It is obviously meat for more obstruction charges and indictments against, as yet, various other un-indicted co-conspirators to the original crime. Hard to tell how many other obstruction crimes occurred afterwards but perhaps, with diligent luck, we shall see what we shall see.

regarding VP note on Libby’s neck in meat grinder..

see andrew sullivan on this, with actual picture of note by VP:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_di…..f_the.html

Unfortunately Sullivan leaves out some crucial words in his ellipse (see bold).

“Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy the pres. … asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder…” Just complete the thought.”

okay! “because of the incompetance of others.”

In other words LIBBY WAS ASKED BY THE PRESIDENT to stick his neck in the meatgrinder. Apparently Rove was NOT.

One was asked to undertake some task…the other wasn’t. It seems from the phrasing that Libby accepted the task (the neck in the meatgrinder). But now he isn’t willing to face the heat???

I think that the “meatgrinder” was another task. Someone else screwed up, in Cheney’s view, thus revealing that surrepticious act…and the one tasked with it was now facing the heat because of that “screw up”.

Libby wasn’t willing to accept being sacrificed for doing what he thought was a well covered trail because of someone else’s screw-up (NOTE THAT LIBBY ISN’T ONE OF NOVAK’S SOURCES…it was Novak’s hit piece that pointed fingers at the WH…and Rove).

What this suggests is that the President approved the leaks by Libby.

No one wants to get to the bottom of this information more than this Administration. [Scottie plays serious voice] If someone leaked classified information, they will not longer be part of this administration. [laughter in press room]

It is absurd to say this administration would [attack?] someone for having a different view.

YES! VERY PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENSE!

When hasn’t this Administration attacked anyone for having a different view, is what I want to know??

Isn’t ANYONE that expresses a contrary view “aiding the terrorists”?

Hugh @ 41

Re Jeralyn Merritt’s piece last night, she is a defense lawyer and tends to see things that way.

From the time that Libby’s team first announced it as a possible defense, this is a trial about memory. It is unsurprising that people would not have complete and detailed memories of events that took place 3 1/2 years ago. They will have some specific memories of some specific events. They will have more general memories of how they usually did their jobs. These will be both re-inforced and filtered through the notes they took, the stories they wrote, the testimony they gave, and their various reflections on it all as events and their role in them have developed over time. Indeed much of what we are currently seeing is memories of memories.

These will be further modified by conscious and unconscious spinning and dissembling as they pass through the prism of the players’ self-interest, fears, and vanity. Nobody expected Judith Miller to present anything other than a weasely and self-serving face to the court and the jury, but despite this she still bolstered the government’s case that Libby lied about what he knew, when he knew it, and how memorable and important it was to him.

It is in the defense’s interest, indeed, it is necessary for them, to portray everyone as having a bad memory, a mistaken memory. They have done this with witness after witness. Their problem and the one that Jeralyn plays down is that all these witnessess scattered throughout the White House, the CIA, and the media all have testified the same way, despite whatever holes and gaps they may have in their individual memories. What is the chance of that? What is the chance that there is some vast conspiracy by them aimed at Scooter Libby? Why is it that Scooter Libby didn’t simply answer, “I don’t remember” when he was quizzed by the FBI and before the Grand Jury? How is it that he can remember perfectly all the bits that tend to exculpate him but forget the rest of what were, according to him, events too trivial to consign to memory?

Jeralyn and Libby’s defense team are both guilty of using an argument that is too strong for the case they are trying to make. If memory is so mutable and unstable as to be completely unreliable, then why have trials at all? Why place any credence in any activity, such as science or learning, which requires memory? Sound silly? That’s because it is. Memory is not absolute or perfect but that’s just life. We make reasonable assumptions about it and its limitations, and we do this everyday. That is what the jury is being asked to do here, to use a reasonable and not an impossible standard. If they do, things look very bad for Libby indeed.

But isn’t this case more about what people (Libby) remembered back THEN? Today’s witnesses are struggling to remember what they said/heard 3-4 years ago. But isn’t this case about what Libby couldn’t recall years ago – shortly after all this stuff went down? Say…6 months after this all went down. Sure, I expect memories will fog up over 3-4 years ago, but that’s not when Libby was testifying to Fitz. Libby was testifying, say 6-12 months after these events occured. Libby’s memory of these events at the time(s) he originally testified (or DIDN’T testify) should NOT be compared to memories of these events 3-4 years later — which is what we are hearing in this trial today. Seems like apples vs. oranges.

