Were Crimes Committed?

I thought I'd elevate this comment that Steve left a couple of days ago because it lays things out clearly:

The answer is that the reason why Armitage, Libby, and the other leakers weren't prosecuted under the IIPA is that the IIPA requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the leaker had actual knowledge that the CIA agent's employment was classified at the time of the leak.

To prove that, you need to be able to prove how the person found out about the fact of CIA employment. In the case of Armitage, it was clear that he didn't know; he found out from a document that said nothing about Plame's covert status. In the case of Libby, it was less clear what he knew, but Fitzgerald nonetheless concluded that he couldn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

The real issue is what Cheney knew and when he knew it. Libby's lies were intentionally designed to keep Fitzgerald from getting a closer look at Cheney and determining what role Cheney had in the leak campaign and whether he knew Plame was covert. That's why the obstruction was a big deal. That's why no one was charged; the IIPA requires that you prove knowledge and Fitzgerald couldn't.

An additional point that's relevant. Most of Libby's defenders -- George W. Bush, David Brooks, etc. -- don't seem to be denying that Libby committed a crime by lying under oath to investigators. They want us to say that, rather, he deserves to be treated very leniently because there was no big deal here. The alleged absence of an underlying crime is key to that theory. The converse theory is that there was an underlying crime and the crime can't be proven because Libby lied to investigators.

If that theory is wrong -- if there really was no crime -- then it seems we ought to get some kind of explanation from Libby as to why he lied. People sometimes do have reasons to lie to investigators other than a desire to cover up criminal activity (hiding non-criminal activity that's embarrassing is the obvious one) but if Libby wants mercy he should offer up a plausible score on this account. But Libby hasn't offered any such story. Instead, he's offered a wildly implausible story -- that he's innocent. Under those circumstances, it's very odd to offer clemency. He's shown no remorse and appears to be continually engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Maybe there was no crime here; but if there wasn't, then what was Libby doing? He's not even trying to convince us that he had some other reason to lie.

Comments

Someone should ask Bush a very simple question:

"Now that you have commuted Mr. Libby's sentence, will you ask him to testify truthfully, under oath, as to the circumstances surrounding the release of Valerie Plame's name to the media?"

If Bush is willing to do that, then he was genuine in commuting Libby's sentence. Otherwise, it's just a cover up.

Posted by Dave | July 5, 2007 4:12 PM

The line I've been reading from the Bushies is Libby simply "forgot", he did not lie, and he is being punished for not having a great memory.

Posted by Max | July 5, 2007 4:14 PM

if Libby wants mercy he should offer up a plausible score on this account

huh?

Libby has already received the mercy he needs. he doesn't need anything from you, i, or anyone else.

Posted by cleek | July 5, 2007 4:20 PM

The line I've been reading from the Bushies is Libby simply "forgot", he did not lie, and he is being punished for not having a great memory.

Except that the jury convicted him of perjury and obstruction, so I don't see how that can fly as a reason for clemency...not that these people have any intellectual consistency at all.

Posted by John | July 5, 2007 4:29 PM

Max, yes that is their line, but that was also their defense at the trial and the jury didn't buy it for one stinkin' second.

of course, the "why" is the heart of the matter, as fitzgerald noted way back when he first announced the indictment and used the analogy of throwing sand in the ump's eye: the purpose of the lie was to keep the investigation from reaching any conclusion.

Posted by howard | July 5, 2007 4:31 PM

I'd love to hear any one of Irv's defenders answer the question, why did he lie? It's a question so simple , so basic and so devastating to their position that it would paralyze them I think..

Now I actually have an answer for that which exonerates him from the leak stuff and which I think might have a grain of truth to it. He lied to the FBI and the grand jury in a proud act of contempt for them. He just lied to them for the hell of it, because he could and in fact lying is a right if not a duty of Great Global Strategic Thinkers Who Are Also Republican Administration Insiders. It's also a good career move. Nobody is more loved by movement conservatives than perjurers for the cause.

Posted by rapier | July 5, 2007 4:38 PM

Three months since Waxman's request, the CIA's own legal staff still is unable to give an opinion as to whether Plame was covert under the IIPA because the issue is so complicated. But yet, the argument is that Cheney somehow KNEW she was covert as defined by the IIPA?

Posted by Dave | July 5, 2007 4:41 PM

That's all very well and good, but what's the difference between Clinton and Libby? Did Clinton try to convince us he had a good reason to lie under oath? Didn't he profess innocence lying through his teeth about it?

At the time, I was all gung-ho against Clinton and I was all uppity about the rule of law. Over the years, as I matured and as I watch politics get occupied by the really important issues of the day, I came to the conclusion that this wasn't a big deal in the big scheme of things. I thought that what was happening was hardball politics primarily and it should be judged by its logic and not that of the legal system.

The same hardball politics -this time under the cloak of national security- occurred in the Libby case. The difference in this case is that Libby wasn't even the big fish. On the contrary, he was the small mouse caught in the trap. So, to me, having a peripheral player be the one who pays for what it was hardball politics from all sides, I think is too much.

Last but not least, the pivotal event and person was in this case was Armitage. He was the one who let the genie out of the body and I believe he did so unintentionally. Everything else is gravy and has grown out of proportion I think.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | July 5, 2007 6:10 PM

I'd love to hear any one of Irv's defenders answer the question, why did he lie? It's a question so simple , so basic and so devastating to their position that it would paralyze them I think..

Extraordinary - in the (almost) four years of this case, no one has ever raised the question of motive until now! I think.

As to Libby's motive, I will admit it is a puzzle, but for reasons much more complicated than being mooted here.

Just as an example, the President has the unilateral, unchecked power to declassify info, and can delegate that to, for example, the Vice President. So in certain highly plausible scenarios, Cheney can't *illegally* leak Plame's name because it's declassified if he says it is. So the idea that Scooter was protecting Cheney from prosecution is highly dubious.

How about impeachment? Hmm, maybe in 2003 Scooter anticipated the Dem takeover of 2006. Too bad his eerie prescience didn't extend to Saddam's WMDs.

My guess? Think about the recent WaPo series detailing Cheney's ruthless bureaucratic infighting. Now ask yourself whether Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld at al were really so helpless and hapless in the face of that, or whether underlings like Libby worried about the pushback and consequences of their boss's methods.

I happen to think Libby was determined to tell a story that minimized Cheney's role for fear that Cheney would be dumped from the 2004 ticket if he became an embarrassment - there were certainly some rumblings that Bush ought to pick a potential successor rather than re-run with Dick Coronary.

If you read through Libby's grand jury testimony, he is actually quite cogent on the subject of the IIPA, and patiently explains to Fitzgerald that *if* Libby gets classified info and knows it is classified, telling reporters that he learned it from other reporters does *not* give him any legal shelter. So that aspect of his lies - "I sourced the Plame news to other reporters" - is utterly baffling; it doesn't give him legal help if Fitzgerald can show Libby knew Plame's status and doesn't seem to help or hurt Cheney. Possible guess - Libby was hoping not be be cast overboard himself as an embarrassment. Why he had so little confidence in grand jury secrecy is anyone's guess (but not a hard guess...).

Let me belittle this, from the post:

Libby's lies were intentionally designed to keep Fitzgerald from getting a closer look at Cheney and determining what role Cheney had in the leak campaign and whether he knew Plame was covert.

Please - Fitzgerald interviewed Cheney as well as people (like Tenet) who spoke to Cheney. Libby could have told a much simpler "lie", such as "Sure, Cheney and I discussed Plame but he never said she had classified status" if concealing Cheney's knowledge was the goal.

FWIW, Fitzgerald found no evidence that anyone had apprised Libby of Plame's classified status. It's only a guess, but I'll bet he found no such evidence with respect to Cheney, either - if he had, it would have been helpful to present that at trial. Of course, Cheney is a powerful and secretive man, so one can't fault Fitzgerald for wondering whether he has truly pined that point down.

