Avast, Matey

Seth Stevenson of Slate presents what I will call the center-left case against Scooter Libby, and I should add that my ability to discern his ideological disposition is based on careful reading of subtle clues such as this:

Apparently, Cheney was scheduled to testify Thursday. But no more. This is a crushing blow... And now I'll never see it. On the other hand, I also won't be forced to restrain myself from shouting, "Go frack yourself, Mr. Cheney!" as he takes the stand.

I deduce "left" from "frack" and "center" from "Mr."  A truly hard-core lefty would know that the proper expression is "Go Cheney yourself".

But I digress.  Mr. Stevenson is kind enough to link my suggestion that Tim Russert may have dug himself into a deepening hole by misleading investigators three years ago.  Back then, per this hypothesis, he gave them misleading testimony to disguise the fact that he (or Andrea Mitchell, or another NBC reporter) had a live source for the Plame leak.  Then, Russert was protecting sources; now, he is protecting his source and his own job.

Mr. Stevenson presents this as follows:

I can't buy that Russert is lying under oath—and possibly sending Scooter Libby to jail—when Russert has no obvious motive to do so. (Others imagine a vast NBC conspiracy, but I find this far-fetched. Anyway, the jury has been given almost zero evidence to support the conspiracy theory.)

Vast?  As I proud member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I know "vast" when I see it, and this ain't it.  I would guess Russert, Mitchell, maybe Gregory, and maybe their boss (or ex-boss, since Neal Shapiro has moved on) would know, as well as a few NBC lawyers, maybe.  Three people kept the "Deep Throat" secret for thirty-three years - how long can six people sit on this? 

And even if your answer is "not long", well, let's see what happens after the trial when the duct tape is removed from Mitchell, Gregory and Russert and they are all free to speak.  John Dickerson of Slate, who received a leak along with David Gregory (as Ari Fleischer told it) has been describing his experience freely; NBC lawyers have lowered the Cone of Silence over NBC.  Why?

As to "the jury has been given almost zero evidence to support the conspiracy theory", well of course - that's what makes it a conspiracy!

Somewhat more seriously, the defense wanted to talk about Russert's annual income from his NBC gig - why?  NBC fought like fury to keep Andrea Mitchell out of court - why?
The defense did introduce Russert's misleading affidavit from June 2004, so they have certainly made it clear that his ethics are, well, flexible when it comes to the courts.

Who knows?  I happen to think that neither Gregory nor Mitchell are interested in lying and sending Libby to prison just to save Russert's job.  Will they spill the beans after the trial?  Are there beans to spill?  Who knows?

But one last thought - Ari Fleischer testified that he did leak to David Gregory and John Dickerson but not to Walter Pincus.  If he is wrong on all three, does that undermine his "Hush hush, on the qt" story about his lunch with Libby?

Fine, if Ari is a washout on all three of these reporters, then Gregory didn't know and Fitzgerald sent up an awful witness. 

Or, if Gregory knew, where are we on my "vast" conspiracy?

Perhaps Mr. Stevenson would care to pick one - I'm OK with either choice.

BONUS CONCESSION:  On my To-Do list is a cogent, concise, witty tour-de-trial that will lay out various scenarios for Libby's guilt or innocence.  When readers are done and women have dried their eyes, I hope to have demonstrated that there are plausible scenarios in which Libby is innocent but confused, or maybe even testifying accurately on most of his main points.

However - my objective will be to establish the existence of reasonable doubt.  I have never liked Libby's story and, although the government witnesses were generally weaker than I expected, I still think the idea that Libby deliberately shaded his testimony is, uhh, highly plausible.

But "highly plausible" is not plausible enough to convict, IMHO.

WHILE WE ARE HERE:

Let me tackle Mr. Stevenson's summation:

To believe [Libby's story], you'd have to believe that 1) Libby forgot that Cheney had already told him about Plame (Libby says he did forget their conversation, and remembered it only when he saw it in his notes), and 2) that Ari Fleischer, Cathie Martin, and multiple other prosecution witnesses were all lying or misremembering when they described conversations with Libby (about Plame) that happened before the Russert phone call.

That's a lot of people all lying or misremembering in the same way—a way that hurts Scooter Libby's case.

Well. Cathie Martin told Libby on June 11, right when Cheney did and the news was going in one ear and out the other.  (I have a guess that Libby's note that Cheney told him is actually a note from the meeting where Ms. Martin told him and Cheney.)

Grenier told the FBI and grand jury he couldn't remember telling Libby; he only recalled it in 2005 after reading about Libby's possible alibi.

Grossman, an old pal of Joe Wilson's, told Libby in a thirty-second exchange outside a meeting with no witnesses.  Well, unless he told Libby over the phone, as he told the FBI.

Schmall, Libby's CIA briefer, told Libby on June 14.  Schmall has no memory at all of telling Libby, but sees a mention in his notes and is sure he would have.  Compelling.

Fleischer, as noted, has serious memory or credibility issues.

Addington, not mentioned, was a good witness for Fitzgerald.  Don't break my flow.

Miller's tale did not impress me - she spent 85 days in jail protecting her sources and now she can't remember who they are?  What else is she not telling us?

As to this, "That's a lot of people all lying or misremembering in the same way", don't overlook selection bias - Fitzgerald was not going to put on the stand all the people who did not remember discussing Plame with Libby.  Folks who discussed Plame with Libby but forgot weren't called; the actual witnesses were a mix of people with "true" memories and sincere (we hope) but false memories.  In brief, anyone who remembered a Plame chat and misattributed it to Libby would have been put on the stand - given the quality of the witnesses and the fact that four were from June 14 or earlier, I am not at all sure it is "a lot". 

Per Libby, pushing back against Wilson was important, and there are plenty of notes and witnesses to confirm that.  Per Fitzgerald, including the wife was part of the push-back.  However, we have nothing from Libby's notes beyond a June 12 mention, and very few credible witnesses saying Libby discussed this important issue with them.

Comments

[clarice]

You missed a trial discussion today--where it was made clear (someone, I think Sue posted it) that Addington said Libby asked only about the CIA role and said not one word about Wife or Plame.

I'll post here, the latest from FDL which I just posted on the prior thread.)

[clarice]

FDL:
On Eckenrode:STIPULATION

Former Inspector John Eckenrode,

1) Eckenrode was Special Agent in FBI in charge of the investigation concerning possible unauthorized disclosure of Plame's affiliation with CIA

2) On November 14 and 24, Eckenrode spoke by telephone with Russert

3) Eckenrode prepared an FD 302 report, November 24 report that recorded info that Russert provided. Eckenrode intended it to be accurate report.

4) November 24 report states that Russert was requested to refrain from reporting on FBI's questions and he agreed to request

5) Report describes Russert's account of Libby conversation. Russert advised he recalled at least one, possibly two conversations with Libby

6) Report states in part, "Russert does not recall stating to Libby anything about the wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson. Although he could not rule out the possibility that he had such an exchange. Russert was at a loss to remember it. He believes that this would have been something he would remember.

Wells; The defense rests"

EXPLANATION: Idon't know if any of the impeachment evidence came in--but if this stipulation doesn't establish a basis for reasonable doubt, what does?Not necessary to get in the impeachment evidence because it shows that at a point in time closer to the event Russert conceded that he might have told Libby. Further explanation:This is the fruit of damned good defense work and the stench of the hidden agreement and the proferred impeachment evidence*************

As for the JUly 12 JM-Libby conversation:

"Walton: When this trial started, I described the charges against Libby. I told you count one alleges that Libby falsely testified concerning conversations with 3 reporters. now, however, this trial has progressed to the point and one of those allegations, that being that Libby lied about conversation with Judy on June 12, 2003

Fitz July 12

Walton That allegation must be dismissed by you. This cannot influence your verdict regarding remaining charges. Count One is based solely on allegatoin that Libby falsely testified concerning 2 reporters, Russert and Cooper. You may consider evidence relating to July 12 Judy conversation to consider whether govt proved allegation beyond reasonable doubt."

