Thoughts on Liveblogging Libby

Just a few quick thoughts before I hit the sack.

I just saw the Bush’s approval rating is at 28%. I can’t help but think that his approval rating was still around 50% when this whole process started, when Libby made the decision to risk a jury rather than settling rather than flipping on Cheney. When they made that decision, they didn’t calculate the damage that revealing a lot of what is about to be revealed to the public would do to a president with a sub-30% approval rating, they really thought they could be studly men and there would be no downside of a jury trial.

And I really do think we’re talking revelation. Will Cheney go to jail? No. But in the last several weeks it became clear that Novak is still active, that his name will come up at this trial a lot more than expected. And I’m increasingly convinced (though I seem even lonelier arguing this in the media room than I do here on this blog) that Cheney ordered Libby to out Plame–the media room still doesn’t get why Libby might not want to introduce David Sanger’s notes. But I think that, at the least, I’ll have even more evidence to make the case than I do now.

I’ve been constantly aware of the two processes going on–the legal one and the PR one. So far, Fitzgerald has lost–miserably–the PR battle. And I gotta tell you, Barbara Comstock is all over the courtroom trying to keep it that way. But there will be a lot that is revealed. And the question is, will it make a difference. Will the press finally figure out that they no longer have to celebrate a President with job approval of 28%.

And I’m surprised, looking back the description of the jury. Sure, all those who are convinced BushCo lied us into war got bounced long ago. As did almost all the PhDs. But this is an open-minded jury, for the most part. It will be an interesting process to see what 12 open-minded people (and the four alternates, who don’t know they’re alternates) think of the evidence they’re about to see.

We shall see.

  1. kim says:

    I’m not as involved in the Libby trial as you EW, but I imagine that it must be very exciting to be in DC covering the trial.

    I hope that you have great insights as the trial proceeds, meet all the MSM reporters, I’d be very happy to see you on Hardball. If you chose to become a member of the DC press corps I’d happily look forward to many years of MTP appearances.

  2. Ardant says:

    ew – you are awesome! You were killin’ me with your humor today. We are all so fortunate to have you here.

  3. irene says:

    ew, in your opinion does fitzgerald need to win the PR war? a few battles, even? or are you saying losing the PR war has already hurt.

    just wondering how it fits. pardon the pun!

  4. Meteor Blades says:

    Lonely in your interpretation, eh? How many times since you created this beat have you been in those shoes? If I were a betting man, and I am, my money would be on you.

  5. zAmboni says:

    Keep up the good work EW. The PR battle will soon become irrelevent when the testimony starts. With presidential support so weak there is less incentive to push administration spin…and Fitz will win the PR battle with actual facts and molding them into a narrative that will expose the WH even more.

  6. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    This is ’Watergate turned inside-out’ — with higher stakes; how can the press not see that?!

    Watergate laid the foundations for current press status, which is based in part on privileged information and confidentiality. The Libby trial illuminates HOW the Bush/Cheney administration deliberately used the press’s hard-won protection of confidential sources as a weapon to subvert and pacify the press – and by extension, diminished the power of entire branches of government.

    During Watergate, information was leaked by the powerless in an institutional vendetta. In contrast, during the Plame ’outing’, information was leaked by the powerful,, (whose leak strategy assumed that the press had taken a Vow of Omerta to protect politically influential sources.) Thus did the snake eat its tail.

    Pardon me, but all the ’great’ stories seem to embody paradox: Oedipus kills his father, then unwittingly marries his mother; he is both son and husband (going both directions through the same birth canal).

    Rigoletto: The protagonist, angry at his enemy, plots to kill the man. Meanwhile, his daughter hides herself to wait for her lover. Rigoletto mistakes his daughter for his enemy, and unwittingly murders the only person he truly loves.

    Libby (and Cheney and Bush and Rove, et al) claims to protect national security are called into question by Joe Wilson. Seeking to destroy Wilson’s credibility, they leak secrets about Wilson’s wife to selected members of the press. They expect the press to protect their secrets. When the press is forced to reveal them, they are exposed as liars willing to risk national security by ’outing’ a CIA agent (and, by association, her entire WMD network). Their claims to protect national security enable the very actions that weaken it.

