Unconfirmed reports are flowing out of Washington that the ghost of Jim Garrison has been seen haunting the chambers where closing arguments in the perjury trial of vice-presidential aide Scooter Libby has been taking place.
Garrison, of course, was the New Orleans district attorney who was only person to bring a charge and a trial in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and was made into a folk hero in Oliver Stone's epic JFK. The lens of history has not been as kind to Garrison, however, as corruption filled his office and stories of prosecutorial misconduct tainted his hounding of Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman accused of complicity in the Kennedy killing.
So I have two questions:
1. If you lie to investigators about something that is not a crime, is it still perjury; and
2. Will anyone outside of Washington who really gives more than half a damn about this please raise your hand?
Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor chosen to investigate the non-crime of leaking the identity of CIA employee - not covert agent - Valerie Plame, called Libby before a Grand Jury to explain what he knew about the leaking of Plame's name to the media. What Fitzgerald knew - but Libby did not - is that the leaker had already been identified.
Libby is now saying both that he has a fuzzy memory and that he was not entirely truthful. And both are probably true. He says he doesn't exactly what he said and to whom, but that he was understandably afraid that Fitzgerald might try to pin the leak on Libby, just after President Bush announced that the hammer would be dropped on the leaker.
So why has this joke of a trial captivated the media so? The answer lies in two main parts: A) the media is the star of the trial; and B) this is a chance to sock it to Bush/Cheney.
When heavyweights like Tim Russert are called to the stand - and grilled - it elevates the stature of the Inside-the-Beltway types. And let's not forget, this whole thing started as a mission to de-rail either Bush, Cheney, or the neo-con Darth Vader himself, Karl Rove. Instead, all Fitzgerald ended up with is Libby, a decidedly smaller fish. It's like trying to nail Tony Soprano and ending up with Bobby Baccala - not that he's not important, but at the end of the day all Bobby does is wipe Junior's nose - he's not the real target.
So back to Jim Garrison - in a world filled with JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Bobby Kennedy, Jack Ruby, Fidel Castro, mafia connections, among others - Garrison brought charges against a two-bit player who, if he was involved with the Kennedy assassination, was so far down the totem pole he had to read about in the papers like every one else. Fitzgerald's closing arguments - where he pointed fingers at Cheney - can be interpreted like the great monologue in the Stone film: "Back, and to the left, " since it only for the benefit of the Left that this trial ever took place.
Now the truly bad news - if found guilty, Libby could be sentenced to five years onboard a JetBlue plane on the tarmac at JFK.
Garrison, of course, was the New Orleans district attorney who was only person to bring a charge and a trial in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and was made into a folk hero in Oliver Stone's epic JFK. The lens of history has not been as kind to Garrison, however, as corruption filled his office and stories of prosecutorial misconduct tainted his hounding of Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman accused of complicity in the Kennedy killing.
So I have two questions:
1. If you lie to investigators about something that is not a crime, is it still perjury; and
2. Will anyone outside of Washington who really gives more than half a damn about this please raise your hand?
Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor chosen to investigate the non-crime of leaking the identity of CIA employee - not covert agent - Valerie Plame, called Libby before a Grand Jury to explain what he knew about the leaking of Plame's name to the media. What Fitzgerald knew - but Libby did not - is that the leaker had already been identified.
Libby is now saying both that he has a fuzzy memory and that he was not entirely truthful. And both are probably true. He says he doesn't exactly what he said and to whom, but that he was understandably afraid that Fitzgerald might try to pin the leak on Libby, just after President Bush announced that the hammer would be dropped on the leaker.
So why has this joke of a trial captivated the media so? The answer lies in two main parts: A) the media is the star of the trial; and B) this is a chance to sock it to Bush/Cheney.
When heavyweights like Tim Russert are called to the stand - and grilled - it elevates the stature of the Inside-the-Beltway types. And let's not forget, this whole thing started as a mission to de-rail either Bush, Cheney, or the neo-con Darth Vader himself, Karl Rove. Instead, all Fitzgerald ended up with is Libby, a decidedly smaller fish. It's like trying to nail Tony Soprano and ending up with Bobby Baccala - not that he's not important, but at the end of the day all Bobby does is wipe Junior's nose - he's not the real target.
So back to Jim Garrison - in a world filled with JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Bobby Kennedy, Jack Ruby, Fidel Castro, mafia connections, among others - Garrison brought charges against a two-bit player who, if he was involved with the Kennedy assassination, was so far down the totem pole he had to read about in the papers like every one else. Fitzgerald's closing arguments - where he pointed fingers at Cheney - can be interpreted like the great monologue in the Stone film: "Back, and to the left, " since it only for the benefit of the Left that this trial ever took place.
Now the truly bad news - if found guilty, Libby could be sentenced to five years onboard a JetBlue plane on the tarmac at JFK.
1 comment:
To answer your questions:
1. Yes, it is still perjury per se your honor.
2. Not me.
Post a Comment