...if Libby wants mercy he should offer up a plausible score on this account.

LOL. You think The Atlantic will offer him a job if he 'fesses up? You think the AEI will offer him one if he keeps quiet?

Libby's critics will never forgive him. Why should he annoy his supporters?

Posted by Tom Maguire | July 5, 2007 6:28 PM

In other news, if you look up "lying scumbag" in the dictionary, you're very likely to see a picture of Tom Maguire.

Posted by JP | July 5, 2007 6:57 PM

What an asinine post. There is not a single piece of information that Libby's lies prevented Fitz from getting. Fitz never, ever, EVER said "If Libby had not lied, I would have X piece of information". And the reason Fitz never, ever, EVER said that is that there is no such information that Fitz could have gotten but for Libby's lie.

Fitz got as close a look at Cheney as is possible to get and found nothing at all wrong. The obstruction ended up obstructing zippo. There's no there there, other than in the fever swamps of delusional leftie minds.

Posted by Al | July 5, 2007 6:57 PM

"Fitz got as close a look at Cheney as is possible to get and found nothing at all wrong."

Are you crazy?

He didn't get "as close a look at Cheney as is possible" because Cheney's chief of staff lied to the grand jury about the OVP's internal actions in going after Plame.

"The obstruction ended up obstructing zippo."

We have absolutely no idea what the obstruction ended obstructing.

It's entirely possible that Libby could have knowledge of evidence that would prove Cheney was in violation of IIPA.

-----

Fitzgerald's metaphor of throwing sand in the face of the umpire remains the image of record in describing what happened.

Posted by Petey | July 5, 2007 7:09 PM

Fitz never, ever, EVER said "If Libby had not lied, I would have X piece of information". And the reason Fitz never, ever, EVER said that is that there is no such information that Fitz could have gotten but for Libby's lie.

See, Al's a lawyer, so he's actually consciously aware that he's lying when he writes this ridiculous bullshit. Libby committed perjury - that means he lied under oath. The "X piece of information" that Fitzgerald was looking for was the opposite of perjury, i.e. truthful testimony under oath, from the people who were in the room when the decision to burn an undercover American spy was made. Duh. Maybe Fitzgerald didn't explain this because only a fucking moron would have needed it to be explained to him.

Just be aware, everyone, Al's perfectly aware that testimonial evidence is evidence. He's just pretending he doesn't know because in his heart of hearts, Al considers the political fortunes of the Republican Party to be more important than the effectiveness of American intelligence or the safety of his fellow citizens. Al will happily advocate the deaths of thousands of Americans or millions of non-Americans just to see his boys win on Election Day.

Posted by JP | July 5, 2007 7:19 PM

Are you crazy, Petey? Which spwecific piece of information did Fitz say he could't get about "OVP's internal actions" as a result of Libby's lies?

The lies were about what Libby did or did not tell to three reporters. There was not a single allegation that Libby lied about "OVP internal actions".

Posted by Al | July 5, 2007 7:19 PM

Which spwecific piece of information did Fitz say he could't get about "OVP's internal actions" as a result of Libby's lies?

You worthless moron, Al. If Fitzgerald could give you all the specs on the information Libby concealed from him, then there wouldn't have been obstruction of justice. It would have only been attempted obstruction of justice.

That's a novel interpretation of that crime, Al. You can only prove obstruction of justice if the defendant failed to hide anything from the authorities! Idiot.

Posted by JP | July 5, 2007 7:26 PM

"The lies were about what Libby did or did not tell to three reporters."

Riiiiiight.

And the alleged underlying crime concerned revealing the covert status of a CIA agent to the public through reporters.

"There was not a single allegation that Libby lied about "OVP internal actions"

Of course there was. Fitzgerald was trying to unearth who decided to spread info about Plame and what they knew about Plame.

