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

[Alcibiades]

Do you have any idea as to how John Burns keeps the NYT editorial commissariat away from his stories?

I bet he has it in his contract.

[JM Hanes]

Jane/MayBee

I trust the best part of the day went well. Mine didn't really get moving till I fell out of my chair, ROTFLMAO, over your exchange at 4:21-4! Here in the South, of course, the best part of my day starts with a cola & a smoke. Then I throw my shotgun into the pick-up, and just drive around humming Dixie till God tells me what he wants me to do.

RalphL

Yup. It's not far to the mall, but you'd be a lot more likely to see me at Home Depot.

[JM Hanes]

Jane/MayBee

I trust the best part of the day went well. Mine didn't really get moving till I fell out of my chair, ROTFLMAO, over your exchange at 4:21-4! Here in the South, of course, the best part of my day starts with a cola & a smoke. Then I throw my shotgun into the pick-up, and just drive around humming Dixie till God tells me what he wants me to do.

RalphL

Yup. It's not far to the mall, but you'd be a lot more likely to see me at Home Depot.

[MayBee]

Heh, JMH.
I worry about you driving around in winter, what with no fresh hay to dangle between your lips to help you cogitate.
Maybe in the winter you switch to a corn cob pipe?

[JM Hanes]

Not to worry! That's why they invented toothpicks.