The motivation to lie

October 29, 2005

There’s an odd sentiment among some conservatives that perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice in the Plame scandal are troubling, but independent of the original leak. The indictments issued yesterday against Scooter Libby, this theory goes, address mistakes made after the leak and necessarily suggest that the leak itself was not legally problematic.

Putting aside whether Fitzgerald really had the goods to pursue charges on the IIPA or the Espionage Act, it’s important to note, as Jonathan Chait does, that the lying is not just some tangent.

It’s certainly true that not even Karl Rove deserves to go to prison for accidental or inconsequential misstatements. But, if Rove didn’t do anything illegal in the first place, then why would he obstruct justice or perjure himself in some substantive way? Clinton’s motive for lying was perfectly clear: He wanted to avoid the personal and political embarrassment of confessing his perfectly legal affair with Monica Lewinsky. Indeed, a whole strand of Starr’s investigation was set up in order to trap Clinton into lying under oath about his sex life. What motive would Bush’s men have to lie except to thwart the prosecution?

Now, Chait wrote this before yesterday, so obviously the Rove angle does not (yet) apply. But the point remains true — Libby allegedly perjured himself and Rove, who testified four times before the grand jury, has barely skirted prosecution.

This isn’t some side controversy to the leak scandal; this is the leak scandal. At a minimum, at least one high-ranking White House official exposed an undercover CIA agent, then, fearful of getting caught, lied about it.

Chait’s question need not be a rhetorical one. If the leak was legitimate and above-board, why was all the deception necessary?

The why of Libby’s lie is the $64k question. Instead of not remembering or somesuch doubletalk, he actively sought to send the investigation off on a false direction. He did this at the risk of 30 years in prison. Why?

This was not an idle fib – it was deliberate and sustained. He had to have what he saw as good reason to put himself in such serious jeopardy. He’s a smart guy and an accomplished attorney. Surely he knew what he was getting into. So the question becomes: What could be important enough to warrent this risk?

My suspicion is that there was direct link between the WHIG operating out of Cheney’s office and the forged Niger documents at the root of this scandal. Though the Niger forgeries may have an air of old news now, they were obviously central to justifying the invasion of Iraq. If it turns out that the neocon cabal manufactured and planted this in the pipeline to justify their objective, you’ve got an impeachable offense, if not outright treason.

Perhaps my hat is made of tinfoil, but I don’t see what else that could justify Libby’s calculated risk.

  • As Pat Fitzgerald said yesterday, many cases that are investigated do not necessarily result in charges based on the original crime, but many cases DO result in charges for perjury (aka lying under oath), obstruction of justice and making false statements. It happens ALL THE TIME!

    Obviously, if there was no original crime, then the suspects would have no reason to lie. As criminal investigators will tell you, when it appears that someone is lying about something, and the lie can be confirmed through in-depth discussions with sometimes multiple witnesses, then there’s usually a pretty strong suspicion regarding the original, alleged crime.

    As we all know, Martha Stewart didn’t go to prison for insider trading, although that was the original, alleged crime. She went to prision for obstructing justice, conspiracy and making false statements during an insider trading investigation into her sale of $228,000 worth of ImClone Systems stock in December 2001. As I said, it happens all the time.

  • Mark Shields said there are two rules in Washington scandals. (1) It’s not the crime but the coverup which gets you in trouble. (2) Those in power never rememeber the first rule.

    This, from this morning’s Seattle P-I, doesn’t give me much to cheer about, unfortunately. The track record of these things isn’t very exciting:

    A brief history of indictments in recent administrations:

    • The only sitting Cabinet member in recent history to be indicted while in office was Raymond Donovan, President Reagan’s labor secretary. In September 1984, Donovan was indicted along with several others, accused of grand larceny in his co-ownership of a construction firm. After going on unpaid leave in October, Donovan resigned in March 1985. In 1987, a jury acquitted Donovan and his co-defendants.

    • In October 2005, David Safavian, the top procurement official for President Bush, resigned. Three days later, he was arrested and indicted on five felony counts connected to criminal investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In the time covered by the indictment, from May 2002 to January 2004, Safavian had been the chief of staff at the General Services Administration. Case pending.

    • In November 1996, Henry Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton’s housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

    • In December 1994, Mike Espy resigned from his position as Clinton’s agriculture secretary. In August 1997, he was indicted on 39 corruption counts in allegations that he had received financial gifts from Tyson Foods Inc., one of the firms his department regulated. In December 1998, he was acquitted on all counts.

    • In May 1993, White House travel office chief Billy Dale and his entire staff were fired by the Clinton administration. Dale was indicted in December 1994 on two counts of embezzlement and conversion after a grand jury said he pocketed up to $68,000 from media organizations traveling with the president. He was acquitted of all charges in November 1995.

    • In November 1986, John Poindexter resigned from his post as national security adviser to President Reagan. In March 1988, Poindexter and three others were indicted in relation to the Iran-Contra affair. Poindexter was charged with two additional counts of obstructing Congress and two counts of making false statements. He was convicted in 1990, but the charges were overturned the following year.

    Wish we had a lot more to look forward to, but I don’t expect much.

  • No. Fitz did *not* have the goods on the conspirators, specifically because Libby has been protecting them through obstruction and perjury. WHICH IS WHY FITZ INDICTED LIBBY FOR OBSTRUCTION AND PERJURY!

    Read his press conference statements. He’s a very straight-shooter; he said exactly this in plain English. Libby’s perjury and obstruction stopped the investigation cold. Which is why Libby was the guy left holding the bag, and is going on trial and very likely to prison.

    If Libby had sung– as others like Miller, Wurmser, Cooper, and probably Fleischer, Powell, and others have– then Fitz apparently thinks he’d have a case, whether it be Espionage or Conspiracy, I don’t know, and he might not either. Without Libby’s truthful testimony, all he’s got is the 5 indictments against Libby that he turned in. He said this. Flat out, full stop, no ambiguity whatsoever, in both the press conference and in the indictment itself.

    Libby threw himself under the wheels of the train. He took the fall, withheld information from the GJ, perjured himself to them, and got convicted for it, like any good mid-level Mafia soldier would. The Capo’s (Rove, Shrub, and Cheney) still walk the streets, free as a bird.

    The reason Fitz left “Official A” and all the other players so vague in his indictment is not to prejudice any case against them– which he obviously feels he might have, if only Libby would cooperate. After a few weeks or months or years of getting fucked up the ass by Bubba in prison, Libby suddenly might become more “flexible” and decide to turn state’s evidence and testify against the conspirators. Then we’ll see a new GJ empanelled, and Fitz going in for the kill. Who knows, at some point before the trial, Libby might still decide to talk, and cop a plea. Fitz doesn’t have to take these indictments to trial, you know.

    But don’t hold your breath. I’d expect that Shrub personally has promised Libby oceans of wealth if he can only maintain the Omerta for at least the next 4 years until after 2008. We don’t know what kind of guy Libby is– he may be a very good Mafia soldier. He may serve a 7 month sentence, get pardoned by Shrub, and get a great, highly-paid job as a talking head just as convicted felons Liddy and Colson have done.

    Still, a public criminal trial with Rove, Cheney, Shrub, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others testifying under oath, should be a real treat, and probably in time for the 2006 elections too. Fitz may be still holding perjury-trap cards, and if the cabal takes the bait and lies in a public trial, there could be many more Fitzmas’es.

  • I agree with Joe W and goatchowder on this. But I’m not sure that Libby would be going to a real prison. Sounds like one of those Danbury type places where he can make good business connections with convicted CEOs. And that’s only until Bush pardons him which will be soon. Bush doesn’t have to run for reelection and doesn’t care what anyone thinks, so that won’t be difficult to do. Libby will have no incentive to talk, I fear. No bubba factor. And yes, Libby and his significant others won’t be hurting for cash.

    • Comments are closed.