New at Reason

Michael McMenamin diagnoses the malady affecting Pat Fitzgerald, tormenter of Scooter Libby.

Comments

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 8:11am | #

"But the fact remains that Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. "

WTF?

Miller was not "tried, convicted, and sentenced". She was jailed for contempt of court. This guy's a lawyer? Has he been disbarred? If not, why not?

"Fitzgerald sent her to jail and she was subsequently forced to resign from The New York Times because she refused to burn a source."

No, she was fired because of her incompetence, her bad reporting, and for being in the pocket of her sources.

Who is this hack, and why is he misrepresenting the record? Did Toensing put him up to it? And why is Reason running such crud?

The President of the United States | March 5, 2007, 8:13am | #

I am pleased to sign into law S. 24, the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act. This law, originally passed in 1978, is a foundation stone for the trust between the Government and our citizens. It ensures that no matter what party controls the Congress or the executive branch, an independent, nonpartisan process will be in place to guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the law.

Regrettably, this statute was permitted to lapse when its reauthorization became mired in a partisan dispute in the Congress. Opponents called it a tool of partisan attack against Republican Presidents and a waste of taxpayer funds. It was neither. In fact, the independent counsel statute has been in the past and is today a force for Government integrity and public confidence.

This new statute enables the great work of Government to go forward—the work of reforming the Nation's health care system, freeing our streets from the grip of crime, restoring investment in the people who make our economy more productive, and the hard work of guaranteeing this Nation's security—with the trust of its citizens assured.

It is my hope that both political parties would stand behind those great objectives. This is a good bill that I sign into law today—good for the American people and good for their confidence in our democracy.

a | March 5, 2007, 9:51am | #

Be gentle: you know Reason runs shit like this to please its Republican donors.

joe | March 5, 2007, 10:09am | #

What are you, kidding me? Lousy law combined with blatant partisanship.

Is this some kind of affirmative action for a Republican?

Warren | March 5, 2007, 10:20am | #

The mainstream media didn't cover the story in any detail, nor did it call Fitzgerald to task.

Really? That's funny. Because I remember a week or two when I scarcely heard about anything else. All the media was united in the defense of their poor oppressed colleague.

I'm with Jon H on this. I don't know about Libby, but the Miller stuff was pure dreg.

joe | March 5, 2007, 10:44am | #

Patrick Fitzgerald has been one of the most repsected prosecutors in the country for years. An old fashioned conservative, in the sense of a "square guy." That's why John Ashcroft's deputy AG picked him.

Now, of course, we're supposed to believe he is a politicized partisan. Whatever.

biologist | March 5, 2007, 10:44am | #

weak article. I thought Reason was a libertarian magazine, intended for popularizing libertarian thought and ideas, not intended to provide political cover for Republicans.

I'm hoping this article is an exception, not an indicator of future trends.

Not Cathy Young | March 5, 2007, 10:51am | #

Gee, I wonder why no one's name appeared next to the post.

I know you've gotta pay the bills, but shouldn't this link appear in the right hand column, between Carpet Humping Guy and Buy Gold Now?

joe | March 5, 2007, 10:52am | #

D'oh! That was me.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 10:52am | #

It's the same quality of analysis as Byron York's continued effort to portray Fitzgerald's investigation as the equal of the Whitewater investigation, despite costing a small fraction of Whitewater's cost, lasting a small fraction as long, and actually having to do with actions taken in office.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 11:04am | #

Also, Fitzgerald's "Madness!" was making fun of the defense attorneys, particularly one's absurdly melodramatic performance in which he got weepy and asked the jury to return scooter to him and then sat down sobbing quietly - as if he was a mother in a custody battle and not a defense lawyer of a grown man named 'Scooter'.

R C Dean | March 5, 2007, 11:53am | #

Yet another case where there was no underlying crime, yet someone will probably go to jail.

The very definition of prosecutorial abuse. As soon as Fitz knew there was no crime committed, he should have said so and gone home. Instead, he continued running a perjury trap until someone slipped up.

Its funny how joe and the partisan Dems were all "perjury ain't no big deal" when it was Clinton caught in a blatant lie under oath, but when its a Republican, well, throw the book at 'em.

joe | March 5, 2007, 12:16pm | #

Oh, well, if you know better'n the prosecuting attorney, you should just lie to him.

"Slipped up" = "Lied about nine distinct episodes, in an attempt to cover up a conspiracy."

joe | March 5, 2007, 12:20pm | #

"As soon as Fitz knew there was no crime committed, he should have said so and gone home."

