WaPo columnist: Is Fitzgerald Now Going After Perjury In Plamegate?

[Nothing Without Hope]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201556.html

A Leak's Wider Ripples

By David Ignatius
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A23

It's hard to fathom the continuing legal squeeze on Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller to reveal their sources in a White House leak investigation. Unless, that is, the real concern of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald isn't just the leak but possible perjury by a senior Bush administration official.
(snip)

Though the perjury issue hasn't surfaced in most discussions of the case, it's buried between the lines of the hundreds of pages of memos, briefs and other legal documents. Unless perjury is one of Fitzgerald's concerns, his tireless pursuit of Cooper and Miller is difficult to understand. As was said of Melville's "Moby-Dick," this is more than a story about a fish.

(snip)

Here's where it gets complicated: Fitzgerald's legal quest makes little sense to me as a leak investigation. The law is fuzzy, the evidence is ambiguous, and the case would be hard to prove. But every good prosecutor hates perjury above all. And on its face, this case raises the possibility that one of the senior administration officials who talked with Cooper or Miller has denied doing so, under oath. Otherwise, Fitzgerald would have been finished months ago.

For journalists, the case raises agonizing issues: Where is the dividing line between journalistic ethics, which demand that reporters protect their sources, and ordinary ethics, which say people should cooperate with law enforcement if they know about possible criminal activity? Do journalists have a special status that exempts them, in certain cases, from the normal responsibilities of citizenship? But this case should worry most of all any White House insider who may have talked with reporters about Valerie Plame and then lied about it under oath.

[e-mail]

[merh]

1. Gee, so the press is finally catching on.

Most of us who have been watching the Plame investigation called the perjury possibilities a long time ago. Just goes to show how swift the press can be. Those little self-absorbed creeps thought it was all about them, they could care less about national security. :argh:

memememememememememe

:rant: Thanks for the rant & the link. :hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Yeah, it was page - yawn - A23, but it was THERE, by damn! And your rants

are always welcome, merh!

To the Ties That Bind!
:toast:

[merh]

3. To the ties that bind!

:toast:

Stupid, mo@*$&(@&#(*0#$& media! :banghead:

[MissWaverly]

27. reality check

I would have just like to see a video when the WH press corps discovered they were locked inside the White House during the Red Alert the other day. I imagine that they have new respect for the
Bush Administration. They've been telling us for 5 years just how great he is and making fun of the Dems.

[merh]

31. Do you think it dawned on them that they were in peril

and that they were considered expendable?

I would hope so, but I have lost all faith in their abilities to see behind the wizard's curtain.

:shrug:

[MissWaverly]

36. Oh, yes they were quite snappy with Spin, Spin Scottie n/t

[merh]

37. I missed it, do tell, do tell.

They gave sweet Scottie a hard time? Oh my, where was I that I missed the fun?

Are they awakening to the truth? Will they finally realize that they are just tools of the evil and are complicit in their crimes?

I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope . . .

[MissWaverly]

38. see link from white house below

Q You know how close it was. Please tell us.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, within three miles. I don't know beyond that. Go ahead.
Q Could you be a little more specific --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I appreciate your concerns, April. I know you work here. And that's why I was asking questions about how things occurred here --
Q Not just us, but -- that door was shut, that door was closed, and we called back to find out who -- the people -- to tell people in the press office, the people who were left downstairs, that door was shut and locked.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050512-2.html

[merh]

39. Wondeful. Thanks for the link.

Was that lil ole cessna our Toto, did he pull back the curtain?

:bounce: :evilgrin: :bounce:

[MissWaverly]

40. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

I think that this is really an important event, in the press conference the reporters alluded to the fact that many buildings were not evacuated, hasn't this been the number 1 plank in this administration, to protect the homeland from another terrorist attack and they didn't even bother to evacuate some of the buildings,
I believe they said they notified people in the old executive office
building with e-mails, whatever happened to the fire alarm?

[Me.]

