What Do Scooter Libby and Joe Lieberman Have in Common?

by emptywheel

What do Scooter Libby and Joe Lieberman have in common? A lot of rich friends, apparently.

Following closely on the news that Joe Lieberman's biggest public apologist, Marty Peretz, had joined Libby's Defense Fund, we learn that the Chair of Libby's Defense Fund, Mel Sembler, is hosting a pricey fundraiser for Holy Joe. Sembler, you'll remember, also happens to have been the Ambassador to Italy when SISMI started sending bogus Niger claims to the CIA.

In his post explaining his ambivalent views toward Libby, Marty seems to capture of the angst of Neocons everywhere.

Let me concede: I am a friend of Scooter Libby. But I do not like his boss. And I do not like his boss's wife. I know this gets me no credit with the all-or-nothing crowd. Still, I like Scooter, who is quite brilliant, very honest, and brave. Also funny. I've contributed to The Libby Legal Defense Fund and have joined the fund's advisory committee, which is not large because in Washington old pals dessert when even their college roommate gets into trouble. In a time when self-styled civil libertarians are giving money to defend Muslim terrorists, I am happy to help defend an American patriot, some of whose politics I do not share and some of whose politics I do, from a cynical onslaught of the special prosecutor who put journalists into jail for not telling him what he already knew.

Shorter Marty: I don't like Dick, I don't even agree with Libby, but when the Neocon ship is sinking, we all have to band together and "dessert." Let them eat cake.

The Sembler fundraiser was closed to the press, so I don't know if he made similarly ambivalent statements about Joementum. Nor do I know if he accused Democrats supporting Democratic candidate Lamont of being cake-eaters. But it deserves mention that the warmongers seem to be mounting a common defense.

War, apparently, trumps ideology when your war's under attack.

Update:

Apparently I'm not the only one seeing the connection. From AP's coverage of the Sembler fundraiser:

Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted last year on charges that he lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and when he subsequently told reporters.

Sembler, who is board chairman of the Sembler Company, a real estate and shopping center development company, said he has worked hard to raise money for Libby's legal defense fund.

"It's amazing to go to all this hard work when a crime never got committed," said Sembler, who also described himself as "dear friends" with Cheney.

Uh huh. I suppose someone chairing the "Make Sure Dick Doesn't Get Indicted" club would say that, Ambassador Sembler. Reading right from Comstock's script.

Comments

[Jim E.]

Wow, Marty Peretz is an ass. That post of his was so lame, I wondered at first if he's being intentionally stupid. Upon further reflection, no, he's being genuinely stupid, and not pretending.

At the end, he says that Fitz put more than one journalist in jail. Not true, technically speaking, since only Miller served time. He also says that the journalists didn't tell Fitz anything he didn't already know. Also not true. See Matt Cooper, one of the journalists threatened with jail.

Peretz wrote that Armitage confessed to violating the IIPA. This is, of course, not at all true either. Armitage confessed to no such thing, and one would hope that Peretz would be able to figure that out. So eager is he to shift any and all blame away from his friend Scooter, he's hystericallyl making up things so that he can blame others.

What's bizarre is that I thought Libby's defenders have been adament that Plame was not protected under IIPA, making Fitz's investigation needless from the get go. Now we have Peretz saying she *was* protected, and even admitting, however relectantly, that she was put in "danger" due to her outing (albeit an outing he blames on Joe Wilson).

And on a side note, he make the ridiculous claim that because civil libertarians are giving money to defend Muslim terrorists, he's proud to give and raise money for his friend Scooter.

I must say, I wonder if Scooter and Co. appreciate this kind of "help" from Marty Peretz, or if they've already kindly told him to shut the hell up.

[ecoast]

EW - As you noted, Peretz wrote "dessert" for "desert".

And he is a Harvard professor?

[emptywheel]

Jim E

Sure looks like Peretz is telling the same tale as Novak, huh? That's one of the reasons I harped on Novak's changing versions of whether Armitage said CPD or not--only if they're going to accuse Armitage of IIPA violation is it safe for Novak to say he was told, by anyone, that she was in CPD.

FWIW, I think this feeds right into Libby's strategy. If Armitage leaked Plame's covert identity, then his "I heard it from the journalists, including Bob Woodward, who was told by Armitage" is much stronger. Otherwise, Dick telling him that Plame was CPD, and Libby telling Ari, is much more damaging.

It makes me so furious I want to write a book to refute their BS.

[skip]

Just the usual subjects being clannish. Peretz would join the David Duke Defense Fund if Duke decreed the waters of the litani should be redirected to making peach trees bloom in the West Bank.

[William Ockham]

What an awful piece of dissembling tripe Peretz foisted on the world. I think I need to take a bit extra of my blood pressure medicine this morning. The man must be immune to his unintentional irony. Libby is "honest" (I guess he honestly lied to the FBI and the grand jury). Joe Wilson is a nobody. Wilson endangered his wife, but she wasn't really in danger. My favorite part of the article is that it's a column called "The Spine". The arguments that Peretz is making are all of the type that are only used by spineless apologists.

[skip]

"Peretz wrote "dessert" for "desert". And he is a Harvard professor?"

So is Alan "torture warrant" Dershowitz.

But as Jim Lehrer might observe, Peretz bought this podium too.

[Jim E.]

EW,

I suppose it helps Libby insofar as he can keep saying he heard it from journalists. But I don't see how emphasizing Plame's CPD work and IIPA status is something Libby's team would want to acknowledge, much less emphasize. Unless this is their PR version of preemption to soften possible disclosures at trial, I don't see why they would want to muzzle the alternate, if somewhat irrelevant Toesing line of attack--that Plame wasn't covered by IIPA in the first place, therefore the charges ought to be dismissed or Libby pardoned.

So I tend to think Peretz is a bit of loose cannon in that blog post. But I do see the desperate logic in Libby being able to say he heard all of this, including the CPD stuff, from Woodward. Of course, Woodward's already said that he didn't recall even bringing Plame up with Libby, so it would seem even less likely that Woodward was spouting off all this stuff, unsolicited, in Libby's direction.

But I suppose Libby's lawyers might be able to hang their hat on Woodward's testimony if he says something along the lines of: "I don't recall that happening, but I suppose it's possible." (Maybe their memory expert would be there to explain Woodward's forgetfulness, not Libby's!) Woodward wouldn't be the first of Libby's "journalist" friends who get real confused under oath about who said what, and when they said it. You know, the basic skills supposedly required of the folks working on high school newspapers.

[alabama]

No sign of Marc Rich on the Libby Defense Fund's web page. How can this be? Rich won his pardon from Clinton through the efforts of Libby, after all--causing Clinton no end of trouble in the process.

[emptywheel]

Jim E

I think there are indications that's what LIbby has planned. I'm looking at some of the most recent filings, will let you know.

Btw, Walton ruled that the classified information Libby wants can be admitted at the trial as evidence. Government still has the ability to redact it. And I presume Walton will only admit it if it fits his own narrow interpretation of what the case is about (that is, he's not going to let Libby rehash the war, which will leave a lot inadmissable). But it makes it more likely the greymail strategy will work.

[Jeff]

What do I know, but Walton's decision strikes me as the right one. Basically, the ordinary rules of evidence apply even to classified information, largely to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The government can always dismiss the case to protect the classified information. Obviously, it's an opening for the Bush administration and the Libby defense to act all scoundrelly. But the benefits go well beyond this case, at least potentially. Now if only we could get the judiciary to stop being so deferential to the Bush administration when it invokes the state secrets privilege as the defendant or friend of the defendants to derail legitimate legal actions against them.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

What a frothy neocon dessert confection Peretz offers up for the gullible. EW, your book ought to be a wowser, especially given these howlers the neocons keep tossing your way.

So A Former Hill Staffer, who is also a 'smart' guy and a patriot, is being treated badly by a federal prosecutor? This is the same Former Hill Staffer who relied on Addington to give him legal advice? Who wouldn't even take 'a different kind of leak' without checking with The Dick?

Armitage is certainly serving the neocon interests by being 'the first leaker', so that Libby might have 'heard about Plame from reporters': the Plame Leak was not a crime, so therefore Patrick Fitzgerald is an 'out of control' prosecutor. The neocons are using Armitage as their bulwark in the Plame Case, but what does Armitage gain by playing into it?

