If there’s any prosecution (fingers crossed), the “prosecutor is overstepping his boundaries” talking point is inoperative
Weeks after he took over the investigation 22 months ago into the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative’s identity, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald got authority from the Justice Department to expand his inquiry to include any criminal attempts to interfere with his probe, according to a letter posted Friday on Fitzgerald’s new Web site.
I can hear the little brains over at RNC HQ mulling over another line of attack as we speak.
UPDATE: AS I said, the talking points are out. Perjury is just a “technicality” now, according to the Senator from Texas.
As I pointed out two posts down, you and Joe Conason can continue to lie to your fans about this, that’s okay with me.
But I feel compelled that there can’t be another line of attack from the RNC, because there hasn’t been one in the first place.
Joe came up with exactly examples of this withering, vicious attack:
The first is from Jacob Weisberg, you know that mangy right wing cur, who writes “Bushism of the the Day” for Slate?
Ooooh, that’s scary and intimidating, isn’t it?
The second is from John Tierney of the New York Times:
Yep, these two vicious smears, as well as evidence comprising comments on Lucianne.com, definitively prove that there is a conservative and RNC conspiracy against Fitzgerald.
Only in Willisland.
Yeah, the RNC hasn’t done any work on this case. Nope, I’ve just imagined the caterwauling about “overzealous” prosecution that will rise to a crescendo should there be any indictments.
Recalling the woman who sent the Bush debate prep tape to the Gore campaign, I thought about all the arguments about Rove and Libby and how no harm was done even if they lied, and/or outed Plame.
This woman got a year in jail for her criminal act of stealing the tape.
I really don t want to hear anymore from you WHINERS regarding the criminalization of politics . Get over.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/10595/
Yeah, actually, you have.
Most of the Media Matters propaganda piece you linked to has nothing to do with criticisms, real or imagined, by conservatives of Fitzgerald’s prosecution of the case.
Expressing the fear that indicting someone for perjury about a crime that may not have happened represents “the criminalization of politics” is not a smear, except in the fevered minds of some. Many people from all political stripes expressed a similar concern in the Martha Stewart case.
Media Matters is at best, sloppy in its writing, at worst, they are the rankest of liers.
There are quotes allegedly concerning Fitzgerald, such as “runaway prosectuor” and “chasing a white whale,” that are not attributed.
Did Media Matters make these quotes up, or am I supposed to check every single link on that page to find out who allegedly said those things, and about whom?
Finally, all that Llimbaugh says is that if he feels that Fitzgerald indicts on spurious grounds, he’s going to say so.
To Media Matters, anythink that is not in lockstep with a certain view of what is publicly known about the Plame matter is a “smear” against Fitzgerald.
This is so transparent and whorish no sensible person could take it seriously.
Why are you people trying to deny the fact that republicans are working to discredit fitzgerald?
Move the goalposts from “smear” to “discredit” to “discuss” or “opine about speculative indictments based upon perjury concerning a crime that was not committed” and we might have common ground for a discussion.
But there is no “smearing” as Oliver and Media Matters would have you believe, and it’s impossible to “discredit” someone who hasn’t yet announced anything.
Another question for Oliver:
Why doesn’t Media Matters ever, as does Bob Somerby, criticize the liberal media when it gets its facts about the Plame case wrong?
“Expressing the fear that indicting someone for perjury about a crime that may not have happened represents the criminalization of politics is not a smear, except in the fevered minds of some. Many people from all political stripes expressed a similar concern in the Martha Stewart case.”
What? Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol were complaining that the Martha Stewart case represented “the criminalization of politics?” Or was that the “criminalization of celebrity”? Or how about the “criminalization of perjury” … oh wait.
Conservative commentators from Kristol on down the asshat that subbed for Hugh Hewitt this week were all arguing that if Fitzgerald brings perjury indictments it will be proof that his investigation was politically motivated. I’m not sure how else you can read it when someone says that Fitzgerald is “criminalizing politics.” Only a smear in fevered minds? Tuco, the phrase explicitly suggests that there is no legal justification for the investigation. It suggests that Fitzgerald is not acting in accordance with the law. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson said this today:
“I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.”
Last time I checked perjury was a crime! And yet she’s saying that perjury and obstruction of justice indictments would constitute a waste of time and money. That isn’t an attempt to undermine the legitmacy of the investigation? Since when is perjury a technicality?
If conservatives have a problem with perjury indictments might I suggest a solution: DON’T LIE TO GRAND JURIES. Simple as that. To suggest that perjury indictments are mere “technicalities” or constitute the “criminalization of politics” is nothing more than the worst kind of intellectually dishonest spin.
or am I supposed to check every single link on that page to find out who allegedly said those things, and about whom
I know, cons aren’t used to being cited facts. That’s what happens when you’re in a movement based on just makin’ stuff up.
And this is Media Matters’ mission: “Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”
So yeah, if the Nation forgets to carry a 2, its not exactly the same as NBCCBSCNNFOX parroting RNC talking points.
Thank you for acknowledging that Media Matters isn’t interested in fairness in reporting. Only fairness to liberals…if someone in the media gets something wrong that helps our side…then it’s okay!
Guess you don’t read Somerby do you, or you don’t want to, or you don’t want to acknowledge that the factual errors that some in the media have made concerning the Plame case (ones that attribute statements that were never made and actions that never took place) amount to substantially more than the Nation forgetting to carry a 2?
Maybe you ought to take his advice:
And, oh year, so who are the quotes “runaway prosecutor” and “chasing a white whale” attributable to?
He’s just taking cues from the Republican senator from Texas who thinks perjury is no big deal. Spinning like a top, indeed.
Tuco’s gotta be hurting bad; it’s pretty bad when he’s using the ‘perjury and obstruction of justice charges aren’t really crimes’-argument.
LOL! I’m sooooo DESPERATE
I’m quoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Maybe you were so quick to attack you didn’t read this:
Thanks, for the laugh, though. And for proving to me that liberals aren’t interested in using the legal process equitably. They just want star chambers that they can use to hang conservatives from whether or not they’ve committed any crimes.
Oliver, for someone who apparently thinks he’s good with words (I respectfully disagree), you do more spinning than I ever could with a Duncan Imperial.
I never said that perjury was no big deal. In some cases it is. Please read Justice Ginsburg’s quote again:
Also, I said above, that if anyone is charged and convicted with a crime based on their activities up to and including the Novak column, they should receive the appropriate punishment.
But what if that didn’t happen, Oliver? Do you believe in sending innocent people to jail simply because a prosecutor tripped them up in questioning before a grand jury, just because you don’t like their politics?
This is a serious question, Oliver, and I really hope you give a sincere answer. Because if your answer is “yes,” just remember the same tactic can be used against your political allies. And that’s not good for democracy, for anyone.
I don’t know if Hannity and Kristol had any opinions about the Stewart case, and I don’t believe I said that they did.
But there was no shorter of legal commentators who said at the time that prosecuting people for being untruthful when they were questioned ABOUT A CRIME THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN was overzealous, yes.
Probably some liberal legal experts too, no doubt.
Like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for one:
If anyone involved in the Plame affair is charged with and convicted of a crime related to the events that led up to the Novak column, fine, they deserve the appropriate punishment.
But please don’t patronize me my pretending that liberals have never made the same arguments that you are all of a sudden are claiming to be “smears.”
William Safire
George Will
You’re also quoting Justice Ginsburg out of context; but we all knew that.
Tuco seems to be arguing that he believes it’s ok to lie to law enforcement and prosecutors.
The Repug talking point being parrotted by Tuco and others is this: there wasn’t a crime and several Repug bigwigs got snookered (or “tripped up”) into committing perjury and obstruction of justice, among other crimes.
This, of course, is a logical fallacy. It assumes–no, demands–we believe no crime was committed. Of course, this fallacy demands we believe criminal acts can be proven when material witnesses lie about the crime or provide false or incomplete evidence about the crime.
Now, Repug echo chambers, like Tuco, cite Justice Ginsburg and say, ‘See? The libs don’t like this either.’
Of course, they’re citing Justice Ginsburg completely out of context. Justice Ginsburg’s quote comes from a reference to Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code, known as the false statements statute, where lying orally or in writing to any executive branch employee, even not under oath, is a felony punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Note the emphasis. Section 1001 says you could be prosecuted for lying to any law enforcement type even when you’re not under oath.
But this isn’t what has occurred in the Fitzgerald case. People were sworn under oath before a grand jury.
Here’s a crazy idea. I think people who perjur themselves to hide leaks of national security ought to be prosecuted. Unlike the right, I think the rule of law is more than simple lip service.
“What Republicans now need is the nerve to fight. They must stand for, to quote Helprin again, “the rejection of intimidation, the rejection of lies, the rejection of manipulation, the rejection of disingenuous pretense, and a revulsion for the sordid crimes and infractions the president has brought to his office.” (William Kristol, Weekly Standard, May 25, 1998, page 18.)
