Fitz’s Knuckle Ball
by gadfly
Sat Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:02:54 PM EDT
Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former SEC enforcement official, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. (A full bio is below the fold.)
The indictment of “Scooter” Libby, ONLY Scooter Libby, and ONLY on investigation- related charges (perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators), is bound to be misinterpreted (read: spun), by ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. Lefties (in addition to being disappointed that their favorite bête noire, Karl Rove, has seemingly evaded the prosecutor's net) will feel like some of the wind has been knocked out of their sails because no crime was charged in connection with the underlying revelation of Valerie Plame's identity (a key element in their assertion that such revelation was motivated by the need to discredit a vocal critic of administration's casus belli for the war--Iraq's possession or acquisition of nuclear weapons capability). And righties will revel in that same fact (i.e., since no crime was committed by the Plame outing, the outing was nothing more than a legitimate defense against the attack on the motivation for the war--in other words, politics as usual).
But, to continue Patrick Fitzgerald's somewhat tortured baseball analogy, there is no reason either for joy or sorrow in Mudville. Mighty Casey (a/k/a Fitzgerald) has, in essence, taken a base on balls, four (or, in Libby's case, five) lousy pitches, none of which he could really swing at, much less hit out of the park. And, just like a base on balls does't count as an at-bat, in some ways Fitz still hasn't stepped up to the plate. But, I suggest that what he may have done is to cork a bat for his next up.
Yesterday's indictment was dictated by time more than anything else. With the grand jury's term expiring today, if any indictment was going to be returned, this was the day, and I, for one, don't question Fitzgerald's statement that Libby's obstruction of the investigation prevented him from getting to the truth about the so-called “underlying” charges (e.g., those associated with outing a CIA operative). Indeed, the obstruction charged against Libby prevented the prosecutor from furnishing the one element of the underlying crimes that may be the most difficult to prove: mens rea, as it's known in the criminal law (i.e., a culpable state of mind). But, be assured: the last out in this game is still to come, and the indictment is a shot across the bow for a whole host of characters in this unfolding drama that should indicate to them sighs of relief would be premature.
First, we know that Fitz intends to continue the investigation, albeit with a new grand jury. That's no big deal, since the evidence that was presented to the first grand jury will be available, word-for-word and page-for-page, to the next one for their examination and, if necessary, for further elaboration or elucidation either by the prosecutor or by additional witnesses. In other words, the new grand jury won't be starting from scratch---not by a long shot.
Second, even the fact that Libby wasn't indicted for any of the possible classified-information-related offenses does't mean he still can't be, since the special prosecutor has the prerogative of getting a superseding indictment from the grand jury which is to follow (not unlike what the prosecutor in Texas did in Tom Delay's case). Thus, Libby is still, technically under the gun, and the indictment itself is rife with indications that there is another shoe yet to drop, something Fitz also strongly foreshadowed in his responses to reporters' questions during his press conference. And, of course, neither Rove nor any of a variety of other characters whose participation was described in shadowy terms are, as yet, off the hook.
Continued below:
Under the applicable federal rule, indictments are only required to be a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” The rule goes further to say indictments “need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion.”
The Libby indictment goes considerably beyond what the rule requires, or even envisions. It is what's called, in courthouse vernacular, a “speaking indictment.” The purpose of a “speaking” filing, in any court proceeding, is to show the other side some of the stronger cards you're holding in your hand, and this indictment is no exception.
The first 25 paragraphs of the indictment take great pains to lay out a factual scenario, replete with the identity (if not by name then by title) of the entire cast of characters, which, when carefully parsed, seems to set out the elements of at least one of the underlying classified information crimes, if not both. For example, the indictment indicates that the White House was well aware than Valerie Plame was a covert operative. Paragraph 9 states:
Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Anyone with knowledge of the CIA's organizational chart (but particularly Cheney and Libby) knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (i.e., where the spooks are), and not where the more benign employees (e.g., analysts) are assigned. The indictment also makes it clear that Plame's status at the CIA was classified, and that disclosure of such status could jeopardize national security.
Paragraph 13 of the indictment takes the guilty knowledge of Plame's status one step farther:
Libby spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked Libby whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
The indictment makes it clear that Libby was authorized to have access to classified information (Paragraph 1), but also takes pains to point out not only that he was obligated not to disclose that information, but that he had signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” the primary purpose of which was to let its signatories know, in no uncertain terms, that disclosure of classified information would be a big no-no.
Voila! All of the elements, at least of the Espionage Act (if not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), have been made out in the indictment. So, why go to all the trouble of setting up the factual predicates for violations of the classified information statutes in the indictment (especially when he didn't have to) and then stop short of charging them? The explanation he gave during his press conference (i.e., that he was balancing the interests of the First Amendment with the wisdom of charging the crime) does't fly. Subpoenaing reporters, sending one to jail and threatening to do the same to another one demonstrate, I suggest, his less-than-overarching concern about the First Amendment. And, his expressed concern that the U.S. statute governing classified information not become subject to the loose application which has characterized its British analog (i.e., the “Official Secrets Act”) also rings hollow, especially given the fact that he trumpeted, loud and long, during his press conference the serious violations of national security the conduct in this case appears to have constituted.
