Libby: "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

[jAZ]

Should be interesting trial. It's already started with a bang!


Libby says the BushCo is setting him up to take the fall...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0Hello - commatard on the loose.-6365671,00.html

Lawyers Paint Libby As Sacrificial Lamb

Tuesday January 23, 2007 5:16 PM

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorneys for former White House aide ``Scooter'' Libby said Tuesday that Bush administration officials tried to blame him for the leak of a CIA operative's name to cover up for Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures.

Attorney Theodore Wells, in the opening statements of I. Lewis Libby's perjury trial, said Libby went to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

``They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,'' Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney. ``I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.''

Fitz says that Libby lied and tried to cover up Cheney's involvement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/

Prosecutor: Libby 'wiped out' Cheney memo
Defense in CIA leak trial counters that White House tried to set up Libby

MSNBC Political Calendar

JANUARY 2007
WASHINGTON - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald used his opening statement in the CIA leak trial Tuesday to allege that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff lied about Cheney's early involvement in the disclosure of a spy’s identity.

Fitzgerald said Cheney told his chief of staff, “Scooter” Libby, in 2003 that the wife of Iraq critic and former ambassador Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA, and that Libby spread that information to reporters. When that information got out, it triggered a federal investigation.

“But when the FBI and grand jury asked about what the defendant did,” Fitzgerald said, “he made up a story.”

[mlyonsd]

Two weeks....Two weeks.......Fair warning.

[banyon]

Wow, that's quite the innocent protestation.

[patteeu]

*yawn* Since we already know that it was Armitage who gave the scoop to Novak and since it's apparent that it wasn't a crime to begin with, what difference does it make that Rove and Cheney are mentioned by the competing lawyers? Even if Cheney had ordered the outing, it would have been legal so big deal.

I do hope that there is nothing to the notion that the WH tried to set Libby up to take the fall, but otherwise I see nothing very concerning here at all. And why would there be any truth to this if it wasn't Rove who disclosed the name to begin with?

[Mr. Kotter]

Two weeks....Two weeks.......Fair warning.

Yeah. And the defense lawyers are claiming "victim" status for their client? Wow. Absolutely shocking.

[jAZ]

*yawn* Since we already know that it was Armitage who gave the scoop to Novak and since it's apparent that it wasn't a crime to begin with, what difference does it make that Rove and Cheney are mentioned by the competing lawyers? Even if Cheney had ordered the outing, it would have been legal so big deal.

I do hope that there is nothing to the notion that the WH tried to set Libby up to take the fall, but otherwise I see nothing very concerning here at all. And why would there be any truth to this if it wasn't Rove who disclosed the name to begin with?
It's always the coverup.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's always the coverup.

Well, if there IS one this time....it wouldn't surprise me. I'm just going to wait until the facts are disclosed.

[patteeu]

It's always the coverup.

And how is this "coverup" going to end up being anything but a sideshow in a prosecution that's already become a circus?

P.S. I think that Libby will either be acquitted or pardoned, what do you think?

[BucEyedPea]

Skip the trial. Torture and waterboard both Libby and Cheney to get the whole truth and nothing but. Especially, since these guys claims it works. ROFL

[noa]

P.S. I think that Libby will either be acquitted or pardoned, what do you think?

I don't know much about it, but I watched the Sunday morning news shows this week and most of the pundits (liberals and conservatives alike) that I saw seemed to think that Fitzgerald has a solid case against Libby. That's why he's taken it this far. I think he'll be convicted and pardoned.

[jAZ]

And how is this "coverup" going to end up being anything but a sideshow in a prosecution that's already become a circus?

P.S. I think that Libby will either be acquitted or pardoned, what do you think?
I think that you cover your ass with that prediction. I agree 100%!

[patteeu]

I don't know much about it, but I watched the Sunday morning news shows this week and most of the pundits (liberals and conservatives alike) that I saw seemed to think that Fitzgerald has a solid case against Libby. That's why he's taken it this far. I think he'll be convicted and pardoned.

I think he has pretty solid facts. An acquittal would require a jury to buy the idea that Libby was so busy with more important work that his recollection was flawed and therefore the intent element of the crime was missing. I'm guessing that a conviction and pardon are more likely than an acquittal but I don't think acquittal is an insignificant possibility.

