Posted on 03/23/2006 9:27:30 AM PST by Boldeagle
Scooter must--can--clear good name, here's how.
[Please excuse Freep newbie. I have tried several times to post to News/Activism. Sorry.]
No leak, no leak crime. It's as simple as that. Scooter Libby can clear his good name, as this very, very recent news shows. NOTE: He has to, because a conviction could cripple the administration and hurt the cause of good government for years to come. He can do it.
The Administration picked a real bulldog in special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. When Scooter comes out of this smelling like a rose, as this shows he probably will, no one will be able to say the fix was on. Fitzgerald is tough.
Libby will win for the simple reason that Valerie Plame-Wilson and her proximate employer, Brewster Jennings, were not secrets, not undercover. There was no leak. The intensive investigation of Libby amounts to illegal entrapment because there was no reason for such intense scrutiny. Libby was busy working the biggest national-security issues at the very top of our government, trying to protect our butts. That's why he misspoke himself in speaking to FBI agents and trying to recall minutia for the grand jury.
Some amunition has come from unexpected (and possibly unsuspecting) quarters:
1. LEFT-WING INDYMEDIA http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/38643.php article on "PLAME IS NO SECRET" and MANY NEW DETAILS ON BREWSTER-JENNINGS (previously undisclosed) PUBLISHED TUES. MAR 7.
2. BREWSTER-JENNINGS = BURKE DENNEHY (PLAME'S EMPLOYER) Brewster Jennings apparently was the name of an account at this accounting company in Boston. It may well have been a CIA account, but people associated with it did not consider it to be a secret.
3. ROBERT ELLMANN, JEAN C. EDWARDS named as BREWSTER EMPLOYEES (first since Plame). THEY PUT THEIR RESUMES ON THE WEB. http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/38643.php MARCH 7 What has Libby or anyone else done that compares to that?
4. MARCH 12: CHICAGO TRIBUNE PICKS UP ON ABOVE (1, 3) FIVE DAYS LATER. Another sign of Brewster-Jennings' link to the CIA came from the online résumé of a Washington attorney, who until last week claimed to have been employed by Brewster-Jennings as an "engineering consultant" from 1985 to 1989 and to have served from 1989 to 1995 as a CIA "case officer," the agency's term for field operatives who collect information from paid informants. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060311plame-story,1,2504459.story?coll=chi-news-hed (MARCH 12)
5. TRIBUNE SAYS BREWSTER REMOVED FROM RESUMES AFTER TRIB CALLED EDWARDS. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060311plame-story,1,2504459.story?coll=chi-news-hed
6. LEFT-WING CRAPTOME http://cryptome.org/robert-ellmann.htm PUBLISHES ORIGINAL RESUMES. YES, THE CIA RESUMES ARE HERE TO SEE (Friday, March 17, 2006) and the Indymedia article pans out.
This could be critical for Scooter. It shows he was entrapped so he could be removed from office.
No leak, no crime. Entrapment, no time. Other likely defenses include Scooter's preoccupation with the people's business, also the difficulty of trying a case in which the CIA blocks the discovery of evidence by the defense (some things like the Presidents Daily Briefs really must be kept secret; other things are blocked by Scooter's enemies in the CIA using "classified information" as a ploy).
Scooter is not on trial for leaking the name, he is on trial for lying about it.
If he did or did not lie is the issue not the leak itself.
Your argument would be true if Libby were charged with leaking information.
I agree, but there is a good point here we should not lose sight of.
The government, knowing or having reason to know that no crime has been committed (i.e., the lack of covert status of Plame), cannot go around taking statements under oath and then prosecute people for a slip up.
If you disagree, then what would stop the gov't from appearing at your door tomorrow and questioning you in detail under oath, hoping to catch you in some error?
Tell it to Marhta Stewert who was never charged with insider trading, but spent some federal time for lying to the FTC during their insider trading investigation.
It does seem that the govt is lacking "probable cause" here.
Both the Stewart and Libby cases are sham show trials. Such cases are rarely prosecuted unless they can provide publicity for prosecutors.
I think that the difference with Martha Stewart was that the government had probable cause to investigate whether there WAS insider trading, given the timing of her sales.
Here, Fitzgerald could easily have determined at the outset whether Plame was covert or not. No covert status, no reason to continue the investigation. What am I missing?
I agree. Throw in Tom DeLay's trial down in Texas for a hat trick.
That's right, I forgot about that. Martha was charged with lying about a crime she did not commit. Same thing applies here........good comparison
Another "analogy." Bill Clinton anyone - he lied though he wasn't chared with the crime that was originally investigated.
Doesn't the left go crazy about Clinton being impeached for lying during an investigation that "cleared" him? So now they're doing the same thing? Sure one is about something personal - sexual harrassment, abuse of power, a president possessing illegal contraband and using it on an intern, and this is about a man refuting 3 news reports suggesting Wilson was sent at Cheney's request, but isn't this, again, do as I say, not as I do?
I agree. Government investigators, not just the FBI, could appear at your door any day and question you about a noncrime, and if you talk long enough, find some inconsistency or error of fact.
Then, with so many law books full of laws, a zealous prosecutor could go over almost anyone's record and find some law they violated at least technically.
Finally, there is the grand jury. Grand juries will indict for very light cause sometimes, if a prosecutor is foolish enough to go for it.
With no crime and limited evidence (limited by secrecy needs), it will be hard for Mr. Fitzgerald to get a conciction.
A jury of 12 unprejudiced peers is not likely to find Mr. Libby guilty for misspeaking himself under pressure in this case.
This could turn out to be more interesting than the O.J. Simpson trial. Too bad Johnny Cochrane is not around to see it.
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.