Tuco –
What Jade says. You are essentially trying to spin an indictment that hasn’t even occurred yet. For a week now the right has been trying to establish a context in which any charge of perjury or obstruction of justice must/should/will be taken as proof that 1) no real crime was committed and that 2) Fitzgerald overstepped his bounds to “manufacture” a crime instead. That’s showing a lot of respect for the gran jury process, now isn’t it? As Jade points out — because you apparently need reminding — one of the reasons why perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes is because they tend to hamper criminal investigations. It’s harder to prove a crime when the people you are investigating are lying to you. Martha Stewart wen to jail for perjury. We legal commentators complaining about the fact that she was charged with perjury or were they complaining about the sentence she received? There’s a difference. Because any lawyer or judge or legal pundit who would suggest that perjury is the legal equivalent of jay walking is an idiot. If perjury weren’t a serious crime on what basis could an investigator or prosecutor trust anything anyone said under oath? Are you seriously trying to suggest that perjury isn’t a serious crime?
Oliver and Flanagan, give me a freaking break. All one has to do is a search on the word ‘treason’ at OliverWillis.com to get loads and loads comments and posts where those on the left were convinced this was the equivalent of something Aldrich Ames had done. Hell, Oliver even had posts titled ‘Treason Watch.’ It was “treason this” and “treason that” for over a year now.
Now that we learn that chances are, no laws were broken in regard to Plame’s identity being revealed, and we’re supposed to take seriously your alleged concerns over perjury or obstruction of justice charges that would seem to signal some slight desperation on the part of Fitzgerald? Are the crimes in question, serious? Of course. But they don’t even come close to fitting within the left’s maniacal rantings for the last year about people being ‘traitors’ and committing acts of treason.
So please, spare us all the hyperbole about how seriously this all should be taken.
I can’t understand how they all think Bill Clinton was dirty.
So leaking classified information and conspiring to cover it up isn’t treason? No wonder the right holds Ollie North and Dick Nixon in such high regard.
Jay C. now defends treason. It’s amazing.
Again, it’s difficult to prosecute any crime–be it murder, burglary, shoplifting–if material witnesses lie or conspire to falsify or conceal evidence.
And, of course, Jay C. fails to understand the history and legal import of ‘treason.’ The fact is ‘treason’ is a Constitutional term—treasonous acts are prosecuted in a variety of ways, including violations (including conspiracy) of the espionage act. Spies like Robert Hanssen (Novak’s buddy), John Walker, Aldrich Ames weren’t prosecuted under a chargeof treason but for violations of the espionage act.
I think all the talk about “criminalizing politics” emerged after the DeLay indictment first. The charge was twofold: that Ronnie Earle was more interested in nailing his political enemies on trumped charges; and that all DeLay was doing was using the law in creative ways to expand political power – and in ways that all politicians do. GOP defenders have now transferred that argument over to the Plame case by saying that there was a “policy dispute” between members of the Administration, and between the Administration and its external critics (particularly Joe Wilson). The problem with this line of thinking is that it is utterly Machiavellan, as it assumes the law does not govern the way that politics works. For over 100 years, the law has governed the way politcians are supposed to raise money, cooperate with prosecutors, etc. There are legal and illegal ways to handle policy disputes. And there are legal and illegal ways to deal with criminal investigations that may emerge from investigations of suspicious conduct surrounding policy disputes.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Oliver’s still willfully and deceitfully spinning what I’m saying.
I did NOT say thay perjury about criminal acts by criminals was okay.
He’s also willfully and dishonestly avoiding answering the question: Is it okay to prosecute people for perjury when no other crime has been committed?
I don’t expect an answer. I just wanted to relish another opportunity to show how dishonest Oliver is.
Uh, is it okay for me to lie to aiport security screeners if I haven’t committed a crime? If I get pulled over for speeding, is it okay to lie to the cop if I know I wasn’t speeding? Is it okay to lie to the American people about Saddam’s weapons capabilities if you know he deserves to be deposed regardless? All these are truly difficult moral questions to answer. If only there were some sort of commandment that was passed down from on high that could provide some guidance on the issue….
The hell I’m not. For about the tenth time, if anyone is chaged with and convicted of a criminal act, they should be punished accordingly.
Other than that, I’m positing a hypothetical, which no one (escept Jadegold, who would be very comfortable with a leftist dictatorship that tried to sweep the streets of its enemies by tricking people into perjury so they could be thrown into jail) seems to be willing to address head on.
That’s what makes you guys so scary. You’re unwlling to consider any alternative other than guilt, before any indictments have been handed down, before any jury has been sworn in (if there are indictments), and any verdict has been rendered (if there are indictments).
But it’s okay, I guess. It just solidifies my view that the left really isn’t into justice and fairness
If leaking classified information is treason, what is stuffing National Security documents from the National Archives down your pants called?
I wouldn’t call it treason unless he intended to publish them or turn them over to the enemy. But at the very least it’s major-league stupid and probably illegal. If Sandy Berger had done it while in office, I’d call for his resignation.
Too bad our friends on the right here won’t have the integrity to do the same if Rove and Libby are indicted. Watch them twist. Watch them wrigggle. Pass the cheez twists.