There was a crime: unfortunately, Fleischer had already been given immunity when his - that is, the criminal's - culpability was established.

So looking for his accoplices/accessories was entirely appropriate.

TrickyVic | March 5, 2007, 12:37pm | #

So R C, did you think the Clinton impeachment was BS? Just curious.

What I find funny is all those who supported the Clinton impeachment but are against Libby's procecution. The big difference between the two is that Clinton's lie was about a question far beyond the scope of the investigation and Libby's lie was within the scope of the investigation. Oral sex in the WH has nothing to do with land deals when he was Arkansas's Gov.

I look at it like this. DON'T LIE TO A GRAND JURY.

Clinton and Libby have one thing in common, they don't know when to shut up.

joe | March 5, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Tricky Vic,

The other big difference between the two is that the proposed remedy for Clinton was impeachment, conviction by the Senate, and removal from office.

I certainly don't recall any liberals complaining about the ultimate $90,000 fine and the loss of his license to practice law. Seemed about right to me.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 12:59pm | #

"As soon as Fitz knew there was no crime committed, "

I don't believe he 'knows' any such thing. He may simply not have the evidence he would need for a successful indictment and conviction. That's not at all the same as there having been no crime.

jbd | March 5, 2007, 1:37pm | #

You can tell the article is a hack job right away, in the first paragraph, when the author describes Fitzgerald's opening cry of "madness" as a "feeble effort at sarcasm." There is no indication that the author attended the trial, so how would he know whether Fitzgerald's rhetoric was feeble or electrifying? I don't know either, but Fitzgerald is generally known as a powerful courtroom presence. This article is, as others have said, an embarrassment to Reason.

R C Dean | March 5, 2007, 2:18pm | #

So R C, did you think the Clinton impeachment was BS? Just curious.

I think Clinton did commit perjury, and Libby may or may not have. But in any event, Clinton was not subjected to a criminal trial or indictment. So its a little bit of an apples-to-oranges thing.

I tend to be very leery of perjury prosecutions, which Clinton was not subjected to but Libby was.

On the whole, given Clinton's evident contempt for the law and legal process, I thought that the political punishment of impeachment but not removal was probably within the range of reasonableness.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 3:36pm | #

RC writes: "But in any event, Clinton was not subjected to a criminal trial or indictment. "

Well, of course he wasn't. The last thing they wanted was to delay the impeachment process and risk Clinton being acquitted in court.

TrickyVic | March 5, 2007, 3:40pm | #

I've seen few, if any, with more contempt for the law and legal process than the Office of the Vice President in the last six years. In that respect, Clinton looks like a school kid next them.

Again | March 5, 2007, 5:43pm | #

I think both instances (Clinton and Libby) highlight the madness in the "special prosecutor" situation. In both cases the main objective was to _find_ a violation of the law rather than actually determine whether any laws had been broken (in both cases if any had, they were so minor so as to be meaningless).

Prosecutors prosecute, and so they hector, cajole dig, threaten and do whatever else they can do so as to come up with _something_. Eventually what happens is that they create crimes (like perjury) in their "investigation" of non-crimes.

You would hope that with the highest ranking Republicans on the horns of this they might come around on the rampant problem of prosecutorial abuse in this country. But that's every bit as unlikely as it was when the Democrats faced it.

Nevertheless folks are entitled to a fair application of the law, even folks with political views you don't happen to like very much. In fact, especially those folks.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 7:30pm | #

"Nevertheless folks are entitled to a fair application of the law, even folks with political views you don't happen to like very much."

Yeah, power-abusing officials who out a covert CIA agent who's working on WMD (allegedly a serious threat to national security) ought to be given a pass when they lie to a grand jury in order to protect the VP.

It's only fair.

GILMORE | March 5, 2007, 9:40pm | #

This article was terrible. Regardless of what one thinks about politicism of the trial, the 'underlying event' was clearly very real, and about a serious breach of tlaw by the executive to achieve short term political advantage.

specifically =

'(B) Plame was not a covert agent within the meaning of the espionage law in question, nor did anyone have reason to think she was'

Flat out untrue. This is established as a 'premise' in the argument, but is a direct contradiction of fact.

Plame was within the directorate of operations - the mere fact of which, regardless of one's operational ACTIVITY at the time, indicates that the personnel are technically never to be directly identified as being in the CIA.

She was used in the past to gather information surrepticiously. She wasnt doing so recently. People like this jerkoff now argue that, therefore, she wasnt 'undercover'.