And big bad Cheney:

"Walton You've heard evidence about NIE. THere is no dispute that POTUS has power to declassify previously authorized classified materials and disclose it topress. At least by July 8, it was declassified. Govt does not contend he did improper concerning those conversations after July 8 when he leaked NIE."

[MarkO]

Aarggg.

[Semanticleo]

Well, you did say you didn't like Libby's
story but that was a year-and-a-half ago.
Since that time the fires of outrage have gone to three-alarms because of incompetent, out-of-control prosecutors going after innocent college students-gone-wild, and
stoic, hard-working public servants.

More recently, you said you have no problem with a pardon should he be convicted. It must have been the approach of Valentine's Day inspiring you to protect one of the little guys from the bad ol' prosecutor.

[Rick Ballard]

I wonder what the Libby team's appellate division's log looks like? I could see the SC taking a look at some Sixth Amendment issues if a conviction on the the Russert charges get through the first appellate level.

[Indeciderer]

I hope Libby is found innocent so that our patriot leaders can continue to reveal CIA assets when necessary to get the ball rolling!

Putting war on hold due to "correct information" is unconscionable. Who do these spooks think they are, and why do they hate Bush and Cheney so much? I'll bet the CIA is just chock-a-block with 5th Column red diaper doper babies who would love nothing more than to see America go up in flames! That's what I don't understand about why the CIA was so upset about the "compromise" of Brewster Jennings!

If Plame was so very important to American security, what with running the Iraq Operation Group (in charge of finding Saddam's WMDs), and granting my postulation that the CIA wants to destroy America, wouldn't they (the CIA) be GLAD that Plame was exposed and Brewster Jennings destroyed?

[Indeciderer]

I hope Libby is found innocent so that our patriot leaders can continue to reveal CIA assets when necessary to get the ball rolling!

Putting war on hold due to "correct information" is unconscionable. Who do these spooks think they are, and why do they hate Bush and Cheney so much? I'll bet the CIA is just chock-a-block with 5th Column red diaper doper babies who would love nothing more than to see America go up in flames! That's what I don't understand about why the CIA was so upset about the "compromise" of Brewster Jennings!

If Plame was so very important to American security, what with running the Iraq Operation Group (in charge of finding Saddam's WMDs), and granting my postulation that the CIA wants to destroy America, wouldn't they (the CIA) be GLAD that Plame was exposed and Brewster Jennings destroyed?

[Ralph L.]

I hope the Russert thread is dead, or I may go mad.

[Patton]

It is kind of ironic that the NBS so-called journalists are all keeping silent at the request of the Federal Government.

Isn't that exactly what the 1st Amendment preachers like Russert warn us about, that journalists will not be able to be free and open discussion with the public?

Well, Tim, Andrea, Gregory, just where is this open discussion??

I STILL SAY RUSSERT HAD TO KNOW HE HAD A WEINK AND ANOD FROM FITZ THAT FITZ WOULD NOT DICUSS RUSSERTS GETTING IN BED WITH THE FBI. There is simply no other way to explain how Russert felt free to go on Tv and berate poeple like Novak for not fighting for the 1st amendment harder.

[Barney Frank]

Hey TM,

I very seldom have anything to take credit for here, and probably won't once again before I'm done, but in response to your question last week about whether Russert was "cold" enough to lie and thereby send Libby to jail, I responded with something very similar to your slippery slope of lies argument. I'm too lazy to look it up but I basically said that once one has told a small lie and recanting of that lie might later put you in legal jeopardy it becomes considerably easier to be as cold as one needs to if the choice has become him or you.

However I didn't copyright it so you may continue to use my one original thought with my blessings. Of course, unbeknownst to me, Cecil or Clarice probably posited the same thought eight or ten months ago anyway.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Wells wasn't bluffing about Cheney. He could have called him IF NECESSARY. Oddly enough, all humans who undergo surgical procedures sign BEFORE HAND an agreement of "what can happen." In some cases? You could wake up afterwards having lost your leg. Or your family gets to take you home in a box.

It seems the media wanted Cheney IN so that they could then do their "impeach Bush," and "frog march" songs.

And, as Wells has stipulated for the record. LIBBY's CASE NOW HAS APPEAL-ABLE merchandise in it. Will an Appeal's Court have appetite? I'd guess for items large and small. Including if Comey was within the Constitution to even appoint Fitz.

But that's for another day.

And, just like in poker, you can CALL, when you think your opponent hasn't got the good cards, his bets on the table, claims he does.

With the mess of ice out there in DC; and the cold Walton has, too. WHy not send the jurors home?

The media has a downside? That's not what makes all breaks battle scenes. Not here. Not during the Civil War. And, not in Baghdad,either.

But let the partisan warfare continue. Americans have been swirling in this stuff now for at least a generation.

[Patton]

How did Russert know Echenrode wouldn't call up Libby and say "I'd like to discuss my interview with Mr. Russert"??

[centralcal]

Tom M.: A quote from this post made The Corner at NRO (Byron York)

Posted by: centralcal | February 14, 2007 at 02:13 PM

oops - i put it on the wrong thread.

[maryrose]

Plenty of room for appeal. I don't believe the jury will have a unanimous verdict. The school teacher and the older retired woman sans the T-shirt are probably our best bet for siding with Libby. I believe the former journo will want to hang him high.

[maryrose]

Plenty of room for appeal. I don't believe the jury will have a unanimous verdict. The school teacher and the older retired woman sans the T-shirt are probably our best bet for siding with Libby. I believe the former journo will want to hang him high.

[clarice]

There are so many times that we all find the same cite or raise the same or similar thoughts that failure of attribution is understandable.

I want to say that after all the build up about this case, the jury will certainly be comparing the sloppy, often contradictory testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, with the crisp clear narrative of the defendant's. And it will not be overlooked how quickly the defense completed its case and the prosecutor offered no rebuttal.
The sense that this is a trivial matter, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt was conveyed by the choreography.

[Ralph L.]

Barney, I think Wm. Shakespeare beat you both: O what tangled webs we weave.
I think you're right in this case. Of course, Russert's memory is probably worse than Libby's.

[Sue]

You know, we will never know what Russert might have said that triggered a memory, if indeed it happened that way. For instance, Russert claims that during the telephone conversation between Libby and Russert, they didn't discuss Wilson or his wife. Hockey puck. Anyway, that isn't where I was going with this, but what if during Libby's rant over Matthews' show, Russert said something like we are hearing rumors nepotism was involved? There were so many questions Russert wasn't asked. Damn it!

[Sue]

Hey Tom:

Not to be outdone by the HuffPo, Byron York has linked you today! The Corner

[jwest]

It’s a damn shame we need to rely on Imus to get the truth out of Russert, Gregory and Mitchell.

[maryrose]

Russert not remembering yelling at a Buffalo journo strains credulity.That and the FBI/Fitz deal cries to heaven.Jury must take notice of that.

[Ralph L.]

Clarice, one hopes the jurors get the sense it was the prosecution trying to keep things out and smoke over things, unusual in a criminal trial. When I was on a jury it was pretty obvious who wanted to confuse and obscure, and why.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

For my money Wells & Company will have the jurors grateful for the speed with with he concluded the obvious. And, if the jury hangs? No more than one or two.

The journalist in the room? Probably gets together with Woodward, for a wonderful show and tell book, UNDER BOTH THEIR NAMES, afterwards.

And, then there's George Tenet. He stopped the presses. His book was due out on Feb. 6th. For some "re-writing."

I think Tenet just slides into this puddle, adding more gist to what we know. And, he too will be UN-believable.

As to Russert? I do expect "clip-pets. Little Green Footballs can do this. And, other sites might chime in. No longer is it necessary to wait for the nutworks. Or partisan reviews.

[Javani]

I have yet to see one decent speculation from these folks what Cheney could testify to.

That Scooter was a busy man? Taken care by Scooter's underlings.

That Cheney told Libby about Wilson's Wife? Scooter testified to that already via the GJ transcript.

