‘Is it about something bigger?’

The jury in Scooter Libby’s criminal trial began deliberations a couple of hours ago, and no one has any idea what’s going to happen. While we wait, however, it’s worth taking a moment to consider some of the fascinating remarks prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made in his closing remarks yesterday.

As Dan Froomkin noted, by the time Fitzgerald rhetorically asked the jury, “What is this case about? Is it about something bigger?” the prosecutor pointed directly to Dick Cheney’s mysterious role in the entire fiasco.

“There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice,” Fitzgerald said.

“There is a cloud over the White House. Don’t you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?” Fitzgerald asked the jury. Libby, Fitzgerald continued, “stole the truth from the justice system.”

After literally years of keeping his public pronouncements about the case to an absolute minimum, Fitzgerald yesterday finally let slip a bit of the speculation that many of us have long suspected has lurked just beneath the surface of his investigation.

Suddenly it wasn’t just the defendant alone, it was “they” who decided to tell reporters about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA. “To them,” Fitzgerald said, “she wasn’t a person, she was an argument.” And it was pretty clear who “they” was: Libby and his boss, Cheney.

Considering Murray Waas’ National Journal piece the other day, which indicated that prosecutors may pursue Cheney if Libby is found guilty, Fitzgerald’s comments were quite intriguing.

Moreover, the New York Sun’s Josh Gerstein added his own related take, explaining that Fitzgerald’s closing statement suggested “in his strongest terms yet that Vice President Cheney was involved in an effort to unmask a CIA operative married to an administration critic.”

The prosecutor also asserted that Mr. Libby violated a request from investigators by discussing his recollections about the case with his boss, Mr. Cheney, while the probe was under way. “He’s not supposed to be talking to other people,” Mr. Fitzgerald said of Mr. Libby. “The only person he told is the vice president. … Think about that.”

Broadening his attack on the White House, Mr. Fitzgerald took a shot at President Bush, indirectly criticizing him for not firing officials implicated in the leaks about the CIA officer, Valerie Plame. The prosecutor noted that in 2003 the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush would immediately dismiss anyone involved in leaking Ms. Plame’s identity.

“Any sane person would think, based on what McClellan said in October 2003, that any person involved in this would be fired,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. The prosecutor’s clear implication was that Mr. Bush failed to keep his word. […]

Mr. Fitzgerald’s pregnant statements yesterday about Messrs. Bush and Cheney may have been intended to bolster the chance of convicting Mr. Libby by tying him to the unpopular political figures atop the executive branch. Another possibility is that the closing statements offered the prosecutor who has headed the investigation for more than three years his last clear opportunity to opine on the actions of the president and the vice president in the case. While prosecutors appointed under the independent counsel law were permitted to file reports on their findings, there is no such provision for Mr. Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney who was appointed by the Justice Department after senior officials there recused themselves because of the political sensitivity of the case.

And then, for good measure, Newsweek’s Mike Isikoff told MSNBC last night Fitzgerald’s comments “really underscored … why the White House was so nervous about this trial.”

“One thing Patrick Fitzgerald said in his closing arguments that kind of stunned me, he just laid it out there and because the defense had raised questions about vice president — had suggested that — that Scooter Libby might be unfairly portrayed as protecting Vice President Cheney. Fitzgerald said there is a cloud on the vice president, but the cloud is there because Scooter Libby put it there. We, the prosecution, didn’t put it there. Scooter Libby put it there by obstructing justice.

“And then Fitzgerald ran through everything that Cheney did: writing the talking points, tearing out those articles from the newspaper and making those notes on them. Did his wife send him a junket? Putting the sort of junket claim argument in play.

“All of that was done was because the vice president — Fitzgerald pretty much made it clear to the jury that Libby, in the prosecution’s mind, was protecting the vice president of the United States.”

Stay tuned.

Uh oh, it’s time for another blonde to die/disappear/run from her marriage. Can’t have the press covering this.

Look, over there! It’s something shiney!

