PhotoDude.com

Sat. Oct 29, 2005

Spinning the Scooter

It seems like every pundit with access to a keyboard has spit out their speculation on Friday’s indictment of Irving Lewis “Scooter” Libby (yes, Irving). In order to keep my punditry license, little used though it is, I guess I’ll thrown down, too.

First off, though Friday was obviously a long pent up moment, it hardly settles things. Even in the case of these specific five indictments, it will be legal eons before there’s any resolution (assuming no plea deal is made). We’re talking about a case filled with classified topics and content, all of which must be sorted out prior to court. What can be public? What must be kept to the jury only? The CIA will be involved in these discussions, there may be claims of executive priviledge, and it will drag the case out quite considerably.

It’s easy to find dozens of theories out there, ranging from “this is everything” to “this is the first step.” Some seem to think the prosecutor has essentially put Libby on the rack, and will now see how far he wants to stretch … before giving somebody up and making a deal. Some think that facing up to 30 years in an orange suit might cause the ever-loyal Libby to look at loyalty in a new light.

If the allegations in the indictment are true, it comes down to which explanation you believe for Libby telling such an outrageous concoction. Four times. Was it to cover up potentially illegal acts by others, i.e., a coverup of a larger conspiracy? Or was it just to avoid the political embarrassment of admitting he had, on behalf of the Bush administration, spread the information about Valerie Wilson to a bunch or reporters in order to discredit her husband?

I lean pretty strongly towards the latter. As I recently said, this was a cheap and stupid act. And though the act itself may not have been illegal, it was immoral. Unethical. A recent poll shows that’s a pretty common opinion, as 39% said they thought it was illegal, 39% thought it was unethical but not illegal, and a mere 10% thought it was neither.

So, you may ask, if I’m not sure a crime was committed by spreading Valerie’s name and occupation, why should there be any charges at all? Um, because if you lie under oath, you could be doing so to cover an actual crime. There’s no way to know … because you lied. You are certainly trying to mislead the prosecutor and/or jury for some reason contrary to the proceedings.

Therefore, lying under oath is plenty sufficient to be charged, in my opinion. It shows both bad faith and disrespect for the process. This is true for the lowliest common criminal you can imagine, and frankly, there ought to be a higher standard for someone with the title “Assistant to the President.” That when under oath, you will tell the truth to the American people, and their representatives. Like the justice system.

I tend to think Libby told this story to the FBI twice in the fall of 2003 because he thought he could get away with it. The journalists in question surely wouldn’t answer any FBI questions about their confidential sources. It was only afterwards that a special prosecutor was appointed. And I think he was then faced with the choice of recanting on his answers to the FBI, or sticking with the story on the assumption that the reporters could not be compelled to talk, even to a special prosecutor.

Bad assumption. Times at least three. To me, the alternative is to believe the “I don’t recall” theory: that he remembered not one but three conversations with three name journalists completely inaccurately, and that he had no recollection at all of the prior conversations about Plame he had with seven government officials that Fitzgerald has documented.

If that is indeed true, then it’s still best that this “sieve memory” is no longer in an important post. Maybe he and Judith Miller can get together and see if they can jog amazingly defective memories for people in such high positions. Because it’s pretty bizarre that two such people would have a similar memory meltdown when it comes to perhaps the biggest scandal of the Bush presidency.

As for perjury being a mere technicality when there is no underlying crime, many of those selling that spin had an entirely different opinion not too long ago. A man who receives oral sex in an anteroom off the Oval Office has not committed an actionable crime. But when he later lies about it under oath (and on camera to the American People), well, that’s not only unethical, it’s actionable. Perjury. And if perjury is such a niggling offense, why don’t we just stop having people take an oath before testimony?

You know why. Because it is critical to the process.

Back during the Clinton Days, we were dancing around the meaning of the word “is.” Today, we dance around the meaning of the word “covert” and the difference between saying “Joe Wilson’s wife” and “Valerie Plame.”

