At the very beginning of the Plame leak investigation, leading prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald said something to the effect that it's difficult to get to the truth when someone is kicking sand in the umpire's face. He was talking about Libby.
In his closing arguments the other day Fitzgerald said Libby "stole the truth from the justice system."
Ah, but the truth is still out there .. waiting to be found. Let's just hope the trail has not gone cold. We do know that Fitzgerald is a little bulldog and holds on 'til the last dog dies. He goes after the underlings first, convicts them, and then gets them to 'flip' when they face a looong prison sentence.
There is no doubt -- in my mind at least -- that that's exactly what he intends to do in this case. After all, he didn't go after one of the most powerful men in Washington just to get a little ol' cut-and-dried perjury and obstruction conviction. No, he's after bigger game.
Of course, where the Fitzgerald investigation is taking us is anybody's guess .. but there is nothing to stop me from daydreaming that Cheney gets caught. That may be a stretch .. although, we doesn't know what Fitz knows.
Cheney may be nervous about the verdict .. when the jury went to deliberate he did take off and fly all over the world. Or, maybe he's trying to deflect attention from the trial .. the press would pay more attention to who the VP is visiting.
And while we're waiting for the verdict in the Libby trial, let's remember how the Righties poopooed the importance of the entire Plame-Wilson affair from day one.
When it became clear that all the prosecutor was going to get out of the case was perjury and obstruction of justice -- rather than for the more serious crime (sabotage? treason?) of leaking Plame's name -- some Righties began hooting about it being no big deal.
I guess lying to a prosecutor just isn't that big a deal in the conservative world.
But, let's remember what some of those same Righties were saying about a different perjury case -- when the target was not Dick Cheney's top aide -- but President Clinton, who was accused of lying about something, shall we say, a little less earth-shaking.
Here are some choice examples of how some conservatives flip-flop on perjury:
GOP Rep. Lindsey Graham (now Senator) on Clinton, 1998: "I believe it is a crime --it's a high crime that should subject any president for removal." Graham also served as one of the GOP's managers of the impeachment case.
...and on Libby, 2006: "When it came to the grand jury, he gave false testimony allegedly about his interaction. But the underlying charge that started this investigation never materialized. So you have to put it in that perspective...It's a bad story but it's a different story than the way it started."
Then Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said about Clinton, 1998: "It's going to be hard not to impeach the president for prejury."
...and on Libby, 2006: "Fitzgerald should terminate his probe immediately. A correction--perhaps the longest and most overdue in the history of journalism--is in order."
GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, on Clinton, 1998: "Something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray."
...and on Libby, 2005: "I certainly hope that, if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollar."
GOP Sen. Don Nickles on Clinton, 1998: "In my opinion, President Clinton is guilty of perjury. He is guilty of obstruction of justice."
Nickles now serves on the Libby Defense Board.
BTW, speaking of Clinton's troubles -- let us not forget that even in the wake of the impeachment, his approval rating jumped to 73 percent .. not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beat the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.
George W, Bush would kill for an approval rating that high .. maybe then his daddy would stop crying in public.
Now back to hypocrite Righties. Let's see .. lying about an extramarital affair -- impeachable. Outing a CIA agent for political reasons -- no big deal.
It's kind of silly when you compare lying about a consensual BJ to lying about a national security issue.
When Plame was exposed, it ruined the entire overseas operation run out of "Brewster-Jennings" .. a "consulting company" that was really a CIA front. All the people she dealt with, all her overseas contacts, were immediately put in danger. And we lost a big chunk of our ability to detect WMD dangers to the US. And the Vice President of the United States had a hand in it .. I know it in my bones.
I get so tired of Righties arguing that there can't be an underlying crime because Plame was not a covert agent. OK .. if she *were* a covert agent, Rightie logic says there *was* an underlying crime. I guess that's why the DCIA at the time -- think his name was George Tenet -- asked for this inquiry.
The director of the CIA asked for this investigation because he KNEW Plame was a covert agent.
Period.
