November 16, 2005
Analyzing Patrick Fitzgerald's doublespeakBy Christopher G. Adamo
Even as the actual events surrounding the Grand Jury investigation of the Plamegate non—scandal fade into irrelevancy, the liberal spin machine continues to work overtime in its efforts to reformulate the entire affair into something it never was.
Partisan Democrats in Washington and among the Capitol Hill media (but I repeat myself) refuse to deal with Vice—Presidential Chief of Staff 'Scooter' Libby's indictment in its true context. Rather, they relentlessly invoke the entire Grand Jury investigation, and indeed its yawner of an outcome, not only as proof of a 'culture of corruption' within the Republican Party, but also a war in Iraq that was waged on criminally fraudulent premises.
After only a few weeks of investigation, the ostensible 'outing' of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent was clearly established as a non—crime. Thereafter, the entire effort degenerated into a strategy of calling enough witnesses and asking enough questions to trip up somebody... anybody.
So, in order to maintain a proper perspective, the incessant repetition of lies and distortions from the left must be countered with a reiteration of the realities of the situation. And first among these must necessarily be a reevaluation of their latest icon, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald, particularly in the waning days of the investigation, was relentlessly hyped by liberals as not only the greatest legal mind since Daniel Webster, but also the most virtuous individual since Mother Theresa. So thorough was this drumbeat of adulation that they succeeded in creating an aura of impeccability around him which has completely intimidated Republicans from questioning any of his motives or methods in arriving at the Libby indictment.
Even the mere suggestion of questioning Fitzgerald immediately relegates the questioner to the ranks of the Flat Earth Society. Yet such a consortium of emperors in this state of public nudity must eventually be properly addressed, so here goes.
First of all, contrary to the enraged shouts of 'hypocrisy' from the left, no conservative has suggested that real crimes by Libby should be ignored. At worst, Libby appears to have tripped and stumbled during the lengthy questioning that he endured. Certainly, if he sought to mislead the Grand Jury's investigation, justice must be pursued (more on that later).
Ultimately, had he been guilty of so much as parking illegally during the course of the investigation, he should indeed be appropriately punished. But such a charge, and any punitive action that follows, cannot then be construed as proof of some dark and criminal conspiracy permeating the highest levels of the Bush Administration.
In contrast, during his own legal entanglements, Bill Clinton clearly endeavored to suppress evidence and force another witness (Monica Lewinsky to be precise) to file a false affidavit, which he wrote for her, as part of a malicious effort to thwart the investigation. Thus the potential charges of perjury and obstruction of justice carry a far greater implication of corruption of the justice system and abuse of governmental power than anything Fitzgerald could credibly claim against Libby.
Nevertheless, throughout the entire sick debacle of the Clinton years, not a single individual on the right ever attempted to make the claim that Clinton's proven crimes conclusively confirmed the original charges of Whitewater, or that his conviction would henceforth protect hapless investors from another Arkansas real—estate scam. Yet that is exactly the sort of connection that the left, and Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, now seek to make.
Certain inconsistent statements made by Fitzgerald during his post—indictment news conference/victory party imply motives that are far less than virtuous. Were it not for the noble standing granted to him by the left, such apparent motives would thoroughly discredit him. Legally, they are indefensible.
To begin with, Fitzgerald emphatically characterized Plame's status at the CIA as 'classified,' and then equated this to being 'unknown.' Certainly, the two terms carry vastly different connotations, and Fitzgerald well knows it. Thus his deliberate interweaving of the two concepts can only be construed as evidence of severe prejudice in the pursuit of this case.
Secondly, while stating on multiple occasions that no crime against any covert CIA agent had been committed or suggested, Fitzgerald simultaneously asserted that the indictments he handed down would prevent any recurrence of that very crime which had not been committed.
It is also noteworthy that Fitzgerald's efforts to misrepresent the case were only exceeded by one individual, Plame's husband Joe Wilson. Striving to create an appearance of protecting his wife's 'classified' status, Wilson avoided any direct reference to her, long after both her name and occupation were common items of discussion on the evening news.
Furthermore, in contrast to Libby, Rove, or anybody else connected with the 'scandal,' Wilson's public statements constituted a veritable smorgasbord of lies, inconsistencies, and omissions. So why was Joe Wilson, of all people, exempted from testifying before the Grand Jury?
Absurd contradictions of this magnitude have always been nauseatingly easy for the left to swallow. We must remember that these same people, during the innumerable Clinton scandals, disparaged and condemned Independent Counsel Ken Starr as 'pornographer' while touting Hustler publisher Larry Flint as an 'investigator.'
But 'justice' cannot possibly be this blind. If, during the course of his investigation, Saint Patrick Fitzgerald did indeed portray events in such a jaundiced manner, it is he who is guilty of misleading a Grand Jury.
Christopher G. Adamo is a frequent contributor.