I have read Patterico’s Pontifications frequently (although I have been prevented from posting on his web site) and have found myself in agreement with much of his commentary. Perhaps his most endearing feature is puncturing the pretensions of the LA Times. That, in the beginning, was his main hobbyhorse.
But he has grown. And he is a prosecutor, and it seems that there is a clan loyalty among prosecutors. So he defends the indefensible: he defends the gross injustice done to Scooter Libby by rogue prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. And since I can't post there, I'll reply here.
Once someone is given unlimited money and power, as Fitzgerald was given, it’s part of human nature to justify your office. I vaguely remember one special prosecutor who folded up shop with no indictments or convictions, but for the life of me I can’t name him or what he was tasked to do.
But Fitzgerald is not one of that rare and self-effacing breed. He needed to bring in at least one head to mount on his wall so he went hunting. Once he found out that Libby did not reveal Plame’s identity to the press and that her identity as a secret agent was not a secret – the proximate reason for the investigation – he simply could not say “case closed.” And he found and stuck up as his trophy Scooter Libby, all the while hinting at deeper and more sinister conspiracies.
Well, that’s simply dishonest. We have been instructed in the harm that ordinary prosecutors can do in the example of Mike Nifong as he attempted to railroad members of the Duke Lacrosse team for a crime that wasn’t committed. In Fitzgerald we have an example of a prosecutor who, having found out that the “outing” of Valerie Plame was not a crime and the “outer” was not Libby, decide he could prosecute Libby anyway ostensibly committing perjury with the objective of obstructing justice.
I defy anyone, including Prosecutor Frey, to tell us what investigation has been obstructed and what crime has been concealed.
Anyone?
2 comments:
Hmmm...why were you prevented from posting?
"I defy anyone, including Prosecutor Frey, to tell us what investigation has been obstructed and what crime has been concealed."
This is the question raised in the Martha Stewart case, and the one on which her appeal was based. The answer of course, is that if the principals didn't obstruct the investigation, then the crime would be revealed. Doesn't offer much protection for the innocent, does it!
The things that really bothered me - aside from the "what's the crime here" question is that a)Fitzgerald was never required by the court to produce proof that Plame was covert - hence the question of whether there was a crime, b) the word of one witness differed from the word of another witness, and with no further proof required, one witness was considered to have lied, c) Fitzgerald _knew_ before he actually started the investigation who had leaked the information - crime or not. In all of these, the courts have acted in a way that offers no protection for the innocent, and encouraged purely political revenge. In the last, how can this be upheld? the investigation had no purpose, since the question raised had already been answered.
This does not bode well for the country.
That is exactly my point. If it can be shown that Libby lied to cover up a crime, or that he lied to cover up a criminal conspiracy, I would be inclined to believe that justice was done. But in the absence of proof that identifying Valerie Plame as the CIA employee who recommended her husband for the job was a crime, I fail to see an underlying crime. This has serious implications for people who are innocent of a crime but whose memories differ from others during the investigation. Prosecutors have broad powers and resources that dwarf those of all except the wealthiest clients. This appears to me to be a clear case of abuse of prosecutorial power.
As to why I can’t post at Patterico, I don’t know. I am being blocked and as you can see from my blog, I am not abusive or profane.
Post a Comment