| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
[Note -- this is an updated version of this post. The original version is available here.]
Martha Stewart wasn't tried for breaking any insider trading laws. She was tried for allegedly lying under oath about the circumstances surrounding a stock trade which some felt should violate insider trading laws -- even though in fact Stewart's stock trade violated no such laws.
The same thing happened to Bill Clinton. He wasn't accused of having had sex with Lewinsky -- he was accused of saying under oath that he didn't have sex with her, even though he did.
It's as if the accused is told: "You didn't break any laws, but you lied about something you did that was legal, so we're going to try to use the legal system to attack you."
At first I thought the same thing was happening in Libby's case -- that Libby was indicted for allegedly lying under oath about actions that broke no laws. However, it's not quite as bad as that. Libby is indicted for allegedly violating Title 18, a regulation requiring persons with security clearances "not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information".
Yet oddly, the official charges, or counts, don't appear to be for revealing a state secret. Here's the list, from page 1 of the indictment:
GRAND JURY ORIGINAL
Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. 1503)
Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2))
Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1623)
Obstruction of Justice -- False Statements -- and Perjury -- but no specific counts saying something along the lines of, "Revealing State Secrets." I'm not a lawyer; perhaps one of my readers can provide additional info here. I'm interested, because this looks a lot like the Martha Stewart/Bill Clinton strategy. No crime is charged other than lying about something that might be considered a crime, but which, oddly, appears not to have been specifically charged.
A charge of revealing state secrets would have been laughable. The reporters to whom he allegedly revealed that Plame worked for the CIA, did not publicize it until after reporter Robert Novak had independently obtained and published the identical info. From Frontpage:
Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White House's senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff--not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire "scandal," but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used.
Libby is not indicted for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. It was Novak who revealed to the public that Plame worked for the CIA:
Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, in which Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was revealed.
Libby may have stated to other reporters that Plame worked for the CIA:
...according to the indictment, Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson's wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak's column had run. What's more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn't tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.
As in the case of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, this appears to be an example of using trivialities to attack an administration for political purposes.
...Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.
The events happened two years ago. With the Martha Stewart/Bill Clinton strategy, you can go to jail for having a bad memory, even if you never broke any laws:
In a statement yesterday, Mr. Libby's counsel zeroed in on this point when he said:
We are quite distressed the Special Counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others' and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements.
As in the case of Bill Clinton, as in the case of Martha Stewart, the Libby indictment is a travesty.
As I've posted previously:
We’ve got to stop wasting the time of our Presidents, and that of the nation, over trivialities.
#1
#2Fitzgerald has to be able to prove that Libby revealed to reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, in order to prove that Libby's testimony on the subject was inaccurate. Yet even though Fitgerald believes he can prove this, Fitzgerald does not indict Libby for revealing state secrets. It appears that the facts alleged by Fitzgerald, even if proven, do not support such a charge.
#3So what exactly is your argument, Vik? Do you think prosecutors shouldn't bother to prosecute those who commit perjury and obstruct justice?
And just out of curiosity, have you actually read the Libby indictment?
#4There was no obstruction of justice because there was no crime committed. Even if Fitzgerald can prove his facts, he himself doesn't consider them sufficient to bring a charge that Libby revealed state secrets. We must not continuously obstruct the operations of our governments -- whether Democrat as in the case of Clinton, or Republican, as in the case of GWB -- with something as relatively trivial as this.
> And just out of curiosity, have you actually read the Libby indictment?
I have looked at it, but I have not yet read it in its entirety.
#5There was no obstruction of justice because there was no crime committed.
See, that's where you're wrong. Perjury and obstructing justice are crimes. Do you wish to decriminalize these acts? Or are you only advocating decriminalization for high-ranking government officials?
#6What justice do you see as having been obstructed?
#7See pages 11-14 of the indictment.
I'm still waiting to find out whether you wish to repeal all laws against perjury or merely to exempt high-ranking government officials.
#8I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:
> What justice do you see as having been obstructed?
#9See pages 11-14 of the indictment. Then see Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
In our nation even top government officials are not above the law.i
#10The indictment makes a show of referencing Title 18, but then omits to indict Libby of violating it. Evidently Fitzgerald doesn't believe he has the grounds to indict Libby for violating Title 18.
#11Uh, no. Fitzgerald has in fact indicted Libby for violating Title 18, Section 1503.
#12You're right about Fitzgerald indicting Libby for violating Title 18. I'll add an update to the post.
#13That's all well and good, but I'm disappointed that you continue to dodge the perjury question.
I'd also like to know if you have any basis at all for your claim that Fitzgerald indicted Libby "for political purposes." That strikes me as a baseless slur on a respected prosecutor's integrity.
#14[The post has been updated. The orginal version of the post is here, for reference purposes.]
Martha Stewart wasn't tried for breaking any insider trading laws. She was tried for allegedly lying under oath about the circumstances surrounding a stock trade which some felt should violate insider trading laws -- even though in fact Stewart's stock trade violated no such laws.
The same thing happened to Bill Clinton. He wasn't accused of having had sex with Lewinsky -- he was accused of saying under oath that he didn't have sex with her, even though he did.
It's as if the accused is told: "You didn't break any laws, but you lied about something you did that was legal, so we're going to try to use the legal system to attack you."
The same thing is happening in Libby's case. Libby isn't indicted for revealing state secrets, but for allegedly lying under oath about actions that broke no laws. From Frontpage:
Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White House's senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff--not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire "scandal," but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used.
Libby is not indicted for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. It was Novak who revealed to the public that Plame worked for the CIA:
Mr. Libby is not alleged to have been the source for Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, in which Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA was revealed.
Libby may have stated to other reporters that Plame worked for the CIA:
...according to the indictment, Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson's wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak's column had run. What's more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn't tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.
Yet the indictment isn't for revealing state secrets. Why? Evidently because prosecutor Fitzgerald knows that he can't win with that accusation.
So Fitzgerald is trying to nail Libby with this Martha Stewart/Bill Clinton strategy.
As in the case of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, this is an example of using trivialities to attack an administration for political purposes.
...Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.
The events happened two years ago. With the Martha Stewart/Bill Clinton strategy, you can go to jail for having a bad memory, even if you never broke any laws:
In a statement yesterday, Mr. Libby's counsel zeroed in on this point when he said:
> We are quite distressed the Special Counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others' and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements.
As in the case of Bill Clinton, as in the case of Martha Stewart, the Libby indictment is a travesty.
As I've posted previously:
We’ve got to stop wasting the time of our Presidents, and that of the nation, over trivialities.
#15> That’s all well and good, but I’m disappointed that you continue to dodge the perjury question.
The post addresses that question.
> I’d also like to know if you have any basis at all for your claim that Fitzgerald indicted Libby “for political purposes.”
The post addresses that as well.
#16The post answers neither question.
#17Tom, today Max Boot makes the same point you argued against.
Didn't Fitzgerald explain that the reason he couldn't pursue either the 1917 law making it a felony to reveal any classified information (which this evidently was) or the law making revelation of a covert operative's identity (and Plame was, in the CIA's eyes, definitely covert) a felony was because Scooter's (and others?) lying made it too difficult? In other words, a crime may well have been committed but the perjury of the witness(es) made it impossible to tell for sure? Sounds like obstruction to me. Worse than even a blowjob, maybe.