Brendan Nyhan (once again, and it should be needlessly) points out the nonsense.

Sorry to upset your delusions, Bill.

If indeed there was no underlying crime, why did Libby lie?

Matthew Ygelsias writes

Most of Libby's defenders -- George W. Bush, David Brooks, etc. -- don't seem to be denying that Libby committed a crime by lying under oath to investigators. They want us to say that, rather, he deserves to be treated very leniently because there was no big deal here. The alleged absence of an underlying crime is key to that theory. The converse theory is that there was an underlying crime and the crime can't be proven because Libby lied to investigators.

If that theory is wrong -- if there really was no crime -- then it seems we ought to get some kind of explanation from Libby as to why he lied. People sometimes do have reasons to lie to investigators other than a desire to cover up criminal activity (hiding non-criminal activity that's embarrassing is the obvious one) but if Libby wants mercy he should offer up a plausible score on this account. But Libby hasn't offered any such story. Instead, he's offered a wildly implausible story -- that he's innocent. Under those circumstances, it's very odd to offer clemency. He's shown no remorse and appears to be continually engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Maybe there was no crime here; but if there wasn't, then what was Libby doing? He's not even trying to convince us that he had some other reason to lie.

Have Libby come clean as to WHY he lied to the grand jury and my suspicions about the possibility of further crime are greatly alleviated.

But so long as Libby refuses to explain WHY he lied and obstructed justice, the questions will fester.

In specific response to brendan's answer:

Libby is by all accounts a loyal servant. Couldn't he just be protecting his superiors from exposure of embarrassing but non-criminal conduct? In the end, we have no idea what happened. There is no proof of a criminal conspiracy. Asserting or speculating that one took place is irresponsible.

If Libby comes clean as to WHY he lied then the issue will fester less.

Brendan admits we do not know why Libby lied. And that question remains an important one, especially in the context of Presidential intervention.

How in the hell would I know, Bill?

I don't even know if Libby did in fact lie, given the way the trial was run, and the fact that so many journalists who testified against him weren't grilled, or prosecuted, or even allowed a decent cross, given the way the trial was structured. Their testimony was the only evidence against him...

If he did, it was because he knew the law no better than Fitzgerald, or he didn't know what else Fitzgerald knew.

And the people who we know lied (if not under oath, e.g., Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson) weren't even called to testify. Wouldn't that have been interesting? (But probably not to people like Matthew Iglesias...)

Oh I forgot about this.

At Libby's trial, didn't Theodore Wells (Libby's own lawyer) assert in opening statements that his client (Lewis Libby) was being made a scapegoat for Karl Rove?

Off to google . . .

Okay, here is the passage:

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling Libby's end of the conversation. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

According to Libby's own lawyer, Lewis Libby actually said:

"I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Whether or there is an underlying crime here, why should we just shrug our shoulders and walk away?

Now with the sentence commuted, I want Libby to be given FULL immunity so we can ask him to explain this statement, in detail.

Remember, it was Theodore Wells (Libby's lawyer) who said this:

WASHINGTON - Top White House officials tried to blame vice presidential aide "Scooter" Libby for the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity to protect President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, Libby's defense attorney said Tuesday as his perjury trial began and the first witness took the stand.

Libby also should explain how his lawyer came to make these accusations to a jury, in open court.

That would be very interesting, indeed.

Well, I think this proves that Bill is a lawyer!

> I want Libby to be given FULL immunity so we can ask him to explain this statement, in detail.

Well, I think this proves that Bill is a lawyer!

But I thought he was a defense attorney. How did he suddenly become a prosecutor?

Now with the sentence commuted, I want Libby to be given FULL immunity so we can ask him to explain this statement, in detail.

In other words, you want to set up a star chamber, and go on a fishing expedition in search of your (non-existent) great white whale. Sorry, Ahab, no sale.

Opening statements aren't testimony. I grew up around lawyers and I haven't met one yet who wouldn't accuse his mother if it got his client off.

