Libby Verdict & Adminstration’s Clumsy Handling of Wilson’s Lies
Today, many on the left will be gloating that Vice President Cheney’s “former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak investigation.” Some on the left — and in the media — will contend that this convictions is proof that Bush Administration officials lied. While others will hope it leads to the imminent indictment of impeachment of the Vice President. But, the prosecutor, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said he doesn’t “expect to file any further charges.”
Please recall that Libby was convicted not for “outing” a cover CIA agent, but for misleading the grand jury investigating the leak and lying under oath. He was not convicted for lying in making the case for the Iraq War. And as David Frum points out, he wasn’t even the man who “actually did the leaking.”
One thing which Fitzgerald’s investigation did reveal was the clumsy manner in which the White House reacted to Joe Wilson’s accusations. In comments to the news media in the summer of 2003, that Democrat claimed that President Bush lied in his State of the Union address when he said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” While the British government stands by its statement, the Administration later stepped back from it, showing in Mark Steyn’s words, “an astonishing political ineptness, and in effect legitimized Wilson’s core grievance.“
Instead of stepping back from this statement, the White House could have made clear that the statement remains true as the British government continues to believe that the one-time Iraqi dictator had indeed sought large quantities of uranium from Africa. And should have answered Wilson’s claims by noting that no one in the White House had ever seen Wilson’s report, challenging him to produce it. You see, Wilson made no written report about his trip to the African nation of Niger, instead having delivered an oral report to CIA officials.
And unlike him, those officials thought his report confirmed, rather than denied, the President’s statement:
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki “interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.” In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that “for most analysts” Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”
Had Administration officials simply pointed out the facts, rather than working behind the scenes to discredit Wilson, it likely would have been spared the embarrassment of this investigation — and this verdict.
The Libby verdict is clearly a set back for the Administration, but there are enough questions about the trial that could lead to its being overturned on appeal.
One wonders why Fitzgerald pursued the investigation given that the Justice Department knew, even before his appointment that it was then-deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage who “had told Bob Novak about Mrs Wilson.”
While the left will gloat about Libby’s conviction, at the worst, it shows that the Vice President’s chief of staff lied to federal investigators. And while they may spin his deceptions as being part of some larger conspiracy, they have no evidence to justify such claim.
The Bush Administration has clearly not misled the American people. But, this conviction reminds us — of the clumsy manner in which officials responded to Wilson’s deceptive criticism — and to the investigation of the alleged leak.
42 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dan, you made these points, but I think they bear summarizing for the slow kids:
(1) Richard Armitage – an Iraq war OPPONENT in the State Department – was “the leaker” of Valerie Plame’s name to the press.
(2) Richard Armitage has not been charged with violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act – and, as has now been announced, never will be.
Why? Because there was no IIPA violation. (Plame wasn’t undercover.)
(3) Joe Wilson LIED to the American people about the contents of his report (which, as you point, buttressed the case against Saddam at the time it was made). And so began a colossal waste of everyone’s time.
As for whether Libby is just another Martha Stewart figure, who got scared and lied when s/he really had nothing to hide… well, the jury thought so. I can’t say if they were right, or not.
Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2007 @ 8:15 pm - March 6, 2007
Thank you for a concise, understandable and coherent summation of this overlong, tax-wasting circus.
Clumsy, indeed! Just voice the truth, and their lies are deflated!
Comment by Karridine — March 6, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - March 6, 2007
“The Bush Administration has clearly not misled the American people”
I don’t think it is that clear. If I remember correctly his spokesperson was caught in a lie, Libby’s own defense was he was made a scapegoat for Rove and Libby, who was in the Bush Admin, was just convicted of Lying…so…no its not so clear.
Comment by keogh — March 6, 2007 @ 11:23 pm - March 6, 2007
Scooter did not get “scared” into lying – he had plenty of time and resources to determine his proper course of action. So why after all that did he commit perjury and obstruction of justice? The only reasonable explanation is he felt obligated to protect the person who originally provided him with Plame’s name and the marching orders to disseminate that information: Dick Cheney. No doubt, it was made clear to him that he would be given a pardon if things went downhill. And that’s exactly what will happen.
Comment by Ian — March 6, 2007 @ 11:40 pm - March 6, 2007
[This comment has been removed because the commenter has repeatedly violated the terms of community conduct under a variety of other names.]
Comment by Removing Posts Yet Again — March 6, 2007 @ 11:58 pm - March 6, 2007
Better questions:
Why didn’t Fitz-fong stop the “investigation” on day 1 when he knew who “outed” Plame and that she was not covert?
