Centerfield

We know "Official A" is Karl Rove because the indictment says Official A talked to Robert Novak, and we know from public accounts from defendants' counsel that person is Karl Rove. Official A wasn't named in the Libby indictment because Section 9-27.760 of the United States Attorney's Manual tells federal prosecutors not to name uncharged third parties.

In all but the unusual case, any legitimate governmental interest in referring to uncharged third-party wrongdoers can be advanced through means other than those condemned in this line of cases. For example . . . the third-party can usually be referred to generically ("a Member of Congress"), rather than identified specifically ("Senator Jones") . . . . Similarly, when the defendant engaged in joint criminal conduct with others, generic references ("another individual") to the uncharged third-party wrongdoers can be used . . . .

Posted by: The Jaded JD at October 28, 2005 03:25 PM

But it should be a minor political issue. The Vice-President and the President are not connected to any lying or wrong-doing in any way. There's no claim in the indictment that anybody told Libby to lie or urged him to spread the word about Plame's position to the press.

Well, not yet, anyway. But suppose he's convicted. Isn't it at least reasonable to expect that the sentence Libby gets might be tied to his willingness to account for whatever stealth discrediting campaign the admin might have been conducting. Sure, maybe Wilson was full of crap and deserved to be discredited. And sure, maybe a stealth discrediting campaign isn't even illegal.

But even at this point, it seems fair to me that a lot of people continue to wonder what the more detailed story of the plan to invade Iraq actually was. As of now, the best-case scenario is that Bush was credulous or willfully gullible on WMD. Few seem to credit the notion that WMDs were whisked out of Iraq at the last minute under cover of night, or still lie hidden.

And the worst-case scenario in the eyes of the public is that the President involved us in a costly and risky war under false pretenses, in other words,. even though he knew that we really didn't have a very good idea about what dangers lay within Iraq. I've always felt that the stated rationale (WMDs) was a smokescreen for a decision made for other reasons. But because I also acknowledge that Presidents may decide that they have to do something like this and accept history's judgement on it, it doesn't make me apoplectic on idealistic grounds.

I look at this as regrettable but not necessarily inexcusable in historical terms, but I think I'm in a pretty small minority there.

Posted by: bk at October 28, 2005 03:33 PM

Brian,

Drawing larger inferences on the war in Iraq from the indictment of one staffer, however high-ranking, for very stupidly lying to the grand jury is just not feasible. One has nothing to do with the other. Even with the issue of Niger and uranium, last I heard, the British still believe in their original intelligence. Certainly none of Wilson's "investigation" was in any way, shape, or form definitive on the subject. I mean, he just had tea with a few governmental officials over there who said "oh, no, we never tried to sell uranium to the evil Iraqis". Boy, that's credible.

If you don't like the war in Iraq and its justification, deal with that head on. Don't try to smear it with this indictment, though. They just aren't connected at all.

And no, I don't think Libby's sentence will ultimately turn on whether he ever claims that Official A / Rove (I said it wasn't much of a detective story) or the Vice-President ever told him to rat out Plame. I doubt Libby would do it, one. And two, Fitzgerald, as Tully has noted (I expect to see those donations you bet, people), did not charge with a violation of the statutes. Although he said she was a classified employee in the indictment, he didn't even lay the groundwork in the indictment to call Plame an undercover agent for that special statute. So even if somebody did tell him to leak it (Cheney's not that stupid, I can assure you), it's not legally relevant to the crime he was charged with.

And there's no way Cheney told him to lie under oath as he did, because Cheney clearly told Fitzgerald that he, Cheney, had told Libby about Plame's employment.

Posted by: PatHMV at October 28, 2005 03:46 PM

Incidentally, I'll predict now that this investigation is, as a practical matter, over. Rove will not be indicted. Here's what Fitzgerald himself had to say: "Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But … very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."

How could the "substantial bulk" of the investigation be concluded if there is still consideration being given to indicting the top political strategist for the President of the United States?

Posted by: PatHMV at October 28, 2005 03:53 PM

Isn't it at least reasonable to expect that the sentence Libby gets might be tied to his willingness to account for whatever stealth discrediting campaign the admin might have been conducting.

I doubt it. Why would he? That would be political blamestorming, not legal. And if the discrediting was not a crime, as apparently it wasn't, it's irrelevant.

I've always felt that the stated rationale (WMDs) was a smokescreen for a decision made for other reasons.

And I would once again for the gazillionth time note that WMD's were mentioned in only two sections of the 23 section Senate war authorization. The repeated and willful violation of sanctions, constituting the willful abrogation of the original truce (which constitutes the resumption of hostilities)figured in 16 sections. I realize that the anti-Bushers want all the focus on just the one thing, but it was NEVER about just the one thing.

Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2005 04:04 PM

Pat, I think you're misconstruing what I've said. All I'm saying is that it's possible that the threat of serious punishment for Libby may lead him to decide to speak to the issue of other things that were going on in regards to the Plame story.

I'm not claiming to know for certain that the admin intentionally misled the public, I don't. What I am saying is that Libby might know, that he might be compelled to tell what he knows, that it might be unsavory, and that in retrospect, the general public has serious doubts about the nature of the rationale. I think it's pretty clear that everything I said is just speculation, I'm not trying to smear anyone.

If your point is that this one indictment says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether or not the admin intentionally misled the public in the run-up to the war, I completely agree. This indictment has no bearing on that at all.

My point is simply that the indictment makes it slightly more likely that we could get more information about it, because Libby is under indictment. I don't even think that its very likely, I'm just saying that its more possible.

As far as finding out more details about who really knew what about Iraq when, prior to invasion, it's far more likely that a series of self-serving accounts dribbles out over time, via memoirs. And as you probably know, I am a big believer in the notion that one should generally avoid positing to malice or conspiracy that which can be easily accounted for by ignorance and stupidity. But in this particular case, my gut has always told me that as soon as Bush began rattling his saber about Iraq after 9/11, he had already decided that he'd force 1 of 2 outcomes by any means necessary. Either Hussein would step down under force of diplomacy, or some military force would depose him.

