More thoughts on Libby

by Sara

EW, having special ordered your book over a week ago, it still has not come to my B&N where I regularly spend multi bucks every month, but they assure me, tomorrow.  Apparently only 20 were ordered for the whole Twin Cities.  I think callers, call backs, and called in orders would be appropriate.  I also tried to follow up on a report that Tenet is to be out tomorrow -- they say not till late March.  But then their computer says that the large print version is out next week, and only the small print version next month.  Screwed up.

What I really want to discuss is the statement Senator Levin made at the end of the week to the effect that after the Feith Report, he intended to call to testify (he was nice, said invite) was the former Chief of Staff to the VP.  On the weekend when Libby and his legal team are deciding the final profile of their defense case, what does one make of Levin making that declarative statement. 

Now I doubt if anything really about Feith and his work has anything to do with Libby's efforts with regard to the VP and Wilson and all -- but it could, and in a sense I see it as a shot across Libby's bow.  Unlike the court situation, Senator Levin can compel Libby to testify under oath and all -- all he has to do is craft a very narrow Limited Use Immunity agreement, and let Libby choose between taking the 5th on all subjects, or testifying about the OVP's relationships with and communications with Feith's digs at DOD during a specific period, a subject having nothing to do with what he is charged with criminally at this point.  Should he refuse to answer, (and I am assuming this would be after the Jury convicts him) he could face additional charges for Contempt of Congress. 

What really bothers me is that once I posted a bit of this over at FDL, suddenly everyone was writing their congresscritter.  No -- no Immunity.  Ollie North, that was what screwed Iran Contra.  Bad -- Immunity really bad.  Look friends, we have to get our arguments straight before we jump up and through hoops. 

Essentially Libby is Chump Change for most of us -- we want the higher ups, and those are Bush, Cheney, Rove, and perhaps a dozen others who worked either in the OVP or the EOP.  Making it worth throwing up long term loyal relationships in order to maybe have a more or less ordinary life with the spouse and kids, eat well, have a car that drives properly, and a little left in the bank -- that is the choice Libby is probably debating this weekend.  In my mind, Levin has just laid on yet one more level of pressure.  And when I tried to lay it out over at FDL, all I got was put pressure on congress not to grant immunity.  In fact I think that might be precisely what would bring Libby around, but when folk jump from "term" (Immunity -- remember Ollie North) to a demand for instant action, (demand congress not offer any immunity), well we have a problem.  (Particularly if your posts tend to get EPU'ed because you are not constantly on line posting.)

Convicting Libby for his lies, and then offering him Limited Congressional Use Immunity for testimony about Feith and the OVP should he wish to help Senator Levin, is precisely how we want to use I. Lewis Libby.  We want to make sure he understands that he talks first, and then gets the value of co-operation estimated later when the sentencing time comes around.  And Immunity is one of the key tools in playing this game, and there is absolutely no reason it should turn out like Ollie North.  (Use method of Similarities and Differences -- among other things, North testified before Walsh had more or less begun his investigation. -- I think Fitz has everything he needs long since in charge form and under court seal. ) 

But we still have problems if this media is one which "takes off on the charger" without any sense of the need to question and reflect.  If we don't have that, we will be no better than some of the wingnuts. 

I am one of the "elders" in this game -- and I like to go look things up and think about them, and not seem to have to respond black and white in an instant mode.  And it really bothers me that the use of the term immunity, without any real understanding of what it means, suddenly set off people to fan the net and call congress. 

 

Comments

[dqueue]

I think it's a good idea, but it must occur after his trial is complete. It's pretty apparent in reviewing his GJ testimony that Irving has crafted a tale, and he's sticking to it. I can't imagine it is going to be easy to compel him to testify honestly about anything. Worse, I can imagine Shooter manipulating any limited immunity deal for Irving into a full immunity for Irving and OSP (I'm exaggerating, but I strongly assert that Irving deserves nothing at this point.... excepting a guilty verdict and swift incarceration, i.e. leverage.)

I suspect Irving knows quite a bit about OSP, but I presume he has forgotten most of what is not written in his notes; further, I imagine he has misremembered how to interpret his sometimes cryptic notes into anything sensible. As Shooter's COS, he'd have been conduit for most inbound connections toward Shooter. Being a neocon idealogue, Irving probably dealt directly with fellow neocons, leaving Shooter plenty of time to cast threatening sneers at the opposition.

[Jeff]

Essentially Libby is Chump Change for most of us -- we want the higher ups, and those are Bush, Cheney, Rove, and perhaps a dozen others who worked either in the OVP or the EOP.

This is a minor point, but let me just suggest you're confusing quantity with quality. Libby was the most powerful advisor to either the most powerful or the second most powerful government official (it's probably a close call). in terms of policymaking, he was almost certainly more powerful than Rove, all things considered. So in that sense, the third most powerful person in this administration. So Bush and Cheney are the only higher-ups. What you're looking for, no doubt, is just a wider circle of actors.

[John Casper]

Thanks Sara for a very thought provoking post as always. I see now, as I did not before your post, the tension between individual and collective responsibility. It's probably not overreaching to say that well crafted offers of immunity could help Congress unmask the WH spin that is currently trying to provoke war with Iran. I think most would agree that goal is worth some immunity.

[mainsailset]

This follows well with you question of how best for the Dems to utilize Libby's conviction if indeed it comes to pass. The intensity of this trial and the incredible work that has been brought to bear on its outcome can put blinders on the chess game that is the outcome we hope for.

We have in our power a community with tremendous access to Congress; both through the internet and knowledge. We are new to the podium and for our voice of power to evolve into strength we'll need to raise our sights to the horizon as Molly Ivins used to say.

Thanks Sara, sorry to ramble but your posts are always greatly thought provoking.

[woodhall hollow]

I am so glad to see this post. I expressed a similar sentiment in the comments last week at FDL and also got piled on.

In my mind, I could care less whether libby goes to jail or not. He is not the point. I do want to see the whole truth about the lies spread by this admin in their efforts to take us into a disastrous war, and if the price of this truth is that LIbby gets a get out of jail pass, so what.

And also, I don't think that the idea that Ollie North's immunity screwed up the Iran Contra investigations is so straight forward. EG, Remember Bush I's pardons? And also the fact that Ollie was not the only guilty party in the Reagan white house who was given a very broad immunity. It is also worth remembering that the Congress had very little stomach for really investigating Iran-Contra (and I listened to most of the hearings), they kept skirting around the real issues....hopefully Levin would/will have a stronger stomach.

The point is that Libby is really a bit player (a good little soldier who follows orders to the letter). The real point is to expose those who gave the orders, and crafted a dishonest and destructive and treasonous strategy to take the US and Iraq into a war which never should've been.

[Rick B]

What does "EPU'ed" mean? I don't recognize the acronym.

[John Forde]

Dear Sara,

I'm still ready to deliver my copy of 'Anatomy of Deceit' to you.

I can drive it to you in 10 minutes.

Just email me.

[John Casper]

EPU'd is a term from FireDogLake. One commenter, Evil Parallel Universe, used to complain that every time he commented, a new thread would start.

[Sara]

John, phone call this morning, EW's book is awaiting me out at Har Mar B&N. So later this afternoon I'll fire up the SUV and grab it.

Jeff, I am after a number of things. Overall, I want Congress to re-assume its responsibilities as a co-equal branch of Government. On one side that means both houses have to claw back perrogatives, such as the oversight role laid out in the 1947 National Security Act (as amended). Feith's operation I believe clearly violated this in association with Wolfowitz, Rummy and the OVP. But this is just one dimension -- there need to be a number of power claw-backs. It is about both holding individual persons responsible, and also highlighting how systems were corrupted in the process and forcing this administration or any future one to act within lawful systems. And I suppose the public needs a new lesson on why systems are valuable and critical. If a given system is flawed (as our Intelligence clearly was on and before 9/11 -- identify the problems and fix them legally.)

Subordinate to the above, I want to see the idea of the secret cabal that does policy in the shadows run out of town on a rail -- and that means virtually all of the Neo-Con's. I think they are profoundly dangerous, and there needs to be public recognition of that reflected in electorial action. We need a real clear understanding of the difference between information gathering and analysis that at times uses covert methods, and thus must be secure -- and policy making, which should, if done right, be an interplay between Departments and Agencies and Congress, and for the most part, be done in the light of day. No more making Energy Policy in Dick Cheney's basement with god knows who. So in short, this is what I hope for over the next two years.

