This OpinionJournal editorial does an excellent job of sizing up Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald‘s indictment (pdf here) yesterday of Vice-President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby:
Sometime in May 2003, or slightly before, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, was informed of Joe Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake there. Mr. Kristof wrote a column, and Mr. Libby began to ask around, to determine why a Democratic partisan had been sent on such a sensitive mission in the run-up to the Iraq war. He allegedly learned in the course of his inquiries that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that Mr. Libby informed Judith Miller of the New York Times about Mr. Wilson’s wife in June, but she never wrote it up. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson went public with his own account of his mission and its outcome, without reference to his wife’s employment or possible involvement in his trip.
Mr. Libby also spoke to Mr. Cooper of Time about it, who did write it up, but only after Mr. Novak’s column had run. In this same time period, he had a conversation with Mr. Russert, which may or may not have covered Mr. Wilson and his wife, depending on whom you believe.
So, we are left with this. Did Mr. Libby offer the truth about Mr. Wilson to Mr. Cooper “without qualifications,” as Mr. Fitzgerald alleges, or did he merely confirm what Mr. Cooper had heard elsewhere? Did he, or did he not, discuss Mr. Wilson with Tim Russert at all?
So, let’s review what we have here. Charges based on then innocuous discussions that occurred two years ago. Now, prosecutor Fitzgerald is pursuing a 30-year jail term and $1.25 million in fines against Mr. Libby based upon alleged inconsistencies between Mr. Libby’s recollection of those discussions and those of the other participants in them.
Suffice it to say that I’ve seen stronger cases.
Finally, Ellen Podgor provides this good technical analysis of the perjury charges in the indictment.
Tom: With all due respect, I think the Opinion Journal editorial ignores the heart of the indictment:
Libby claimed under oath in grand jury testimony that the first time he had heard that Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative was in a conversation with Tim Russert on July 10 (Count One, paragraph 32-a).
There is evidence, however, that on as many as nine different occasions before July 10, Libby was made aware or exhibited awareness that Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative (Count One, paragraph 33-a-ii).
In other words, there is reason to believe that Libby was well, well aware of Valerie Wilson’s occupation by July 10. But he falsely told a grand jury under oath that he had not been aware of it.
I’m a layman, not a lawyer, so I don’t know if there are stronger cases out there. It seems to me, though, that this one is strong enough that it should be prosecuted.
Of course the article misses a key point. When a witness lies to a grand jury, and those lies prevent further investigation of the underlying crime, then perjury and obstruction charges are entirely proper. Further investigation probably points to Rove, since he is the Novak connection.
I cannot see how people think it’s OK for WH officials to leak the name of a CIA staffer simply for political purposes. If it’s not a crime, then the law is unworkeable and should be changed. Once her name was revealed, intelligence agencies around the world went back over years of records and information on her, her employer (a front company) and her contacts, and reinterpreted it all now knowing of the CIA connection.
If Rove keeps his job, then the CIA should prevent him from seeing sensitive information ever again.
Steve, the indictment alleges that Libby misrepresented to the grand jury the statements made to various reporters from two years earlier. As such, the indictment assumes, without saying so, that the reporters’ recollections of the statements are true. My sense is that this is a very flimsy basis upon which to bring a perjury indictment.
Charles, Libby has not been indicted for leaking the name of a CIA operative. Rather, he has been indicted for allegedly lying about a crime that Fitzgerald could not prove. That’s an important distinction.
Scooter Libby will never be found guilty in a court of law. A prosecutor is wasting everybody?s time by going to trial. There?s no way in hell that a unanimous verdict of twelve jurors will convict the man. The bottom line is this: Libby knew that no crime initially occurred. He had no reason to lie! End of story. Only one dissenting juror is needed by the defense.
Tom: You are right about Count 5 — thanks for making me look closer at that!
On Count 4, though, paragraph 3(b) states that the count is based (in part, at least) on the fact that Libby’s testimony contradicts not a reporter but several administration officials, who had testified that they had spoken with Libby about Valerie Wilson before July 10. If Fitzgerald has contemporary documentary evidence that these conversations did take place before July 10, then he would have a very strong case that Libby lied to the grand jury.
?…then he would have a very strong case that Libby lied to the grand jury.?
No, he would not! Patrick Fitzgerald will only be able to show that Scooter Libby, like the vast majority of human beings, does not possess a tape recorder memory. You cannot ignore the fact that Libby had no reason whatsoever to lie. A crime was never committed in the first place. No jury will convict Libby. There is no sense for Fitzgerald to present his absurd case to a court of law. He is wasting our time.
I am also more than a little irritated that this overly zealous prosecutor did not address the problem of CIA employees sliming their enemies. Are they suppose to be given a free ride to do so? Are American citizens risking a jail sentence if they try to defend themselves from vicious CIA employee attacks?
Seems to me special prosecutors are there to strain at gnats, but then why let Joseph Wilson off the hook, didnt his public dissents from Bush Admin claims amount to disclosing that he was on secret cia missions, itself an inappropriate use of classified info?
David: It *might* turn out that Scooter Libby did not commit a crime by revealing the identity of a CIA operative to members of the press (remember: Fitzgerald hasn’t gone back to Chicago yet).
Even if no crime were committed, I would disagree with your implication that Libby had nothing to cover up, and thus had no interest in creating a false exculpatory cover story.
In the “post-9/11 world”, it does not look good for Scooter Libby to have revealed the identity of a CIA operative in order to play political hardball. That sort of cavalier behavior *might* not technically be a crime (and, again, that’s still to be determined), but it certainly calls into question Mr. Libby’s judgment and his fitness to serve in an office of public trust. As the old saying goes, “it was worse than a crime; it was a folly”.
To avoid having to admit that you acted foolishly, and avoid the ensuing possibility that you might have to resign for being a fool…those are motives to lie.