It’s Libby, Libby, Libby on the Label
By Doug Edelman (10/29/05)
he Fitz has fizzled! After nearly 2 years of investigating the supposed "outing" of CIA employee Valerie Plame, we now know that there is no evidence that an illegal disclosure of a covert operative even took place. We also have no indictment of primary "suspect", Carl Rove. Under intense pressure to indict SOMEONE, the best Fitzgerald could come up with was to indict Scooter Libby for some inconsistency in his testimony about how he learned the information that was not criminal to disclose!
Ok, let's analyze by analogy:
Let's say Libby is an employee for a small company. A week after there is a disagreement between Libby and the company's owner, the owner realizes his prized possession, the golfball he hit his first hole-in-one with, is missing. The last time he remembers seeing it was the day he had the disagreement with Libby, so naturally suspicion falls on Libby. He is asked to account for his whereabouts the night after the disagreement, since he has a key to the office.
Libby says he went to dinner and a movie that night with his wife. As the owner continues his investigation, he uncovers an email where Libby apologized to his wife for not being able to take her out that night because he had to work late. That day he also finds the golfball behind his desk. The cleaning woman had knocked it off it's stand and it rolled there.
No crime was committed… the ball was recovered. Libby had forgotten about the incident where he worked late and he took his wife out the next night. Yet the owner fired Libby for misrepresenting his alibi. Is this fair?
In the same way, Libby is being indicted for faulty memory in his testimony about learning Plame's association with the Agency. His memo contradicted his testimony. But IF there were intent to mislead… why did Libby KEEP the memo, let alone turn it over to prosecutors? Is it unreasonable to believe his testimony was an honest mistake in memory 2 years later – given the volume of information, meetings, discussions, emails and appointments his position demanded on a daily basis?
Is it reasonable to impune someone for mis-recalling events related to a non-crime? No criminal "outing" took place! How can they justify criminalizing an inconsistency in memory of an event 2 years earlier… in the investigation of a crime that never took place?
If the investigation fails to show that a crime was committed (the REASON for the investigation), then isn't the rest irrelevant?
Once the smoke clears (and Libby is cleared of wrongdoing), where will this excellent and devoted public servant go to "get his reputation back"?
Copyright © 2005 by Doug Edelman
(Printer friendly version) Email: Doug Edelman
