Criminal Superposition Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts, none of which were related to the original investigation in the Valerie Plame leak. I'm all for prosecuting for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, but I think the whole thing is a bit ridiculous if there was NO ORIGINAL crime.
An expert on law I'm not, but does it really seem fair to investigate criminal wrongdoing, find out none existed, and then issue some indictments for crimes caused by the investigation? Perhaps the question we should ask is- do crimes exist prior to investigations? Granted, there could be a lot more going on underneath the surface here, and genuine criminal infractions may have been committed by "Scooter" Libby, but I have a hard time believing that you can attempt to cover up a crime you didn't commit. How would he even lie about this? Would he have to confess, knowing that he didn't actually do it?
Furthermore, I have misgivings about the "False Statements Statute"- the government catch-all that makes lying a crime even when not under oath. The statute has been interpreted to the extent that any false information given at any time can be prosecuted provided the false information ends up in government hands. The "Martha Stewart" clause works something like this... "Well, you didn't commit a crime, and you didn't lie under oath, but you lied at one point to some guy about information that is somehow relevant to the crime that didn't occur based our investigation, so... congratulations, you get five years in jail and we get to feel like we actually did something."
Also, apparently as a nod to CharlesPierce's summation of every headline in the last four weeks, the article was not complete without this nugget. "Libby's indictment came at a time when Bush's approval ratings already are at a low ebb. This week alone the president's embattled Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, withdrew, and the number of U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war surpassed 2,000."
Also in the news, Clinton pardonee Marc Rich has been implicated in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal according to Paul Volkert's report. I think we all know where the real corruption lies when it comes to Presidential networks...
An expert on law I'm not, but does it really seem fair to investigate criminal wrongdoing, find out none existed, and then issue some indictments for crimes caused by the investigation? Perhaps the question we should ask is- do crimes exist prior to investigations? Granted, there could be a lot more going on underneath the surface here, and genuine criminal infractions may have been committed by "Scooter" Libby, but I have a hard time believing that you can attempt to cover up a crime you didn't commit. How would he even lie about this? Would he have to confess, knowing that he didn't actually do it?
Furthermore, I have misgivings about the "False Statements Statute"- the government catch-all that makes lying a crime even when not under oath. The statute has been interpreted to the extent that any false information given at any time can be prosecuted provided the false information ends up in government hands. The "Martha Stewart" clause works something like this... "Well, you didn't commit a crime, and you didn't lie under oath, but you lied at one point to some guy about information that is somehow relevant to the crime that didn't occur based our investigation, so... congratulations, you get five years in jail and we get to feel like we actually did something."
Also, apparently as a nod to CharlesPierce's summation of every headline in the last four weeks, the article was not complete without this nugget. "Libby's indictment came at a time when Bush's approval ratings already are at a low ebb. This week alone the president's embattled Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, withdrew, and the number of U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war surpassed 2,000."
Also in the news, Clinton pardonee Marc Rich has been implicated in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal according to Paul Volkert's report. I think we all know where the real corruption lies when it comes to Presidential networks...
posted by Justin at 1:44 PM 
6 Comments:
Have you been following the twists and turns of the story? While I don't think there's a vast conspiracy beneath the surface, we can say that the grand jury knows more than the public does at this point. Judy Miller's source was Libby, and she testified in front of the grand jury almost a month ago all about it. I don't think you can yet say with confidence that Libby's been indicted for not committing a crime--the story is still going.
Ms. Run Amok? From everything I've heard, she is the only person who could possibly substantiate the original brunt of the investigation and she is so completely WORTHLESS as a witness that the prosecuter has abandoned all efforts to prosecute the original crime, since it seems futile.
Granted, Libby may have committed a crime, but I don't think so. Everything that has happened has resulted from the original claim that an undercover CIA agent was outed by a leak. That is patently untrue. Plame had not worked undercover in the five years before the leak (making the law not apply to her) and there is no evidence that either Rove or Libby knew that she was undercover when the leak occured (which is required for a crime to have been committed). The whole thing seems to consist of one part Salem era witch-hunting, two parts partisan spin, with a good dose of media sensationalism thrown in to boot.
There's plenty of media sensationalism going around, but from what I've read of Patrick Fitzgerald, he seems like a non-partisan, stand-up guy. He was nominated based on a recommendation from a Republican, he went after Daley's political machine in Chicago for mail fraud, and he prosecuted terrorists back in the day (circa 1994). If Libby broke the law, he should be punished--if not, not. I really don't think this is a witchhunt.
Fitzgerald wasn't the partisan I was referring to. By partisan I meant that Liberals are trying to make this out to be an investigation into the "corruption" that led us into war, and Republicans are spinning equally hard to make it appear to be nothing.
I refer to it as a witchhunt because, for all intents and purposes, the original crime either didn't occur or is un-prosecutable. This investigation has been going on for two years and we have one indictment! I don't think there is that much to it.
My main point was that I'm against starting an investigation and then abandoning it to pursue lesser charges that only appear DUE to the investigation. I would take this stance whether Rove, Schumer, or OJ Simpson was the one being prosecuted. I think the justice system is supposed to work so that you are innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until they find they can't prove that you're guilty, so they hound you with FBI agents for hours at a time until you slip up, contradict yourself, and wind up violating the least specific law on the books.
"I'm all for prosecuting for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, but I think the whole thing is a bit ridiculous if there was NO ORIGINAL crime."
Um, this is EXACTLY what Clinton was friggin impeached for! I mean, the original investigation (i.e. crime) was Whitewater ... NOTHING to do with Monica. Furthermore, at least in the Libby case, what Libby was lying about pertained to the original "crime" being investigated. With Clinton, um, no.
More importantly, though, when our Republican congress was spenidng WEEKS and MONTHS hounding Clinton about his b-job ... where were you people?!?!?
Of course, in retrospect, AFTER your team has already impeached him and had him out of office, you'll probably say ... "oh yeah. That was silly."
Nice timing for that. Convenient. Again, where was your indignation when a Dem was being blasted.
"I'm all for prosecuting for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, but I think the whole thing is a bit ridiculous if there was NO ORIGINAL crime."
Um, this is EXACTLY what Clinton was friggin impeached for! I mean, the original investigation (i.e. crime) was Whitewater ... NOTHING to do with Monica. Furthermore, at least in the Libby case, what Libby was lying about pertained to the original "crime" being investigated. With Clinton, um, no.
More importantly, though, when our Republican congress was spenidng WEEKS and MONTHS hounding Clinton about his b-job ... where were you people?!?!?
Of course, in retrospect, AFTER your team has already impeached him and had him out of office, you'll probably say ... "oh yeah. That was silly."
Nice timing for that. Convenient. Again, where was your indignation when a Dem was being blasted.
Post a Comment
<< Home