As I pointed out here, to much protest, the Republican strategy in the event of indictments is to attack Patrick Fitzgerald, rather than address the alleged criminal acts and the White House’s involvement.
But allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case, one Republican with close ties to the White House said Sunday. Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works.
note “the criminalization of policy differences” in the above link
You all DO know what will happen if conviction follows indictment, don’t you?
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm
And Oliver once again deftly avoids the request to answer the question put to him concerning his opinion about the hypothetical situation where someone is innocent of everything except for a false statement made to a Federal government official during an investigation of a crime that didn’t occurr.
It’s really simple, Oliver. It’s the “Did Martha Stewart get what she deserved?” question.
Come on Oliver, you can answer it.
Here’s another question for you Oliver: If the shoe were on the other foot, and it were Democrat politicians at risk, what would you opinion be?
Because Oliver neglected to quote this paragraph from the Times article:
I think this is a case of politicians not understanding how the Rule of Law works, rather than Fitzgerald not understanding how Washington works.
Here’s to the hope that all involved get a crash course over the coming weeks and months..
What a stupid question Tuco. Someone can be completely innocent of the initial charges, like a secretary or assistant or colleague who then lies about what they witnessed someone say or do. They could also hide or destroy evidence and become an accessory after the fact. Let’s say that Karl Rove used his mother’s computer to send Plame Emails. His mother knows he used her computer but tells investigators he didn’t. WHne they leave, she erases files related to his use. Investigators later find evidence emails were sent from her computer, they get a warrant, seize it and are able to reconstruct files she erased enough to know they were sent to players in traitor gate, but are unable to reconstruct the files enough to meet evidence requirements in court. Karl Rove’s mother would now be guilty of a crime much different from the original. Republicans must think every drug dealer who was being investigated for drug smuggling and later murdered a material witness, are guilty of nothing if the original drug charge can’t be prosecuted.
It is very interesting that many republicans are now tacitly admitting that Kenneth Starr ranged far and wide in his investigation because he felt he needed some kind of charge to justify his waste of $70 million tax payer dollars. So far as we know at this point, Fitzgerald has not given up investigating actual crimes to move on to politically embarrassing adulterous behavior of participants.
Good Morning
For starters this morning. Looks like Senator Frist may have known more about the value of his stock portfolio than he let on earlier. I don’t know about you but I am positively shocked. An appellate decision will cause RIM
If perjury is a lesser charge, why was it good enough to hang on Bill Clinton?
Sen. Hutchison declared that perjury is a ‘technicality” on MTP yesterday.
Note her written statement regarding the perjury charge against Bubba.
“I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/hutchison.html
My, how the righteous have fallen !
what does Martha Stewart have to do with this? did she out any CIA agents on her show? did she instruct her staff to create phony documents about Iraq trying to purchase yellowcake uranium? did she go on live television and lie to the nation about taking our nation to war?
didn’t think so. weak, troll. next.
I wonder what smears the Democrats are working on in the event he chooses to indict no one.
You know, they got Capone on tax evasion. I have no problem with indictments for perjury and obstruction.
David, I think the relevance of Martha Stewart is that there, the prosecutors were unable to convict her for the underlying crime (i.e., insider trading) but were able to get her for lying during the course of the investigation.
It appears here that the prosecutor will be unable to indict anyone for the underlying crime (i.e., leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent) but could bring indictments for lying during the course of his investigation.
If I understand the wingnut thinking in the Rove/Plame case, they would say that when Capone was indicted for tax evasion it meant he was totally innocent of any more serious crime.
Until Fitz indicts or closes shop, we have only our wide-ranging speculation to share, on both sides of the issue. I think the GOP has been avoiding an attack on Fitzgerald thus far, but if he does hand out indictments they will pull out all the stops. Ironic how their response to whistle-blowing is what led to the investigation in the first place.
I keep thinking that this is all happening because of that girl who bloodied the 9-year-old Rove’s nose because he had a Nixon bumper sticker on his bicycle in 1960. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11143-2004May8?language=printer
BD: Neither do I. Gulty of the underlying offense or not, lying to the investigators is never a wise move.
Wilbur: No one is saying that at all. if the only indoctments that come down are for perjury it means that the prosecutor either believed that the underlying offense was not committed or that there was insufficient evidence to support such a prosecution. The flip side of your argument is that OJ was innocent because he was found not guilty.
buma: I don’t doubt that you are correct — the GOP will pull out all the stops. I equally don’t doubt that if there are no indictments, the Democrats will pull out all the stops.
I’m curious, Hedley, what sort of attacks the Dems could possibly pull off if there were no indictments. That somebody “got” to Fitzgerald?
Fitz has run a brilliant investigation so far in terms of how little actually leaks. I wonder if he enjoys watching the interested parties on both sides of the aisle as they squirm with anticipation or anxiety.
I’m sure the Dems could come up with something. Probably already have.
Tuco –
Too classic. You are not attacking the prosecutor but you do want to raise the possibility that some prosecutors have been known to abuse their powers in order to entrap otherwise innocent people. Just something we all should keep that in mind if and when Fitzgerald hands down his indictments even though all evidence points to the fact that Fitzgerald is a well respected, by-the-book lawyer. Unlike Ken Starr, who was a prime example of the kind of prosecutor you so lament. But no one has ever suggested that Fitzgerald is that kind of prosecutor but we should remember he might be because perjury is a gotcha charge, unless it isn’t, but in this case it probably might be, even though you respect the judicial process, except when prosecutors abuse their power, which this one might, even though we don’t know that he will, which everyone who knows him personally and professionally says he won’t, but he might, according to you and a handful of partisand hacks from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson to Sean Hannity. Does that about sum up your profound hypothetical challenge?
And yes, if Martha Stewart lied to investigators she deserved what she got. So, by the way, did Bill Clinton despite the fact that Starr was indeed a prosecutor on a wild goose chase. Where Fitzgerald has kept his investigation tighter than drum, Starr’s leaked like a sieve as he helped Republicans, along with a complicit media, in their attempt to score maximum political damage from the investigation long before any indictment was handed down. But none of that matters because Clinton still lied under oath and it was a dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do. And he paid the price. You don’t lie under oath. Simple as that.
Let me ask you this Tuco. Would you care to offer up a situation in which it would be okay for a public servant to lie to a grand jury? I’d love to hear it.
But the investigation is not a Democratic thing. Without subpeona power, Dems in the House and Senate are just spectators like the rest of us. It’s the same with the other trials and tribulations of the scandal-plagued GOP right now. They are basically hanging themselves and the FBI, SEC and DOJ are in pursuit.
Those of us who thought all along that Cheney is a crook and Rove is a sociopath are wondering why that 39 (or is it now 37) percent of the people continue to doubt their lyin’ eyes.
If the prosecutor is on a witch hunt, or if the prosecutor is overzealous, having failed to prosecute DeLay, what is it, three times already (in the case of Earle)?, or if nearly 100% of of the information about this case has come in the form of leaks, and if it is necessary to disclose some background information on Fitzgerald to make this clear, when why not do so?
Is he somehow immune from such scrutiny? Is it not even remotely possible that he is engaged in some unethical activities.
For cryin’ out loud, what is whith you lefties? You tore Ken Starr apart for four years.
The time for speculation is drawing to a close.
Soon there will be plenty of crow available for consumption. Whichever side has it on their menu, I hope the urge to run for cover doesn’t preclude their appearance to eat their share.
On whose part, Leo? The right or the left?
You’re right about someone eating crow, but I foresee one of two scenarios:
Republicans are wrong: Left wing peasants gather around the White House “windmill” with torches and axe handles
Democrats are wrong: ::crickets::