As well the memories of the journalists may be about a singular statement of ambivalent context. It’s much harder to remember something TOLD you unless you either write it down, or use that information in some way. Note that Libby was repeatedly told about Plame from multiple sources ~ documents from the INR, from Cheney, from his own Secretary, he digested this information and the passed it on, to multiple individuals, sometimes weeks or a month later (i.e. it was integrated into his memory bank). Then he’s supposed to have forgotten.

That’s a bit different from Miller…who never actually wrote an article about Wilson. If she had it would be similar to Libby “using” that information.

Cooper, DID, use the information about Wilson/Plame he obtained from Libby (even a few hours afterwards)…and thus would be much more likely to recall what Libby SAID.

If you “use it, you don’t lose it” as easily. Libby constantly used the information…yet he somehow washed his brain of those circuits when he got questioned by the Prosecutor and GJ???? And almost immediately develops an “erroneous memory” about Russert EVEN in the few days at the hieght of the explosion of controversy about the leaks at the time of Novak’s expose???

It reeks, I have to tell you!

Jane S. @
29

JGabriel @ 24

Christy, Marcy, or anyone at the courthouse, why is Fitz so adamant about getting these recordings of Scottie McC’s Libby exonerating statements viewed by the jury?

The reason for asking is I don’t see what they bring to the prosecution. Once the jury knows that Scottie reported Libby’s ‘innocence’ to the press, at the behest of Libby and Cheney, what else does actually viewing the tapes bring to the prosecution?

I know there must be something I’m missing or failing to understand here…

Not a lawyer or jury expert but I think images and in this case, moving images are powerful and memorable. That Libby was so worried about this thing that he had his boss (Cheney) insist that Scottie say this. Yes the jury has heard this but to see poor old Scottie sweating and making the statement, it is powerful prosecution imagery. Looseheadprop explained in previous thread that he thinks Walton is right to keep it out but that Fitz could have used a rule of evidence to try to get it in.

As I understand it the contentious part is Scotty basically clearing Rove but not clearing Libby, thus giving Libby the strong impression his head was about to be put in the meatgrinder and giving him a strong incentive to lie about his role in the affair. Fitz wants to show it because it’s much more compelling than reading GJ testimony.

Again, and I think this is important in terms of timescale and WHAT THE MEATGRINDER IS and who asked that Libby put his head in the meatgrinder.

VP Cheney “

” Not going to protect one staffer sacrifice the guy the Pres. that was asked to stick his head in the meatgrinder because of the incompetance of others”

So BEFORE Rove was being “cleared” by Scottie Libby had been asked to do another task by the Pres. that Cheney stated was “putting his neck in the meatgrinder”.

Being “sacrificed” involuntarily was different from this “risky task”.

I think the analogy would be a General who asks one of his top Special Forces teams to undertake a mission. But someone who unwittingly acted independently also gets into trouble. But the Chief Command only undertakes efforts to protect those who screwed up, not the Special Forces squad actually sent on the mission, whom the Vice Commander believes acted competantly.

The “meatgrinder” IMO was the release of Plame’s identity and other acts to attack Ambassador Wilson. Others got involved. and, in Cheney’s eyes, screwed it up by leaving a “source trail” back to the Administration (recall that Libby wanted Miller to refer to him as a “former House Aide” to conceal who provided the info on Plame).

What we’re going to argue in response to govt’s argument, he was concerned about scapegoating. He acted like an innocent person, went to VP and asked to be exonerated. That’s what VP will say if he testifies. It goes to motive. They want this transcript in to go to motive. They want to say he was afraid of losing job. Only an innocent person, I would argue, would go to VPUS, to say that he was worried about scapegoating. [Huh?? I think this makes him look pretty damn guilty.]

As I recall the infamous note, it said

“Not going to protect one staffer sacrifice the guy the Pres. that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetance of others

In other words, the “meatgrinder” was not the INVOLUNTARY ACT of scapegoating of an innocent…but a request by the Pres. for Libby to do something else of great risk!

In neither case does the VP say or even hint in his statement that Libby or Rove is “innocent”. There are some notes (in Libby’s hand) at the top of the memo asking that Bartlett tell McClellan to make a statement ASSERTING that Libby is as innocent as Rove.

The VP is simply saying that what goes for Rove should also go for the guy that the Pres. actually asked to take the BIG CHANCE and acted more “competantly” (i.e. Rove or someone else SCREWED UP in the way they leaked to the Press)!

Rayne’s Libby Primer

Thanks, RBG. This will save some of my head spinning as I try to figure out a lot of this stuff. Thanks for helping the “newbie.”

Steve @ 129: SNORRKRKRK! SNURFFLESNORK!

Has your Errand of Mercy become Operation Annihilate? Is there in Truth no beauty? Let this be your last battlefield, and for us, let us raise this Savage Curtain of deciet and lies…

Okay, I’ll stop now.