This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The "Chilling Effect" of the Libby Verdict

edited March 2007 in Politics
This is aimed at the lawyers on the boards.

The news of the day is: DOJ official won't testify about firings .

Taken on its own one might might think that this person is trying to cover something up but, when combined with the results of the Plame investigation, we see a bigger picture begin to unfold.

I do not feel this official is pleading the fifth because of any wrong doing, I think she is doing it because she feels that Democrats are on the war path because they were able to get Libby, not for the crime of outing a covert CIA operative (it was Armitage and the SP knew it early on) but for perjuring himself. That case should have ended as soon as the leaker (Armitage) was found out by the Special Prosecutor and the fact of Plame's non-covert status had been made known.

So I ask the lawyers in the house; Is this the Chilling Effect of the Libby verdict or is it something else? Because to me, I see it as a government official looking at a recent case where someone got jail time because they talked to a Grand Jury and they do not want to become the next fall guy.

PS: You lawyer types can parse through what I'm saying and lay it out a bit more clear for the rest of us.
«1

Comments

  • As far as I can see, it's only a chilling effect for people who have some reason to believe that they will be lying...
  • I have to disagree because I see the "mood" in Washington as one of, "one down how many more can we get?" as opposed to a mood of, "let justice be served."

    I know I would not want to be under oath and end up with a perjury verdict because I told someone I had eggs for breakfast last week when I really had cereal.
  • RymRym
    edited March 2007
    I know I would not want to be under oath and end up with a perjury verdict because I told someone I had eggs for breakfast last week when I really had cereal.
    Were I under oath, I would speak very precisely and answer only direct questions directly. If I wasn't sure of what I'd eaten, and the panel for whatever reason decided that it was important, I'd be honest and qualify my statement with "I believe" or "As best I can recall."

    It's not difficult to speak precisely when the need arises, and I have little sympathy for a politician who cannot do so in the rare event of being subpoenaed. I furthermore tend to distrust anyone, especially someone in a position of power, who cannot or will not answer or at least attempt to answer a direct, appropriate, and germane question with clear speech.

    Libby didn't simply misspeak on a minor point. Libby stated as fact something directly relevant to the case that was decided in court to be untrue. There are only two real possibilities (assuming that the court is correct in its assessment that his statement was in fact technically untrue):

    1. He lacks the mental capacity to speak clearly when the situation warrants.
    2. He purposefully lied.

    If he wasn't sure, he should have said so. By asserting that he was in fact sure, especially with regards to something important to the case, he's proven that one of the two above statements is true, in addition to having broken the law. Funny how the matter he lied about happened to have been a major part of his defense...

    Speaking under oath is very different from speaking in day-to-day life. Anyone in a position of power should understand this. Anyone who refuses to speak under oath either has something to hide or feels that they lack the ability to speak clearly and precisely.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • I have to disagree because I see the "mood" in Washington as one of, "one down how many more can we get?" as opposed to a mood of, "let justice be served."
    True, but this is a very important part of our government. Right now Congress is exercising one of its main controls over the bureaucracy and that is monitoring exactly how they have been functioning and what actions they have been taking. Mostly through standing committees and the Government Accountability Office, Congress can keep the bureaucracy in check. I believe that it is important in government for there to be dissent among politicians, it means that people are making sure other people aren't doing anything shady. What is nice about the three branch system is that it allows the wants of a small party to benefit the larger group.

    The executive branch as grown way to large and powerful in the past 7 years, mostly due to Cheney, and it is about time that Congress did something about it.
  • I'm not trying to argue that Congress should not be doing what it is doing in regards to investigating. I just think that by getting Libby on a charge unrelated to the original investigation, an investigation that resulted in no one being charged for the crime that started it even after we found out who leaked the information, may have been a mistake.

    I think no one is going to want to talk to Congress now because they will feel that the charges are nothing more than an attempt to launch a perjury trap.

    Remember, the President has full authority to fire the atorneys for "any reason". The real issue here is the provision in the Patriot Act that allows him to appoint new attorneys without the advice and consent of Congress. This problem has just been addressed by Congress and the President has said he will sign the bill that fixes this problem.

    Just like with the Plame case, no crime was committed.
  • Just like with the Plame case, no crime was committed.
    That's a fairly heady statement, especially considering that the investigations are far from over and that the secret identity of a CIA operative was in fact leaked.
  • I think no one is going to want to talk to Congress now because they will feel that the charges are nothing more than an attempt to launch a perjury trap.
    A few things in this end part of your post. No one should be worried about testifying before Congress being a trap for perjury charges unless they plan on lying under oath. That's the only way that they can be charged with perjury, be actually committing perjury. They have a choice, the truth or perjury; I don't see how this can be a trap, unless they feel that the truth can't be said for some reason.
    Remember, the President has full authority to fire the atorneys for "any reason". The real issue here is the provision in the Patriot Act that allows him to appoint new attorneys without the advice and consent of Congress. This problem has just been addressed by Congress and the President has said he will sign the bill that fixes this problem.
    The problem here isn't exactly that they are doing something illegal, but the absurdly political way they are using these appointments, and then attempting to lie about it. They claim that these firings were all due to incompetence, but this charge isn't carried through when a look is taken at their performance reviews.

    There was an original list of attorneys who were going to be fired: that list was ~90 names long, and included Patrick Fitzgerald. These firing were for political reasons, and the administration should just come out and say it, not try to lie and evade going under oath so that they can simply state their version of facts as the truth.
  • Just like with the Plame case, no crime was committed.
    That's a fairly heady statement, especially considering that the investigations are far from over and that the secret identity of a CIA operative was in fact leaked.
    The law in question in regards to the Plame case was about divulging the identity of a "covert" CIA agent. Due to the fact that Armitage was not charged in that case after admitting he leaked the name tells me the law was not broken.

    In regards to the attorney firings, that are employed at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them for ANY reason.
  • I'm still waiting for Joe to jump in here and give us some clear legal analysis.
  • The problem here isn't exactly that they are doing something illegal, but the absurdly political way they are using these appointments, and then attempting to lie about it.
    The attorney jobs are political appointments. The entire job is political!

    Politics was probably one of the reasons these guys were fired due to the very nature of the job being a political appointment!
  • edited March 2007
    I'm still waiting for Joe to jump in here and give us some clear legal analysis.
    Not feeling too good today . . . but

    If Goodling's truthful testimony would cause her to give evidence against herself for a crime she has already committed, then she is correct in invoking her right against self incrimination. She has a right to not be compelled to give evidence against herself for crimes she may have already committed. However, there is no Fifth Amendment right against testifying about prospective - or future - crimes a witness plans to commit, and so there is no right to refuse to testify because if compelled to testify the witness will commit perjury. Lying under oath is not giving evidence against yourself - the false testimony itself is the crime.

    If invoking the right is based upon her lawyer's claim that she'll be in a hostile environment so would be charged with perjury for testifying truthfully, then her lawyer is violating his code of ethics and is perpetrating a fraud on the Congress. In that case, she should be compelled to come forth and testify.

    Congress could grant her immunity from prosecution for anything she admits to during her testimony. I hope they do that because having once been granted immunity (that does not give her immunity for committing perjury during her testimony), she should be able to give direct evidence of crimes perpetrated by Gonzales and Rove.

    In fact, I somewhat suspect they might be fishing for immunity.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • The problem here isn't exactly that they are doing something illegal, but the absurdly political way they are using these appointments, and then attempting to lie about it.
    The attorney jobs are political appointments. The entire job is political!

    Politics was probably one of the reasons these guys were fired due to the very nature of the job being a political appointment!
    Then come out and say it! Don't try to bullshit the American public that these firings are due to job performance when you mean lack of investigating and prosecuting Democrats.

    It's not the act, it's the cover-up.
  • edited March 2007
    Thanks Joe, I also suspect she is fishing for an immunity deal.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited March 2007
    Let's also not forget that every (or most every, there might be somplace where this is not true, but I'm not famioliar with it) prosecutor is either elected or appointed. Getting the job is political. Afterwards, the prosecutor is supposed to be a law enforcement official above politics. kilarney probably has an opinion about that.

    Besides the corruption cases, I'm concerned about civil rights cases. The U.S. Attorneys prosecute cases of voter fraud. Notice the qouted language:

    "Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.


    Rove thanked the audience for 'all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected." He added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs.' "

    qouted from this source. Sound suspicious? Maybe I'm just inclined to be suspicious. . .
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • No, I have no doubt in my mind that the firings were politicaly motivated!

    I also have no doubt in my mind that the President is allowed to fire those prosecutors for "any" reason.
  • As I understand the potential scandal isn't the actual firings but the president's and Attorney General's apparent dishonesty about the reasons behind the firings as well as the attempt to bypass Congressional oversight with that unnoticed Patriot Act power. With so many lies flying around, there must be something to hide, where there is smoke..
  • I just found this article on the subject.

    "It doesn't take a quarter-million dollars and an army of lawyers to conclude that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, unless you're a Democrat with a political dog-and-pony show to produce," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
  • edited March 2007
    No, I have no doubt in my mind that the firings were politicaly motivated!

    I also have no doubt in my mind that the President is allowed to fire those prosecutors for "any" reason.
    Yes, that's true. If they had said from the start, "We did what we did. Neener Neener.", it probably would've stopped there.

    Here's the two things that make it a problem: (1) Because of Sampson's testimony, it's obvious that Gonzales lied in his sworn testimony to Congress, and (2) It's becoming clear that many USA's, like Carol Lam specifically, were fired because of their investigations into Republican corruption. There's a nice summation here. That's obstruction of justice.

    The lack of candor, the outright lies, and the fact the Lam firing came just as she was in the middle of a widening investigation is extremely suspicious. Lam had just finished with Duke Cunningham. That corruption scandal is one of the biggest in Congressional history. She had issued subpoenas for her investigation of Jerry Lewis the day before she was fired and She had just indicted Dusty Foggo (No. 3 at CIA) for the same corruption shenanigans.

    No one can articulate the problem they had with Lam. It was floated for a while that she might not have been prosecuting immigration cases zealously enough, but Feinstein noted that, under Lam, immigration prosecutions increased drastically, she had a 100% success rate in prosecuting immigration cases, and she was never contacted regarding any problem the administration was having with immigration cases.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Monica Goodling might get her immunity.
  • Does anyone recall exactly how many U.S. attorneys were fired under Clinton? And does anyone remember how many of those were investigating white water? And from everything I know about the Plame case, she was not an active field operative in any case of the word, or in any way according to C.I.A. standards. Oddly enough, the laws concerning revealing the identity of field operatives doesn't cover the identity of non-active field operatives. Huh. So the original "crime" wasn't even a crime...
  • Clinton fired them all.
  • edited April 2007
    Does anyone recall exactly how many U.S. attorneys were fired under Clinton?
    Clinton fired them all.
    As did Ronald Reagan and GWB. It's custom to get rid of the whole slate at the beginning of an administration.
    And does anyone remember how many of those were investigating white water?
    Yes. Zero. Quote from above cited source:

    *snip*

    In a March 14 editorial, The Wall Street Journal suggested that former President Bill Clinton "dismiss[ed] ... all 93 U.S. Attorneys" upon taking office in 1993 and subsequently appointed " 'Friend of Bill' Paula Casey" as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas in order to avoid an investigation into "the Clintons' Whitewater dealings." Following the Journal editorial, co-host Sean Hannity made a similar suggestion on the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. Hannity baselessly suggested that Clinton "fire[d] the Little Rock U.S. attorney" in 1993 because he had launched an "investigation into ... the Whitewater deal." In fact, Casey's Republican-appointed predecessor, Charles A. Banks, had refused to pursue the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George H.W. Bush administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar challenger Clinton.

    Moreover, as Media Matters has documented, the extensive investigation into Whitewater -- initiated shortly after Clinton took office -- ultimately led the independent counsel to close the probe without charging the Clintons with any wrongdoing.

    *snip*
    And from everything I know about the Plame case, she was not an active field operative in any case of the word, or in any way according to C.I.A. standards. Oddly enough, the laws concerning revealing the identity of field operatives doesn't cover the identity of non-active field operatives. Huh. So the original "crime" wasn't even a crime...
    Read more. And please remember that, not only was Plame outed, her cover firm, Brewter Jennings was as well. Plame and others who used Brewster Jennings as cover were involved in gathering intelligence on Iran and it's nuclear program. It'd be pretty nice to have that kind of intelligence right about now. We'll probably never know how many other active CIA field officers were compromised as a result of the outing of Brewster Jennings.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Who outed Plame's cover firm?
  • Who outed Plame's cover firm?
    Robert Novak in his second column about Valerie Plame.
  • Is it a crime to "out" a firm as opposed to a person?
  • Is it a crime to "out" a firm as opposed to a person?
    Well, I'd say that a leaker would be liable for Theft of Government Property, Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer, and violations of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, the Espionage Act, and the Civil Service Reform Act for starters.
  • edited April 2007
    It looks like she's gonna sing.

    They subsequently voted to authorize a subpoena for Goodling and then voted to actually issue a subpoena for Condi Rice.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited July 2007
    So, in his Senate testimony, Gonzo leaks the existence of another spying program?!! Either that, or he's lying. To Congress. Under oath. Does that mean anything anymore?

    Meanwhile, Meirs flat-out disses Congress twice and the Shite House claims a breathtaking scope of Executive Privilege. . .

    When will it be enough? How much of this do we take? Do we just play our games, watch our anime and hope it'll turn out all right?

    Another thing: Why was Cindy Sheehan arrested in the Capitol yesterday, but Gonzales was allowed to walk away free today?

    Inside the DOJ:

    image
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Please forgive me for the multiple posts, but here are more Gonzo lies. Congress is actually considering a perjury investigation. Meanwhile, the Judiciary Commitee has issued contempt citations for Meirs and Bolten. It looks like there's going to be a real constitutional crisis.

    Also, the FBI is gonna have a Secret Policeman's Ball and GWB has had the epiphany that Al Qaeda in Iraq is Al Qaeda. In Iraq.

    Here's a great analysis of the Shite House's ever-changing propaganda about Al Qaeda in Iraq.

    Why should you care? We're living through a very interesting time in history. Your grandchildren are liable to ask you about this and what your opinions were about it at the time. Everyone should pay attention. This is history.
Sign In or Register to comment.