Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Busting Libby Myth #1

It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many Washington special prosecutors before him, he pressed on, pursuing every tangent in the case.
- Washington Post Editorial, 3/7/07

Here the Washington Post practically transcribes the conservative talking point. Let's put this myth to rest. Fitzgerald did not come on board, discover that no prosecutable crime had occurred, and continued on -- Ahab-like -- until he finally landed an administration scalp.

The indictment dates the first instance of lying to the investigators on October 14, 2003. Patrick Fitzgerald was not appointed as Special Prosecutor until December 30, 2003. Investigators had already spent more than two months speaking with witnesses who contradicted Libby's account. The indictment lists nine instances where Libby spoke to others about Plame before he allegedly learnt of her identity from Russert. Of the multiple witnesses who gave these accounts, only Judith Miller would not have been available to investigators at the time Fitzgerald was appointed. The FBI could not have failed to suspect that Libby had told a whopper.

Fitzgerald didn't go on a hunt for administration blood. He did not lay perjury traps. He walked into an office and was immediately presented with some damning facts about a possible crime. He would have been derelict in his duty if he did not pursue this matter.

3 comments:

Wagster said...

Thanks for clarifying those points, Tom.

However, I think my point stands. Four contradictory accounts is more than enough to raise suspicions. As to why Fleischer wasn't further investigated, perhaps Fitzgerald did exactly what his critics have said he should have done -- he stopped pursuing tangents when it was clear that there was no prosecutable crime.

In the case of Libby, the prosecutable crime was apparent the minute he walked through the door. No pre-conceived "idea" was necessary for him to pursue it.

Wagster said...

I think you're misunderstanding me, Tom. By "no prosecutable crime" I don't necessarily mean "no crime". The alleged offenses have high burdens of proof that might not have been met, so Fitzgerald's failure to make these indictments does not indicate that he was being untruthful to the appeals court.

Libby's story is odd, and it will always be a mystery how such a smart lawyer got himself into that bind. My guess is he tried to do too much... if Fitzgerald had believed him the whole investigation would have been defused since her identity would already have been compromised. It's hard to come up with another story that would achieve that goal: the scenario you paint certainly wouldn't. It's a very calculated attempt to obstruct justice.

Wagster said...

Good points, Bruce. In a perverse way there is something noble about these people. Both Rove and Libby could have taken the fifth like Fleischer did and the matter would not have seen the inside of a courtroom. However, their political cause would have been badly bruised. If it had leaked out that two of Bush's men had taken the fifth, then 2004 might well have swung the other way. They made a great sacrifice, which is probably why their defenders are working so hard for them today.