The latest RWNM line is there is nothing in the indictment about the underlying crime — revealing a covert operatives name in violation of the statute. What no one on the RWNM is mentioning is the Special Prosecutor has wide discretion to bring whatever charges he wants. It is obvious Fitzgerald is going after a simpler case because it is far easier to win.
A case is essentially a story. The simpler the narrative, the easier it is to get a conviction.
Let’s look at both cases.
Perjury: essentially someone knowingly lied. To prove this case, the prosecutor must get the statement into evidence which is pretty easy. Then, he must prove he knew the statement was false. The prosecutor can do this through circumstantial evidence. However, he does not need to parade a large number of people in front of the jury. In addition, lying is a very easy concept for the jury to grasp.
Revealing a Covert Agents Identity: This is far more complicated. First, the prosecutor must prove the person was a covert agent. This immediately runs into issues of national security. Fitzgerald would have to get CIA documents into evidence. Then he would have to prove no one knew Plame was undercover. All Libby would have to produce is 1 credible person who claims they knew Plame was undercover and the case is gone.
In summation, Fitzgerald is using his discretion as a prosecutor to get the case e he knows he can win. This is entirely within his discretion. It also shows Fitzgerald is a bright guy. Why make it more complicated than it has to be?
I agree. If Libby actually goes to court then Fitz can bring in Cheney etc., as witnesses and that will be when the big stuff gets exposed.
But Libby will probably not get to the court for various reasons, after all, he knows too much.
And Cheney will surely have another heart attck and won’t be ‘strong’ enough to testify.
Or Bush will nuke Iran for a big diversion.
As Rep. John Conyers said this is just the beginning.
And lets not forget about Delay, Frist, etc., etc.
I saw John Dean on “Countdown” last night. He made the analogy of using tax evasion charges to bring down organized crime figures. Prosecution is not about what you know, it’s about what you can prove. Obviously Cheney and Libby knew she was a covert agent. Beyond that, if they didn’t know, why didn’t they? They were in a position to find out, and as stewards of the nation’s security, they had a responsibility to find out, if they really didn’t know. But, that’s poor judgment, not a legal violation. The perjury and obstruction charges, however, will continue to wash things out into the public eye, that may be hard to prove in a court of law, but represent bad leadership and huge abuses of power. These are things that require a political, not a legal solution.
The tax evasion analogy is very apt. It’s not as “sexy” but just as criminal.
Also, as some bloggers have pointed out, a potential 30 year prison sentence seems punishing enough to use as leverage both to Libby to cut a deal, and to others out there still in legal jeopardy to be more cooperative with this thorough and skillful prosecutor.