Posted on 10/21/2005 3:37:45 PM PDT by Pokey78
AS I WRITE, ON Friday afternoon October 21, no one outside special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's office--and perhaps not even Fitzgerald himself--knows what, if any, charges he'll ultimately bring in the Valerie Plame leak inquiry. Public understanding of the events in question--the disclosure of Plame's identity as a CIA operative, and any possible perjury or obstruction of justice that might have ensued--remains radically incomplete.
So let us stipulate this: If someone knowingly made public the identity of a covert CIA operative and compromised her status, whether to maliciously damage her career, to punish her husband, or to deter criticism of the White House--if, in other words, someone violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982--that person deserves to be fired and prosecuted. If individuals purposefully lied to a grand jury or engaged in a knowing conspiracy to cover up the truth, those persons deserve to be fired and prosecuted. Fitzgerald's investigation may well have uncovered crimes like these.
But it may not have, too. Press reports suggest that Fitzgerald is unlikely to bring charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the original act whose possible violation he was charged with investigating. Based on what we know, and absent startling revelations, it would seem to be a huge prosecutorial overreach to bring charges under the 1917 Espionage Act. So we are presumably left with possible instances of perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements to the FBI or the grand jury.
And here is the point: Unless the perjury is clear-cut or the obstruction
And I will go out on a limb to say this, based on the very limited information one can glean from press accounts: It seems to me quite possible--dare I say probable?--that no indictments would be the just and appropriate resolution to this inquiry.
I say this knowing that administration officials may have engaged in behavior that is not altogether admirable. I say this knowing that legions of Clinton defenders will complain that conservatives were happy to support the impeachment of a president for lying under oath seven years ago. My response to the second charge is that if anyone lied under oath the way Bill Clinton did--knowingly and purposefully in order to thwart a legitimate legal process, or if anyone engaged in an obstruction of justice, the way Bill Clinton did, then indictments would be proper. What is more, the Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary--and successful--political campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation. And as for the first point, many people in government and politics engage in behavior that is less than admirable. That said, defending one's bosses against criticism, and debunking their attackers, is not a criminal conspiracy. Spin is not perjury. Political hardball is not a felony.
The New York Times reported on Friday that sources say Fitzgerald "will not make up his mind about any charges" until sometime this week, the final week of grand jury proceedings. We trust that Fitzgerald, who has an impressive record as a prosecutor, will call it as he sees it. A large part of any prosecutor's duty--especially that of a special counsel--is to have the courage and judgment to refrain from bringing charges when such charges would be inappropriate. With all of Washington abuzz this weekend over possible indictments of major Bush administration figures, but with the apparent grounds for those indictments seeming so shaky, we wonder if Fitzgerald might wind up surprising us all, including many at the White House: Maybe he will simply end his inquiry, having concluded that--whatever else may be said about the actions and motives of different figures in this long, unpleasant, and tortuous saga--no crimes were committed and no criminal indictments should be brought.
--William Kristol
I will never forget last year William Kristol was on Britt Humes show with his "Fox All Stars" and Kristol all but conceded the Presidential election to John Kerry.
IOW, a process crime, a gotcha crime involving a couple of people who testified numerous times before the grand jury and may have contradicted or misspoke a time or two.
Prosecutors seem obsessed with finding something when they really ought focus on the real crooks.
Billy is just covering all the bases..... so he can say "see, I told you so".
I am not sure but I do not think Kerry is involved (8^)
I may be wrong
Bill's dreaming.
Everyone goes on about the "two friggin' years," but we can't lay the blame for that at Fitzgerald's feet.
Remember, the NYT and Newsweek litigated the issue of reporters' privilege all the way up to the Supreme Court, consuming months of time, and Judy Miller further delayed things by sitting in jail for another three months writing the manuscript for her next book, "Dingbat on Ice."
The press has reported that Fitzgerald essentially had this wrapped up many months ago but for Miller's testimony and whatever might result from that.
Nothing to be confused about.
Like Frum, Brooks, Rich, Krauthammer, Krystol he also has been eager to trash Harriet Miers. Note that those listed have something else in common but one needs to note that Buchanan and the Powerline people also have a manifest dislike of Harriet Miers as well . Of course there are many others including Evangelicals who feel similarly. What seems to need resolution is who is the President and what his responsiblities are and to whom.
If the responsibility for governance is confined to elite pundits within the Beltway, then they should surely determine SCOTUS nominees. If not, then the President has this responsibility.
I hope the President holds fast. The easiest and most complete resolution of this conflict is the ballot box. Republican Senators that vote her down will be submitted to the electorate. In the last Presidential election 22% of the voters indicated moral values were the basis of their vote. If the RINOS and others believe in their cause they will vote Harriet down and we can decide on them at a later date.
FWIW Harriet Miers has a proven track record of dutiful service, successful efforts as a lawyer and a lifestyle of the highest character. If she is really so stupid she cannot serve on the Supreme Court, then I and many others are too stupid to vote for those Senators who believe so.
Special Counsels are often instruments of politics. It is an indisputable fact. It does take courage to resist the press pack and the opposition party, in this case, the Democrats.
In a sidebar to the Whitewater affair, the Clinton's caused an investigation to be launched by the Justice Department, which appointed a special investigative office, headed by a retired justice department official named Shaheen. The targets of the Shaheen investigation were enemies of the Clintons, and the reasons for the investigation were of the shakiest sort. Nonetheless, several of the intended victims(myself included) were paraded before a grand jury in Fort Smith, Arkansas, investigated by the Justice Department, IRS, FBI. A special three judge panel was created to oversee the investigation. After more than a year, and to his credit, Mr. Shaheen ended his investigation without a single indictment.
It had been transparent to the grand Jury that the entire affair was a political effort to silence critics of the Clinton administration. The press contributed many supporters of the Clintons, to, in effect, falsely imprison those being investigated by the special investigative office of
Phelps and Royce [of the July 22,2003 Newsday story] also cited a "senior intelligence official" who said that Plame did not recommend her husband for the Niger job, adding, "There are people elsewhere in the government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason. I can't figure out what it could be. We paid his (Wilson's) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there."
Exactly.
There should be no politically based indictments.
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.
For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)
snip
As Susan Schmidt reported back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."
The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"
The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."
Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link his information actually created additional suspicion.
snip
Schmidt adds that the Senate panel was alarmed to find that the CIA never "fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin."
Clifford May
Here is how the scenario will play out.
1. Fiztbaby comes back and indicts... Sandy Berger
2. The same day, the DeLay case is dropped and Ronnie Earle is brought up on charges.
3. Someone mentions Chappaquiddick on Saturday Night Live.
4. George Soros is found dead in his own bed with a male chicken next to him.
Very simple. Kristol is finding out the "22 indictments" smear job is not reality and he is busy trying to cover both sides to protect his credibility. Too Late Bill. We watched you sell out to the Dinosaurs.
I recommend that some Freepers establish a "Scooter Libby for President" website.
Clifford May
5. Rove quietly turns off his weather machine, walks over to the crackling fire, stirs the embers reflectively, then sits down in his armchair to re-read the only book he ever authored: How To Build A Monster.
"But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there."
Meaning the CIA had no agent it could send to Niger except someone's husband. And his investigation was spending time at the hotel pool talking to people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.