Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fitzgerald's Moment: He doesn't have to indict anyone
The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/31/05 | William Kristol

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


of justice willful and determined, we hope that the special prosecutor has the courage to end the inquiry without bringing indictments. It is fundamentally inappropriate to allow the criminal law to be used to resolve what is basically a policy and political dispute within the administration, or between the administration and its critics. One trusts that the special counsel will have the courage after conducting his exhaustive investigation to reject inappropriate criminal indictments if the evidence does not require them, no matter how much criticism he might then get from the liberal establishment that yearns to damage the Bush administration through the use of the criminal law.

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cialeak; kristol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: Pokey78

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.


21 posted on 10/21/2005 4:00:40 PM PDT by GWB00 (Barbara Streisand barely made it out of high school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Perjury or obstruction of justice charges in a case where there was no original crime would be another Martha-Stewart-like prosecution.

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.

22 posted on 10/21/2005 4:00:49 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Billy is just covering all the bases..... so he can say "see, I told you so".


23 posted on 10/21/2005 4:02:45 PM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: labette

I am not sure but I do not think Kerry is involved (8^)

I may be wrong


24 posted on 10/21/2005 4:04:16 PM PDT by paradoxical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Bill's dreaming.


25 posted on 10/21/2005 4:04:24 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: layman

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.


26 posted on 10/21/2005 4:04:58 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome; Maceman

Nothing to be confused about.


27 posted on 10/21/2005 4:06:46 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This fellow backed McCain and looked like he lost his best friend when President Bush prevailed. Seemingly, he believes he has extraordinary influence among "conservatives." He actually seems to have influence among the RINOS and this is what he trades on.

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.

28 posted on 10/21/2005 4:07:01 PM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

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


29 posted on 10/21/2005 4:07:56 PM PDT by billhilly (If you're lurking here from DU (Democrats unglued), I trust this post will make you sick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
It wasn't just Wilson who lied-- it was the CIA. Again, from Vanity Fair:

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."

30 posted on 10/21/2005 4:08:15 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: paradoxical
Heh heh. Not bad.
I'm a little slow, but I get it.
31 posted on 10/21/2005 4:08:18 PM PDT by labette (Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It is fundamentally inappropriate to allow the criminal law to be used to resolve what is basically a policy and political dispute within the administration, or between the administration and its critics.

Exactly.

There should be no politically based indictments.

32 posted on 10/21/2005 4:08:52 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Fitzgerald "will not make up his mind about any charges" until sometime this week

If Fitzgerald actually said that and meant that, there will be no charges. He has conducted a several months-long investigation with volumes of testimony. After all this time, if he is only a week away, and has not made up his mind, then there will be no charges.

The only possibility for charges, is new revelations within the next week that would cause him to bring charges.

My logic is: at this point he either has enough evidence to bring charges or he doesn't. If he has enough evidence, he doesn't have to wait until next week to make up his mind. He surely knows by now if Valerie Plame was a protected agent, and he surely knows by now if any testimony by Rove, Libby, Miller, etc. would yield indictments.

The flip side is to assume that he has no reason at this point to bring charges. Therefore, the only possibility would be new evidence in the next week that would cause him to make up his mind to indict.

Of course, there is a third possibility -- he has made up his mind to bring charges but isn't saying so.
33 posted on 10/21/2005 4:11:38 PM PDT by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

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


34 posted on 10/21/2005 4:13:19 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

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.


35 posted on 10/21/2005 4:14:41 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
I'm confused.

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.

36 posted on 10/21/2005 4:16:25 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......Water Buckets UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I sincerely hope there are not indictments only for the fact that this will drive Chris Matthews over the edge. Watching this guy on Hard Boiled, he has the entire White House including Lynn Cheney indicted.

I recommend that some Freepers establish a "Scooter Libby for President" website.

37 posted on 10/21/2005 4:16:54 PM PDT by GWB00 (Barbara Streisand barely made it out of high school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
he (Joe Wilson) says in his memoir, "I had risen about as high as I could in the Foreign Service and decided it was time to retire." Well, that's not exactly accurate either. He could have been given a more important posting, such as Kenya or South Africa, or he could have been promoted higher in the senior Foreign Service (he made only the first of four grades). Instead, he was evidently (according to my sources) forced into involuntary retirement at 48. (The minimum age for voluntary retirement in the Foreign Service is 50.) After that, he seems to have made quite a bit of money — doing what for whom is unclear and I wish the Senate committee had attempted to find out.

Clifford May

38 posted on 10/21/2005 4:18:10 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
LOL!

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.

39 posted on 10/21/2005 4:18:54 PM PDT by small voice in the wilderness (Behold the Riderless Pony. Bringing doom and destruction on a smaller scale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

"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.


40 posted on 10/21/2005 4:19:43 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson