Endgame

by DemFromCT

So there's Murray Waas writing in the National Journal, with his direct line to the Fitzgerald inquiry (making waas a must-read for his excellent reporting (contrast that here with not-so-excellent reporting):

New York Times reporter Judith Miller told the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case that she might have met with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on June 23, 2003 only after prosecutors showed her Secret Service logs that indicated she and Libby had indeed met that day in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, according to attorneys familiar with her testimony.

The NY Times reminds us that to news editors, the cover-up is always worse than the crime:

As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

That piece of stupidity has been around since Watergate. Is it worse to bring the country to war over false pretenses (we're approaching 2000 US casualties and countless Iraqis) and try to destroy anyone who gets in the way by using the power of the Oval Office, or lie to the Grand Jury about it? Think about it, because the Times hasn't.

And the WaPo notes A Palpable Silence at the White House:

Out of the hushed hallway encounters and one-on-one conversations, several scenarios have begun to emerge if Rove or vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis Libby is indicted and forced out. Senior GOP officials are developing a public relations strategy to defend those accused of crimes and, more importantly, shield Bush from further damage, according to Republicans familiar with the plans. And to help steady a shaken White House, they say, the president might bring in trusted advisers such as budget director Joshua B. Bolten, lobbyist Ed Gillespie or party chairman Ken Mehlman.

Bring in the cronies. Ed Gillespie'll save Bush from Katrina. Don't YOU want Ken Mehlman in charge of avian flu preparedness? These guys are going from bad to worse. Unfortunately, they're taking us with them.

Well, nothing's happening until next week on the Fitzwatch, and nothing politically's getting looked at until he pulls whatever trigger he's going to pull. Historic, no? Good night, David (good night, Chet). That's the way it it. Good night and good luck. Or something like that.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

These tentative discussions come at a time when White House senior officials are exploring staff changes to address broader structural problems that have bedeviled Bush's second term, according to Republicans who said they could speak candidly about internal deliberations only if they are not named. But it remains unclear whether Bush agrees that changes are needed and the uncertainty has unsettled his team.

"People are very demoralized and unhappy," a former administration official said. "The leak investigation is [part of it], but things were not happy before this took preeminence. It's just been a rough year. A lot has gotten done, but nothing is easy."

That's too bad. But of course, Bush doesn't agree. He's the greatest thing to happen to DC since air conditioning.

[DemFromCT]

P.S. Who is going to tell him?

[DemFromCT]

note the NY Times article specifically says:

Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.

I guess it's official.

[Kagro X]

Hey, where are all the economists?

The coverup is worse than the crime? It can't be. Republicans are rational economic actors, right? Isn't that what they're always telling us? Therefore, the very reason they cover up is because the crimes are so much worse. Economics contemplates no other explanation.

And part of the strategy is, will be, and always was to go to jail for obstruction of justice and perjury -- much easier to paint as "criminalizing politics" than going to jail for espionage.

[Ben]

Assuming Waas's article is all true, isn't there at least a prima facie case that Miller is obstructing justice? Or maybe even part of the conspiracy itself. After all, what possible motive could she have for concealing the June 23 meeting other than to protect Libby? I wonder if Fitz is holding an obstruction or conspiracy charge over her head as well as the perjury. It would be a shame if she got off scot-free, but if she really has ratted out half the administration, she'll suffer enough from fatigue (sleeping with one eye open) and anxiety (starting her car).

[Mimikatz]

The coverup is worse than the crime because it is the coverup that gets you caught, that's all. Since Watergate people haven't examined what the phrase really means. Coverup crimes such as obstruction and perjury are much easier to prove than most of the substantive original crimes, so they not only get you caught, they get you indicted. And some of what the Nixonites did wasn't criminal in the strict sense, but the obstruction was.

But even if the old adage were true in general, the crimes of the Bush Adminsitration, especially hijacking the foreign policy aparatus per Larry Wilkerson and ginning up evidence to push the nation into war and, perhaps, serving the interests of foreign powers, are so much worse than Nixon that for them the adage can't possibly be true. Nor for the NYTimes.

[Mimikatz]

The coverup is worse than the crime because it is the coverup that gets you caught, that's all. Since Watergate people haven't examined what the phrase really means. Coverup crimes such as obstruction and perjury are much easier to prove than most of the substantive original crimes, so they not only get you caught, they get you indicted. And some of what the Nixonites did wasn't criminal in the strict sense, but the obstruction was.

But even if the old adage were true in general, the crimes of the Bush Adminsitration, especially hijacking the foreign policy aparatus per Larry Wilkerson and ginning up evidence to push the nation into war and, perhaps, serving the interests of foreign powers, are so much worse than Nixon that for them the adage can't possibly be true. Nor for the NYTimes.

[LMMO]

In this instance the cover-up is not worse than the crime. The crime being leading us into a war based on lies and, with the Larry Franklin spy scandal, probably doing the bidding of a foreign government. Can we say treason?

[Sally Strope]

Our democracy has become so undone we do not go anywhere near an outright investigation of those responsible for taking this country to war based on trumped up charges, aka lies, a war which has done unfathomable damage at home and abroad. Historians may never be able to unravel the sordid saga should one of them try.

[emptypockets]

No one's really saying the cover-up is worse than the crime. The cover-up is just more prosecutable than the crime.

That more evil actions are less prosecutable is a fundamental failure of our justice system.

[saugatak]

It's academic whether cover-up is worse than the crime, because they're going to get nailed for both. But for what it's worth, my vote is with emptywheel that the crime in this case is infinitely worse.

Guys like Rove and Libby made their way to the top by screwing over and ruthlessly character assassinating countless numbers, not just opposition Democrats but rival Republicans too.

When they were powerful, nobody wanted to screw around with 'em, but now that they're going down, it's amazing the amount of dirt that is coming out on them.

[DemFromCT]

'pockets, there are 4 major news items today fron LA Times, WaPo, NY Times and WSJ. Only the NY Times focuses on cover-up, and so that's how I interpret their story, which btw doesn't mention Judy. Calome's public editor column this Sunday should be very interesting. They owe us more.

[Kagro X]

I don't think they'll get nailed for both. I think they'll get nailed for the coverup, but the crime may be too big and too broad to name, much less nail down.

From the perpetrator's perspective, it's probably not even a good bet to engage in the coverup at all, given that the crimes are so far-reaching and yet at the same time so nebulous that there's very little likelihood that they'll be directly prosecuted.

But as a sort of game theory problem, I suppose it's better to gamble that you'll be nailed for obstruction/perjury which carry light sentences and are colorable as "just politics," as opposed to rolling the dice on drawing a prosecutor who's capable of distilling a real crime out of the ether of your actions.

Crimes like obstruction and perjury are soon enough forgotten. But if Fitzgerald was able to paint a clear picture of an understandable crime out of Plamegate -- or rather out of the manipulation of intelligence and the march to war -- we'd experience a seismic shakeup of our social and constitutional foundations that might put you in Benedict Arnold's league.

Of course, no one would be willing to believe that about themselves, so the chances that such a decision would be made with that possibility in mind is probably ridiculous. Still, there's more than just the possibility of conviction of an actual crime to worry about. If the aftermath of this investigation was to establish that "Republicans lied under oath," that wouldn't be so bad. But if it was established that "Republicans lied us into a war," that'd be something else entirely.

I think they obstructed justice with that outcome in mind.

[DemFromCT]

the court of public opinion is another story. What were they lying about? what were they covering up? Want to revisit watergate?

[DemFromCT]

PS Hpwabout John dean (worse than watergate) on all the sunday shows, hardball, etc?

[Kagro X]

The court of public opinion? You mean American Idol?

[RonK, Seattle]

The cover-up is sometimes more easily prosecuted, and in complex cases [like Andersen/Enron document shredding] the cover-up is more easily understood by the jury (be it in formal court, or the court of public opinion).

Also, the cover-up evinces consciousness of guilt. It fairly well shouts "GULTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!".

[emptypockets]

Also, the cover-up evinces consciousness of guilt.

That's a good point. Go after them for lying about the war and there will be chest-puffery and proclamations that they did what was good for their country. Show that they lied about it and that pride doesn't fly.

One might suggest that it seems like prosecutors (and journalists) always go after the cover-up, not because they always do but because those are the times when they succeed.

I wasn't paying attention to politics at the time, but during Iran-Contra: the bad guys were being investigated for the actual crime more than the cover-up then, right? And they were able to sit with medals on and claim they acted in the country's best interest? or am I mixed up as usual

[NG]

I am wondering about two related issues. First, did the country's reaction post-Watergate lead to good law changes or bad as a result of the Watergate scandal? What is likely to happen as a response to the exposed Bush scandals well down the road?

Second and related! Conservative Repubs seem to be the only ones to win big in the last 35 years with the Dems more or less squeaking by when they do win. Nixon won in 68 and trounced the Dems in 72. Due to post-Watergate reaction, the Dems did win in 76, but not by a 72 style landslide. Then Reagan goes on to win quite easily in 1980 and another trouncing in 2004. Things have gotton closer in most elections since then with Clinton winning fairly easily but not by landslides.

Why did not the Dems win by a landslide in 76 post-Watergate, and will the Bush scandals lead to a Dem landslide in 2008? If not, why not, as the political soil will never be richer against the Repubs than it should be now!

[Steve]

I don't think the public is ready to accept that the cover-up is worse than the crime after Martha Stewart. It established a paradigm that sometimes the government investigates you when you've committed no crime, but ends up prosecuting you because you slipped up during the questioning. Of course, one can always argue "why would you lie if you've got nothing to hide" but that argument only gets you so far.

[RevDeb]

Kagro and or Dem,

What do you make of the new web site that Fitz has put up at DOJ? The discussion on Kos leads one to believe that a) he was making sure that everyone knows what his authority is b) it gives him a vehicle for the document dump and c) it will probably be big and perhaps of a large scope, thus the specifics of his authority spelled out in documents on the site.

[DemFromCT]

I think where there's smoke, there's fire. I think Rove and Libby get indicted, and at the least it becomes clear it's a bigger problem than just perjury. Monday or Wednesday, there are indictments.

Catch Hardball tonight. But we'll know next week.

[RonK Seattle]

Noted in passing: Bush approval all-time low (42-56) in Rasmussen (GOP) daily tracking.

[RonK Seattle]

Noted in passing: Bush approval all-time low (42-56) in Rasmussen (GOP) daily tracking.

[DemFromCT]

Ah, he finally hit 42?

See also this interesting post from firedoglake on Bill Keller's Judyache.