Blog For Arizona

Getting too near the Plame

The Plame Affair is heating back up with the appointment of a new prosecutor, Pat Fitzgerald, and Ashcroft's recusal. Speculation about possible defenses and legal wiggle room of those who are likely guilty is again rife with the publication of a new article in the January Issue of Vanity Fair.




There are a few key issues to watch for in this whole affair:

First, the prosecutor is still not formally independent. Patrick Fitzgerald has an excellent reputation for even-handed prosecution of political cases, which is obviously why he was picked, but the White House's hand is still on the tiller. A 40 year old with a promising future and a good reputation is exactly the profile I would be looking for if I wanted subtle influence over the investigation and any possible prosecutorial action. This guy is a Republican with ambition and 25 more years of career, at least, in front of him. The balance of incentives are pretty clear. Watch for unexplained, or inexplicable, behavior by the prosecutor.

Second, even with the possible technical issues with the case, the evidence already public by itself warrants charges. The only question is who will the finger land on, and will any charges cover everyone involved?

Third, is a matter of timing. If the indictments stay below the level of senior staff, the affair will be gotten over as quick as possible with quiet resignations and plea agreements. If there are bigger fish to fry, and it is politically possible to get to them (Rove, many possibly be involved), the stonewalling and spinning will probably continue until after the 2004 election, keeping the scandal at a low volume. Watch for an attempt at a quick resolution with a sacrificial staffer.

Fourth, juries can be very smart. There is a lot of speculation that the WH's defense will be lack of intent because of a lack of knowledge. I see a plausible case for lack of intent in the public record, but there is not the sort of abscence of evidence which would prevent charges from being filed. I also don't see that line of defense working for a New York minute with a jury. I often have seen attorneys construct a case around this sort of technical element, only have have the jury blow right past it with hardly a glance out of pure common sense. If this thing goes to trial (unlikely though it is), possible lack of intent will really be the last thing on the juror's minds. If it goes to trial it has all the makings of yet another trial of the century, if the courtroom is not media-blacked for national security purposes.

The General election issue frame:Hypocrisy

This scandal is nearly tailor made for a body-slamming charge of hypocrisy in the Bush Administration. Whether legal charges are filed or the case dies an early political death is completely immaterial. The undeniable fact is that Plame was outted to the press by the WH, regardless of who, of if, someone is held responsible. It is almost better as an issue if the WH closes ranks and tries to weather the storm as that implicates the President himself in an attempt to subvert justice.

Bush promised to restore honor and dignity to the WH, what we got was a dastardly political attack on a perceived critic that harmed national security and ruined a career beneficial to the nation. Such a sordid and purposeful political attack is yet one more instance of how valueless Bush's promises are. The fact that Bush didn't act immediately to eject the wrong-doer from his Administration, though he surely knew or could easily have found out who was responsible, and instead protected the criminals in his Administration who did this, shows that his promise is less than worthless; it's pure hypocrisy.

Nothing but more of the same no-holds-barred politics of personal destruction and hyper-partisanship can reasonably be expected of Bush given four more years to govern. He'll continue to make our government a grinning catastrophe, elevate hypocrisy to a public virtue, and turn our politics into nothing more than a series of drive-by shootings.

Bush exploited the issue of honor and dignity in government because his focus grouping told him that's what America wants. We really do want our public officials to be responsible repositories of the public trust who act with a sense of personal honor and conduct the business of the nation with dignity and respect for all. We got the most childish, petty, moronic, belligerent, scornful and buffoonish government we could possibly imagine. We can, and we will, do better that this.

Disturbing ruminations:

The most alarming aspect of this whole affair is how much like a game the media seems to be treating this. Most would seem to be perfectly content for the whole thing to go away, if it weren't such sexy copy: diplomats, spies, CIA operatives, WMD, ruthless misdeeds in the WH. It's practically a Tom Clancy novel. In fact, there's rumor of a book deal, so maybe it will be one.

The very imagery used by the media of the political maneuvering is rife with the parlance of games: shifting pieces and influences, waxing or waning power, slowly accumulating evidence and revelations, strategic sacrifices (recusal), and protecting the inner section. Natural perhaps to use such a familiar shorthand to explain an unfamiliar world, but there is never any real moral content in conjunction with description; no real sense that anyone did anything terribly wrong and harmful.

One might easily imagine that the media was covering a colorful foreign culture with an anthropological detachment; observing, even being entertained or scandalized by the interesting and brutal customs of this fascinating culture, but never really judging it. There seems to be no sense that we have descended to a nadir, at which destruction of a life is just a political maneuver, and in service to only a political goal of marginal value at that. Like the brutal court of a clapped-out monarchy or a tyranny grown jaded and decandent, the behavior of the political class in Washington seems beyond any judgments except those rendered inside the system. Only if someone of consequence and prominence within the system renders a judgment is it given real significance, and even then, only for partisans of the hierophant.

I'm too young to remember directly the outrage people felt at the idea that the WH was involved in something so low and base as a common burglary, even if it had political purpose, but I know how it was second-hand, from the accounts of those of age during Watergate, books, and journalism contemporary to the event. But I know that the reaction to this, the commission of a major Federal felony, which carries death as one possible penalty, which may have seriously compromised national security, and which ruined the career of a faithful public servant, has raised much less outrage. I wonder what the public reaction to the events of Watergate would be now? Politics as usual? A dirty trick, but not really a significant issue? Would Bush get away with it, his Presidency intact?

This White House has possibly ordered, almost certainly abetted, and definitely harbors and protects one or more felons who acted, and continue to act, as if they were above the law, above morality, above common decency, and above any duty to their nation except furtherance of their President's and their party's agenda. I, though just one American, am outraged and disgusted. The thought of such people inhabiting high office in my government makes me want to borrow Tom DeLay's exterminating equipment and rid the entire Federal district of the vermin who are infesting it, not excepting the bailor of the equipment himself.

Perhaps we need an event to reinstill the proper fear of and respect for public duty in our Executives and Congress-critters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the immunity of certain high public officials for acts while in office. Perhaps we need to see a former President or Senator in the dock, in jail, or on death row, to reawaken an urgent need in our public officials to serve the commonweal, not themselves, their peers, their contributors, the lobbyists who coddle them, or the media which absolve them. At minimum, we should sign the ICC. Perhaps Presidents would at least be wary of foreign military adventures if a cell at Den Haag awaited them at the end of their term, instead of speaking tours and Presidential Library construction. Bush deserves at least such a fate for what he has done.

posted by Michael Bryan @ 1/03/2004 04:44:00 AM