Shot In The Dark: Barone on Fitzgerald

October 25, 2005

Barone on Fitzgerald

Michael Barone on Fitzgerald's efforts:

It is a general principle of law that when the government wants to criminalize acts other than traditional common law crimes like murder or theft, it must set out with great specificity the conduct that is forbidden. To visit the rigors of criminal indictment, trial and punishment on someone who has done nothing that is specifically forbidden is unjust -- the very definition of injustice...In the absence of a violation of the underlying espionage acts, any indictment here arising from the course of the investigation would be, in my view, unjust and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It would also be, as the liberal commentator Jacob Weisberg has pointed out, a long step toward something like the British Official Secrets Act -- a precedent that would staunch the flow of information from the government to the press and the people.

And, lest we forget (or, if you're a left-of-center blogger, lest you never know in the first place), let's remember this about the people who are the cruxes (cruxi) of the matter:

That leaves the question of whether Rove, Libby or someone else will be indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice or making false statements in the course of the investigation. But why should there be indictments if there was no crime?

True, Rove and Libby did seek to discredit Joseph Wilson -- as they should well have done. As the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report in July 2004, just about everything Wilson said publicly about his trip to Niger was untrue. He said that he had discredited reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. But the CIA people to whom he reported concluded that, if anything, he substantiated such reports. He said that he pointed out that certain other intelligence reports were forged. But the forgeries did not appear until eight months after his trip. He said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger. But it was she who recommended him for the trip. And on and on.

And Blanton, from Red State, , notes:

Lawyers close to the Plame investigation say that Fitzgerald will indict Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson for obstruction of justice and perjury. In addition, Wilson will be indicted for outing his wife, who was a covert CIA agent. Additional charges are being considered against Valerie Plame for her role in selecting her own husband for a government assignment in a concerted political effort to undermine the administration.

Now, that's actually not true. But, given the media's handling of this matter, this post should be treated with the same credibility that the media is presenting statements of "lawyers close to the Plame investigation." In point of fact, there are several lawyers on this site who have kept up with the material and they are probably as close to the investigation as the ones being quoted in the media, which is to say not very close at all.

If Fitzgerald indicts Joe Wilson, it'll be interesting to see how fast the left's coverage of Fitzgerald will turn from laudatory to homicidal.

Posted by Mitch at October 25, 2005 05:03 AM | TrackBack

Comments

So then, by this standard, the full House and Senate, indicting Clinton for the underlying act of adultery, was wrong.

More than that, if Wilson's assertions were false and flawed, a position the White House has not said, which assertions were untrue? That in fact Iraq did not attempt to obtain Uranium from Niger? No, that was true, the rest, who cares beyond who knows.. The right says that Wilson said Cheney sent him, Wilson says Cheney asked CIA to send someone, indirectly leading to him. Analysis of statements and transcripts shows Wilson to be more correct. Regardless, Wilson is doubtless a critic, and I suspect has said things that were over the top.

The point though is, if Libby and Rove were so correct in what they did, i.e. seeking to discredit a critic, why then do it behind closed doors, why then deny it? Because they knew that even inadvertently outing a CIA operative was probably illegal, but more, that given this President's penchance for jingoistic bloviating, and given their own party's stated intollerance for leaks, they'd look like hypocrites (immoral asses really) at best, and criminals at worst.

This blog entry is among the worst you've put up Mitch. It's as sorry a set of excuse making and changing of the rules as well as changing of the debate, as I've seen in a while.

The issue is not about whether Wilson was right or wrong, the issue is about retributive conduct by senior officials against someone who would attempt to speak what they felt to be true, even if it is not true. It's about using that power to hide, to cover up. It's about principles that were clearly not evident, and finally, it's about a double standard that would attempt to unseat a President, but now are not applicable because it's your guy.

The country won't believe this spin, whatever you try, and it will only take someone saying what I've just said to make all of you look like fools, but you go ahead with your bad self.

Posted by: pb at October 25, 2005 06:35 AM

Oh, and before I get "blasted", yes I'm aware that disclosing a CIA operative's name is not a crime if not done knowingly, but it is a crime to carelessly treat classified information, which is called revealing classified information under the secrets act, and that statute, as far as I know, does not care if you were aware of the fact that it was classified.

Regardless, acting so cavalierly with information you could easily check, not taking any responsibility, is morally repugnant. Defend it if you want, but you look like unprincipled fools.

As for mistatements and falsehoods, let's remember the falsehoods those on the right have stated...

1. Wilson said Cheney sent him - No, he didn't
2. Valerie Wilson flies a desk and was not a covert operative - Yes, she was (see note below though). That's why the CIA referred the case. More than that, her identity was clearly marked as "S" for secret. Whether she was currently is open, but they had information in hand that was either not passed along or ignored.
3. Valerie Wilson's name was provided by journalists - No, it wasn't.
4. Valerie Wilson's identity was readily available on Who's Who - NO, her CIA status was not readily available.
5. That identifying her as Joe Wilson's wife is not a crime as it doesn't name her - Yes, it is.

Now I don't know if it's actually been settled, but I believe it has, in that Ms. Wilson had been home for quite a while - so she may not have been considered covert - but I believe that was settled out and she was - or doubtless we'd be hearing about it. I wanted to be fully forthcoming though.

Never-the-less, the immorality of seeking retribution on the wife of your critic reeks here. If you want to claim "discrediting" your opposition includes carelessly putting their spouse's career in the tank, carelessly treating secrets you are entrusted with, more power to you (as I said in the earlier post), but I doubt the American people will buy it (doubt=probably no chance at all). Oh, a few of your zealots will, but the American people don't consider betraying classified information and then attempting to cover it up as good conduct. They also don't think going after women for the actions of their husbands is good conduct. Finally, they remember what you did to Clinton over a blow job.

Posted by: pb at October 25, 2005 07:15 AM

So indicting somebody for outing an American intelligence agent and then lying under oath about it isn't quite cricket?

It's funny to see the wingnuts huddled in their rhetorical Superdome as the waters rise...

Posted by: angryclown at October 25, 2005 07:26 AM

No Angry, it's not quite cricket.. that would be an understatement.

You know what else isn't, pretending the issue is something else.

Cheney (et.al.) lied, bald-faced, to the American people, and then looked to cover it up by destroying those who would criticize them. Gee, that sound really patriotic and American. I mean, free speech, critical thinking is outlawed right?

Moreover, using the power of the most powerful office in the world, to seek retribution, yes that's entirely cricket stuff.. and exactly the same level of offense as lying about an affair.

People like Mitch don't seem to get that Watergate wasn't about a burglary, it was about an attempt to subvert the election. Plamegate (or as it is called by some - Traitorgate), isn't about perjury, it's about covering up the truth related to manipulating the American people into a war that was not necessary. It's about seeking to intimidate anyone who would openly challenge that war, the lies and deceptions undertaken. Or are you all really saying you think Cheney (and others) really did tell the truth? This despite being advised to not use the intell about Niger - repeatedly, despite being advised that Iraq was no closer than 15 years from having an atomic device, and despite being told the aluminum tubing they seized was in fact fit for rockets (exactly what it was used for). They then went before the nation and said otherwise. Cheney said on Sept 14, 2003 that he hadn't heard of Joe Wilson prior to the story Novak printed. He said it on Face the Nation. We know that to be a lie too... but hey, call Clinton a perjuror, seek his removal, but give your pal Rove a pass when he deceives the nation into war, tries to cover it up, and works to ruin his critics.. that's pretty moral stuff.

Having said all that, I don't think Cheney is in any danger, the evidence does not suggest Libby (who is a collosal idiot btw), got his marching orders from Cheney. While Cheney is pretty much a pathological liar, I don't believe right he was directly involved.

Posted by: pb at October 25, 2005 02:08 PM

Can I play conspirasist, too?

Scooter speaks with Kessler and Russert in July (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64071-2004Aug13.html). He claims he got Plame's name from a reporter. But there's a reporter, Miller, who seems to have forgotten about talking to Scooter in June (http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2005/10/more-on-millers-mousetrap.html). Fitzgerald has reason not to like this reporter very much due to some rather unethical behavior (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9890-2004Sep9?language=printer). The reporter's paper, who should have close access to all the details on this is now sliming her and insinuating she's a bad reporter (http://www.nysun.com/article/21916).

So how about this: the NYT knows it is Miller that Fitz is after as the source to Libby's (possibly unintentional) leak? And with the last testimony there was indeed a perjury trap set for her to add to an obstruction charge? There's no love lost between Miller and Fitzgerald after botched raid on the Islamists. The NYT has been running with Miller for years and it's pretty rare that they turn on their employees without reason, but defending someone who they believe is guilty also isn't in their best interest.

All this fits with the current hype that's out there about Libby's leaks, the leaks about all the grand jury testimony, and the proposed charges. And it fits with doing justice to a reporter who did some other questionable activities.

Posted by: nerdbert at October 25, 2005 03:06 PM