The Wall Street Journal Defends Libby

The Wall Street Journal says that perjury that successfully covers up felonies should not be prosecuted:

WSJ.com - Obstruction for What?: Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars and preoccupied some of the White House's senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's Chief of Staff -- not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire "scandal," but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used....

Mr. Fitzgerald has been dogged in pursuing his investigation, and he gave every appearance of being a reasonable and tough prosecutor in laying out the charges yesterday. But he has thrust himself into what was, at bottom, a policy dispute between an elected administration and critics of the president's approach to the war on terror, who included parts of the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and CIA. Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.

The "and doing so for some nefarious purpose" is in there because the Wall Street Journal knows full well that the evidence that Libby perjured and obstructed justice is very strong. Either Libby is guilty or:

1. An Under Secretary of State
2. A senior officer of the Central Intelligence Agency
3. The Vice President of the United States
4. Libby's own notes of his meeting with the Vice President.
5. A briefer from the Central Intelligence Agency.
6. Libby's then-principal deputy.
7. Judith Miller.
8. Tim Russert.
9. The White House Press Secretary.
10. The Counsel to the Vice President.
11. The Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs.
12. "White House Officlal A".
13. Matthew Cooper.

are lying. Libby's story is contradicted not just by a few journalists, but by his own notes and more than a half-dozen senior administration officials as well.

Hence the Wall Street Journal's declaration that if the obstruction of justice is successful--if it keeps the prosecutor from being able to prove the underlying offense beyond a reasonable doubt--it should not be prosecuted.

Comments

[ken]

The editorial page of the WSJ have always been nothing better than ass wipe.

Anyone who gives it any credence whatsover is a fool. And I think that is exactly why, as an institution, they are so usefull: anyone who believes in such blatently stupid editorial writers is bound to believe in things like Enron accounting. Find out who these guys are, and bet against them. It works every time.

[John Powell]

Let's not forget that Clinton was impeached for perjury. A few years back lying was a crime against God, the State, little babies, baseball, hot dogs and apple pie. It is sickening how lying under oath to Congress is being played by some parties as if it were meaningless. The Journal may not have gone quite that far, but its comments are fuel for the same fire.

[Dubblblind]

There's that talking point word again "criminalizing". Have the Rethugs set up a pay-per-say program? Say the magic word and win a hundred dollars.

[VKW]

"cost millions of dollars"

Reports I've seen indicate that to date the investigation has cost taxpayers less than one million dollars.

[howard]

vkw, i have read the same thing: the cost to date is under $800K. Now, that's the taxpayer cost: i bet when you add up the private attorney costs (and i'm sure the wsj sees no reason to distinguish between public and private costs!), then maybe we are in the millions!

in addition, the investigation took two years for two reasons: a.) the attempt to mislead by Libby and others; b.) the belief by cooper and miller that they were above the law.

[Maynard Handley]

Aren't Republicans big proponents of the Broken Windows theory, that even the most minor crimes need to be prosecuted an punished severely because not doing so creates an environment that allows more serious crimes to flourish? I could have sworn this was a major GOP talking point some years ago.

[Rob]

Maynard. Maynard, Maynard. Broken windows is meant only to deal with small time stuff. White Collar crime is really no crime at all, especailly on the pages of the WSJ! Sure Enron and World Com are likely to otuweigh a decades worth of small time property crime, but its because thet are so bold they can be forgiven!

[Robert Bell]

There is something more insidious that I am surprised you didn't point out. I sent a nastygram to the editors about it.

In this paragraph:

"On the answers to these questions hang a possible 30-year jail term and $1.25 million in fines for a Bush administration official who was merely attempting to expose the truth about Mr. Wilson, a critic of the administration who was lying to the press about the nature of his involvement in the Niger mission and about the nature of the intelligence that it produced. In other words, Mr. Libby was defending administration policy against political attack, not committing a crime."

The assertion, with no hyperlinks to primary sources is that Mr Wilson lied both about his role, and the content of what he said. The WSJ declines to point out what either the falsity of the allegations were, or the truth that we should substitute in its place. I.e. they too are criticizing the messenger, not responding to the content of the charge.

It seems a misuse of public dollars to respond to a government critic in that way. Defend government policy, and discredit critiques worthy of discredit, but not the critics themselves. After the government works for those critics and they have a right to ask how it is conducting business. Moreover, it seems a measure of the ethics and character of an administration that they should choose to respond with a well-coordinated personal attack. The WSJ seemed only too eager to join in.

[me]

maynard, I belive it is build more outsourced prisons.

Ken, I am sorry but you are way too kind.

[christo]

$800,000 is the amount of money that Halliburton loses a week or perhaps a shorter period of time to fraud and waste in Iraq. But that's important money wasted as Hal's earnings depend on the total spent.

Here's kicking an opponent on its way down, the WSJ, fafblog of the right, is also seeing shrinking ad sales and readership, isn't it?

[christo]

With all the crap hitting the Cheney administration, the Enron debacle has completely disappeared from the news. Were there finally indictments? I vaguely remember a trial will start this late fall?

[Anna]

In case anyone missed it, an excellent piece in Sunday's SF Chronicle on what they said then vs what they're saying now ("Back then it was the Democrats doing the leaking and Republicans calling for their heads..."):

Should we hang the leakers?
It really just depends on whether or not they're in your party
Paul Mulshine
Sunday, October 30, 2005
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/30/INGJPFG2J31.DTL

[Ari]

The leakers betrayed a CIA agent serving our country to mask having led us to war on false premises. There can be no excuse. We are after all a democracy.

[rvman]

When is Wilson going to be indicted? He, after all, leaked the substance of a classified (like covert, only for stuff rather than people) report to the press, with the assistance of CIA insiders, in order to undermine the Administration that CIA is supposed to serve under.

The man went to Niger, asked whether Hussein had bribed them, or otherwise bought uranium from them, and came home and said, "Nope, no nuclear program, no sirree bob." This is like asking your kid if he stole from the cookie jar, and believing his 'no'. There is good evidence that Hussein had no nuclear program. Joe Wilson's report is in no way part of that evidence.