It's interesting to note that Marty fails to mention Wilson's ambassadorial duties during Gulf I; clearly, Wilson is to be recast as a pathetic dead-ender and failure. And no mention of Ms Plame's duties involving WMD, Iran, or Iraq? And those obscure Pacific islands that Marty mentions as Wilson's postings... they're not located anywhere near nuclear testing sites, are they? I could probably check a map, but perhaps Marty ought to have posed the question himself before he smeared Wilson.

Evidently, Marty P thinks that it serves his interests to write revisionist codswoddle, rather than truth and honesty. I assume the codswoddle will only become weirder as they get more desperate coming up on both Nov. elections, and the January Libby trial. I expect to see Libby ensconced in whipped up latherings of neocon sophistry, presented with just the right touch of sentimental angst, from now through next spring.

These criminals try my patience.

[William Ockham]

Does anybody have a link to the latest filings? I'm especially interested in the one about the admission of classified evidence. If we ever do get to a prosecution of George W. Bush for authorizing war crimes, the prosecution will need to declassify those secret orders to the CIA.

[HML]

Sembler, Libby, Peretz: Zionist first. Every other consideration is second.

[QuickSilver]

Peretz's article is useful in helping us reconstruct the rightwing meme. Rove wants Armitage not only to be the "primary" source for Novak, but also wants to imply that Armitage's leaking blew back to Rove, too.

When David Broder wrote (erroneously) that an article in Salon by Sidney Blumenthal "was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame," Broder may well have been working off the same list of talking points Peretz appears to be using. Rove wants to wiggle out under the "Armitage as primary leaker" excuse, too. To that end, he has enlisted allies like Broder and Peretz who are either willing to misreport the facts, who are too stupid to know the difference, or who really don't think there's any problem telling a lie (in print or under oath) if they think it's for the greater good. And who knows? Maybe Rove has something on Peretz, too...

(Memo to Broder and Peretz: Matt Cooper spoke to Rove on July 11th, 2003, hearing from him about Mrs. Wilson and her CIA work in WMD. For Matt Cooper, Rove was the first, initial, primary source, and Libby the confirming source. Rove told Cooper about Mrs. Wilson three days before Novak's column appeared. Rove even added that things would be declassified soon, and that he had probably said too much. Before Rove gave him a waiver to testify, Cooper was hours away from going to prison, having appealed his case to the Supreme Court.)

[kelly]

and let's not forget Sembler's long standing (swept under the rug) support of horrific child abuse! Go Mel!

[emptywheel]

WO

I emailed the filings to your listed email.

Jeff

I agree--I don't have much complaint with the ruling. And as I suggested, Walton still says he will check for relevancy first, which will no doubt rule out a lot of material.

[John Forde]

I think Judge Walton's ruling today slightly increases Libby's opening for greymail, but greatly reduces the odds of a mistrial. All in all it's a good thing.

[William Ockham]

ew,

Thanks.

QuickSilver,

That is an important point. I'm not sure why, after all we've seen, that it continues to amaze me that there are so many people, like Peretz, who are willing to lie, dissemble, and distort on behalf of a cabal that would feed them to the lions in a heartbeat if it furthered the cabal's goals. What do these 'useful idiots' (a term I once loathed, but I can't come up with a better one here) hope to gain?

[Jodi]

Someone better brew up a fresh pictcher of Hemlock, and "get Aunt Vera's good cups" out and put them on the silver serving tray.

I foresee a lot of disappointment.

[Jeff]

For what it's worth, I just think that Broder has not followed the case that closely, and is not a very thoughtful person (if you want evidence, look at his column today, it's stunning); I don't think he's working off of talking points.

I will say this, in all the nonsense spouted since the confirmation that Armitage was Novak's first senior administration official, the thing I find most despicable are the attacks on Fitzgerald. Unlike many people at, oh, say, FDL, I have never been a Fitzgerald worshipper, never saw him as a savior, and in fact I think there are grounds for criticizing him. But to call what he's done a cynical onslaught, as Peretz does - to say nothing of the incredibly nasty crap being slung at him now by many on the right, with sincerity and also as a cynical effort to delegitimize his entire investigation in order to make the prosecution of Libby like illegitimate - is just despicable. I do disagree with some of the judgments he has made - I think he's been too deferential toward the Bush administration, and while I think he exercised considerable good judgment with regard to journalists within the confines of the case itself, I have a feeling he wasn't thinking enough about the effects that his judgments would have when they formed precedents for other prosecutors with less good judgment, and less respect for the first amendment and the important role of journalists in politics. But he is utterly admirable in recognizing the strictly limited task that is his and within those confines in recognizing and emphasizing the role that his own judgment plays. It is admirable in part because it opens up a real possibility of honest disagreement. Here I would contrast Fitzgerald with what is for me the most memorable moment of the whole Lewinsky mess, Ken Starr hiding behind the law when he announced, "I revere the law," as though his own judgment had nothing to do with it, it was all the law and its grand abstract principles acting. Look at the way, at his press conference, Fitzgerald explained his judgment about the Espionage Act. Now, again, I think I disagree with his position on it, but at least we could have an honest disagreement. (Maybe I don't, when you consider the fact that he did not prosecute under the Espionage Act - as compared, say, with those who are going after the two AIPAC guys for Espionage Act violations, which strikes me as a terribly bad thing to do in itself and as an opening to even more terribly bad things.) He puts himself clearly on the line in making clear his own judgments. And I have to say, I think he has for the most part done a superb job under almost impossibly difficult conditions.

Except for that decision not to indict Rove. ;)

[Jodi]

Oops. As I was submitting my comment my eye caught "pictcher" rather than pitcher. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was another dumb professor type. It was just my dumb typing skills. AND NO SPELL CHECKER EITHER!!

[norman reichendahl]

Does anyone here live in DC? Did anyone else see Jason Leopold yesterday? I saw Leopold yesterday, who I believe lives in Los Angeles, coming out of Patton Boggs with another man who looked like a lawyer or a banker (the conservative attire... I'm stereotyping) law firm with a pretty thick envelope and he was smiling. Anyways, I followed him and last I left him he went into the district courthouse.

What in the world is going on? Is something happening? Is Leopold a witness in this case?

[Jim E.]

Jeff wrote: "I will say this, in all the nonsense spouted since the confirmation that Armitage was Novak's first senior administration official, the thing I find most despicable are the attacks on Fitzgerald."

Those attacks, of course, didn't just start with the Armitage revelation. The Armitage revelation merely allowed the attacks to resurface, and with more volume. If the Libby judge, once the trial starts, ever starts to rule against the defendent, he, too, will be a brainwashed Libby-hater who doesn't understand that Joe Wilson is actually the devil-incarnate.

Didn't Saint Starr have his own PR flack? Babbington, or some such? (And didn't he get caught doing illegal leaks?) Is Fitz really not going to do any pushback aside from court filings? The attacks against Fitz are so numerous and one-sided, and so inaccurate (see Weekly Standard, Marty Peretz, the Corner) that at some point it has to effect the jury pool, or at least the popular impression that justice is, or isn't, being done. For all the talk about respecting the rule of law, unanswered smears against a prosecutor in a specific case can undermine confidence in the entire system. (Yeah, that may be a tad hyperbolic on my part, but you get the point.)

As far as Fitz goes, if it weren't for the fact that he seems to have genuinely investigated the crap out of this case (and for the fact that he climbed all the way to the top of Illinois politics to nab the governor), I don't know if I'd otherwise be that thrilled with him. Libby's lies are so damn obvious that Fitz basically *had* to indict him. With regards to the others -- Rove, Cheney, and even Armitage -- Fitz seems a little gun-shy to me and too worried about his win-loss percentage. But again, I know his track record, so its hard for me to really accuse him of pulling his punches.

[emptywheel]

My chief complaint with Fitz is that I think his agreements with journalists gave his investigation blind spots, blind spots that may have got him in trouble (Cooper, Armitage, July 2, etc).

But then, I realize he's just beginning. I don't know that this will proceed beyond Libby. But, even though I know I've got a better sense of where he's going than 95% of the people following this case, I realize there may be a whole lot of information he hasn't revealed. So I can't really judge his performance here.

[norman reichendahl]

check out this story on the case from msnbc

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14941062/