Otherwise, it appears to me to be the same spin, but from the other direction.

And regarding “covert” and “classified,” over at The Corner, Andy McCarthy notes (emphasis mine):

The indictment charges the mere fact that Plame worked at the CIA was classified information. (“At all relevant times … Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.”)

It is worth noting that many people, including me, have been wrong about this. I assumed that the fact that she was a CIA employee was well-known and not classified, but that some aspect of her relationship with CIA was covert and classified. The latter may be true (Fitzgerald, as he should have, declined to comment on it), but it turns out to be not so important because the very fact that she was a CIA employee was classified. It really doesn’t matter whether we think it should have been classified or not. The fact is that it was. People privileged to handle classified information well know that they mustn’t disclose it even if they personally think there is no good reason for it to be classified or that some higher purpose of theirs would be served by disclosing it.

Ah, that “higher purpose.” Your party, of course! One of the talking points being thrown around is that this sets the dangerous precedent of “criminalizing politics.” Well, let me tell you what … when your partisan priorities cause you to even step close to a national security line you otherwise would not approach, you need a stiff shift at the Partisan Pokey. If that’s what it takes to convince you there are things more important than your Almighty Political God.

I’ll take it a step further (a step I expect no one to take with me). I’m in favor of some chilling effects here. Let the message be sent that if you go after your political opponents in an untruthful and negative manner, you may end up in court. Lie about it to cover your embarrassing actions, and it’s the Partisan Pokey for you.

I know, people have a problem with injecting enforced ethics into their politics. People often don’t want to do what’s best for them. Because I told you two years ago...

There is no way to spin this as representative of “smarts” in the White House. This was flat stupid. And ineffective.

Of course, the best thing a politician can do in this kind of circumstance is to get out in front of it, quickly police your own house, and thus grab control of the news cycle. Given the alleged discipline and loyalty to the The Leader in the White House, surely the culprits are willing to step forward and say, “yep, we did something really stupid, and the President had no idea. Now excuse me, but I’ve got to go pick up my unemployment check.”

Game over. Before the opposition even gets fully suited up.

Of course, that won’t happen. Bush is also known for his loyalty, and I’m not sure he knows when to cut his losses. Rather than one big mea culpa, quickly and under their own control, they will now suffer a thousand cuts, for months, with no control.

And I told you two weeks ago...

But imagine … if they’d had a Oval Office pow-wow and accepted “we’re gonna lose a man on this one.” They could have mitigated this two years ago by having Libby fall on his sword. If he’d resigned while admitting he’d spilled the beans to reporters, there probably never would have been a special prosecutor. Rove could have juked right around any culpability with the cover of a scapegoat, and stuck around to help get Bush re-elected. “Game over. Before the opposition even gets fully suited up.”

And in that alternate reality, the Bush administration might still be battered by the same forces they have been over the past two months … minus the cloud of potential indictments that has seemingly paralyzed them of late. That whole “PlameGate” thing would have been resolved and forgotten old news.

Oh sure, you say, that’s easy to predict with 20/20 hindsight. Um, no, that’s my point. My suggestion above was in September of 2003, and all I lacked was the names we know now. In the White House, they knew who was involved.

...and I’ll tell you again. This was totally in their control, and they brought it on themselves, when it could now be old and forgotten news. And now we’re hearing the same thing from Republicans:

House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) was stinging, saying he was “very disappointed in Libby, and the White House, and the vice president and the president.”

“They should have taken care of this a long time ago,” Davis said in an interview. “They should have done their own investigation. They’re going to get very little sympathy on Capitol Hill, at least from me … They brought this on themselves.”

Washington Post: A New Moment of Truth For a White House in Crisis

Not only did they bring it on themselves, it is far far from over. My guess is that this story will be in the news for another 18-24 months.

You could make a strong argument this is the price for blind loyalty. And the tab has been building up for a long time.