[Jodi]

Sara,

Levin is limited in what he can do in a practical manner or it would be done all the time by every committee, and change every time when the control of the house or senate changed. Just because Libby is currently on trial doesn't make him a special case. Levin could approach anyone, so I assume he is just posturing as with Feith. The Senator from GA said it correctly, "beating a dead horse."

The rules, laws, and the courts don't allow for "fishing expeditions" or we would just be grabbing everyone up and putting them on the rack, or threatening them with 40 years, or endless prosecution/persecution, until they told us the truth, or more likely what we wanted to hear.

And separately, Immunity is a two edged sword in and of itself. Your friends are right there.

All of us need to take care to widely skirt that chasm or Dante Ring that holds all the people and groups that said that the ends justify the means.

I hope your book comes soon. My grandmothers local BAMM store, (I am with her right now, after a pacemaker procedure) said Feb 16.

[Jodi]

Sara,

Levin is limited in what he can do in a practical manner or it would be done all the time by every committee, and change every time when the control of the house or senate changed. Just because Libby is currently on trial doesn't make him a special case. Levin could approach anyone, so I assume he is just posturing as with Feith. The Senator from GA said it correctly, "beating a dead horse."

The rules, laws, and the courts don't allow for "fishing expeditions" or we would just be grabbing everyone up and putting them on the rack, or threatening them with 40 years, or endless prosecution/persecution, until they told us the truth, or more likely what we wanted to hear.

And separately, Immunity is a two edged sword in and of itself. Your friends are right there.

All of us need to take care to widely skirt that chasm or Dante Ring that holds all the people and groups that said that the ends justify the means.

I hope your book comes soon. My grandmothers local BAMM store, (I am with her right now, after a pacemaker procedure) said Feb 16.

[Jodi]

Sara,

Levin is limited in what he can do in a practical manner or it would be done all the time by every committee, and change every time when the control of the house or senate changed. Just because Libby is currently on trial doesn't make him a special case. Levin could approach anyone, so I assume he is just posturing as with Feith. The Senator from GA said it correctly, "beating a dead horse."

The rules, laws, and the courts don't allow for "fishing expeditions" or we would just be grabbing everyone up and putting them on the rack, or threatening them with 40 years, or endless prosecution/persecution/committee hearings, until they told us the truth, or more likely what we wanted to hear.

And separately, Immunity is a two edged sword in and of itself. Your friends are right there.

All of us need to take care to widely skirt that chasm or Dante Ring that holds all the people and groups that said that the ends justify the means.

I hope your book comes soon. My grandmothers local BAMM store, (I am with her right now, after a pacemaker procedure) said Feb 16.

[DonS]

Sara, though you don't need me to tell you, your priorities and analysis are on the mark. Trying to take back our government is much more important than some emotional feeding frenzy to skewer Lewis "pipsqueak" Libby.

[tnhblog]

Did anyone catch Novak's testimony today? I think he is piling lie upon lie. He nows says the conversation with Rove occured on July 8. He testified before and it is public record that the conversation occured on July 9. If Rove confirmed on July 9, then how can Novak now be claiming that Rove confirmed on July 8? He is trying to cover something up. Maybe a conversation on July 8 about something completely different and incriminating.

[katie Jensen]

Sara,

I am with you on this one. I want the big fish. And to get the big fish sometimes you gotta give up the little ones. Foremost, the truth. Accountability is important but comes second to the truth, in my mind. Truth is what brings accountability, eventually.

As a mother of 4, this strategy has been used many times in my home, with the lesson to my children being that the truth is paramount. And consequences decrease for those who are willing to face the truth, which is exactly how it works in life.

Great post Sara. I am prone to the big picture and often get impatient with details, but my appreciation and patience for details has increased with age and maturity. This country needs to know what happened. We cannot change what we don't accept, and I think that the transgressions of Iran contra have brought us to the current consequences that our nation faces today. If we keep pushing to get at the truth, accountability will come. Sometimes we just have to be patient...and this is one attribute I admire greatly in Patrick Fitzgerald. He seems a gifted person in this regard. I believe we are getting there.

[Semanticleo]

EW;

Jason Leopold has made a leap here;

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207A.sht

which seems real, but, you know, we've seen this before.

Nevertheless, can you in any way, corroborate this?

[Rayne]

Sara, what do you suggest instead? What's the leverage we have on Libby to encourage him to tell the truth? If Fitz nails him on the five counts, Libby has to hope for a pardon that wouldn't be in the best interest of the so-called big fish. If Libby can't see that already and he isn't giving up the big fish now, why would he do it for Levin, no matter what incentive? Maybe Levin already has enough information from previous investigations (he has been on the permanent subcommittee for investigations and working away for some time now, along with whatever has now turned up in the course of this trial) that Libby would have a tough time refuting in front of the Senate. Could it be possible that immunity would be improper if there is already no hope of getting Libby to flip? I suspect this is the case. Levin is no dummy; if he already groks this point AND he has feedback from the public supporting "no immunity", then Libby will get what he has coming to him.

Frankly, COS isn't a little fish, either. There's no one else to flip, and playing immunity too early might well mean all fish slip the net.

[Dismayed]

Semanticleo - Hmmm. None of here are JL fans, but interesting post over there. Plus he has the actual docs posted. Sure looks like Dick said "... the guy this pres asked to..." then someone thought better of it and put "... the guy that was asked to..." It does hint, but there would be a million ways to explain around it, so without more. It's just another tidbit. It sure point toward conspiracy though doesn't it. Clearly someone asked, and that's two people conspiring. I've never ever doubted the conspiracy, it's just a matter of someone getting a hold of a big enough pry bar to pull this den of theives apart, and as yet that hasn't happened, and won't likely happen as long as the power of the pardon hangs out there.

[katie Jensen]

I think Fitz has to walk the line "as if" he has the conspiracy sewn up and that he will not be pardoned because he has Bush/Cheney in that, they would be co-conspirators and hopefully impeachment proceedings would follow. If Fitz can puff it up big enough, that means that Libby would not be pardoned. I think that's the line I would walk if I were Fitz. I would "act as if" once it is time to put the pressure on. If there is no pardon or if pardon is risky...which would you choose if you had a wife and kids???

It can be done and my guess is that Fitz knows how to play this game.

[katie Jensen]

added...I think that is also part of why Fitz has been so careful about what he lets them know about what info he has. It may be because there is more...but it also could be because the less libby knows about what Fitz has the more pressure Fitz can apply. Sorry for the multiple posts...brain farts.

[hesikastor]

has anyone thought more about the "sealed vs sealed"?

[Sara]

Jodi, the limitation on what a Senate Committee can investigate is very simple, can they show legislative intent? This stems from four Supreme Court Rulings in the late 1950's on cases resulting from McCarthy, MacCarren and HUAC investigations that were more about smearing people, not about intent to commit legislation. If you go back and look at the charter for the Ervin Committee in 1973, the legislative intent was to evaluate campaign finance legislation and propose improvements. In the case of Ervin's hearings, it turned out that we needed legislation to prevent using campaign funds for paying off those who commit crimes in the name of the campaign.

My impression of the Feith issue is that the issue is who charters intelligence organizations? The National Security Act of 1947 gives that power exclusively to Congress, and OSP (and lots of similar little dealies spread around by Cheney and Bush in the various departments,) all may be illegal. One needs to explore who set these up, who reprogramed funds, Who tasked these groups. It is not a matter of convicting people -- though they could perhaps be indicted -- the point is they are obligated by oath to follow the US Laws -- and they didn't. You see the US President does not have the right to set up a Secret Police or Intelligence op without Congressional consent.

You may wonder why the law is as it is. -- Mostly it has to do with the blue hatred of FDR in the years after WWII and FDR's death. In fact, the US had no Intelligence agencies prior to WWII -- some in the 20's and early 30's in Republican Administrations said famously, "Gentlemen do not read other Gentlemen's mail." -- Anyhow in the mid to late 30's FDR did establish a large number of intelligence gathering services, always within some other program, and the Republicans were jumping over each other trying to find them and cut FDR off at the pass. At the time of Pearl Harbor, for instance, the Office of Naval Information which had cracked the Japanese Diplomatic Code using card sort machines, had a quota as to how many Hollowirth cards they were allowed to buy each month. FDR used the subtrafuge of having other agencies buy more than they needed (sometimes they didn't even have the sorting machines) and navy men took cabs around DC picking up the necessary cards. Of course after Pearl they tried to say FDR knew in advance -- as a way to cover up the Hollowirth Card diet they had imposed on the Navy Intelligence that was reading code. FDR set up a huge propaganda operation without Congressional authorization, and he established OSS the same way. And he created dozens of other small efforts, all hidden from view, but all of great use to the nation. Anyhow, during the War not a whole lot was made of it, but post war the Republicans wanted revenge -- and irony of irony, the 1947 National Security Act is "their Baby." So now we'll possibly find out why they could not follow their own rules.

