DELUSIONS OF GRAND JURY
Whether or not an argument is totally ridiculous will surely not stop most of the right wing teat sucklers (it never has in the past) and you can count on continuing to hear the "no indictments on the underlying crimes" argument in the days to come. What everyone should keep in mind (since the likes of Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Tony Snow and their ilk will willfully ignore) is that the reason there are no indictments on the underlying crime is the very reason that there are indictments on perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.
It is made absolutely clear from libby's indictment that (according to the grand jury) Libby did in fact disclose the classified information of the identity of a CIA operative to people who did not have the security clearance to receive such classified information (most notably members of the media).
WORTH REPEATING:
- Valerie Wilson was in fact an undercover CIA operative
- Libby did in fact disclose her identity
However, as right wing hacks, shills, and pundits will no doubt be falling all over themselves to point out, libby is not being indicted for making those disclosures.
But as Fitzgerald stressed as best he could (straining to choose his words carefully), it is because Libby committed perjury, made false statements and obstructed justice that the grand jury is unable (at least at this time) to determine that Libby's disclosure of the classified information (the identity of a CIA operative) amounted to a crime or not.
The grand jury indictments make clear that the act was committed but because the other crimes were committed the grand jury was unable to adequately determine that the act violated any specific statute(s).
The indictments for perjury, making false statements and obstructing justice are not the technicalities, they are the serious crimes that cover up the technicalities necessary to determine whether or not an even more serious crime was committed.
Advertisement
Thank you for making that point, which was lacking in the Sunday commentary I heard. On Meet the Press, e.g., spinners pressed the point without contradiction from Russert that Fitzgerald had found that there was no conspiracy to out a CIA agent and no laws were broken by the leakers. As you note, what Fitzgerald actually found was that a determination on that charge could not be made because of perjury - sand thrown in the umpire's eyes. It may yet be made.
October 30, 2005 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink