seenos @
40

I’ve been thinking about this ever since Wells’ opening statement:

Seems to me that Libby willingly chose to be “the fall guy” in the beginning – by making ridiculously obvious misstatements – to protect Cheney, Rove, etc.

Someone had to do it, and Libby was high enough in the chain to be trusted, but not so well known that he couldn’t fade into obscurity after a pardon.

However, now he is having second thoughts about being the fall guy, and has become willing to try to push it back toward Cheney and Rove, because:

a) Cheney no longer has the juice to guarantee him a pardon,

b) The Wilsons’ civil suit creates additional exposure that can’t be pardoned,

c) Rove is no longer the untouchable architect of a permanent Republican dynasty.

In other words, being the scapegoat was OK when Scooter thought his buddies had “ultimate power” to let him off the hook.

Now, he just sees himself as the guy stuck with sole responsibility of going down with the ship!

THIS JUST IN: CNN says Libby’s going to subpoena Rove!!!

Now what???

Well, remember that Rove struck a deal with Fitz. No one knows what the deal was, but the MSM thought it meant that Rove was “exonerated.” But his lawyer won’t show anyone Fitz’s letter (other than waving it tantalizingly in the air). I’m with Jason Leopold: Fitz has the goods on him, made a deal with him to extract some crucial pieces of info, and sez he won’t prosecute Rove as long as…. well, what? If Libby puts him on the witness stand, Fitz gets to cross. O-O-O-O, don’t you want to see Rove squirm in his chair? Will he (a) perjure himself, (b) say something that will, in essence, nullify his agreement with Fitz, (c) spill the beans, or (d) concoct some clever cock & bull story that will save his hide?

Bob in HI

Update Here’s the link to the CNN news bulletin

Bob

I’ve been thinking about this ever since Wells’ opening statement:

Seems to me that Libby willingly chose to be “the fall guy” in the beginning – by making ridiculously obvious misstatements – to protect Cheney, Rove, etc.

Someone had to do it, and Libby was high enough in the chain to be trusted, but not so well known that he couldn’t fade into obscurity after a pardon.

However, now he is having second thoughts about being the fall guy, and has become willing to try to push it back toward Cheney and Rove, because:

a) Cheney no longer has the juice to guarantee him a pardon,

b) The Wilsons’ civil suit creates additional exposure that can’t be pardoned,

c) Rove is no longer the untouchable architect of a permanent Republican dynasty.

In other words, being the scapegoat was OK when Scooter thought his buddies had “ultimate power” to let him off the hook.

Now, he just sees himself as the guy stuck with sole responsibility of going down with the ship!

THIS JUST IN: CNN says Libby’s going to subpoena Rove!!!

Now what???

Well, remember that Rove struck a deal with Fitz. No one knows what the deal was, but the MSM thought it meant that Rove was “exonerated.” But his lawyer won’t show anyone Fitz’s letter (other than waving it tantalizingly in the air). I’m with Jason Leopold: Fitz has the goods on him, made a deal with him to extract some crucial pieces of info, and sez he won’t prosecute Rove as long as…. well, what? If Libby puts him on the witness stand, Fitz gets to cross. O-O-O-O, don’t you want to see Rove squirm in his chair? Will he (a) perjure himself, (b) say something that will, in essence, nullify his agreement with Fitz, (c) spill the beans, or (d) concoct some clever cock & bull story that will save his hide?

Bob in HI

Mitchismo @ 20

Christy,
I asked this in another thread but I’m afraid it got buried: Is it possible for Fitzgerald to bring charges against others (Cheney, Rove, etc.) if it is revealed in the Libby trial that crimes were committed? For example, if a conspiracy is revealed, can others be charged for their part in it?

I guess I’m asking if there’s any hope that more will be made of this than Libby’s charges and if someone will be held accountable for revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent and then conspiring to cover it up.

Thanks so much for your efforts!

Did I miss the answer to this question? If so, could someone steer me in the right direction for the answer, because I was wondering the same thing, and it seems I always miss the answer, or there has been no answer. I think a lot of people think that this trial will result in more charges, but I’m really not so sure. I think if it does it would be a fluke, because although there is a demonstrable conspiracy, doesn’t there still have to be a crime, and doesn’t that crime, at least in this case, have to include an intention to deliberately commit a crime. In other words, I think the thing that will prevent additional charges (such as conspiracy) are the same things that prevented individual charges, that is: the perpetrators had to know that Valerie’s identity was classified, and had to deliberately reveal it anyway. Of course, I still keep clinging to the off chance that someone will reveal something definitive that will make it possible to charge a conspiracy.

punaise @
211

Meet the Press-MTP=Making the Propaganda

How about MTP=Media Tepid Performance?

MESSAGE TAILORED for PRESIDENT (M.T.P.)

Meet the Pimp

hosted by Pimpkinhead

Stick a fork in, it’s DONE!

Pax et Bonum @ 222

If the National Review people had wanted to send an actually knowledgeable person to debate Marcy, they would have sent Andy McCarthy. But, instead, they sent a lightweight. At least, with McCarthy, Marcy could have felt it was a fair fight (which she would have won anyway). McCarthy, however, given his friendship with Fitzgerald, has been keeping a lower profile with regard to this trial. Even though I don’t agree with most of his opinions, I admire his loyalty.

McCarthy and Fitz worked in the Manhattan DA’s office, yes? Do you knopw if the worked or schooled together before that?

Actually, McC and F worked at the US Atty’s Office in Manhattan (the So. District of NY). They went to different colleges and law schools and were raised in different boroughs of NYC. But, without pandering to the press, McC has backed his friend and spoken highly of him while holding a different opinion of how cases should be handled. That’s a pal.

Byron York on CSPAN with Marcy Wheeler. He throws out a fact or half a fact, spins it, treats the spin as fact, extrapolates from that, treats the extrapolation as fact, spins the extrapolation, treats that as fact, and so on until he runs out of breath.

It is a pity that the moderator never gave time to Marcy to deconstruct Byron’s nuttiness. He also seemed pretty tolerant of callers whose main interest seemed to link everything bad in the universe to Democrats and attributed the nature of evil to disagreeing with Republicans.

Nicely said. Thank Hugh.

Ted Wells is the one doing the speaking here:

“What you’ll see in terms of the evidence concerning these six witnesses, have issues where their credibility should be questioned because they have an arrangement. They have a deal whereby they have been given immunity.”

Ted Wells speaking here:

“What you’ll see in terms of the evidence concerning these six witnesses, have issues where their credibility should be questioned because they have an arrangement. They have a deal whereby they have been given immunity.”