<p>You could look at it that way…the burden to charge is quite high because Fitzgerald would have to determine intent and awareness…very difficult. The way I see it Fitzgerald didn’t need to because the enhancement for national security issue in the penalty phase ramps things up big time. To me that is like getting the bang w/o having to expend the bux. Just my thoughts on the Wilson part of this. There has only been one conviction under that law and it was a plea of guilt…no trial.</p>
<p>"That’s the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer’s identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.</p>
<p>And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts."</p>
<p>This from his comments during news conference.</p>
<p>Nothing to disagree with there. Libby apparently didn’t give them accurate facts, thus impeding an investigation that had national security implications. They caught him by obtaining the accurate facts. And yet, still, no law was violated until Libby, strangely, told lies that were contradicted by his own notes, and testimony from several other government and media figures. And he apparently made the whole thing up about Tim Russert. Very strange. To recap: There was nothing illegal about discussing Plame and Wilson with the VP, the CIA, the State Department. There was nothing illegal about pointing out to members of the press that Joe Wilson, who was the source for major articles in the NYT and The New Republic, was a charlatan who had been sent on the mission by the CIA at the recommendation of his wife, who worked for the agency. Otherwise, Libby would certainly have been indicted for that.</p>
<p>ASAP & Mini are on to a right notion, I think: today is only the overture of this piece. I’ll make book that other shoes drop. But the stench of how the administration manipulated information to support the war, suppressed any information to the contrary, and launched vendettas against those who threatened to upset their apple cart is going to be wafting in the wind for weeks if not months.</p>
<p>Tom Noe was indicted yesterday for the looting of the Ohio pension fund in support of illegal donations to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A pity that that indictment is lost in the noise. </p>
<p>Not only does the Fitzgerald investigation have more distance to run but the Abramhoff investigation has yet to cast the slightest ripple on the breakfast tables of most Americans…will be interesting when that breaks open.</p>
<p>O what brave new world that has such wonders in it.</p>
<p>Harvard Club…smoky scotch and lots of talk. Someone will rise to the nomination and yet have to step away from the opportunity to defend…are they gonna select their defense attorneys first? or choose the nominee? Will the defense attys be evangelicals or Jews??? It could all be a scene from SpamaLot…pathethic but comedy is a pure form. Where is the Bard when we need him?</p>
<p>Oh Hazmat, I love the image of what Shakespeare would do with this… my D, the theater/lit major, has to do a thesis next year, maybe I’ll suggest a creative thesis: the White House scandal (pick one, we’ve got lots in just the last 35 years or so) in Shakespearean style.</p>
<p>I was thinking Hamlet, “To leak or not to leak” but Judith Miller as Ophelia? Could not get past that. :(</p>
<p>Two quotes from the lead article in the NYT. Editorially, this is a very conflicted organization. </p>
<p>The second paragraph:
</p>
<p>And toward the end of the article:
The NYT and many others should listen to Mr. F.</p>
<p>He is being indicted for committing a crime. The reason he committed the crime was to cover up the white house role in outing an agent in its attempt to steer the nation into a tragic war for oil.</p>
<p>On the Shakespearean aspects of this sorry affair:</p>
<p>Judith Miller would have to be Lady MacBeth. She tries to hide what she knows but her subconscious keeps revealing inner truths like Valerie Flame appearing mysteriously in her notebook. In that case Libby would be MacBeth, a weak but ambitious man who makes some bad decisions. As for the three sisters, suggesting and instigating, oh, there are just so many candidates!</p>
<p>I also like the GWBush as Prince Hal analogies. Unfortunately for his detractors Hal eventually triumphs as Henry V.</p>
<p>
Do you want to run that one by me one more time? How does an alleged lie about an extremely peripheral event months after a war was started have anything to do with “steer[ing] the nation into a tragic war for oil” </p>
<p>If you want to address all of the lies that may have been made, why not address the assorted lies by Joe Wilson and his presumed motives for doing so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A bit of presidential trivia: what president pardoned the above mentioned party? Hint: Think in terms of the Mark Rich pardon (the same Mark Rich who a few months later was participating in the oil for greed scandal.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I win something?</p>
<p>Yes! A chance to continue playing! </p>
<p>For 10 points, what medical condition will cause Dick Cheney to unexpectedly retire?</p>
<p>I do SO love the presumption of innocence - makes 'em all twist in the wind…;)</p>
<p>Death. Not wishing it on him, but you know how it is with fire horses.</p>
<p>I liked Fitzgerald’s analogy - perjury and obstruction of justice is like throwing sand in the eyes of an umpire. The ump can’t make a call on the play (i.e. whether an underlying crime was committed), but he can make a call on the sand-throwing.</p>
<p>But the analogy breaks down in that in this case, after determining what the presumed truth was, he still wasn’t able to present probable liklihood of a primary crime having been committed.</p>
<p>When one of the elements you have to prove in the underlying crime is intent, lies told to investigators and lies told under oath can make that element more difficult to prove. That’s one reason such lies are crimes in and of themselves.</p>
<p>In any event, the decision not to charge the underlying offense may be a manifestation of reasonable prosecutorial discretion. Fitzgerald could have declined to indict for the underlying offense because it was a somewhat close call, or because he concluded he couldn’t prove that the disclosure of Plame’s identity was done with specific intent to do harm to Plame or other agency operatives.</p>
<p>Already placed my bet! Still waiting for my payoff from round one!</p>
<p>As for round 2, I think Libby will stick to his story, whatever it becomes (he got confused? didn’t recollect properly?), will not implicate anyone else, will protect Cheney best he can, will be a good soldier, will go to prison, and he will be pardoned by W at the end of his term. (Fundingfather cites a precedent!)</p>
<p>Another Yalie eh? Was he also a member of that secret society skull and crossbones or whatever the heck that was?</p>
<p>According to a Philadelphia paper, Joseph Tate (Libby’s lawyer) is a democrat. What a great sub-plot in any drama written about this.</p>