I'm not sure we know everything...

By now everyone has read the indictments handed down on Friday afternoon and has either formed an opinion or begun spewing forth Republican talking points. I have to say this whole thing is very disturbing--no matter which side you listen to...

I'm not a lawyer--but I play one on TV--(sorry, it's Friday night) Seriously though, the indictment is not a difficult document to understand. It is written in straight- forward, plain spoken English. It is laid out clearly and concisely. Even if you don't agree with it, you would do well to not label the document as confusing. Doing so, makes you look like you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Like over here, (Strat-Sphere) or here. (The Corner) Apparently, there was some confusion as to whether Libby was indicted for lying to reporters. Ummm...that would be a no.

If lying to reporters were  a crime all of Washington would be in jail...

Apparently, after those who think that all Libby did was lie to the press wise up they make Libby seem like a doddering old man who can't remember or recall those details.

Fitzgerald said Libby had 7 conversations about Plame and was advised about her status 4 separate times before he "learned the information as new." Unless Libby is suffering from Alzheimer's I don't think the I-can't-recall defense is going to work.

Then there are those who think that since no underlying crime was charged, all of this is just ridiculous. Those who think this take one of two tacts. They either try to deflect the discussion of the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statements to a grand jury charges by using their vast expertise as covert CIA agents to say that Plame wasn't one--Lorie Byrd at Polipundit must have been a spy in a former life...

or

they ask, "where are the charges against Joe Wilson?" or they make fun of Patrick Fitzgerald...they do anything but deal with what is really going on.

Then there is the other side. My party certainly can be disappointing. Over at Atrios they have bottles of champagne. And who celebrates when a government official leaks classified information and lies to a grand jury? Apparently, many people, including The Merry Fitzmas Blog. Ah..then there is the one where a woman has a...gulp...Fitzgasm

Then there are those who feel like this makes my party morally superior. Check out anything at The Huffington Post but specifically Paul Begala's post.

There is some pretty big stuff going on here. The investigation isn't over. Libby, if convicted, faces 30 years in jail, and there are some nagging questions.

Why did Cheney not speak up once he learned Libby had lied? Why does a smart guy and Washington insider, like Libby, who knows how all of this works mess up like this? And then there is this...

I really don't think we know all there is to know just yet...

Comments

[catastrophile]

I have to agree, we don't know everything yet. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean we'll necessarily learn more. I'm pretty sure that Fitzgerald is sticking it to Libby right now to put pressure on somebody -- probably Libby himself, possibly Rove or someone else as well -- to flip and exchange a confession for immunity. I'm not so sure that it'll work. Libby might just take the years and count on a pardon at some point.

Champagne time, of course, will come if Libby turns into John Dean, flips and confesses to all sorts of dirty dealings, and brings down the whole administration. But I'm not holding my breath.

[HC]

I find no joy in this day's events only sadness. The country deserves better from all.

[fizure]

hey, nice post. those links were fucking hysterical. I can hardly read any blog that really "officially" supports either political party (they're really the same, it's just one of the sides has a bigger constitiuency of illogical fools...)

Who knows where this will go.

My guess, Libby will roll and we may see a few more indictments, most likely after Libby is told that he could spend the enxt thirty years in jail, with a 1 million dollar fine, disbarred and life ruined. Either way, this is already one the worst possible moments for things to destabalize like this... The shit is certainly starting to hit the fan.

[catastrophile]

Hrm. Over at the Corner, Andy McCarthy points out that based on the allegations in the indictment, Libby could actually have been charged under the espionage act.

He goes on to say that Fitzgerald made the right decision by not going this route, arguing that Libby's intent was not to endanger anybody -- "to do damage to the country or help an enemy" as he puts it, but merely to discredit Wilson.

Though I'm not sure the intent was quite that benign -- there's plenty to indicate that this administration likes to punish whistleblowers -- lacking evidence that there was a darker motivation at work, I have to agree with McCarthy's point.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_23_corner-archive.asp#081180

[jestplainol'bill]

how really nice of you to say "this administration". look back to your masters, the Clintons. that entire outfit villified and degraded anyone who went after them. but then that is "politics" kiddies. across the board. same same...maybe with the exception of President Lincoln... who personally didn't seem to play that game.

[jestplainol'bill]

hcboy did you say that when your master was "indicted"?

[dr wnc]

Chris said: And who celebrates when a government official leaks classified information and lies to a grand jury

Me: As you stated the "the indictment is not a difficult document to understand" but you have no problem stating a goverment official leaked classified information, where was that in the indictment?
If it is proven that Libby lied then he should serve the time, it appears from the evidence that is available that he did but I guess we'll have to wait and see. And I doubt if we will ever know everything, but then that is today's (last 15 years) political enviroment.

[hollabackdave]

You're all missing the bigger picture here. We have to ask ourselves, "How does a grown man with the nickname Scooter get to be the chief of staff for the vice president of the United States?"

