« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
He was scapegoated! The powers that be were protecting the president's right hand!
David Johnston and Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times take a look at the arguments coming from Scooter Libby's lawyers (that Libby was hung out to dry to protect Karl Rove), and, well, color them unconvinced.
First, despite the fact that reporters (and Patrick Fitzgerald) have been swarming all over Plamegate for almost four years, this supposed White House cabal against Libby escaped detection. And they still can't find anyone to support that idea. In fact, Libby and Rove seemed to have worked pretty closely together. “They didn’t show any ankle — it was always a team effort,” as Lawrence Wilkerson, a former State Department official, puts it.
Second, it's not clear that Libby was really hung out to dry. The only evidence seems to be that it took White House spokesman Scott McClellan a week longer in September of 2003 to lie to the press about whether Libby had been involved in the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity than it did for him to deny Rove's involvement.
And third, "[e]ven if the assertion is shown to be true, it is not clear how it would help refute the charges that Mr. Libby had perjured himself."
Do Libby's lawyers have anything more than smoke up their sleeves?
Comments (23)
OhioGuy wrote on January 25, 2007 10:36 AM:None of this answers the charge of perjury. It is simply a tactic to confuse the jury.
Scapegoat? Too bad. It's still illegal to lie to the Feds.
oldtree wrote on January 25, 2007 10:41 AM:Was the times by chance referring to Lawrence Wilkerson?
Merten wrote on January 25, 2007 10:43 AM:If not, my apologies. if yes, my they aren't very interested in the details are they?
I keep wondering if the defense is trying to play off the jury's suspicion/dislike of Rove to acquit Libby? At least 4 jurors are on record as having an unfavorable opinion of Bush. So, if the defense can convince the jurors that mean old Karl Rove is allowing Libby to take the fall, maybe they will acquit Libby out of spite to Rove. It's a win/win situation for both men since Rove isn't on trial.
David in NY wrote on January 25, 2007 10:44 AM:Not just to confuse, but to get sympathy from (if there's any basis for it).
For example, I think a lot of people didn't give a darn whether Bill Clinton lied in his deposition because he was so clearly set up and because it wasn't a very relevant or momentous lie (not one apt to lead to war, e.g.). Here the, "big deal, and he was set up anyway" points are really going for what they call "jury nullification" or alternatively "jury hypertechnicality." That is, they encourage the jurors simply to say, "the hell with this, I don't care if he's technically guilty," or to get very, very technical about the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
BobFred wrote on January 25, 2007 10:47 AM:Hmmmm Get Fitzgerald to defend Rove in order to prosecute Libby. And even if Libby is convicted Bush will pardon him. Verrrry interesting. It's a win-win for guess who.
Ann Cook wrote on January 25, 2007 10:47 AM:"They didn’t show any ankle — it was always a team effort,” as Lawrence Wikinson, a former State Department official, puts it."
They must mean, "They didn't show any rancor" ... ?
jerry wrote on January 25, 2007 11:07 AM:No, I think Wilkinson meant ankle. There are "news programs" like this one on MSNBC and wingnuts like Ann Althouse that admit to going berserkers when they see ankle or socks (or shorts)
Could he also be referring to how pants legs tend to get hiked up and show ankles and legs when the wearer is kneeling on the floor?
TruthSeeker wrote on January 25, 2007 11:07 AM:I think we're not giving the defense attorneys enough credit. They seem to be trying to make this about Cheney. By doing so, it would allow Cheney to whip out the old, "It's classified and not meant for the general public" BS. Then, Libby's attorney will ask for the case to be dismissed because he wasn't allowed to present evidence in his client's defense. Will justice ever be served? Sigh…
SJW wrote on January 25, 2007 12:08 PM:
Miri wrote on January 25, 2007 12:52 PM:I believe Josh said something yesterday (and I saw the meme elsewhere in the tubes) that this tactic was sure to blow the whole pardon thing out of the water. But I'm not so sure. I just don't see Rove caring all that much - I mean how does this really affect him? There will be much media huffing and puffing but ultimately he (KR) doesn't have to address this publicly any more than he already has. In other words KR is a relativelively soft target - a scapegoat's scapegoat.
This lawyer is trying jury nullification. If they cloud the issue they can confuse the jury manufacture doubt.
Clandesdun wrote on January 25, 2007 1:22 PM:It's all about the pardon. Make enough noise, make the White House nervous enough about how far you'll go and how much of the inner workings of the most secretive administration in history you’ll expose and the backroom deals will be cut. If I were in his shoes I’d be extracting the maximum price too. But it’s yet to be seen if he pushes hard enough that people will start dying. I do not even for a single moment think this administration would not have triggers pulled were it expedient and served their cloakedness.
stephen miller wrote on January 25, 2007 1:29 PM:Wilkerson maybe meant they were so close there was 'no daylight between them'...?
Not only have Libby's lawyers pointed the finger at Rove, but the Fitzgerald narrative points to Cheney over and over again.
So now people are openly asking why Cheney was not named an unindicted co-conspirator, in the very least...
A timely opening? ...since we'd need to replace Cheney (see Ford accession) before impeaching W.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2007 1:34 PM:I doubt anyone in the Administration wins in a game of chicken with Libby in order to wrest a pardon.
President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before any charges were laid. There was some extensive debate on if a President could pre-pardon, but it was found acceptable.
I would guess that Libby here really wants to take Karl down (at least reputationally). There really can be no other explanation.
pj in jesusland wrote on January 25, 2007 1:45 PM:How low would Bush's ratings go if he pardons Libby?
He still has two years left. how would all those '08 GOP candidates feel with their President at a sub-25% approval rating?
campingstick wrote on January 25, 2007 1:49 PM:I agree with Clandesdun above. This could be a ploy to squeeze out an pardon from an unwilling White House. Maybe promises were made before the trial that have not yet been kept? ("Don't worry, you'll initially take the fall, but we won't let this get too far" sort of thing)
We know that this administration has no problems playing hardball. Libby et al. might just be doing what they are best at.
NCBlueneck wrote on January 25, 2007 2:38 PM:I'm not so sure that "they" (the Republican mandarins) won't let this go to a conviction. The party is in trouble. And, after all, the Republicans are all about image, spin, and PR. The '08 election is looking in doubt and big losses in the Senate may be in the offing, too. You can't have the appearance of "reform" if no one is held accountable. Libby may be the blood-offer for the sins of the party. He may well do some time in Club-Fed, but as soon as the media spotlight removes itself from "Scooter", he will be given a commuted sentence for time served plus unsupervised probation. And for "taking one for the team", I'm sure he will be well taken care of. Bushistas value loyalty over all else.
bartkid wrote on January 25, 2007 3:35 PM:>They must mean, "They didn't show any rancor" ... ?
Maybe they meant "honor"
freepatriot wrote on January 25, 2007 5:47 PM:back in the day ...
a long time ago, in a country far far away, America was a much more modest nation
proper women were required to cover every part of their bodies from the head down
any woman who "Showed an Ankle" was considered a "loose" woman, who was not "respectable"
showing an ankle used to be considered as bad as showing a vigina is today
I thunk the dude meant "Ankle", and all you uninformed posters need to study up on the mores of ages past
Cheryl wrote on January 25, 2007 8:44 PM:But it just isn't Karl Rove's style, least not like it how it's mostly Dick Cheney's style. Rove talks about it, Cheney practices it.
And Patrick Fitz doesn't seem interested in Rove, but he is interested in Cheney and said that Libby was covering for Cheney, get rid of Cheney and impeach Bush, hey it works for me.
Cheryl wrote on January 25, 2007 8:56 PM:Oh, and ever since the last election cycle, Rove isn't exactly liked in the Whitehouse.
Bush wasn't joking when he said he worked harder the Karl Rove and because Bush is vindictive guy I don't think Karl being a scapegoat right now would bother Bush or Cheney very much, so that if anyones the scapegoat, why not Rove?
I'm sure Fitz knows he's not the man.
Cheryl wrote on January 25, 2007 9:22 PM:Is Rove being "scapegoated".
Froomkin sez:
Fitzgerald told jurors he can prove that Libby was sent out by his boss, Vice President Cheney, to savage administration critic Joseph Wilson -- and in the process told two reporters that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA.
Fitz says he can prove it was Dick Cheney, than is Rove a bait and switch thing? Will Fitz take Dick Cheney down, because he's certainly after Dick Cheney now.
Ticia wrote on January 25, 2007 10:58 PM:Today's op ed in The Nation by my impeachment guru, John Nichols, rekindles hope for impeachment's return to the table.
Check out this blistering critique of Cheney's latest legal loose screw from a man who *knows* his constitutionalities. Links posted on my blog at TPM Cafe.
Best, Ticia
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:43 AM:Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night