home

Pre-Indictment Spin Planning

By TChris, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 04:35:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

How to spin an indictment:

With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

Funniest spin: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison claiming that she hopes "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 dollars." Republicans who were so exercised about Bill Clinton's testimony regarding oral pleasure now believe that perjury is just a "technicality"?

Hutchison also compared the leak investigation to Martha Stewart's case. Yet Martha Stewart went to prison, and there weren't a whole lot of Republicans objecting to that outcome.

The funniest defense: lying (about politics, if not oral pleasure) is a way of life in Washington.

Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works.

Washington is a "truth free zone" where lying to federal officers or grand juries shouldn't be a crime? Let's see how well that spin goes over as elections approach.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | BC Opens Human Rights & Justice Center >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pre-Indictment Spin Planning | 55 comments (55 topical)
    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Overzealous? Do tell, wingnuts: how can a prosecutor be "overzealous", from the right-wing, mandatory-sentencing, three-strikes-and-you're-out perspective?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    This post from TChris pretty much makes my point on this whole thing - there was no original crime, and the reaction to it is based not on facts, but on where you stand politically. You know, just like the Clinton matter.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    - there was no original crime
    There, there now, just keep on repeating that to yourself, if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile, standby for indictments! Because it's almost Fritzmas!!!!

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    I agree: those who are now trying to spin this as "just a perjury thing" are wrong. Perjury is a crime, regardless of what you are lying about, and it should be prosecuted. Unfortunately for TChris, that blade cuts both ways. A lot of the people screaming about perjury now are those who felt it wasn't at all important when it was Bill Clinton doing the lying. And I'm willing to bet TChris was one of them. Hypocrisy sucks, whether it comes from the left or the right.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    In the case of Clinton, he lied about something that wasn't a crime (oral sex). Still a lie and unacceptable. But in this case, these are lies about a breach of national security. Both are wrong, but it seems that there IS a difference in magnitude.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    I'm with Pete and as so many have said before...no one died from Clinton's blowjob --not that his lying was acceptable but Senator (sic) Bighair -she's another Texas joke on the rest of us. Too bad Russert is so in pocket with the Republicans --I'd like to see him put her previous statements about Clinton's perjury up for her to explain

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    [he] forced his most loyal staff into the tightest of corners, he was actually surprised when they took the initiative and tried to free themselves from this problem. [he] was caught in his own web of lies and deceit with no one left around him to accuse or blame. [he] insisted that everything he had done was for the benefit of his country, but it is hard to see how such blatant abuse of power could benefit the voting public. The only positive aspect of the whole situation was that the truth was eventually revealed (as much as possible) and the American public justifiably reacted in disgust at their treatment by the man they had elected to power. Most people here, and elswhere, will be very familiar with the story above. It is a story of a mindset of hubris, denial of reality, a systemic policy of lies and deceit, and a belief that ends justify means. It is the story of the crumbling of a republican presidency.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. And if I had a dollar for every comment made by Demos/Lefies that match Hutchinson's I would have my $10,000 buy-in for the WSOP. The issue should always be, was the act a crime? A BJ wasn't. Was Mrs. Wilson a covert agent? Some say yes, some say no. (I say no.) If the SP thinks so, he should indict and try. But politics is blood sports, and all the denials, posturing and other BS associated with this issue should be cheerfully ignored by the legal profession. And that includes Fitzgerald.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    edgey - You wish.....

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    If I commit perjury, shouldn't I go to jail? Why are Republicans any different? Help me out here, Jim.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    By the way, it boggles the mind, why an innocent person would make stuff up: seems like it merely increases the chances you will be indicted. Say you come home and your parents want to know who broke one of the windows. You were at school all day and don't know, but you concoct an elaborate story involving space aliens, and then your friends tell your parents it was a hailstorm, and then you're caught planting evidence that the cat did it. Eventually you break down and admit that all the stories were made up. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just say you weren't there and don't know? You must either be lying (perhaps you skipped school and broke the window screwing around somehow) or crazy. The Republicans want me to believe the UFO defense. Why should I?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#12)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    But politics is blood sports, and all the denials, posturing and other BS associated with this issue should be cheerfully ignored
    No. Super-secret death squads, improvised explosive devices, suicide attacks, tyrannical group punishment -- those are "blood sports." Politics should be better than that. Unless it's not... in which case our high-falutin' words don't mean a damn thing. But credit where credit is due: this administration has taught me the meaning of the word "cynical."

