So, the verdict is in on I. Lewis Scooter Libby: Guilty on one
count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury before a
grand jury, and one count of making false statements to FBI agents.
What does it all mean?
Let’s back up: In July 2003, Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed for
the New York Times in which he accused the Bush
administration of manipulating pre-war intelligence on Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction, under the title “What I Didn’t Find in
Africa.” He claimed that he had reported to the Administration that
he’d debunked claims about Iraq shopping for uranium when he went
to Niger to investigate. His account wasn’t accurate, the
administration was furious, and reporters and administration
officials began gossiping about why Wilson, a retired ambassador,
was put on such a mission in the first place. The answer was that
his wife Valerie Plame worked for the CIA and recommended him, and
Bob Novak reported as much in his column later that month.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was charged with finding
out if a crime was committed when Plame’s name was leaked. We now
know that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage leaked
the name to Novak; presumably, since Armitage hasn’t been charged
with anything, Fitzgerald concluded that the leak wasn’t a crime.
(The particulars of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act make
it difficult to violate by accident.) But in the course of the
investigation, Fitzgerald zeroed in on what he believed were lies
told by Libby, the Vice President’s chief of staff.
Libby was indicted on five charges. One count of perjury before
the grand jury and one count of making false statements to
investigators related to conflicts between Libby’s and
Time reporter Matthew Cooper’s accounts of a conversation
they had; another two counts, again of perjury and false
statements, related to conflicts between Libby’s and Meet the
Press host Tim Russert’s accounts a conversation they
had. The fifth count was the obstruction charge, which incorporated
the allegations in the other four charges along with another
allegation relating to a conversation with New York Times
reporter Judy Miller and — the most damaging piece —
documentation that, despite Libby’s testimony that he was surprised
to have heard from Russert that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA,
he’d actually discussed that topic in numerous conversations before
he spoke to Russert about it. (Here’s a more-detailed account of the charges.)
Libby was convicted on the obstruction count and on both the
Russert counts. He was convicted on only one of the Cooper counts
— perjury, but not false statements. It may seem odd that, since
what Libby said to investigators and to the grand jury was the
same, he’d be convicted of lying in one instance but not the other,
but prosecutors say that juries often give defendants more leeway
on false statements charges because conversations with the FBI are
less thoroughly documented than testimony in court; in the former
case, there’s just the agents’ notes, while in the latter there’s
often video and always a stenographer.
Given that Fitzgerald found no evidence that the leak of Plame’s
name was a crime, there wasn’t any good reason for Libby to lie,
but it’s possible that Libby thought he was protecting someone who
had leaked illegally. Lefty dreams notwithstanding, since there
doesn’t actually seem to have been anyone to protect, there’s
little chance that Libby will be able to stay out of jail by
helping investigators bag a bigger administration fish (the Vice
President has always been the dream prize among Administration
enemies). Fitzgerald’s underlined that yesterday when he said, “I
do not expect to file any further charges.” And because Libby seems
to have gotten convicted for falsehoods — deliberate or not —
made during an investigation that found no underlying crime, he has
a good case for a Presidential pardon.
Of course, he also has a chance to appeal, and there are issues
with the case that an appeals court might find interesting. Based
on jurors’ accounts, their conviction turned on their trusting Tim
Russert, and the judge prevented the defense from making a
potentially crucial attack on Russert’s credibility. Russert
testified that he didn’t know a witness before a grand jury
couldn’t be accompanied by a lawyer; the defense produced three
clips of Russert saying exactly that — a grand jury witness can’t
have a lawyer with him — on television before his testimony. They
weren’t allowed to show the jury that evidence. What if they had
been? If Russert could be confused about that, the jurors might
have thought, maybe he’s confused about other things — and maybe
Libby is innocent.
I offer a steak dinner at The Palm to whoever asks Russert about
that on Sunday’s Meet the Press.
