All right, I’ll try to explain this, and note, it has nothing to do with Scooter Libby.
A number of members of the administration committed a very serious crime – namely, leaking Plame’s CIA status. Had the guilty members been prosecuted, the administration would be hurting pretty badly. As it was, Libby took the bullet; he committed perjury for the sake of his associates and his boss, got prosecuted for it, and was convicted.
If you’re Cheney*, then a member of your staff is going to jail for covering for a crime that you authorized. Of course, you’re not about to commit hari-kiri, but you can probably see that it is unfair (albeit not unjust.) Hence, you push to have his punishment minimized, even when it makes you look a bit worse.
If you’re Bush*, then, as the head of the executive branch (and thus the penitentiary system), you are in a position where you will punish someone for helping you, and again, for covering for a crime that you personally authorized. You have the legal ability to avoid your job as spanker-in-chief; it is only decent to take it.
That said, I really would have liked to see Libby go to jail. I just have a hard time blaming President Bush for commuting Libby’s sentence. It’s enough to blame him for the original crime.
*I do not intend to suggest that any Doper present is either Bush or Cheney. That would, after all, be a mortal offense, n’est-ce pas?
This makes no sense. If the perjurious statement had gone unquestioned, then the administration would have gone off scot-free, eh? Wouldn’t that logically lead us to conclude that having found the statement to be perjury, we have likewise found the evidence to charge the administration?
If perjury was committed, I agree a serious crime occurred. But that doesn’t mean that this ongoing nonsense about treason and criminal leaks should go unchallenged. No one was charged with an illegal leak or with treason or with outing a covert agent, and it makes no sense to me to assert that this charge would have occurred if not for the perjury–not when perjury was proven.
It’s the idea of the sacrificial lamb – the public (and investigators) would be happy with one high-ranking official. You would have a point –it does seem like a silly idea – but it’s precisely what happened. Remember, to prove that Libby was committing perjury, one has to prove that he was lying; hence, that certain high-up members of the administration leaked Plame’s identity (with the president’s authorization, according to Wiki.) And I didn’t bring up treason. Anyway, I’m pretty sure your line of argument is what’s happening in the other thread (which I’m avoiding.)
And having proven that he lied thusly, what charges have we brought against any other member of the adminstration? After all, the cover-up has been revealed, the lies demonstrated. Or is the “sacrificial lamb” argument essentially, “My spider-sense tells me the adminstration is dirty, so this guy has to go down even if the charge does not logically lead us to prove the corruptness we all know in our bones exists (again, via spider-sense).”
I believe that Prosecutor Fitzxgerald said that Libby’s obfuscation, perjury and obstruction screwed up the investigation so that charges couldn’t be brought against anyone else. He went on to say there was a"cloud over the vice president."
Yes, he said that. He said a lot of things. But that’s different than actually presenting facts that support such a contention. Fitzgerald was appealing to a jury that wanted to believe the administration was guilty, and Fitzgerald’s rhetoric was intended to help sway them by appealing to that inclination. That doesn’t mean he didn’t make his case regarding perjury. But he absolutely did not make a case that there was a smoking gun behind the perjury. In fact, again, he didn’t even charge anyone else. He didn’t even charge Libby with what he was originally investigating.
I’ll repeat, if this perjury was the obfuscation that prevented the truth from emerging, what do we do now that the perjury has been established as such by a jury? Now that Fitzgerald has cleared away the fog by proving what was a lie, when will we see the charges made?
Same difference. Libby’s actions and statements were deemed to have been intended to impede the investigation into the charges. The nature of those actions and statements were laid bare, at least as far as the jury was concerned. Now that we know what he did by way of obstruction, when will we see the cogs of justice start turning again? Nothing stopping us now, right?
This perjury still prevents the truth from emerging. Scooter Libby was asked questions, under oath, about his role in exposing Valerie Plame as a covert agent. He answered those questions. It was shown that he knowingly lied about some material facts while giving those answers. That’s perjury and obstruction, but it doesn’t establish all the facts of the underlying investigation.
If Libby had told the truth, as the law requires, the investigators would know if a crime had been committed, and by whom. Libby lied, and so they don’t know.
No, I don’t think so. According to the jury, Libby lied about how he learned about certain pieces of information, dates he told others, and other such details. The jury determined that he lied–in this instance, determining the real way he learned of information, the dates he relayed said info, etc. That’s the nature of perjury charges. To prove you’re lying, I have to show what it “true.”
Seriously, go back to the statements that amounted to perjury (as far as the jury was concerned). He was convicted of certain specific falsehoods–four, in fact. For example, the jury did not believe he did not recall how he learned of Plame’s identity. He was NOT convicted of failing to provide the evidence that would throw George Bush in jail, as much as many would have loved it if he did.
I live in Boston. One day, the police show up to arrest me for a murder that occured in California. During the investigation, I testify under oath that I’ve never been to California. The prosecutors start looking into the matter, as prosecutors do, and they find security camera footage of me at the Los Angeles airport two days before the murder took place.
I’d say they’ve got a pretty good case for perjury, but they’re a few steps short of proving that I killed anyone.
Fitzgerald is saying the same thing about the Plame investigation. They know enough of the facts to prove that Scooter Libby was lying, but that doesn’t mean they know all of them.
No, to prove you’re lying, I have to show that you’re lying.
If Scooter said “I got an email from Joe Schmoe on the 15th”, and Joe says he never sent anything on the 15th, since he was in a coma at the time, I know Scooter is lying even if I don’t know the true source of the email.
Who’s disputing that? Only Scooter knows what he knows. And there may be other facts related to the administration’s actions that even Scooter doesn’t know. But to use your example, the only thing we could reasonably conclude is that you lied about being in California. If an editorial appears stating that your false testimony is evidence that you’re protecting the real murderer, who happens to be Vice President of the U.S., I’ll obstinately insist that the prosecutor actually present some facts to support that.
Well, there’s the fact that Republicans are in charge of the Justice Department, and we all know that Alberto won’t even scratch his ass without a go ahead from Cheney and Rove. Heck, with his memory problems, Gonzo probably can’t even find his own ass without help from GOP bigwigs.
No, you have established what is true–that Scooter did not receive an e-mail from Joe Schmoe on the 15th. Now that you know that, what can you conclude from it, without the aid of your spider-sense?
Pick a time frame you’re interested in, and stick with it. Switching from the future to the past like that in an attempt to score points just makes you look like a moron.
Fitzgerald was appointed by Comey in 2003. Gonzo had nothing to do with it.
Regarding the future, which is what you originally asked about. These things take time.
I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that Rep. John Conyers has scheduled hearings next week on the Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power. This is likely just the start, and other committees will also take up their oversight duties; maybe even prod Justice to take care of its responsibilities in the Plame case.