42. I Think The Reporters Were Missing The Real Point

If the protocols were in place and adhered to strictly, then the protocol must be to keep the pRez out of the loop.

[MissWaverly]

43. him out of the loop and them in the soup N/T

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. kick - Plamegate is still simmering! n/t

[markam]

5. Its like watching a tightrope walker in heavy winds

This adminstration get hit with scandal after scandal. Every one of them is illegal, immoral, and just disgusting. Yet, nothing seems to knock them off the tightrope.

We need to set up a contest to predict which scandal finally sends them screaming to the ground. I have thought all along (and still do) that this is the one.

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. Welcome to DU, Markam! Maybe it WILL be this one. I always thought

that the scandal that would bring them down INSTANTLY, no question, is their complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This is now beginning to see the light of day - broadcast twice on CSPAN and will be broadcast again (schedule TBA) is the amazing lecture of Claremont theologian David Ray Griffin - if you haven't seen it, you MUST. The full video is available on this page:

(If you need an MP3 link instead, let me know)

And then there's the lying us into the Iraq war. With Conyers leading the charge to confront bush with this, it's finally getting corporate media coverage:
http://tinyurl.com/ct2u7

And you MUST see this CNN video clip - the announcer is FURIOUS at Bush and comes right out and says he lied us into war:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1782122
Thread title: CNN Crossfire: "UK Memo Proves Bush Fixed Intelligence" for War - (VIDEO)

And then there are the tortures....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1470138
Thread title: “CONYERS AND ABOUT 50 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS - War Crimes Act (RawStory)”

And so very many other things, there is no end of them.

But I do believe that the truth is starting to leak out. When the dam starts leaking, it's going to move fast - the American people do NOT like being lied to by hypocrites.

I look forward to seeing you around DU!
:hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. kick - let's not forget about THIS scandal among all the others n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. kick - let's not forget Plamegate - it's not over n/t

[AP]

9. A lot of DU'ers didn't like when this happened to martha stewart.

People said she shouldn't go to jail for lying about a crime she wasn't charged with committing (insider trading).

Hopefully, this will help people understand why you shouldn't lie to the feds about somethign they're trying to investigage, regardless of whether you're charged with the crime that caused the investigation.

[H2O Man]

11. The idea isn't to hit

the journalists with perjury charges. It's to hit White House officials who lied to the Grand Jury, as part of the massive cover-up involved. If the two officials who are known to have lied can be charged, and given serious consequences, it increases the chances of their deciding to tell the truth.

Any time there is a major scandal, there has to be stern consequences to "turn" those at the lower level. Once they give testimony implicating the next level up, the cycle repeats. With Watergate, it started low, and moved up. With Iran-Contra, the administration was able to compromise the prosecution with the series of pardons.

There is a rather sophisticated effort by those involved, including White House officials and weasals in the media, to cover-up what has occured -- and indeed, what is occuring today -- in this most important case. And they need to be held responsible. I do feel that the democratic left has allowed the corporate media and congress to let this scandal fade from public consciousness.

[AP]

12. The article suggest that they're not going to charge anyone with the crime

of revealing Plame was a spy, but they might charge the person who did it with lying to investigators.

The journalists never were going to be charged with revealing the ID because you have to be a gov't official to do that, according to the statutue (IIRC). The journalists could be charged with failing to cooperate in the investigation, but let's set that aside for a minute.

We're talking about whether the goverment official will be charged with anything, and it looks like that person might only get charged with lying during the investigation and nt for committing the underlying offense which encouraged the investigation.

That's exactly what happened to Stewart.

Starting low and moving up the ladder usually involves finding crimes that people actually committed and charging them with them, and not interrogating people until they committ perjury talking about crimes you never plan to charge them with.

And just so my point of view is clear: I think it is fine to charge people with perjury stemming from an investigation of an underlying crimes that they don't get charged with. But I think it's also important to point out that it seemed like 90% of DU'ers were pissed that this happened to Martha Stewart.