Cheney overheard Libby talking to Cooper? Unlikely.

What could the prosecution use Cheney for?

If Cheney didn't tell Scooter, well, why isn't that a perjury count too?

And if prosecution pursued the reasons why Cheney might be miffed about the false accusations against himself, that brings in Joe Wilson, the very last thing the prosecution would want.

[lurker]

OT: I can't stand Jack Murtha making comments about "bleeding" the troops so that Bush will have fewer troops to deal with in the next two years.

He needs to be voted OUT!

[Sue]

Think about Russert this way. If, after the indictment was read, and not only was Russert listed, but so were Cooper and Miller, Russert has a conscience clearing moment where he doesn't see that setting the record straight would do anything but expose his source. Libby lied about 2 other reporters so mine is minor. Now, what if Cooper and Miller both get tossed? How will Little Russ feel then? Just speculating, as I'm want to do.

[Alcibiades]

I dunno about the rest of you, but I was feeling more bullish yesterday.

Clearly the defense was using their peripheral vision, but do you think they were counting on having almost everything they asked for for the record denied? And I'm still annoyed about Russert not being publicly impeached. Man did he deserve it.

Maybe I'll perk up a bit more after the closing, but at this point, it seems like a let down, and too close to call except maybe in a direction I don't want to go into.

Clarice, I certainly hope someone like your husband is on the jury.

Maryrose or anyone:

DId the info about the FBI/FItz deal make it into the evidence?

[Sue]

If Scooter is found guilty, especially on the Russert charges, and Russert, Mitchell and Gregory knew something, prior to July 10 or 11, 2003, they will be miserable, if they have any conscience at all. I hope we see it in their faces.

[clarice]

Javani--I think he was an insurance policy. If the defense couldn't get in thru Hannah and the CIA briefers,the stuff about Libby's memory and high work load and the threats he was dealing with,they would have tried to get it in w/ Cheney's testomny and call Libby to the stand only as a last resort if they could not get this stuff in otherwise.

[JOMJunkie]

I hope Novak writes a column about Russert's lack of honesty and integrity in reporting about this trial and his deception with regard to providing information to the FBI with out a subpoena.

[azaghal]

FWIW, I'm on board with TM's conspiracy explanation for Russert's role. His simply non-credible testimony, along with the public statements by both himself and his colleagues, leave little room for any other explanation that I can come up with.

[clarice]

MarkO explained better than anyone the role of the NBC lawyers in this--now you know why operators like that make big bucks.

[centralcal]

Sue: I do not believe Russert, Mitchell or Gregory will be miserable at all, and I think they have already rationalized any falsehoods they may have told.

OTOH, I also believe what you send out into the world returns to you. They would do well to think about that.

[Indeciderer]

but why would Pumpkinhead Russert, also known as Cheney and Matalin's "go-to" guy, sell them down the river?

[verner]

Clarice:The sense that this is a trivial matter, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt was conveyed by the choreography.

Exactly Clarice. And after all the money and hyper-driven coverage against the Bush Administration, it all comes down to this lame ass presentation by the formerly godlike special prosecutor.

I think it is pretty evident that Fitz knows he's whooped.

But the real losers--the press. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites. You think the NYT will ever do a long piece on the lies of Valerie and Joseph Wilson--starting with there was no "behest" about it.

Me either.

[JM Hanes]

Javani:

I've always contended that the Cheney-annotated Wilson op-ed was the prosecution's attempt to put the VP on the stand without actually asking him to answer any questions. Cheney was a mixed bag for Libby, depending on how issues at trial developed, but given the highly inferential nature of the prosecution's case, there's every reason to believe he was probably Fitzgerald's worst nightmare. The anti-Cheney crowd is just too obtuse to realize it.

[Rick Ballard]

Azaghal,

They held a perjury rehearsal on national TV. The "no one here but us chickens, boss" act was cute but fooled only those very willing to be fooled.

Russert has dragged his and NBC's reputation in the mud. If NBC won't boot him then GE needs to make a move. If they don't then they are no better than the liar they pay for his "prestige".

