1. Anonymous says:

    Libby’s the sacrificial lamb, and boy is the administration is happy with the deal they got from Fitzgerald. Of course, Libby still will get pardoned, but they’ll be content to let him suffer till then.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Fitz has soooo much more up his sleeve.
    I think Rove has the sword of damacles hanging over his head – but it’s not formal. Thus the â€no deal, never was, a deal†from Luskin.

  3. Anonymous says:

    As some have pointed out, the central question remains-Who was Novak’s original source? July 8 seems the earliest possible date for Novak to have been leaked the info about Plame. Libby is not likely because none of the court filings list him as one of the reporters to whom Libby leaked. Armitage is not likely because he is probably Woodward’s original source. It’s most likely Rove, but he has acknowledged first speaking with Novak on July 9, which means he is lying. Will we ever know? It looks like neither Rove or Cheny will be implicated. This whole thing smells foul.

  4. Anonymous says:

    You were looking for a good name for the Republican apologists. We could call them – turd polishers.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I watched the show in real time, and that’s not what I heard, EW. I heard Mehlman say pretty clearly something to the effect that he (KM) ’likes’ Fitz’s judgement ’today’. Maybe I heard wrong, but I’, pretty sure Mehlman said essentially what you attribute to Stewart.

    I guess we’ll be able to check, no?

  6. Anonymous says:

    jonnybutter (if you’re still around)

    Can you click through and watch the clip at Crooks and Liars? If I’m wrong, I’d like to correct.

    The line of the â€today you do†was hard to hear. Though the part after that–the â€let’s trust his judgment†I thought was pretty clear.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I don’t see the interview up anywhere yet. It will be rerun this afternoon, though. I’ll try and catch it. My memory is hardly infallible, but I don’t remember anything sticking out; I heard what I expected to hear: Mehlman being the total shill he always is, ’I like Fitzgerald’s judgement today (and by implication, I didn’t like it before, when he indicted Libby)’.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Any chance Fitz wanted to indict Rove, but the grand jury didn’t go for it? I’ve always thought Fitz was taking a chance, going to a new grand jury with old evidence (and testimony they didn’t see with their own eyes). His best shot may have been back when he indicted Libby.

  9. Anonymous says:

    My bad. The video is indeed up at C&L.

    Stewart: So you like this prosecuter, you like this Fitztgerald?

    Melhman: Today I do.

    Stewart: Today you do. Scooter Libby, though…he overstepped his bounds.

    Melhnam: Well, look, I think we ought to trust his judgement. I said it then and I say it now.

    Ambivalent, IMO. Maybe this is a departure, maybe not; the other hacks are sticking to their usual (DiGenova was on some other show recently attacking Fitzgerald). I dunno…

  10. Anonymous says:


    Let’s step back a moment…

    If, indeed, the cabal’s strategy from the beginning was to make Mr. Libby the ultimate cut-out, do you all think Mr. Fitzgerald would be happy to take that and run with it?

    Two things tell me no.

    1) The way he flipped all the way up to the Governor’s office in the Illinois case, and….

    2) The way he has flipped David Radler to get to Conrad Black.

    In otherwords, this guy has a history of not stopping till he gets to the top of the pyramid.

    But….would he make a deal to get to, and stop, at Mr. Cheney?

    That, I think, might be a different matter.


  11. Anonymous says:


    I think he might. He wants to punish those responsible. I don’t think Bush is primarily responsible. And going after Bush after letting Rove go wouldn’t match crime to punishment.