Inmate 28301-016

The Appeals Court decision not to grant Libby bond pending appeal, along with last week’s Cheney series, may well ensure that Libby does some jail time, however short.

Appellant has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question.

I’m not holding my breath yet, mind you. But it’s going to have to be an untimely pardon or commutation … or jail time for Scooter Libby.

Update: With this unanimous decision, that makes two more Republican appointees who think Scooter should probably go to jail. How many more Republicans, coming out in favor of incarceration for Libby, will it take to quiet the raging Libby Lobby?

image_print
  1. RB says:

    Wish Merle Haggard would write a new version of â€Mama Tried†— â€Comstock Tried†or â€Toensing Triedâ€

  2. Anonymous says:

    eyes

    Yeah–I did an update–it means now 3 Republican appointees think Scooter should go to jail.

    But it doesn’t matter, I’m still sure the Libby lobby is right when it says that this was politicized prosecution.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Ah, September. Will there be blowback aimed at Libby & his supporters as Gen. Petraeus delivers his update and the Rep war hawks face reality?

  4. Anonymous says:

    The amazing thing is, one of the judges was David Sentelle, who personally gave us Ken Starr by playing Calvinball with the definition of an â€independent†prosecutor.

    And Royce Lamberth, of all people, dumped on Bush over FISA.

    For anyone who was familiar with these guys during the ’90s, this is jaw-dropping stuff.

  5. Sojourner says:

    I just have to wonder if there is any comment from any of the bright, shiny amicus people (I cannot think of the neat term for them that someone came up with…). It sounds like Judge Walton and Patrick Fitzgerald used good quality hammer and nails to finish this one.

    On one hand, I do feel a bit sorry for Scooter and his family, but he is the one who decided to protect someone who does not deserve protection. I just wish he could go ahead and spill what he knows so we can finish this whole thing.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Swopa

    Yeah, I was thinking that–given that Libby wanted to overturn based on Fitz’ appointment, that’s actually a tremendously good sign.

  7. Jeff says:

    Undoubtedly TM and clarice will find the hidden connection between those judges and the Comey-Schumer axis that was out to get Libby and really Cheney all along.

    I predict Bush will commute Libby’s sentence some time between now and when Libby is due to report to prison. Either way, it’s time for the press to refuse to accept Bush and Cheney’s four-year-long effort – successful so far – to refuse to answer questions about their own roles in the matter. They were both involved beginning, middle and end. Did Cheney first learn that PLame worked in CPD from McLaughlin? When he learned that, was he aware that most CPD employees were under cover? Did he know that CPD was part of the clandestine part of the CIA, DO? When did he write on Wilson’s op-ed? Did he convey that information to Libby? Did he direct Libby to disclose info about PLame to Judy Miller on July 8? Did he and Bush talk at all about the Wilsons, and specifically about VPW, in advance of Libby’s â€secret missionâ€, as the defense called it? Did Bush, as reported, tell Cheney to get all the information out, to get it out? Because if the answer to both of the two previous questions is yes, that effectively means that Bush directed Cheney to get the information about Plame out to the press.

    And what about fall 2003? When Cheney simply tilted his head when Libby told him that his story for the FBI was that he first learned of Plame from Russert, surely he must have known that was not true, that he had told Libby himself. So was Cheney countenancing Libby’s indication that he was going to give false information to the FBI? And when Libby came back and told Cheney that he in fact learned from Cheney first, what was Cheney’s reaction? Did he realize that Libby was in effect coordinating his story with Cheney, contra the directives on not speaking with others about the matter? Why didn’t he take steps to tell the FBI, if he did not?

    And as for Bush, was it true, as the defense indicated at trial, that someone – presumably Cheney – came to Bush and asked and succeeded in getting Bush himself to personally intervene to have the White House publicly clear Libby of wrongdoing in the Plame matter? If so, why? Who talked to bush, what did that person say, why was Bush persuaded when Card and McClellan themselves had not been? And don’t forget that Addington testified that when he complained to Bartlett about the White House clearing people publicly in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, Bartlett told him that it was done with Libby because of his boss, i.e. because of Cheney. That is part of why it is safe to presume that Cheney himself intervened with Bush. What did they say, if that’s so?

  8. bmaz says:

    Well, OK then. Nice work Ms. Wheel. I trust they will make the obligatory application to the Supremes, but as I have opined in discussions with Sebastian Dangerfield on previous threads, that should go to Roberts as the â€hot judge†for such matters from the DC Circuit (each Supreme is responsible for a certain area of the country, or grouping of districts, for purposes of matters like this and emergency applications) and I don’t think Roberts is likely to summarily overrule his compatriots that he so recently served with and among. And in response to Eyes’ question, the significance of the unanimous opinion, including the right wing weather vane Sentelle, is that it removes any cover for Roberts should he be inclined to spring the Scoots. This is in addition to the reason of quieting the Goopers EW delineated.

  9. cboldt says:

    The new reason for not talking about the case will be that justice has done its thing, and no more needs to be said.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Oh, you forgot one, Jeff:

    â€The Pres asked Libby to put his head in a meat grinder.â€

  11. NOBODY FROM NOWHERE says:

    I don’t have one moment of pity for the Lovely Libby. Remember, he was Cheney’s Cheney. He knew about all the outrageous, illegal, immoral actions generated by Cheney. He helped make ALL those things happen. He is a dirty rotten scoundrel and deserve everything he gets. This, â€Oh, but he had such wonderful children, and the crying wifeâ€, etc. is just a bunch of BS that his â€supporters†have broadcast. Don’t fall for it. His â€supporters†don’t want him to flip. They know just how much crap the Lovely Libby has under his hat and they will go to all lengths, no matter how stupid, to make sure he keeps every bit of it there.

    This is a GREAT way to start the week!

  12. bmaz says:

    Jeff – That, and the questions you raise are exactly right. Now the interesting thought is, and I think it was John Dean that lightly touched on this early on, that if Bush uses the pardon power for Libby (commutation is a derivitive of the pardon power) it then creates a cogent and compelling basis for an obstruction and aiding and abetting investigation. Here is where the thought gets really interesting: the obvious agent for this investigation is none other than Mr. Pat Fitzgerald. In fact he needs no further impetus or assignment of authority, it is inherent in his current delegation. In this regard, I am tempted to hope Bush exercises some aspect of the pardon power on Libby tomorrow. This is also a salient reason, however, why it will be very difficult for Bush to appease his base and Cheney with the pardon/commutation for Scooter.

  13. Jodi says:

    Well, I guess this show will go on, and on.

    But looking at it another way, thank goodness the Wilson-Plame-Rove circus like a bad film est fini.

  14. Dismayed says:

    BMAZ – That would be interesting, indeed. I wonder if Fitz would drive forward.

    I figure we’ll get a chance to see. Wouldn’t rule aut a pardon before jail time, but I see it granted just as Thanksgiving gets here. I have little doubt your theory will get a chance to play through.

  15. Frank Probst says:

    I agree with bmaz. ANY effort by Bush to circumvent justice for Libby can be construed a possible effort to obstruct justice and would at the very least be investigated by Fitz. With a Democratic Congress looking on, that’s not going to be pretty. And he has to decide exactly what he wants to do. A pardon for just these crimes is out of the question, since Fitz can haul Libby right back to the grand jury and compel him to answer some more questions pertaining to his crimes. A pardon for this and all future crimes would almost certainly draw an impeachment charge. No good options for Bush here. I say he just lets Libby twist in the wind.

  16. -ck- says:

    How many more Republicans, coming out in favor of incarceration for Libby, will it take to quiet the raging Libby Lobby?

    Contradiction in terms, Marcy — any Republican who is not in favor of Libby sainthood is, by definition, NOT a Republican.

    At best, they are former Republicans who are now Islamo-Fascist Terrorist-Loving Surrender-Monkey America-Hating Fifth Column Traitors, who have polluted the American body politic with their cowardly Defeatocrat wimpiness, and now threaten the precious bodily fluids of real Republicans.

  17. Mary says:

    If Bush pardons – what does he pardon?

    While I think the Spec. Pros is done – done, depending on what is out there, there is that interesting issues of what, exactly, Bush pardons.

