Comments (37)

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2007 12:18 PM:

Of course a pardon would then be tantamount to an admission of Rove's guilt (or at least complicity).

Libby sure loves the graymail strategy!

BW wrote on January 24, 2007 12:39 PM:

I think libby's team is trying to bait Fitz through public pressure to indict cheney and/or rove so bush can pardon them all. At the very least this strategy seems to be working to make the case about the leak, not about the lying.

Doctor Biobrain wrote on January 24, 2007 1:24 PM:

I'll admit that I haven't been following this story too closely, but it's my theory that Libby's trying to protect Cheney. Because Fitz's case seems to hinge on the idea that Cheney told Libby to do all this stuff, and so perhaps Libby's trying to protect Cheney by blaming everything on Rove and pretending that Rove was the one he was protecting.

And if they're trying to signal things to the Whitehouse, this is a pretty damn stupid way to do it. I think that once you've got your lawyer saying this stuff in court, it's already too late to send any signals. And it wasn't really any defense of Libby at all. So I think he's just trying to protect the VP. And while protecting Rove is more important than protecting Libby, Cheney's more important than either of them. So I think they've written off Libby and willing to toss Rove off the wagon to save Cheney. Not that Rove would agree with that, but I think this is Cheney's show and he'd disagree.

Crust wrote on January 24, 2007 1:57 PM:

Doctor Biobrain sounds on the money to me, especially this sentence:

"And if they're trying to signal things to the Whitehouse, this is a pretty damn stupid way to do it."

Then again, with this crew that an option is "pretty damn stupid" has been a pretty good marker that that is indeed what they're doing.

NDNO wrote on January 24, 2007 2:06 PM:

A few innocent questions: Could this non-defense be explained by a conspiracy to lie to investigators which was abandoned by everyone except Libby - thereby leaving him as the scapegoat? Is that what the VP's note means? Could Libby be tipping cards to the WH that he intends on pleading-out (with a very good deal given the VP-sized fish Fitz would get) AFTER the VP is forced to lie under oath about his involvement?

ohiomeister wrote on January 24, 2007 2:35 PM:

NDNO, Libby would never do that to Cheney. He owes his career to Cheney, and that would be a career-ender for him. He couldn't even work at AEI after that. Look at all of the prominent people on his defense committee.

http://www.scooterlibby.com/committee/

You would think the pardon message would better be sent to the White House by keeping mum and playing the good, loyal soldier than trying to play hardball.

childo wrote on January 24, 2007 2:48 PM:

"Wells is doing what a good defense attorney does, which is make the prosecution's case as murky as possible"

But of course. The Chewbaca Defense.

"Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, [the U.S.] attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client [lied to the Grand Jury]. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"

NDNO wrote on January 24, 2007 2:49 PM:

Desperation (esp. the prospect of prison) makes folks do a lot of unusual things. If he is feeling abandoned and screwed (which this defense expressly says he does), then number one on the list of folks who did not protect him is the VP. This pardon-play theory just does not add up (for the reasons already provided). His lawyers are very good and certainly know that this story (as the media is reading it right now) is NOT a legal defense. So what is it?

epistemology wrote on January 24, 2007 2:57 PM:

The Whitehouse and Libby are working together on this. They figure they use what they need to get Libby off, and worry about the next one on the dock after that.

This Whitehouse is incompetent at everything but politics and protecting themselves.

uh_clem wrote on January 24, 2007 3:42 PM:

His lawyers are very good and certainly know that this story (as the media is reading it right now) is NOT a legal defense. So what is it?

It's laying the groundwork to discredit the 8 administration officials who are going to testify that Libby knew about Valerie's status before he talked to Russett. "You can't believe them>. They're conspiring against me to protect Rove."

Yes, it's a pretty weak defense. But coupled with the chewbacca effect (see childo above) it might just be crazy enough to work.

uh_clem wrote on January 24, 2007 3:45 PM:

(quoting fixed - no html at tpmc)

> His lawyers are very good and certainly know
> that this story (as the media is reading it
> right now) is NOT a legal defense. So what is it?

It's laying the groundwork to discredit the 8 administration officials who are going to testify that Libby knew about Valerie's status before he talked to Russett. "You can't believe them. They're conspiring against me to protect Rove."

Yes, it's a pretty weak defense. But coupled with the chewbacca effect (see childo above) it might just be crazy enough to work.

