Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Poor Libby argues that court openess relative to letters arguing for mercy makes the letters subject to mockery.


To kill a mocking blog
Scooter Libby's lawyer wants to block the publication of pleas for clemency because bloggers may make fun of them.
Marcy Wheeler

In preparation for the upcoming sentencing of Scooter Libby - the Bush administration official convicted of perjury in the Valerie Plame scandal - his defense team solicited his friends and associates to write letters to the judge arguing that Libby deserves a reduced sentence. Last Friday, Libby's lawyer Bill Jeffress submitted a filing [PDF] opposing the release of those letters to the public. In it, he writes: "Given the extraordinary media scrutiny here, if any case presents the possibility that these letters, once released, would be published on the internet and their authors discussed, even mocked, by bloggers, it is this case."

I must say, as the primary live-blogger from a team of bloggers that provided pioneering coverage of the Libby case, that I'm flattered Jeffress considers my mere discussion of the letters to be one of the most compelling risks to releasing those letters to the public. Who knew my discussions were so dangerous?

But my reasons for supporting the release of the letters has little to do with my desire to mock Libby's supporters - and everything to do with the very principles that Jeffress argues would support their public release.

Jeffress describes three reasons why it might be proper to release the letters: a "citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye over the workings of the government," the need to foster public confidence in the administration of justice, and the desire to encourage informed civic discourse. All three of these reasons apply in this case.

According to a filing by the government, those who wrote letters in support of Libby include "current and former public officials." It is not unreasonable to suggest some of these public figures submitted letters to curry favor with the administration or advance their own position within it.

This is particularly true given Dick Cheney's role in the case. The evidence presented at the Libby trial makes a compelling case that Libby obstructed the investigation of the leak of Plame's identity to hide Cheney's role in that leak. Cheney, of course, remains in government. The more lenient Libby's punishment, the smaller the chance Libby will flip on Cheney. So any lenient treatment of Libby would directly benefit Cheney, something those hoping to influence Cheney surely know.

Further, some of Libby's likely supporters have their own reasons to be thankful that Libby successfully obstructed the investigation. Take James Woolsey, one of the public supporters of Libby's defense fund. The former director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, Woolsey has long been a supporter of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. As such, he was an important broker of Chalabi's shoddy intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

The Senate intelligence committee determined that Woolsey introduced several of Chalabi's most damaging defectors to the defense intelligence agency, lending them his own credibility and allowing them to bypass the CIA's more stringent vetting procedures. At least one of these defectors, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, provided false intelligence that the administration used to make the case that Iraq was trying to reconstitute nuclear weapons. (And in fact, Woolsey caused Haideri to be introduced to then New York Times reporter Judith Miller, another key player in the trial.) If the investigation into the leak case ends with Libby, it will diminish any risk that Woolsey's own role in the Iraq uranium claims will receive further scrutiny. Thus, Woolsey cannot be regarded as a neutral party.

And finally, this sentencing, now scheduled for June 5, takes place against the background of the Bush administration's purge of at least nine US attorneys, in at least one case at the behest of Republicans who complained that the US attorney didn't file charges against a Democrat before an election. We have every reason to suspect that Bush's supporters have inappropriately intervened in the administration of justice. Without seeing those letters, how can we be sure the same isn't happening here?

So long as Jeffress knows the names of Libby's supporters, but we don't, we have no way of ensuring that Libby's supporters have no ulterior motive in supporting Libby.

Jeffress' invocation of bloggers is a cheap attempt to dismiss precisely what bloggers bring: an appropriate scrutiny of the motivations and actions of those who lied us into war and outed Valerie Plame. In this case, it is Jeffress' mockery that is dangerous, not mine.

Considering the VP's shooting abilities, he'd be glad to pick any firing squad he has trained himself.

But the entire Democratic Congress's members (with the exception of the junior Senator from Virginia, whom I like) should follow the example of the politicians in Japan and hang themselves. Their poll numbers are lower even than the President's, and anybody's approval ranks higher than the VP, so let's hope they follow the honorable Japanese precedents set in the last couple of days.

The polling numbers for Congress are not currently historically low. Everyone can find something not to like about Congress. It is false to say that their approval is 'lower than the president's.' While this is technically true, the trends aren't even close.

Congress rarely polls above 50%, ever. Usually it's around 35%. The Dem congress is not any lower than other congresses have been. Bush, on the other hand, is in the gutters as presidential rankings go.

Apples and Oranges

Cycloptichorn

This is great, Cyclop, truly magnificent - while something is technically true, it is false to say it! I'll quote you in a mathematical logic publication where I occasionally contribute - thanks

Apples and Oranges.

The technical numbers for the Congressional approval are right around the presidents', but the trend lines aren't even close.

It doesn't matter to me if you want to make fun of me instead of responding to the point.

Cycloptichorn

And what's more, let's split it up amongst party ID and see how low it really is.

You said, about the Democratic congress members:



I was looking at the numbers of Congress as a whole. But, I've found some broken down by party ID:

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm


Harris Poll - 4/20-23/07 Approve 35 Disapprove 58
Pew - 4/18-22/07 Approve 36 Disapprove 43 Unsure 21
ABC - 4/12-15/07 Approve 54 Disapprove 44 Unsure 2
Gallup - 2/9-11/07 Approve 41 Disapprove 50 Unsure 9

--

I was wrong; the Congressional Dems do have higher numbers than Bush has had in a year.

It's the Congressional Republicans who are pulling down the entire Congressional approval rating, with their numbers in the twenties.

Cycloptichorn

Back on topic:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/



All of you who argued that Plame wasn't 'covert' - and you know who you are - should feel pretty f*cking embarassed right now.

She was covert under any definition of the law you would care to look at. She worked overseas within the last 5 years. The CIA was trying to protect her identity.

Cycloptichorn

Richard Armitage roams free at this very moment, cyclops.

As do a bunch of other corrupt, evil bastards. What's your point? You and many other Republicans here were completely wrong about her covert status, to the point of absurdity.

Cycloptichorn

The definition has not been established in a court of law, cyclops. There are certain conditions that have to be met to satisfy the law. A paper that has been filed proves nothing. Before we can evaluate this, we need to know more about the document, when it was written or determined, and by who in the CIA, etc. There has been conflicting information about her status from Day 1. And I find it incredible that the CIA public relations confirmed Plame's employment and identity to Novak, which is not consistent with this apparently new definition.

I see no need to rehash this whole fiasco from beginning to end, but I seriously doubt this filing establishes her covertness according to the court. Bottom line, nobody has been indicted for the supposed crime of breaking the law, as applies to outing Plame. Many hurdles need to be proven for that to be a crime, and Fitz is not even close to establishing anything in that regard.

Her status doesn't have to be confirmed in the court of law for you to have been completely wrong, Okie.

This is completely ridiculous. Is the only standard that matters to the Party of Personal Responsibility, the legal status of the courts? Convictions? Jeez, how things have changed!

Cycloptichorn

One can be covert without meeting the definition in the IIAA. There was never a question about Plame's covertness. However, predictably, the Reps swift-boated her, and continue to do so, claiming that she was only an analyst. They are all disloyal bast**ds.

Cycl - tks for yr comment, but the reference made in my post was to the "Democratic Congress". It is that.

However tks for correcting sloppy wording on my part, and for providing statistics on Democratic vs. Republican popularity; appreciated,

No problem.

The Dem.-led congress certainly doesn't have high numbers, and why should they? They haven't stopped the war and they haven't done anything Republicans like. There's noone to vote for them! I'm surprised the numbers are as high as they are.

They will go up as the year goes on, bank on it - this immigration bill is a fiasco that will be the excuse for the Republicans to peel away from Bush.

Cycloptichorn

This is a bit hard to believe, but maybe the public is intelligent enough to know that the Dems in congress are hamstrung by the Reps who uphold Bush's actual or potential vetoes.

As the minority party,that is exactly what the repubs are supposed to do.

You didnt seem to mind when the dems were the minority and were doing the same thing to the repubs.

MM, but the public knows that the Dems, due to Rep recalcitrance, can't get the needed reforms done. It is sad that the Reps put Bush above the well-being of the country.

Your definition of well-being is different than other people's definition. One of the reasons this is a representative republic, not a totalitarian system, advocate, although the Democrats would like the latter.

What the neocons forget is why the administration bothered to expose her. It's called "motive." There's only one answer, but I'll bet ya dollars to donuts they can't figure that one out!