With Fitzmas fast approaching, it might be well to discuss our views on what the Fitz's options are in enforcing the rule of law amidst the greatest treason-related scandal this country has seen since the days of Benedict Arnold. The threshold questions appear to be (1) Should the Fitz aim high and reach for the heavens;?? or (2) should he be 'conservative' and move forward only on those criminal actions which are definitively provable in federal court, bearing in mind the likely defenses and the vicious smearing counter-attack that is likely to ensue?? Put in another way, should he "pull an Archie" or a "DeGenova"??
I know what we all hope - that truth will emerge and that the rule of law will prevail, with justice for all. But how do we best reach that ultimate goal/criteria?? {Only certified Plameologists should read on}...
The various options include possible indictments for the Agee Act, the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, perjury, sharing of classified information, conspiracy and labelling some as unindicted co-conspirators. The targets are many and varied - including Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Hannah, Ari, Hadley, Tenet, Miers, Miller, Rice, Powell et. al. (and perhaps many more). If you were the Fitz, what would you do?
At each extreme of potential prosecutorial discretion, there are arguments that commonly weigh towards a mixed approach given the inevitable difficulties of proof, the need for cooperative witnesses as contrasted with the zealous and principled pursuit of the rule of law. Should one start at the lower levels and gradually build a case against the higher-ups?? Should one merely threaten prosecution against some in order to procure the necessary testimony? Should one aim at all potential wrongdoers or should there be deals with some?? As an Illinoisian, I have watched the Fitz do it in numerous ways - in the Ryan case, he started very slowly and took years before finally targeting the Governor after obtaining convictions and pleas regarding underlings. In the Daley case, he has (so far) only targeted underlings. When the Fitz went after OBL, it was the blanket indictment ploy.
Having said all that, my view is that Fitzmas will not (and should not) be an immediate panacea to cure all of the various symptoms of Plameaholics. If we are really targeting Bush and Cheney, then it might be better to have a Haldeman/Ehrlichman-style Fitzmas first, in which Rove and Libby are first brought to heel. A later Fitzmas could then follow next year, depending on all that we learn from the first prosecutions. [Bearing at all times in our minds what was done to Lawrence Walsh].
My view, therefore, is that Rove and Libby should be the first bite of the apple - with indictments for everything but the Agee Act.
All thoughts and comments appreciated!