[H2O Man]

13. Of course it is not

possible to say exactly who may be charged with what when the Grand Jury hasn't heard all the evience yet. I realize that the reporters who had authored articles about Plame couldn't be charged. I think that, even if you did not mean to, your previous thread had implied that the reporters were in a position similar to Martha S. And of course, they are, nor are the WH officials. Martha wasn't charged with lying to a grand jury. Though both lying to the grand jury and to federal investigators result in perjury, the two examples are not a fair comparsion. I don't think people were so much against her being charged for breaking the law, as for the thought of Ken Lay and his ilk walking, while a democrat who did far less got nailed. The Stewart case smacked of politics, as does the Enron case. It would be a stretch to say that the Plame investigation is politically motivated.

[AP]

14. I'm not talking about the reporters at all. I'm talking about the gov't...

...official who might have blown Plame's cover. This article says that it's possible he might only be charged with perjury stemming from the investigation of crime X, rather than crime X.

For the third time, that's exactly what happened to Martha Stewart and there were dozens of posts at DU saying that that was wrong.

[cestpaspossible]

15. I don't think Stewart was under oath

when she made her statements.

[AP]

17. She was convicted for violating a statute which criminalizes lying to

federal investigators.

Lying under oath (perjury) and the crime for which Stewart were jailed are the extremely similar, as are the circumstances --they're not being convicted of the alleged crime that got the investigation rolling. They're being convicted of a crime that stems from the investigation, and it's possible that the underlying crime will never be prosecuted.

Judging from the responses to me pointing this out, it seems some DU'ers are having a problem resolving their anger over Stewart being subject to that sort of thing and their elation over it possibly happening to someone in the Bush WH.

[cestpaspossible]

19. What does you comment have to do with my comment?

Why did you even bother replying to my comment? You did not address what I said. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

[AP]

22. I was replying to you.

Perjury is lying under oath. There's a statute that makes that illegal. Stewart was convicted of lying in a federal investigation. There's a statute that criminalizes doing that.

Both are crimes for lying when the law requires you tell the truth.

Your distinction doesn't constitute a significant difference in the context of this argument.

[cestpaspossible]

23. Calling two different things exactly the same

and then saying the difference isn't "significant" when it is pointed out to you is what seems to have happened here.

[AP]

26. let's try this from a different angle.

According to this article, it says that the government official who leaked the information might not be tried for violating the law passed by the Bush administration that criminalizes that kind of leak.

However, it says that that same person might be tried for lying to federal investigators who were only talking to the guy because they were investigating that crime for which he might never be charged.

Do you have a problem with that?

Now, if you remember, Stewart was questioned about insider trading, but the statute is so vaguely written that it was unlikely that she was going to ever be charged with insider trading. She lied in the process of being investigated and was ultimately convicted of that crime.

You do see the similarities, don't you? Vague statutes difficult to apply to unusual fact patterns (that's the author's characterization in the article in the OP). Lying in response to investigator's questions. Tried for the lie but not for the crime that started the investigation. Sound familiar?

[cestpaspossible]

28. LOL

ok, so now the situations are similar - which no one can deny - as opposed to your original assertion that they were exactly the same.

[AP]

30. Semantics -- the last refuge for a weak argument.

how's this: "they're virtually identical."

[cestpaspossible]

34. I guess that's your way of admitting your error.

Gracious of you. :eyes:

[AP]

47. That was an admission of error. I meant to say "virtually identical."

[Me.]

20. It's Usually The Cover-Up Which Leads To The Revelation of The Crime.

Also, it may be just me but I am more bothered by a case where the lying involves treason and the subsequent death of undercover operatives and the destruction of an undercover operation that took years and millions to set up than I am by Martha lying because she tried to save herself $100+ grand.

And, we don't actually know at this point if perjury will be the only charge. The article may point in that direction but as no grand jury testimony has been revealed and Fitzgerald has stayed fairly quiet about the investigation it remains conjecture.

[AP]

21. The point is, with Plame, the crime might never even be prosecuted.

Only the cover-up will be prosecuted.

I'm fine with that.

But a lot of DU'ers weren't fine with that when Stewart was convicted for lying to investigators about something she probably would never even had been tried for doing.

For perspective, lying in order to protect wealthy people from being held accountable for manipulating the capital markets so that it's a guaranteed wealth scheme for people on top, and so that people in the middle assume all the risk and all the loss is pretty serious, if you ask me.

Guaranteed wealth for the super-wealthy, and risk and loss for everyone else is part of the reason we have polarizing wealth and an assault on the middle class, which is just as dangerous for the long-term health of America (if the Great Depression is any indication) than lying about blowing the cover of a spy.

It's hard to rank which is more dangerous to the long term health of the country, and they're both obviously very important issues.

[Me.]

32. While I Agree With You Regarding The Protection Of The Wealthy

and the consequences, I would probably choose Plame as the situation that has more potential to affect the dire situation this country is in. If speculation is correct and the reason the leak actually happened, in the first place, was an end run to stop Plame's investigation. That investigation was looking into what companies in this country were illegally selling components of WMD to countries like Iran. Halliburton tops that list in the minds of many, also the target of the French investigation, and certainly during the time of Cheney's tenure. He who is determined to hand our country over to the wealthy starting with the oil companies. Discredit Cheney and you discredit the * administration along with their draconian treatment of the middle class, our environment etc.

Nor do I think you can separate treason from the quest for greater wealth and power. I see that quest as the reason behind the treason, and the cover-up as the cya of the matter.

[1monster]

35. It was my understanding that she was charged with lying to the press

about the investigation. I never could understand how that was able to stand up in court as a federal charge.

It is definitely not the same thing as lying to investigators or to a Grand Jury.

[AP]

48. She lied to the investigators. Lying to the press (and the press lying) is

not a crime.

There is a federal statuted that criminalizes lying to federal investigators.

[Me.]

16. That Was My Thought

as I read this. Lying to a grand jury is a different kettle of fish than lying to investigators. Further, I believe the conjecture is that it is Novaula who lied to the grand jury and Miller & Cooper can somehow fill in the dots regarding that in addition to having info about the original leaker.

As for Martha, I believe the reason people were incensed about her going to jail was because the only person who suffered from her transgression were she and the 2 people at her trading firm and she was the only person involved who lost money. Whereas with Enron, Ebbers and all, hundreds of thousands of people suffered dire financial consequences. Martha needn't have said a word when she spoke to the investigators, but due to bad advice from her lawyers, she did and lied in the process. That was a crime. Small peanuts I agree especially considering the force they brought down on her. It is also my opinion that with her case, it seemed that the jurors were left with the impression that she was guilty of insider trading and that is not what she was on trial for.

[AP]

18. In addition to Stewart, the CEO of the company went to jail...

for insider trading.

And I'm not saying this was the only reason people didn't like Stewart's conviction, but a LOT of people said it was wrong that she goes to jail for lying about a crime that they didn't even charge her with (much less, convict her of committing).

And again -- we're not talking about the reporters. We're talking about the gov't official who leaked the information and thus possibly committed the crime that started the whole investigation.

Who knows if the article above is accurate, but it suggests that that crime will probably never be prosecuted, but the guy who might have done it could be tried for lying to investigators.

[kevsand]

24. "that crime will probably never be prosecuted"

I think you may be overstating that just a little, but I can certainly see how you can get that impression. The article never suggests that the crime will "probably" never be prosecuted, but it does very clearly point out how difficult that prosecution is likely to be. It does not, however, directly suggest that the possible target of the perjury charge is necessarily the actual leaker. Nor does it automatically assume that there is only one leaker.

I've been watching Fitzgerald for a while now, and this actually fits in with the way he often does things. He's very methodical and tenacious, and mostly very patient. This was the way he brought down George Ryan in Illinois. He started with smaller, provable offenses by underlings, and over the course of several years gradually worked his way up the food chain.

