Decision ‘08

Libby - The Smoking Gun?

If this story in the New York Times is correct, then it is a near certainty that Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby is about to be indicted by a grand jury, probably on Wednesday:

I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

Let us hear no nonsense about how perjury is not a serious crime; I, for one, thought it serious enough to impeach a sitting President in 1998 (see Michelle Malkin for more on this point).

Now, I know many of my readers think there is no case, and there will be no indictments…I would gladly be wrong on this one, believe me. However, the totality of the circumstances, given what we know, suggest that at the bare minimum Libby will be indicted (I am much more hopeful about Rove). Of course, I freely admit that what we know is information that has been leaked, and leakers always have a purpose.

Still, I don’t think it will do anyone any good to try to pooh-pooh perjury and obstruction of justice charges, or to go after the prosecutor. If the indictments happen, a storm will hit, and we need to ride it out, without making it worse, without lashing out in anger, and above all, without all the noisy recriminations we’ve seen of late regarding the Miers nomination.

Is Joe Wilson a publicity hungry partisan hack? Without a single solitary doubt - but if a grand jury concludes that he was the target of a smear campaign, that’s not an indictable offense (at least, not one that will be won in court). If, however, officials have once again made the incredibly stupid move of ignoring the 30-year-old lesson of Watergate (the coverup is worse than the crime), then indictments will come, and plea bargains will follow close behind. It’s as simple as that - and that’s why the Times story, if true, is very bad news, indeed, for Republicans…

7 Responses to “Libby - The Smoking Gun?”

1 peter Says:
October 24th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
I agree — Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s remarks yesterday which suggested that perjury is akin to a technicality were pathetic. Perjury is perjury, whether the (alleged) perjurer is Bill Clinton, Scooter Libby, or Karl Rove. It is amusing, if that is the word, to see those who were gung-ho in supporting Lawrence Walsh and Kenneth Starr contort themselves to suggest that Patrick Fitzgerald is a hyper-aggressive, politically motivated prosecutor. As ye sow…
2 Knemon Says:
October 25th, 2005 at 4:01 am
Why, why, why do they lie? And by “they,” I mean pretty much anyone in a position of power caught in flagrante.

Gonna get drunk in the middle of the week and watch “Nixon” for the hundredth time … if all the copies aren’t out from the store tomorrow.

peter, I don’t think you’re going to find anybody here making those contortions.
3 too many steves Says:
October 25th, 2005 at 5:32 am
knemon, i’m with you and just don’t get it except to say that these folks apparently haven’t grown up enough to understand that they are the proverbial kid-caught-with-hand-in-cookie-jar. and, yet, there they stand saying “cookies? what cookies?”.
4 John Hay Says:
October 25th, 2005 at 8:29 am
I agree that people should face the music if they’ve actually done something - whether its a technicality or not. While the original issue was not a crime I believe, some people’s response to the investigation was (apparently). They faced a character test and blinked. It is a sad thing.
5 peter Says:
October 25th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Knemon: agreed — I didn’t mean to imply that people here contort the facts to fit their ideology — I was thinking more about Senator Hutchinson et. al. — sorry if I was unclear –
6 mtl Says:
October 25th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Does this stike you as similar to the Rove attempt(successful) to get back to the grand jury to amend his statements?

Clearly the 82 and 17 acts are out, now the players are cutting their loses.

Rove could have been in trouble for perjury, until he returned to correct his earlier statements. That would leave obstruction, but obstruction of a non-crime.

Libby has been trying to get back to the gj, and had to get a reason to do so. Presto, as Rove got back after discovering notes that refreshed his memory, so Libby makes the same play.

Bush felt it was the VP’s office that screwed this, he told them to get Rove off the hook, and then they could do whatever they wanted to.

In order for a perjruy charge to hold up, Fitz couldn’t let Libby back-if one amends earlier statements-it really is hard to show an “on-going” atttempt to lie. Libby’s lawyer was the one who leaked the info, but would not have done so unless Libby was sure Cheney was in the clear.

They now know that Fitz won’t pursue the 82/17 acts, and thus the more minor damage control begins.

Fitz is happy, becuase he gets the truth, finally. He won’t seek an obstruction charge, without an actual crime that was being concealed. Publicly, the roles of all are told…

except Joe Wilson’s.

All in all, an effective investigation.

Factor in the Prosecutor not wishing to call the Director of the CIA or a sitting VP, in order to prove that there was obstruction committed by people who were being investigated, who were also innocent of the initial charges…
7 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Wall Street Expects Libby Indicment, But Not Rove Says:
October 25th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]