We await the jury’s decision. I cannot express how much I have regretted not having the freedom to follow this trial more closely, but I have had to trust that all of you knew where to go. The folks at firedoglake.com have been all over it; made us right proud!
The latest noise from the jury was a request for clarification on one count, whether or not lying to the FBI required that Libby's version of his conversation with Cooper was a lie or that the content of what he told Cooper was a lie. By the time Judge Walton decided he needed clarification on their request, they had moved on.
Which, I think, supports my contention about this jury and the excruciating length of their deliberation. Specifically, there are two (count 'em, 2!) Ph.D.'s on this panel. I therefore contend that each of them have kept meticulous records of their notes during the trial, have cataloged the entire set of documents and evidence, and are forcing the rest of their fellow jurors to go through each and every count and each and every piece of evidence as if their dissertations were at stake.
It's killing us out here in the waiting game, but frankly, this is as it should be. All that education is precisely what our founders had in mind, not just for making decisions at election time, but for making decisions at trial time. Every person who is accused of a crime deserves the careful and precise consideration of the jury. The fact that this is rarely what we get is why most folks prefer a trial by jury; typically, folks just 'go with their guts,' the way our clueless leader has always done. And we see where that kind of thinking gets us.
For what it's worth, I'm predicting that they let Libby off on that count of lying to the FBI, and maybe one of the perjury counts, but he gets nailed for one perjury count and obstruction of justice, and maybe the other one for lying. Given the two Ph.D.'s, I'm actually encouraged at the lengthy deliberation; it seems consistent with what I would do, anyway.
Regardless of the outcome of the jury's deliberations, this trial has been pretty explosive. Numerous issues were raised, not least of which was of course the exposure of Cheney’s role in the entire set of events, as well as Cheney’s role in Fitz’s closing statements. Also regardless of this outcome, there will be more to come from Fitz on Cheney, no doubt.
Many more issues swirl around this case, too many to enumerate here (though I hope to touch on the role of the press soon). But the one that has bothered me from the get-go, and that seems to be the question no one will ask outright is this: Why did Cheney take this particular avenue for discrediting Wilson? Why didn’t they just go after Wilson’s record or his actual trip and de-briefing weaknesses? We know they can spin the daylights out of that stuff, after all. Why did they actually risk exposing themselves to felony charges by exposing Plame’s status? Especially on the flimsy claim that she was the one who sent Wilson on the trip in the first place.
That assertion, as their explanation, has always stuck in my craw. It carried absolutely no heft in their attempt to discredit Wilson. Who out there really got any traction trying to sell that aspect of the story? Oh yeah, well, Wilson is thoroughly discredited on this trip because he only went because his wifey set him up to do it. The claim was utterly useless in that respect, a point which seems to remain under the radar in all our musings. Was the payoff for the administration really that Wilson would back off? Or that other individuals would be intimidated, as Wilson suggested? Were these results - risky for possibly not occurring - really worth the possible occurrences of outing a CIA agent?
Why on earth would Cheney risk so much by outing Plame to add to their efforts to discredit Wilson? As Joe referenced earlier in another matter, it just don't add up.
There seems to me to be a simple answer to that question. Plame was in charge of the CIA Joint Task Force on Iraq, the group charged with fielding all that intelligence that was supposed to say Saddam had WMDs. However, this was just not happening. Given what we know now about WMDs in Iraq, it's a pretty safe bet to suggest that the CIA had nothing Cheney wanted. And given what we’ve come to know about Plame and Wilson, it does not seem much of a stretch to assume she was unwilling to, er, stretch the truth.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Remember that Cheney made unprecendented visits to the CIA after 9/11, visits that have been described as intimidating for most agents, what with the VP hovering over your work and breathing down your neck (ooh; a ghastly image, no?). One is forced to wonder just how Cheney might have actually avoided meeting Plame during those visits, given her rather key position in the task force studying the matter in question.
Now, consider Cheney's situation during those weeks after the SOTU when Wilson was making 'anonymous' noises about the infamous 16 words. One has to wonder how long it took him to discover that Wilson was married to the woman who was heading the CIA unit that was decidedly not giving him the intelligence he wanted. Clearly he already knew this when Wilson penned his op-ed for the NYTimes, because he referenced the connection in his notes. We also knew that Cheney already knew this by mind-June, because that's when he shared it with Libby, and it was in a document circulated prior to June 10th. How long prior, who knows...
... but imagine, just for a moment, that you're Cheney (egads, another ghastly thought!), and you're wrestling with this Wilson problem, and then you discover that he's married to this woman whose work has interfered with your plans every inch of the way down this path to excuses for invasion. Don't you just know he was wetting himself trying to figure a way to destroy both these albatrosses with one blow?
This scenario is enough for me to consider that Wilson's speculations about the administration's intention to punish him and intimidate other whistleblowers were cover for his wife's real role, not just with the CIA, but in her own outing; Cheney wanted her OUT, even if it meant outED. All along these questions have nagged at the whole scandal; just why did Cheney risk so much to out this woman? What was worth that?
Et voila, this DU thread suggests other angles that have, er, leaked into my thinking on all this. For example, that the outing was not about Wilson at all, or even about Plame's role on the CIA task force, but about Brewster-Jennings. That her organization was hot on the trail of Cheney's connections with highly illegal arms sales, including the infamous A. Q. Khan, and of course there's the altogether too plausible conjecture that our suspicions of four years ago - that there were plans in place to plant the very weapons the neocons accused Hussein of harboring - appear to have been in place for routing via Turkey (which Sibel Edmonds likely uncovered in her exposure). Those plans - and probably more (think Sy Hersh's comparisons to Iran-Contra this week) - were thwarted by the same CIA front group that was dogging Cheney's tail for his profiteering while at Halliburton, Brewster-Jennings.
I doubt anyone needs me to connect any more dots for you from here. My bet is that Fitz is deep into all this, and working hard to collect all the necessary evidence to nail the Big Dick (now that's an image worth entertaining). Why else would he go so far out on a limb during his closing statement?
Regardless of whether these accusations about plans for funneling WMDs into Iraq through Turkey are true, there will always remain the nagging disconnect on the reason Cheney’s office gave for raising Plame’s name, and then - again via Novakula - the name of her front company. Was anyone really convinced that, because Plame may have set up the trip, Wilson was therefore less credible, or less of a manly man? Did we all just dump Wilson’s assertions because of course you see his wife planned the trip, like a junket you see, and therefore nothing he says about any of this can be believed.
Here is a fascinating exercise in vitro of this very sales job. See if you’re sold:
Transcript of audio of woodward and armitage:
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife's a fucking analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It's still weird.
Armitage: It-- [chuckling] it's perfect. This is what she does she is a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh she is.
Armitage: Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see.
Armitage: [unintelligible] look at it.
Woodward: Oh I see. I didn't [unintelligible]
Armitage: Yeah. See?
Woodward: Oh, she's the chief WMD?
Armitage: No she isn't the chief, no.
Woodward: But high enough up that she can say, 'Oh yeah, hubby will go.'
Armitage: Yeah, he knows Africa.
Eanngh. Thanks for playing, but no dice.
Like the man said, it just don’t add up. But Plame’s role on WMDs, now that begins to look like a real equation. Add the attempt to plant them in Iraq via Turkey, and it starts looking like a real mathematical wizardry. Putting this trial into some real perspective. You listening, Mr. Woodward?
7 comments:
Great post doc. I have never believed Plame was outed to punish Wilson, I just didn't know why it was done until I started digging into Sibel Edmonds. One thing that stands out about some of the things she's said: (I think in the VF piece)Some "well known" names in the US are involved in selling black market nukes to terrorists. Brewster-Jennings/Plame seem the perfect ones to have been investigating such crimes.
But forget all that.(lol) According to WaHoPo:
Above all, Fitzgerald, who is 6 feet 2 and weighs 215 pounds, played rugby,
*sigh*
*swoon*
That's a lotta man.
Well, I hope the Fitz Estrogen Brigade is not the only class of readers attracted to this story. I think this is one of the best posts ever to find a place on this blog.
You're right, doc -- Cheney must have run into Valerie at CIA. But why wouldn't she mention such a thing, now that she is no longer with the Agency?
"Why did they actually risk exposing themselves to felony charges by exposing Plame’s status?"
Because, drunk with power, they thought they were invulnerable, they thought, as it was within the province of fighting a war they could claim absolute executive discretion, as per the earlier thread referencing Fraenkel's The Dual State.
That they explicitly work as if within the context of Fraenkel's thesis is, I think, prima facie evidence that they understand their position to be effectually illegitimate, their whole administration an expression of consciousness of guilt.
ah. joe, as ever, you are way too kind.
(though i do count myself in that fitz brigade!)
in answer to the question, why would plame not mention cheney? well, please note that she has said absolutely NOTHING about anything with regard to everything that's happened. nada. but a couple of other things come to mind. one, there is a LOT of investigating still going on with regard to this whole mess, and i doubt that she'd want to interfere with that. moreover, with cheney in fitz's crosshairs, i would be exceptionally careful what i said in public. who knows; she may have already spoken of these things to fitz. perhaps that is precisely what gave him such chutzpah in the case.
but there must be a snag somewhere that is keeping cheney protected for so long. i am disappointed the dems haven't brought sibel up to testify again. that would be the undoing of so many. but it must be done.
though they do suffer immense hubris, cheney the worst of the lot, i still think they are careful, that 'conscious guilt' thang. which is why they're so careful to arrange for plausible deniability. how libby must be feeling to know that he was dick's cover in all this. none of this speaks well of loyalty as a virtue.
meanwhile, we also don't know just what plame has planned for her book. or for discovery in her lawsuit. these things will unfold. the question is, natch, will anything happen before cheney gets hauled before a judge? i fear for his sanity as he becomes increasingly cornered; he will no doubt do something quite nuts. and joe, you're on the money as usual with your concerns about his current trips to strategic points. the man clearly has something up his sleeve, and none of it's good.
we're about to witness a huge shift in history, i fear.
Dr E - great post.
ftr - there's nothing I've seen that suggests that Sibel knows anything about Iraq - but she did find out that AQKhan had suppliers in America and in Turkey.
Sunny: BJ certainly was investigating the American Turkish Council and associated groups.
dr e - we'll have some news next week on a new push to get Sibel some hearings.
I'd like to add that re the question of why Cheney & group expected to get away with committing an obvious felony, Ashcroft was attorney general at the time. As I understand it, he was expected to make sure adequate cover was in place, but was then confronted by Comey, who undoubtedly had enough on Ashcroft to force him aside and give plenary powers to Fitzgerald.
One gap was left unsealed and the torrent began to erode the whole facade.
Now back to your regularly scheduled vice presidential arrogance.
"how libby must be feeling to know that he was dick's cover in all this. "
A sort prophylactic. That really speaks to who Republicans like this really are, like Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove, eager to be used.
Post a Comment