Some Thoughts On The Libby Verdict

Bob Schieffer Wonders If The Verdict Was Worth The Trial In The CIA Lead Investigation

(CBS)  Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.

---

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald convinced a jury that Scooter Libby – the Vice President's top aide and confidant – lied to a grand jury.

That is serious business.

But, here's the part I don't understand. What the prosecutor had set out to do – what the case was all about – was to determine if someone had broken the law by knowingly revealing the identity of secret intelligence agent Valerie Plame.

Did any of that ever happen? Was a law actually broken? If the prosecutor found such evidence, he must not have found much because no charge was ever filed. We don't even know if she was a secret agent covered by that law.

Nor will we ever.

Fitzgerald spent millions of dollars, hauled reporters before grand juries, forced them to reveal sources, even put one in jail and kept her there for months. But, once he convicted Libby of lying, he said he planned no other action.

Sure, the trial produced valuable information. We found out that top officials of the government apparently lie, spend a lot of time trying to manipulate the press, are quick to demean and discredit their critics, and when such hardball tactics backfire, find themselves paying an embarrassing political price.

But when these investigations drag on for years, when prosecutors spend millions of our tax dollars, when reporters are forced to tell grand juries who in the government they have been talking to, shouldn't we expect more for our money?

Shouldn't we at least be told if a law was broken, and whether Ms. Plame's identity was even covered by that law?

---

E-mail Face the Nation.

[samthetvcat]

opfor311 - yeah, I left out the removal for cause since it didn't happen, but that was a great explanation :)

You know what I think could have happened is that Libby hired one of those fance jury selection consultants like Dr. Phil used to be who advised them to look first for Republicans, and then second for people who would sympathize with their defense that Libby was just a small player for a much more sinister person (Cheney, Rove, etc). I think they probably did make the right choice accepting this neighbor into the jury given that they next person in line might have been even less sympathetic because it sounds like the jury really felt bad for Libby but that the evidence was just too persuasive - chances are the next person in line would perhaps think Libby was a creep or whatever (?) Like I guess people could feel like jeez if the jury had been made up of 12 Republican he might have been acquitted, except that the jury is supposed to be made up of a representative sample of society, so that would never have happened . . .

[katg21]

opfor311,
Thanks

[opfor311]

SamTheTVCat

The juror in question would have been eliminated from most jury pools by the judge, who does the first winnowing of the jurors. However, in this case, in his efforts to get a sufficient number of jurors from the pool to allow for a 12 person jury, and for 2 alternates, the judge allowed this juror to stay in the pool. Then the procecutor and the defense were allowed to remove jurors for whatever reason (besides race or gender) until the proper number of jurors was left.

I don't know why the defense left him on the jury, when he told them that he was a former reporter who had worked for Woodward, was a neighbor of Russert and had met both Fitzgerald and had a friend who had played football with Libby.

However, never underestimate the power of a jury member to sway other members in deliberations. A articulate jury member can convince others to see things his/her way.

[samthetvcat]

I find it interesting too that we're now hearing that one of the jurors was a neighbor of Tim Russert and long time friends with Fitz. He is now going to write a tell all book about this trial and make millions of dollars. Where's the justice there, you tell me?
Posted by katg21

I thought you knew it all? People are called to jury duty at random, and are require to disclose all ties to people involved in the trial including expected witnesses. The prosecutor and defense are each entitled to reject an equal number of jury members - which means the Libby's lawyer (probably in consultation with Libby - a lawyer) agreed to make that person part of the jury. They probably didn't care about a jury member having a prior association to Tim Russert because we all know Tim Russert from TV with his little dry erase board during elections, etc.

But even assuming this jury member failed to mention his past association with Tim Russert, this isn't likely to be considered as having altered the outcome because there were 10 other witnesses who still concluded after a weighing of the evidence that Libby was guilty of lying under oath and didn't just 'forget' as you seem to need so desperately to believe.

[ademeyer]

This is for you katg21:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27&notFound=true

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.

[katg21]

notblue and katg21, if Plame's employment at the CIA wasn't classified, then why did the CIA ask for an investigation of who leaked her name? Is the CIA a Democratic stronghold?
Posted by ADEMEYER at 05:31 PM : Mar 12, 2007

They didn't, an independent council did. Fitz went on a witch hunt to find said leaker but when that person wasn't Libby he had to improvise. I find it interesting too that we're now hearing that one of the jurors was a neighbor of Tim Russert and long time friends with Fitz. He is now going to write a tell all book about this trial and make millions of dollars. Where's the justice there, you tell me?

[ademeyer]

notblue and katg21, if Plame's employment at the CIA wasn't classified, then why did the CIA ask for an investigation of who leaked her name? Is the CIA a Democratic stronghold?

[katg21]

Libby may serve 25yrs for failing to recall information... that's an injustice. Tim Russert failed to recall that same information, where's his indictment?

[katg21]

notblue,

My fellow Righty, you are wasting your time trying to explain it; the libs are closed minded to any common sense.

[katg21]

President Clinton was impeached for lying to the grand jury on a personal matter. I think Libby's lying had a lot more importance and impact than Mr. Clinton's.
Posted by oleander8 at 09:46 AM : Mar 12, 2007

You're so obviously on drugs if you believe that, come on! Maybe if Clinton weren't getting a b-job under his desk we would have caught Bin Laden!