Posted by: bk at October 28, 2005 04:17 PM

The repeated and willful violation of sanctions, constituting the willful abrogation of the original truce (which constitutes the resumption of hostilities)figured in 16 sections. I realize that the anti-Bushers want all the focus on just the one thing, but it was NEVER about just the one thing.

Sure. But take away the WMD and leave all the other stuff in that war authorization and it NEVER PASSES. I was there too, Tully! If the public had not been told by the President that our intelligence told us that we could not afford to wait because the final proof could come in the form of a mushroom cloud, and if Colin Powell had not appeared on every TV station, speaking to the UN, and pointing at satellite photos showing that Saddam's minions were currently well on their way making weapons to wreak havoc on us, the invasion doesn't ever get approved. No freaking way.

Can you honestly maintain that if these things had not been highlighted, that the public would have still supported invasion and the senate would have approved, mostly because Hussein had a long record of jerking around the US and the UN at every opportunity? I don't buy that for a single second, and I'm sort of shocked that you seem to be selling it. Maybe a solid 3rd would have supported it on those grounds alone, but that's it.

Posted by: bk at October 28, 2005 04:36 PM

I think that my opinion is irrelevant at this late date, and that there was no crime involved, nor have I seen any real evidence of an intention to decieve. Everyone believed Saddam had WMD's or some remaining WMD capability. He went to great lengths to convince everyone that he was just winking on the inspectors. He out-bluffed himself.

So what you're essentially arguing for is the retroactive political prosecution of unnamed administration officials for intelligence errors committed by every major world intel service over more than a decade, aided and abetted by Saddam. Based on one VP assistant being stupid enough to lie under oath about a non-crime, and get caught at it. No?

That's more than a slight stretch. It's an astronomical one.

Posted by: Tully at October 28, 2005 05:17 PM

Isn't it at least reasonable to expect that the sentence Libby gets might be tied to his willingness to account for whatever stealth discrediting campaign the admin might have been conducting.

Brian,

No, it isn't reasonable. (1) Patrick Fitzgerald is not a political operative. He was selected by Jim Comey, whom I know from his time as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was Deputy AG at the time. Jim Comey isn't a political operative (and was passed over for the AG's spot when Ashcroft resigned because he was too politically independent). The only reason Fitzgerald would cut a deal on "the stealth campaign" is if some other element of "the stealth campaign" is illegal. Which leads me to:

(2) Although the prosecutor may decide not to proceed on some charges in the indictment, doing so would be very conspicuous in a case this public. The deal would be very obvious. There are basically two other ways the prosecutor can reduce a sentence: (a) seek a substantial assistance reduction in the sentence guidelines under Section 3E1.1, but that's only available when the base offense level for the offenses are over 16--the base offense level for obstruction of justice is 14, for perjury 14, and for false statements 6; (b) to seek a post-sentencing reduction of sentence for substantial assistance under Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This latter option isn't much good to defendants pre-conviction, because they have to wait and see what the sentence is; it's more often used to encourage already-convicted criminals to rat out others when they wouldn't cooperate before they were convicted.

So, again, no, it's unlikely that the sentence will be tied to anything political, like detailing a steath campaign that didn't otherwise violate law.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at October 28, 2005 05:18 PM

Although the press is predicting a maximum of 30 years imprisonment if convicted on all counts, those are the statutory maximums. I went ahead and spent a couple minutes doing a rough calculation of the sentencing guidelines. (I'm assuming that since the guy had a security clearance, he has no prior criminal history points.)

Both perjury and obstruction have base offense levels of 14, subject to a substantial interference enhancement of 3. (The enhancement seems possible. It would require that the crimes resulted in unnecessary expenditure of government resources--which, arguably, they did, because without the false statements Judith Miller wouldn't have gone to jail and the whole investigation might have wrapped up earlier).

Unenhanced, each count carries a sentence of 15-21 months in Criminal History Category I (the lowest). With the enhancement, each count goes up to 24-30 months. If he gets an acceptance of responsibility reduction, the sentences drop to 10-16 and 18-24, respectively.

The false statements counts have a base offense level of 6, but would be grouped together into one count under Section 3D1.2 and increased to a combined offense level of 8. That only results in a sentence of 0-6 months in this criminal history category. (The acceptance of responsibility reduction is still available, but the reduction doesn't change the sentencing guideline.)

Most severe outcome: 30 months each on the three perjury and obstruction counts (90 months) and 6 on the false statement counts to total 96 months, or 8 years, if served consecutively. Most likely outcome: Libby pleads to one or both counts of false statements, takes the base level of 8 with the guideline at 0-6 months, and is sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines (i.e., no jail). One caveat to that outcome: Fitzgerald sent at least one letter to Libby's counsel indictating he was perturbed that Judith Miller was sitting in jail. Fitzgerald may pursue some jail time just for the principle. This could be done by agreeing to the plea on false statements but asking for a sentence at the upper-end of the guidelines, but that puts the jail time in the judge's hands. Alternatively, he could demand a plea to one or more of the perjury/obstruction counts, which in the most favorable scenario results in 10 months.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at October 28, 2005 05:37 PM

Jaded JD: What's your guess about anyone else being indited. Do you think Libby will just fall on his sword, then the investigation packs up and goes home?

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 28, 2005 06:19 PM

I am still confused on the main issue in this case, and that is whether Valerie Plame was, at the time or in the past, an undercover CIA operative. I do not believe that issue was clearly addressed in the inditement or in the press conference. I have to believe she was and that information has just not been confirmed to the public. I say this for two reasons...1) I can't believe the prosecutor would have spent two years and millions of taxpayer dollars on investigating this case if she wasn't and 2) If she wasn't I believe the administration would have been shouting this from the top of every building and stating it in front of every camera in Washington.

As for poor Scooter Libby, I think it may eventually come down to a plea deal in which he gets minimal time for pleading guilty to one or two of the charges and gives the prosecutor a detailed account of what information he passed along, where he got it and who he passed it to. Most of this already being known and Libby just corroborating it. And I think it probably ends there.