Frank –
You would call that an out and out right wing smear. Berger never did any such thing. Only in the right wing echo chamber does that bullshit continue to fly.
If leaking classified information is treason, what is stuffing National Security documents from the National Archives down your pants called?
Just wonderin’.
Tuco –
What is your hypthetical exactly? That there’s a possibility that Fitzgerald set out to deliberately entrap someone? What’s your basis for this assumption — aside from total partisan hackery?
[...]
Attacking The Prosecutor
by Oliver Willis
As I pointed out here, to much protest, the Republican strategy in the event of [...]
Honest ignorant question: Has anyone on the right offered an explanation for the following?
If Plame’s status was such a non-issue, why didn’t Rove (or Libby or whoever) simply stand up at the beginning of this mess and say, “Yeah, I mentioned Mrs Wilson to a reporter or two but everybody seemed to know she worked for the cia, so I had no way of knowing she was covert. I’m real sorry about that, but luckily no harm seems to have come of it. I’ll do my best to be more careful in the future.” No prosecution could arise from such an admission, since the law on outing agents specifies that it must be deliberate. Why the stonewall? Why the coverup? Why prolong this expensive investigation? Unless…. they actually do have something to hide.
Berger stupidly removed copies of items – and never stuffed them in his pants, no matter what Newsmax says – and he was appropriately punished by the law for it.
Dude, perjury is a crime. If the only crime committed is perjury, then you get in trouble for perjury.
The reason we think these guys are guilty is because they have no morality. Immoral people don’t commit crimes on accident.
I dunno. Is it okay if the security screener acted in an intimidating fashion and tried to trick you into saying something that wasn’t a security threat, but nonetheless wasn’t exactly true?
If you knew you weren’t speeding, why would you tell the cop that you were? You may want to try that again, otherwise, you’re just proving my point.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Nice strawman, all, but no one here has given any reassurance that there is no such thing, and there has never existed such a thing, and there could never ever be in the future any such thing as an overzealous prosecutor.
Er, wrong again. The context is that, in her opinion, Ginsburg wrote that she had no choice but to interpret the law as saying what it said, but there was a not-so-subtle message to Congress that the law they enacted was unnecessarily overbroad and could lead to the fact set that she wrote about in my quote from her:
So, how exactly have I taken her quote out of context, again?
If you can for a minute step outside of your black-and-white world of “corrupt cons” and “brand Democrats,” can you entertain the notion that the potential for prosecutorial abuse exists, and that we ought to have safeguards against it?
I don’t have any idea what Fitzgerald is going to do. Neither do you. I’ll make a judgment based on his actual actions, of which there have not been many announced as of yet. I am, however, making a broader point about the potential of prosecutorial misconduct, which I’m surprised that a lot of liberals want to specifically deny when talking about the Plame case, especially since they’ve used the argument so many times in the past when it was their ax that was being gored.
Again, it s difficult to prosecute any crime be it murder, burglary, shoplifting if material witnesses lie or conspire to falsify or conceal evidence.
Oh please. Is this going to be the new talking point? Rove and Libby lied to cover up the real crime? If they’re indicted on perjury or obstruction of justice, it has to be related to the Plame case. If Fitzgerald has evidence of either of those two crimes, then it wouldn’t be difficult for Fitzgerald to indict somebody for revealing Plame’s identity. Additional charges against Rove and Libby would just be a side dish to the big meal. The “I didn’t get to indict on the leaked information because of Rove and Liddy” doesn’t wash.
Berger stupidly removed copies of items
Oh, he was just “stupid.” Please. He knowingly took copies of documents that had handwritten notes on them. Those notes weren’t on the originals.
and never stuffed them in his pants, no matter what Newsmax says
Berger admitted he put documents in his jacket, in his briefcase, and…in his pants. Probably in his pants pockets, but his pants nonetheless.
He purposely took them, purposely destroyed them, and then lied about it. And yes, he was punished (if one considers a fine and probation ‘punishment’), but you’ve given him a complete pass by writing it off as him “being dumb” or “stupid.”
JayC;
You will note the democratic reaction to Berger’s accepting responsibility was preceded by the rant “criminalization of politics” (heavy sarcasm)
Yes, a key issue separating the two parties is that of accepting responsibility. That’s like the difference between a lightning bug and lightning.
“I ll make a judgment based on his actual actions …BUT … I am, however, making a broader point about the potential of prosecutorial misconduct.”
Um, how does the latter not entirely taint if not outright contradict the former:
“I’ll wait to judge but in the meantime I think there’s a possibility that Fitzgerald is a hack.” Gee, I wonder why so many people refuse to take up this provocative and oh so consistent line of thinking?