Wishful Thinking at the Post

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Wishful Thinking at the Post

Posted Mar 8th 2007 8:09PM by John Hinderaker
Filed under: Politics, Power Line, Media

Has any event ever engendered as much silly commentary as the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story? The latest is by Dan Froomkin, who engages in some heavy breathing at the Washington Post. Froomkin has a theory. His theory is that Scooter Libby suddenly rested his defense, rather than calling Dick Cheney as a witness on his behalf and testifying himself, because his lawyers reached a mid-trial agreement with President Bush whereby Libby would take a dive rather than "spill plenty of White House secrets," and Bush agreed to pardon Libby down the road.

This is a mind-numbingly stupid idea. First, if Libby and his lawyer, Ted Wells, really thought that Libby had a defense that could secure an acquittal, why would they, in effect, throw the trial in exchange for a pardon that would at best leave Libby a convicted felon? Froomkin might say: because the outcome was doubtful, and a pardon guarantees that Libby won't go to jail. But even on that assumption, it makes no sense for Libby not to testify, if he otherwise would have.

Let's assume that Bush and Libby made the bargain that Froomkin hypothesizes. In that case, what both Bush and Libby would want is for Libby to testify, consistent with the eight hours of grand jury testimony that the jury had already heard. Libby said nothing bad about Cheney or the administration in his grand jury testimony, and he could have taken the stand and done likewise at trial. Then, if the jury believed Libby's defense that any errors in his grand jury testimony were due to faulty memory, they would acquit him. If they didn't believe him and convicted, the pardon would then be available.

So it makes no sense to say that Bush bargained a pardon against Libby's silence.

Froomkin draws support for his theory from this supposed mystery: in his opening statement, Wells described Libby as a "scapegoat" or "sacrificial lamb," but then offered no evidence whatsoever to support those claims. In fact, however, there is nothing mysterious about this at all. As I pointed out here, Wells had an excellent reason to make those claims at the outset of the trial: he knew that the jurors were Democrats, and most of them detested the Bush administration, of which Libby was a prominent member. So he wanted to defuse that prejudice by distancing his client from the President and Karl Rove.

But the "scapegoat" theory never made an ounce of sense. A scapegoat or sacrificial lamb is someone who takes the blame for something he didn't do. But that is the exact opposite of Libby's situation. He was indicted for perjury because he denied talking to reporters about Valerie Plame, when the evidence showed that he had. His defense always was that he made innocent mistakes due to a faulty memory. There is no way to reconcile that defense with being a "scapegoat" or fall guy. And no other witness tried to blame Libby for "leaking" Plame's name. Far from it; both Richard ("I'm the leaker!") Armitage and Karl Rove told the grand jury about their own conversations with reporters.

What we're seeing here is a case of mass delusion brought on by wishful thinking. Democrats like Froomkin desperately want Libby's perjury conviction to reflect badly on someone other than Libby. It simply doesn't. If the jury was right, then Libby panicked and lied because he thought he could be in trouble for mentioning Plame's CIA employment to one or more reporters. That's a personal tragedy, but it has nothing to do with Dick Cheney or anyone else. On the contrary, Cheney evidently was one of the witnesses who told investigators about conversations inside the executive branch, and thereby contradicted Libby's testimony. Only the strange era we live in, in which every event is seen through the lens of the left's hatred of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, can explain the senseless news coverage and commentary that have characterized the Libby case.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [13]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)

1. Remember- Valerie Plame had not been covert for 6 years- and everyone knew who she was. The jury actually convicted him of not remembering conversations he may have had about a crime he did not commit. So he is a busy man who was guilty of a high level position in the Bush administration. It was always about get Bush/Cheney syndrome. What Fitzgerald did to that man and his family is truly evil. Democrats have always made me sick.

chrissy at 7:45PM on Mar 9th 2007

2. I think you mis-characterized Froomkin. You write that Froomkin's "theory is that Scooter Libby suddenly rested his defense, rather than calling Dick Cheney as a witness on his behalf and testifying himself, because his lawyers reached a mid-trial agreement with President Bush whereby Libby would take a dive rather than "spill plenty of White House secrets," and Bush agreed to pardon Libby down the road.""

In fact, Froomkin's theory seems more along the lines that Libby may have used the spectacle of the VP on the stand as leverage to secure a guarantee of a pardon, and that it worked. It doesn't seem that Froomkin suggests that Libby was going to "take a dive", but rather more like "If I go down, someone else is going down with me".

Paul Galvin at 9:35PM on Mar 8th 2007

3. I don't understand where the misconstruction ostensibly lies. Here is what Froomkin wrote:

"Was Team Libby's threat to attack Rove, call Cheney to the stand and potentially spill plenty of White House secrets just a bargaining chip in some sort of negotiation? Was their decision to rest their case in any way related to any promises from the White House?

Could Libby have made some sort of a deal with the White House to ensure a presidential pardon?""

I think you misunderstood my post. My reference to "taking a dive" meant not putting on much of a defense, i.e., not testifying and not calling Cheney.

John Hinderaker at 10:54PM on Mar 8th 2007

4. Why is it difficult to understand that there was no crime, so there was not justice to obstruct. Fitzgerald had the name of the person who told Bob Knovac about V. Plame and her employ. Wilson told two different stories. One to the CIA, and the other, after joining the Kerry camp, to the New York Times. I doubt he lied to the CIA. Wilson hinted or indicated he had been sent by the VP on this mission. It is natural for the administration to find the truth about the lies Wilson was spewing. What the left expects is that this adminstration reacts as the Clinton administration had, in that they viciously attack any criticizm. Liars alway think they are being lied to, cheaters alway think they are being cheated, etc, etc. There was no chance of Libby getting a fair trial in Washington DC. The jury pool is tainted.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at 11:41PM on Mar 8th 2007

5. Long after the CIA recommended this issue to the DOJ (on 6-10-04, in fact) President Bush had this conversation:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, exactly, Roberts. (Laughter.)

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

So how many in the administration admitted to leaking during grand juries? Count them. How many were fired? The answers are the reasons that we think this case was about more than just perjury. Or about obstruction of justice, which wasn't mentioned in this post. It was also, incidentally, about revealing an undercover agent.

If Plame was not a NOC and the CIA erred in sending this case to the DOJ, then President Bush had only to come out and say, "Plame/Wilson was in no way undercover--case dismissed." Instead, he claimed he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.

So this case is clearly much deeper than purely perjury, or even obstruction of justice. And if people like Froomkin are speculating, it may not be because they're senseless, heavy-breathing, mind-numbingly stupid, etc.

lil_turk at 5:18AM on Mar 9th 2007

6. Dubya and CO have walked into a political trap. If George is true to form Libby will get pardoned and the "coverup" theory gains legs. Froomkin was the first, perhaps, to stain the water with this idea but it was inevitable. Now the Repubs have another millstone for '08.

Samlc at 9:32AM on Mar 9th 2007

7. >>So how many in the administration admitted to leaking during grand juries? Count them. How many were fired? The answers are the reasons that we think this case was about more than just perjury. Or about obstruction of justice, which wasn't mentioned in this post. It was also, incidentally, about revealing an undercover agent.

Who leaked her name though? It wasn't Libby, Rove, or anyone else in the White House. It was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. There was no reason to fire anyone, including Libby, because he didn't leak her name. Armitage did. It's that simple. Surely talking to reporters about Plame is different than leaking her name, right? Or do you prefer the White House has no recourse to answer its critics?

>>It was also, incidentally, about revealing an undercover agent.

Where was she undercover? The original investigation centered on whether the revelation went against the IIPA, which specifies that the agent had to be abroad in the last 5 years (which Plame was not) and the disclosure had to be intentional. Victoria Toensing, one of the authors of the IIPA, said as much that since Plame was not abroad in the last 5 years, this did not apply. As for the intentional part, it wouldn't matter if Libby's remarks were intentional or not. At the time, Plame's identity had already been revealed by Armitage.

>>So this case is clearly much deeper than purely perjury, or even obstruction of justice.

No offense intended, but you have to take the facts of the case, not what Fitzgerald or the media say about it (or paranoid left-wing blogs who think Plame was a super secret spy). Once it was known Armitage leaked Plame's name (as Fitzgerald knew when he started) and that revealing so did not violate the IIPA there was no reason to investigate further. Libby did not leak her name and even if he did it wouldn't have gone against the IIPA. Case closed.

Mike at 9:52AM on Mar 9th 2007

8. The entire event was not about Libby or leaking a name. One only has to look at the track record of this administration. Everything is done in secret, bush and cheney protect themselves in anyway possible. Making a deal with Libby is not beneath their ways or thinking. If they felt anything could get back to them or show they were involved, Libby would be well taken care of, being the Fall Guy. If Libby is pardoned, a number of people will be eating their own words.

David Rosenberg at 12:24PM on Mar 9th 2007

9. To Mike,

Are you saying that because Armitage leaked Plame's name it was impossible for others to do so?

Our president was in a great position to know whether Plame was undercover. He had simply to talk to the CIA. They'll give him time. If Plame was in no way covert and the administration did nothing wrong, then all he had to do was say that. The case would have disappeared. Why didn't he do that?

And I don't recall the president announcing that he fired Armitage.

lil_turk at 4:25PM on Mar 9th 2007

10. Ted Wells, Libby's lawyer, thinks Libby ws thrown to the wolves:

"I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president's former chief of staff, was made a scapegoat by White House officials to protect the president's longtime political adviser, Karl Rove, Mr. Libby's lawyer asserted in his opening statement on Tuesday.

The unexpected assertion may foreshadow an effort to put distance between Mr. Libby and the administration.

The statement by the lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., was the first indication that Mr. Libby, who is facing five felony counts of lying to investigators, would seek to deflect some of the blame onto his former White House colleagues.

Mr. Wells did not, however, fully explain the connection between an effort to protect Mr. Rove and the actions that led to Mr. Libby's indictment. It was also the first sign that there had been fighting within the Bush administration over the C.I.A. leak investigation.

Until Tuesday, Mr. Libby's defense on perjury and obstruction of justice charges was that he might simply have remembered incorrectly events he had described to a grand jury and to F.B.I. agents. But Mr. Wells told the jury that White House officials, whom he did not name, wanted to protect Mr. Rove because they believed his survival as President Bush's chief political adviser was crucial to the health of the Republican Party.

Mr. Wells said that his client was innocent and that a decision was made that ''Scooter Libby was to be sacrificed,'' referring to Mr. Libby by his nickname. It was important to keep Mr. Rove out of trouble, Mr. Wells said, because he was Mr. Bush's right-hand man and ''was most responsible for seeing the Republican Party stayed in office.''

''He had to be protected,'' Mr. Wells said."

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

January 24, 2007 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1235 words

HEADLINE: Libby Defense Portrays Client As a Scapegoat

BYLINE: By NEIL A. LEWIS; Sarah Abruzzese contributed reporting.

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 23

BODY:

Steve J. at 4:42PM on Mar 9th 2007

11. "First, if Libby and his lawyer, Ted Wells, really thought that Libby had a defense that could secure an acquittal, why would they, in effect, throw the trial in exchange for a pardon that would at best leave Libby a convicted felon? "

If it made no sense, then why did Wells propose it? Did he think the jurors were stupid?

Steve J. at 7:40PM on Mar 9th 2007

12. "First, if Libby and his lawyer, Ted Wells, really thought that Libby had a defense that could secure an acquittal, why would they, in effect, throw the trial in exchange for a pardon that would at best leave Libby a convicted felon? "

If it made no sense, then why did Wells propose it? Did he think the jurors were stupid?

Steve J. at 7:40PM on Mar 9th 2007

13. "This is a mind-numbingly stupid idea. First, if Libby and his lawyer, Ted Wells, really thought that Libby had a defense that could secure an acquittal, why would they, in effect, throw the trial in exchange for a pardon that would at best leave Libby a convicted felon? Froomkin might say: because the outcome was doubtful, and a pardon guarantees that Libby won't go to jail. But even on that assumption, it makes no sense for Libby not to testify, if he otherwise would have." - John Hinderaker

Mr. Hinderaker,

I'd like to point out a terrible flaw in your line of reasoning: You wrote that it makes no sense for Libby not to testify.

Incorrect.

Any first-year law school student, or avid viewer of Law & Order, will tell you that you never, ever open your client or yourself up to cross-examination in open court unless you absolutely, positively, without a doubt have no other choice.

Had Mr. Libby testified, Mr. Fitzgerald would have had any and every opportunity to question not only Mr. Libby's testimony but Mr. Libby's basic credentials and, of course, his connections with others in the West Wing. That's Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove, and, of course, Mr. Bush.

Mr. Fitzgerald, and you can check this with Andy McCarthy at National Review, has an impeccable record in the courtroom. Only a fool would open himself to cross by Mr. Fitzgerald with the political and financial stakes so very high. And Mr. Libby's attorney, Ted Wells, is equally superb in the courtroom. Mr. Wells is far too smart, too experienced, and too savvy to allow Mr. Fitzgerald - or any other prosecutor - such a shot at Mr. Libby.

Mr. Wells, objections or no objections, could not protect Mr. Libby in such a situation. Neither could the late-, great-Edward Bennett Williams nor, for that matter, Perry Mason with Erle Stanley Gardner (R.I.P.) at her creative best.

The opening statement was a mere reminder to the White House. Don't forget about me, Mr. Libby indirectly told the West Wingers. Remember, ole' Scooter landed a pardon for that vile human being, Marc Rich. Scooter knows how to play the game at its dirtiest at that level.

Scooter's no fool. And Scooter, loyal to Dick Cheney or not, has no intention of allowing the White House to AbuGhraib (new verb) or HeckuvaJobBrownie (second new verb) him on this one.

Scooter will take one for the team, but Scooter is most certainly not a patsy.

Mark at 9:46AM on Mar 10th 2007

Mo's Video

The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

Mo's Bio

Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.