Will Bush pardon Libby?
I’d be surprised if he didn’t. Between various appeals and motions, Libby’s legal team can drag this out for a while, and if the delays can go past Election Day 2008, Bush can pardon him during his lame-duck waning days and Libby will never see a prison cell.
Have White House critics been vindicated?
You better believe it. Dick Cheney’s office became, to borrow a phrase, a “criminal enterprise.” They orchestrated a smear, leaked classified information, put an undercover CIA agent at risk, lied about it, and broke the law. For an already-failed presidency, today’s verdict inches Bush a bit closer to the “worst ever” top spot.
Is Cheney next?
Two weeks ago, Patrick 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?” Libby, Fitzgerald continued, “stole the truth from the justice system.” Asked today about the future of his investigation, Fitzgerald said it is “inactive.” Then again, Fitzgerald has proven to be coy about such matters in the past.
Are conservative complaints about the case and the verdict legit?
Media Matters has compiled a very helpful list of “baseless and false claims likely to surface in the coming days and weeks.”
It’s a valuable resource — I’ve already started to see some of these arguments pop up. Here are some of my favorites:
* No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald’s explanation that Libby’s obstructions prevented him — and the grand jury — from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.
There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson. In his October 2005 press conference announcing Libby’s indictment, Fitzgerald alleged that, in 2003, “multiple people in the White House” engaged in a “concerted action” to “discredit, punish, or seek revenge against” former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In August 2006, it came to light that then-deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage was the original source for syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak’s July 14, 2003, column exposing CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. Numerous conservative media figures subsequently claimed that this revelation disproved the notion of a “concerted” White House effort to smear Wilson. But to the contrary, David Corn — Washington editor of The Nation and co-author of Hubris (Crown, 2006) the book that revealed Armitage’s role in the leak — noted on his Nation weblog that Armitage “abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson” and that whether he deliberately leaked Plame’s identity, “the public role is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment against her husband.”
Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame’s identity. Some in the media have suggested that because Libby did not discuss former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity with Novak — the first journalist to report she worked at the CIA — he is not technically responsible for the leak. But such claims ignore the fact that Libby discussed Plame’s CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on several occasions prior to the publication of Novak’s column naming Plame as a CIA operative.
Libby’s leak was an effort to set the record straight. Critics of the CIA leak case have repeatedly claimed that the indictment stems from an effort by Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney to rebut a purportedly inaccurate attack on the administration by Wilson. According to these critics, Wilson falsely accused Cheney of having sent him to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country. In fact, Wilson, in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, did not say he was sent by Cheney. Rather, Wilson wrote that it was “agency officials” from the CIA who “asked if I would travel to Niger” and “check out” a “particular intelligence report” that “Cheney’s office had questions about,” so that CIA officials “could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security. Some media figures critical of the CIA leak case have attempted to downplay its significance by claiming that no evidence exists that the public disclosure of Plame’s identity compromised national security. In fact, news reports have indicated that the CIA believed the damage caused by the leak “was serious enough to warrant an investigation” and that the subsequent disclosure of Plame’s CIA front company likely put other agents’ work at risk. Further, Fitzgerald stated that Plame’s identity had been protected by the CIA “not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.” And in their recently published book, Hubris, Corn and Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that, at the time of the leak, Plame was the chief of operations for the CIA’s Joint Task Force on Iraq, which “mount[ed] espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have.”
Stay tuned.