[CRONUS]

Skip the trial. Torture and waterboard both Libby and Cheney to get the whole truth and nothing but. Especially, since these guys claims it works. ROFL:clap:

Not sure if Libby claimed it worked, but I am all for doing it to Cheney if we are going to have it as our policy.:p

[jAZ]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002395.php

Libby Update: Protecting Karl Rove?
By Paul Kiel - January 23, 2007, 4:11 PM
Scooter Libby's lead defense attorney has sent the media into full-throated scandal mode with his opening statement this morning, alleging that Libby was "sacrificed" by top White House officials in order to protect Karl Rove. Here's MSNBC's coverage from a little earlier:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h5lUK0XLmN8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h5lUK0XLmN8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Most of the sizzle comes from the disclosure of a note written by Vice President Cheney that he was “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”

OK, so the "staffer" was Rove and the poor meat-ground guy was Libby, who was Cheney's point man for hitting back against Joseph Wilson's allegations that the administration had knowingly lied about Saddam Hussein's alleged attempts to procure nuclear materials.

But here's what we don't get yet about the defense's theory of the case, as TPM Reader LG puts it: "while it may be true that the [White House] was trying to hang Libby out to protect Rove, this in no way absolves Libby from charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. How is that a defense? Seems like just a smokescreen to me."

[jAZ]

I'm guessing that a conviction and pardon are more likely...

Interesting observation...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012086.php

(January 23, 2007 -- 05:38 PM EST // link)
A Republican pal makes a good point sizing up what happened today in the Scooter Libby trial. Contrary to what some have said, I don't think there were any new facts alleged today. The key is that Libby has decided to base his defense in large part on an attack on the White House -- specifically on Karl Rove, almost certainly on other top advisors and conceiveably even on the president himself. The logical inference from that decision is that Libby and his lawyers have decided that President Bush will not pardon their client.

Why the White House would have decided that or why they would have chosen to make that decision clear to Libby is a bit hard to fathom. But it's hard to figure why Libby would have gone so hard against Rove if he thought a pardon were still in the offing? Thoughts?

In a narrow political sense, Rove's guilt wouldn't exculpate Libby. And taking the rap for other guilty parties wouldn't absolve him either. Perhaps they're angling for some sort of politically-tinged jury nullification.

I'll be curious to see what these folks have to say about this parting of the ways.

-- Josh Marshall

[CRONUS]

At this point all that is really going to happen is lawyers are going to make a ton of money and a lot taxpayer money will be wasted. Oh and I am going to occasionally be bombarded with news that is pretty much overcome by the passage of time. Needless to say the buck likely stops short of where actual harm lies.

[jAZ]

I think he has pretty solid facts.
Should be interesting if he does in fact have the facts to support the following claims from today...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/cheney-libby-trial/

Among the new claims:

– “Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himself…to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson.”

– Cheney personally “wrote out for Scooter Libby what Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper.”

– “Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled.”

[mlyonsd]

At this point all that is really going to happen is lawyers are going to make a ton of money and a lot taxpayer money will be wasted. Oh and I am going to occasionally be bombarded with news that is pretty much overcome by the passage of time. Needless to say the buck likely stops short of where actual harm lies.

Bingo.

[patteeu]

Interesting observation...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012086.php

(January 23, 2007 -- 05:38 PM EST // link)
A Republican pal makes a good point sizing up what happened today in the Scooter Libby trial. Contrary to what some have said, I don't think there were any new facts alleged today. The key is that Libby has decided to base his defense in large part on an attack on the White House -- specifically on Karl Rove, almost certainly on other top advisors and conceiveably even on the president himself. The logical inference from that decision is that Libby and his lawyers have decided that President Bush will not pardon their client.

Why the White House would have decided that or why they would have chosen to make that decision clear to Libby is a bit hard to fathom. But it's hard to figure why Libby would have gone so hard against Rove if he thought a pardon were still in the offing? Thoughts?

In a narrow political sense, Rove's guilt wouldn't exculpate Libby. And taking the rap for other guilty parties wouldn't absolve him either. Perhaps they're angling for some sort of politically-tinged jury nullification.

I'll be curious to see what these folks have to say about this parting of the ways.

-- Josh Marshall

To be honest, I don't think the logical inference drawn by JM is all that solid here.

Here's a theory on why he would go so hard at Rove regardless of whether a pardon is in the future or not. The sterile facts of this case work against him. It's going to be hard to convince the jury that what he told the investigators was true and that all the other testimony contradicting the statements is false. That means he needs to convince them to give him a soft acquittal based on something less objectively proven: his state of mind. He will have a far better chance of doing this if the jury sympathizes with him than if they see him as a loyal soldier. As much as is possible, he's using the general anti-Bush, anti-Rove sentiment of those who might otherwise be predisposed against him to his advantage.

If it fails, I don't see this "disloyalty" as much of a bar against a pardon. It's business, not personal. The guy's already taking one for the team. If Cheney continues to be his champion in the administration, I'd think that would be a powerful plus when it comes time to ask for a pardon, if such a time comes.

[penchief]

Skip the trial. Torture and waterboard both Libby and Cheney to get the whole truth and nothing but. Especially, since these guys claims it works. ROFL

That's the best idea you've had in a long time.

[jAZ]

To be honest, I don't think the logical inference drawn by JM is all that solid here.

Here's a theory on why he would go so hard at Rove regardless of whether a pardon is in the future or not. The sterile facts of this case work against him. It's going to be hard to convince the jury that what he told the investigators was true and that all the other testimony contradicting the statements is false. That means he needs to convince them to give him a soft acquittal based on something less objectively proven: his state of mind. He will have a far better chance of doing this if the jury sympathizes with him than if they see him as a loyal soldier. As much as is possible, he's using the general anti-Bush, anti-Rove sentiment of those who might otherwise be predisposed against him to his advantage.

If it fails, I don't see this "disloyalty" as much of a bar against a pardon. It's business, not personal. The guy's already taking one for the team. If Cheney continues to be his champion in the administration, I'd think that would be a powerful plus when it comes time to ask for a pardon, if such a time comes.

And we've now got our 3rd reported theory... this one lines up with patteeu pretty closely.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002401.php

Waas: Libby Lawyers Signaling for Pardon?
By Justin Rood - January 24, 2007, 12:05 PM

I had a chance this morning to check in with Murray Waas, the National Journal scribe who's done a lot of the most illuminating reporting on the Plame leak investigation and the White House's machinations in response.

Waas sat in on the trial yesterday, and watched as lawyers for former Cheney aide Scooter Libby unfurled their argument that their client was set up as a fall guy for Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. Readers will recall that we thought that was both the most interesting and most perplexing part of the defense's opening argument.

"Some observers think that they're trying to send a message to the White House" with the references to Rove, Waas told me, "saying that they hope their guy is pardoned."

The defense never spelled out Rove's alleged role, or how they believe aides to President Bush had tried to "sacrifice" Libby to protect the man known as "Bush's Brain." Will they be more explicit? Who knows. Perhaps it depends on what assurances they get from the Oval Office.

From a legal standpoint, the blame-it-on-Rove defense is hardly solid. "The prosecutor would say it's a smokescreen," said Waas.

"There are two cases being presented," Waas observed. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's case "is very narrow, focused, and hews to the indictment.

"On the other side you have this amorphous, all-over-the-map, everything-and-anything-in-the-kitchen sink [case]. That's what the defense is doing. Fitzgerald is trying to stay on script, and [Libby lawyer Ted] Wells is doing what a good defense attorney does, which is make the prosecution's case as murky as possible."

[jAZ]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16832257/site/newsweek/

Will Rove Testify?

The president's political guru—and counselor Dan Bartlett—have been subpoenaed by Scooter Libby's lawyers. What it means for the most-watched trial in Washington—and who's next on the witness stand.

A WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 6:05 p.m. MT Jan 26, 2007

Jan. 26, 2007 - White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials—including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett-may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby.

Both Rove and Bartlett have already received trial subpoenas from Libby’s defense lawyers, according to lawyers close to the case who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters. While that is no guarantee they will be called, the odds increased this week after Libby’s lawyer, Ted Wells, laid out a defense resting on the idea that his client, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, had been made a “scapegoat” to protect Rove. Cheney is expected to provide the most crucial testimony to back up Wells’s assertion, one of the lawyers close to the case said. The vice president personally penned an October 2003 note in which he wrote, “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the other.” The note, read aloud in court by Wells, implied that Libby was the one being sacrificed in an effort to clear Rove of any role in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. “Wow, for all the talk about this being a White House that prides itself on loyalty and discipline, you’re not seeing much of it,” the lawyer said.