We know Cheney was involved in the effort, and we strongly suspect Libby lied for the specific reason of stopping the investigation from going down that avenue.

Libby learned about Plame through the OVP and lied about it to throw sand in Fitzgerald's eyes.

It's really not all that complicated.

Posted by Petey | July 5, 2007 7:28 PM

In other news, if you look up "lying scumbag" in the dictionary, you're very likely to see a picture of Tom Maguire.

Posted by JP | July 5, 2007 6:57 PM
*************************************************
Totally uncalled for. If there's something specific you disagree with point it out

Posted by Campesino | July 5, 2007 7:35 PM

Petey, apparently you've never read the indictment. The lies were about his conversations with Russert, Cooper and Miller, not about his conversations with Cheney or anyone else within the government. That's it. There are no other allegations of lies.

Posted by Al | July 5, 2007 7:41 PM

No, it is not uncalled for. There comes a point when it's impossibly to respond pithily to a person's entire body of work. Maguire has a history of being one of the most dishonest members of the blogosphere. At least with a site like LGF, you know it's just pump-up-the-wingnuts, rah-rah, trash-talking stuff. It's bad, but any reader can tell that it isn't meant to be terribly substantive. Maguire's blog, in contrast, is all about going through the pretense of projecting an image of honest, thoughtful analysis honestly when he's really just hacking it up, Hewitt-style. I could spend the rest of July writing up a dissertation on all the specific examples of his hack methods, or I can just make a blanket statement. I choose Door #2. If I'm off a little in my assessment, I know I'm at least close enough to the mark that Maguire doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by JP | July 5, 2007 7:48 PM

"The lies were about his conversations with Russert, Cooper and Miller, not about his conversations with Cheney or anyone else within the government."

Libby learned about Plame through the OVP, and he lied by telling the grand jury that he learned about Plame from the reporters, not the OVP.

He lied specifically to conceal the involvement of the OVP.

I really believe you can wrap your mind around this if you try hard enough.

Posted by Petey | July 5, 2007 7:51 PM

That's precisely wrong, Petey.

Libby specifically told the Grand Jury that he learned about Plame from Cheney. So apparently you've got the most important facts in connection to this post exactly wrong.

Posted by Al | July 5, 2007 8:14 PM

"Libby specifically told the Grand Jury that he learned about Plame from Cheney. So apparently you've got the most important facts in connection to this post exactly wrong."

Huh. I'm under the impression that Libby was sentenced to prison for claiming to the grand jury that he didn't convey the Plame info from the OVP to Russert and Cooper while in fact doing so.

Is it possible there are two different Libbys who worked for Cheney and that we're talking about two different legal cases?

Posted by Petey | July 5, 2007 8:26 PM

No, not possible. But it is possible that you are just flat wrong.

Posted by Al | July 5, 2007 8:46 PM

Yeah, to echo Petey, somehow I remember the 'I heard it from Russert first, I SWEAR' (but didn't, given his prior press contacts) issue was a somewhat important element of the case.

But Al, I'm sure you really, really believe that this administration would never, ever, go after one of their critics in an unethical fashion.

Posted by Andruw | July 5, 2007 9:04 PM

Fitz never, ever, EVER said "If Libby had not lied, I would have X piece of information".

liar.

Google "Fitzgerald sand umpire"

Posted by cleek | July 6, 2007 6:58 AM

Very slick, Al. Libby's story was, yes, he learned about Plame from Cheney but then somehow he FORGOT ABOUT IT and re-learned about it later from reporters. His leaks, so goes the tale, were just spreading gossip he heard from reporters. The purpose of Libby's lies, OBVIOUSLY, was to cover up the connection between Cheney and the leaks.

Moreover, the fact that Fitzgerald only charged Libby with the obvious lies that could be proven through evidence from third-parties does not mean that Libby didn't also lie about his communications with Cheney. The fact of the obvious, provable lies certainly raises reasonable suspicion that he did.

Posted by Led | July 6, 2007 10:36 AM