Why Didn't Libby's Defense Team Focus on Cheney?
| Fri Jul. 6, 2007 8:20 AM PDT
Sorry to be so monotonous, but the holiday week has left people with an absence of news and a lot of time to speculate on all things Libby. So here's some more worthwhile block quoting. Did Libby's defense team threaten to expose Dick Cheney's crimes during the trial? And did they only back off after being guaranteed a commutation or pardon? Follow the clues, it makes a lot of sense...
If you ask any criminal defense attorney, they said we would make Dick Cheney the focus of the trial. He is perfect. He's all over this case. It really was an investigation about what Dick Cheney ordered, what Dick Cheney said, what Dick Cheney did. It's just that Dick Cheney wasn't indicted.
So no one was that surprised when the defense team made it clear they were going to call him to the trial and they were going to take the gloves off. And then suddenly, it changed and they said they were not going to call him.
They barely talked about him in any sinister way. And they adopted what could only be described as a passive defense. They virtually walked Libby into a conviction. I don't mean to be too harsh, but it seemed to me a pretty passive performance.
Well some of us speculated at the time that it seemed to be preserving the chance for a pardon. He was a loyal soldier. He took the hit in court and he remained quiet even after his conviction and even after his sentencing.
Crooks and Liars has video.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
While this is certainly an easy thing to imagine happening, particularly from this White House it would be an amazingly difficult thing to prove or even come close to proving unless they were dumb enough to write it down and then leave it laying around somewhere for someone to find. (Though this is not that hard to imagine with this White House either).
The more interesting question to me is: What if they did just what you said? Would it be against the law? Libby does not have to call anyone. Not putting up a defense is not against the law. Bush can pardon anyone he wants for any reason. It would not even have had to been stated and certainly not written down. A simple "dont worry about it" with the right kind of look on your face and 'nuff said.
It is certainly slimy but is it against the law?
