Subpoenas for Scooter

Mark Kleiman says let 'em fly:

So call him in, giving him immunity from proseuction for anything he might say (thus barring any Fifth Amendment claim), to ask him whether he was covering up for Cheney and/or Bush when he perjured himself. Let Bush assert Executive Privilege and "direct" him not to appear, and then go argue in court about that. If Fielding tries to raise the question of what legislative purpose is served by the inquiry, the answer is simple: we're trying to figure out whether to impeach Cheney.

Meanwhile, I'm also inclined to agree that "haul Sara Taylor off to the slammer" is premature since it seems that there's going to need to be some litigating one way or the other, and having her wait that out in prison only makes her look more sympathetic.

Comments

What litigation is there to do, with respect to Sara Taylor? Thus far, she hasn't asserted a single legal ground upon which she can resist testifying. All we've got is that she just doesn't want to upset her dear friend.

Posted by MB | July 9, 2007 9:44 AM

What, precisely, would compel Scooter to tell the truth at this point? The guy didn't tell the truth under oath, and hasn't paid any real price for it. That's going to change by granting him immunity?

This is fairytale stuff folks.

Posted by ProfD | July 9, 2007 9:44 AM

and having her wait that out in prison only makes her look more sympathetic.

Disagree. Just crush her. Gawd, it would be great if someone could figure out a hook to get these people to do state time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 9, 2007 9:47 AM

She's been subpoenaed. Throw her in jail if she doesn't show up, and every time someone asks why, the answer should be "the president is keeping this young woman in jail to protect himself." Repeat as necessary.

Posted by BlueStreak | July 9, 2007 10:00 AM

'fraid ProfD is right about Scooter. You might get him to sit down in front of a committee, but I just don't see what hammer you have over him to make him tell the truth.

He could go the Gonzalez memory failure route, or the Olly North glib fabulist route, but why in heaven's name would he tell the truth?

And as we learned from Olly's adventure, having a glib liar on oath in front of the TV can sometimes backfire horribly, i.e. the cause of truth can wind up worse-off than before you started.

Posted by Count Cant | July 9, 2007 10:07 AM

Can you be pardoned more than once? Bush pardons Libby for lying to Fitz. Then Libby lies again to Congress despite have immunity conferred by the original pardon in order to continue protecting Bushco. Then (should those lies be exposed and proven) Bush pardons him again? Failing that playing out Bush tells Libby to cool his heels until January '09 and he'll get a blanket pardon for all crimes committed, known or unknown, a la Nixon's deal with Ford. At which point Libby knows he can go before Congress and lie his ass off knowing no penalties will ever be levied. Frankly I'm unsure the motivation of anyone to testify truthfully before Congress at this point. Bush could directly instruct everyone to lie and promise anticipatory pardons to everyone. And then pardon himself for instrucing them to lie.

Posted by steve duncan | July 9, 2007 10:40 AM

Don't bring up the impeachment issue, it is off message. Instead ask whether there should be a constitutional ammendment to limit the pardon power. In particular to prevent the President pardoning any member of his own administration for a crime that was committed during his term of office.

Make it retrospective and Scooter goes back to the slammer where he belongs.

Alternatively allow the Congress to bring a bill of attainder against a person who has been pardoned. That was the original purpose of a bill of attainder.

Posted by PHB | July 9, 2007 10:43 AM

The only reason NOT to call Libby is that he will likely shoot down every delusional fantasy of every left wing loony that thinks Cheney is behind some massive conspiracy. Much better to have all the delusional fantasies be shot down by noone more prominent than Tom Maguire.

Posted by Al | July 9, 2007 10:57 AM

This is a serious question and not a snark.

What exactly is Scooter supposed to have covered up?

Richard Armitage has already admitted (and Robert Novak has also already stated) that HE exposed Valerie's name to Robert Novak.

I understand that Scooter was found guilty of perjury-lying to the Grand Jury, I think. But what is it that he is presumed to have covered up?

Sk

Posted by Sk | July 9, 2007 11:00 AM

Richard Armitage has already admitted (and Robert Novak has also already stated) that HE exposed Valerie's name to Robert Novak.