    Does Bush pardon on the convictions for the charges brought with no mention of conspiracy and if so, does that just open a new window? It’ll be interesting.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Did Cheney first learn that Plame worked in CPD from McLaughlin?

    This goes back to a previous thread, but I’ve more or less talked myself into believing that Cheney learned it from Libby, not the other way around — i.e., that now-famous note is from Libby’s conversation with Grenier.

    Why did Scooter lie about this? I presume that as implausible as â€The Vice President told me and then I forgot all about it†might be, it’s even more implausible to say, â€The CIA told me and I wrote it down and told my boss, then I forgot all about it.†Better to say you forgot after one conversation rather than after two.

  19. obsessed says:

    What about the notion that if Bush were to pardon Libby it would increase the legal options for the civil case? Is that still operative? Is there any news on said civil case?

  20. Anonymous says:

    Swopa

    If you read Grenier’s testimony, it’s almost crystal clear that Libby’s sole intention calling Grenier was to get him to say, on the record, what Cheney had heard from somewhere else: that DOD and State were interested too. In other words, as I’ve argued, Libby was laundering info when he spoke to Grenier, not seeking new information.

  21. Anonymous says:

    ’No good options for Bush here. I say he just lets Libby twist in the wind.’

    If Bush is between a rock and a hard place (and I doubt it causes him any loss of sleep) Libby’s situation is harder.

    Perhaps Libby will finally come to understand that he has a greater loyalty (which is rather more congruent with his own and his family interests) than protecting the bosses. It is an overriding duty for a lawyer: to uphold the the laws of the United States. He is, after all, a servant of the court.

    I assume that a presidential pardon/get out of jail free card cannot avoid his disbarment. I am amazed that Libby’s contempt for the legal process and his profession aren’t juxtaposed every time his conviction is mentioned and confirmed.

  22. mk says:

    No pardon, because pardon would recognize the conviction — and Scoots still wants to be innocent. So does Bush and so does Cheney. Protecting Gonzales requires no positive action by the President — so that will continue, at least until it becomes too uncomfortable for some reason (like when the current claims of executive privilege are struck down, Frith willing). But I don’t think we’ll see Bush (or Cheney) stick his neck out as long as his neck is vulnerable.

  23. Anonymous says:

    It was my reading of that thread, EW, that actually pushed me in the opposite direction.

    Part of the reason for that is that the follow-through for getting the CIA statement about DOD and State seemed to vanish. Was such a statement ever issued? Did Cathie Martin even understand that was why she was being put in touch with Harlow? From her notes and trial testimony, it seems like she didn’t.

  24. bmaz says:

    I agree with EW here, I think the infor moved down from Cheney to Scooter, no the reverse. In a legal sense, it really doesn’t matter because Scooter’s impetus for acting and disseminating the infor would have unquestionably come from Cheney.

  25. P J Evans says:

    Troll is having a bad reading day. It thinks Redd is in favor of respite for Scooter.

  26. eyesonthestreet says:

    EW â€â€¦Cheney had heard from somewhere elseâ€

    Who did he hear it from, then? Why is it Armitage that told Libby/Woodward? that’s the part I don’t get. Earlier you said another agency was involved, and that Bolton may have been involved but this part of the story seems a mystery. Did Cheney know it was Wilson being sent?

  27. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, I floated that as a possibility in that thread, I know.

    But I’ve since gone back and read Grenier’s testimony in detail. He says about 5 times that the reason Libby called was because he wanted to find out whether â€the only reason†CIA sent Wilson was because of OVP. This is a pretty clear setup for the DOD and State info. Furthermore, if the note was a reflection of Libby’s conversation with Grenier, it wouldn’t have to say, VP says, â€Hold for CIA to sayâ€â€“because that would have already been setup.

    As to whether the talking point was used: yes, twice. Once in the conversation with Judy on June 23 (though she fucked up the State/DOD talking point, saying that Cheney had asked State and DOD for info), and once in the conversation with Novak during leak week.