Why hasn’t Joe Wilson taken the stand for lying?
Why won’t Chris Matthews and the likes of Ian, Turn-your-head-and-keogh not be held responsible for lying?
Fitz-fong wasted how many years and how many dollars?
Just imagine what could have been done if that money had gone to something useful like education.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 7, 2007 @ 12:58 am - March 7, 2007
The Federal Budget is so huge I find arguments of “if that money was used for” hollow… well.. the Federal govt shouldnt be spending money on education, so i would prefer that instead of the money being spent that it had not been taxed in the first place.
Comment by Vince P — March 7, 2007 @ 1:07 am - March 7, 2007
Actually, based on the comments by the jury members (one of whom was a Washington Post reporter) it was Karl Rove and Dick Cheney who were on trial. Their comments during their deliberations asked..”where is Rove…where is Cheney?” This tells me Libby was nailed from Day 1. As for Fitzgerald, it was a witch hunt and he settled for Libby since he had great witnesses who had spoken with him among them the stalwart of the liberal media, Tim Russert. Who, on that liberal jury could not believe Russert?
Bush will grant a pardon….in due time as he should.
Comment by benj — March 7, 2007 @ 6:43 am - March 7, 2007
Ian writes at #4 “So why after all that did he commit perjury and obstruction of justice?”
Many, many Democrats asked the exact question of SlickWilly —-who was ultimately impeached, in case your forgot Ian.
And I love the MSM libs and Democrats like HarrygReid and ChuckieS talking about “the highest govt official ever found guilty” of obstruction of justice… bypassing SlickWilly’s perjury. What a short, short memory from barnyard chickens clucking and pecking in the dirt.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 7, 2007 @ 8:28 am - March 7, 2007
can you say convicted felon or corrupt republicans again???
Comment by markie — March 7, 2007 @ 9:17 am - March 7, 2007
#8:
You are really obsessed with the Clenis aren’t you?!!!
and acquitted in the Senate, in case you forgot, Matt. Now Libby will get a pardon, the only question being when that will occur. I don’t think Bush has the balls to pardon him prior to the 2008 election but I’d love to see him do so. Meanwhile, we have another juicy Bushco scandal starting: the firing of federal prosecutors and the lying about that. They lie about everything! With the involvement of crooked Domenici, it looks like another good potential Senate pickup for the Dems looming in New Mexico.
Comment by Ian — March 7, 2007 @ 9:23 am - March 7, 2007
Well, when it comes to lying, nobody beats the Dhimmicrats at their own game.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 7, 2007 @ 10:44 am - March 7, 2007
Heya Ian, no obsession here with superSlickStaysWetClinton… just gaining a bit of perspective… something you often lack.
So, I guess when you aren’t cheering on the deaths of our troops in Iraq, you’re keen to cheer on anything bad about the Bush Administration? You are such a tool of the GayLeftBorg!
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 7, 2007 @ 11:03 am - March 7, 2007
Calarato, I honestly don’t know what to believe about this whole affair. My guess is that there was something that was a tad illegal, or embarassing, that didn’t warrant the press that it got. If there was nothing to hide, as you suggest, why on Earth wouldn’t Dick Cheney go to Libby before he was questioned and say to him to absolutely, positively not to perjure himself, and risk going to prison over nothing. It just flies in the face of rationality. But this is Washington and anything is possible. Including people lying over nothing.
Comment by Pat — March 7, 2007 @ 11:15 am - March 7, 2007
#12:
Pat, this is not a case of a “scared” Scooter hastily lying about something he hadn’t had a chance to look into as to its potential legal consequences. He – and the others involved – had literally months to establish how consequential or inconsequential leaking Plame’s name was. Conservatives like Sullivan get it that this was a protective action against early disclosure of the concocted WMDs rationale for the attack on Iraq. He’s right: Congress needs to investigate and if Cheney won’t cooperate, he should be impeached.
Comment by Ian — March 7, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - March 7, 2007
#12:
This is downright silly not to mention illogical. If I really cheered the deaths of our troops in Iraq, I’d be clamoring for more of them to go over there as well as an endless commitment to them staying there. Instead, I want them out as soon as possible. It’s the wargasmics like yourself who thrill to the death and destruction over there and are so desperate to prolong it. Quit projecting.
