A jury of his peers has found Scooter Libby guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, ending – for now, anyway – a bizarre legal chapter. After all, the charge of a political appointee knowingly outing an undercover federal operative – and the reason why a Special Prosecutor was empowered – ended up not applying to either to the leak itself or the leaker in question. Indeed, the original source of the Plame leak was known almost from the very beginning not to be anyone in the White House, but rather an apolitical staffer at State.
Libby’s best defense was that he had no motive to lie, there being no underlying offense for which to cover up. Unfortunately for his defense, the prosecution didn’t have to prove motive, and in any case, his grand jury testimony could not be reconciled with the written notes and recollections of others peripheral to the “scandal.”
From what I’ve read about the case it seems clear to me that Libby did lie, even though he didn’t have to, with the implication being either 1) He wasn’t sure he hadn’t committed a crime, or 2) He knew he didn’t but chose to cover it up for political reasons. In either case, by lying he rather stupidly committed felony perjury and ought to be punished for it. Shalt not bear false witness, and all that – you can scarcely run a proper legal system if there are no consequences when witnesses lie under oath.
But according to the WaPo:
A federal jury today convicted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby of lying about his role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer’s identity, finding the vice president’s former chief of staff guilty of two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice, while acquitting him of a single count of lying to the FBI.
The verdict, reached by the 11 jurors on the 10th day of deliberations, culminated the seven-week trial of the highest-ranking White House official to be indicted on criminal charges in modern times.
Which is an interesting “first draft of history” on this, because I distinctly recollect the case of an even higher ranking White House official that was indicted – actually, it was a different term with an identical meaning – for lying to a grand jury to cover up something that probably wasn’t a crime. Maybe by “modern times” the Post means the 21st century?
I assume those who are braying most loudly over this victory for “truthiness” in federal jurisprudence are no doubt still desolate that the previous case ended so differently. I hope they can console themselves with half a loaf.
Poor things.
Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, also the US Attorney here in Chicago, had a good quote in the Chi Tribune, “…the results are actually sad,” Fitzgerald said. “It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did.”
It’s unfortunate that it came to this. Had Libby not lied and obstructed justice, Fitzgerald would’ve packed up the investigation and gone back to Chicago.
Rove, Fleischer and Armitage all spoke to reporters about Plame, and regardless of who said it first, they gave truthful (or at least consistent) stories to the FBI and the Grand Jury. Libby chose not to. Why? Who knows, and we may never know.
Fitzgerald knew immediately that there was no crime in the actual leak. He asked for and got clarification to widen the scope of his investigation from the then Acting Attorney General James Comey with this letter dated 06FEB04 – (hopefully the link works)
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf
Also, from the last part of your WaPo quote, I wonder if they mean indicted in a criminal court. Didn’t Starr present his report directly to the House o’ Rep.?
I thought it was a factually weak case, but I may have been blinded by bias. Fitzgerald apparently argued facts not in evidence during his rebuttal and was admonished for it by the trial judge. Whether the judges remarks were a legally sufficient curative is, I think, for the appeals court. The conviction seemed to turn on the testimony of Tim Russert. The judge issued several rulings limiting the scope of the defenses attempts to impeach his credibilty. All those are ripe for appeal also, I think. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
How come Scooter was found guilty of lying to the feds when Billy Clinton wasn’t (and he lied on national TV) found guilty?
“I never boffed that woman Moniker Linsky!” I seen him lie!
A travesty. They’re coming for YOU next!
b2
Clinton lied under oath, among other things, and that’s what he was impeached for by the House. The Senate decided not to remove him from office.
Why quibble about indictments vs. impeachments? Is an assistant to the V.P. really higher ranking than Ehrlichman and Haldeman were?
Or Agnew?
I think the WaPo is *really* splitting hairs on that statement, but now I’m curious about it. If memory serves me (and I was 7 at the time!) did Agnew resign because he was about to be indicted? Did they offer him a choice say, “resign or face indictment?” Correct me if I’m wrong. Was it tax evasion or something?
