Kiriakou prefaced the point by disclaiming any affection for the paper. He generally hates the Washington Post, he said, because it is so anti-whistleblower — and not just towards him, but towards any national security whistleblower.[1]
That day, however, the paper had run what he called a fascinating editorial, laying out how Trump could save himself: by adopting the Reagan model during Iran-Contra. The principle behind the advice was that it is not the crime that brings them down, it is the cover-up of the crime.[1]
The Libby illustration
Kiriakou’s example was one he knows well from the inside of the same legal world. Scooter Libby, he pointed out, never leaked Valerie Plame’s name to Robert Novak — Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did.[2] Yet it was Libby who was put on trial. And what was he convicted of? Two counts of perjury and three counts of making a false statement: charges, in Kiriakou’s summary, that had nothing to do with the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name.[2]
The prediction
From that he drew a forecast about the investigations then beginning. The same situation was going to arise again, he said: it was not necessarily about whatever President Trump or his people may or may not have committed. It was going to be their response to the investigation — their response to the accusation of the crime — and if they were not careful, that was what would do them in.[3]
The observation sits oddly alongside Kiriakou’s own case, and he did not draw the comparison himself. But the structure he describes — a defendant convicted of process offences rather than the underlying conduct, while the person who did the thing complained of goes uncharged — is the shape of the grievance he has pressed about his own prosecution for a decade.