Comment by Ian — March 7, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - March 7, 2007
Ian, no projections either. Sorry, you’re now 0:3 this morning. You’ve often taken near glee in bad news affecting American resolve over the WOT-Iraq and encouraged our enemies to win… the consequence of those partisan positions for political profit is to put our troops at risk because you embolden their enemies. Of course you’d be against the surge… because it’s working –as pointed out in many threads here.
I get it that you’re part of the Democrat antiwar movement because it brings political hardship on Bush, Cheney et al (I think you use the DailyKos whacked-out GayLeftBorg “BushCo” term or do I have you confused for another BorgType?) but it also puts our troops at greater risk for the reasons noted above.
You should quit while you’re behind at 0:3, Ian.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 7, 2007 @ 1:38 pm - March 7, 2007
And Ian “… Conservatives like Sullivan”? Put down the Kool Aid pal… or we can begin writing about Democrats like Fred Phelps and CindyZeroSheehan.
AndieSullivan is about as conservative (on anything including personal morals) as TeddieK is truthful. Give the petty digs a break if you want to engage in rational dialogue.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 7, 2007 @ 1:41 pm - March 7, 2007
#17 – But Matt, he plainly doesn’t.
Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2007 @ 3:10 pm - March 7, 2007
As reported by the WSJ:
Lefties: Will you admit now, that when the President himself lied-under-oath (Clinton) – it WAS a VERY big deal?
Libby was only a staff guy… not a Constitutional officer.
Pat said:
Who’s to say Cheney didn’t? But surely, Pat, the political Left would call that “witness tampering”. I’m not certain such an act of advice could be proper in the middle of a legal investigation, however correct and noble its content.
People do hide and lie over nothing – e.g., Martha Stewart. However irrationally. Fitzgerald, by his own admission, wanted to make a point about it – as did her prosecutors. Juries agreed, both times. End of story.
Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2007 @ 5:01 pm - March 7, 2007
“The Bush Administration has clearly not misled the American people. But, this conviction reminds us — of the clumsy manner in which officials responded to Wilson’s deceptive criticism — and to the investigation of the alleged leak.”…… umm,errrrrr, doh, oh really. nice to know that you you aren’t guilty of being misled.
Comment by markie — March 7, 2007 @ 8:10 pm - March 7, 2007
#16
Instead, I want them out as soon as possible.
Even better. They can be slaughtered at home with their families as the United Caliphate of America is established. Any douchebag liberals who survive will naturally blame Bush.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 8, 2007 @ 2:19 am - March 8, 2007
If I joined the military since 9/11, I’d be spitting mad at people like Ian who projects his own unwillingness to fight onto the commitment I made. if I had joined the military I really doubt that I signed up to do nothing but busy work on Democrats pet domestic slave labor projects.
Comment by Vince P — March 8, 2007 @ 2:28 am - March 8, 2007
The fact that a juror on the Libby trial already published a 10,000 (rounded figure) word article about the experience on Huffinton Bloat and that he’s involved in some politics somewhat in the past makes me suspect the soundness of the trial.
Of course that isn’t the only thing but right now is the most signfiicant.
Its like the lefties staged a guy in the jury to make sure things were Gorelicked.
Comment by Vince P — March 8, 2007 @ 2:31 am - March 8, 2007
Its like the lefties staged a guy in the jury to make sure things were Gorelicked.
Try 11 plus one “Special” prosecutor.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 8, 2007 @ 6:17 am - March 8, 2007
20, Calarato, as Ian stated, there was plenty of time before he testified. It seems to me that the standard order of procedure is for people to tell their staff to cooperate fully, and more importantly, tell the truth. As long as there are no winks, or secret meetings afterwards, then I think the message would be clear, and no witness tampering. If Libby still wasn’t sure, he could have asked Cheney privately, and Cheney could have emphatically restated about being truthful. It just doesn’t make sense that Libby would lie over nothing. But since no other charges were made, I’ll just accept it and move on.
As for Clinton, that’s tougher. I have never been a fan of Clinton, so I may not be the best one to answer, but I’ll give it a shot. IMO, Clinton has been one of the biggest offenders of the truth as President. At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, I don’t think he technically lied. He took great pains to word things a certain way when he didn’t want to be forthcoming. Even the statement “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” could be interpreted as the truth, because one could interpret that he didn’t mean Monica Lewinsky, but some other “that woman.” And I’m sure there is at least one woman in the U.S. that Clinton did not have sex with. I know people that, like Clinton, try to be intentionally deceptive and think it’s not lying. It may not be, I just think it’s worse than lying. By the way, I may be the only person who actually believed Clinton when he said “I didn’t inhale.” Maybe it’s because it really doesn’t matter.
