Libby rats out Rove and Cheney?

[davefoc]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2816038&page=1

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling Libby's end of the conversation. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Not sure what is going on here. How is this defense in Libby's interest? If anything it seems to make the prosecution's case stronger and it makes it much less likely that he'll get a pardon.

Up to this point, I thought it was unlikely that Libby would serve any jail time, between the possibility that he would be found innocent, found guilty but based on appeals avoid jail time and the possibility that he'd be pardoned I thought he wasn't at much risk. After this I'd have to say I was wrong.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Presidents can pardon people, and Bush is already in his second term so doesn't need to worry about running again.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Presidents can pardon people, and Bush is already in his second term so doesn't need to worry about running again.

If he decides to take some people down with him, he can say adios to any pardon. Famiglia Bush prizes loyalty.

DR

 

[fuelair]

If he decides to take some people down with him, he can say adios to any pardon. Famiglia Bush prizes loyalty.

DR

OOoooohhh you nasty meanie liberal!!! you sillies oughta hide you hedz in shame dissing the Lord God George the second over that sex-loving pervert (a woman!!!a cigar!!! - he should be in prison for 50 years!!!) Clinton!!!!! (Sorry I can't do the giant red letters, but I trust you get the gist)

 

[Darth Rotor]

OOoooohhh you nasty meanie liberal!!! you sillies oughta hide you hedz in shame dissing the Lord God George the second over that sex-loving pervert (a woman!!!a cigar!!! - he should be in prison for 50 years!!!) Clinton!!!!! (Sorry I can't do the giant red letters, but I trust you get the gist)

I suspect Libby may have a future in prison, and some pink cigars.

DR

 

[hubbub2]

I'm still waiting for them to figure out that Joe Wilson outed Plame...

 

[davefoc]

Before the trial started, my prediction was basically this:

Libby would stone wall.

His lawyers would drag stuff out as much as possible.

The defense would depend totally on the theory that Libby was really busy and he just made a mistake. Based on what I've read about the evidence the prosecutor's had a pretty good case this wasn't so, but I thought coupled with careful jury selection it might work.

Assuming a guilty verdict, a long sequence of expensive and time consuming appeals would drag this thing out until just before Bush's retirement and assuming that Libby was still in jeopardy, Bush would pardon him.

So right now it looks like Libby might be taking the scorched earth approach to his defense. I can't see how that will help his case much but like DR said why would Bush pardon him after a scorched earth defense and why is a scorched earth defense beneficial to Libby? If he was ordered to lie, isn't he still guilty of perjury? Maybe that's the answer, if Libby lied based on orders that originated with Bush in someway has he committed a crime?

 

[davefoc]

If Libby came totally clean right now and answered prosecution questions about how the Plame affair was handled in the white house, what kind of a plea agreement could he get right now do you suppose? Would there be some jail time no matter what Libby testified to?

 

[davefoc]

Well, so far I seem to be having a mostly one sided conversation in this thread with myself.

So to continue in that vein, here's a link to Isikoff's piece in Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16832257/site/newsweek/

As a side note, of all the miscellaneous publicized trials that I have followed over the years, this is shaping up to be the most interesting. Obviously, judging by the response to this thread, not a widely held view.

 

[EBU]

If Libby is on trial for perjury, not for outing Valerie Plame, and the perjury charge is based on his own personal statements... how can he claim that he is a sacrificial lamb?

And I thought that it was made clear that this was only about perjury, not about Plame. So how can he (or anyone else) say that this is about outing Plame?

I thought he was going with the "I was so busy with important stuff that I just forgot" defense?

I'm confused.

 

[davefoc]

I thought he was going with the "I was so busy with important stuff that I just forgot" defense?

I'm confused.

Et moi, aussi.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm still waiting for them to figure out that Joe Wilson outed Plame...

He wasn't outing her, he was banging here. She's his wife.

DR

 

[JamesDillon]

If Libby is on trial for perjury, not for outing Valerie Plame, and the perjury charge is based on his own personal statements... how can he claim that he is a sacrificial lamb?

You're assuming that a defense needs to make sense to be effective. The defense attorney's goal with this is to focus the jury's attention on everything but the grand jury testimony in which Libby lied through his teeth about Plame. All Fitzgerald has to show in order to win his case is that Libby intentionally lied under oath, which is a pretty simple issue-- play a tape of his testimony and prove that 1) it was false, and 2) Libby knew it was false. That kind of case would be pretty hard for Libby's defense team to win on the merits, so apparently they've decided to play this as a trial of the entire White House with Libby as the innocent victim, presumably in the hopes of distracting the jury's attention from the relevant issues. Or maybe they're hoping to force the White House's hand into issuing a pardon before Cheney is called to the stand. In any event, they probably don't have much to lose-- the Michael Brown affair shows that the Bush administration can't be relied upon to stand up for one of its cronies who finds himself in trouble for following orders.

