Patrick Fitzgerald's sentencing brief in the Libby case was released today. He concludes:
Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer's identity. He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded an investigation.
Yet conservatives continue to openly defend this convicted felon. As Newsweek reports:
Since his conviction last March, a number of conservative partisans—who shared with Libby his ardent support of the Iraq war—have mounted a vigorous public campaign in his defense and sought to lay the groundwork for a presidential pardon. In mid-May, Libby was a featured guest at a New York dinner honoring Norman Podhoretz, one of the neo-Conservative movement's intellectual godfathers. According to reports from the scene, the dinner, organized by Commentary Magazine, opened with cheers and a "standing ovation" for Libby.
Think about that for a second. This is a man who was convicted of four felonies by a jury that was clearly conscientious and deliberative (they even acquitted him on one of the counts). He was prosecuted by a Republican political appointee, a man who is widely-regarded as one of the best and least political prosecutors in the country. He was represented at trial by the best legal team money can buy. Yet somehow this man has become the cause celebre among the conservative intelligentsia, the very symbol of injustice. How completely and totally absurd.As Patrick Fitzgerald writes in his brief:
[T]he assertions offered in mitigation are consistent with an effort by Mr. Libby's supporters to shift blame away from Mr. Libby for his illegal conduct and onto those who investigated and prosecuted Mr. Libby for unexplained "political" reasons. The assertions provide no basis for Mr. Libby to receive a reduced sentence. The record should be clear that the grand jury investigation was conducted fairly and in appropriate secrecy; Mr. Libby had ample legal resources and talent available to him to raise all appropriate legal challenges and mount a legal defense; the Court provided Mr. Libby substantial opportunity to follow through on the defense he proffered; and the jury carefully and dispassionately weighed the evidence over the course of many days and convicted on four counts and acquitted on another. While the disappointment of Mr. Libby's friends and supporters is understandable, it is inappropriate to deride the judicial process as "politics at its worst" on behalf of a defendant who, the evidence has established beyond a reasonable doubt, showed contempt for the judicial process when he obstructed justice by repeatedly lying under oath about material matters in a serious criminal investigation.
That's a very diplomatic way of pointing out how truly ridiculous the Libby pardon chorus has become. The notion that this was some sort of partisan witch hunt doesn't even pass the laugh test. But for reasons that I can't even come close to understanding, that seems to have become the consensus view in Washington. Never in the history of criminal prosecutions has there been a case that has fewer indicia of partisan chicanery than this one. Libby was prosecuted and convicted because there is overwhelming evidence that he deliberately lied under oath about material facts in a criminal investigation.That fact that this man has become some sort of cult hero among conservatives speaks volumes about the intellectual and moral poverty of modern conservatism.. . . Oh, and Dan Froomkin is worth reading on this.
Anonymous Liberal or A.L., a litigator at a law firm writes this in response to a blogger's comment on his blog:
Apparently, every utterance of a prosecutor is now gospel;
Tom, first of all, this isn't just any prosecutor. Fitzgerald has a stellar reputation and no political axe to grind. Second, he's just citing facts provided to him by the CIA. After reading Fitzgerald's brief, it's pretty clear that Fitzgerald thinks he would have had an easy time proving that Plame qualified under the IIPA (what was holding him back was most likely the scienter requirement).
Every utterance of the CIA is now gospel;I suppose it's possible the CIA could be lying about Plame's employment history, but that seems like a paranoid suggestion backed by zero evidence.
Laws should be construed as broadly as possible in order to investigate as many as possible;
Yeah, that's why Fitzgerald decided NOT to prosecute anyone under the IIPA and Espionage Act. It was because he was trying to construe laws as broadly as possible. That doesn't even make sense. Fitzgerald did just the opposite. He chose the conservative route of prosecuting only the blatant perjury/obstruction charges.
Prosecutors should probe perjury/obstruction selectively - to pick an example seemingly at random.
This is a weak argument. Libby was selected for prosecution because he was the one who lied the most blatantly, and he did so about facts material to a criminal investigation of himself and the Vice President. The case that Plame lied is WEAK, and she also wasn't the subject of any criminal investigation. Lying in a criminal probe is a far more serious offense than lying in a Congressional hearing about non-material matters (and I don't think Plame lied anyway).
9:02 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment