Just ask the jury, they’ll tell you. Perhaps not directly; perhaps not in so many words, but they’ll tell you. Some members of the jury actually believed that Valerie Plame was outed (even though there were no charges filed, no evidence to support the claim, and no law broken). Just read the words of Denis Collins, a member of this jury charged with passing judgment on the actions of Lewis “Scooter” Libby:
From Reuters – One juror, Denis Collins, said many jurors felt that other officials who leaked Plame’s name to reporters, such as senior White House aide Karl Rove, should have been on trial instead.
“There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” Collins told reporters. “It was said a number of times, “What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove, where’s — you know, where are these other guys?”
Sounds to me like this was not exactly an impartial jury. Sounds to me like this jury already had formed a conclusion, or at least an opinion, about the actions of Karl Rove (who was not on trial quite simply because no law was broken). So, without having Karl Rove to convict, they chose to convict Scooter Libby.
Admittedly, I was not on the jury and heard none of the testimony, but this case was all about lying to a grand jury and the FBI while under oath during the investigation of a crime that was not committed. Can anyone name another high government official who lied under oath who did not stand trial for perjury? Anyone? Anyone?
That’s right, very good. Bill Clinton, the hero of the Democrat Party. Oh wait, you say the difference here is that in one case there was the potential for national security to be compromised but in the other there wasn’t? Well, you may be surprised to learn I agree with you.
In one case, the lying official was shown to place his personal interests ahead of those of the country, opened himself up to a potential blackmail situation, and abused his position of authority while taking advantage of an intern. (What’s that you say? Oh sorry, I forgot. Only Republicans are not allowed to “socialize” with interns… Clinton is a Democrat… my mistake)
In this more recent case, there was no potential that national security was compromised. Plame was not a secret agent, was not outed, and no laws were broken prior to the “cover up” of the political, not criminal act (although perhaps more political acts should be considered criminal). Assuming the verdict of this jury stands and is correct, Libby used poor judgment and lied under oath, but he was not in a position to be blackmailed and he was not abusing his position.
At least Pelosi and Reid are keeping things in perspective:
“The testimony unmistakably revealed — at the highest levels of the Bush administration — a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq,” said House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Huh?
“It’s about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics,” added Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
Manipulate intelligence? Discredit war critics? There is no evidence to support the former and the latter (in the case of Plame’s hubby ambassador Wilson) was justified since Wilson not only lied, he fabricated evidence because of his disdain for George Bush… but that’s OK, because anyone who hates Bush is acting in the best interest of this country and can be forgiven for a little white lie.
Do I believe Scooter Libby lied? Since he was convicted, for now yes. Does this prove anything beyond one person either believing they were covering for a superior or really not remembering all the facts from weeks old conversations? No.
But that won’t stop Pelosi and Reid, the king and queen of integrity, from trying to turn this into an attack on President Bush.
Maybe it’s time to re-elect the grown-ups and let Nance and Harry go back to doing what they did so well… being the not-so-loyal opposition.
More on Reid here and here. More on Pelosi here.
Update: Still catching up on my reading. Great point by Gina Cobb yeterday:
It’s bizarre that Libby stands to lose 30 years of his life — the kind of sentence normally reserved for murderers — when it’s not clear to disinterested observers that a crime was even committed.
|
|
|
|