    This is a compelling, riveting story. How can the press fail to see this?!

  7. Jodi says:

    I am glad it is gametime. Really, FINALLY!

    I expect that Libby will get off, or a mistrial, though I realize that there is a lot of enmity in DC for all things Bush and Republican, and anything can happen with a Jury.

    I think he has even more chance with an appeal if needed, and some here would say it is a slam dunk with a pardon if ever needed.

    And yes I know that still the great (unhidden) wish here is that Dick Cheney will be somehow implicated and executed. Or maybe even that old thrill you got thinking about Karl Rove being the one will be born again.

    Sorry you will be disappointed all the way round.

    I will say definitely though, that if you think Bush’s ratings have been affected more than a point, if that, by the Libby prosecution, you are just doing a lot of wishful thinking.

    The reason, the main reason, for Bush’s problems is the WAR.

    The WAR!
    The WAR!
    The WAR!

  8. Sara says:

    Jodi — no, what Bush has done in Iraq he has repeated in spades, in Domestic Policy. You think the way he viewed the Katrina folk accep-table? forget it, it will happen to you and your kin if you are not part of Bush’s game plan. TRex has a great issue up on Firedoglake tonight about the spread of infectious bacteria throughout Military and VA hospitals, based on a Wired Magazine article. Read up.

    EW you are doing a fantastic job at live blogging. But I think Christy is being too restrictive on describing the jurors. Prosecutor perspective versus hopefully intelligent watcher perspective. I need to know the Pach descriptions that match the actual selected. I have watched Jury Selection once — in the Wounded Knee case tried in St. Paul District Court, and I understand the musical chairs matter, but on contemplation it is something one can sort out. Did they randomly select the first 12 and put them in the box, and then three by three dismiss? (one prosecution and two defense dismissals merged?) Were the replacements seatings randomly determined? How many were left in the pool after the 12 + 4 were seated?

    I like popcorn, but it is not really a healthy snack, so I have stocked up on Clementines and the makings of avocado roasted chicken cream soup, and I plan to make some bread during the proceedings. Please identify the live transmissions so they are clear, so during breaks, some of us can go off and knead bread. And yea, when should we promise the dog a little walk? On Central Standard time?

  9. DeWitt Grey says:


    It is so revealing of just how far gone the Beltway media are that you are â€lonely†in arguing that Cheney ordered Libby to out Valerie Plame. It is such Washington Standard Operating Procedure that I simply cannot accept at face value that any real Washington journalist is sincere in denying it. Mind you, Cheney is far too old a Washington hand to have left tell-tale incriminating evidence of his order — particularly with a loyal and experienced lieutenant like Libby, he need not have given the â€order†in so many words — a few well-placed euphemisms and significant looks would have sufficed.

    I’m not sure Fitzgerald can really compete in the PR war, given the media’s hostility to this prosecution from the get-go — the same people who aided and abetted Kenneth Starr’s prosecutorial misconduct would gleefully pounce on anything coming from Fitzgerald’s office as an attempt to â€spinâ€. I suspect he intends to use Libby’s conviction as his most potent PR weapon, just as he intends to use that conviction as leverage to try to compel cooperation from Libby. Unfortunately, Libby’s presidential pardon is almost certainly in the bag.

  10. Sally says:

    Stacy Shiff has a great post in the Times today entitled â€A Trial to Remember.†Comstock has lost her, ew. A surprising read.

  11. katie Jensen says:


    How do you regulate the emotion when handling the rest of the press. I find it absolutely beyond the pale that so many in the pres have such a naive view of this president and his dealings. Everywhere you look there is corruption, not a little bit, but a lot. (9 billion dollars missing in Iraq) Can we not hold someone accountable for this?? I just don’t get it? It is obvious to me that even if Cheney does not get caught for his part in this awful moment in history, that this administration was trying to convince us that war was necessary. They were trying to convince us of imminent danger. I don’t understand why folks are so numb to the idea that the the pro life crowd is in Iraq killing women and children and that when we took this country to war, we set in motion a civil war that has resulted in tortures, rapes and many innocent dead children. Dead. What part of this do people not understand. War is murder. It’s killing human beings who only want to live. It’s not just killing â€bad†guys. I will give you that there are times when war may be necessity. I am not so black and white to negate that possibility but folks, this was not one of those times. Where is the guilt, the shame. What right do we have to be killing people because we think they should have democracy, or because we wanted a foot hold in the middle east, or because we need their oil. For God’s sake…and I do mean for God’s sake…this president has led us to be a murderous, greedy country in the eyes of the world. And the press is numb. Completely numb to this view point.

    E.W take our thoughts and prayers with you…may you be as persuasive with the numb as you are with the thinking crowd.

  12. Nan says:

    I agree that the MSM has a stake in the outcome of this trial and their reporting over the last many months reflects their bias.

    I also believe that PJF hasn’t had the option of joining the PR battle. But in the end, I believe his professionalism, his relatively prudent use of taxpayers’ money, and control of leaks throughout the Grand Jury proceedings and Libby trial will go a long way on the PR front.

    If anyone has the time to summarize the Shiff piece, I’d appreciate it.

    Thanks for all your great work, emptywheel! Are you selling copies of your book to the MSM?


  13. Rayne says:

    Marcy, you may be lonely now, but you are far from alone. 99%-plus of America lies outside the Beltway â€bubbleâ€, after all, and the POTUS’ and VP’s JARs certainly indicate that the American public are backing away from the Kool-Aid punch, if too slowly for our tastes.

    I cannot help but think of Ret. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski’s essays and reporting covering her observations in regards to the OSP and the earliest days of the run-up to the Iraq War and its prosecution. She saw things that simply did not make sense to her, policy shaping facts, certain corners being deliberately cut…and some of the things she saw coalescing before her are yet to reach fruition.…..807-02.htm

    You’ll note that in Lobe’s report Libby is misspelled â€Lillyâ€â€¦and you’ll note that Lobe notes Libby’s unique role even in August 2003.

    Hang in there, EW. I’m betting on you; MeteorBlades is going to have to share the stakes.

  14. Pete says:

    I agree that Bush’s main problem is the Iraq war. The Iraq war and Katrina are the biggest contributors to Bush’s low poll numbers.

    But the Libby story and the Iraq war are intertwined. Had the Iraq war gone well the WMD lies would not have mattered. Had the WMD lies not been so sensitive, it would not have been necessary to go after Plame.

    It is interesting to note how Libby’s supporers are hedging their bets. They say: â€Libby will get off, if he does not get off then it is the fault of the jury, maybe then he can get off on some technicality, and if all that does not work we can probably come up with some arguments that will appeal to Bush’s die-hard supporters to justify a pardonâ€.

    Rather than come up these convoluted scenarios maybe they could explain why Libby lied and said things which even his own notes do not support.

    I don’t know how this trial will end. I think that a â€Colonel Jessup†moment is unlikely. I am hoping however that the trial brings to light nuggets that the Bush administration has been desperately trying to hide from public view.

  15. Jim E. says:

    EW mentions the poll numbers. Since the poll numbers are so low, I almost wonder if that might encourage a pardon before Cheney gets on the stand. I mean, how much of a political hit would the administration even take given that they’re already at rock bottom? Doesn’t seem like they have as much to lose now as compared to when they were closer to 50%. (I realize, of course, that there are other considerations for the administration and various players, such as the civil suit.)

    Request: can you let us know when you have posts at firedoglake? I suppose I ought to just be reading that blog, too, but I only recently realized that you’ve been posting over there.

  16. Pete says:

    The problem I have heard mentioned with a pardon right now is that Congress could then seek Libby’s testimony. So the reasoning goes that Libby will try to stretch this until the end of Bush’s term.

  17. Rayne says:

    Jim E — I recommend getting Google Reader or other blog aggregator software and adding FireDogLake feed so you don’t miss a single post! Some of the posts at FDL are combined content from all of the FDL folks covering the trial.

    Here’s links to yesterday’s U.S. vs. Libby-related posts at FDL:…..tructions/…..the-press/…..uctions-2/…..hallenges/


    Pete — while the odds might be low that it will happen, don’t you wish that Cheney pulled a Colonel Jessup on the stand?? â€You can’t handle the truth!!â€

  18. emptywheel says:

    Jim E and all

    I’ll be liveblogging at FDL all day (unless it goes into Dodd’s interview mid-afternoon, in which case I’ll take it to DKOs). I’ll try to post an update here tonight.

    We’re about to get started here in the court room…


    There are transcripts available the following day. I’m going to try to capture it closely over at FDL.


    On thing that will happen one way or another is that there will be evidence introduced that will clarify this whole story. I don’t know whether this will be a mistrial or a guilty or an innocent verdict–all are possible. But I do know we’ll have a window on this administration that we otherwise wouldn’t have.

  19. Jim E. says:

    Wow — you do a great job with the immediate updates. I would think typing out the play-by-play would be tough, but what you present looks like a second or third draft. I’m impressed.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Barbara is gambling her career & ideology on finding a portal for Scooter. And all her GOP clients waiting in the wings for her handiwork must be sitting a little closer to the edge of their seats of late.
    And today, with Bush @ 28% Scooter must be asking himself if an impeached Pres & VP have all that much left to offer.
    Thank God, this jury will not be subjected to the MSM version from here on in.
    Thanks for this EW and please take your vitamins!

  21. Jim E. says:

    So Cheney wrote stuff down on the Wilson NYT op-ed, and then photocopied the marked-up copy to give to Libby? Libby had that, too?

  22. Jim E. says:

    Is it common that GJ proceedings are tape recorded? Is there any import to the jurors being able to hear as well as read Libby’s GJ testimony? I suppose some people are better audio than visual learners. And if any Stephen Colberts are in on the jury (that is, they don’t like reading), I suppose it’s a good thing that Fitz can use the multi-media approach to presenting evidence.

  23. Jim E. says:

    ew wrote: â€VP notes–Libby knew that note was in his file. But he wiped it out.â€

    Is â€wiped it out†a figure of speech, like Libby â€wiped it out†of his testimony? Or did Libby literally wipe out/remove the note?

  24. Jim E. says:

    So Barbara Comstock was raising fistfuls of cash from Republicans so that Libby could produce a defense that in part relies on trashing karl Rove and the White House?? That’s so awesome, I almost wish I had donated money to his defense.

  25. Tom Maguire says:

    From the Firedog liveblog, I am seizing on this:

    Ari had conversations with reporters that he should not have had [Damn, I owe Swopa a beer!!]

    Reporters plural, not just Walter Pincus? One wonders. Although maybe he is folding into that the John Dickerson â€walked us up to the line†talk.

  26. Jim E. says:

    Hmmm, maybe David Gregory will become the right’s new Andrea Mitchell in this case. I guess folks will re-comb over what David Gregory has said about this case. Was Gregory interviewed by Fitz?

  27. katie Jensen says:

    Well you gotta like the fact that Gregory was the first reporter to grow some balls. And boy!! they did not like it when he started demanding answers. Gregory did a good job of staying away from â€the story†but made it darn clear that this administration is not to be trusted. God bless America…I feel like singing. Maybe the USA is a everything I learned it was, just that Bushco has made it look like an emperialistic, fascist country. Maybe truth and honor do exist in the form of Fitz, Gregory, and the wilson’s. This is better and more exciting than I expected because I was way too used to the bush regime being so effective at manipulating the message.

    Thank you E.W…and everyone who has worked so hard to bring us this tool of democracy.

  28. Tom Maguire says:

    Hmmm, maybe David Gregory will become the right’s new Andrea Mitchell in this case. I guess folks will re-comb over what David Gregory has said about this case.

    How does this grab you, from Oct 29, 2005 (right after the indictment) on â€The Tim Russert Show†with the whole NBC Washington bureau – Time, Andrea, et al:

    GREGORY: And it is interesting–it’s also interesting, I should just point out, that nobody called me at any point, which is unfortunately…WILLIAMS: Apparently not.GREGORY: …not the point.RUSSERT: Does anybody ever?GREGORY: But I just wanted to note that.RUSSERT: I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that.

    Per the Wells intro, Gregory was never interviewed. Odd, because Libby over-confessed when he said he leaked to Kessler of the WaPo – one might have thought Fitzgerald would want to pin this down.

    Well, if this is reliable, either Fleischer over-confessed or Gregory lied on national television. And Fitzgerald doesn’t know which. Quite a first day.

    And since you mention him becoming the new Andrea Mitchell, why not – if he can lie about it, why not her as well? Protecting sources is a reporter’s mantra.

  29. Jim E. says:


    You’re throwing around the word â€lie†(about Gregory, Mitchell, Russert) more than Libby’s own attorney is. Why is that?

    Ari pled the 5th over something, right? And who exactly gave Ari his talking points?

  30. steve says:

    If they had an immunized Ari saying he leaked to Gregory, why would they NEED to call Ari? To find out if he REALLY leaked to him, and wasn’t just lying to them?

    Seems like you’d want to pindown what you’re not sure of. IANAL, but if you grant someone immunity, isn’t it usally with the caveat that if you find out they’re lying, the immunity deal is off? So did Fitz really need to pin that down, or is this just more fodder for the JOM bunch to claim that Fitz half-arsed his job?

  31. tnhblog says:

    Was the reporter who warned Wilson, that â€they were coming after him†ever identified? One of the main arguments of Libby’s lawyers is that there was no concerted effort by the administration to punish Wilson through his wife. The testimony of this reporter would go a long way toward rebutting this claim. Especially interesting is exactly who â€they†are.

  32. tnhblog says:

    BTW, this whole Rove coverup thing is BS misdirection. They are trying to distance Rove’s actions from OVP actions. It’s all BS. OVP, the Whitehouse, and Rove all orchestrated the entire smear campaign in concert. What is needed is definitive proof of this and the whole house of cards will fall.

  33. Jim E. says:

    While I agree with your last post, I still find it interesting that the defense seems to be asserting that there *was* indeed a concerted cover-up, something administration defenders always scoff at (even in the face of federal trial on obstruction charges).

  34. tnhblog says:

    Right, so the question is why did they engage in this strategy? Well, Rove has already been let off the hook, so they are just trying to sow mass confusion in the jury by covering up the true nature of the whole conspiracy.

  35. tnhblog says:

    In other words, they are trying to exonerate Libby by shifting the blame to Rove, who has already been exonerated.

  36. Jim E. says:

    I think saying that Rove has been â€exonerated†is not exactly the right word, but, yes, I agree with your overall point. The thing is, although Libby will twist things with regards to Rove, his attorneys will likely have a decent opening with it. Rove, after all, was into this thing up to his eyeballs, and I’m sure Fitz will probably have a tough time vouching for what a clean figure Rove is in all of this. It’s an avenue with some merit for the defense if they’re trying to show that other folks were actually behind the cover-up.

    On the other hand, giving jurors a reason to think that Fitz ought to have indicted more Bush administration officials won’t necessarily bode well for Libby.

    On the bright side, it looks like everyone will be waiting for what Ari Fleischer has to disclose. After all, whatever Ari says must be the gospel truth. Or at least that’s what TM seems to think.

  37. Tom Maguire says:

    You’re throwing around the word â€lie†(about Gregory, Mitchell, Russert) more than Libby’s own attorney is. Why is that?

    My earnest attempt to bond with the â€Bush lied†crowd – isn’t every misstatement a lie if you disagree with the politics of the person making it?

    Or, more seriously, I think Mitchell received a leak, so when she says she did not, she is not misremembering or misspeaking, she is lying.

    And it *appears* that David Gregory received a leak, yet joined in weith the general â€I didn’t get a leak†denials at the Russert Show. That is either a lie of omission or a flat lie, but he had to know that he was deceiving viewers about an important point.

    If they had an immunized Ari saying he leaked to Gregory, why would they NEED to call Ari? To find out if he REALLY leaked to him, and wasn’t just lying to them?

    Seems like you’d want to pindown what you’re not sure of.

    Well, they would need t ocall gregory to confirm Ari’s story, right? That is why they called Kessler, Cooper, Miler, and Russert – to see if Libby’s version matche dtheir versions.

    In Kessler’s case, Libby apparently said he told Kessler about Plame, and Kessler said it didn’t happen. Maybe that happened with Fleischer/Gregory.

    I would have thought Fitzgerald would want to pin that down – he has Russert insisting he didn’t know, yet one of Russert’s underlings is sitting on a leak – isn’t that, at a minimum, going to confuse the jury?

    …is this just more fodder for the JOM bunch to claim that Fitz half-arsed his job?

    And yoru view is that this is evidence of a complete investigation? Fitzgerald never even called Gregory or Mitchell, and that is OK? Wow.

  38. SaltinWound says:

    I have to say this quote from Fitzgerald was singularly unimpressive: â€You can’t learn something on Thursday that you’re giving out on Monday.†You can if it’s the following Monday. Weekdays are modular by nature.

  39. vachon says:

    The list of reporters tied into this trial is why Mr. Fitz won’t win the PR war. I gotta say, if I was Tim Russert, I wouldn’t be giving Mr. Fitz any air, either. Which is where we come in…

    Stunning job you did over at FDL. Bravo.

  40. tnhblog says:

    At this point, I think the prime directive is to coverup the true nature of the conspiracy. Obfuscating the orchestration of the smear campaign by State Dept. and OVP and Whitehouse seems to be taking precedence over protecting individuals.

  41. QuickSilver says:

    I’m grateful you are in the media room, Marcy, to set the media straight. How interesting to share space with the very reporters putting the spin on the story. They surely can’t pretend to be entirely ignorant of certain salient details if you are running into them day after day.

    Don’t tell me they don’t read this blog, and Daily Kos, and firedoglake… Don’t tell me they don’t realize we are holding them, the media, to account for both their good reporting and their bad reporting. Because this trial is as much about the corporate media lying down (and enabling the perpetrators of the crime, as well as the cover-up) as it is about anything, I think.

    It took the journalistic establishment to propagate the leak about Plame’s secret CIA job. It wasn’t a blogger who did that.

  42. steve says:

    Tom, re this:
    And yoru view is that this is evidence of a complete investigation? Fitzgerald never even called Gregory or Mitchell, and that is OK? Wow.

    Where did I say it was a complete investigation?

    But I do seem to see a large number of JOM posters who are convinced that Fizgerald can do no right. Now, that balances out nicely with the FDL posters that are convinced he can do no wrong, which is why I read both…

    After I start here, of course…

    But Okay, Ari cops to leaking to Gregory…Since Gregory never ’used’ that info, it’s not really germane to Fitz’s first instruction look into the Novak leak, or the expanded look into all the leak instructions that he seemed to have got, right?

    And remember, thisn’t isn’t about the leak anymore, it’s about the lying…

  43. Anonymous says:

    Great work Emptywheel! You were fantastic on as well.

    Did anyone else find it weird that Ted Wells said something like ’there will be no scientific evidence that Libby lied or gave a false statement.’ No scientific evidence? What kind of scientific evidence can you produce to show a lie? Lie detector tests aren’t science. That whole phrasing sounded weird to me.

    And look to hear ’three Calls, three Reporters, three Months Later’ parroted about a million times by Team Libby.

  44. blog says:

    Question about Fleischer. Who authorized Fleischer to leak the info? Or is this administration full of loose cannon imcompetents?

  45. John Casper says:

    emptywheel, thank you so much doesn’t begin to do you justice. I’ve been busy with other stuff all day and I just finished reading your live blogging of Fitz’s opening statement. So much of it was not knew, because I had been reading your posts about it. I am just so happy for all of us, and for you, that you are there in the court room, where you so obviously belong.

  46. MayBee says:

    steve: Since Gregory never ’used’ that info, it’s not really germane to Fitz’s first instruction look into the Novak leak, or the expanded look into all the leak instructions that he seemed to have got, right?

    Miller never used it, How is Gregory different?

  47. Nan says:

    Could Wells’ â€no scientific evidence†comment have been for the benefit of the retired math teacher juror or another juror with that type of orientation?

  48. Tom Maguire says:

    Was the reporter who warned Wilson, that â€they were coming after him†ever identified?

    Walter Pincus.

    From Steve:

    Where did I say it was a complete investigation?
    Where did I say you said it? Oh, well, let me ease the burden – how about when you wrote this:

    …is this just more fodder for the JOM bunch to claim that Fitz half-arsed his job?

    My laymen’s view is that â€half-arsed†means shoddy or incomplete – your thoughts? Or do you agree that it is shoddy work by Fitrzgerald but think the JOM bunch will be wrong for saying so?

    Since Gregory never ’used’ that info, it’s not really germane to Fitz’s first instruction look into the Novak leak, or the expanded look into all the leak instructions that he seemed to have got, right?

    Cool – so we can get rid of the Judy Miller testimony, yes?

    BTW, if Gregory knew, doesn’t that make you wonder if he told Russert and/or Mitchell?

  49. steve says:

    But, and correct me if I’m wrong here, he had no reason to think that Ari was lying to him, right?
    While Libby apparently (for whatever reason, (Corn’s spin?) if you really want to beat that dead horse again)was believed to be lying.

    Wasn’t that the basis of going after Miller’s testimony- that she would contradict Libby?

    Did he need to get Gregory on record as agreeing that Ari leaked to him?

    And no, Fitgerald’s investigation wasn’t exhaustively complete. But I thought that he was supposed to be investigating possible crimes. If he immunized Ari, there’s no crime there that he justifys him calling Gregory in, is there?

    From my reading of your comments section, sure seems like there’s a lot of people there who bitch that Fitzgerald didn’t look here, or didn’t look there…But I’m not sure there are possibel crimes there that justify him investigating…

    And if Gregory, russert and Mitchell all knew, it still doesn’t negate the idea that Libby had all these conversations with goverment employees, but doesn’t rememebr ANY of thsoe when called in front of the GJ…

  50. douche says:


    your post yesterday sucked. None of you â€plameologists†know anything about this case. All you do is guess work and pick apart things without proof. What a bunch of BS.

    Hey Marcy, here’s a tip for you, when leaving the trailer park spit out the gum before getting on camera.

  51. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been constantly aware of the two processes going on–the legal one and the PR one. So far, Fitzgerald has lost–miserably–the PR battle.

    Considering that Fitz was compelled to subpoena journalists and in one case put one in jail, I’d say his PR has gone remarkably well. All the â€out of control prosecutor†trail balloons fell flat.

  52. charlesf says:

    marcy, thank you for all the good work. a suggestion if you are going to video blog: take out the gum before talking, and find a good hairdresser.

  53. douche says:

    Marcy, also try to be somewhat humble you self-absorbed geek. You don’t know this case â€inside out.â€

    Clearly no one does. Except for John Casper, who apparently knows all.

  54. MayBee says:

    What do you all think about Grossman saying this (according to EW at FDL): Wilson said that he thought the trip had been at the request of the OVP.

  55. QuickSilver says:

    The trolls are clearly troubled that Fitz is telling the bigger story here, and pointing to Cheney as architect of the leak. But wasn’t that what this trial was always going to be about? So why not say what happened?

    I loved Fitz’s opening statement; I feel we are in the hands of a master. I love that this story is going to be told by and through a number of witnesses, and dribbled and filtered through the mainstream media for weeks — even as we get it in direct, from the liveblogging. I savor the revelations to come.

    This trial won’t just illuminate Libby’s crime; Fitz feels he can’t explain the crime without showing the country why Libby was lying (and he’s right). Not about the war? Ha. Damn straight this is about the war.

    If I were a troll, I’d be pissed. And I suppose I would be praying for a hung jury, if I could place my faith in such a thing.

