Mr. Libby said to the VP, “I think the WH, people are trying to set me up, people want me to be the SCAPEGOAT. people in the WH want me to protect Karl Rove.”

[I would think that the pretencious literary snob in this case would know the difference between a “sacrificial lamb” and a “scapegoat”. They are very different critters. One is pure and untainted by sin…the other is filled to the brim with sin…not innocent at all.]

Wells: “Cheney made notes of what Libby said. Notes show Libby telling VP that he was not involved in leak.

Cheney’s note: “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”

How exactly does this note even come close to suggesting that Libby didn’t leak anything? If Libby was “the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder” then it seems that he was tasked with undertaking an errand with great risk for Cheney and the President. It doesn’t suggest he was “innocent” simply that he was more adroit at not getting traced back to the WH/OVP (likely by using intermediaries and insisting on being identified as a “former House staffer”) than the “incompetants”.

Or perhaps the “incompetants” were simply not getting the “dirt” out effectively, and Libby was thus tasked to do so.

But in neither case does Cheney’s note suggest that Libby was Sgt. Schultz and “knew nothing”.

What does the jury look like when Wells or Fitz is talking to them?

IIRC, I don’t believe the jury is in view of the cameras. The only insight on your questions may probably come from Christy, if she was able to see the jurors from her seat.

-S

At the risk of repeating myself (looking for thoughts on this), I posted this late in the last thread:

How is it that Fitz knows there was a note from Cheney that was destroyed by Libby? Surely, Libby wouldn’t have said anything about it.

Who else would have known about it, and mentioned its existence?

MSNBC article up now.

Would this not be a clear statement that just prior to his interview with the FBI Mr. Libby destroyed evidence regarding conversations about Wilson and Plame between members of the WH?

DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE!

In addition it seems that Wells has just provided an EXCELLENT motive for Libby to lie about NOT knowing about Plame’s association with the CIA…and all the meetings with fellow administration officials (including Cheney), asking for CIA documents, etc.

Libby didn’t want to be the exclusive “Scapegoat”…

If HE KNEW that ROVE was involved and he didn’t tell the Special Prosecutor then he acted to cover up knowledge of the crime and OBSTRUCTED the investigation.

Indeed, by going to Cheney, and telling Cheney that he didn’t want to be the patsy for ROVE…that indicates that he also obstructed Fitz and the FBI from knowing that CHENEY had knowledge of ROVES leak.

And if Cheney never mentioned Libby’s visit or the “note” of advice that was destroyed to investigators…yet additional cases of destruction of documents that were to be preserved regarding the investigation!!!

Is WELLS ACTUALLY A DEFENSE LAWYER???

The problem is that (1) much of the information will _never_ be unsealed or made public (2) there are master media spinners and pressuremeisters at work on the Libby/Cheney/Rove side.

I don’t think these threads are a good place for dark theories, but there are reasonable scenarios between “Leapold is a stone liar” and the other extreme.

Cranky