We’ve had our differences in the past, but that doesn’t detract from my appreciation of Firedoglake’s superb coverage of former Cheney assistant Scooter Libby’s trial for perjury over the outing of CIA undecover agent Valerie Plame during the Niger Uranium scandal..
Here’s a sample:
The first opening statement was given today by the prosecution, with Patrick Fitzgerald leading off for the government. His opening was concise, very tightly constructed, and left no doubt that he was very clear about the reasons for which he sought an indictment for I. Lewis Libby from the federal grand jury for the five count indictment returned last October. Fitzgerald’s style presents as someone who puts together the pieces of the puzzle until they fit together as a tight whole — and he certainly tried to do that with his opening this morning.
The stage was set from the start of the opening with regard to pushback against Amb. Joseph Wilson, whose op-ed in the New York Times (and his earlier unattributed quotes to other journalists) went to the heart of the credibility of the Bush Administration’s foundation — or lack thereof — for starting the war in Iraq. Fitzgerald walked the jury back to the “sixteen words” in the President’s State of the Union address on January 28, 2003 — and the fact that Amb. Joseph Wilson’s allegations brought the possiblity that the President lied to the American public in that speech right into the living rooms of average Americans.
Because that credibility was being challenged so close to the 2004 election cycle, because the credibility the Dick Cheney in particulr was being directly questioned, there was substantial pushback from the White House, and especially from the office of the Vice President, and Scooter Libby was tasked with getting that message out to the media.
Fitzgerald walked the jurors through the five felony charges — obstruction of justice, two counts of false statements, and two counts of perjury — and the elements of each of these charges that the government is required to prove. Fitzgerald then went through the expected evidence and testimony from various government witnesses by placing each into context on a timeline that very methodically, and effectively, laid out the government case against Libby.
More…
Libby’s defence counsel came up with something unexpected: rather than just using the ‘I’m an Important Politician, I can’t be expected to remember everything’ defence to the charge of perjury, he’s going for the ‘It wasn’t me and anyway I was only following orders’ argument as the WaPo reports:
The mission of Mr. Wells, in contrast, was to present the case as hopelessly complicated, thus leaving the jurors in doubt about the validity of the charges. Mr. Wells spoke for nearly two and a half hours, ranging over issues of the reliability of memory; Mr. Libby’s duties, which during the relevant period included crises in Liberia and Turkey; and threats from Al Qaeda on the days that Mr. Libby spoke to reporters.
But his most startling comment was his assertion that Mr. Libby had become enmeshed in legal difficulty because of White House efforts to protect Mr. Rove.
If Mr. Libby and his lawyers press their strategy of blaming the White House, it could prove risky, possibly even jeopardizing chances of a presidential pardon for Mr. Libby if he is convicted.
Mr. Libby, Mr. Wells said, complained to Vice President Dick Cheney that he was being set up as a fall guy. Mr. Cheney supported that view, Mr. Wells said, and handwrote a note saying, “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.”
Oooh, the White House isn’t going to like that….
[Rubs hands together in glee]
Looks like the slime are turning on each other on both sides of the Atlantic.
[cartoon from the Illustrated Daily Scribble]