Posted by: jdeer76 at October 28, 2005 07:48 PM

According to the indictment, Palme was in the Directorate of Operations (covet), rather than the Directorate of Intelligence (analysis). And, also according to the indictment, Libby and Cheney knew it.

I suspect that the remaining piece on Rove is whether it can be demonstrated equally well that HE knew it. If so, he's up on the Intelligence Act. And if Libby can testify that Rove knew, he has a major incentive to do so because, again based on what's in the indictment, he (Libby) could still be nailed under the same Act. Time to cop a plea, unless he has a believable, guaranteed pardon waiting in the wings.

And would Bush issue blanket pardons? His father did, but for operations against what were arguably the nations enemies (albeit illegal ones). This was strictly against domestic "enemies." A whole lot harder to justify -- especially to the part of the base which is serious about patriotism.

Posted by: wj at October 28, 2005 09:49 PM

Bob,

I would say that there's a risk "Official A" will be indicted. See the first comment on this thread: DOJ procedure in the USAM says not to name uncharged wrongdoers. The Libby indictment names Cheney, Miller, Cooper, Novak, and Russert. The Libby indictment does not name Karl Rove, and the publicly available information indicates "Official A" is Karl Rove. One can reasonably infer, therefore, that Rove is not named, but is described as Official A, because he is an uncharged wrongdoer.

An uncharged wrongdoer need not ever be indicted; there may never be enough evidence to indict, merely enough evidence to suspect. And that's not to say that those named in the Libby indictment (or others not named or referred to at all in it) might not become suspected of wrongdoing as additional evidence is uncovered in the continuing investigation.

Jdeer & WI,

I don't think anyone is going to be indicted for knowingly releasing the name of an undercover operative, because I don't think anyone who leaked her name to the press knew she was an undercover operative at the time her name was leaked. And that knowledge is an indispensable element in the charge. (She was an undercover operative, and those who leaked her name knew she worked for the CIA, but if they didn't know she was an undercover operative for the CIA, it's not enough.)

Posted by: The Jaded JD at October 28, 2005 11:40 PM

I just read the preview of Libby's defense (pdf). Pathetic. Miserable. A waste of words. He's going with "that was my honest recollection of those reporter conversations months later when the FBI asked me." He has a very hectic job, you see, so naturally he can't remember every little conversation.

I guess his job is busier than the undersecretary of state, senior officials of the CIA, and the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, all of whom had no trouble recalling that they told Libby about Plame's employment.

He'll be pleading very soon, I think. Maybe he'll hold off long enough for his defense attorney to run through one mock trial with a focus group/jury; he'll toss in the towel once the mock jury stops laughing at his defense.

Posted by: PatHMV at October 28, 2005 11:54 PM

TJJD, I don't think it is established that she was a "covert operative" for purposes of the IIPA. The indictment does not allege that Plame was "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." It does say her employment was classified, but that's not the same. What's the statute that makes it a crime to disclose classified information? If we're gonig to start criminally prosecuting that as much as we should, we better clear up some courtrooms in DC, 'cause there will be a lot of trials going on soon. Can we go after members of Congress and their staffs?

Posted by: PatHMV at October 29, 2005 12:01 AM

Pat,

I only intended to suggest that Rove & Libby lacked the mens rea necessary for a conviction, not that Plame herself fulfilled the required elements of the statute. If Rove & Libby didn't know, they can't be prosecuted for knowingly revealing.

Disclosing classified information is criminalized at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 798.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at October 29, 2005 12:41 AM

"I didn't take Bush's word for whether or not they had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I went to the CIA. I sat down across from George Tenet*. I said, 'George, I have to vote, you don't. Are you worried that they have weapons or the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons?' He said 'yes' emphatically. I got the same thing from high officials in the Clinton administration who had worked in the security area." - Dick Gephardt (D-MO), November 2003.

* George Tenet was the CIA director originally nominated by Clinton, serving in the same role under Bush.

The head of the CIA said Saddam had WMD programs, Clinton Administration officials and Senators believed it even before Bush was elected, and foreign intelligence services (even the French) thought the same thing.

Yet somehow history gets rewritten to say only Bush was pushing the idea.

Everyone also seems to forget that Clinton signed a law in 1998 unanimously passed by congress, that called for regime change in Iraq. That's before Bush was elected, yet somehow it is conventional wisdom that regime change was a secret scheme uniquely pushed by Bush. It was the existing official policy of the entire U.S. government.

Almost as amazing as the collective amnesia in the media about the fact that a bipartisan U.S. Senate commission totally discredited Joe Wilson's fraudulent claims. I am continually amazed at the ongoing inability to talk straight about this fact.

How is this for a scandal. A CIA desk jockey who loathed administration policy, sent her non-intelligence trained ambassador husband to Nigeria on an official mission to smear the president. The U.S. Senate reviews all of Joe Wilson's claims and concludes they are complete lies.

The media becomes part of the scandal, echoes the false claims, pretends that the the official report discrediting them doesn't exist, while prominently featuring Mr. Wilson as a hero.

Posted by: susan at October 29, 2005 06:58 AM

Only Bush was pushing the idea to invade. Did people think Saddam had WMDs? Sure. but only the Bush administration was running around talking about mushroom clouds over New York and suggesting that the solution was a costly war and (what will have to be) decides long occupation.

Take the fear of a nuclear armed Saddam, the one thing that frightened people the most and for which there was the least evidence, and popular support for the invasion would have been tepid at best.

Even though I though Saddam may well have had so called WMDs, I never thought that he had much more then left over chemical weapons and stuff like anthrax. My opinion was that those things, though bad, never could have justified the invasion and many agreed with me. Unless someone can point out statements that Clinton made concerning the real possibility of Saddam not only acquiring the ability to make a nuke, and then giving it to terrorists (that whole line of thinking was pure moonshine) the “Clinton thought Saddam had nukes too” argument is just so much revisionist twaddle.

As for the status of Valerie Plame, no one here knows the real answer to that question and anyone claiming that she was "only a desk jockey" is engaging in speculation in absence of any real information. I can imagine that the CIA sets up “desk jockeys” all the time as counter intelligence agents make them out to look like low level, perhaps disgruntled employees to expose enemy agents or to spread disinformation. But the bottom line is that if after thee years the very simple question of Plame’s status has not be directly answered then I would think that the CIA is trying to do some kind of damage control the suggests to me that the notion that she was unimportant or low level is at best unlikely.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at October 29, 2005 09:36 AM

Many people were talking about muchroom clouds over New York - in 2010. For me, three considerations combined turned me into a hawk back in '98.

1) He was shooting at our planes, trampled the cease-fire accords, and seemed to feel himself at war with us. Why Bush didn't think it was worth mentioning this in his speeches is beyond me.

2) He was certainly interested in nuclear weapons, and came close to having one; do you doubt he would've gotten them once the sanctions inevitably lifted? Especially since that would've put him in the MAD category to keep the US from invading.

3) Nuclear delivery by terrorist evades our traditional MAD threats. And, it sure looked to me like he was supporting terrorists (maybe for that very reason?).

Posted by: Jon Kay at October 29, 2005 10:04 AM

A lot of people may have though Saddam had WMD, but a lot of people also believe aliens have visited the earth.

The only real question is did the defense annalists in the pentagon and CIA have any tangible proof such items existed. There are some very cool high tech toys available to the US intelligence services. Also manufacturing a WMD requires a large industrial base and produces significant toxic byproducts. Don't confuse the rantings of politicians, defectors and cable news talking heads with reality.

Every tin pot dictator on the planet wants a nuke. Heck I want one (they make great lawn ornaments).

Don't you think we should use a higher standard of proof before we start shooting people?
Starting a war then going OOPS isn't exactly new for us. The Spanish American war was started over fake newspaper reports and a badly designed battleship (Remember The Maine!).

A little less blood lust and a lot more pragmatism would have served us well. There were covert ways of dealing with Saddam.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 11:55 AM

News Flash: We were at war with Saddam well before the invasion. He was shooting at our planes, he was sponsoring attempts to assaassinate Bush Sr., he was repeatedly declaring we were at war, he was financing and training and sheltering terrorists, he was violating the cease-fire from the previous invasion, he was in perpetual violation of the sanctions, etc. You wanna re-fight the decision to go to war, get yourself a way-back machine. There was plenty of reason to go kick Saddam's ass, and the element that came up missing (WMD's) is where he worked the hardest to obscure the truth himself. That we (and every other major intel agency in the free world and some not so free) got suckered by his double-dealing bluffs doesn't change that. That it was "all about the WMD's" is extremely selective politicized hindsight, and it wasn't the Bush admin that developed that decade-plus of bad intel.

All of which is pretty irrelevant to the Plame case. Straw men and red herrings. FACT: Plame's employment with the CIA was apparently classified info, but Plame was NOT an undercover agent at the time, nor had she been one within the five-year definition of the IIPA. IIPA simply did not apply. (By all accounts, Plame's status as a statutory undercover operative ceased in 1994 when Aldrich Ames most likely "outed" her to the Russians and Cubans, along with many many others.)

The statute that might apply (the intentional revealing of classified information) is also very specific on how it can be violated, and Libby apparently fell well short of the standard of "willfully" disseminating the information even if he met the other requirements, which is also not clear. "Willfully," BTW, as the attorneys here could explain far better than I could, is a pretty high standard to meet, having to with state of mind and focused intent.

So no indictments under IIPA or the Espionage Act, and no indictments for revealing classified info. Tea-leaf readng follows: Rove was likely not under the lens for perjury, but for potential obstruction for vague answers, which he avoided by clarifying his answers to the grand jury and prosecutor to fill in gaps. Karl-haters should avoid holding their breath awaiting his indictment.

But I have some questions, too. Why is Joe Wilson not being investigated for leaking? Why are elements of the CIA not under investigation for leaking, and for apparently "willfully" attempting to influence domestic politics? Was Joe Wilson picked as an outsider for the Niger trip because he was a "friendly asset" outside the "liability loop" and could be used to leak classified information (and disinformation) to the media without facing federal charges? Why did the CIA Directorate of Operations not ask him to "sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement" regarding his assignment, either before or after? (That last is an absolutely astounding lapse in standard procedure, BTW.)

And so on. Frankly, the idea that Valerie Plame's employment "cover" could withstand the inevitable scrutiny of Wilson when he started shopping his story around is ludicrous. It was an inevitable revelation as soon as Wilson started his rounds of editor's offices. The only question was who would be the first to take it public, and how soon.

How is this for a scandal...The U.S. Senate reviews all of Joe Wilson's claims and concludes they are complete lies...The media becomes part of the scandal, echoes the false claims, pretends that the the official report discrediting them doesn't exist, while prominently featuring Mr. Wilson as a hero.

Indeed. The little fact that Wilson has been completely discredited seems to keep slipping out of focus in all the reporting and wing chatter, doesn't it?

Posted by: Tully at October 29, 2005 12:17 PM

I think Fitzgerald is bracketing his targets. Libby is step one. The possibility that they will be looking at the forged Italian documents may be another. Certainly Rove is not out of the woods yet I agree that the "I'm too busy to remember" defense is lame. I don't see how anyone, especially Cheney, Libby and Rove could forget about someone who publicly disagrees with the Administration line. The story in the right wing press that either Cheney or Libby didn't 'know' about Wilson before stretches the imagination. Bush 1 introduced Wilson to his War Cabinet in 1991 as a "true American hero". Wilson was the senior US diplomat in Iraq at one point during Desert Shield and had helped to release 150 American hostages held by Saddam and sheltered about 800 Americans at the US embassy. It got play in an old Evans and Novak show when Evans was in Bagdhad. That was when Cheney was SecDef and Libby was deputy undersecretary of strategy and resources. So Cheney and Libby might not have 'known' Wilson but I certainly find it hard to believe that they didn't know about him.