As for perjury, that gets even trickier. I don’t have the link, but when Clinton was asked whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, the attorneys and the judge were given a very long definition of what sex was, and his answer was supposed to be based on that. I think it’s absolutely absurd, but in this definition, if one was the recipient of oral sex, then it wasn’t sex. Of course, it’s silly that she was having sex, according to the definition, but he wasn’t. So on that count, at least, he did not commit perjury. But he knew that he was being intentionally deceptive, and as attorney he should have elaborated on his answer, in the interest of justice. But as we know, sometimes attorneys are not always interested in justice.
Comment by Pat — March 8, 2007 @ 7:41 am - March 8, 2007
“One wonders why Fitzgerald pursued the investigation given that the Justice Department knew, even before his appointment that it was then-deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage who “had told Bob Novak about Mrs Wilson.” “….nice to know that one can lie to a grand jury and be declared a saint.
Comment by markie — March 8, 2007 @ 9:01 am - March 8, 2007
Some questions: if Libby had $ 90,000 at home in his freezer, would he be a hero to the Dems and ian and be re elected. If Libby had made thousands of dollars on a real estate transfer could Libby be the Majority leader of the Senate. If Libby was caught on tape being offered a bribe and saying ‘check with me later” would he serve as a leader in the Pelosi House of Reps. If Libby drove off a bridge and killed his baby sitter and walked away for say a day or two would he become a Democrat icon. If Libby demanded his staff take his kids to and from school and to parties could he serve as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And now in the latest “shrug”, if Libby had unpaid parking tickets for TWENTY YEARS could he run for President as a Democrat?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 8, 2007 @ 10:05 am - March 8, 2007
If you have a trial in Washington DC how do you NOT end up with revolutionaries and leftists on the jury? When a special prosecuter in the future is appointed what would happen if ALL called pled the 5th amendment to prevent this kind of a witch hunt. I just heard that Libby didn’t even have a dedicated attorney until he knew he was going to be indicted. He had already testified for 8 hours before the Grand Jury.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 8, 2007 @ 10:10 am - March 8, 2007
This “misled” crap by the leftists is unreal. I remember back in the early 60′s Mitt Romney’s father came back from Vietnam and made a dumb statement that the Johnson Administration had “brainwashed” him into believing that the war was going well. It torpedoed George Romney’s run for the Republican nomination, as the public and the press wondered how a potential candidate could be easily duped. But all these Democrats now with stunned looks on their faces, take pride in supposedly having been “brainwashed” and so easily duped by the dumb hick from Texas. It says more about how unserious this batch of libs really is.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 8, 2007 @ 11:21 am - March 8, 2007
#11 Ian
Nothing wrong with firing federal prosecutors my friend. When Clinton took office, he fired all of them and put in his own people. The real question is why Bush did not do the same way back when. Maybe if he had, a lot of the crimes that the democrats are getting away with would have been dealt with. He should have purged all of the Clintonistas from the State Department and DOJ at the same time.
Comment by pigpaws — March 8, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - March 8, 2007
“Clinton took office, he fired all of them” another deluded republican speaks with forked tongue.
Comment by markie — March 9, 2007 @ 12:03 am - March 9, 2007
Sigh..
Markie: Clinton did fire every US Attorney when he took office in 1992.
Retract your slander.
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 12:07 am - March 9, 2007
#31:
Actually, he did. These are Bush appointees who are being fired. Not to mention being pressured by GOP Congressmen and at least one GOP Senator prior to the 2006 election. Domenici has already lawyered up! Looks like another good chance for a Dem Senate pickup in 2008.
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2007 @ 8:57 am - March 9, 2007
It’s customary for a new Adminstration to replace all the US Federal Prosecutors. Why is this news to anyone?
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 9:41 am - March 9, 2007
“Retract your slander. ” “every”????…”fired”???? a little loose with the english language are we???? and it’s nice to know that you have determined that the pixelled word in a chatroom is slander. rotf. delusional is correct.
Comment by markie — March 9, 2007 @ 11:06 am - March 9, 2007
markie: Disprove it.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OVERVIEW
January, 1993
President Clinton takes office.
Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive 2 (PDD 2) that approved a National Security Council (NSC) decision-making system that enlarged the membership of the NSC. The new membership of the NSC included the Treasury Secretary, the U.S. Representative to the U.N., the Asst. to the President for National Security Affairs, the Asst. to the President for Economic Policy, and the Chief of Staff to the President. Although not a member, the Attorney General would be invited to attend meetings pertaining to his jurisdiction. The President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense are members of the NSC as prescribed by law. The CIA director and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also attend its meetings.
February, 1993
Bomb explodes in garage beneath the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people die. The FBI eventually arrests a group of Arab men led by Ramzi Yousef for the crime. Yousef is convicted in 1994.
March, 1993
Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno decide jointly to fire all U.S. attorneys at Justice Department effective immediately.
April, 1993
Former chairman of the Rose Law Firm, Joseph Giroir, incorporates the Arkansas International Development Corporation to bring Mochtar Riady’s Lippo Group together with American companies looking to do business in Indonesia and China.
Clinton gives Mochtar Riady’s son James Riady and Lippo employee John Huang tour of White House on the same day over 80 people die at Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. This is their fifth visit in only a week. Janet Reno would later take responsibility for the deaths.
James Riady escorts governor of Jakarta, Indonesia to East Wing of White House. White House officials provide no details of the meeting.
May, 1993
The White House fires the Travel Office staff following a review by White House Associate Counsel William Kennedy III, a former member of the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. Kennedy attempted to involve the FBI and IRS in a criminal investigation of the Travel Office without first consulting the Justice Department.
July, 1993
Clinton fires FBI Director William Sessions at the behest of Reno. This is the first and only time in American history that a president would fire the head of the FBI.
The FBI obtains a warrant to search the Little Rock office of David Hale.
White House Counsel, boyhood friend of Bill, and former Hillary Rose Law Firm partner, Vince Foster, is found dead at Ft. Marcy Park in Virginia.
According to a Secret Service officer, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Clinton aide Patsy Thomasson, and First Lady Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Maggie Williams, visit Foster’s office during the night. Ms. Williams removes some of Foster’s folders.
Two days after Foster’s death, Nussbaum again searches Foster’s office. He continues to deny Park police and Justice Department investigators access to the office. In 1996, it is learned Nussbaum removed documents related to the Whitewater investigation.
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 4:48 pm - March 9, 2007
Before I get accused of having some agenda, I’m not trying to build up a conspiracy against Clinton.. I’m showing in context what went on the first year of his admin. No more than that.
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 4:50 pm - March 9, 2007
July 18, 1997 Eric Holder sworn in as Deputy Attorney General
Washington Weekly 7/20/97 “.It all started with the “D.A. Massacre” at the U.S. Justice Department. The Clinton administration in 1993 fired all U.S. Attorneys and replaced them with loyal cronies. That almost ended accountability for the Clinton administration, because indictment for crimes would have to be brought by U.S. Attorneys. An example is U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, conveniently placed at the District of Columbia-the actual crime scene for most of the misdeeds of the Clinton Administration. He has repeatedly refused prosecution of Clinton administration employees despite referrals with clear evidence of wrongdoing.. The Inspectors General of the different government agencies are the ethics and crime watchdogs. During the Clinton administration, they, as well as the respective general counsels, were replaced with loyal cronies answering no longer to the people of the United States but to the White House Counsel’s office, the central intelligence office of the operation as we shall see later..Political intelligence gathered by Inspector Generals and other covert operatives of the White House Counsel’s office has limited value if it cannot be turned into action. This is where political blackmail enters the picture. A truly corrupt administration can only survive if it can control public opinion, the judicial system, and the political system. Public opinion is controlled by the Clinton-friendly media. The judicial system has been taken care of as described above. That leaves the political system, which can still hold hearings and vote to impeach. The only effective way to deal with politicians is by blackmail. To blackmail a politician, you need dirt. To collect dirt, you need a private investigator or FBI agents. The White House has and uses both.. The replacement of the FBI director and the appointment of an Attorney General, both of whom are loyal cronies of the Clinton administration is an important part of the plan. Take as an example the current campaign financing scandal.”
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 4:57 pm - March 9, 2007
If Hillary wins election I’m going to kill myself . I’ll be damned if I’m going to live through another repeat of the Clinton circus in the face of global jihad
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 4:58 pm - March 9, 2007
Pat: A lawyer gives a good (if lengthy) illustration of how a perfectly good, honest man might lie to people questioning him for no reason at all (or for totally irrational reasons):
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/03/a_beldar_warsto.html
Comment by Calarato — March 9, 2007 @ 5:23 pm - March 9, 2007
[...] advice. Dan Blatt ‘85 has more. [10] Comments 0 [...]
Pingback by Op-ed Advice : EphBlog — December 3, 2009 @ 8:52 am - December 3, 2009