And I bet of one were to ask Ehrlichman and Haldeman if they were higher-ranking than an Asst to the VP, they’d probably say yes.
In response to #2 above, any chance Fitzgerald did this on purpose hoping any conviction will be overturned on appeal? That would allow Fitz to say he did the best he could but was overturned on appeal. I am not a lawyer but his actions were a bit amateurish for a seasoned prosecutor. Thoughts from any JAGS out there?
I don’t know anything about Fitzgerald and wouldn’t hazard a guess as to his motivations or anything else. I thought the actual case as presented was, to use your word, ‘amateurish.’ But he got convictions on four out of five counts….
If memory serves:
indictment : impeachment :: grand jury : house
conviction : conviction :: jury : senate
With the indictment of impeachment serving to pass the case along to a trial, which then determines guilty or not guilty.
All the reporting I’ve seen seems to get this all kind of jumbled up, including the WaPo quote above.
Shipmates,
Agnew was, I believe, indicted on Tax Evasion charges…. he resigned his office as VP, and I believe he received a pardon, although I would ask not to be quoted on that…
Respects,
Anarcho-Tyranny.
Actual serious evil perjury by policemen occurs every day in every court in the nation, I betcha, and when said cops are (rarely) called to account for it, they are generally let off with a warning. The recent Kathryn Johnston case in Atlanta is an aberration, in that the cops involved were actually called to account and held to answer.
That somebody as high-up as Scooter got as far as a trial, let alone convicted, implies to me that he has some serious important enemies who have more blackmail data on him than he has on them
Given that the WaPo was one of the “elite” news organs (read that as you will…) that hyped the Plame story the loudest, and with the most transparent motives, what credible defense team allows a journalist that has worked at the WaPo and the equally reprehensible San Jose Mercury News sit on the jury??
This guy, with his interviews and professed goal to make some lucre off of his jury experience, is a walking, talking plea for an overturn by the appeals court.
jpr,
re-”…impeached for by the House”
No S.. Sherlock, but Billy-Boy doesn’t have a felony on his record tis’all!
Oh yeah, I forgot, he was just lying about a B.J. though..just a little ol’B.J. ! Right? Tell that to Martha Stewart.
With all the money Mr. Fitzgerald (I hate to see a fellow Celt being a tool…) spent the Army could have rehabbed Walter Reed. Puts it ALL in perspective for all legal geniuses (oxymoron?)..
Sure I’m just being cynical, but ain’t I entitled to be? A little?
b2
b2,
Sure you can be cynical. We all are to some extent. I’m not defending Clinton, what he did was stupid and in a lot of ways he deserved what he got. Being one of only two presidents impeached in our history is a pretty dubious distinction.
As for Clinton, Libby and Martha, maybe they thought they could talk their way out of it and/or wouldn’t be prosecuted for it, and now they have to live with the outcome. And we as taxpayers foot the bill.
But I also can’t imagine what they must’ve gone through or anyone else who gets hauled in before the FBI and a grand jury. I hope I’m never put in that kind of position.
Well, I’ll tell you what lesson those who will get hauled in will take from this – practice saying “I don’t remember” a lot. Not particularly good for the justice system, but they can’t send you to jail for having a faulty memory.
Repeat after me:
“I don’t remember” and “How do you define [insert whatever term may be appropriate]?”
- signed Legal Genius
Consider yourselves lucky, for anyone else……..I would bill for that!
Ah, Lex, I believe the correct locution is “I can’t recall.” That’s what my Mom said that the cop said when she was on a jury when I was a kid.
That jury voted quickly and unanimously to acquit.
I believe that Hillary G*ddamn Clinton is reliably reported to have been recorded saying while testifying under oath more than a dozen times,
“I can’t recall.”
P. S. “Tell the Truth or Say NUTHIN’!” is generally a good rule, I believe.