Of course, by the time it was done, the Ryan investigation had uncovered a complex web of interrelated corruptions. This case, at least on the surface, appears much simpler. But it could certainly be a situation where picking someone off on a provable charge ultimately could lead to more significant charges against someone higher up. And Fitzgerald has already demonstrated that he will follow the trail all the way to the top, if necessary.

[Nothing Without Hope]

51. Very interesing analysis - thank you. It's what I hoped was going on

but I did not know he had a prior history of this kind of approach:
I've been watching Fitzgerald for a while now, and this actually fits in with the way he often does things. He's very methodical and tenacious, and mostly very patient. This was the way he brought down George Ryan in Illinois. He started with smaller, provable offenses by underlings, and over the course of several years gradually worked his way up the food chain.

[cestpaspossible]

25. What I don't understand

is why you are so insistent on correcting these phantom folks who are not participating in this thread. Apparently someone -- although no one participating in this discussion -- gave a specious reason for being unhappy with Stewart's prosecution. And this point is important how? Is it just that we should feel some sort of self-righteous vindication that we did not promote the same silly argument as these folks that you say exist or existed in such great numbers? Or is there some other reason you find this molehill of such mountainous significance?

[AP]

29. Read post 21. It's because I though Stewart committed a crime that Demo-

crats should take seriously -- she was participating in a system that guarantees wealth for the wealthy and shifts risk and loss to everyone else.

I was shocked by how passionately DU'ers defended her and critized the prosecutors. I thought the arguments people used were specious. And I think that we have a perfect contrast here where people will not be outraged at all by a situation that is virtually identical. It's not just because it's Republicans who are the vicitms this time. It's because the legal principles actually make sense: you can't lie to cover up a crime even if you are never charged with the crime.

And it wasn't one or two people. It was 90% of DU'ers who thought Stewart's conviction was wrong, and for about a third of them, the issues raised in this thread were the biggest cause of outrage.

[cestpaspossible]

33. But why should anyone care that someone not pariticipating in this

discussion was possibly wrong about something in the past? I mean whoopy, so (let's say) you were right and these other folks - whose position we don't actually know because we haven't heard from them, if they exist, we've only heard your version of what they supposedly said - they were wrong.

So what? What is the point of arguing with someone who is not even participating in the discussion with you? Is it just that it is easier than when they are responding or is there some other motive here?

[AP]

44. Post 9 answers your question....

It was probably enough to leave it at that. As far as "arguing" goes -- it takes two to do that. And I think every post I have above is a reasonable respone to the one that preceded it (and I needed about four posts just to get people to realize I wasn't talking about the reporters!).

[cestpaspossible]

45. That's silly. If someone needs moral guidance from the daily headlines

they are in serious trouble.

[AP]

46. Notwithstanding the comments from the people who refuse to acknowledge

the similarities, I think my posts will, at the very least, help a few people connect a few dots and get a little perspective.

[cestpaspossible]

49. So who are these people who think it's ok to lie

to federal investigators? Are there really a lot of folks like that?

[Nothing Without Hope]

50. Exactly, H2O Man. Very well said - this is the take-home message. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. kick n/t

[PATRICK]

41. WAPO needs to find a brain

maybe one not rotted from within by habits contrary to healthy thinking. This NON story is peevish because it is supposition in a circle seemingly aimed at support of their comrades under the scope for the good of team USA journalism, which presumably has its own Bill of Rights out there someway in the special privilege landscape.

Leaks are a hopeless case. Certainly if perjury is acceptable. Stonewalling presumes perjury and worse. I am surprised they didn't drag in Starr far roaming investigation. Little sense as a "leak investigation"? Well SOMEONE leaked something somehow.

Complaining, mystified about the troubling pressure on the two presstitutes, it points like a demagnetized compass in the vague direction of some WH official.

Well, the whole piece is a formless piece of navel gazing. Lately the paper is worse than any powerless blogger musing instead of digging, looking into a mirror and wondering what they are seeing- but not too rationally. You can find better scooping of Plame right here at DU, ending at the same wall- protected by power and lies. WAPO cowers well away in the distance.

[cestpaspossible]

52. yep