Tick, Tick Tick……. Boom?

Can it be true? Is  Bush’s ‘accountability moment’ closer than we thought?

All of a sudden and without very much warning the Bush administration has been neatly checkmated by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby perjury trial. All week the prosecutor has been demolishing Scooter Libby’s memory lapse defence, forcing Libby into his fallback position , that  ‘Rove did it and ran away and I’m being blamed, waaah’.

This defence means that both Rove and Cheney have now been subpoenaed to appear as witnesses, the first time they will be publicly grilled on events surrounding Plame and Bush’s war lies.

Both Karl Rove and Dick Cheney will be compelled to testify under oath about their deliberate outing of one of their own country’s secret agents, Valerie Plame. It’s alleged by the prosecution that they leaked the information just to get political revenge on her ex-husband, who had exposed the administration’s blatant lie that Saddam Hussein had attempted to obtain uranium to build  nuclear weapons. This untruth was a central component of their dishonest and illegal attempts to concoct a casus belli to justify the preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Their problem now – and it seems the White House hadn’t anticipated it, which tells you all you need to know about Harriet Miers’ tenure as WH Chief counsel – is that,  because Libby’s defence consists of the argument that Rove did it and Libby’s the scapegoat, this implies a conspiracy between the Oval office and Dick Cheney, which in turn implicates Bush. Cheney must’ve colluded with both Bush and Rove in blaming his own closest aide , and though it’s Cheney and Rove who’ll actually be on the stand being publicly interrogated, it’s a whole can of worms Bush himeslf would really rather not have opened.

And they’re just two of the witnesses likely to be called to testify. Still to come are many other WH officials and mebers of the Republican nomenklatura, all of whom have their own hides to protect. Former WH press spokesman Ari Fleischer for instance was so concerned about his own skin he refused to testify without a guarantee of immunity.

Bush must be worrying himself sick as nemesis closes in on him. No wonder he looks so dreadful, thin and old. I doubt he’s getting his 12 hour nightly sleep unassisted. Now the trial is about to reach the point where he must do something desperate, like issuing a pardon, to save himself and his closest cronies from public exposure as the criminals they are.

This coming week will see some real nail-biting stuff. Will Cheney & Rove lie under oath to save Bush’s skin, damning Libby? Will their fervid loyalty carry them through perjuring themselves? If they do, will Libby drop the whole cabal into the shit? How far will prosecutor Fitzgerald question Rove & Cheney about the rationale for the war and Bush’s role in that?

So what are Bush’s options at this dangerous stage? Of course Bush, wielding his doubtfully-acquired Presidential powers, could end all this by fiat and pardon Libby tomorrow. Murray Waas thinks this course of action is what Libby’s lawyers are signalling to the WH with their tactics so far.

But why would they do that? Although a pardon would solve a number of his problems, for Libby this would mean he’d admitted guilt. This has the potential to ruin him financially, as a presidential pardon doesn’t preclude the bringing of any civil suit that results from the crime pardoned. That really would be a desperate move.

But Bush’s dilemma is that, although a pardon may halt the prosecution and the inconvenient revelations about his lies, it will cause a political furore. But why should Bush give  a fig for that, as long as his little local difficulty is over and Cheney & Rove kept off the stand? 

It’s always been his way – get a job by nepotism or other dubious means, royally screw it up with incompetence and dishonesty, then run away leaving things in a shambles. Rely on the resulting chaos to mask culpabilty and save his ass and if that doesn’t work, crank up the Republican noise machine.

Will the same strategy work for him this time, or will the WH let the trial go ahead and Rove and Cheney lie under oath? I don’t know, but I can’t wait to see what happens.

But one other eventuality than a pardon occurs to me – over this past couple of weeks, the administration has been quietly firing politically independent US federal prosecutors (8 so far), and replacing them with loyal Republican apparatchiks.

These handpicked and underqualified party loyalists don’t require confirmation by Congress, thanks to a nifty clause slipped into a totally unrelated piece of legislation by a loyal Republican senator. How very cunning of him in the light of those attorneys being in the midst of prosecuting any number of Republican misdeeds. I doubt he thought of that on his own.

Bush may not have to pardon Libby at all, just fire Patrick Fitzgerald instead.

Personally I really, really want to see Cheney on the stand, as do lots of people. It’ll be standing room only for  Fitz v Cheney, the OK corral de nos jours, and if his recent combative appearances on television are any guide, it ‘ll be nothing if not entertaining. Personally I hope Cheney gets so apopletic that a mere lawyer dares to call him to account that he has a stroke and keels over right there in his chair. 

But will the trial even get that far? Has Bush got the gall to step in and stop it?  We’ll just have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall says he knows why Ari Fleischer soght immunity:

It turns out Ari Fleischer will be the next witness, once court resumes Monday. (Damn, just missed him!) The defense team wants to note—for the jury’s benefit—that Fleischer demanded immunity before he would agree to testify, because this might cast Fleischer’s testimony in a different light.

And here Fitzgerald makes a nice little chess move: Fine, he says, we can acknowledge that Fleischer sought immunity. As long as we explain why. Turns out Fleischer saw a story in the Washington Post suggesting that anyone who revealed Valerie Plame’s identity might be subject to the death penalty. And he freaked.

Heh.

Scooter Libby’s Defence: “Evil Dick Made Me Do It, Waaah!”

Libby&Cheney

We’ve had our differences in the past, but that doesn’t detract from my appreciation of Firedoglake’s superb coverage of former Cheney assistant Scooter Libby’s trial for perjury over the outing of CIA undecover agent Valerie Plame during the Niger Uranium scandal..

Here’s a sample:

The first opening statement was given today by the prosecution, with Patrick Fitzgerald leading off for the government. His opening was concise, very tightly constructed, and left no doubt that he was very clear about the reasons for which he sought an indictment for I. Lewis Libby from the federal grand jury for the five count indictment returned last October. Fitzgerald’s style presents as someone who puts together the pieces of the puzzle until they fit together as a tight whole — and he certainly tried to do that with his opening this morning.

The stage was set from the start of the opening with regard to pushback against Amb. Joseph Wilson, whose op-ed in the New York Times (and his earlier unattributed quotes to other journalists) went to the heart of the credibility of the Bush Administration’s foundation — or lack thereof — for starting the war in Iraq. Fitzgerald walked the jury back to the “sixteen words” in the President’s State of the Union address on January 28, 2003 — and the fact that Amb. Joseph Wilson’s allegations brought the possiblity that the President lied to the American public in that speech right into the living rooms of average Americans.

Because that credibility was being challenged so close to the 2004 election cycle, because the credibility the Dick Cheney in particulr was being directly questioned, there was substantial pushback from the White House, and especially from the office of the Vice President, and Scooter Libby was tasked with getting that message out to the media.

Fitzgerald walked the jurors through the five felony charges — obstruction of justice, two counts of false statements, and two counts of perjury — and the elements of each of these charges that the government is required to prove. Fitzgerald then went through the expected evidence and testimony from various government witnesses by placing each into context on a timeline that very methodically, and effectively, laid out the government case against Libby.
More…

Libby’s defence counsel came up with something unexpected: rather than just using the ‘I’m an Important Politician, I can’t be expected to remember everything’ defence to the charge of perjury, he’s going for the ‘It wasn’t me and anyway I was only following orders’ argument as the WaPo reports:

The mission of Mr. Wells, in contrast, was to present the case as hopelessly complicated, thus leaving the jurors in doubt about the validity of the charges. Mr. Wells spoke for nearly two and a half hours, ranging over issues of the reliability of memory; Mr. Libby’s duties, which during the relevant period included crises in Liberia and Turkey; and threats from Al Qaeda on the days that Mr. Libby spoke to reporters.

But his most startling comment was his assertion that Mr. Libby had become enmeshed in legal difficulty because of White House efforts to protect Mr. Rove.

If Mr. Libby and his lawyers press their strategy of blaming the White House, it could prove risky, possibly even jeopardizing chances of a presidential pardon for Mr. Libby if he is convicted.

Mr. Libby, Mr. Wells said, complained to Vice President Dick Cheney that he was being set up as a fall guy. Mr. Cheney supported that view, Mr. Wells said, and handwrote a note saying, “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”

Oooh, the White House isn’t going to like that….

[Rubs hands together in glee]

Looks like the slime are turning on each other on both sides of the Atlantic.

[cartoon from the Illustrated Daily Scribble]

Comment of the Day

I don’t really have much in the way of criteria for CoTD, other than it makes me laugh or go “Exactly!”.

This comment falls into the latter category.

I had been planning a long post on the legal issues surrounding the cash for honours inquiry and arrests but it’s a dismal Monday morning, threatening to snow, and I really need to go and at least stock up on bread and milk before all the shelves are cleared by the waddling, babushka’d, apple-dumpling-shaped grandmas who, with unexpected speed, descend en masse on the shops at this time of day. But battling the sharp-elbowed old dears for bread and milk will at least take my mind off dwelling on the stench emanating from Westminster.

Call me a starry-eyed old legal idealist but every time I think about this enquiry I get angrier and angrier at the way Blair and his circle of sofa-sitting incompetents treat the law as yet another infinitely malleable tool to prop their power up with. Then I become incoherent.

So thanks Downsman. whoever you are, for saving me some angst with your comment to columnist Jackie Ashley in the Grauniad, .

downsman

January 22, 2007 01:27 AM

My own collage of New Labour this week would consist of the following:

1. The entirely normal practice of arresting a suspect on a ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’ charge being met by allegations of ‘theatrics’ from a twice discredited former Home Secretary who knows perfectly well it is standard police procedure. A man whose sensational autobiography sold in pitiful numbers because no-one can tell when he is telling the truth.

2. The same line being plugged by the Culture Secretary, a woman guilty of serious non-disclosure of personal interests, cleared only by the intervention of Mr Blair. A woman whose family wealth is mainly based on setting up carousel tax-evasion measures around various tax-havens, then admittedly lying about it. A woman who then proceeded on Any Questions to state her absolute confidence Ms Turner is not guilty of any wrongdoing, thus placing intolerable and inappropriate pressure on the police during a legitimate investigation. Making you wonder why she did not similarly intervene during the Soham investigation to say that Ian Huntley was “not guilty and should be released”.

3. Reminding myself that a government which supports both ‘extraordinary’ and ‘ordinary’ rendition, and which regards Guantanamo as an “understandable anomaly” is now concerned about a suspect being arrested at home before leaving for work and released by lunchtime.

4. The Attorney-General writing to a select committee to assure it in strong terms that he will be exercising the final discretion whether a cash-for-honours prosecution, of his own close political colleagues and personal friends, will proceed to trial. Who does so despite the opinion of the Lord Chancellor that this obvious conflict of interest requires him to stand aside. Who has some form for similar chicanery, in his Iraq advice and BAE intervention.

Not a pretty picture. But this is the hypocritical, lawless, bandit Britain of Mr Blair and his cabinet in January 2007. It is one more proof of Acton’s axiom that “all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Exactly.

Bwahahaha! Hoist. By. Own. Petard

.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings:

John Hinderaker: Placing Children At Risk?

by hilzoy

John Hinderaker suggests that Democrats covered up Congressman Mark Foley’s boy problem, a charge for which there is no evidence. One wonders, though, whether that is exactly what John Hinderaker did.

How did the email and instant messages that triggered the scandal come to light? It has been reported that at least one set of emails became public after they were sent to “a registered Republican” — a phrase that surely describes John Hinderaker. But when did that happen? The messages themselves are three years old. When did John Hinderaker find out about them? Did he sit on them for a while, in order to prevent them from coming out in time to influence the Presidential election, or to preserve a Republican Congressional majority?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are important and need to be answered. If John Hinderaker has known for some time about Foley’s transgressions but failed to act until now, he endangered more boys–and why? Solely to advance his partisan political interests.

One would hope that the Ethics Committee will subpoena the reporters who broke the Foley story to find out where they got their information, and when. The question to be answered is, What did John Hinderaker know, and when did he know it?

Is it possible that John Hinderaker deliberately delayed disclosure of Foley’s transgressions, thereby endangering the security of current Congressional pages and other teenage boys, solely to advance the political interests of his allies? One would certainly hope not. But it is obviously a question that needs to be investigated and answered.

I also wonder: could John Hinderaker be the anthrax killer? Has he ever denied it, or agreed to take a polygraph? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are important. Inquiring minds would like to know the answers.

Some might also say that John Hinderaker is a torture-loving disgrace to our common humanity and flays kittens for sport. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Read more: Wingnuttia, Foleygate, Blogs, Snark