Does this somehow change the fact that Libby leaked Plame's employment to Judy Miller and Matt Cooper?

Why in heaven's name would you look at a situation where multiple Executive Branch officials leaked to multiple reporters, over a period of several weeks, and decide that one leak by one guy is the only one that matters?

More to the point, why would anyone look at a situation involving multiple leaks by multiple officials and conclude that they all must have been acting on their own, with no prompting by anyone?

Posted by Steve | July 9, 2007 11:18 AM

sk, i hope to goodness that you aren't kidding, but are instead uniformed and want to learn, because life is short and i'd hate to waste 2 minutes on summarizing all this yet again.

armitage was merely the first person to leak plame's identity; that someone did leak her identity doesn't give everyone else - rove, fleischer, libby - who leaked her identity a right to do so. in fact, how, exactly, are rove, fleischer, and libby supposed to have learned that armitage leaked her identity?

novak, in fact, didn't go to press on just armitage's word; he needed confirmation from rove.

that said, how did armitage learn of plame's identity? through reading a report that cheney had requested. which takes us to what libby is covering up.

despite al's cheery denial, what we know is that armitage, rove, and fleischer all told the truth (in rove's case, just barely) to the grand jury and were not prosecuted. so we ask ourselves, why did libby lie, repeatedly?

one possibility is that he's a chronic liar, but there's no evidence of that in his professional existence.

one possibility is that he was a very busy man and simply forgot all these various conversations (that would happen to be the defense he offered, and the jury roundly rejected it).

and one possibility is that he leaked plame's identity in full knowledge that she was covert because cheney told him to do so and that's why he's lying.

it is the likeliest explanation we have to date; indeed, one still waits to see a better one.

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:30 AM

So, technically, then, you all believe Richard Armitage should be punished for leaking, and anyone else should be identified and punished similarly? Presumably Scooter could identify who else leaked, and more importantly, who 'instructed' the leaks (presumably Bush and/or Cheney) and they punished the most?

So why aren't you all pushing for Richard Armitage to be punished? I'm not saying that ONLY Richard Armitage should be punished, but if people should be punished for leaking, then certainly the one guy that we actually know did so should be included?

Sk

Posted by Sk | July 9, 2007 11:33 AM

As bizarre at it sounds, Al may be right about something, but of course, for the wrong reason. Say Libby gets up there and says, "I don't recall ever being directed by the Vice President to mention Mrs. Plame's name and status to the Novak or other members of the press." He can dance under the "I don't remember, but gee, that doesn't sound like something Cheney would do" umbrella and cast doubt on the entire proceeding. Why give him a chance to throw a life-line to the VP? And after being convicted of lying to a grand jury, what possible credibility does he have left?

Posted by DanF | July 9, 2007 11:36 AM

The only way Armitage should be punished is if he knew Plame was undercover and intended to out her. My impression is that neither is true, and Fitz said as much.

Posted by ProfD | July 9, 2007 11:40 AM

Nixon famously advised his stooges to avoid questions with the "don't remember" gag. Now, 30 years on, these bozos -- who were junior stooges under Nixon -- are unembarrassed by the transparency of it. (Essentially, they're mocking Clinton who wiggled like a worm in trying to answer their Badger Game questions. And they're hoodlums. Can't forget that.)

They're proving that politics is easy if you love power, have no agenda beyond power, and already have enough money to bootstrap yourself into power. They are the kinds of thugs who made Marx plausible.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 9, 2007 11:48 AM

Al:

The only reason NOT to call Libby is that he will likely shoot down every delusional fantasy of every left wing loony that thinks Cheney is behind some massive conspiracy.

Al's level of hackery has dropped off so precipitously in the past six months it really does make me suspect he's the nom-de-plume of a rotating cast of RNC employees. Either that or he's been eating lead paint.

Posted by grh | July 9, 2007 11:58 AM

I don't really care what happens to Armitage but I think his defense is that he didn't know Plame was a NOC. The question is who told Armitage what he went on to tell Novak. I've always assumed that the answer to that question is one of the many things Libby lied about.