I believe that if we peel back the onion far enough, we'll eventually find that something in the system is broken that it was just a matter of time before something big was going to happen that would eventually bring down the man named Scooter. The clock was ticking the moment he took the job. I hope President Bush learns something from all of this.

[catastrophile]

plainbill: "how really nice of you to say 'this administration'. look back to your masters, the Clintons."

I never voted for Clinton. I didn't vote for Gore. And I was one of the millions who only voted for Kerry because he was the unBush.

But how many people died of bad Clinton policies? And don't you dare drag out the 9/11 canard, because we already know it was the Bush administration that moved counterterrorism from the top of the DoJ priorities list to fourth or fifth.

[Shari]

Cap,
Bad Clinton policies? HA
It was one scandal after another. Hillary & Bill both should have been indicted for LYING under oath, but neither were.

9/11 - I'm not going to argue with you, but make a suggestion. Read "Losing Bin Laden" and "The third terriorist" and then tell me that Clinton didn't a whole bunch to do with it happening. Twice, he had a chance to have Bin Laden killed or handed over to us. So, that's all I'm going to say on that. I won't belabour the point.

Here is a good post from a lawyer about the indictment.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/libbys-indictment-does-not-depend-upon.html

[catastrophile]

Shari -- I'd venture a guess that less people died of Clinton scandals than of bad Clinton policies (and the thing you pointed to was a policy).

Beyond that, do you think for a second that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Osama were dead or in custody? Really?

And I remember hearing a lot of Reep moaning about Big Brother and invasion of privacy when Clinton tried to expand counterterrorism -- a lot of the same moaning that the left is doing now, much of it over policies that the Reep Congress rejected when the Clinton DoJ asked for them. So you can't tell me that he was the only idiot asleep at the wheel. Nor can you argue, as plain bill appears to be doing, that the Clinton administration was particularly good at the win-at-all-costs politics that this administration specializes in.

[Carl Smith]

The guy was indicted not convicted. He is still innocent until he is proven guilty. Testimony before a Grand Jury is done without the presence of a lawyer represently the person on the stand.

I suggest everyone quit speculating and let the court trial determine guilt or innocense!!!!!!

This is America after all.

[jestplainol'bill]

philly...not speaking to you, unless you are just another version of ol' hcboy. little slip there. besides philly, maybe you better quit your smoke and understand something. the president (current one) hasn't killed anyone. we is in a war boy. have been for a number of years now. something going on before he got there with the former president doing little about trying to fight it (well bombing an aspirin factory and taking out a camel or two with a million dollar missle. but then we do know that the Demodawgs/Libs keep on returning a killer of young women back to the Senate. you guys would be funny if you weren't a clear and present danger to the country.

[Iggy]

I think this is just a small glimpse inside Real politics and proves that ANY man (including Bush) can be bought!

If not with dollars, certainly with fame.

I think Capital Hill should be changed to Swindle Hill.

[USMC Steve]

Catastrophile,

Run this for a body count on comrade slick willy:

The rangers in Somalia

Khobar towers

Two US embassies in Africa (both Americans and Africans as well)

USS Cole

These were directly related to Clinton's inability to make sound and timely decisions without taking a popular opinion poll, compounded with his utter ignorance and hostility towards all things military;or to his refusal to act on potential terrorist threats against US interests. I saw ALL kinds of intelligence summaries regarding these groups and the threats they posed during the 1990's and we all sat back and asked each other, "when are we gonna do something about these guys?" I can give a more detailed explanation of what I am talking about if anyone is interested in one. The 9/11 events are also tied in to Clinton, in that if he had acted against the terrorist groups we knew about and had Oplans set up to act on, there would have been no 9/11.

But you can always use the counter argument that although a bunch of people got their shit scattered to the wind under Clinton's watch, Bush has killed more than he did if that makes you feel better.

[catastrophile]

Steve -- First of all, I don't think Clinton was the one who stationed US troops in Saudi Arabia. If he had deployed US troops to defend a major terrorist state, that would be a great reason to impeach. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia was and remains our great ally. We wouldn't even _have_ a global war on terror if not for Saudis!

Beyond that: are you saying that the deaths of our troops in Somalia are on Clinton, but the deaths in Iraq aren't on Bush? I'll need a little more explanation on that one.

While there's no debating that Slick Willy was slow to wake up and respond to terrorism, that doesn't change the fact that by the end of his administration, he had done so. Counterterrorism was at the top of the priorities list, and if you go back to the 2000 debates it was Gore who was talking about interventionism and promoting democracy abroad, and Gee-Dub who wanted a "humble foreign policy." (LOL)

Most telling, it's Attorney General John Ashcroft's signature on this May 2001 memo detailing the Bush DoJ's budget priorities:
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/ASHCROFTMEMO.PDF

The closest this document comes to mentioning counterterrorism is securing our borders against alien smuggling. (How's that one working out, BTW?)

Unfortunately, it seems like this is the administration's approach to all things international -- not to mention emergency management here at home: Send in the troops. If you can't send in the troops, simply do nothing until the problem becomes bad enough that you CAN send in the troops.