Bill: I want Libby to be given FULL immunity so we can ask him to explain this statement, in detail.

TnT: Well, I think this proves that Bill is a lawyer!

Edward: But I thought he was a defense attorney. How did he suddenly become a prosecutor?

Me: What's Bill complaint against the President, if what Bill really wants is full immunity for Libby? Bill should be joining Rand in criticizing the Special Prosecutor for failing to use his powers to actually prosecute the original "crime".

In other words, you want to set up a star chamber, and go on a fishing expedition in search of your (non-existent) great white whale. Sorry, Ahab, no sale.

Rand, do you ever have pangs of doubt about shilling for the Administration?

I used to really like reading your blog, but lately, it seems like 4/5ths of your posts are just snarky, content-free bashing of anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration. I say this as someone who preferred Bush to Kerry in '04: you're obviously a smart guy, so for heaven's sake, get your head out of your @ss and start doing a little thinking for yourself.

Rand, do you ever have pangs of doubt about shilling for the Administration?

Why would I have "pangs of doubt" about something I don't do?

it seems like 4/5ths of your posts are just snarky, content-free bashing of anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration.

Yes, "it seems like" lots of nutty things to you.

I disagree with the Bush administration, on many issues. Anyone could go through my posts and point out what a silly and innumerate comment this is. You're just upset because I don't buy into your nonsensical fantasies.

I agree with the naysayers here Bill. Trial attorneys say all sorts of interesting things in their opening and closing statements, but these aren't valid material for opening a new trial because they don't have to be true, don't have to be based on facts presented in the trial or elsewhere, and as far as I know, they don't even have to adhere to laws (like for slander) that normal speech does. About the only thing you can say about statements like that is that the judge didn't bother to have it stricken from the record, meaning it was at least remotely on topic and didn't veer into subjects forbidden by the judge.

Yes, "it seems like" lots of nutty things to you.

I disagree with the Bush administration, on many issues. Anyone could go through my posts and point out what a silly and innumerate comment this is. You're just upset because I don't buy into your nonsensical fantasies.

I've been reading your blog for about five years now, and it is clear that mine is not a 'silly and innumerate comment.' What is also clear is that that you do not have even the slightest of respect for people who read your blog, which is why I will not be reading this blog any longer.

For the record, disagreeing with the Bush Administration on a few token issues (stem cell research and gay marriage were a couple of yours, I believe) does not obscure the fact that you are an ideological lickspittle. What if, day in and day out, I defended everything the Clinton Administration did, including rudely and intemperately insulting people who dissented in any way, and then said, "Oh, but I'm no shill -- look, I disagree with them on some details of tort reform!"

In any case, the bottom line is that you've revealed yourself to be quite a jerk, and lost a long time reader. So long.

"In any case, the bottom line is that you've revealed yourself to be quite a jerk, and lost a long time reader. So long."

Go cry to mommy you silly and innumerate hypocritical twit.

Karl is correct - statements made by a prosecutor
in presenting a case are specifically immune (at
least in California law) from any liability for
defamation, even though one of the grounds that
can ordinarily be alleged for such a claim is
that a false or unjustified accusation of a crime
or illegality was made. (The notion seems to be
that everybody already knows that the prosecutor
is just getting paid to talk like that, and
is not automatically to be believed unless the
case is proved...)

Hmmm... strikes me as a convenient patch, if
nothing else; otherwise every acquittal might
constitute grounds for a lawsuit against the
prosecuting attorney! (On the other hand, maybe
that's not such a bad idea: it would sure make
them a lot more selective about bringing cases
in the first place.)

-dw

Opening statements are NOT a basis for further criminal charges however from a purely political perspective, it would be fascinating to know the backstory behind Theodore Wells saying that Libby said:

"I will not be a scapegoat for Karl Rove."

First, did Libby really say that?

If he did, that offers a fascinating insight into how the Administration does its internal business and THAT is the people's business whether or not anything criminal took place.