Of course, the basic fact is that Scooter Libby is a liar and there is no reason to think he would start telling the truth about anything now. Jailing them in the House holding cell is the way to go. Sam Ervin threatened it during Watergate. Of course, the House jail only holds the nicer sort of detainees.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | July 9, 2007 12:01 PM

"armitage was merely the first person to leak plame's identity; that someone did leak her identity doesn't give everyone else - rove, fleischer, libby - who leaked her identity a right to do so."

So you all think that rove, fleischer, and libby should be punished for leaking in the exact same way that armitage has been punished for leaking?

"in fact, how, exactly, are rove, fleischer, and libby supposed to have learned that armitage leaked her identity?"

I learned of it by reading the internet several months ago-and Novak's column from a few days ago.

"novak, in fact, didn't go to press on just armitage's word; he needed confirmation from rove."

So you think rove should be punished for leaking in the same way that armitage has been punished for leaking?

"that said, how did armitage learn of plame's identity? through reading a report that cheney had requested. which takes us to what libby is covering up."

?? what? You think cheney requested 'a report' on who was covert, and plame's name was on it, and armitage read it, and he told novak???

"despite al's cheery denial, what we know is that armitage, rove, and fleischer all told the truth (in rove's case, just barely) to the grand jury and were not prosecuted. so we ask ourselves, why did libby lie, repeatedly?

one possibility is that he's a chronic liar, but there's no evidence of that in his professional existence.

one possibility is that he was a very busy man and simply forgot all these various conversations (that would happen to be the defense he offered, and the jury roundly rejected it).

and one possibility is that he leaked plame's identity in full knowledge that she was covert because cheney told him to do so and that's why he's lying."

So you think cheney should be punished for leaking in the same way that armitage has been punished for leaking?

I still don't get it-it sounds like you all believe that Cheney leaked, or ordered the leak, of Plame's name to the press.

If that is true, then Cheney did the same thing Armitage did. Should we treat Cheney the same way we have treated Armitage?

You must think Cheney did something more that merely leak, or order a leak (if you don't, then to be consistent you would want Cheney to be treated the way Armitage has been-i.e. utterly ignored). What else did Cheney do?

Sk

Posted by Sk | July 9, 2007 12:11 PM

If that is true, then Cheney did the same thing Armitage did. Should we treat Cheney the same way we have treated Armitage?

i'm having a hard believing you're not trolling. nonetheless...

Cheney did not do the same thing Armitage did.

the most important question here is: did the person who leaked her name know her status ? i think it was determined Armitage did not know her status. but, Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby suggests that Cheney knew and that Libby probably did too, because Cheney specifically told Libby that "Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division." (quote from the indictment) that's, reportedly, the kind of place where you don't find a lot of non-secret personnel - at the very least it's the kind of place you shouldn't be mouthing off about without checking, first.

Posted by cleek | July 9, 2007 12:43 PM

Throw her in jail if she doesn't show up, and every time someone asks why, the answer should be "the president is keeping this young woman in jail to protect himself." - BlueStreak

That'd work if the person "they" (meaning in practice the SCLM) asked a Dem. who could manage to stay on message. But besides the fact that getting Dems. to stay on message is in general like herding cats, the SCLM will pick out those Dems. (Holy Joe, Joe from the State of MBNA, some Blue Dog who's more of a Dog than Blue) that'd be most likely to say "I wish my party wouldn't be so divisive and partisan and wouldn't keep that poor girl in prison".

Actually, I don't get what the deal is. Unless I'm misunderstanding the way privilege works, all that means is she has an obligation (as mentioned at Atrios' site, she could get her license pulled, etc. if she doesn't keep silent about certain things) to keep mum about stuff told to her in confidence. It doesn't mean she can't go in front of Congress and testify about stuff she's overheard, stuff she wasn't told to keep in confidence or even just continually respond to questions with "I can't answer that".

If she really wants to testify and Congress really wants her to, they would call her and she would come and just kinda sit there and be non-responsive due to immunity.

This wouldn't be good in a court where the jury is at least supposed to not make inferences from a refusal to testify. But this isn't a court of law ... this is a Congressional hearing. It doesn't matter what inferences a jury or judge could or couldn't make from her constantly invoking immunity: this is a political process (and it's, pace the GOP's constant denigration of "playing politics", supposed to be ... c.f. Madison on "ambition being made to check ambition") and what matters is that Bush & CO is so politically discredited that any reactionary politician can't swim upstream politically.

