October 17, 2005
Rove & Stewart
I will not be called a partisan hypocrite! I can be but I am not this time. I defended Martha Stewart from prosecutorial overzealousness on many occasions. Ms. Stewart is an elitist liberal to whom I have no devotion or affinity.
But it was wrong to send Ms. Stewart to jail for lying about a crime for which she was not even charged.
Now it seems we may see Karl Rove get indicted for the same deal. Like Ms. Stewart, there is no crime at the heart of this. Ms. Plame was not working undercover within five years, and it's hard to say that she was undercover at all. Yet Mr. Fitzgerald seems to found some incongruity between testimonies and might go for perjury or obstruction of justice charges.
Like the rest of the world, I have no knowledge but that sure seems to be what is shaping up.
As funny as it would be to hear the Democrats wail about what a serious offense lying to a grand jury is, it seems that we are giving away a basic freedom here. Call a person in four times for grueling questions, and then attack them for any inconsistency? That is not justice. That does not meet Bastiat's criteria for fair law. This is not understandable nor avoidable.
Partisan hypocrite! Sorry, couldn't resist after your lead in. Yes it would be fun to watch the Democrats wail about perjury and the Republicans argue that no charges were filed. Mr. Clinton still has Rove and Stewart beat though in that he was "tried" for perjury for lying about something that wasn't even a crime. I am beginning to suspect that in the case of politically charged cases that perjury is becoming what tax evasion was to mob cases, a way to prosecute folks that otherwise would escape prosecution. Grand jury testimony is used to set a perjury trap whereby politically damaging questions are asked and the witness then has the choice of taking political damage or risking perjury. On the other hand if you completely empty the threat of perjury prosecution will any testimony be reliable?
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 17, 2005 12:40 PMMy nearly disinterested understanding of the Rove situation is that his earlier testimonies "omitted" certain facts that have since come to light. If this is the extent of his "mischief" then it's time to Move On!
There's a fundamental difference between giving false testimony and omitting testimony. It's even got a fancy name - "Pleading the fifth."
Posted by: johngalt at October 17, 2005 2:57 PMSilence, I don't know how to fix it. The parallel with tax evasion holds, but tax evasion is indeed a real crime.
If pressed, I will admit that Martha Stewart committed a real crime in tampering with records and lying to a Federal prosecutor. Perhaps Mr. Rove or Scooter Libby (love that sobriquet!) did as well. I just think that the extent omission, obfuscation, or prevarication affected the prosecution of the original charge should be kept in mind.
JohnGalt: Disinterested? Oh dear! He is tired of London is tired of life. He who can watch the entire second Bush Administration go down on a tawdry, insignificant charge is tired. I'd see a physician...
Posted by: jk at October 17, 2005 3:09 PM"Go down?" You see Bush's presidency "going down" over Plamegate? How? Even if Rove AND Scooter handed these reporters the overhyped spook's name on a cocktail napkin, they broke no law in doing so. And even if they had, it doesn't implicate the President. What's going on here? Did I miss something by only paying attention to every third mention of it by Brit Hume?
You certainly aren't implying that "the entire second Bush Administration" is hopelessly lost without Karl Rove, are you?
Posted by: johngalt at October 18, 2005 2:01 PMIf Karl Rove leaves ignominiously on an indictment, President Bush is a lame duck. It will embolden his enemies, decrease his political capital, and give currency to both Nancy Pelosi's charge of a "pattern of GOP corruption" and revive the line (I heard this last night) that "we went to war in Iraq over a lie; Karl Rove rebarbatively attacked the man who tried to tell us the truth by outing his CIA wife!" (Yes, I it is insanely non-factual, but we're gonna heart it. A Lot.)
Add to that Rove's immense skill, talent and loyalty. There would be a big policy hole in his absence.
Yup. No crime, but as the post says the crime is now perjury/obstruction. Ms. Stewart didn't commit a crime either...
Posted by: jk at October 18, 2005 2:27 PMI just about agree with JK on this one. If Rove is forced out the Bush administration may not be hopelessly lost, but they will be close to that. On the Plame case itself I draw a slightly different picture. I don't believe the intention was to out Ms. Plame but to discredit her husband by questioning who assigned him his mission. The trouble is, without exposing her position within the CIA the implication that his assignment was less than above board doesn't make sense, hard to claim favoritism or an inside job without an insider. The law against this is not just for the protection of the asset themselves, but for anyone who may have had contact with this person as well. As such it does not matter if Ms. Plame was a current undercover asset, just that she had been at one time. Whether she was or not I have given up trying to discern with so many authoritative voices contradicting each other. Bottom line for me is that this is about abuse of power and dirty politics to enforce the official information stream as the only information stream. It shows the methods and lengths that this administration will go to discredit, defame, or destroy anyone who dares question their official statements. From the South Carolina primary against John McCain, to the Swift Boat Vets, to this there is a pattern of dirty politics that turns my stomach.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 18, 2005 3:36 PMFear not, we have plenty of room for disagreement!
I think it is pretty clear from the dates in Wilson's book that Plame was more than five years outside of an overseas, covert assignment. The statute dictates that time period, so I think the leaker is pretty much free of the original charge.
Morally, Wilson and Plame were publicity hounds. The Washington glitterati and all readers of Vanity Fair magazine knew who she was; there was no "outing."
Lastly, it was a very good leak in that it really is an important part of a very important story. The New York Times should be very cautious celebrating prosecution for what is required for their job.
Joe Wilson wrote an Editorial in the NYTimes about his Niger mission. His discrediting of the famous 16 words in the SOTU is the real lie here. The leaker was right to alert the press that Wilson was a partisan source and offer some hint at why such a hack got such an assignment.
I don't know about the push polling in SC. Perhaps it was untoward but politics ain't beanbag. It has been blown up disproportionately to its importance. Senator McCain won northeastern states with independents voting in the GOP primary. The idea that the momentum was turned is beloved by Bush haters but is not correct.
The Swift Boats charges were far more factual than those leveled back by their detractors. And the Bush campaign was not involved. Veterans harbor a deep and seething antipathy for John Kerry and Jane Fonda that needs no stoking of the flames or official support.
The Bush White House is extremely disciplined and has been able to control leaks and control the message better than other recent administrations. But to extrapolate that a pattern of deception is unjust.
Posted by: jk at October 18, 2005 4:30 PM | What do you think? [7]