Posted by: Marcus at October 29, 2005 12:37 PM

In the words of Stan Marsh, "Holy crap, dude!"

This is what everyone knew would happen, but a lot of us didn't want to happen: a confusion of the crimes allegedly committed by the defendants in this investigation with the deception (or not) of the American people to lead them to support war against Saddam Hussein.

It no longer matters whether Valerie Plame was an undercover operative. It no longer matters whether whether Libby knew she was an undercover operative. It certainly doesn't matter whether Joe Wilson's op/ed was accurate. What matters is that a guy obtained a piece of information from a particular set of sources at a particular time; he then lied to the FBI and a federal grand jury about from whom he obtained that piece of information, and when.

This is analogous to Webster Hubbell lying to Kenneth Starr's grand jury in the Whitewater investigation. Even when the suspected underlying criminal act cannot be proved, lying about what happened is a crime. (And, like the Hubbell case, the defendant here, Scooter Libby, will likely plead guilty to avoid forcing his principal to testify at trial.) See, it happens to Democrats, it happens to Republicans, and it happens every month to countless anonymous, completely apolitical folks in federal districts across the country. It's not a political witch hunt; it's the law.

So before (oops, too late) everyone starts going nuts about whether there were WMDs, whether the war was legitimate, whether Wilson was lying, and all the other distractions, let's remember that this indictment is unrelated to all the hoopla. This morning, somehow, this thread became confused with the issue of who believed WMDs were in Iraq, when, and why. That's not the issue with Mr. Libby; it's only a distraction.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at October 29, 2005 01:04 PM

So before (oops, too late) everyone starts going nuts about whether there were WMDs, whether the war was legitimate, whether Wilson was lying, and all the other distractions, let's remember that this indictment is unrelated to all the hoopla....That's not the issue with Mr. Libby; it's only a distraction.

So very true. In any case, the only "hero" I find here is Fitzgerald, a man who knows his job and does it properly, regardless of pressure.

"You're getting cold, not hot," Fitzgerald said in response to one question. "You're reading tea leaves, and don't, because I don't draw a very good tea leaf," he said to another.

And then:

He flashed a smile Friday when reminded that some critics are accusing him of being partisan. "One day I read that I was a Republican hack, another day I read that I was a Democratic hack," he said. "And the only thing I did between those two nights was sleep."

We need more Fitzgeralds.

Posted by: Tully at October 29, 2005 01:08 PM

OK. Can someone clarify what the Judy Miller sideshow in this was all about. Was she worried that Fitzgeral would charge her also? And if so, on what charge. This is the part that still confuses me.

Posted by: c3 at October 29, 2005 01:46 PM

Well, I could pursue the Iraq angle, but as JD points out that not what this thread is about. (beside we've had that one a dozen times.)

On one point we do agree. Fitzgerald is doing one heck of a job. I don't think I have ever been more impressed by a federal employee's behavior.

Fitzgerald for President!

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 01:49 PM

C3:

If my memory is working today: Did she testify that someone else gave her the flame name. And wasn't the agreement reached with Fitzgerald about him restricting his line of questioning?

I think Ms. Miller still has a really big secret.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 01:56 PM

I see Bob suggests above that only the type of person who believes in space aliens would worry about Saddam's WMD, that Bush was uniquely concerned.

First of all look at Clinton's speech on the issue in 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." --Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." --Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"[Hillary Clinton] stood by her vote last November for the congressional resolution authorizing the war, and carefully distanced herself from recent charges by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D -Mass.) 'Based on what we knew and believed [about the Iraqi threat], it was merited,' she said of her vote. She said she consulted widely before that vote and found that U.S. intelligence 'from Bush I to Clinton to Bush II was consistent' in concluding that there was 'a continuing presence of biological and chemical weapons programs' in Iraq and that the Iraqis were seeking to develop a nuclear capacity. --Washington Post, 9/24/03 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58006-2003Sep24.html

"Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and 'the behavior' of his regime 'pointed to a continuing effort' to produce WMD, she added. The senator said she did her own 'due diligence' by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. 'To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence' that Saddam had WMD. --Weekly Standard, 9/24/03 --http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/157wjmhn.asp?ZoomFont=YES

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." --Hillary Clinton's Speech on the Senate floor, October, 10, 2002 http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. ... There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger... We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ... In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable...

"If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. .. Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. ... Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Ted Kennedy, October 4, 2002

"... we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. ... In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing." -- Senator Kerry 2003.

Posted by: susan at October 29, 2005 02:23 PM

Susan: You might want to read the post beyond the first sentence.

Nice list thought. Did you compile that this morning or were you saving it up for a special occasion?

PS: I'll bet Pelosi does believe that aliens have visited the earth.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 02:37 PM

Put another way;

You can suspect your neighbor is hiding tear gas in his garage. I
can suspect your neighbor is hiding tear gas in his garage. You can tell the police your neighbor is hiding tear gas in his garage.

But, if you firebomb your neighbor's garage and claim you were acting in self-defense because you were afraid that your neighbor was going to tear gas you, the police will not be amused, especially if there is no evidence of tear gas found in the smoking remains. And you will be stuck with a hefty bill. And not invited to the neighborhood block party.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 29, 2005 03:25 PM

Blue Jean: Nice analogy.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 03:33 PM

Substitute "Nuclear Bomb" for tear gas.

And your neighbor has previously used chemical weapons on other neighbors, as well as people in his own house.

And the neighbor expelled policemen who tried to investigate whether he did have a nuke, making people think he had something to hide.

And the neighbor attempted to assasinate your grandfather in your house. (Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. during a visit to Kuwait in 1993).

Let's take it forward to today. Iran's president just called for the total destruction of Israel. Iran is about to get nuclear weapons. Should Israel do nothing to defend itself now, or should it only act after nuclear bombs destroy their country?

