LIBBY'S LAWYER SAYS ROVE SET LIBBY UP TO TAKE THE FALL
Gee, that's embarassing for the Yale Law School. A Yale Law Honors Grad outfoxed by a guy who never graduated from college, anyplace.
If it's true, I guess it proves that Republicans actually do eat their young. Well, wait, even if it's not true, Libby's still a Republican. I guess it proves they eat their young whether it's true or not.
Labels: NATIONAL POLITICS
posted by UMRBlog @ 13:15
5 comments
5 Comments:
Shock and awe
Or maybe smoke and mirrors.
TYFCB
I am at a loss to understand how this narrative can possibly make sense. Other officials could have "scapegoated" Libby by telling investigators that he was the only one who talked to reporters about Plame. But as far as we know, they didn't; and, in any event, since he admits that he did discuss Plame with reporters, such "scapegoating" would be immaterial. Or, perhaps, Vice President Cheney could have "scapegoated" Libby by ordering Libby to tell investigators that he heard about Plame from reporters, and not from Cheney. But Cheney obviously did not do this. The reason the prosecutor knows that Libby "actually learned it from Cheney and several other administration officials weeks earlier" is that those administration officials, apparently including Cheney, so testified. And, in any event, it is not Libby's defense that he committed perjury at Cheney's direction.
So in what conceivable sense could Libby have been "scapegoated" or made a "sacrificial lamb"? His prosecution arises solely from the fact that he told the grand jury that he had first heard about Plame from reporters, when the testimony of all other witnesses, apparently including both executive branch employees and reporters, is to the contrary. Libby now admits, evidently, that his testimony was wrong, but attributes his mistake to a faulty memory. How could Cheney, Rove, or anyone else have been responsible for Libby's memory?
The other possibility, of course, is that Wells knows that the jury consists of Democrats, most of whom are hostile to the Bush administration. Libby was a high official in that administration, and the jury's verdict will depend largely on its subjective assessment of his credibility in claiming a memory lapse. So it would be no wonder if Wells thought that his first order of business was to tell the jury that his client was not one of those nasty Karl Rove Republicans.
The age old High-Low trick with a snow ball ?
Do a Nifong post sometime !
I didn't know the Bar could revoke him . I really thought the prosacutor could do about anything except kill the Court reporter and be free & held harmless.
This new twist has me very interested !
Post a Comment
<< Home