other than 'covert agents' whose employment at the CIA is a classified secret."
Which is only common sense. Even if she was no longer technically a "covert agent", disclosure of her status as a CIA employee could expose sources and agents she'd had contact with back when she WAS a covert agent.
If you accept point 1 (that Cheney's note was about Plame, not about the NIE) then the "presumably" follows.
I don't think so. You are presuming.
Do you think the words "was asked" refer to the NIE?
Let's see. I know Libby was asked by Cheney to leak the NIE. I have zero evidence that Libby was asked by Cheney to do anything else. So, yes.
Even if she was no longer technically a "covert agent", disclosure of her status as a CIA employee could expose sources and agents she'd had contact with back when she WAS a covert agent.
One problem: the US does not have an Offical Secrets Act. It is not necessarily against the law to disclose classified information. Which may be why no one was charged with disclosing classified information.
Al, you'd have to believe Cheney was very senile to be asking McClellan to say that Libby did not leak Plame's name because he was asked to leak the NIE.
My point was that in lying under oath, Libby was not serving his boss well.
Well, whether that's the case or not, if you believe the account Libby gave in his grand jury testimony of his interactions with Cheney in fall 2003, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that he was lying with the consent of his boss. (And that, by the way, should make you rethink whether there was concern between the two of them of criminal liability as well as political embarrassment.) When Libby was not supposed to be talking with other people about the case to begin with, he told Cheney initially that he had learned of Plame's CIA employment from Tim Russert in July. Cheney's response was to cock his head - when he surely knew that that was not true, since Cheney himself had informed Libby about it in June and had almost certainly talked about it with Libby again right after Wilson's op-ed. Indeed, the evidence introduced at trial made it look quite probable that Cheney directed Libby to disclose Plame's CIA employment to Judith Miller on July 8. Anyway, after the note documenting that Cheney had told Libby about Wilson's wife back in June 2003 was found in OVP in fall 2003 and brought to Libby's attention (I believe someone else found it, although it's possible Libby himself found it), Libby went back to Cheney and told him, in effect, You know what, I was wrong before, I saw a note which reminded me of something I had completely forgotten until now but now distinctly remember, that you told me originally about Wilson's wife working for the CIA in June 2003. And Cheney again just cocked his head.
In other words, Libby kept Cheney apprised, inappropriately, of his evolving story that he would tell the FBI - a story that has been proven to be false. And Cheney simply countenanced it, almost certainly in the full knowledge that it was false.
So maybe Libby wasn't serving his boss well, but his boss appears to have felt differently, and done nothing to discourage Libby from lying under oath despite the possession of knowledge that that was precisely what Libby would be doing.
One footnote: Cheney didn't just tell Libby in June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, he told him that Wilson's wife worked in the Counterproliferation Division, which is on the clandestine not the analytic side of the Agency, which made it considerably more probable that she was under cover. And Cheney indicated to Libby that he'd learned this from the CIA, apparently from Tenet.
Fitzgerald probably knew that an IIPA prosecution, or even a prosecution against Rove, might get swamped by graymail or executive privilege. He prosecuted the case he knew had best chance of getting through trial, even with the CIPA graymail stuff that was raised by the prospect of Crashcart Dick taking the stand and Scooter having to testify about his Very Important Duties.
So stick that in your pipe, Al. Your boy's a felon.
Comments closed March 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Whether or not Libby flips (hard to see why he would, with Libby out on bail and the appeals process running through end of Bush administration and its final orgy of pardoning), the conviction and the trial record will play major role in the Wilson civil case -- which promises to be the best look yet at how Cheney et al misled this country into war. Meanwhile, can't help wondering: Did Libby's PowerPoint slides help convict him? People rely on stories to enliven factual information with resonance and meaning. Packaging too much data as bullet points may confuse your audience. It may also convince them that you are trying to hide behind data, or that you are trying to manipulate them with bullet points because your story doesn't make any sense. Which, come to think of it, was probably true in Libby's case.
Posted by Madison Guy | March 6, 2007 2:50 PM