Year: 2005

I echo these sentiments from a reader:

Fitzerald was indeed very impressive. In my mind, the most impressive part of the press conference was his willingness to repeat, over and over, that Libby is innocent until proven guilty. This is a man who has spent two years away from his home, working tirelessly, to investigate what may or may not have been a crime. Rather than come out with both guns blaring, his chest puffed, disparaging one of the targets of this investigation, he reminds us all that there are processes to be followed and guarantees made to us by the Constitution that aren’t redifined by politics. This tells me that this man isn’t driven in the least by his ego, but that his true dedication is to the law. He is an absolute breath of fresh air at a time when it’s desperately needed.

Bush’s extremely brief non-response to the news was politically smart but a place-holder. Soon, I think, both he and Cheney will have to answer some very basic questions aout what they knew about all this and when.

WHY DID LIBBY LIE? I ask the question. You offer answers:

You are assuming that conspiracy is the cause, and not incompetence. It might be that when Libby testified he did not know a) that outing Plame might not have been a crime since she might not have been covert anymore, or her cover had been blown and b) assumed that reporters would not testify if asked – and thus no one could refute his account. It’s also possible that he told reporters about her because he did not realize that she was covert in the first place, and then panicked when he found out that she was, and that explains it.

Libby’s indictment as a consequence of his trust that reporters would never answer subpoenas? Oh, the ironies. But why, then, did he encourage Miller to testify? And why did Libby also lie to the FBI? As for “Official A”, Fitzgerald has a record of keeping identities secret until he has shaken enough witnesses to name them. Libby’s indictment may be a way for Fitzgerald to leverage harder facts about who else he believes was involved. Fitzgerald clearly thinks there were other leakers, and perhaps other liars. We don’t know if we will ever find out who those people are, but their existence seems to me a premise of Fitzgerald’s argument. Will this therefore go further? Is this indictment the very beginning? Another emailer suggests:

I don’t think this whole mess will go beyond Libby. If he can hold out and delay until after the midterm elections, he can be pardoned without Bush paying a price. I fully expect pardons in 13 months or the day before Libby has to do any jail time. Libby has no incentive to cooperate with Fitzgerald. He may be many things but he is not stupid. Protecting Cheney with the assurance of a pardon would be logical in his situation.

There are two tracks here: legal and political. Leave the legal side to Fitzgerald and the Libby trial. But the press now has a lot of questions to ask. I suspect more answers are in the pipeline. This story has legs.

What seems clear is that Fitzgerald did not believe he had enough evidence to prove that Libby knowingly outed a covert agent’s identity. Once again: It’s the cover-up, not the crime. They never learn. But of course, unraveling cover-ups can reveal crimes that might otherwise have remained unknown. And this particular cover-up begs many other, major questions. Why did Libby put himself in so much unnecessary jeopardy? If Libby had nothing to hide, why lie in the first place? What did Cheney know? Who is “Official A”? These questions may be addressed in the remaining work that Fitzgerald says he has to do – or be ferreted out by the press. Some might think that it’s good for Bush to avoid a Rove indictment now. I’m not so sure. Having this drag on – having Libby in a position to name others in a trial or plea agreement, having Rove still under a legal threat – is a terrible burden for the White House to bear indefinitely. I’d say this looks like the very beginning of something, rather than the end. And that, in itself, is crippling.

Just a comment on the press conference. Fitzgerald is more than impressive. His focus, grasp of the relevant facts, clear enunciation of what he is doing and dignified way in which he refused to speculate on anything else were, to my mind, deeply encouraging for anyone who cares about public life. He’s an antidote to cynicism. The Jesuits who educated him should be very proud today. It will be very hard to slime him; and the administration would be very foolish to even think about it.

Here’s the article that, according to the indictment, triggered the “chain of events” that led to today. (Link now corrected. It’s free now.)

Here’s my first take on the five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying against Scooter Libby, before the press conference. The common thread appears to be Libby’s alleged determination to obfuscate where and how he found out that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent. I cannot understand why someone as smart as Libby would have taken such risks under oath, would have been so stupid, unless he felt the risks were necessary to protect someone or something. It’s hard to believe, in other words, that Cheney is not somehow involved. And it’s hard to believe that the indictment of Libby, and the continuance of the investigation into Rove, does not potentially lead to the highest potential source of this mess: the vice-president. Libby is now going to be pressured by the prosecutor to name others, as part of a plea agreement. (Who’s “Official A”?) The judge assigned to his case is known for hefty sentences, putting more pressure on Libby. The biggest aspen so far may be about to turn. Which other trees may fall? I’ll add one more thing: I don’t believe that five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying by a major administration official are a “mouse,” or even a large rabbit. Not if you care about the integrity of government officials and the rule of law.

The new president wants Israel “wiped off the map“. We knew that already, although it’s scandalous how the MSM downplay it. Ahmadinejad won’t withdraw the remark, because it is central to his ideology: “My words were the Iranian nation’s words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid.” The term Islamo-fascism was never more appropriate.

Jeff Jarvis explains.

It’s in response to my insta-post of last night:

Andrew, you wrote: “If Fitzgerald doesn’t have enough evidence to indict Rove after two years, is it fair to prolong the agony?”

Yes, it’s fair. This was likely part of his reported discussions with the chief judge on Wednesday, to check if what he had on Rove was enough to keep the investigation going. This is very similar to his investigation of former Illinois governor George Ryan and the corruption in his offices over the course of years. What started with a fatal car accident eleven years ago has erupted into a trial putting an entire system of “doing business in Illinois” under a very public microscope. In that case, Fitzgerald repeatedly referred to “State Official A,” until he had enough to indict Ryan almost two years ago. That he would name Rove so early is not a good sign for the White House.

If the NYT is right, then there’s a high likelihood of a lot of smoke from Rove, but no flames yet. Libby, on the other hand… Fitzgerald is acting like any competent prosecutor here, picking one thread to pull on, and seeing what unravels.

Sure, but at some point, you have to stop, right? I guess we’ll soon find out enough to judge whether Fitzgerald has reasonably reached that point or not.

It’s a screed against market reforms in Europe. The European left is now among the most conservative forces in the world today. By conservative, I mean instinctively and somewhat fearfully opposed to change.

It’s a central case for our time, and certainly critical in understanding president Bush’s Supreme Court appointments. Emily Bazelon provides an excellent summary of what’s at stake in terms of individual liberty.