TQTGA wrote on January 24, 2007 3:53 PM:

Best-to-worst outcomes from Republican viewpoint:

Best end of continuum
Libby acquitted
Libby convicted, very light sentence,never pardoned
Libby convicted on one or more counts, pardoned late 2008 or early 2009
Libby pardoned before verdict arrives--stinks to high heaven, even Joe Sixpack is disgusted
Worst end of continuum

FWIW, I think you can also replace "Best" with "Most Likely" and "Worst" with "Least Likely". Whatever happens, Libby, his lawyers and the entire GOP really want acquittal. And I fear they will get it.

My humble opinion. Sue me if I'm wrong.

x174 wrote on January 24, 2007 3:55 PM:

It's laying the groundwork to discredit the 8 administration officials who are going to testify that Libby knew about Valerie's status before he talked to Russett. "You can't believe them. They're conspiring against me to protect Rove." (uh_clem)

makes sense to me.

bone wrote on January 24, 2007 5:36 PM:

Libby's defense is thus far seems three-pronged:

1. He forgot.

2. He had no motive to lie because he believed no crime had been committed.

3. He is a scapegoat.

Let me put numbers two and three together and ask this very simple question: If Libby didn't have a motive to lie then what is this "meat grinder" Cheney is talking about? This will get interesting.

Scribe1937 wrote on January 24, 2007 5:37 PM:

The damned thing has gotten more byzantine than a LeCarre' novel.
I need Cliff Notes for this one and I've been following it from day one.
Maybe some former Kremlinologists can decipher this one.

Legalize wrote on January 24, 2007 5:41 PM:

I buy the "pardon" angle to the extent that it appears that the defense's argument is one of those melodramatic court room moments where the lawyer violently swings to the gallery and decries "it was him! It was ROVE all along!" followed by gasps, women fainting, and reporters rushing out of the court room to call their editors.

It seems that the defense is going for as much ridiculousness and pagentry as possible - something Fitz absolutely does not want; he wants a clear-cut case of "he lied; we relied."

I mean, if this whole thing turns into a side-show with wild accusations flying all over the place (a) how does Fitz sift out the flotasm from the jetsum (the jury is bound to be completely confused and star-struck by all the witnesses in the first place), and (b) won't the public just see this as one of those wacky conspiracy theories surrounding Carl Rove and his influence?

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 24, 2007 8:35 PM:

Scribe 1397: "The damned thing has gotten more byzantine than a LeCarre' novel."

I'd agree with you, except that this complex ploy had a surprisingly easy climax and conclusion: All its roads lead to Foggy Bottom.

Bill in Denver wrote on January 24, 2007 8:55 PM:

I wondered at first why Libby's lawyers decided to make the scapegoat defense. It makes so many people look bad, etc. The bad memory thing seems the way to go. But I guess they felt they had to come up with a motive for the prosecution witnesses to lie or shade their stories, because that testimony will be so tough for them otherwise. I don't think it has much to do with a pardon. Libby doesn't want one, he wants an acquittal. He is finished if he doesn't get one. A pardon is almost worthless to someone like him, and at this point, with every chance of being acquitted, so you do what you have to do to get one. I imagine Bush and Cheney would prefer an acquittal too, even at cost of one more black eye here. Neither Bush/Cheney nor a Libby want a conviction or the embarassment of considering and granting or rejecting a pardon. All of them are on board with whatever strategy might work with a jury of people from a tough pool of Bush haters. What better avenue than to put another black hat on Rove? Sure a pardon would keep him from possible jail, but he won't get much of a sentence anyhow, and the conviction alone is so bad that a pardon means almost nothing, in my view.

jimbo92107 wrote on January 24, 2007 10:17 PM:

Does Libby really have enough documented, verifiable information to blackmail Bush into pardoning him, an act that would highlight for everyone the rottenness of this administration?

Libby better hire a food taster.

the exile wrote on January 24, 2007 10:18 PM:

For me the intriguing thing is Fitz's fearlessness about describing Cheney as the man who set everything in motion. Yet Cheney is not indicted and is being called as a witness. Is this just round 1 of a longer endgame than we imagine? I think more likely is that Fitz realized he could never "get" Cheney in a legal sense, but will ruin him through the testimony and in the court of public opinion. Are Senate Judiciary Committee democrats taking notes? They should be.

Dr Zoom wrote on January 24, 2007 10:38 PM:

Looks to me like Libby's lawyers are trying to harness the general antipathy toward the administration by portraying poor Scooter as just another schmuck victim like the rest of us. It may not be that solid on the legal merits but OJ and Johnnie Cochrane taught us long ago that a good, distracting outrage (like racism in the LAPD) beats the merits any time. This is just classic Bushie Bizarro-spin taken into the courtroom.

bfr wrote on January 25, 2007 12:39 AM:

"FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE (RICHARD B. CHENEY)". His having been a former member of the United States Congress, and especially, chairman of the House's Intelligence Committee. Because this would give him, both the background and the people that he would have needed to make this all happen. Looks like Ted Wells, Lewis Libby's lawyer, has already sealed the fate, his client, Libby, in his opening arugment. Which only mean one sure thaing, Lewis Libby is guilty. I agree with what those of you, who see Vice President Cheney, as the real problem in this mess. Everything that Libby did, and said leads right back to Cheney and his own personal involvement in all of this.

Rueful wrote on January 25, 2007 12:48 AM:

"For me the intriguing thing is Fitz's fearlessness about describing Cheney as the man who set everything in motion. Yet Cheney is not indicted and is being called as a witness."

Okay -- any constitutional lawyers here? Does Fitz have the power to indict Cheney? Or would the charges have to go to the House first, where specific charges for impeachment would be drawn up?

Jose Padilla wrote on January 25, 2007 10:19 AM:

Dear Rueful:

Yes, Cheney can be indicted without being impeached first. See Agnew, Spiro.

NDNO wrote on January 25, 2007 10:29 AM:

The VP would have to resign or be impeached before any criminal prosecution could proceed.

I am perplexed why folks think this scapegoat theory relates to discrediting witnesses. Libby's problem is mostly a combination of when he told the FBI and grand jury he learned the identity of Plame and when he told reporters her identity (he was calling reporters with her identity days before he says he knew it). White House/admin witnesses are not as key to the prosecution when balanced against the seriousness of Libby turning on the WH. The media witnesses have no reason to protect Rove.

I will, however, readily agree that it is a distraction from the prosecution case.

Libby has been a "team player" until this defense hit the air waves. Now he is outright alleging a conspiracy at the highest level of the WH to make him a scapegoat. Why such a monumental shift in loyalty (smokescreen doesn't seem good enough and discrediting witnesses seems equally inadequate to explain this disloyalty)? If that conspiracy is described as it appears it must, then the VP is going to be asked about it under oath.

Whether Libby would put the VP in that position appears to be no longer the issue. Why Libby is doing it is the question.

dalloway wrote on January 25, 2007 12:30 PM:

I think Libby's doing it because there's a titanic battle going on behind the scenes between Rove and Cheney. As Cheney's influence ebbs because of Iraq and the administration's massive unpopularity, Rove's star is ascending again. He's the so-called political guru who, Bush believes, knows how to get his (Bush's) mojo back. Of course that's a delusion, but what else is new? I think Cheney believes that if he can just blame the whole Plame conspiracy on Rove ("proven" by a Libby acquittal) that Rove will be forced to resign, leaving Cheney/ Svengali the sole holder of the W marionette's strings.

lucille wrote on January 28, 2007 1:10 PM:

why is everyone so in love with Murray Waas? he really isn't that special. He's actually an ass and not very well liked by most people who know him. The bloggers fawn over him like he's some sort of God. Get to know him and you'll wish he never entered your life. Waas' reporting isn't great and neither is he.

credit wrote on February 24, 2007 2:30 AM:

home equity line of credit

Jason wrote on March 6, 2007 1:36 PM:

This is a pretty big deal right? I can't wait until we get to Sandy Burgler's trial...Wait, I forgot that case is about ACTUAL classified information STOLEN and then lied about. I guess getting Libby WAS worth it.

catarina@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 10:03 PM:

hello

gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 10:22 AM:

hello

gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 10:22 AM:

hello

willy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 9:02 PM:

hello

clar@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 9:32 AM:

hello

Clark Desjardins wrote on May 21, 2007 7:18 AM:

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

Chris Taggart wrote on May 21, 2007 8:24 AM:

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

Demarcus Spears wrote on May 22, 2007 4:46 PM:

Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year.