No need to threaten Ms. Taylor with prison to force her to testify (and thus give her a Hobson's choice between prison or a revocation of her law license -- of course, if the body responsible for her licensure were to just say "we won't pull her license for this", it'd end the whole legal worry about breaking piviledge! but there are "rules" and appearently license granting boards are supposed to act like robots about following rules -- in which case I say replace those boards with robots and save some money!) ... her non-testimony will be sufficient. And it's more likely that Dems. will be able to stay on message about who's to blame.

OTOH ... the GOP is gonna call these hearings "McCarthyite" anyway ... so maybe we should use McCarthy's, Deis', et al.'s tactics? As far as they were concerned, the 5th amendment right itself didn't extend to Congressional hearings, so how could a far shakier legal right of executive privilege so extend?

Anyway, I can't wait to hear the same GOoPers who argued Clinton had no executive privilege (and the same "judges" who sided with them) do a volte-face when it comes to BushCO assertions of pivilege. Of course, nu? if they do cite national security, it proves the point that the Plame leak was a big deal and hence likely rose to a criminal action -- which is enough for an impeachment (given impeachment is equivalent to indictment, and we all know about the guilt of ham sandwiches ... at least in the Eliot murder case -- what a nice Jewish girl was doing eating ham anyway? I dunno, but that's way OT).

Posted by DAS | July 9, 2007 2:03 PM

sk, i'm with cleek; i'm having a hard time not seeing you as trolling, but just in case:

i think that everyone who was part of the leak should have been fired and lost the security clearance, so yes, i think that armitage, rove, libby, and fleischer all should have been "punished" the same way.

but only one of these four perjured himself on numerous occasions (rove came close but eventually seems to have come clean), and therefore, only one of these four deserved the punishment that was aimed at libby before bush short-circuited it.

the IIPA, though, requires more than leaking the classified identity; it requires, as cleek pointed out, the "knowledge" that the identity was classified. so the person likeliest to have violated the IIPA is Cheney (although, i suspect, if push came to shove, he would claim the power, given him by the president, to instantly declassify anything), and the likeliest explanation for libby's perjury and obstruction of justice is to protect cheney.

now, to go into the weeds a touch, joe wilson first surfaced as an anonymous source for several articles (one by nicholas kristoff in the nytimes), in which the credibility of the sotu claim regarding iraq's attempt to purchase uranium in africa was called into question. thanks to the fitzgerald investigation, we now know that cheney wanted to know more about who joe wilson was and asked for background.

part of that backgrounder is what armitage read on a plane flight, which is how he knew that wilson's wife was cia.

so that's what that reference means.

and finally, you seem to have a problem with chronology, sk, which is why your bona fides are being called into question. You learned about armitage long after the leak took place. In real time, armitage spoke to novak and they were the only two people who knew about the conversation, so in real time, libby, rove, and fleischer were not suddenly "cleared" to talk about plame just because armitage went "first," because they had no way of knowing that he went "first."

in short, the idea that because armitage was first, everyone else gets a pass simply doesn't fly.

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 2:13 PM

"in short, the idea that because armitage was first, everyone else gets a pass simply doesn't fly."

Reread my posts. I've never claimed this. I have always assumed that if the gang did the same thing that armitage did, then they should be punished in the same way that armitage has (i.e. not at all).

"is Cheney (although, i suspect, if push came to shove, he would claim the power, given him by the president, to instantly declassify anything),"

If this is correct, then Cheney actually can't be punished for what you are accusing him of doing, anyway.

To conclude: you believe armitage, rove, libby, and fleischer all did the same thing-unwittingly exposed plame's covert status to a reporter. armitage has not been punished for it. Nevertheless, you think he (and rove, libby, and fleischer) should be punished in some way.

You also believe Cheney did the same thing-he spoke to a reporter (or perhaps, he spoke to rove, armitage, libby, and fleischer) and either unwittingly or wittingly exposed plame's covert status. However, it appears that Cheney has the authority to declassify whatever he wants, so he didn't actually commit a crime in doing so.

