Why would Scooter Libby Lie?: Can Anyone Answer this Question?

Saturday, October 29, 2005
It is roughly twenty four hours since I first heard of the indictments to be handed down concerning Scooter Libby. The same question continues to haunt me: why in hell would he lie? What could he possibly gain by doing so? Libby is not an idiot. On the contrary, he is a well educated attorney who has probably earned millions of dollars over his lifetime. The man would have known he was under no risk of being convicted on the alleged “outing” of Valerie Plame. I can only conclude that he didn’t consciously try to deceive. Libby simply does not possess a perfect tape recorder memory. How many of us do? I also agree with those who point out the difficulty of obtaining a conviction in a court of law. Indeed, only one dissenting member of the jury is sufficient to make it impossible. Libby’s criminal defense lawyer will repeatedly remind the jury that his client had no reason to deceive. I can only speak for myself, but I would never vote to convict.

In the final analysis, Patrick Fitzgerald’s labors are essentially a waste of time---and taxpayer dollars. One suspects that this overly zealous prosecutor lacked the common sense to know when to put a stop to the proceedings. Fitzgerald wanted to go out of his way to prove his independence from the White House. His assignment should have ended immediately after realizing no law was initially broken. The rest of this nonsense has been similar to a witch hunt. And yes, it seems like Fitzgerald's may have listened too closely to the screaming jackals comprising the MSM. I am greatly irritated by Fitzgerald’s sole public concern for the safety of CIA employees. Why isn’t he also upset by Valerie Plame’s apparent attempt to harm the Bush administration? Are members of the CIA given a free pass to slime those they disagree with? Does this mean that one is powerless to protect themselves without jeopardizing their freedom?

9 comments:

Syl said...

I don't think he lied. Read my post above. I wrote and posted it before I saw your article. :(

terrye said...

David:

rock and hard place.

Rick Ballard said...

David,

I'm having a difficult time reading Fitzgerald. His appearance yesterday was - to be extraordinarily charitable - unconvincing. The only thing that he has demonstrated to date is that his resources were insufficient to find what did not exist - a conspiracy. At least he had the graciousness not to fabricate some inane theory and then weave a gossamer threaded web to nab the innocent.

David Thomson said...

Human beings do remember momentous occasions. This is why we can easily call Bill Clinton a liar for denying he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. However, I think it is very possible that Clinton could forget the exact hour, day, and the color of her dress the first time he “connected” with the young lady. Why in heaven’s name should it be considered a special moment in Scooter Libby’s life when he initially learned that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA? Should lights have gone on in his head? Might he have started singing the Star-Spangled Banner?

Syl said...

David

LOL. That's a pretty sorry defense. He didn't remember when he first heard it is fine. But he didn't remember the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th times either?

And picked the 5th time out of his hat?

If he wasn't in the groove of compartmentalization, I'm not sure there's much that could help him. If that wasn't it, then he lied, pure and simple.

David Thomson said...

I recently convinced myself that I had not left Texas since 1990. It was only later that I remembered flying to see my mother in New York for a period of less than a week. Hugh Hewitt, remarked on his radio talk program, that he similarly convinced himself that Orel Hershiser is a Mormon. The famous baseball player is actually an Evangelical Protestant. False memory events are actually quite normal to the human condition. Some people, for instance, honestly believe that they were once abducted by space aliens.

It was fair for Fitzgerald's office to ask Scooter Libby about the approximate aspects concerning Valerie Plame's CIA employment. The problem began with the demand for specifics. I’m convinced that most of us would have been just as confused as Libby. Human beings do a lousy job recalling nit picky details.

gumshoe1 said...

David -

you asked over at SWrapped's site
if you're being partisan,
and therefore can't see Libby's motivation cleary.

to be blunt,
some of your posts
are coming off that way.

the Dem chant/hope/specualtion
is that Libby fell
on his sword to protect higher ups
(Cheney?Rove?)

dunno.

reality says they dunno either,
except from the *fake but accurate*
standpoint for now.

have a look at Harry Reid here:

____________________________________
Reid Calls for Rove to Resign

By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; 12:30 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000348.html
____________________________________

they want their pound of flesh,
and the dog & pony circus
won't look at the other 3/4 of the story on this one,imo.

Plame/CIA/Tenet/MSM don't want
the other 3/4 looked at.

the comments that "it was just one person" are premature at this point(since Fitz "isn't done"),
and sound premature for that matter.

what's annoying is the strong feeling that the controversy has been steered and continues to be...
...Wilson was picked and given no
CIA clearance or non-disclosure demands,gave no written report on is return,did not submit the non-written report to Cheney's office,was not silenced or reprimanded when he when he took off on his *anonymous diplomat* speaking tour and the CIA most likely leaked the referrral of the case to the DoJ
to Andrea Mithell stir up the sh*t
and the the circus into town.

none of this is getting air time.

so your responding with a bit of bias is understandable.

m2c

gumshoe1 said...

"... and the CIA most likely leaked the referrral of the case to the DoJ
to Andrea Mithell in order to stir up the sh*t and get the circus into town."

David Thomson said...

“the Dem chant/hope/specualtion
is that Libby fell
on his sword to protect higher ups
(Cheney?Rove?)”

Protect higher ups? This was not even remotely necessary. Everyone knew that no crime was initially committed. There was no reason for Libby to feel like he had to fall on his sword for Cheney or Rove. And this is why I easily predict that Libby will never be convicted. The prosecutor will be unable to provide the jury with a compelling motive for Libby’s actions. One dissenting juror is all that’s required.