
(Image by the brilliant Monk.)
Marcy (a/k/a emptywheel) asked me to do this week's installment of her review of Plame media coverage, but there was so little difference in this morning's batch of stories on the Libby trial opening arguments that I'd rather focus on the shiny object that got everyone's attention. The Los Angeles Times opened its report with this:
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby feared that White House officials were conspiring to make him the fall guy in the CIA leak scandal to protect political strategist Karl Rove, Libby's lawyer argued Tuesday.
. . . "Karl Rove was President Bush's right-hand person in terms of political strategy. Karl Rove was the person most responsible that the Republican Party stayed in office. His fate was important to the Republican Party. He had to be protected," [Theodore] Wells said.
Hmm, laying it on a little thick there, aren't we, Ted? The melodrama of Wells' remarks produced a consensus reaction — "Libby is throwing Rove under the bus" — that I think may be unwarranted (as OldCoastie and perris have suggested here in comments). When you look closely, it doesn't seem like Wells actually accused Rove of doing anything in particular… and I doubt that we'll hear any claims from Team Scooter that Turdblossom had any direct role in the Plame leak besides the conversations we already know about (with Bob Novak and Matt Cooper).
So why the big fuss about Rove? Part of it may be simply creating a distraction — with Fitz taking dead aim at Dick Cheney in his own opening argument, Libby's side had to do something dramatic to keep Big Dick from being the center of media coverage. But I also think there's an alternate-reality version of the Plame outing that Scooter's legal team is trying to create, to deflect not only the current charges but the correct impression that Libby was the mastermind at the center of the leak scheme.
I've posted repeatedly about my theory of Ari Fleischer leaking about Plame from Air Force One on July 12, 2003, following orders from Libby that may have originated with Cheney. Both Fitzgerald and Wells seemed to allude to these leaks during their opening statements, and Fleischer has apparently received immunity for testifying that Scooter made him do it. To raise doubts about Ari's testimony, Libby has to invent an alternate history in which Fleischer made the calls either on his own or at someone else's behest, and then had a motive to lie to the FBI (and Fitzgerald) about it. That's where Rove comes in. It seems like Team Scooter is going to imply that Ari, as a White House employee, would only have leaked because Turdblossom told him to, and that the need to protect Karl led Fleischer to put the blame on Libby.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

FITZ!
Fitz!
Fitz!
1st? Fitzolicious!
A zed? A ZED?
In the meantime, great commentary, Swopa! I am continually grateful for the depth of talent on FDL!
-S
Dang. Close.
Fitz!
Jane!
Redd!
EW!
and everyone else! (including all the great commenters).
I needed my hair of the Firedog.
FITZ!
christ i keep posting comment in wrong diaries.
i dialed scooter’s old number – got right through to: “chief of staff’s office..”
…..”wrong number”
The question is — how is this a defense to perjury, which is what Libby is charged with?
OT, yes? Bandwidth waster like the intro Fitzes? Hoprefully not so much.
From the Alt-Universe: Sleazy MSNBC continues Devlining [journalistic version of sexual abuse–difference…nada] the 15-yr-old kidnapped Missour boy.
Senate Rethugs vote down minimum wage bill 54-43. Applaud working heroes at the SOTU last night, screw ‘em today…. business as usual in Rethugland.
Yes, but how effective an argument is it that everyone except Scooter remember it wrong and beside it’s Rove’s fault? What’s next? Blame it on Clinton?
Okay, I have to say that if I were a juror here, I’d have some problems with Grenier’s testimony. He didn’t initially remember if he told Libby about Plame, but he subsequently did remember? Wells could probably convince me that this guy MIGHT have misremembered, so I wouldn’t be willing to accept solely his testimony to prove that Libby knew about Plame. (Fortunately, there’s much more evidence of that.)
John Wellington Wells @ 9
It follows the ancient legal principle “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with discourse, baffle ‘em with bullshit.” Wells’ goal is to confuse the jury so much that they don’t know where to find reasonable doubt in the mess.
the bad-memory defense because it’s SO easy to accidentally demonstrate a systematic pattern of forgetfulness alongside a systematic pattern of deception. Hopefully the totality of the case will demonstrate this.
BTW, why is the press saying nice things about yesterday’s SOTU?
EvilDrPuma @
13
Quote of the day from Slate’s John Dickerson:
Good points!
Go Fitzie!
Strong point, Swopa; thanks! It’s important to keep in mind that a big part of this trial is message control via the media… So, a little (or a lot) of smoke and mirrors are to be expected.
There’s also Murray Waas’ speculation that it may be a smoke signal to bushie to fire up the Pardoning Pen (as covered at TPM…)
The throw Rove under the bus meme seems to cut against angling for a pardon.
Any thoughts?
I haven’t been following this.. what’s the process? Is the minimum wage increase dead or do the Senate dems plan to create and pass a new bill with the stupid rethug tax cuts and then send it to conference?
Prairie Sunshine @
10
EvilDrPuma @ 13
This isn’t as easy as it sounds. Likes most things in life, bullshit has to be applied judiciously. Otherwise, the jury is just going to say, “Oh, look! More bullshit!”
Hmm…yes the Rove allegation is an alternate theory of WHO was responsible for the original leak (as IF that is even part of this case…which it is NOT) -
But *inadvertently* The defense has now provided the REASON Libby lied that they previously claimed he didn’t have any reason to do…to protect himself from becoming a scapegoat. However this is NOT a defense to lying under oath. So it’s that he had a memory gap- and only misspoke…to a new theory that he did IT to avoid becoming the focus of the inquiry which they maintain should have alighted on Rove. Neither is a good defense!
Regarding Libby’s memory, do you think Fitzgerald will call any character witnesses to hint at Libby’s rumored photographic memory?
Thanks Swopa, it certainly never occurred to me this was an attempt to get in front of Fleischer’s testimony…
And I agree w/ FP, at least reading it on the page, Grenier’s “recovered memory” does look a little questionable. (Though there’s no obvious motive.)
Blub @ 19
Wasn’t tax cuts as I recall, but, rather, McConnell introduced a poison pill in the form of an amendment for the line-item veto. That went down, and now the Repugs have likely gotten just enough votes to avoid invoking cloture on the straight bill. So, the bill’s still there, being blocked. But, it can’t go to conference committee until it is actually passed by the full Senate.
I assume your being rhetorical. But if you’re not – it isn’t effective at all.
Karen McL – So true.
No one ever said it was easy being a defendant, or a defense attorney.
Swopa – Just to undermine your confidence, let me express my broad agreement, as noted in a comment at TalkLeft.
Hugh @
11
When you’re otherwise gonna use Scooter’s elsewhere memory mistakes as a defense, LOL!
Likes most things in life, bullshit has to be applied judiciously.
new job title:
BMIC – Bullshit Manager in Court
Thanks. Ugh, yeah I remember he was planning on doing that. I hate these people.. when one considers that, given time value of money, the value of the minimum wage today is HALF that of what it was the last time it was increased.. ugh! These people are disgusting, conscience-free thugees. Which way did the gentletraitor from CT vote on this BTW?
montag @
24
1 x 2 x 6!!!
I love it when everyone wins. Swopa, I wouldn’t mind buying both you and Marcy beers, one of these days.
I suggested the “Miller’s Crossing” theory yesterday. All is not what it seems. Rent the movie. Could be Libby is playing the Gabriel Byrne part to Rove’s Albert Finney. They are mobsters after all.
“The old man’s still an artist with a Thompson.”
Agreed. Why would Comstock raise $3 million from Republicans so that Rove could be taken down, instead of Libby? And by association, Bush instead of Cheney?
John Forde @ 18
I think the time for a pardon would have been before the trial (to keep dirty laundry from being aired). Scooter probably figures he’s on his own in that regard.
At the same time, my whole point is that this isn’t really a devastating blow to Rove — it’s a guy who’s on trial pointing the finger at someone who very conveniently isn’t on trial. So I’m sure Karl understands it’s just business.
Either way, the name of Libby’s game at this point is waiting to get the case overturned on appeal.
A request from a long-time lurker…..
If a link contains the word “blog,” I can’t access it at work. Any way the link to finish reading an entry/its comments could be made without the term “liveblog”?
O/T: CNN is reporting that Kerry is not going to run!!
From the AP a few minutes ago:
OT – senate foreign relations committee.. dodd is now explaining his (binding, i think) amendment to biden’s nonbinding resolution against the escalation.. just prior to voting on the amendment.
“the hour has arrived”
John Forde @
18
Surely negotiating for a presidential pardon would be done via back routes, not as a coded threat in a public courtroom? It may be ‘calling a bluff’, but if so, the chances of this sort of grandstanding actually pressuring Little Lord Obstinate into a pardon are misguided. It’s only make him dig his heels in deeper. So, whatever the heck it is, it’s not that, IMO.
This is so odd.
Here is a link to a couple images I made about rove/libby in October of 2005. Seems pretty applicable today as well.
Rove puts Libby in a headlock
Rove and Libby play Legal Jeopardy
-Monk
-= Working now =-
selise @ 37
Wolfie just showed a clip from his interview w/Cheney(airs tonight) in which RBC says that what the Congress says is basically irrelevant – “The President has made his decision”.
Monk, you have two http’s in those links, can you still fix them?
I agree with Frank P. about Grenier’s testimony. He sounded iffy on telling Libby about Wilson’s wife.
Hope the rest of Fitz’ witnesses sound more certain.
We’ve known for a long time than Rove and Cheney hate each other. They’ve been trying to throw each other under the bus for a while now.
Thing is, if we’re talking immunity agreements, Rove’s in a better position to deal than Cheney: Rove has at least two people whose scalps are worth more than his own: Cheney and Bush. Cheney, on the other hand, can only offer Bush as being more valuable than himself. And the Republican Party isn’t ready to jettison Bush. Yet.
However, as Atrios noted this morning, Rove’s usefulness to Bush and the GOP dropped dramatically when he wasn’t able to save the elections last year. (Yes, lots of registered Republicans voted. For Democrats.) So Bush and the Republican big wigs may all agree with Cheney and Libby that Turd Blossom needs to go.
lina @ 42
That may very well be, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Judging credibility is also a mater of hearing the sounds, seeing the eyes. Most communication is nonverbal.
As good as this liveblogging innovation is, it’s a very perilous, weakened set of data on which to make conclusions like this, from any side. Proceed with caution.
this is fascinating. can’t keep up! great work, team.
This guy here, Libby, he like crashed into my apartment and ruined it. He said he was like 500 years old or something. And he didn’t even have a tattoo on his wrist. So I think he’s like a liar and guilty or whatever, you know.
Hugh from downstairs -
Yes. aka -’Teh Name Of The Roze’
Typing skills kept me from saying what you did.
Badk to court…
SHORT-TAKE: deciderer…yadda. yadda. yadda…..Joe Lieberman….yadda yadda yadda…. *evil smirk*….
The political body Bush so condescendingly refers to as the “Democrat party” must be the “Independent Democrat” himself.
He must mean Holy Joe, the not-democratic Senator from the not-so-democratic Ct. for Lieberman party of one. (Well, one and a half if you consider Rove’s sock puppeteering guidance).
Greenwald sums up the general discontent…
Now if they can’t get behind the term “escalation” and all that it implies…how about getting behind the opposite…De-escalation…!
Dead Horse @ 22
Something tells me no. But, who was that guy who has known Scoots for a long time and said he knew every Star Trek episode title and plot?
But then Wells will just call Madame Libby who will testify that Scoots never remembers to take out the trash, can’t remember where he put his reading glasses, can’t remember what wattage of light bulb goes above the wet bar.
Breaking news from MSNBC: Senate panel approves nonbinding measure opposing Bush’s Iraq plan
Pachacutec @ 44
I’m just saying – if I were Wells – I’d take that apart on cross examination.
I’m not so concerned about Grenier’s testimony. He didn’t actually change his story on whether he had mentioned the part about Wilson’s wife originally; he originally said he couldn’t recall and later he did. What I think the jury will hear is that “I can’t recall” is the first impulse of people being questioned by authorities and when he DID recall, he took initiative in correcting his story. In other words, he HAD motive to not press his memory originally while he was with the CIA and he has NO motive nowto go out of his way to lie under oath in thinking more about the particulars. It’s not ideal testimony, but I think it will ultimately be helpful for Fitz to make the point that Libby was completely tuned in to the issue.
re: headfake….
sorry swopa, but I don’t agree. Wells can’t afford to be playing to the media, he has to play to the jury….. or else his client is done for. And when he tells the jury that what was really going on was that people were trying to scapegoat Libby to protect Rove, he is going to need to back that up with some kind of testimony/evidence.
Regarding concerns about server loads: Is a “Refresh Comments” click a softer hit on the servers than a post refresh?
Well, I sure like the way Isikoff tells it. Words like “circular firing squad,” “scorched earth policy,” “tossing the pardon strategy.”
HotFlash @ 41
They’re working now… sorry about that.
-Monk
New thread
New Thread
Monk @
39
Awesome. I’ve updated the post — great work!
oregondave @ 32
When push comes to shove, the WH is not as monolithic as it seems. The loyalties are Cheney-Libby, and Bush-Rove. Cheney and Libby probably don’t feel any particular loyalty to Rove.
From the Oil Drum on the energy content of the SOTU:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2207#more
Re ethanol:
And on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
Current in this context, I believe, means the last year or two. Most recently (the last few weeks) determiners have been weather, good supply, and a cooling US economy. In this more recent context, prices are down and supply is up. The Bush plan would reverse this: soaking up demand and putting renewed pressure on prices.
p.l @ 54, good point. Wells put the blame on Rove in his opening statement but I don’t think he said he would prove it. I hope it’s a “Put up or shut up” to Wells from Mr. Fitzgerald.
p.lukasiak @ 54
I think Team Libby’s strategy is going to be more about raising doubts than presenting evidence. IMO, they don’t have much choice.
I’m just saying – if I were Wells – I’d take that apart on cross examination.
I’m sure he’s going to try…. and i suspect that Fitz wants him to do this…..
remember the end of Fitz’ opening statement — he wanted the jurors to rely on their common sense. Fitz is getting Wells to “raise doubt” about sworn testimony — but its doubt at the margins….
Before Grossman knew that the details of how he told Libby were important, he told the FBI it was via a phone call…. once Grossman realized that the details were important, he “reconstructed” what had happened, and realized he’d told Libby in person….but the FACTS didn’t change.
Grenier wasn’t sure if he’d told libby about Wilson’s wife….UNTIL Grenier found out that it was a key detail. The FACTS didn’t change, however.
But Libby, knowing that his precise recollections were critical, “remembered” completely NON-EXISTENT facts.
At the close of the trial, when Fitz responds to Well’s closing statement, Fitz is going to tell the jurors to use their common sense — yes, memory can be faulty in all sorts of ways — but not in the way that Libby is claiming his memory was faulty.
I love the collective work on this site, ’specially Ms. Wheeler’s stuff, props to you all..(proper respect that is)…
Just to clarify for this confused Canadian…
Rover seems to be the key for a lot of things…So please bear with me or correct me if I am in error on certain thoughts and assumptions….
Can Rover be under indictment, under seal or otherwise?…while still being a possible government witness? (i.e possible immunity deal)…
Could Mr. Gonzales AG)have protected Rover in any way shape or form from Fitz’s queries?
Can anyone think of another reason why GWB & RBC were interviewed together? other than GWB needs his hand held in any interrogative situation?
Who is the VP’s lawyer for the Libby trial?
Thanks
Completely OT, but wanted to share:
“And the Republican Party isn’t ready to jettison Bush. Yet.”
What, in God’s name, will it take?? I really wonder what the admin. has on these people. Apparently, nothing on Hagel.
Given the outcome of the 2006 elections, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Bush himself gave the go-ahead to throw Karl under the bus.
It’s not simply that Bush is a vindictive bastard – though, of course, he is – but that Republicanism is becoming radioactive in much of the country. If they can set up a firewall to blame all the problems of the current Republican party on a few bad actors, then the party may be able to recover more quickly. Not in time for 2008, but possibly by 2010.
And Rove would make a good scapegoat. He’s at a high enough level to give people the impression that someone at a high level paid for this fiasco, but he’s of very little utility to the Pugs going forward. At least in the short term.
Canadianhoser @ 66
I still don’t understand why Fitz let them get away with that. With all the powers given to him by Comey, why didn’t he insist on separate testimony, under oath.
I said the same thing y’day regarding the distraction of Rove v Cheney in response to TPM, though with some added and completely speculative intrigue:
What do you think?
ya, to me, a clear head fake, if libby threw rove under the bus the trial is over, libby gets a pass and the real trials begin regarding rove and cheney
as I said, this is with permission from the whitehouse and of course with the permission of rove himself
KarenMcL @
21
Maybe not so bad: aren’t I right in thinking that for at least one of the charges (obstruction) Fitz has to prove that Scooter misled the GJ ‘corruptly’. Presumably, if he did it to stop himself being wrongly fingered for a leak, then that would bolster the claim that it wasn’t corrupt, no?
IANAL. (nor an American, for that matter, but a fairly avid reader for all that)
Prairie Sunshine @
10
It seems to me if the vote was 54-43, the “Rethugs” had some serious help in voting down the minimum wage bill. I think it would be interesting to know which Dems don’t care about the lower classes or those less fortunate or less educated.
…it may take Jane’s laser focus to figure out their strategy
Turkish bill at77
IANAL. (nor an American, for that matter, but a fairly avid reader for some time)
And apparently EPU’d as well…
The reason they need to get Rove into the mix is to make it seem that this was all about politics. They’re playing the “they’re trying to make politics illegal” card.
Rove is not a player in this. Keep your eyes on Cheney.
Ann in AZ @ 75
No – not voted down 54-43; filibustered. All democrats voted for, apart from Johnson (obvious) and Carper (?who he? Junior sen Delaware?).
Thom: “Team Libby is using this because they have permission to from the WH.”
Well, obviously, from my post above, I agree.
I think there are multiple scenarios that could be used to justify such a decision.
Ultimately, though, whatever the reasoning, the fact is that Cheney has agreed to appear on behalf of the defense. There’s no way Cheney would have done so without knowing Team Libby’s strategy — especially if it includes throwing Karl ‘under the bus’.
Therefore, I have to conclude that whatever the strategy is, the WH has approved it. Or at least Cheney has, in the unlikely event that there’s any distinction between the two.
turkish bill @
79
OT – But: can someone explain to me why this isn’t a really dumb use of the filibuster, given that Bush would presumably have vetoed anyway? After all, he’s not up for re-election in 2008 – there’d be absolutely no cost to him – while 21 Republican senators are.
Comments from a lurker. Seems to me the defense didn’t want to be put into the position of defending an unpopular administration so they took some of the wind out of the sails of the prosecution and joined the attack by throwing Rove under the bus. It dovetails perfectly with the voir dire questions. They couldn’t get Bush supporters on the jury. Indeed Libby as the insider on this administration attack appears to be desparately trying to save his own neck. How far will he go to do it? I agree this defense tactic is a red herring. Its offered to make Libby look the hapless victim rather than the perpetrator of a crime. The bad guys are still in office. Beauty of it for us is both parties at trial will be providing evidence that should result a very public indictment on the administration and the way its actions abused power and the public trust.
Strikes me as a perfect little circle the defense is trying to create for the jurors:
Can’t blame Karl for the leak because he’s not on trial. Can’t blame Ari for lying to protect Karl because he has immunity. Can’t blame Scooter, because all he did was tell the truth and then got lies told about him by Karl the Great and his henchmen. So for those jurors who hate the Bush administration, Libby looks like a sympathetic victim.
This is good. I don’t think it will work, but it’s good. The problem with it, however, is that Libby has his own motive to lie – save his own ass and his boss’s ass….
I have a different take on it. I look at it from a firefighting perspective. Libby works for Cheney, the VP. Rove works for Bush, the President. There would be people in the White House who would be interested in making sure that the problem remained on the other side of a firewall between the two offices. Rove implicates or could implicate the President, so it institutionally mobilizes forces. It always seems to happen. Just different faces. I don’t doubt that there is an element of self servivng truth to “Scooter’s” defense. Probably enough to make him feel self righteous. But it is layered on top of the simple fact that he lied in the serice of smearing someone who had the balls to tell the truth. I don’t doubt that he was the victim of some pretty nasty infighting. After all, look who got indicted and look who is still laughing from the side-lines. But that has little to do with the actual merits of the case.
*ilbo @ 4
Fitztastic!