In a June 1 editorial, The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction dubiously asserted that former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby “was convicted of obstructing justice and lying about a crime that never occurred” in the leak of former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Contrary to the Daily Sentinel's assertion that an underlying crime “never occurred,” Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated that Libby's obstruction of the investigation concealed whether or not the leak violated the relevant federal law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The Daily Sentinel editorial followed a May 25 NBC News report that Fitzgerald had recommended against leniency for Libby, who is scheduled for sentencing on June 5 for his March 6 conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Fitzgerald included in his sentencing memo an unclassified CIA document officially confirming that Plame had been a covert agent when her identity was leaked to the media in July 2003.

From the editorial “Plame show must go on” in the June 1 edition of The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction:

For public farce, it's hard to beat the spectacle of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Currently, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is seeking the maximum possible sentence for Scooter Libby, the former vice president's aide who was convicted of obstructing justice and lying about a crime that never occurred. (See column on this page).

Fitzgerald, of course, declined to file charges against anybody for the crime he was originally appointed to investigate: whether somebody had illegally released Plame's name to the news media.

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, numerous conservative media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against Libby prove that Fitzgerald's investigation found that no underlying crime had been committed. This assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented Fitzgerald -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law. According to an October 28, 2005, press release, Fitzgerald said:

“Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer's identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.” [emphasis added]

At a press conference the same day, a reporter specifically asked Fitzgerald whether the probe would fail to “lead to a charge of leaking.” In response, Fitzgerald compared himself to an umpire who, while attempting to determine whether a pitcher intentionally hit a batter, had sand thrown in his eyes:

FITZGERALD: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that.

[...]

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell [New York Times reporter] Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. [Matthew] Cooper [of Time magazine]? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else, and where are the shades of gray?

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.

Furthermore, in its May 25 online report, NBC News indicated the reasons Fitzgerald gave for urging a strong sentence for Libby:

Fitzgerald wrote in the 18-page memo, “Particularly in a case such as this, where Mr. Libby was a high-ranking government official whose falsehoods were central to issues in a significant criminal investigation, it is important that this court impose a sentence that accurately reflects the value the judicial system places on truth-telling in criminal investigations.”

The Special Counsel said that the “deliberate” outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame was a very serious breach, “The allegations underlying this investigation were serious: that high-ranking government officials, in the course of responding to political criticisms of the present administration by Ms. Wilson's husband, had deliberately, recklessly or negligently compromised her identity as an intelligence agent, posing risks to intelligence assets and operations.”

[...]

Fitzgerald also recommends to Judge Walton that Libby not be given any leniency in his sentence.

Fitzgerald writes, “As an experienced attorney, Mr. Libby knew well both the seriousness of this investigation and the range of options available to him as the investigation progressed. He, of course, could have told the truth, even if, as was the case for many other witnesses, doing so risked the possibility of criminal prosecution, or personal or political embarrassment.”

Libby also could have declined to speak to the FBI agents, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before the grand jury, or challenged any lines of inquiry he believed improper, said Fitzgerald.