No, the real reason to lay out as much factual detail as he did was for Fitz to show the world (and in particular, the world within the White House) that he has the goods, and that he won't hesitate to drop the dime on some additional malefactors, particularly, Cheney. Let's face it: Libby is only the consigliere to Cheney's don. Even though the threat of spending 30 years in the pokey will be a powerful incentive for Libby to cut some kind of deal that might include turning on his boss, the possibility of the additional charges of revealing classified information, particularly against Cheney, is even more powerful since, presumably, Cheney does't appear to be at risk of a truth-telling-related indictment.
Let's agree on something else right now: Libby's case will never get to trial, primarily because Bush and Cheney will never allow such a trial to become precisely the kind of exposé of the administration's motives and actions in the run-up to the war they were worried the indictments would constitute. It would be their worst nightmare to have their war machinations presented to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens in the District of Columbia (read: predominantly African Americans) who would be sitting as proxies for the families of 2,000 plus military fatalities in Iraq and the plurality of the country that opposes the war. The risk there is not just exposure to the possibility of conviction in Washington, D.C., but a subsequent prosecution in The Hague as well.
Yes, my friends, Fitz is about to grab the pine tar rag, choose another, very special, piece of lumber and step back into the on-deck circle for the home run that is sure to follow.
Contributors
Links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(896)
-
▼
October
(168)
- A Call To Action
- But I Hear We're Making "Good Progress"
- AM Feed - October 31, 2005Hot TopicsList of 4 item...
- Bob Woodward, Lost in Cronyism?
- Samuel Alito: The reaction from the right
- Bush Tosses Meat To Righties, Distracts Lefties
- Congress Weighs Big Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare ...
- For a Retainer, Lavish Care by 'Boutique Doctors' ...
- George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are f...
- It looks like extra innings....
- It looks like extra innings....
- The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-...
- Crooked, Corrupt and Contemptible
- The era of restoring honor and decency is over
- Yankees, White Sox To Meet in November Classic
- Eh, I can't remember; Um, Not Sure......( Or Here ...
- Conservative Principles in the "Real World" as Mal...
- Exxon Mobil Posts New Record for Profit
- The Criminalization of Criminals
- Bush To Nominate Next Person Who Walks Through Door
- Fw: Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Has Been Busted! - FCNL
- Re: Torture Permission to be Slipped into Law? - FCNL
- So Why Am I Not Surprised??
- Bushies feeling the boss' wrath
- The Miers Withdrawal: A Sign of Weakness
- Shipwrecked
- Genetic map that could unlock secrets of human life
- What's a Modern Girl to Do? - New York TimesThe Ne...
- American Family Voices - Miriam V.
- Plamegate: Worse than Watergate
- Bombshell: Stephen Hadley and the Niger Forgeries
- See Dick Run
- Obfuscation and Mis-Direction From the Crook-in-Chief
- Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report
- Civil Rights Pioneer Rosa Parks Dies at 92
- How Scary Is This?ByBOB HERBERTThe White House is ...
- An Unholy Alliance?
- A Call To Action
- First Powell, Now Scowcroft- The Rats Are Jumping ...
- Think Again: “Elitism? Moi?”
- Mr. Bush, This Is Pro-Life? - New York TimesThe Ne...
- Corrupt, Incompetent and 'Off Center'
- When Was the President Told?
- Who Is Scooter Libby?
- Fight Back Against the Anti-Intellectualism of Th...
- Puzzle of the penguin trek parable
- Storms: Guess who will pay 'whatever it costs'
- It's Not up to the Court
- The Innate Tempo Of Shirley Horn
- Please help start a national effort by writing a l...
- aMERICAN fAMILY vOICES - mIRIAM v.
- Why Patrick Fitzgerald Gets It
- Fitzgerald is no Ken Starr
- The Most Important Criminal Case in American History
- Let's Fast Forward to The End, OK???
- The Cheney-Rumsfeld "cabal"
- No longer the "Right Man"
- Do Over, Do Over....
- Anybody remember Cambodia in 1972?
- Complete and utter failure
- But we can cut taxes on the rich.....
- Spin, Spin, Spin......
- CIA Leak Prosecutor Focuses On Libby
- The Rage of The Machine
- Fw: [PDA] Inside/Outside Update - 10/18/05
- Prince of Darkness Under the Spotlight
- 'Rule of Law'? That's So '90s
- Free American broadband!
- Money for Nothing
- From American Family Voices - Miriam V
- After 'NY Times' Probe: Keller Must Fire Miller, a...
- The old mis-direction play...
- Buying back the Right Wing: We'll Cut Medicaid and...
- Not all the news thats fit to print
- It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby - New York TimesT...
- Schoolyard Bully Diplomacy
- Is the Terminator in Free-Fall?
- Hummers for sale- Cheap!
- Things Pfc. Lynndie England Should Wonder About in...
- I just had to repost this....
- Miers must go
- Keeping Us in the Race - New York TimesThe New Yor...
- Questions of Character - New York TimesThe New Yor...
- from the March 29, 2004 issue of The American Cons...
- More on purported letter
- from: http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com
- Those Uncomfortable Righty Whiteys
- A Contract ON America?
- Judy Miller and the neocons
- That Was a Short War on Poverty
- America supports her troops
- Doesn't Kansas mandate Intelligent Design?
- The Young Chickenhawks
- A "Dog Killing"? How politically incorrect!
- In Her Own Words - New York TimesThe New York Time...
- Fw: Save Darfur: Phone Congress Next Tuesday, Octo...
- What Iraqis Really Think About The Occupation
- Well, Duh....Bya
- Now if we could only get the rebels to cooperate.....
- Suckers!!!
-
▼
October
(168)
No comments:
Post a Comment