Giving Libby the Benefit of the Doubt

Libby is one of the nicest and smartest guys that I have ever worked with. But that was years ago when he was out of government. Being in an Administration that is under attack, where you feel you have been sabotaged by your own (Wilson), can do strange things to your psyche. Still, whether it can turn someone inherently smart into someone dumb enough to intentionally counsel going after Valerie in order to hurt her beau is another question. It would seem there are meaner things, without the attendant risk, that one could do if that were indeed the game plan.

As is known, the charge is not the substantive crime of conspiracy to hurt Joe Wilson, but the alleged cover-up. And, after Watergate, Iran-Contra, Lewinsky, etc, it would take very little to convince a juror that someone is covering up. Moreover, this Administration has a reputation, which many a juror is inclined to think well-deserved, of going personally against those who displease them.

Personally, I, of course, don't know what Libby said in the grand jury or what happened. And, like most others that have been following this, this special prosecutor seems beyond reproach. I also recognize that it is not easy for a reporter to find out about who is acting undercover as a covert agent. Thus, the finger points to someone in the administration with motive. But, when things get messy and there are scores to be settled, there are all sorts of people in the bureaucracy who are in the know who might have their own reasons for spreading discrediting information about Valerie. Once the information is out, it doesn’t take much more than a lifting of an eyebrow or an ambiguous phone message to confirm it. Is that a conspiracy, demonstrative of willful intent to deceive? I doubt it. Moreover, if we go down that route, you can bet on a chilling effect in off-the-record conversations with reporters – hardly something conducive to advancing the cause of governmental accountability.

My experience in and out of government makes me skeptical. When I served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legal Counsel and Counselor for International Affairs at the Meese Justice Department, I was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury investigating misdoing by an associate of then Attorney General Edwin Meese with regard to kickbacks on a pipeline that was to have been built from Baghdad to Aqaba. I had nothing to fear because I had opposed, rather than endorsed the plan. Nevertheless, being before a grand jury without the benefit of counsel was a nerve-racking experience as it dawned on me that the jurors, who clearly had difficulty following the machinations of this deal, might have been all to ready to indict at the prosecutor’s urging. Nor did the press do itself credit when the New York Times ran a front page story the next day wrongly implying that I was party to any wrong-doing. It took an indignant column from Bill Safire to set the record straight.

Bottom line: concern for civil liberties dictates that special prosecutors be watched with special care, and that those facing the intense heat which a prosecutor can bring to bear upon a public figure be given every benefit of the doubt.