Of course, all of her contacts overseas that she'd developed and passed on have been burned. Assets she may have developed are compromised. Anyone who may have been involved with her operations unknowingly may now be subject to recriminations.

Oh, but thats not a crime is it? Of course not. How could they have known? Its not like these things are, like, important in a time of international terrorism and weapons proliferation intelligence gathering... (WP being plame's specific area of operations)

But then, gee... why did they CIA formally submit the request for investigation to the DOJ if there was no crime?

Of course, media pundits can poo poo its no big thing. They know far better, i'm sure.

It was 100% clear to all parties that she was in Operations. Which is exactly why they were so careful about leaking her through the backdoor channels they did rather than 'pointing out the obvious' directly. If there was no underlying crime, then why did they try so hard to do this without 'being the source'?

Fitzgerald is a man doing the job he was asked to do by the DOJ. You have complaints, tell it to Gonzalez.

Or Bush, who promised that 'those responsible would bear complete responsibility'...

JG

Again | March 5, 2007, 10:03pm | #

"Yeah, power-abusing officials who out a covert CIA agent who's working on WMD (allegedly a serious threat to national security)"

But that's not what Libby (nor anyone else) has been charged with is it? The reality is if outing Plame was a crime, it would be easy to convict Libby, Armitage and a few other people (possibly Cheney) of it.

So what does the fact that none of them are actually being charged for it tell you?

It just amazes me how quickly libertarians are ready to abandon their core principles (such as the rule of law) when it comes to nailing people they don't like.

If outing Plame was a crime, I want to see charges filed for it. If it's not, it seems it was none of the prosecutors damned business who told what to which reporters.

Because we hate Cheney is this the kind of precedent we want to continue to set? That whether any actual crime was committed or not, prosecutors can hound us for answers about where we get certain pieces of info and if we don't come clean, they slap us with perjury or obstruction of justice charges?

I don't want to see perjury charges here. I want to see charges for outing a covert agent or I want to see the issue dropped, period.

And frankly the exact same sentiment (federal prosecutor run amok) has appeared in this magazine a bunch of times as well.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118131.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31001.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36522.html

GILMORE | March 5, 2007, 10:22pm | #

Again | March 5, 2007, 10:03pm | #

Dude,

The crime of 'outing a CIA op' in question has nearly never been prosecuted directly, because people LIE. The guy lied to a grand jury. Did he lie because he forgot? we'll see.

JG

Again | March 6, 2007, 1:48am | #

"The crime of 'outing a CIA op' in question has nearly never been prosecuted directly, because people LIE."

No the 'crime' hasn't been prosecuted because there's a question as to whether any crime was actually committed. When a guy on trial for murder says he didn't do it, they just don't throw away the murder charge and move on to purjury.

It's the same damn thing with Clinton, at the end of the day they couldn't find an ounce of illegal activity, so they catch him lying and charge him with that.

That's the whole problem with the special prosecutor setup. The idea isn't to investigate the issue, the idea is to try and prosecute somebody. It's a joke and I would assume libertarians would generally be skeptical of giving federal prosecutors this level of power to basically intimidate people into giving up info without having to actually show that there's any sort of criminal activity at the base of it.

Jon H | March 6, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Again writes: "When a guy on trial for murder says he didn't do it, they just don't throw away the murder charge and move on to purjury."

Murder generally has rather more physical and forensic evidence available than you have in a leak case. Let alone a case where the existence of a crime depends on the circumstances of the leak itself, which may only be obtainable through honest testimony.

It's not like Fitzgerald can drag the Potomac in hopes of finding a Smith & Weson Spy-Out Leakmaster .45 registered to a 'Looter Scibby'.

GILMORE | March 6, 2007, 6:35pm | #

I would assume libertarians would generally be skeptical of giving federal prosecutors this level of power to basically intimidate people into giving up info without having to actually show that there's any sort of criminal activity at the base of it.

re: 'without having to actually show'...

the 'outing' of a DoO agent happened. The outing was a crime. They havent been able to identify the specific admin source because, in the course of investigation, an admin rep got caught lying to them. At that point they have no other option but to punish the liar for obstructing justice. Whats so complicated about that? And i dont think it's 'unlibertarian' for actually holding public officials accountable under the laws they themselves write. If you're worried about some 'slippery slope' of this kind of standard of justice being applied to citizens, i think thats a little overblown...

(excepting the civil courts recent jailing of people for not disclosing facts assumed to exist...)

...but as far as federal oversight of federal employees... insofar as it serves government accountability (albeit often via gross, partisan intragency conflicts)... then so be it. There should be a cost for lying to federal agents.