About that Pardon Article

Just a quick post to check in and comment on an Elizabeth de la Vega article several of you have mentioned. I was in SF working with the book editor this weekend. We finalized the direction for the book (oooh, it’s going to be good!) Then today I get back on a plane (to Bangkok this time) and when I come back we really hit crash and burn on the book.

We actually talked a lot about pardon this weekend–Jane, Swopa, Jen Nix, and Safir (the editor) and I. And I gotta say, I was in a distinct minority, in simply not knowing whether Bush will pardon Libby before the trial or in January 2009. I understand the need, for the Administration, at least as well as anyone. But I am not convinced that, as de la Vega states,

Because Scooter Libby’s trial strategy is not to have a trial.

At least at the beginning, back when they set up a $5 million fund and hired Ted Wells, they fully intended to have a trial. You hire Ted Wells to go to trial, not to await a presidential pardon. There’s a part of me, too, that thinks the reason Libby’s lies were so bad were to have a nice tidy trial–they were designed to minimize the importance of his machinations with their absurdity. After all, if you were really trying to protect Dick, wouldn’t you have developed some better lies? The crappy quality of Libby’s lies has already minimized the gravity of the obstruction charge in this case.

Share this entry

Libby's PowerPoint Defense

Thanks to Jeralyn for posting the most recent Libby filing, in which his team explains they want to show a PowerPoint to exonerate Libby for outing a NOC.

No, seriously, the filing is a list of classified documents they want to introduce at trial, including:

  • The PowerPoint
  • A range of classified documents (including Libby’s notes and Morning Daily Briefings–MDBs) for the periods June 9 to June 14, and July 5 to July 12
  • A "representative sample" (other wise known as cherry picked) of classified documents (again, Libby’s notes and MDBs) from other periods to corroborate Libby’s memory defense
  • "Wilson/Niger" documents–including documents Libby created and documents others created

Keep reading for my take on how they plan to use these.

Share this entry

CYA and Human Rights Win Out

Share this entry

Some Confusion on the MBL Claims

Share this entry

Hubris Misses the Point of the NIE Lie

Share this entry

Was Armitage Twice a Patsy?

Share this entry

We Have Already Won This Election (No We Haven't)

Share this entry

We Owe Karl Rove No Apology

Share this entry

The Armitage Bombshell that Isikoff Didn't Mention

Gotta go have a good old old fashioned floor fight at my state convention (Go Amos Williams!!), so will have to post more later. But here are the most important passages in Isikoff’s new article:

Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak informationcontained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson’s wifeworked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo madeno reference to her undercover status.)

[snip]

Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame’s covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.

I’ll come back and examine whether this means Armitage’s source his leak to Woodward was the first version of the INR memo or not. But this very strong suggests that Armitage only had the information included in the INR memo. That, in turn, strongly suggests he didn’t leak Plame’s cover identity (remember, he told Woodward Plame was an analyst).

Therefore, whoever else leaked to Novak told him that Plame was an operative.

Share this entry