  56. freepatriot says:

    scooter libby is in the process of exposing the conspiricy

    guess Fitz don’t look so dumb now, huh ???

    scooter says that kkkarl rove was the â€BAD†leaker

    scooter was just trying to get the truth out, while kkkarl and the â€BAD†leakers were the real criminals

    kinda funny that scooter’s honest efforts to â€Get The Truth Out†used exactly the same words and phrases that kkkarl’s â€BAD†leakers were using

    just a coincidence perhaps ???

  57. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    So…. if Libby leaked to David Gregory, was there also stipulation that Libby be identified as â€a former Hill stafferâ€?

    Would Libby have been okay with being identified as… â€a government officialâ€, or else as â€someone familiar with the botany of aspensâ€? Or would Libby have insisted on inventing yet another, different aphorism to distance himself from information about the NIE or Plame’s identity?

    If Libby had leaked as ’a WH staffer’ or as ’an Administration official’, OR EVEN as ’a WH official’ then a lot of this would have blown over. But … â€a former Hill stafferâ€??!! And his waxing eloquent about ’turning aspens, connected at their roots’…?

    C’mon folks, this is one whopper of a story! Whether or not Fitz interviewed a gazzillion reporters is beside the point; Libby looked guilty the instant we learned that he’d asked Judy-Judy to identify him as ’a former Hill staffer’. From that instant on, Libby’s credibility headed south. The ’aspens turning’ letter was just a jaw-dropper to most of us mere mortals who live outside DC and watch these shenanigans in alarm and amazement. And that was BEFORE Cheney’s hand-written notes on the OpEd turned up.

    If this were a novel, I would not find it credible. Only life could be this thoroughly convoluted and weird.

    I’ll be up ridiculously late catching up on today’s liveblog posts at FDL.

  58. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Oh, and BTW, how often is Babs Comstock quoted as ’an attorney familiar with the case’? Or is she usually a ’former DoJ official’?

    Part of the entertainment value, after all, is watching the number of obtuse references these people invent to hide their leaks and intrigues. You simply could not make this stuff up.

  59. MayBee says:

    and pointing to Cheney as architect of the leak. But wasn’t that what this trial was always going to be about? So why not say what happened?

    According to John Dickerson at Slate, today…
    To explain why Libby would be motivated to lie, Fitzgerald offered two main arguments….

    The second motivation, Fitzgerald explained, was that Libby had promised Vice President Cheney he wasn’t involved, and on that promise Cheney had gone to bat for him.

    I didn’t see that in EW’s liveblogging, and only she can say if she remembers hearing it. But that seems to contradict the idea that Fitzgerald is pointing to Cheney as the â€architect†of the leak. Rather, he’s saying Libby lied to Cheney about being involved in the leak at all…and hiding his true involvement from Cheney was Libby’s motive to lie to Fitzgerald.

  60. desertwind says:

    Marcy, thanks so much for your live-bloggin’.

    Work. It’s hard work.

    Hard work.

    And, we love and appreciate you for it.

    PS – Am I crazy to think Libby’s â€President Bush’s righthand man, Karl Rove, set me up†defense is meant as a warning to Bush to give Libby a pardon ASAP? (And, one for Cheney, too, while he’s at it.)

  61. J. Thomason says:

    Now we have a former adminstration official stating Ari lied to the press to protect Rove. That this administration is treated as capable of making credible statements at this time is beyond me. But all this coverage of the State of the Union seems to just trudge on with little mention of this profound admission by Libby. Its mind boggling.

  62. greenhouse says:

    Maybee: â€I didn’t see that in EW’s liveblogging, and only she can say if she remembers hearing it. But that seems to contradict the idea that Fitzgerald is pointing to Cheney as the â€architect†of the leak. Rather, he’s saying Libby lied to Cheney about being involved in the leak at all…and hiding his true involvement from Cheney was Libby’s motive to lie to Fitzgerald.â€

    Are you high on dust? So basically Libby is falling on his sword, lying to the GJ with the potential of serious jail time because he didn’t want Cheney to know what a shameful, bad little boy he’d been? lol, c’mon git real.

  63. MayBee says:

    greenhouse, That is what was in Patrick Fitzgerald’s opening argument- it’s his theory not mine. Perhaps you should ask him if he’s high on dust.