Posted by: Susan at October 29, 2005 03:35 PM

Your still missing the point.
Monsters in Funny hats always say monstrous thinks, but our actions have consequences.
It's about getting the facts straight and having a plan, before you start something you can't undo, otherwise you just look silly and make things worse. Of course Saddam was dangerous, but our rush to war left us in a tenuous position. We may be able to extract ourself without getting our ass kicked, but a little forethought could have made life a lot easier.

Israel is in no worse danger then we were from the soviet union. Should we have started a nuclear war with the soviets? Should we have destroyed all life on the planet just because they kept talking trash an trying to outflank us?

Are you suggesting that we or Israel attack Iran?
You might want to look at a map. Iran is big, Israel is small, and we are in no position to help.
If you have any question about the Iranian's ability to fight just ask Saddam.
If you want to start a new crusade be my guest, buy a plane ticket and fly over there. Just don't expect the rest of the county to follow you.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 04:48 PM

Thanks, Bob. Continuing the discussion from down thread, I see Tully throwing cold water on Brian's thought that the indictments were Fitzgerald's effort to flip Scooter. Oddly enough,
Andrew Sullivan agrees with Brian, as I do. It's one thing to say you'd take a bullet for your boss; it's quite another to face thirty years in stir with a guy named Bruno as your roomie. Don't hand in your bets yet, kids.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 29, 2005 05:33 PM

Jaded JD was talking about a sentencing guideline formula. I've been wondering if Libby's willingness to fess up and name Rove will affect the equation? Time will tell.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 05:42 PM

Blue Jean: Nice analogy.

Except that in the real world, there are no police, just you and your neighbor.

Posted by: David Fleck at October 29, 2005 06:24 PM

It was a lousy analogy to begin with, hand-crafted to ignore most pertinent comparisons. And as JD pointed out, WAY off topic.

Keep holding your breath waiting for Libby to get more than a short or non-jail-time sentence, folks. Blue is the proper color, I guess. It's not bloody likely, as JD pointed out above. Even if he pulls jail time, odds are great that it'll be under a year at Club Fed, max. If it isn't dragged out long enough in the courts for the traditional end-of-term pardon, of course.

And oh yeah, everyone who was foolish enough to wager with me on this grand jury regarding indictments, I expect to see scans or photos of donation receipts to non-partisan charities (or, in the alternative, adequate proof of non-profit blood donation) in my email box within 30 days. After which, failure to pay will become a very public thing. If you want to scrub personal info off the receipt, fine by me. Your bad karma if you fake it.

Posted by: Tully at October 29, 2005 06:48 PM

Some relevant thoughts....

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

And for just this once I wish I had access to the new high$ "pay-me" NYT op/ed pages, for David Brooks' column of today. Lacking that, I pass on a link to the excerpts Drudge has posted, which seem close enough to make the point.

Posted by: Tully at October 29, 2005 07:07 PM

Bob says monsters in funny hats always say funny things.

Monsters in funny hats also mass murder hundreds of thousands of people. Saddam did so, and would have kept doing so had he not been overthrown.

Jean talks about "tear gas".

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds, burned whole villages and families alive.

Anyone notice a lack of gravitas in the talk about "tear gas" and people in funny hats saying funny things? Why such dismissive verbage?

Bob says Israel faces no greater threat from Iran today than we faced from the Soviet Union. Wasn't that a very serious threat, nearly escalating to a full war several times? Cuban Missile crisis, and Kruschev's "we will bury you"? Decades of diligent work were required to protect us and reduce the substantial threat.

Iran's president today calling for the total annihilation of Israel is more serious, since it has both governmental and zealous religious backing. Iran's reverered former muslim spiritual leader also called for the total annihilation of Israel, and Iran today is really controlled by religious hierarchs. If Iran could destroy Israel with impunity it would.

How well does "mutually assured destruction", work against muslims who believe they go to heaven by dying while attempting to mass murder as many infidels as possible? The certainty of death doesn't seem to dissuade muslim suicide bombers from conducting their attrocities all over the world.

The threat is more serious because Iran is probably the greatest nation state supporter of terrorism today, heavily funding numerous groups. Imagine what happens when Iran gives a few nukes to these proxy terrorist groups, blowing up cities instead of cafes and bus stops. The blackmail potential is equally serious.

Bob suggests Israel can't attack Iran, because it is geographically so small in comparison. Gee Bob, that didn't stop Israel from utterly beating a combined attack by all its huge Arab neighbors in 1948, 1967 and 1973.

Did you know that Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981, how did they manage this when Israel is so tiny? The idea that the U.S.A is powerless to do anything is even more absurd.

Why do assume this is mere trash talk, when motivation and intent are so manifest? I'm not uniquely concerned. Look at Tony Blair's statement today, hinting at preemptive action --

"If they continue down this path people are going to believe they are a real threat to world security and stability. I feel a real sense of revulsion... How can we build a more secure world with that type of attitude? It is a disgrace,''

"If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking is: `when are you going to do something.

"Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having nuclear weapons? I have never come across a situation in which the President of a country has said they want to wipe out another country. That is unacceptable.'' -- Prime Minister Tony Blair

Posted by: susan at October 29, 2005 07:38 PM

Isn't it strange that none of the things Libby has been indicted for, occured before the investigation began?

Apparently, the actions that triggered the investigation, were not criminal.

Posted by: susan at October 29, 2005 07:51 PM

Oh, you mean like what Clinton was impeached for?

It was a lousy analogy to begin with, hand-crafted to ignore most pertinent comparisons.

Thanks, Tully; I love you too. :-]

I was thinking of the U.N. as the police, but I should have said the American people, who are growing increasingly weary of paying out billions for a war that was supposed to be paid with oil revenues, and losing thousands of lives in a cause that was sold as a cakewalk. Once upon a time, the U.S. was supposed to be the world’s police officer, but I see some folks still haven’t learned the lesson, even thirty years later.

I know our resident koolaid drinkers have had a tough week, so I thought I’d be nice and use the house analogy, but I see now that I should have used the one that Sen. Chuck Hagel already has; another Vietnam.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Nemo.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 29, 2005 08:29 PM

Apparently, the actions that triggered the investigation, were not criminal.

I don't think you can say that with certainty. I think all we know for certain is that Fitzgerald thinks Libby's obstruction has made it impossible for him to determine, at this moment, if a crime took place.

Posted by: David Fleck at October 29, 2005 08:31 PM

I am beginning to think that there needs to be a Vietnam corollary to Godwin's Law:

Part A: As any discussion on current American military action progresses, the probability of a comparison to Vietnam approaches 1.

Part B: Once such comparison is made, the signal-to-noise ratio of the discussion will drop to zero.

Posted by: David Fleck at October 29, 2005 08:40 PM

If the combat boot fits, wear it.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 29, 2005 08:45 PM

Besides, I wasn't using the analogy: Senator Chuck Hagel was. W should know it's bad when his own team starts deserting his side.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 29, 2005 08:47 PM

Besides, what good would the corollary be if you can only use it every 30 years.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 29, 2005 09:09 PM

A better analogy would be a neighbor that had previously tear-gassed and beaten his own family and his neighbors, had admitted and even bragged about having more tear-gas, was known to be seeking dynamite, was under court order to get rid of all of his gas and explosives and allow court reps to confirm it, claimed that he had, yet physically prevented the court officers from exercising a valid search warrant to confirm his claims, and then was subsequently stormed by SWAT and arrested. After which a search turned up only traces of gas and dynamite.

And it would still be a lousy analogy, whether it was made by Hagel or Hegel. And it would still be WAY off topic.

Posted by: Tully at October 29, 2005 09:47 PM

In the meantime, I note that there seems to be quite a bit of re-directed anger over Fitz not returning indictments for capital crimes against any of the demonic Bushites. So much that some are unable to stick to the subject and feel instead compelled to sling everything else instead.

Hysterical.

Posted by: Tully at October 29, 2005 09:50 PM

It sounds to me like some people are far more angry at Fitz for returning any indictments at all, and even angrier at Scooter for being dumb enough to get caught, so they're taking their anger out on anybody who disagrees with them. In that kind of mood, any analogy sounds lousy, no matter how good it is or who makes it. I was enjoying the discussion with Bob, Susan, Rick and the rest of the folks. Too bad some weren't.

By the way, we don't consider W a demon in my congregation. We consider him Pharoh. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 29, 2005 10:03 PM

Oh, you mean like what Clinton was impeached for?

Yup! So are we even yet? Posted by: c3 at October 29, 2005 11:15 PM

Hmmm....depends whose yardstick we're measuring by, Chris. But good point. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 29, 2005 11:50 PM

Yardsticks?!? In politics, the appropriate measure is the rubber ruler. That way it can always be stretched to accomodate...

Posted by: Tully at October 30, 2005 10:34 AM

Too true. Don't beat me! Don't beat me with the rubber ruler, Mr. Tully!

On second thought...beat me, beat me, please beat me! ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 30, 2005 11:39 AM

Getting back to Libby: in case anyone (Tully?) was unclear, I'm not lobbying for anything. All I was ever trying to say is that Libby getting indicted might mean that we get more info from him related in whatever way to the whole story of the leak. I'm not necessarily advocating a brad expansion of the investigation or syaing it would be legal or right. I'm just saying that the public may get some more detailed related to something I'm very curious about.

I'd like to thank JJD for all the extra info. What I'm left wondering about is the incentive for Fitzgerald to hand out any deal for a lighter sentence in return for a guilty plea. Seems to me that in the case of someone having lied and then been pretty much caught red-handed, a prosecutor would not be especially inclined to hand out a deal in return for the liar now being willing to simply come clean on a couple of details narrowly related only to the matter on which the perjury occured.

So I'd expect the prosecutor to want Libby to come up with a nugget related to additional wrongdoing, and if Libby doesn't have one (which is of course quite possible), then he should just be SOL. He lied, he got caught, no deal, see you at trial, you're going in.

Posted by: bk at October 31, 2005 09:42 AM

Apparently Fitz already offered a "deal," and Libby turned it down because it was a bad one. Fitz wanted serious jail time. But Fitz doesn't control the sentencing, that's up the courts. JJD laid out the sentencing guidelines, and Libby is realistically facing not that much, with a pardon looming in the background. So why the hell would anyone take a deal that gave them the same or worse as they could expect from a guideline sentencing on all counts, knowing that if they're convicted that the traditional pardon will be waiting? When they might well beat it in court anyway?

Cheney can (and probably will) cite executive privilege rather than testify in open court, and rightly so. If the Libby/Cheney conversation itself wasn't a crime then EP is applicable. Don't hold your beath waiting for that circus. Fitz can push for "context" all he wants in court, but if the background is immaterial to the specific charges, that won't happen. Defense will object that backgrounding of that sort is prejudicial and inflammatory, impugning a crime not charged to the defendant to sway the jury/court. Like alleging rape, murder, and arson in a criminal trial, when the defendant is only charged with theft.

On the specific charges, all that will really be material in court is whether or not Libby's actual statements under oath can be shown to be intentional lies, and not failures of recollection or differing memories or inadvertent omissions. "Beyond a reasonable doubt." If the perjury counts collapse, the other counts are unlikely to hold up. It looks like a strong indictment, but we're only seeing one side of it out of context. Until it hits court, we don't know how strong it really is. (From what we know of Fitz, it will not be a fluff case.)

I also do not place much stock in Fitz having held back on any counts to use later for additional pressure. If he had the evidence for indictments on additional counts, he would have gotten the indictments. This is a very direct prosecutor.

Posted by: Tully at October 31, 2005 10:53 AM

Apparently Fitz already offered a "deal," and Libby turned it down because it was a bad one. Fitz wanted serious jail time. But Fitz doesn't control the sentencing, that's up the courts. JJD laid out the sentencing guidelines, and Libby is realistically facing not that much, with a pardon looming in the background. So why the hell would anyone take a deal that gave them the same or worse as they could expect from a guideline sentencing on all counts, knowing that if they're convicted that the traditional pardon will be waiting? When they might well beat it in court anyway?

Right. Fitz can only control sentencing if he cuts a deal. But doesn't it seem like there's no reason for a deal unless Libby can give Fitz something? As you speculate, it is of course possible that missing pieces mean that the case is not as strong as it appears, and if so, that does provide the added incentive for Fitz to deal. But if the case is as strong and straightforward as it currently appears, then its Fitz that has the leverage. I'm not going to go back and parse JJD more closely, but it seems like Libby could be facing more than a year, maybe more than several years, and any low-end estimate hinges on some guesses and some doubts, just as a high-end estimate does. Whether this equals "realistically not facing much" is entirely, 100% in the eyes of the person facing the sentence...

And sure Libby can just wait it all out if he has nothing substantive to deal and/or thinks he really can get off or get pardoned, but that really goes to question I've been asking all along here..what is he willing and able to do and say now that he has been indicted? As you have pointed out, the answer to this question may be "nothing." But as I have taken pains to point out, the answer may be "something."

Can't you even let me have this one little tiny bit, Tully, since it's all I've ever been trying to point out, the possibilty of something more to come as the result of an indictment...

Posted by: bk at October 31, 2005 11:18 AM

LOL. OK, it's possible. But don't hold your breath.

Posted by: Tully at October 31, 2005 12:42 PM

Sigh. What ever happened to honor and dignity in the context of the all mighty spin (er, white house lie), anymore?

After the whole Watergate affair, now just about every President and their staff is investigated for some possible illegal act or another.

Why can't our executive branch of government, and congress for that matter, just do their lying and bidding without being so blatantly stupid about it?

Isn't that why Bush Sr. fired Rove?

Posted by: Jen at October 31, 2005 04:15 PM

Dunno. But it didn't start with Watergate. It goes back at least as far as the Yazoo and Pine Barrens land scandals of the 1790's. Or the Burr Conspiracy.

Posted by: Tully at October 31, 2005 04:45 PM

Just to rain on Brian's parade a little bit... (sorry, Brian!)

Your theory might work had Fitzgerald indicted Libby for the underlying crime of revealing the identity of a covert operative. In that case, then Rove or others could conceivably be co-conspirators to violate that Act. But there is no indication in the indictment that Rove or anybody else urged, pressured, or cooperated with Libby in the crimes with which he is charged, obstruction of justice and lying to the grand jury. To the contrary, it looks like everybody else in the administration yakked it up at great length with the grand jury and told Fitzgerald exactly how Libby found out about Plame's employment.

Now, it's possible, just BARELY possible that Libby has some knowledge of what Rove knew and when he knew it that would address whatever issue Fitzgerald has left regarding Rove. But as a former prosecutor, I would never want my key witness against a defendant to be another defendant I had just charged with perjury. Especially one whose public defense is "I just didn't remember right."

Like I say, if they were co-consipirators, that's a different story. But he hasn't laid the ground work to charge them as co-conspirators.

Posted by: PatHMV at October 31, 2005 08:27 PM

Pat those are all good points. I don't think they rain on my parade at all!

Let me just re-state once again the very small point that I've been trying to make: if Fitzgerald thinks he has a really solid case against Libby on perjury, then he has no incentive (beyond expedience) to cut a deal for a reduced sentence unless Libby has something to offer.

So if and only if Libby does in fact have something substantive to offer in the way of additional information on wrongdoing related to the story as whole (leaking classified information, and the whos and whys behind the leak), we might eventually find out more.

That's all I'm saying, and I've stressed that I have no way of knowing whether Libby has additional substantive info on wrongdoing to deal, or whether he's troubled enough by the possibility of spending time in jail to sing. It's a very small point: He might have a song to sing, and he might feel like singing it.

Posted by: bk at November 1, 2005 09:41 AM

Two points of clarification, if anyone is still reading this thread:

(1) Fitzgerald has many incentives for making a deal, not least of which is that juries (even juries drawn from the predominantly Democratic District of Columbia) are unpredictable. He's also got a day job. And, while he wouldn't have indicted if he didn't think he could win a conviction, a prosecutor never knows for sure what evidence a judge is going to allow in. Plea agreements are always complicated negotiations, but the reason they exist is because both sides gets something from them.

(2) If convicted on all counts, Libby is likely to go to jail for years, as Brian suggests, despite Tully's poo-pooing the idea. The minimum for each of the perjury/obstruction counts is 24 months, with the substantial interference enhancement. And, like I said, that enhancement is likely because the necessary element is expenditure of gov't resources: here, the resources spent were (a) pursuing Judith Miller, (b) locking her up in jail for x weeks, (c) continuing the investigation beyond the date Libby lied.

I still predict the deal I described above: either a plea to one or both counts of false statements, with a recommendation at the upper end of the guidelines, or a plea to one of the perjury/obstruction counts (most likely the obstruction count) without the enhancement and with the acknowledgement of responsibility reduction. The only determining question is whether Fitzgerald wants Libby to spend time in jail, because Libby left Miller in jail as long as he did.

Sorry, Brian, I don't think anything more will come out of this indictment. (Any other indictments will probably come out of evidence not flowing from Libby's indictment.)

Posted by: The Jaded JD at November 1, 2005 06:35 PM

Oh, my third point: sorry, Tully, Cheney is not likely to get out of testifying based on executive privilege. The standard set in U.S. v. Nixon is that the prosecutor wins if the evidence sought is relevant, admissible, and specific (which it will be--the substance of the conversation on date X as it related to Wilson, Plame, and Nigeria), unless the executive's claim of confidentiality is based on a demonstrable need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. The substance of the conversation may be privileged for national security, but if so, privilege was almost certainly already waived when the vice-president agreed to make an unsworn statement.

Posted by: The Jaded JD at November 1, 2005 06:43 PM

I will of course bow to superior knowledge--but the practical limit of Libby's purgatory remains December 2008.

It was awfully nice of Reid yesterday to badmouth Libby so publicly. Any speculation on a change of venue motion?

Posted by: Tully at November 2, 2005 09:18 AM