  • I sure hope this is what it looks like. Fitzgerald has seen what Cheney was up to, and has seen the sheer evil that the man was capable of. He probably feels that the Republican party has been hijacked by criminals who used bogus “intelligence” to push the country into a war that will haunt us for ages.

    A patriotic person with any power would go after anyone who did that.

    And once he has Ivan Libby’s head, he might have the ability to take on the VP directly.

    Go Patrick. And don’t get on any small airplanes.

  • can someone answer something for me? when libby’s trial is over, does fitzpatrick still have the opportunity to pursue this matter further? or is his special prosecutor status over sometime soon?

  • What a strange coincidence that Libby is going to the jury on Eustace Tilley’s birthday. New Yorker founder Harold Ross must be turning over in his grave. Browsing in the Rossosphere: His baby turns 82 today — along with cover guy Eustace Tilley. The New Yorker has given us gritty journalism (Seymour Hersh and Jane Mayer, most recently), as well as pretentious fluff. It has also spawned a host of related blogs. Here’s a look at a few, with topix ranging as far afield as haiku and chiasmus, with links.

  • Is it me or does it sound like Fitzgerald is pissed at Libby from stealing the truth from the justice system?

  • I remember the disappointment that was Fitzmas when Cheney wasn’t indicted. Could it be Fitzgerald was cunning enough to realize that the trial woud give the conspirators the opportunity to publicly implicate themselves in the wider plot that they wouldn’t expose to the Grand Jury?

    Patrick Fitzgerald restores my faith that there are upstanding Republicans out there. May others like him take back their party.

  • I hope this isn’t covered up like so many other stories that the Pres and the VP don’t like. I thought I heard that Fitzgerald was promoted and would not be working this case after the Libby trial. I hope he keeps working on this, but I have learned not to underestimate the devious power of the thugs in the White House.

  • justbill @ #4, my comment didn’t go through so I’ll try again. The investigation into this entire matter isn’t over until Fitzgerald says it’s over. He hasn’t done that yet. My question, which no one ever answers, is: isn’t it Bush’s or Gonzo’s prerogative to pull the plug on Fitzgerald any time they want? I can’t see them wanting this investigation to go on any longer. I thought perhaps that Fitzgerald’s comments about the cloud over Cheney and Plame’s covert status during his closing remarks indicated that he could not do anything further but was putting it all out there in the hope that Congress would pick it up.

  • Damn I hope he goes after Cheney. That bastard is an enemy of democracy. The hell with impeachment; outing an undercover agent is TREASON. Oh, what a wonderful sight that would be, Cheney being marched to the gallows, hangman awaiting! Then on to Bu$h!

  • My question, which no one ever answers, is: isn’t it Bush’s or Gonzo’s prerogative to pull the plug on Fitzgerald any time they want?

    Gonzales definitely doesn’t. Here’s the entire text of the order appointing him:

    “By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. $$ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.”

    (This was done by James Comey as Acting AG for the matter because Ashcroft had already recused himself.)

    Could Bush do it? I don’t know what the law is with regard to that. If he could do it without causing more bad publicity than has already happened, I would think he would have done it. And that may be the key — he might have done it with no outcry early on, but back then Cheney and company thought they were going to get away with it. Once they realized Fitzgerald was a serious threat, it was too late to do it quietly. Based on that, I’m guessing Bush might be able to get rid of him, but not without a public legal battle.

  • **plenary powers**. That’s the operative term in the appointment of Fitzgerald. He can go anywhere the paper trail leads. And unless there is some arcane legal-ese trick, there’s no reason why Libby and others can expect to slip by on the underlying charges. As the Bush apologists note, you usually don’t have a perjury charge unless there is an underlying material issue…like a potential conspiracy to out a CIA operative or improperly disclosing classified information to individuals who are unauthorized to hear/receive it. That’s the other trick of the Bush-folks; they claim that if IIPA wasn’t violated (an uncertain proposition still) then all is well in Bush-land.

  • Comments are closed.