    In fact, if you look at it, the document–without the date notation and the identification of it as a conversation between VP and LIbby about Kristof–could very easily be the talking points LIbby used with Judy on June 23; it maps closely with what she says he said.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Eyes

    Give me a day or so to do the post. Sorry–got distracted with other things.

  29. eyesonthestreet says:

    Gee, if only we had Remy the rat to go into the files…… (Ratatouie- really good movie, IMO)
    thanks.

  30. Anonymous says:

    bmaz — i hereby respectfully place my
    order for some fresh, hot, gooey, proud
    PECAN pie — f.o.b. my joint
    !!!

    yeah, babey!

    he he!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    more seriously –

    now, were i representing mr. libby,
    i might take a moment to reflect here,
    and decide the only real option is to
    ask chief justice roberts to step in.

    and that would be a moon-shot.

    so — off to camp fed, me thinks.

    unless bush goes insane and pardons,
    even before the appeals run the course.

  31. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think that there’s any way that Scooter will break with the regime’s Omerta. Hell, the very fact that Scooter confected — and stuck by, damn the torpedos — his wildly implausible web of lies as to how and when he learned about Plame’s employment shows that he has been willing, if not happy, to take the fall, collect his pardon in due course, and spend a few years collecting checks from the Hudson institute (he will be disbarred, so it’s off to the think tanks) before being recycled back into the inner circles of Republican power. The well-wishing sentencing letters were, if nothing else, meant as a reminder that he will be taken care of (recall that the letter from Horowitz, from Hudson Institute for Paying Welfare to Fallen Republican Soldiers, was the most pointed). To be sure, he would prefer his pardon, or some form of temporary relief pending the pardon, sooner rather than later. Hence all of his surrogates’ jaw-wagging. But there ain’t no way he’s going to give up la familia. He would have lttle to gain and much more to lose. After all, his serving a year or so of pirson time for the cause would mean he will carry one of the biggest chits of any of the players.

  32. Jeff says:

    emptywheel

    Yes, the pres asking Libby to stick his neck in the meatgrinder is perhaps the central one – and it’s amazing the number of people who drew attention to that cross-out, from Fitzgerald asking Libby in the grand jury to Addington and Wells himself as well. When? What context? Do you think it’s during the week of July 6-13, perhaps during the Cheney-Bush conversation in anticipation of the leak to Miller on July 8? Or back in June?

    Swopa

    It is amazing just how closely what Grenier says he told Libby was tracked in Libby’s note from his purported June conversation with Cheney. And it’s clear both that the FBI and Fitzgerald in the grand jury were also skeptical that the notes reflected what Cheney told Libby and not the other way around. But it would also make sense that Cheney was hearing the exact same thing from CIA that Libby was hearing from Grenier.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Libby Grand Jury information can be interesting. On issues of criminal matters, Congress is encouraged to review the open source information. POTUS does not have complete control over all the inforation.

    Even on issues of Libby’s conviction, there are nuggets within the Grand Jury testimony that are probematic for the President in re privilege. Please continue to remind Members of Congress that the President does not control information which has been disclosed to a Grand Jury, or available outside EOP.

    These issues related to FISA violations, security breaches, and unlawful violations of Geneva. Here is some sample information:
    http://www.citizensforethics.o…..mment-8720

  34. Anonymous says:

    As to whether the talking point was used: yes, twice.

    But those are later conversations by Libby… where is the agency statement they were â€holding†for? Perhaps more importantly, having gotten Grenier to launder the Plame info as well, why wasn’t that even hinted at when Libby talked to Pincus?

    As I understand it, your hypothesis is that Libby/Cheney were so hot to launder these talking points for immediate public use that they pulled Grenier out of a meeting with Tenet, just to get him to repeat them. But this conflicts with the fact that they weren’t used immediately. So why not wait until a more natural opportunity to speak with Grenier?

    My hypothesis (pending whatever holes you, Jeff et al. may shoot in it) is that nobody responded to the email sent by Grenier’s assistant, and so McLaughlin met with Cheney empty-handed. So Libby’s due to talk to Pincus, who’s going to press that night, and he doesn’t have jack squat in terms of background info from the CIA. That’s worth pulling Grenier out of a meeting with Tenet.

  35. Anonymous says:

    â€The Pres asked [Libby] to put his head in a meat grinder.â€

    My significantly more whimsical hypothesis on this subject is that Cheney was in the habit of invoking â€the President†whenever he was particularly insistent on getting his way (cf. â€The President†okaying the declassification of what Libby told Judy Miller on July 8th, and â€the President†authorizing Cheney to scramble Air Force jets on Sept. 11th).

    So he instinctively started to say â€the President†in this note, then caught himself.

  36. Neil says:

    How many more Republicans, coming out in favor of incarceration for Libby, will it take to quiet the raging Libby Lobby?

    It’s not a matter of numbers or reason.

    The â€INNOCENCE†of Scooter Libby, who was simply breaking the law in support of the â€GOOD WAR†[which was waged to secure access to oil, re-affirm American super power status, change the balance of power in the middle east, and maybe even spread democracy] is a matter of the â€JUST†nature of the foreign policy. Libby’s entitlement to a pardon lies in the â€MORAL†justification of the war.

  37. Neil says:

    Christy says a respite could be in the offing.
    Posted by: Jodi | July 02, 2007 at 13:55

    Have you ever seen a dog rub its anus on a carpet and did you notice what it leaves behind? Some call it an offing, others call it a shit stain.

  38. kvenlander says:

    ||||||/
    (o o)
    ,(_)—ooO————.
    | Please do not feed
    | the trolls.
    ’————————’

  39. Davis X. Machina says:

    Does this clear the way for the long-promised indictments of Wilson and Plame?

  40. Tom Maguire says:

    I think it was John Dean that lightly touched on this early on, that if Bush uses the pardon power for Libby (commutation is a derivitive of the pardon power) it then creates a cogent and compelling basis for an obstruction and aiding and abetting investigation.

    Let’s hear from a Bush hating fierce former Federal prosecutor:

    Equally unlikely is the idea that Fitzgerald would want Scooter Libby to cooperate. Not only is Scooter Libby a convicted felon – a fact that juries are entitled to take into account when assessing a witness’s testimony – he is a felon who was convicted of perjury and making false statements. For a prosecutor, trying to make a case based on the testimony of a convicted perjuror is akin to a would-be suitor showing up on a first date wearing a wedding ring: it creates serious credibility hurdles. As if that weren’t enough of a problem, Libby would be testifying as a cooperating witness regarding the very matters about which a jury has already found that he lied. As to those, Libby has made extensive prior statements chock-full of inconsistencies, fodder for days of devastating cross-examination. And then, to top it all off, there would be the pesky fact that Libby’s entire defense at trial was based on an attempt to prove that the man has a terrible memory. A convicted perjuror with a memory problem may be a great premise for a bad joke, but it is a terrible premise for a criminal case against the vice president of the United States.

    Dare we presume her to be reality based?

    As to Jeff’s many questions – if I had a chance to waterboard someone, why not try Dan Bartlett? Although Fitzgerald had no apparent interest, one might be intrigued that Ari claimed to have learned about Plame from Libby on July 7 but only leaked about her after overhearing Dan B vent about her on AFI on July 10/11. That would be Ari’s boss, I believe, and Bush’s right-hand man (OK, long-time counselor anyway). Folks who want to involve Bush might look there. I’ll even guess this was the sort of conspiracy that was hinted and dropped at the trial. Factional infighting between Bushmen and OVP – who can even imagine it? (And none dare call it politics).

  41. Anonymous says:

    But those are later conversations by Libby… where is the agency statement they were â€holding†for? Perhaps more importantly, having gotten Grenier to launder the Plame info as well, why wasn’t that even hinted at when Libby talked to Pincus?

    As I understand it, your hypothesis is that Libby/Cheney were so hot to launder these talking points for immediate public use that they pulled Grenier out of a meeting with Tenet, just to get him to repeat them. But this conflicts with the fact that they weren’t used immediately. So why not wait until a more natural opportunity to speak with Grenier?

    No, my theory is that CIA never gave the report that DOD and State were interested too. That talking point doesn’t show up in Martin’s Harlow notes at all, even after Libby deliberately asked Grenier to have Harlow clear that so Martin could use it. Which suggests the CIA may have had a good reason not to use it. Either bc the State and DOD sources of interest were more like Dougie Feith and Fred Fleitz (that is, OVP and OVP). Or because the source for the DOD and State interest was classified.

    One important point here is that all the talking points in their talking points–save the Hold for CIA one–make it into Pincus’ story. So the story post-dated that talking point. BUt, even though Grenier made moves to clear the statement, that statement doesn’t make it in. I think Libby was trying to get it form Grenier late on the 11th, in time for the Pincus article. But either Harlow didn’t get to Martin soon enough for Pincus’ deadline, or CIA refused to state that on the record.

    And the significance of teh later statements–to Judy and Novak–is that both happened in off the record conversations with Libby.

  42. Anonymous says:

    â€Although Fitzgerald had no apparent interest, one might be intrigued that Ari claimed to have learned about Plame from Libby on July 7 but only leaked about her after overhearing Dan B vent about her on AFI on July 10/11.â€

    Ah, Maguire, reduced to becoming the 13th juror, looking for the shooter on the grassy knoll. Seems to me I recall a day when he was urging, in the most unctuous of terms, the indubitable correctness of Libby’s hail-mary Appointments Clause argument, now rejected by 4 (four) federal judges appointed by presidents with the advice and consent of the senate. I do hope, for the sake of any possible clients, that he is not actually a lawyer.

  43. radiofreewill says:

    It could have been something like this…

    July 9, 2003

    Phone rings. “Rove.â€

    “Hey Karl, it’s Bobaloo. Just thought I’d let you know that I know Wilson was sent by his wife and that she works at the CIA on Weapons of Mass Destruction. And, guess what – I googled his ass and found a Who’s Who listing for him that shows his wife is Valerie Plame.â€

    “Oh, you know about it.â€

    “Yeah.â€

    “Well then, godammit, you should know that fucker Wilson’s gonna get it! We’re gonna fuck him! You hear me! We’re gonna fuck him hard, that bastard.“

    “But –“

    “Yeah, he went out there all right – on a fucking boondoggle, sent by his wife! Then, he filed a fucking substandard, piece of shit report that nobody noticed. Godammit! He’s got it coming, Bob!

    “But –“

    “You just sit tight! We’re gonna disclose some super-secret shit to you that shows that that fucking fuck Wilson and his wife are nothing more than political operatives! Godammit!â€

    “But –“

    “I’ve already said too much! Send me a copy through Hohlt before you publish! Got it! This is all double-super-secret!â€

    “But –“

    *Click*

    …a little later…

    Phone rings. “Bob Novak.â€

    “Hello Bob, this is Scooter Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice-President Cheney, returning your call from yesterday.â€

    “Well, hello, Mr. Libby, and thanks for calling me back. As I mentioned in my voice mail, I wanted to talk to you about the Niger trip referenced in Joe Wilson’s July 6th Op-Ed.â€

    “Well, Bob, I can talk to you about that trip, but first I’m going to have to swear you to secrecy and grant you a provisional Security Clearance on these matters. Raise your right hand and repeat after me, “I, Bob Novak, do solemnly swear to never reveal the information I’m about to hear, even if asked about it by the FBI or a Grand Jury.â€

    “I do.â€

    “Okay, Bob, here’s how it is – we’ve got the Oct. 2002 NIE which shows the British Dossier we relied on for the 16 words, the Uranium Claim info, and the Navy report. In addition, I’ve got a summary of Wilson’s CIA Trip Report, which was a sloppy and unprofessional piece of work, a WINPAC Report that shows Wilson’s Report was only one item of many used to make the decision, and a DIA Memo that shows Wilson’s Report actually supports the Uranium Claim.â€

    “Okay…â€

    “So, Bob, here’s how I want to play this. You can quote me as a Senior Adminstration Official, confirming that Wilson didn’t work for the CIA, but was tasked to look into the Niger Uranium Claim by the CIA, not the Vice President. The Vice-President didn’t know anything about Wilson’s trip, and never received a report on it – comprendo?â€

    “Uh, yeah…â€

    â€Allright, then, Bob, we’re set, partner! Be sure and have your piece reviewed by Karl before you publish, and call me back with the specific quote you use for my confirmation. And, remember, this is all on the QT.â€

    *click*

  44. Anonymous says:

    Technical correction: The loopy Appointments Clause argument was only rejected on the merits by one federal judge. However, four judges (three of who were appointed by republican presidents), have ruled that it does not raise a substantial question. Where I play, four judges beats twelve professors.

  45. Frank Probst says:

    Tom Maguire: You’re assuming that Scooter’s â€cooperation†can only be in the form of testimony against his co-conspirators at trial. I suspect that Fitz would be willing to cut Scooter’s sentence in half if he confessed his crimes and alocuted in open court. That would involve admitting his guilt on the charges for which he was convicted AND explaining his role in this whole mess. Where did he really learn Plame’s identity? Did he know Plame was covert when he betrayed her identity to Judy Miller? How about when he betrayed her identity to Matt Cooper? Even if he was only accidentally betraying the identity of a CIA WMD specialist to terrorists around the world, was he acting on his own, or did Dick Cheney tell him to do so? Did anyone else know? Why did he lie about it afterwards? Was it only to avoid embarassment, or was there more to it than that? Etc.

    It doesn’t need to stand up on cross examination. He just needs to admit what he’s done and come clean about the whole affair. That would be enough to get Fitz to agree to a reduced sentence. Fitz could then decide that he did not have sufficient evidence to indict anyone else and close his investigation. With the investigation concluded, Cheney would then be free to answer press questions, such as: â€Whoa! Your former right-hand man just called you a traitor in open court. Is that true?â€

  46. *xyz says:

    Frank Probst at 16:06

    Libby might also have a few interesting documents squirrelled away that would be of interest to Fitzgerald.

    My point is that even though Libby is a known liar, he may still be able to provide physical evidence (emails, letters, correspondence, tapes, etc) beyond his own testimony, should he choose to cooperate at this late hour.

    If Libby’s smart, he has to have something useful on file somewhere. Sort of like a get out of jail free card.

  47. Anonymous says:

    To support *xyz’s point: there are two documents that should be out there that aren’t. First, the note Libby took from Cheney? Well, we know that Libby’s note-taking method is to take such notes in a running list over the course of the day, then to copy out important notes like this one. Where are the original notes? Maybe they don’t exist, but that would be interesting by itself.

    More interesting still would be the part-page talking points document Libby brought to his Judy interview. It’d provide some nice details about what Libby knew about Plame. But that document somehow disappeared, even though both Libby and Judy attest that it once existed.

  48. sully18 says:

    If only Libby`s lawyers could get this thing before the SOTUS for the inevitable 5-4 Thug-vote,Scooter would be back on the street to â€talk a little treason.â€
    It would be nice if he could talk a little truth;then Cheney could take his number.

  49. KM says:

    And then, to top it all off, there would be the pesky fact that Libby’s entire defense at trial was based on an attempt to prove that the man has a terrible memory. A convicted perjuror with a memory problem may be a great premise for a bad joke, but it is a terrible premise for a criminal case against the vice president of the United States.

    Wow, that’s some logic.

  50. Jodi says:

    Ah, ah. Now I understand, Swopa.

    It is â€feel good time†and nothing should distract from the spell.

    Enjoy.

  51. freepatriot says:

    tom mcguire has a really good theory there

    until you learn about Sammy â€the bull†gravano

    some days a convicted murderer and liar can make a damn fine witness

    tom mcguire lives on some strange planet where every witness has to be squeeky clean to be believed, and every defendant has to be a junky to be guilty

    scooter’s trial and any subsequent trials will take place in the real world, where things ain’t always so black and white

    things work a little different on this planet

  52. Anonymous says:

    I hope someone like Doonesbury gives the WH a few good licks over this commutation (and, ideally, much more of course).

  53. Anonymous says:

    â€I hope this spoils your ghoulish celebrationâ€

    Windn’, let’s not forget that y’all on Tom’s blog were smearing the Wilsons throughout this proceeding -despite their not being accused or charged with anything.

    Who is the ghoul, et tu?