Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scooter, We Hardly Knew Ye

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:16 AM
Original message
Scooter, We Hardly Knew Ye
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 09:32 AM by H2O Man
Many people are disappointed that Team Libby put on such a shallow defense for Scooter Libby. They had begun the trial with trash talk that was worthy of the corner men working with a prime Mike Tyson. One almost expected Scooter to jump over the attorneys’ table and take a bite out of Patrick Fitzgerald’s ear.

But it didn’t happen.

Scooter has a story to tell, Teddy Wells announced in opening statements. He convinced many that the defense was going to tell the jury – and indeed the nation – what really happened in the White House in the summer of 2003. Scooter the Martyr was suffering the indignity of being "thrown under the bus" to save Karl Rove. Would Attorney Wells not reduce Karl to a quivering puddle of flesh on the witness stand? Had not the Vice President of the United States of America brought forth a stone tablet that read, "Thou shall not sacrifice the man who the president asked to stick his neck into a meat grinder?" Wouldn’t Attorney Wells put His Honesty Cheney on the witness stand, to make it crystal clear that Scooter is an Innocent Man?

But that didn’t happen, either.

Instead, there was a strangely disorganized defense. As MSNBC’s David Shuster said, it was as if Team Libby was saying, "Scooter didn’t rob THIS bank, and the proof is that there are OTHER banks that he isn’t even accused of robbing!"

But as David Corn pointed out in his 2-12-07 "Libby Trial: What Scooter Didn’t Do," leaks are often selective. "During his grand jury testimony – which was played for the trial jurors – Libby explained how he had been tasked by Cheney (with George W. Bush’s approval) to leak selectively to Miller excerpts from the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (which the White House believed supported its case for war). Libby also told the grand jurors how he worked with then- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to leak portions of the NIE to The Wall Street Journal – not to every reporter with whom he would come into contact."

More, Mr. Fitzgerald exposed the fact that Libby, Cheney and Bush kept the declassification of parts of the NIE secret from other administration officials, including Rice, Hadley and Tenet. More, Libby kept this secret from these officials during meetings when they discussed the option of declassifying it.

In his 2-15-07 "Libby’s cynical defense," Sidney Blumenthal told of some fascinating inside information regarding Libby’s defense: "Throughout the anxious months before the trial of United States v. I. Lewis Libby, one of Scooter Libby’s old mentors, a prominent Washington attorney and Republican with experience going back to the Watergate scandal and with intimate ties to neoconservatives, implored him repeatedly to stop covering up for Vice President Cheney and to cut a deal with the special prosecutor. Yet another distinguished Washington lawyer and personal friend of Libby’s, privy to the mentor’s counsel, reinforced his urgent advice and offered to provide Libby with introductions to former prosecutors who might help guide him. But Libby rebuffed them. He refused to listen. He insisted on a trial."

Perhaps Scooter is beginning to listen closer to his friends and attorneys now. Team Libby refused to put Scooter on the witness stand. The decision was not made because they were in a position of strength. Dick Cheney was not called. There is speculation that the defense attorneys may have had a "focus group" that revealed this. Actually, their experience in selecting the jury for Libby’s trial was a clear indicator that Dick Cheney is held in utter contempt by most Americans.

Blumenthal also noted how easily Patrick Fitzgerald handled neoconservative John Hannah on the witness stand. "Hannah’s role was to be the first-person witness to buttress Libby’s memory defense. Yet, under cross-examination by Fitzgerald, Hannah was cracked apart in a matter of minutes. Fitzgerald asked him whether defending Cheney in the media was an important part of Libby’s job. ‘It would be important to push back on those issues, yes,’ Hannah said. Fitzgerald then got Hannah to acknowledge that getting Libby to give up an hour’s worth of his time, given his heavy work load, would be difficult. Fitzgerald zeroed in on Libby’s two long meetings" with Judith Miller. He also spoke of how "the demolition of Hannah was not done": a juror asked if Libby’s difficulties with memory led to concerns about his ability to do his job?

The neoconservative base that supports Scooter is left with less than Team Libby when it comes to trying to defend him. They continue say things like Plame wasn’t covert; that no one was charged with exposing her identity; that Libby didn’t tell Novak about Plame; that Wilson was a democrat; and, most pathetic of all, having shrills like Mary Matalin attempt to convince people that Chris Matthews was the real problem

Yet even on a site as conservative as Fox News’ "Fox Fan," Catherine Herridge wrote yesterday about "Why the Scooter Libby trial matters":

"It’s a complicated story and one that is exposing the questionable relationship between some journalists and their sources in the nation’s capital. While this aspect of the trial is getting a lot of attention, I believe some important principles are being missed.

"When we ask smart, driven, courageous recruits to join the intelligence community, and in many circumstances put their lives on the line in this post 9/11 world, there is an unspoken trust – that their missions and their identities will not be put at risk.

"I spend a great deal of time covering the intelligence community and intelligence related matters. Based on some of those conversations, it appears to me that the outing of Valerie Plame had an impact. No one really knows, with an absolute certainty, the role of Valerie Plame at the CIA. For now, she is most well known as the wife of former ambassador and war critic Joe Wilson.

"But one intelligence observer put it to me this way: When an agent’s name or cover is blown, their entire career can be jeopardized and more importantly, the contacts they have developed over the years can be lost. I don’t know if that’s the case with Valerie Plame … and many question how ‘undercover’ she really was. But it’s worth noting that if the key to preventing another terror attack is good intelligence, then the folks we expect to do the legwork must have complete faith that the system will protect them and their sources."

Scooter Libby belonged to a small but dangerous group of individuals who were willing to expose a covert agent, and destroy all of the work that she and the people she worked with were involved in, to protect the purposeful lies they told to lead our nation into war. And that’s why Team Libby put on such a weak case to defend him. There is no defending what he and his ilk did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terip64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you again, H2O Man... K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Did you fall asleep on that last sentence?
Hanging on the edge here ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. No
A part at the beginning and at the end got "cut off" while pasting it. I'll fix it. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'll kick that. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well put Waterman
thanks for the journeyman work you've done for all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
62. Anything but journeyman,cat... These days, it tends to have overtones
of plodding routine travail, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #62
70. I Believe I Have To Disagree
With the words plodding & routine and invite anyone who can, to do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Well, "run-of-the-mill" was what I was searching for... Or do you
disagree about the sense of mediocrity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Oh Dear, Oh Dear
Having a bad day? Hope things get better for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. I think that
KCabot meant that "journeyman" isn't actually the high praise that the OP deserves. Just my .02.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Then I Would Stand Corrected
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 10:21 PM by Me.
"That more for praise than purpose meant to kill. ..."



Edited to add: Back at you...:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #74
82. Precisely. Damning with extremely faint praise. A putdown, but
Edited on Fri Feb-16-07 05:30 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
lacking in any subtlety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. Self-deleted with apologies to "Me". And thanks to bleever.
Edited on Fri Feb-16-07 05:32 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phiddle Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. Could this "strangely disorganized defense" be a stalking horse?
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 09:45 AM by phiddle
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been known to start with the underlings in order to develop information with which to prosecute more senior figures. My thesis is that The BFEE is using the Libby trial in an attempt to discover what information Fitzgerald has developed during his investigation. If this was indeed the aim Scooter could not plead, even if he had been promised a pardon. No, the trial was necessary to try to get a peek at some of Fitzgerald's cards via mechanisms which are only in play during a trial---witness presentation, afadavits and the like. And, the more "disorganized" the defense, the more angles the prosecutor has to counter, thus potentially revealing more information. Nefarious is as nefarious does!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Interesting question.
I think that the OVP had a very good idea what information the prosecution had -- because most of it came from them. Still, some came from two sources in the Office of the President. We heard from one during the trial, Ari Fleischer.

Keep in mind that Cheney & Libby supports made a coordinated effort to have Bush pardon Scooter in December. It didn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phiddle Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Yeah, they had a good idea of information from administration sources.
But, they don't know what the CIA, the press members or other sources may have provided. If there should be a deeper story behind the outing of Plame-Wilson---say, the administration and its allies were behind the forgery of the Niger/uranium doc, or they indeed wanted to shut down the counterproliferation effort at the CIA, or perhaps Plame's group had developed information linking Cheney to A.G. Khan---then it becomes imperative to get a precise idea of Fitzgerald's information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. However,
as the journalists got their information from the White House, those questions would be easily answered. Likewise, the Agency's role was limited to two things: the referral to the Department of Justice,and their interaction with the president, vice president, and others connected to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
27. "coordinated effort to have Bush pardon Scooter in December"?
I did not know this. If true, it makes me really question Libby's judgement, in not accepting a plea. Can you provide a link, please?

Thanks, as always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. If you look
on Libby's Defense Trust site, you will find several examples of the "free Scooter" effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. It Was All Over The Place
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 01:17 PM by Me.
both before and after the December pardons were handed out, including the ironical fact that Scooter was the lawyer who made the case for Marc Rich's pardon. Here are a few samples:

Pardon Me?

“In short, the Democratic Leadership was asking the President to reassure the public that he would not pardon Libby or anyone else ultimately convicted of a crime as a result of the CIA leak investigation.

The President never responded. (Not exactly a shocker.) And Vice President Cheney, when asked recently by Tim Russert on Meet the Press whether the President should pardon Scooter Libby, refused to answer.

No outsider knows if the President is planning to pardon Libby soon, but this would be a good time for Senator Reid to resurrect that letter. He might amend it slightly to call upon the President to pledge not to pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby before Patrick Fitzgerald even has a chance to step to the podium in January. December would be an excellent month for a pardon -- it's the holiday season after all -- and the mid-term elections would be over. The best way to head off this possibility is to call attention to it. Now.”

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=126958


If The Pardon Doesn't Occur First, Cheney May Testify for Libby

December 19, 2006

Associated Press

Vice President Dick Cheney will be called as a defense witness in the CIA leak case, an attorney for Cheney's former chief of staff told a federal judge Tuesday.

"We're calling the vice president," attorney Ted Wells said in court. Wells represents defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is charged with perjury and obstruction.

Early last week, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he did not expect the White House to resist if Cheney or other administration officials are called to testify in Libby's trial, expected to begin in January.”

http://www.libbydefensefund.com/news/06/1219.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. None of that appears to be factual to me.
I have not been able to find anything definitive that says there was a big December effort to secure a pardon before the trial.

If there was anything at the Libby Defense Trust site, it has apparently been scrubbed.

I'm not necessarily doubting there was such an effort, as it's very logical, but I just don't see anything more than speculation.

What I am really curious about is why there was no pre-trial pardon. It certainly would have precluded, or at least delayed, all of the extremely damaging facts coming out of Fitz's case about the WH and particularly about Cheney.

Also, if Libby knew there would be no pre-trial pardon, would he not also conclude a post-conviction pardon was unlikely? And if that's true, and he also knew that Fitz had a strong case, why would he not accept a plea agreement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. "Libby Is Guilty"
Lawrence O'Donnell's take on Scootie's quilt and the pardon quest.

www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/libby-is-guilty_b_41313.html


I disagree with O'Donnell that a pardon will be forthcoming. As H20Man said, if Cheney had the juice to produce a pardon he would have done so in December. Also, after all the business of "if anyone leaked in my adminisitration" business and his refusal to comment yesterday (elephant in the room was why Rove is still at the WH), I don't think the president can afford to pardon I Liar Libby. As for the push by supporters, when did * ever care what anyone else thinks. He is the decider after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I think your comments make a lot of sense.
But they beg the question of why Libby refused to accept a plea. He's a smart guy and he must have known Fitz had a strong case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Mr Libby
did not accept the deal that was offered in the months before he was indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Do you know if that deal is still available to Libby?
And if not, when it was withdrawn?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. IMO
This may be due to two reasons and takes the character of the man into consideration.

We've discussed over the years how Libby thinks of himself as a more modern version of G. Gordon Liddy, the one guy who kept his mouth shut and went to prison for it. Scooter's alter ego is light years away from who he actually is, Bond, Libby Bond. That gruesome novel of his makes clear that he doesn't see himself as the dog boy of the evil veep, but someone who can take punishment with the best of them. May the verdict be where the pavement hits the road.

The other factor is his hard and fast loyalty to Cheney. What feeds it is beyond me. It was interesting reading about Addington's demeanor on the stand. I think if he was in Libby's position, he's take the deal. But my sense was Addington wouldn't be in this position in the first place and I wonder if he is disdainful of Libby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Agree with you re. Addington.
It was striking how careful he is about obeying the law. Where Scooter and Cheney flout it, Addington seems to know that the law must be respected.

Addington's views re. the unitary executive are extreme, but I doubt he has ever come close to breaking any laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Wow, interesting!
That sure explains a lot of what we've seen, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hwmnbn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
8. Throughout this sad sad saga........
your posts have not only been informative, they've been encouraging. I still believe in the rule of law and our Constitution regardless of how these criminals have subverted it.

Thanks for your work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
montanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. Well said, and allow me to add:
In your last paragraph you point out that "Scooter Libby belonged to a small but dangerous group of individuals who were willing to expose a covert agent, and destroy all of the work that she and the people she worked with were involved in, to protect the purposeful lies they told to lead our nation into war."

That small group includes the President of the United States who, in his press conference yesterday, gave an unequivocal "no-comment" when asked about the complicity of others in the administration in the exposure of Valerie Plame.

So much for holding people accountable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
12. K&R... thanks H2OMan.. one question:
Was it Blumenthal who said: "the demolition of Hannah was not done"?... that is extraordinary. (it's not clear to me whether Blumenthal wrote that.... I'm sure Fitz did not.)

I will have to track that down.

Great summary. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yes.
It was Blumenthal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. What Does That Mean, Demolition Not Done?
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 10:10 AM by Me.
More to come? Back when, we all seemed to think that FitzG. squeezed both Hannah and Wurmser,

As for the queen of Shrill, when she was on Imus last week she was saying "Do you know how much this has cost? Millions. Million". Now we know that it was three million that was paid to Team Libby. Money well spent? Now they're going to pick more pockets for his appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. It was in
the context of his cross-examination. Patrick Fitzgerald took Mr. Hannah apart rather easily. He continued to reduce his value to the defense as he asked more questions.

Indeed, both Hannah and Wurmser were chatter-bugs when questioned about the closely related Plame and the neocon/AIPAC scandals. They are tough guys in their fantasies, but no where else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Blumenthal is referring to a juror question that followed.
Something like (asking Hannah) "Did Libby's bad memory lead him to question his effectiveness?" Hannah answered "Never" but Blumenthal argues that this indicates that at least one juror is skeptical of the memory defense.

Blumenthal's piece is a must-read (it's in Salon)... he provides great background info on sleazebags like Armitage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
13. Previous Plame
Research Forum & Threads 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x192

H20’s Impeach Dick Cheney Threads:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x4640

Irving's Ghost (Plame Thread #15)

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x146204

Why Libby called Russert ....

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x155285

The Office of Strategic Influence

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x201237

The Cold Within

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x207442


Rosesaylavee has done a fantastic job of posting the Plame & Cheney threads in the Research Forum.


Government Documents Relating To The Plame Case:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. I am disgusted that corpmedia continues ignoring Matalin's role in all this, too.
She and Carville have been living in a protective bubble through their friendly relationships with the power media people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
18. Well-written, but I'm madder now than I was 3½ years ago when they outed Plame.
The entire charade that the Libby defense team just put on was a cheap version of a 3 card monty shell game.

"We will show . . ."
"We will demonstrate . . ."
"Our client will testify . . ."
"The Vice-President may testify . . ."

They did nothing of the sort.

Instead, they leave the courtroom with the impression that Tim Russert actually did inform Libby that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent married to Joe Wilson.

Did Libby's defense team provide any testimony or evidence of just how Libby DID find out about Valerie Plame?

No, they just left it hanging in the air.

Instead, what did we learn?
That Rove and Armitage were Novak's sources.

How the hell did Rove get that information?
Rove was a political consultant to Bush, not a member of the White House staff, so how did Rove get such a high security clearence level in order to learn about Valerie Plame?

There's just too many questions left unanswered.
And there's too many good soldiers killed over the reasons why they outed Valerie Plame to discredit her husband to begin with.

The Iraq war was started on lies, rumors, and innuendo, we all now that now.
At least most Americans know that, at least most Americans have woken from their slumber to realize that Bush is a liar who started the Iraq War for nefarious purposes.

But, this trial doesn't answer all the questions I have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. In His GJ Testimony
We found out that Cheney told Libby about Plame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
53. many many of us knew this before * started this war of lies! The facts were
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 02:48 PM by flyarm
available to anyone who looked...one only needed to read foreign press..the rest of the world knew..unlike those who only counted on US media!!

Those who sought out facts knew..and hudreds of thousands took to the streets..but were marginalized by the same US media who marched us to war with this admin...

the first thing we must all demand from this congress is the break up of entertainmentnews media conglomerates!!

the media must be investigated by this congress!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
22. I wish the MSM would report on the damage done to our national
security by exposing Brewster Jennings to the public. Just imagine the intelligence that could have been gathered about Iran in the last 3.5 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
54. i believe that is one of the biggest reasons Cheney outed Valerie Plame
to cover up his trading arms to Iran through Pakistan..and Kahn...

and Turkey..

Valerie was too close to the truth...

as was Sibel Edmonds!!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
24. Let's hope the jury has the same take on this. We hardly wanted to know ye.
k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
28. Excellent as always.
And that Blumenthal article is a must read. Here's the link for those who need it: http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/02/15/libby_trial/index_np.html (You'll have to click on the ad to read it.)

Will the jury buy that everyone forgets? Or will they see that Libby only forgot when it was convenient, yet managed to remember fictional conversations in great detail?

Tuesday will tell.

It's back to work for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Thanks for the link, it is an excellent summary of what has
occurred to date wrt the Libby defense team strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. I love this line.
"Matalin's Heather-like remarks illuminated Republican Washington as "High School Confidential."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. I laughed out loud when I read that and am doing so again after
reading your post. That line is an absolute gem, absolutely dead on in describing her and her "classmates".

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
73. How very.
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 08:02 PM by Patsy Stone
"You wanted to be a member of the most powerful clique in school. If I wasn't already the head of it, I'd want the same thing."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
30. K&R!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
31. Bad boys... bad Boys Whatcha gonna do when they come for you...
Well, Scooter fell on his rusty sword and shall be the spy splat footnote in the annals of CIA history in a way that shall forever shame his kids. What is funny for all of the intelligence manipulation they engaged in, the OVP lot lizards were not aware how much trouble Judas Judy was in at the NYT before choosing her to leak.

The verdicts will be interesting... now where did I put that red t-shirt...

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
32. And Justice for all
I hope Scooter gets a long sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
34. The last sentence says it all
"There is no defending what he and his ilk did."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
35. H2O Man, I'll be curious to know if you think there's more coming
It also occurs to me that Mr. Libby's vaunted $5 million defense consisted of duck and cover -- in other words, they had nobody else that would stand up under Patrick Fitzgerald's cross-examination.

Scooter might have even a bigger problem than he did day before yesterday. The judge has made it clear he's not happy with Libby's counsel.

IMHO, YMMV,
Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. I do not
believe that the case has been closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
37. Thanks H2O Man
What did you make of Shuster's comment re the one juror who did not wear the Valentine's sweater yesterday?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. I do not think
that is of much signifcance. I suspect the single juror does not consider the courtroom to be an appropriate place for Valentine's displays. It seems unlikely to me that it has anything to do with her opinion of the evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. I thought the comment
was unbelievably simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #42
55. I whole heartedly agree!! and i would have felt the same...and i would have done the same
I have been on 5 juries..it is serious business...and i believe a serious juror..would see this case for what it is treason..and that is not a fun or funny matter!! It is as serious as it gets!!

i would have acted the same as she did!!

however i would not critisize others for wearing the shirts ..i just would not have participated, under any circumstances.

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LonelyLRLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #42
63. I agree with you H2O Man.
If I were serving on the jury in such an important and high-profile case, I would not have wanted to participate in an undignified display like the Valentine tshirts. I don't know that I would have had the guts to refuse to go along, so kudos to this juror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
38. If Scooter cuts a deal,
are we safe in assuming that it will involve evidence in support of charges against Cheney of obstruction of justice, or at the outside a violation of IIPA?

Any ideas of what else he might have to offer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. He could only
trade up. That leaves one person: Dick Cheney. Scooter has nothing else to deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. At what point would it be too late for Scooter to cut a deal?
Let's say the jury convicts Scooter on all counts, and the sentence is 20 years in prison, and he must be in prison while awaiting an appeal. While sitting in his cell, could Scooter cut a deal to lessen that time remaining in jail?

Or must Scooter cut a deal before the jury convicts him (assuming Scooter gets convicted)?

Thanks, Always appreciate your insight!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. As a general rule,
the door closes when the jury returns its verdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #49
65. There's time between the verdict and the sentence. There's also "Sealed v. Sealed."
It's possible that Libby would prefer a DC-area Club Fed in lieu of a less salubrious residency. A proffer of cooperation in some subsequent litigation might induce some amelioration in the sentence - both the location and the length.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
47. "...his ilk."
:rofl:

I will catch up with getting this and other posts on in the Research Forum this weekend. Tough week here and not much time to 'DU'. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
57. If memory serves me...
I vaguely recall news of "suspected" spies in Iran being killed (firingsquad) shortly after Plame was outed. Have I lost my mind or did this occur? I figure if anyone knows- you do, H20 Man. Can you help me out here? Thanks in advance.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Over the past
couple of years, I have heard a few different things. None that I thought were reliable. This is one of those things where I think the old saying, "Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know," works. I will say this: on the morning that Ms. Wilson read the Novak column, she made a lot of phone calls. It is safe to say that there is zero chance that there was no consequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #58
68. Thanks for your perspective.
You can BET she made a lot of phone calls. I can't even begin to imagine the betrayal and the anger she must have felt that day. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
60. Despite Judge Walton's warning, Team Libby committed "suicide".
Moreover, with even greater animation, Walton declared it would be "suicide" for Libby not to testify in his own defense if he wants to make a case about his faulty memory. That, after all, was the point and the presumption behind all those months of painstaking CIPA hearings. Walton's opinion matters, not only because Wells will need almost every close call on matters of law to go his way to create as much reasonable doubt as possible, but because, at least subliminally, greater confidence by the judge in the prosecution could very easily seep imperceptibly into the minds of jurors. And while the jury does not see this backstage legal wrangling, the press does, and as mentioned, Wells needs to win the public perception war to give Bush as much possible incentive to pardon as possible. I don't envy him: Wells has a helluva tough job.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BothSidesAllSides/story?id=2832004&page=3