 

[davefoc]

You're assuming that a defense needs to make sense to be effective. The defense attorney's goal with this is to focus the jury's attention on everything but the grand jury testimony in which Libby lied through his teeth about Plame. All Fitzgerald has to show in order to win his case is that Libby intentionally lied under oath, which is a pretty simple issue-- play a tape of his testimony and prove that 1) it was false, and 2) Libby knew it was false. That kind of case would be pretty hard for Libby's defense team to win on the merits, so apparently they've decided to play this as a trial of the entire White House with Libby as the innocent victim, presumably in the hopes of distracting the jury's attention from the relevant issues. Or maybe they're hoping to force the White House's hand into issuing a pardon before Cheney is called to the stand. In any event, they probably don't have much to lose-- the Michael Brown affair shows that the Bush administration can't be relied upon to stand up for one of its cronies who finds himself in trouble for following orders.

One might see part of what you describe here as a brinkmanship game whereby Libby lays out a threat against Bushco with the goal of getting Bushco to do something to rescue him (or at least commit to a pardon) before Libby spills his guts. One thought I had was that Bush, himself is probably legally isolated from any problems with the Plame case. He might just let Cheney and Rove take the hit rather than take a personal risk to save them and Bush is really the only guy that can save Libby now beyond the twelve jurors and a weird change of heart by Fitzgerald.

Based on what I thought I knew about this case, I wouldn't be doing what Libby is. I would have either spilled my guts and made the best deal I could or hung tough by allowing my lawyers to obfuscate away for a year or so until I could get a pardon or a little mercy from a sympathetic (maybe politically connected) judge.

One other factor here is that Libby is burning through money, I know he's got a lot but doesn't a scorched earth strategy discourage a few of those wealthy republican donors? I'm not sure I understood something I read correctly but it sounded like he actually had seven lawyers sitting at his table during this trial.

 

[WildCat]

You're all missing the most obvious reason: Libby's lawyers are playing on the Bush Admin's unpopularity to the jury. Get just one rabidly anti-Bush juror to refuse to convict because they really want Cheney, Rove, or Bush himself indicted than Libby goes free. So long as Libby doesn't claim anything too specific, and just says he "feels" he's been set up no higher-ups are in any danger of being indicted.

 

[davefoc]

You're all missing the most obvious reason: Libby's lawyers are playing on the Bush Admin's unpopularity to the jury. Get just one rabidly anti-Bush juror to refuse to convict because they really want Cheney, Rove, or Bush himself indicted than Libby goes free. So long as Libby doesn't claim anything too specific, and just says he "feels" he's been set up no higher-ups are in any danger of being indicted.

Seems like a dangerous strategy. The Libby lawyers have to bash the Bush administration in a way that promotes sympathy for Libby, doesn't reinforce a possible motive for Libby's perjury, and doesn't tar Libby with the same brush because he was a member of the Bush administration.

 

[WildCat]

Seems like a dangerous strategy. The Libby lawyers have to bash the Bush administration in a way that promotes sympathy for Libby, doesn't reinforce a possible motive for Libby's perjury, and doesn't tar Libby with the same brush because he was a member of the Bush administration.

It's not as dangerous as a guilty plea.

 

[davefoc]

Lots of stuff in the Libby trial over the last few days but for a little balance I thought I'd link to this guy. He is the only pundit out there that I could find who is strongly in the Libby camp.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/what_you_see_in_the_media_is_n_1.html

A lot of his argument seems to be that various reporters are substantially misrepresenting what is going on in the case. He had this to say about Isikoff's (of Newsweek) claim that "[FONT=times new roman,times]Libby is charged about when and from whom he learned about Plame."[/FONT]:

Actually Libby's own admission to investigators from day one was that he learned this from Cheney in June, that it was not a significant fact to him at the time, and that he'd forgotten about this side matter until reporters called asking about it.

From Slate ("And Now it's Miller Time")
http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/entry/2158651/

I just linked to the article because I liked the Slate lead in headline.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Before the trial started, my prediction was basically this:

Libby would stone wall.

His lawyers would drag stuff out as much as possible.

The defense would depend totally on the theory that Libby was really busy and he just made a mistake. Based on what I've read about the evidence the prosecutor's had a pretty good case this wasn't so, but I thought coupled with careful jury selection it might work.

How does this help him? It is not the crime he is being accused of but the cover up. How does this show that he did not lie to invistigators?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

A lot of his argument seems to be that various reporters are substantially misrepresenting what is going on in the case.

I won't go as far as "substantially misrepresenting," but I have read the summaries posted by a couple of bloggers who are taking down the testimony (paraphrased) as it goes (I think James Joyner was one, and I trust him to be pretty accurate), and the press reports on the same testimony were sloppy and in many cases missed the main points.

I.e., par for the course in modern reporting. So the guy may have an (overstated) point when he criticizes mainstream coverage, because it has made some mistakes. I do think he is overstating the complaint, though.