My personal opinion is that it is going to be difficult for the jury to believe that Scooter Libby knew about Ms. Plame before talking to Tim Russert from other sources, but somehow forgot that he knew that when talking to Tim Russert so that he was "surprised by it" in his initial testimony to the Grand Jury.
This stinks of Libby trying to either cover his own ass or to cover Dick Cheney's ass because at that time Libby may have thought that Ms. Plame could have been covert, which she was not.
My personal opinion is that this whole thing is a travesty of justice and one more demonstration of the monumental stupidity of the special counsel laws which have invariably been used to pursue political witch-hunts, not substantive crimes.
Libby will be pardoned if convicted and upheld on appeal. It is unlikely that a conviction will be upheld on appeal though because higher courts tend to look at the larger picture and my bet is they will conclude that there is no justice involved in convicting Scooter Libby of being confused and trying to protect his boss when no crime was actually committed.
Frankly, I think they'll just sit there in some bewilderment and say "well he seems to have been guilty of something," and barter out which two of the four they can all sort of agree on.
There is a lot of mind reading in your analysis: Cheney thought, a bunch of mid-levels thought, Libby thought, Rove paniced.
It seems pretty clear that Libby has an odd memory. He either didn't think clearly or he lied. Probably both. My guess is he thought some big event like Watergate was underway and it wasn't. Shrewder people just sized things up better.
But there I go, reading minds too.
Not one person in politics in the entire nation gives a damn about the waste of taxpayers money. And that is one mind reading generalization I really believe.
I really don't think it's mind-reading so much as analysis of group dynamics in a bureaucracy. A form of anthropology, if you will.
As I see it there are really only two rational explanations for what happened here:
1) An insanely angry Dick Cheney decided that he and his staff would flagrantly violate the law and plot to out an undercover agent solely as an act of vicious revenge. Damn the consequences and despite no possible rational gain, they did it just because they were utterly ruthless, power-mad bastards intent on destroying all who would dare disagree with them.
2) They thought Joe Wilson was a partisan hack jerk and decided they should discredit him as one. When they learned his wife might have been undercover agent and that they potentially violated the law unwittingly, accused of outing an undercover agent, everyone freaked because no one was sure they knew the law on the matter, and they all went into CYA mode.
Apply Occam's Razor and tell me which you find the more reasonable story.
Feel free to offer a third scenario, but I'm not seeing it so far.
The W.H. didn't like what Wilson was saying. And, taking a cue, someone tried leaks to discredit him. Standard political procedure, not at all nice, but done all the time.
Once the Plame/CIA connection popped everyone was cool except Libby. Individually they hoped it would go away but knew they were OK. Just avoid perjury and don't impede justice.
Libby, for some reason - paranoia, stress, drugs, whatever - got mentally confused. Soon he couldn't sort out what had happened. Then he foolishly tried to tap-dance under oath.
Where we would differ is on the group dynamics. After the story broke I don't think there was a group dynamic. Shrewd people knew better than to discuss it among themselves or conspire after the fact.
Well, that's not bad, but some of the communications we've seen revealed from the White House and the Veep's office make that a little more strained. There seems to have been some classic "blamestorming" going on here.
I think it's silly to expect that everyone knew the laws on this perfectly. I'm sure a lot of them, even many lawyers, suddenly thought, "Oh crap, did we violate the law? We didn't did we? Did we?!"
Libby's defense team's effort to make him look like a fall guy plays into that pretty well actually.
I think we agree that your variation and my variation of #2 make a hundred times more sense than the "Power mad lunatics bent on utter destruction of anyone who ever dared get in their way, even with much to lose and little to gain," though. This is the main reason this whole sordid mess has never been something I can really take seriously as anything but a witch hunt. The means are there, but not the motive.
Saying, "this guy's an idiot, he's not credible, he's just a hack who got his job due to nepotism" is not an evil sinister plot to destroy. This whole thing hinges on the idea of an evil sinister plot to destroy, and that's never made sense.
And no, I wouldn't be saying anything different if it were a Democratic administration.
As Andrea Mitchell once said, everybody in Washington knew Plame was Wilson’s wife, and that she worked for the CIA.
Wilson, Mr. Loyal Democrat, shops his story around to all the big name left leaning newsies. Russert, Mitchell, Woodward, Miller, et al.
He told them, basically, Bush lied, people died, and I have proof! I went to Nigeria to check on the claim that Saddam wanted to buy uranium in Africa, and I found it was complete BS. And I dutifully filed my report on the trip long before the infamous State of The Union address.
And the administration HAD to have read my report, because I made the trip at the request of the VP himself!
So the news folk, not being complete morons or political hacks, do their due diligence, and try to validate Wilson’s claims by checking in with their favorite sources within the administration. Maybe they were familiar with Wilson’s penchant for exaggeration and self promotion, so they were particularly skeptical.
And some talked with Ari, some with Libby, some with Armitage. Maybe some of them talked with all three. Maybe they asked “Did Cheney send really Wilson to Africa?” So Libby, Ari, or whoever tries to find out.
And since “everybody” knew Plame was Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA, maybe the first question the reporters asked was “Did Wilson’s wife have anything to do with his trip?”
This all plays out over a period of 3 or 4 months, as Wilson goes from one reporter to another. So maybe by the third month, administration officials start getting a little sloppy about their record keeping, and thier memories get a little fuzzy as everything starts to blend together.
And maybe they all figured Plame’s connection to Wilson really was common knowledge, so the conversations were just naturally loose, and not particularly memorable.
The investigation begins a few years later. And neither the reporters nor the administration officials can truly remember who exactly they talked to about the event, when they talked, or what was said. So their stories didn't all match up.
And that’s it. No wrong doing by anyone. Just some chest thumping, possibly politically motivated bravado by Wilson.
And the rest? Just honest to goodness, lack of recollection about events from a few years past, which no one at the time thought were particularly significant or worth noting.
Jaymaster: My problem with your scenario is that Libby's statements directly disagreed with several trial witnesses. If he had said 'I don't remember' or 'I can't be sure' when questioned it would have gone no further.
So, as above, I concluded that Libby wandered into perjury because he was not thinking clearly. I can't know why. Maybe he thought he was Jack Bauer about to sacrifice himself for the nation.
Dean's "brainstorming" after Novak published may be right. Any discussions at all are pretty risky once Bush called in the FBI and Justice.
I followed only what was said at trial and that seemed to confirm that Libby did not tell the truth. I doubt if it is perjury if you believe what you said. Did Libby?
My faith in the system is such that you can not only indict a ham sandwich, you can probably convict one.
Nit-pick: The term is "blamestorming." And it's what happens in a bureaucracy--any bureaucracy--when everyone's afraid and no one wants to be the goat.
When you work for any administration and the FBI comes a knockin', you don't lawyer up. Especially if the President does the right thing and demands that everyone cooperate.
Thank God we got rid of the independent prosecutors. They were a horrible idea from day one, and have brought the country nothing but grief.
Dean: The eye sees what it expects. that's how I came up with brainstorming.
You might not lawyer up/ clam up ala 5th amendment and give no response. But you should damn well get legal advise privately before an interview.
I agree totally about the independent prosecutor years. It was a stupid and awkward process which achieved less than nothing.
In the Plame case any attempt to obstruct justice was far more dangerous than just telling the truth. So I doubt there was such activity.
We probably won't know it all until Bob Woodward again channels someone who just died.
2.22.2007 6:01pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
My personal opinion is that it is going to be difficult for the jury to believe that Scooter Libby knew about Ms. Plame before talking to Tim Russert from other sources, but somehow forgot that he knew that when talking to Tim Russert so that he was "surprised by it" in his initial testimony to the Grand Jury.
This stinks of Libby trying to either cover his own ass or to cover Dick Cheney's ass because at that time Libby may have thought that Ms. Plame could have been covert, which she was not.
My personal opinion is that this whole thing is a travesty of justice and one more demonstration of the monumental stupidity of the special counsel laws which have invariably been used to pursue political witch-hunts, not substantive crimes.
Libby will be pardoned if convicted and upheld on appeal. It is unlikely that a conviction will be upheld on appeal though because higher courts tend to look at the larger picture and my bet is they will conclude that there is no justice involved in convicting Scooter Libby of being confused and trying to protect his boss when no crime was actually committed.
Just my $.02.
It seems pretty clear that Libby has an odd memory. He either didn't think clearly or he lied. Probably both. My guess is he thought some big event like Watergate was underway and it wasn't. Shrewder people just sized things up better.
But there I go, reading minds too.
Not one person in politics in the entire nation gives a damn about the waste of taxpayers money. And that is one mind reading generalization I really believe.
As I see it there are really only two rational explanations for what happened here:
1) An insanely angry Dick Cheney decided that he and his staff would flagrantly violate the law and plot to out an undercover agent solely as an act of vicious revenge. Damn the consequences and despite no possible rational gain, they did it just because they were utterly ruthless, power-mad bastards intent on destroying all who would dare disagree with them.
2) They thought Joe Wilson was a partisan hack jerk and decided they should discredit him as one. When they learned his wife might have been undercover agent and that they potentially violated the law unwittingly, accused of outing an undercover agent, everyone freaked because no one was sure they knew the law on the matter, and they all went into CYA mode.
Apply Occam's Razor and tell me which you find the more reasonable story.
Feel free to offer a third scenario, but I'm not seeing it so far.
The W.H. didn't like what Wilson was saying. And, taking a cue, someone tried leaks to discredit him. Standard political procedure, not at all nice, but done all the time.
Once the Plame/CIA connection popped everyone was cool except Libby. Individually they hoped it would go away but knew they were OK. Just avoid perjury and don't impede justice.
Libby, for some reason - paranoia, stress, drugs, whatever - got mentally confused. Soon he couldn't sort out what had happened. Then he foolishly tried to tap-dance under oath.
Where we would differ is on the group dynamics. After the story broke I don't think there was a group dynamic. Shrewd people knew better than to discuss it among themselves or conspire after the fact.
I think it's silly to expect that everyone knew the laws on this perfectly. I'm sure a lot of them, even many lawyers, suddenly thought, "Oh crap, did we violate the law? We didn't did we? Did we?!"
Libby's defense team's effort to make him look like a fall guy plays into that pretty well actually.
I think we agree that your variation and my variation of #2 make a hundred times more sense than the "Power mad lunatics bent on utter destruction of anyone who ever dared get in their way, even with much to lose and little to gain," though. This is the main reason this whole sordid mess has never been something I can really take seriously as anything but a witch hunt. The means are there, but not the motive.
Saying, "this guy's an idiot, he's not credible, he's just a hack who got his job due to nepotism" is not an evil sinister plot to destroy. This whole thing hinges on the idea of an evil sinister plot to destroy, and that's never made sense.
And no, I wouldn't be saying anything different if it were a Democratic administration.
As Andrea Mitchell once said, everybody in Washington knew Plame was Wilson’s wife, and that she worked for the CIA.
Wilson, Mr. Loyal Democrat, shops his story around to all the big name left leaning newsies. Russert, Mitchell, Woodward, Miller, et al.
He told them, basically, Bush lied, people died, and I have proof! I went to Nigeria to check on the claim that Saddam wanted to buy uranium in Africa, and I found it was complete BS. And I dutifully filed my report on the trip long before the infamous State of The Union address.
And the administration HAD to have read my report, because I made the trip at the request of the VP himself!
So the news folk, not being complete morons or political hacks, do their due diligence, and try to validate Wilson’s claims by checking in with their favorite sources within the administration. Maybe they were familiar with Wilson’s penchant for exaggeration and self promotion, so they were particularly skeptical.
And some talked with Ari, some with Libby, some with Armitage. Maybe some of them talked with all three. Maybe they asked “Did Cheney send really Wilson to Africa?” So Libby, Ari, or whoever tries to find out.
And since “everybody” knew Plame was Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA, maybe the first question the reporters asked was “Did Wilson’s wife have anything to do with his trip?”
This all plays out over a period of 3 or 4 months, as Wilson goes from one reporter to another. So maybe by the third month, administration officials start getting a little sloppy about their record keeping, and thier memories get a little fuzzy as everything starts to blend together.
And maybe they all figured Plame’s connection to Wilson really was common knowledge, so the conversations were just naturally loose, and not particularly memorable.
The investigation begins a few years later. And neither the reporters nor the administration officials can truly remember who exactly they talked to about the event, when they talked, or what was said. So their stories didn't all match up.
And that’s it. No wrong doing by anyone. Just some chest thumping, possibly politically motivated bravado by Wilson.
And the rest? Just honest to goodness, lack of recollection about events from a few years past, which no one at the time thought were particularly significant or worth noting.
So, as above, I concluded that Libby wandered into perjury because he was not thinking clearly. I can't know why. Maybe he thought he was Jack Bauer about to sacrifice himself for the nation.
Dean's "brainstorming" after Novak published may be right. Any discussions at all are pretty risky once Bush called in the FBI and Justice.
I followed only what was said at trial and that seemed to confirm that Libby did not tell the truth. I doubt if it is perjury if you believe what you said. Did Libby?
My faith in the system is such that you can not only indict a ham sandwich, you can probably convict one.
When you work for any administration and the FBI comes a knockin', you don't lawyer up. Especially if the President does the right thing and demands that everyone cooperate.
Thank God we got rid of the independent prosecutors. They were a horrible idea from day one, and have brought the country nothing but grief.
You might not lawyer up/ clam up ala 5th amendment and give no response. But you should damn well get legal advise privately before an interview.
I agree totally about the independent prosecutor years. It was a stupid and awkward process which achieved less than nothing.
In the Plame case any attempt to obstruct justice was far more dangerous than just telling the truth. So I doubt there was such activity.
We probably won't know it all until Bob Woodward again channels someone who just died.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.