About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

More conservatives falsely claimed that Plame leak investigation found that the leak itself wasn't illegal

November 01, 2005 3:12 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

10 Comments

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund mischaracterized the October 28 indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to claim that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation determined that no underlying crime had been committed in the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. In fact, neither the indictment nor Fitzgerald indicated that any conclusion has been reached as to whether a crime was committed in leaking Plame's identity.

Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, is accused of lying to and misleading FBI agents and the grand jury during Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame leak; he was indicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements.

As Media Matters for America documented, the claim made by numerous conservative media figures that the Libby indictment established that no "underlying crime" was committed is baseless. Fitzgerald's October 28 press release summarizing Libby's indictment explained that the grand jury's attempts to fully investigate the Plame leak "were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson." Moreover, in an October 28 press conference, when asked by a reporter, "Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?" Fitzgerald responded using a baseball metaphor: "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened, and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it. So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make." Fitzgerald never stated, or even suggested, that the leak itself was not a criminal act.

Nevertheless, on the October 31 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Krauthammer, when asked by host Hume if it was "established in this indictment that someone had leaked the identity of a CIA agent," responded: "Well, absolutely not. Nobody was indicted on that charge, the original charge that sparked the investigation. If there were a crime committed or at least a suspicion of it, this prosecutor would obviously have indicted someone. He did not."

Limbaugh, on the October 31 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, mischaracterized the October 28 press conference, putting words in Fitzgerald's mouth to falsely claim that no crime had been found in regard to Plame's outing:

LIMBAUGH: He said two things in that press conference that will stand out above anything else that I hear about it. He said, "Despite all of our investigation, we did not find any evidence of the outing of a covert agent," so it means that our investigation turned up nothing, so we decided to turn up a crime as part of our investigation, so they've got this crime of Libby covering up a non-crime.

On the October 31 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, Fund claimed that "if you look at the indictment carefully, there is no indication that Valerie Plame, ambassador [Joseph C.] Wilson's wife, was even a covert agent, and certainly the law was not violated. So given all that, of course perjury is a serious charge, but it's isolated with Mr. Libby." Fund later repeated the claim, saying: "Again, there is no underlying crime, no national security was directly violated and there was no charge on that basis." Contrary to Fund's claim that the indictment gave "no indication" Plame "was even a covert agent," the indictment claimed: "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by left045 (November 01, 2005 3:56 pm ET)
         

      MMFA's headline says, "More conservatives falsely claimed that Plame leak investigation found that the leak itself wasn't illegal," but the body of their piece does not support their assertion!

      The conservatives have merely pointed out that Fitzgerald did not hand down an indictment for a leak. MMFA's citations do not support that that they were saying that the investigation concluded that the leak wasn't illegal. The conservatives are simply saying that no one has been found guilty of any illegal leak, and that the investigation has "turned up nothing" in respect to an illegal leak.

      I think MMFA may have swung and missed on this one.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Rosencrantz (November 01, 2005 4:03 pm ET)
           

        The conservatives aren't pointing anything out. They are trying to play innocent because there as no charges laid for the leak. Therefore they are arguing that what happened wasn't wrong or illegal.

        It was. The reason there haven't been any charges is because this Administration of "integrity" has lied, stonewalled and obstructed justice to the point that you can't make a charge on the leak...yet.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Scotty Johnson Sr. (November 01, 2005 4:30 pm ET)
           

        Here's what Limbaugh said:

        "...so they've got this crime of Libby covering up a non-crime."

        What part of 'non-crime' don't you understand? They are trying to create spin that a crime wasn't committed. However, that wasn't the conclusion of investigation. That's just right-wing wishful thinking.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by kensp (November 01, 2005 5:29 pm ET)
           

        Wrong. It is not just the usual suspects (ie Limbaugh, O'Reilly etc) but even the main stream media, like Katie Couric, have picked up this talking point. Specifically that Fitzgerald's investigation has concluded that there was no leak or that the leak was not a crime. This is not a misunderstanding, it is a bare faced lie.

        Fitzgerald's metaphor about throwing sand in the umpire's eyes is very apt. What Bush's media surrogates and the intimidated msm are saying is the equivalent of saying that because the Umpire, after having sand thrown in his eyes, did not call the pitch he couldn't see a ball, then it must have been a strike.

        If the noise machine succeeds in spinning this as an exoneration of the Whitehouse it will truly be the end of the once great American press.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (November 02, 2005 9:33 am ET)
             

          I think you've got it in a nutshell. This may be the real test for our gutless press corps. Will they step up and do their jobs, or will they bend over just to keep their jobs? This is the same bunch that spent thousands of hours dissecting the Monica Lewinsky case.....are their memories that short? Do they think our memories are that short?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by laura (November 01, 2005 8:58 pm ET)
           

        MMFA says Limbaugh asserted that no underlying crime had been committed.

        Your hero Rush used the term "non-crime".

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sagra (November 02, 2005 10:59 am ET)
         

      Listen up all you DoD workers with security clearances -- It's no longer a crime to give away state secrets! Yay!

      No more secure phone lines or hard-to-remember safe combinations. Those end of day checklists are history. Isn't life uch easier when you can just stuff that Secret info in a desk drawer? Make a few extra photocopies and take 'em home! Fax 'em to your neighbor! Let your kids write their book reports on the back!

      Security officers? Your are officially relieved of your duties and reassigned to the position of In-House Drink Mixologists. Would anyone care for a Top Secret coaster?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Blueneck (November 02, 2005 12:41 pm ET)
         

      "Listen up all you DoD workers with security clearances -- It's no longer a crime to give away state secrets! Yay!

      Maybe. But it probably be advisable to lie about it under oath, be charged with obstruction instead, and make sure you work for an criminal administration whose capo di tutti capi of the borgata surrounds himself with enough button men, enforcers, and stand up guys to make it all work. Their problem is that Fitzgerald may not be a meat eater so who knows what they might do off the record? Libby is going to need a hard on with a suitcase and they'll be sure he has one. Otherwise he may turn rat.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dem in texas (November 02, 2005 4:38 pm ET)
         

      I have heard a bunch of commentators claim that people were cleared of wrongdoing. That's not true.

      There was not enough evidence to indict anyone. That is not equivalent to saying that no one did anything wrong.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by joseph_b26 (November 03, 2005 10:12 pm ET)
         

      The Republicans, and the "Hating Right" are starting to believe their own lies. Just like the evolution of man, the Republican liars have evolved into a whole new Species. The new Species is self supporting and need only the confirmations from their own ranks -- hence Bush's exclusion of non supporters to his town meetings and campaign rallies. The new Species has several draw backs, but the one that most identify their shortcomings as a Species is they tend to believe the lies in the face of undeniable truth, and they tend to treat truth as an opinion to be discounted by, you guessed it, more lies. With all this need to keep truth at bay, they have become very hateful of those who would make it difficult for them to maintain their deceptions. In short, they live by lies and die by them, and if we don't stop them, they will have more victims dying for the same lies they need to live off of.

      Joseph

      Report Abuse

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace