Friday, February 09, 2007

Give Me Libby or Give Me Death, Part II

To quote America’s greatest poet, “Oh mama can this really be the end?” Tim Russert’s testimony in the Scooter Libby perjury case has been utterly devastating to Libby’s defense. Mr. Libby and his lawyers now know the full extent of what they are up against. I love it when people who have abused executive power then have that power brought to bear against them. In this case, the protege of former Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (now head of the World Bank) has gone from being the Vice-President’s Chief of Staff - one of the most powerful behind-the-scenes players of political hardball, to a man facing not just disgrace and financial ruin, but 30 YEARS in federal prison. Had it been Russert alone directly contradicting Libby, the defense could simply chalk-up Libby’s “forgetfulness” as a mistake. That would have been bad enough. But after hearing 5 previous witnesses confirm that Libby knew about Valerie Plame’s identity earlier than he previously admitted.

In addition to testifying that he had not mentioned Plame to Libby, Russert said that Libby did not bring her up, either. Russert said he first learned about Plame and her CIA job from the Novak column on July 14, and said “Wow” when he read it. He testified that if Libby had mentioned to him during their phone call four days earlier that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, he would have pursued it, asking questions about how Plame’s job might relate to Wilson’s accusations against the White House.

“That would be a significant story,” he said. See, WashingtonPost.com.

This morning, Tim Russert discussed his 5 hours of experience as a witness under cross-examination with MSNBC’s Don Imus. Russert was calm, direct and credible: “It’s a very intense experience ... and I told the truth.” The point here, is that Ted Wells - a very able lawyer - was unable to rattle or break Russert the way he had shaken former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner, Judy Miller. There is only one course of action left for the defense in this case. Wells must create reasonable doubt by diverting the jury’s attention from the Libby’s ludicrous assertion that he “forgot” that he knew about Valerie Plame (from Cheney) far earlier than he had admitted in his original testimony to the Grand Jury. Mr. Wells needs to spread the seeds of doubt by filling the courtroom with what I call, “the fog of politics.” He must play every card and push every button. Can he do it? Maybe. Keep in mind that in Federal Court a high percentage of defendants are convicted. The power of the government is vast. The defendant, no matter how formerly powerful, is just a defendant up against a foe with unlimited resources. Mr. Libby knows this full well. He’ll go “away” for a brief time and when he gets out he’ll write a book. Molly Ivins would have gotten a kick out of it.

Juridically yours,

Savant