From Patrick Fitzgerald’s news conference yesterday:
If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you’d want to know why the pitcher did that. And you’d wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, I’ve got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I’m just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter’s head. And there’s lots of shades of gray in between.
You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.
And what you’d want to do is have as much information as you could. You’d want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you’d want to know.
And then you’d make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it.
In this case, it’s a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you’re asking me what his motives were, I can’t tell you; we haven’t charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.
But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.
Anyone who implies that charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the grand jury are not extremely serious allegations needs to read the statements above one more time.
Anyone who argues that Libby was somehow vindicated, because he was not charged with leaking classified information, needs to revisit the baseball metaphor, and to ponder Fitzgerald’s tactics.
Anyone who thinks that Patrick Fitzgerald is anything other than a straight-arrow, apolitical prosecutor with iron-clad integrity, driven only by a deep desire for truth, needs to read more about him in The Washington Post, The New York Times, or USA Today.
And anyone who claims that the White House, or anyone in danger of being charged in this investigation, is not worried about a widening inquiry that is likely to destroy any remaining shreds of credibility that the administration retains, is spinning wildly and throwing sand in your eyes.
Make no mistake: this is the beginning of the end of the Bush Administration as we know it.
And I feel fine.
UDPATE: Obviously, there is a lot of speculation and tea-leaf reading taking place based on the text of the indictments and Fitzgerald’s press conference. It remains to be seen whether Fitzgerald will turn out to be Eliot Ness or Jennie Finch. Is he testing the resilience of the Cheney firewall or pulling his punches? I’m betting on the former — Big Time.




7 Comments on "Sand in the Eyes"
Suzy Shedd:
Matt, I’m baffled by the people who think it’s “pulling punches” to INDICT Libby — on multiple counts, yet. Have people forgotten which administration this is? They’ve never let anyone lay a glove on them before now. Going after Libby was huge because he does (and inspires) Cheney’s dirty work — and Cheney is way more dangerous than Bush could ever be. Fitzgerald is now in a position to tighten the screws, see who squeaks (and where the resistance is, which will tell him where to look next), and keep investigating. I especially like the fact that this approach limits the damage control the WH can do, since they don’t yet know what all the damage will be.
I’m also thinking that it was a huge blow to the administration to have Fitzgerald seen on national TV — an intelligent, competent, dedicated, disciplined public servant. Rove has worked so hard to control media perception of the adminstration that many people forgot that “endearingly goofy” and “troubled, frowning, and grasping at straws” were not really presidential attributes. Just by being who he is and doing what he’s done, Fitzgerald got crucial face time from the MSM, and the contrast with the Child-in-Chief (TM Matt) would be cruel if it weren’t simply another form of justice.
blogenfreude:
Fitzgerald carefully shot down pretty much every Repug talking point they could come up with … and they can`t convincingly call him partisan. They are left with crap - one I heard on Friday night was: “Poor Scooter … he could have stayed in private practice and made all that money …” But hey, what`s money when you`re talking world domination?
Fred:
…and I feel fine!!!
Pepper:
I almost fell in love with the Fitz after the baseball metaphor. And that’s the last time anyone is gonna throw sand in HIS eyes!
I love it. It shows that the checks-and-balances form of government really works. After listening to some of the Sunday morning talk shows, it seems as if people, not just Democrats, have been revitalized. It is as if the sand has been removed from their eyes!
Suzy Shedd:
Someone could make a fortune right about now making a Fitz baseball trading card — I’d buy one!
cookie:
I like baseball metaphors too. But this one isn’t juicy enough. No one got to home base or was even groping toward third. bor-ing.
AJ Lynch:
Wow, I guess that is a lot of posts. 700/ 52 weeks = 14 per week = 2 per day. Yeah that is a lot.
I think each blogger has to find a rhythm in the production of posts to their blogs. You know maybe generate a bunch of posts from the Sunday newspapers; I find the NY Times is good for that. Then have 1-3 regular features a week that you try to make a regular part of your blog. That’s the only way you can have a life and do blog.
Good luck to you.
Comments