Defensive
3 comments January 25th, 2007at 12:03pm Posted by Eli
To follow up on an earlier post, I am curious as to just how a “scapegoat” defense will work in a perjury/obstruction case. Is there any way to argue that Rove somehow set Libby up to look like he was lying and obstructing, when in reality it was Rove? Or are they going to argue that Libby only did so because he was ordered to cover Rove’s ass?
And if it’s one of those, just how much of a case against Rove does Team Libby have to build to get him off? Do they have enough dirt to get Rove indicted, or at least embarrass him into resigning (ha)?
Alternatively, is it simply a ploy to make Poor Sacrificial Libby a more sympathetic figure? Or, better yet, is it simply payback against the White House for not fully enfolding him in its warm coveruppy bosom?
3 Comments
1. flory | January 25th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Best as I can tell, the idea is to show that poor Libby was so overwhelmed with important concerns — like meeting with Tom Cruise — that he wasn’t paying attention to trivial details like when he talked to who about Plamegate.
And now all these administration toadies are lying about what he said and when in an effort to make him look guilty of perjury and obstruction, in order to keep the focus off Turdblossom.
2. Eli | January 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I guess that would make sense, but I think it only works if he can convince the jury that all the reporters Fitz talked to were in on it, which might be a tough sell for the jury if they think the media are completely independent.
3. Multi Medium » Maki&hellip | January 26th, 2007 at 9:33 am
[…] The good news is that her testimony further damages Libby’s credibility (as well as further implicating Cheney). The bad news is that her and her husband’s White House ties play right into Scooter Libby’s scapegoat defense, which Wells will use to spin and dismiss any testimony from Bush/Rove loyalists (Ari Fleischer, who testifies next, will fall into that category as well). […]