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#13)
    by mjvpi on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Have you noticed that every time that the Pres and VP have testified, it hasn't been under oath? Quick studies.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    When war and politics are involved, why do we suddenly lose our critical faculties and give those in power free rein? Bloody idiotic. No truth ever rose from denying a lie is a lie is a lie. Must be a Texas thing. More at DEEP IN THE HEART OF STUPID

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    I too, TChris, sat with my jaw dropped as Ms. Hutchinson spewed the above...and then as Russert gave her what amounted to a free pass. People lie to grand juries to cover things up. Interestingly, this investigation was originally handled by the justice dept. under Ashcroft. It wasn't until Ashcroft recused himself that Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to continue the investigation. It is fair to say that the key players felt much more collegial with the Ashcroft crowd and never dreamed that a crackshot investigator like Fitzgerald would be re-examining their testimony. Perjury is never okay. I would argue that it is least morally unacceptable when the person is trying to avoid embarassment (as in, don't tell my wife I did the dirty!). Perjury is the most serious for our government officials when they are trying to cover up abuse of power and criminal wrongdoing. Forget about Clinton in this case - think Nixon. Dean, Haldeman and Erlichman's perjury were protecting a president's criminal actions. If the tapes weren't discovered (dying for the W. tapes to surface!!) and Nixon implicated, we would have only had the perjury charges. However, to a zealous prosecutor like Ken Starr or Fitzgerald, they have an obligation to investigate discrepancies in testimony, regardless of the magnitude in their opinion of the offense. Ultimately, the people must judge misdeeds, once discovered. My question is, what are you people going to do if you discover that Cheney and Rove went after Wilson and lied to the grand jury to cover up manufactured evidence of Saddam's WMD program???

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Let's see, PPJ says the uncovering of a NOC at the CIA and blowing the cover of the company Brewster-Jennings wasn't a crime? And that, contrary to numerous ex-CIA agents, being a NOC isn't covert. I would like to know why his knowledge, not based on firsthand experience working for the CIA, of which 40% of their covert agents are made up of NOC's, gives him better insight into whether or not a crime has been committed. Apparently the CIA thought there was enough evidence of a crime since they were the agency that asked the DOJ to investigate. So PPJ just exactly what makes you more "in the know" about the operations of the Company than someone like Larry Johnson? Or could it be more of the "I am PPJ and I don't need facts or a brain to back up what I say" style of debating? I think this is more the case than you actually knowing what you are talking about. And the same goes for your pal James "I'm not as crazy as my brother Pat, but almost" Robertson.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    James Robertson says: "You know, just like the Clinton matter." I say: Better an unwise hummer than an unarmored humvee.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Some people just have no sense of humor at all, hey?
    Publish Date: 20-Oct-2005 A Vancouver lawyer has won a procedural victory in her attempt to prosecute U.S. President George W. Bush under the Criminal Code [of Canada]. Gail Davidson, cofounder of an international group of jurists called Lawyers Against the War, expressed her delight on October 18 following the lifting of a publication ban on court proceedings against the U.S. president. “It’s great news, but really they had no choice,” Davidson told the Georgia Straight. The Kitsilano lawyer got the ball rolling against Bush as soon as he set foot on Canadian soil for his November 30, 2004, visit. As a private citizen, she charged him with seven counts of counselling, aiding, and abetting torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay naval base. She had her charges accepted by a justice of the peace in Vancouver Provincial Court. Bush faces prison time if the case goes to trial and he is found guilty.
    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Was Mrs. Wilson a covert agent? Some say yes, some say no. (I say no.) If the SP thinks so, he should indict and try. But politics is blood sports, and all the denials, posturing and other BS associated with this issue should be cheerfully ignored by the legal profession. And that includes Fitzgerald.
    I think the CIA knows best of all if Plame is covert, and they were the ones who wanted a prosecutor so I think we should assume she was indeed covert. One thing to keep in mind is that when people do commit perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or destruction of evidence, it becomes very difficult to have the evidence to try people for the more serious crime that is committed. I am sure that if everyone in the whitehouse gave Fitzgerald a tell all of what happened he could definitely prosecute someone for the original leak. When they hide the truth, sometimes all you can prosecute them for is hiding the truth. As to the comparisons with Clinton, besides what everyone else here has mentioned (the seriousness of what the lie was about) the other issue with clinton was not is perjury not a real crime, but is is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of impeachment? Just saying that perjury is not a big deal and deserving of no punishment when government officials do it makes a mockery of our judicial system. It was a bad thing when Clinton did it, though Starr had already made a mockery of our legal system at the point Clinton did it.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#20)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Sen. Frist: "There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors...Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor...The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Kyl: "...there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses...John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society' than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. DeWine: "Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice...Perjury is also a very serious crime...The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth-so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies-so that injustice may prevail." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Talent: "Nobody else in a position of trust, not a CEO, not a labor union leader, not a principal of a school could do half of what the president has done and stay in office. I mean, who would have said a year ago that a president could perjure himself and obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses... and stay in office." [CNBC, "Hardball," 12/19/98] Sen. McConnell: "I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Voinovich: "As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Hutchison: "The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy." [AP, 2/12/99] Sen. Craig: "There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99] Sen. Brownback: "Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    PPJ the hypocrite: Remember saying this PPJ: Posted by Jim at October 16, 2003 05:24 PM "NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced." Yes, and I did not have sex with that woman.... As Sen Kerry (NE)said, "Bill Clinton is a liar. A very good liar." Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 02:38 PM et al - "The Republicans and Ken Starr bear the brunt of the blame." Let me see. The Repubs forced Clinton to get a BJ from Monica. No. The Repubs forced Monica to give Bill a BJ. No... Pardon me while I fall down laughing. Demo - The real loser in this affair was women's rights. In fact NOW has become marginalized. A pity, because many of the complaints were real, and needed addressing. Posted by Poker Plkayer (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 03:50 PM aw - The issue is not bad choices. The issue is TL blaiming the Repubs for Clinton and Monica's bad choices. And NOW defending him in what is obviously hypocritical nonsense. Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 25, 2004 07:54 PM rukus - Down here we call him Bill, or Slick Willie, which I understand he finds very nice, so be sure and call him that every chance you get. J man - What should a 20 year old know? Anyway, I agree on the "nodoby's business part," and thought that the Repubs were stupid to try and use it in the '98 elections. They were rewarded with poor results. At that time the country was a peace, the economy was out of sight and all we could see was more of the same. I (almost) felt sorry for him, sometimes he looked like a deer in the headlights, realizing that he had destroyed himself. But..... Blaming the Repubs for his and her's actions is funny. No BJ, no lies, no what is "is" and etc., etc. But we are what we are. Jennifer, Paula, Juanita, Monica and the others show what Clinton was. No big deal, except two out of the four say it wasn't consensual. Two said it was not. That's not a good batting average. hOW ABOUT THIS Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at June 26, 2004 08:37 AM VJ - If Ireland did so she did it so quietly no one noticed. Here is one thing she did say: "Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, said, "On balance, women have had an ally in the White House. If this reactionary campaign succeeds, the unfinished agenda of women on equality, in Social Security, pay equity, child care, anti-poverty remedies, minimum wage, Medicare, real campaign-finance reform . . . will continue to languish in Congress." Quite an attack. Translation. We forgive him because his politics are right. You also say, "Innuendo and vicious slander may accompany them to the end of their days, but the Clinton's have never been found guilty by anyone of ANY crime." Uh, I think perjury is a crime. And I think Clinton has been found guilty of it. And I think he can not practice law in the state Arkansas because of it. What Jim says today: Posted by JimakaPPJ at October 24, 2005 08:18 AM et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. Funny, I cannot find anything to support this BS statement.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Rewriting history again are ya Jim?

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#23)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    1) Clinton's shenanigans have nothing to do with the matter at hand. 2) If anything, a better comparison would be with the West Wing, where Toby Ziegler just got unceremoniously escorted out of the White House one of hour after admitting to having leaked classified information to the press. 2) It is not clear that the indictments will be limited to perjury, or obstruction of justice. 3) PPJ's tactic of simulating a controversy where there isn't one is transparent. There is no doubt that Valerie Plame was a covert agent. 4) I love seeing the wingnuts squirm.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#24)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    5) Obviously, I can't count.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    ppj is busy choking on his own vomit.

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Jlvngstn well done

    Re: Pre-Indictment Spin Planning (none / 0) (#27)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    hmmmm, someone want to give me the link showing where bill clinton was indicted, for anything, including poor taste in women? i thought not. yes, perjury is a crime, whether it's lying about getting a bj from a woman not your wife, or matters of national security. that said, if every guy who perjured himself, regarding sex with someone not his wife, were prosecuted, we'd have to release all those non-violent drug offenders, to make room for them. on the other hand, it will require much less space to house those convicted of the latte