As to Levin potentially granting Libby immunity (Limited Use Immunity) the way to think about it is that on certain subjects spelled out in an immunity agreement, a witness before a Congressional Committee (or Ari Fleischer before the Grand Jury), gives up 5th amendment privilege not to testify against one's self so as to incriminate, in exchange for the information deemed necessary sought by a Congressional Committee or a Grand Jury or Trial Court. An Immunity agreement is a substitute for 5th Amendmant rights. Essentially it is you tell the truth about these things -- and we will protect you from the criminal consequences of what you may have done. But only in what is within the limits of the agreement. That essentially forces the witness to talk and to talk truthfully. If they lie, they can still be prosecuted.

So what Levin really needs in my mind is someone who had thumbs into everything in OVP who can talk about how the OSP stovepiped false and fake intelligence into the White House at the highest level without it going through the kinds of review all intelligence goes through. For that job a newly minted Felon appealing a case about other matters who is confronting additional charges (Contempt of Congess) if he does not testify, but who may be willing to exchange truth for his own freedom -- could be exactly what Levin needs.

I fully expect Fitzgerald to win this case -- I think his case in chief hit high notes on all the elements of the charges, and in the end, that is what will count. It could be the Jury could have one hold out on partisian grounds, but a Hung Jury 11-1,or even 10-2, can be retried in a quick and streamlined way (reading in past testimony for instance) -- I don't think it possible that Libby will be acquitted. (Remember Hiss had two trials, the first one broke 8-4 for conviction.) What was critical in the Libby case was getting to trial and that is done. One of the things I hope is eventually revealed, that hasn't surfaced yet, is the secret part of Judge Hogan's decision in the Miller-Cooper matter that was endorsed by the Appeals Court, that apparently included Fitzgerald's brief of the case (again sealed) that laid out the full extent of the case. I don't think such things get written in little lie cases, and this is one reason I think Fitzgerald has a multiple act play.

I think one has to work both the details and the larger picture at the same time. Testing ideas or assumptions against the detail is totally essential -- but adding it up and reaching out for larger relationships is also critical.

[Justin]

Not everyone shares this optimism about flipping Libby to get the bigger (or even just more) fish. He has no incentive to turn on Bush and/or Cheney, and every reason not to. Once he's convicted, he can only squeal in return for a light sentencing recommendation and/or a promise that no additional charges will be filed (assuming there's more dirt uncovered on him and double jeapordy doesn't apply). And the presidential pardon is a real likelihood. People who think the Prez wouldn't use it because of the bad PR have not been paying attention to this Prez for the last seven years. He'll do it if he wants to, regardless of what the media will say about it. And if you offer Libby immunity in return for his agreement to talk about the corrupt system, he may accept the offer and manage to provide an insufficient body of evidence with regard to actually implicating anyone else in a specific crime. That's why these guys always have the lawyer sitting next to them when they testify before Congress. Libby is not going to lead to bigger convictions. That's just wishful thinking. The best you can get out of his conviction is the moral satisfaction that sometimes the system of justice does work and that maybe in the future such "chump change" henchmen will think twice before carrying out orders they know could get them convicted and imprisoned. If the soldiers won't fight the war, then there is no need to fear their generals.

[tnhblog]

Kessler today refuted Libby's testimony about Kessler telling Libby that the Wilson trip was a boondoggle. The question is, why would Libby lie about this? Did Fitzgerald mistakenly think the reporter mentioned by Pincus was Kessler? And Libby lied in response because lying is just second nature to these people? Or did Libby, in fact, mention Plame to Kessler and was attempting to cover it up? Neither Fitzgerald of Libby's lwayer asked Kessler if Libby mentioned Plame.

[looseheadprop]

Sara
There is a great diference between Statury Immunity (compelled testimony) and Informal Immunity (immunity agreements).

Don't conflate the rules for each.

I am sorry, but I disagree with you, both as to whether Libby is a little fish ( have to agree with Jeff) and as to logistics.

Let Pat finish his very surgical work bfore you let Congress in there stomping all over the place with big boots.

Congres will still be there when Pat is all finished. He's been doing a pretty good job so far. Don't let impatience spoil the pot.