As disappointed as I am that we didn't get to see Fitz cross-examine Cheney or Libby, things still look great!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. Walton put additional bars on the door of an appeal for "inadequate defense" with that, imho.
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 05:54 PM by TahitiNut
The claim of a faulty memory exacerbated by the imposed preoccupation with "other duties" and concerns relating to "national security" can only be subtantiated through the introduction of first-hand testimony (not hearsay) and evidence supporting that testimony. That's why the Rules of Evidence (and relevant precedents) became the key side-bar issue in the trial. Walton was very clear about this early on and repeatedly. Only two people could proffer such "first-hand testimony " - Libby and Cheney. Nobody else. While Libby cannot be required to testify, he can make his own testimony necessary through the choice of a defense ... and he did. If he were to later argue on appeal that he wasn't aware that he was making his own or Cheney's testimony necessary, that'd be a claim of inadequate defense - and Walton cut them off from that escape route.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. You are right as usual. The defense pitch from the very start
was jury nullification. The use of CIPA hearings to see what exact extent Fitz would use classified materials coupled with the spectre of Cheney testifying for excluding jurors during voir dier, then the jusge repeatedly and on the record ensuring his rulings would withstand further judicial review speaks to an entire strategy that was based on nullification. Fitz was narrow in scope and used a scapel not a Cheney shotgun blast. The use of the GJ tape in effect had Libby on the stand - right when he was lying. The jury instructions seem like they are going to be very long for such a short case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
61. Excellent Waas Article About The Entire Matter

“On that morning in June 2002, Cheney could not have known that his complaints to Graham about the leaking of classified information would help set events in motion that eventually would lead to the prosecution of his own chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as the result of a separate leak investigation.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x219507


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Interesting.
Thanks for posting that. It reminded me of something I read in Jim Marrs' "The Terror Conspiracy," which discusses the "Loss of Liberty" in the US since 9/11.

On pages 191-192, he notes that few in the House and Senate dared oppose the administration's push for war. He mentions Paul Wellstone, and also Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). DUers may recall Congressman Paul as the source of the list that John Dean used to define "neoconservatives" in his classic book, "Worse Than Watergate" (pages 103-104)

Paul told about appearing on the International Relations Committee hearing being aired live on C-SPAN on October 3, 2002. He quoted James Madison, who in 1798 said, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all government demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

The committee chair, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill) went on to say that the Consitution had been "overtaken by events" and that it was "no longer relevant." When Rep Paul's staff called C-SPAN for a copy of the outrageous claim, they were told that "technical difficulties" had prevented it from being recorded. It is not in the program's transcripts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Hyde
was hidebound and a Rhino of epic proportions. Would he get behind impeachment of Cheney, or is it only sex between two consenting adults that has constitutional issues for him? No wonder these guys think they can do anything, it is apparently of little consequence that they took/take an oath that they have no trouble betraying. That's a traitor/s in my book, and their opinions doesn't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danascot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
75. I have a question
Edited on Thu Feb-15-07 10:27 PM by Danascot
Regardless of who in the WH leaked it to the press, it is well established that Novak was the one who outed Plame and blew her networks. My question is, why isn't Novak accused of a crime for this act? Even given that he may not have known she was covert CIA, ignorance of the law, etc, etc. Does the first amendment apply to publishing confidential information?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondie58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
77. thank you
Thank you, H20 man for all of the postings on this constantly changing and never ending little drama. This is fascinating- why, this is watching history in the making!

You make it so much easier to comprehend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #77
80. Welcome to DU, blondie58.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
78. Most Excellent Reporting!
I commend thee!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catamount Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
79. Thanks-very informative! K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-16-07 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
83. Well---
Edited on Fri Feb-16-07 05:38 PM by trumad
if you go in with something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck---it's going to be pretty hard to prove it aint a duck.

Plus--- I think they played possum defense because they knew or know that he will be pardoned. Expect a big big push by Libby's allies to scream bloody murder that this trial was a sham and no offense was committed. Of course the media will let them spout long enough so the collective Morans of America won't be to shocked when Dubya pardons the dude.

Listen---if Caspar Weinberger could be pardoned ---then certainly Libby can and will be pardoned. AND ironically both will be pardoned by a Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC