All Alone in the Night

G'Kar: there has been a lot of outrage about the Berger story. Perhaps a better comparison would be Republican attitudes towards perjury when committed by Clinton and by Libby.

hilzoy,

I have seen very little outrage about the Berger story outside the right blogosphere, although it is certainly possible I missed the left blogosphere's and/or left punditry's righteous fury regarding Berger's actions. As for perjury, it seems to me that neither the Republicans nor Democrats have demonstrated much constancy, as the Democrats seemed perfectly happy with perjury as long as it was deemed to be about nothing they felt was serious, while I concur that the Republicans who turned their fury on President Clinton's lies have been remarkably less outraged regarding Libby.

You want to see it as R v D or rich v poor but I think it is really PR rich v PR poor. Look at G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, John Poindexter, Michael Ledeen, Casper Weinberger and Elliott Abrams. All R's that either escaped punishment and/or are seen as heroes to some. Bill Clinton was popular in spite of his flaws and the large part of the media that was against him. These are PR success stories. Even people without money can end up with good PR if there's a story to be told that can fit a media narrative.
Alternately you can look at the "let's make a deal" mentality that got Sandy Berger a limited punishment, made Ari Fleischer a witness, made Richard Armitage a source rather than a target and made Libby the fall guy. Do you really think that if Libby was willing or able to "trade up" he would have been tried? Is it possible that Libby will follow in the footsteps of Liddy? I don't think it's so much a political prism that determines the outcome as a combination of likability and salesmanship as well as personal choices of the accused and real limits in the justice system that determines the outcome.
It's not necessarily right or just, but it isn't as simple as D v R, money v no money or even party in power v party out of power.

Having said all that, and trying to do it in a balanced mode, I admit that I may be as susceptible to "there's an R bias" in justice as you are to a "there's a D bias". It takes some effort to step away from the political prism and look at things objectively. Objectively there are political biases that vary over time. There are PR biases that vary and may or may not align with political bias. The point is that the PR bias trumps politics and money. But politics and money help shape PR.

Isn't the lack of outrage about Berger explained by the fact that nothing visible happened as a result of his actions? He broke the law for reasons I don't understand, but without any obvious result -- it makes it hard to get excited about it, because there's no story to tell.

The Plame story, on the other hand, is a narrative. While there's room for argument about the details, one version of it is that the Bush administration, to punish and discredit Wilson for having publicly attacked its decision-making process, leaked classifiedinformation about his wife's job and destroyed her career -- Libby then lied to investigators to conceal his superiors' role in the process. That's a story: it has motive, and a narrative arc, everything the Berger story lacks. The Berger story, on the other hand, leaves you saying "He shouldn't have done that. I wonder why he did."

The Plame story, on the other hand, is a narrative. While there's room for argument about the details, one version of it is that the Bush administration, to punish and discredit Wilson for having publicly attacked its decision-making process, leaked classifiedinformation about his wife's job and destroyed her career -- Libby then lied to investigators to conceal his superiors' role in the process.

LB - you're missing the part of the Berger narrative (not subscribed to by G'Kar) where the documents he destroyed proved that Bill Clinton was to be the 20th hijacker.

What harm accrued because Libby lied to a grand jury about a matter in which no crime was committed?

IIRC, Fitzgerald said he couldn't determine whether an underlying crime was committed in part due to Libby's lies.

LizardBreath,

That speaks volumes about the state of the American media, but given the fact the average blogosphere denzien is far more well-informed, the fact there's not a great narrative doesn't excuse people for saying that Berger's crime (which also involved perjury) is no big deal while Libby's is the crime of the century.

Ugh,

I am not intimately familiar with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but I believe that the standards for criminal conduct under that act are remarkably clear.

Was Valerie Plame a covert agent? If so, did someone knowingly reveal her identity?

How did Libby allegedly lying about who he told when prevent Fitzgerald from determining the above information? As best as I can determine, Plame did not fall under the definition of a covert agent, and therefore the fact her identity was revealed, while highly inappropriate, was not a crime, so question two never even came up.

Open question: setting aside the question of Plame's status with the CIA, why was it ok for Wilson to go public regarding the details of his trip, but wrong for the administration to point out that Wilson was sent only because his wife worked for the agency and wanted to send him on a junket on which he made, at best, cursory attempts to determine what the CIA was trying to find out?

As best as I can determine, Plame did not fall under the definition of a covert agent, and therefore the fact her identity was revealed, while highly inappropriate, was not a crime, so question two never even came up.

How did you determine that? While I haven't seen an official CIA statement (I understand they don't make them in this regard) I have seen co-workers of Ms. Plame's state that she was a NOC, which is one prong of the IIPA definition of covert -- that the CIA is taking measures to conceal her identity -- and that she had traveled overseas in the statutory five year period, the other prong of the IIPA.

why was it ok for Wilson to go public regarding the details of his trip, but wrong for the administration to point out that Wilson was sent only because his wife worked for the agency and wanted to send him on a junket on which he made, at best, cursory attempts to determine what the CIA was trying to find out?

It was okay for Wilson to go public because, as far as I can tell, he didn't reveal anything classified or break the terms of any agreement when he did so -- all he did was embarrass the administration. It was wrong of the administration to "point out that Wilson was sent only because his wife worked for the agency and wanted to send him on a junket on which he made, at best, cursory attempts to determine what the CIA was trying to find out" first because it was false -- who goes to Niger on a 'junket' as if it were a vacation? He was sent because he had the appropriate expertise for the job. And second because revealing her identity endangered the other secret work she did.

Was Valerie Plame a covert agent? If so, did someone knowingly reveal her identity?

As to the first, as LB notes, there is evidence that she was, and in any event it should be easily determinable - but that assumes the CIA was willing to provide evidence admissible in open court. They might not have been willing to do so, or might have provided Fitzgerald with evidence that she was a NOC but said they would never do so in court hoping that it would salvage as much of her network as possible, or they may have been willing to do so only if Fitzgerald told them that he believed he could prove the other elements of the crime.

Which brings me to the second element you mention, "knowingly." While the standard "knowingly" might be "remarkably clear" (i.e., obviously it's required to convict under the IIPA) proving it is not an easy task. He has to show that Libby knew she was a NOC. The problem with Libby's lies was that they kept Fitzgerald from determining whether Libby disclosed her name knowing she was a NOC.*

*Actually, I'm not sure that's quite it. According to this link on the IIPA, Libby's lies more directly protect him from prosecution as he could claim that (a) he learned Plame's name from reporters and thus did not learn of her covert status "as a result of having authorized access to classified information"; or (b) for similar reasons never "having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent."

LizardBreath,

I have not seen anything indicating that Plame took overseas trips in the five years before her identity was broached. But it seems to me that Fitzgerald should not have faced too much difficulty in finding out for sure.

As for Wilson going public, he also misprepresented himself in his article, which I happen to think is a bad thing. Although the media treatment of Wilson's lies does tend to bolster my thesis regarding the disparate treatment of Democrats and Republicans.

Ugh,

Good point regarding how difficult it would be to demonstrate anyone knowingly revealed Plame's identity. I was focused more on the question of whether or not she even qualified.

I was focused more on the question of whether or not she even qualified.

Yeah. I would say that the fact that his investigation went one for 3+ years seems to me to be a fairly reasonable basis for inferring that she did qualify - unless Fitzgerald concluded that he was being lied to from the start and then pursued that after getting confirmation that it was within the scope of his investigation.

While that's a great theory, the history of independent prosecutors suggests that they just like to keep digging until they find something, so the fact the probe went on so long doesn't necessarily mean anything about Plame's status. One of many reasons independent prosecutors are a bad idea.