[Alcibiades]

Yeah, Clarice. I agree.

I wrote in the other thread that I think the NBC lawyer completely put it over on this judge. At times the judge seems unbelievably naive about the lawyers motivations. Naive may be construed as a euphemism here.

So what was the final deal about Russert - nothing that was discussed earlier was entered into evidence for the jury?

[Sue]

When the jurors came in 45 minutes ago for the final evidence presented in this case, 13 of the 14 juros (12 jurors and 2 alternates) were wearing bright red t-shirts with a large white heart on the front. The shirts appeared to be new… The one juror not wearing a red shirt was an elderly woman who works as an art curator. A man on the jury, who is a retired school teacher originally from north carolina, then read a statement to the court. The man said the jury wanted to "thank the clerks, marshalls, and judge for all of the accomodations made" for the jury during this trial. The juror then said the entire jury understands their responsibilities in this case and that their "unanimity may now go no further." "But on behalf of the jury," said this man, "we want to wish everybody a Happy Valentine's day."

What the hell does this imply? Have they already deliberated?

[Alcibiades]

FWIW, I'm on board with TM's conspiracy explanation for Russert's role. His simply non-credible testimony, along with the public statements by both himself and his colleagues, leave little room for any other explanation that I can come up with.

I'm on board with it too. But the media hasn't touched it. So it won't get out generally. There won't be any "narrative" about it. The rest of the media will forget by next week.

[Rick Ballard]

There needs to be a quick investigation of the T-shirt idea, given that it appeared on this blog a couple days ago. The jurors were specifically warned not to go online and read up on the trial.

[Ralph L.]

Wonder if NRO looks at our blather in the comments. I like my potential headline "All's Wells that Ends Wilsons," and I don't charge royalties.

[JM Hanes]

Sue:

I think he was just saying that they hope they'll be able to be as unanimous in the upcoming deliberations as they are in saying thanks today.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Maryrose, I have a feeling the retired journo will be the surprise for Libby. He used to work for Woodward and Woodward made the NBC and NYT crew look like idiots. I don't know, of course, but the embarrassing testimony couldn't sit well with him as it spills over to besmirch the whole profession.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Maryrose, I have a feeling the retired journo will be the surprise for Libby. He used to work for Woodward and Woodward made the NBC and NYT crew look like idiots. I don't know, of course, but the embarrassing testimony couldn't sit well with him as it spills over to besmirch the whole profession.

[Alcibiades]

Sue: I do not believe Russert, Mitchell or Gregory will be miserable at all, and I think they have already rationalized any falsehoods they may have told.

More than that, I think by now they believe their lies.

“"I have done that," says my memory. "I cannot have done that" -- says my pride, and remains adamant. At last -- memory yields.”

--- Nietzsche

Perfect, no?

[kate]

I'm not reading too much into the comments and tee-shirts.

My first indicator will be the length of deliberations. A real quick verdict will be an acquital I think.

[Jane]

Alcibiades,

I've had the exact same reaction as you, but I'm not sure if that due to my disappointment over Russert (who I used to love) or some fear for Libby. I have enough faith in Wells to think it is the former. We may have all gloated over impeaching Russert, but the jury may have seen it as an unnecessary foul on the guy who takes care of Big Russ (film at 11)when he is not keeping politicians honest. HA!

Like Clarice, I expect a brilliant close - and the fact that they have 6 days to prepare it, makes me even happier.

As for all the stuff that didn't get it. My guess is Wells didn't expect to get a lot of it in, and had a contingency in every incidence. You never can rely on a Judge ruling your way. You have to plan for the alternative.

[Sue]

Do we know anything about the lady who didn't wear a t-shirt? From voir dire?

[clarice]

Yes, Jane.
And I'd not bank on the heart tshirts meaning anything..

JPod thinks Libby's banking on a hung jury. I say that's a possibility, but I'd bet he's banking on an acquittal on all counts. I am.

The contrast between the prosecution and the defense and the quick wrap up tells the jury--PHEH to all that--you are too smart to fall for this political crap.