So fleischer, rove, and libby should be treated the way armitage has been (or all four should be treated worse than armitage has been) and Cheney is constitutionally exempt from prosecution. That's what this is all about?

Libby is a bit different, because he lied to the grand jury, and he has been punished differently as well. But ultimately, he lied to protect Cheney from the consequences of an act that was not illegal?

If this is it, then its over, isn't it? Cheney is exempt, Libby was punished for lying, and fleischer, armitage, and rove have all been punished equally. I guess you could push to have fleischer, armitage, and rove punished in some minor way, but since they exposed plame inadvertently, they aren't subject to IIPA anyway?

Sk

Posted by Sk | July 9, 2007 3:07 PM

However, it appears that Cheney has the authority to declassify whatever he wants, so he didn't actually commit a crime in doing so.

Just stop making shit up, okay? Just stop.

At the very least, everyone involved in the leak should lose their security clearance. At a minimum, they went around blabbing the name of a CIA operative without even caring whether she was covert or not; that's absolutely reckless disregard for national security. This should be an absolute no-brainer.

Posted by Steve | July 9, 2007 3:23 PM

sk, it's actually impossible to tell what you're arguing anymore, but let's try to clarify what i'm still hoping are honest misunderstandings on your part.

the reason that armitage, rove, fleischer, and libby weren't all fired and lost their security clearance is because the bush administration didn't want to do so. there is nothing we can do about that, although i suspect a true out-of-control prosecutor could have found some grounds to charge armitage, rove, and fleischer. fortunately, fitzgerald wasn't an out-of-control prosecutor.

as for what i suspect cheney would claim if libby stopped obstructing justice, just because cheney would claim it doesn't make it true! like so many of the administration's rather novel theories about executive power, the right of the vice president to declassify has never been tested in court. so i'm not in the slightest saying that it wasn't illegal or that cheney is exempt from punishment.

i'm saying that if cheney were charged with a violation of the IIPA, then that would be his likely defense strategy, which is an entirely different matter.

meanwhile, you've got to pay attention: a violation of the IIPA requires "knowledge." fitzgerald was obviously convinced that the "knowledge" barrier could not be met against armitage, fleischer, and rove (i would say that fitzgerald hasn't made a decision about libby because he can't rely upon libby's explanation, since libby, after all, is perjuring and obstructing justice, not explaining).

and by the way, i do not in the slightest believe that armitage, rove, fleischer, and libby were "unwitting" about anything: they were engaged in a political smear campaign to take the heat off the white house for misrepresenting the supposed attempt to purchase uranium in niger. as has been made perfectly clear over time, the white house regarded the cia as a cesspool of liberalism, unable to see the real threat that saddam's wmd programs posed. they were, in short, completely witting.

the legal question is whether in the course of their witting program to try and undermine joe wilson's perfectly accurate critique of the "16 words," they demonstrated the "knowledge" aspect of the IIPA, a rather different matter.

PS. when i read your 11:33, i take it to mean that you think that if armitage isn't "punished," then no one can be punished, which i took to mean that you felt that armitage going first set some sort of precedent, particularly with your incorrect reference that armitage is the "only" guy we "know" leaked, which as i've noted, is simply not so. if your meaning was limited to equal treatment for the gang of four, then i'm glad to get it clarified.

PPS. with all this said, i'm not sure, as i noted, what your point actually is. the posting is about whether there is any leverage to get libby to stop obstructing justice, not about whether armitage, rove, and fleischer should or should not be "punished."

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 3:25 PM

By the way, even if we assume that Bush's executive order gives Cheney the power to declassify the identities of covert agents whose lives could be put in danger if their cover was blown (an interpretation which very well may put Bush's executive order in conflict with duly-enacted statutes, and might thus render Bush's executive order invalid), that doesn't mean that exercising that power would not be an impeachable offense.

Indeed, when put in those terms, I don't think that anyone believes that the President or the Vice Prsident should be able to deliberately blow the cover of our covert agents, whether or not they technically can escape criminal prosecution for doing so.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 9, 2007 4:06 PM