Libby, Libby, Libby, on the Label, Label, Label

What did you really expect from opening statements in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby? Did you really expect Libby's attorneys to throw his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, under a bus or to continue to protect Karl Rove? Did you really expect special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to pull a punch and go easy on the former White House staffer after such a long, drawn-out, bitter pre-trial battle?

Of course not. There were no great surprises Tuesday when the first blows were struck in federal court in Washington, D.C. in front of a hand-picked jury of men and women who are decidedly not Libby's peers. Fitzgerald sought to convince jurors that Libby simply lied, over and over again, when asked under oath about his role in the public disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA agent. Here is the nut graph of the Los Angeles Times' piece on the government's case: "You can't learn something startling on Thursday that you are giving out on Monday and Tuesday," Fitzgerald told the jury.

And here is how the Times portrayed the defense response. "Theodore Wells, Libby's lawyer, said his client had no motive not to tell the truth. 'This is a weak, paper-thin circumstantial evidence case about 'he said, she said,' '' Wells said. 'No witnesses. No documents. No scientific evidence.'" Oh, and by the way, Wells told jurors, my guy is the fall guy for guys like Karl Rove, apparently one of the latest generation of unindicted co-conspirators.

Upon this point both sides agreed, however. The Vice President, that is to say the most powerful vice president in the history of the nation, was actively involved in whatever shenanigans (criminal or not) that were underway at the White House in the summer of 2003, when the War in Iraq still reasonably looked like a winner for our cause and when the Bush Administration was in full attack mode against any and all enemies, real or perceived, who dared to question the prevelant truth. Neither Wells nor Fitzgerald scored any knockout blows Tuesday but already it is pretty clear that one loser in all of this is Dick Cheney, the man who one day soon will himself raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

By Andrew Cohen |  January 23, 2007; 9:30 PM ET
Previous: The Bad Guys Lose Big on Horse Slaughter | Next: Gonzo Law

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I think it is the seventh-grade-girls- hissing-and-scratching-pettiness of this White House kabal that irritates me the most! And these are the same folk who were mad cause Clinton fired someone! Don't tell me there's no vast right wing conspiracy.
Kati S.

Posted by: Kati S. | January 24, 2007 05:49 PM

I figure the vice-president will use his 'darker side' and just lie even when he is under oath, unless it can proved in a iron-clad way that he is lying.
I love the image of him being sent to prison for lying under oath.
Ruth Beazer

Posted by: Ruth Beazer | January 24, 2007 06:08 PM

I figure the vice-president will use his 'darker side' and just lie even when he is under oath, unless it can proved in a iron-clad way that he is lying.
I love the image of him being sent to prison for lying under oath.
Ruth Beazer

Posted by: Ruth Beazer | January 24, 2007 06:09 PM

I figure the vice-president will use his 'darker side' and just lie even when he is under oath, unless it can proved in a iron-clad way that he is lying.
I love the image of him being sent to prison for lying under oath.
Ruth Beazer

Posted by: Ruth Beazer | January 24, 2007 06:09 PM

I figure the vice-president will use his 'darker side' and just lie even when he is under oath, unless it can proved in a iron-clad way that he is lying.
I love the image of him being sent to prison for lying under oath.
Ruth Beazer

Posted by: Ruth Beazer | January 24, 2007 06:09 PM

What does someone have to do to get impeached in this administration. I still cannot understand why no one was indicted for intentionally releasing Valerie Pains name and what real consequences occurred as a result of that.

Posted by: kat | January 27, 2007 10:30 AM

What does someone have to do to get impeached in this administration. I still cannot understand why no one was indicted for intentionally releasing Valerie Pains name and what real consequences occurred as a result of that.

Posted by: kat | January 27, 2007 10:30 AM

Hey Cohen, STOOOOPID, didn't anyone teach you how to use spell-check??? Apparently not! PREVELANT IS NOT A WORD!!!!

Posted by: SpaceExplorer | January 27, 2007 09:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company