A Really Good Reason to Call Dick

by emptywheel

Folks, I think we've been missing a really obvious reason why Libby's team would want to call Dick (in addition to the wildarsed speculation I made here).

One of the most important witnesses against Libby will be Cathie Martin. She will testify:

• Sometime not long before July 8, she told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA
• She witnessed Libby's conversation with Matt Cooper on July 12 and (presumably) heard him make none of the caveats he has claimed to have made
• Libby and Dick strategized a response to Wilson while on Air Force Two (and I suspect there are details of this conversation we don't yet know)

The last one, of course, is the doozy. While we don't know the content of that conversation, it likely covers a good deal of material that might go to the question of intent, to say nothing about Dick's centrality in this leak.

There were, as best as we know, just three people who participated in that discussion: Libby, Dick, and Martin.

I speculated on some of the challenges facing Libby in impugning two of the most important witnesses against him last March.

In this post, I muse about ways that Libby might try to attack the credibility of two of the most important witnesses against him, Cathie Martin and Ari Fleischer. I think that, in the past, Libby tried to undercut Ari's value as a witness in an IIPA trial, an attempt that is now useless. I suspect that Libby is now stuck in a Catch-22. He can claim Ari and Cathie are testifying now because they were involved in the leak in some way and they're trying to gain immunity in exchange for testifying. But if they were involved, it's almost certainly because he ordered them to be involved. So if Libby adopts this approach, he'll basically be making the case that he was involved in a conspiracy to out Plame.

With the revelations since March, the value of Martin's testimony only becomes more clear, since she (and Libby's personal assistant) was a direct witness to the Cooper conversation (which is likely why Fitzgerald felt confident enough in indicting on the Cooper lie). But, as I said, the problem with the most typical ways to impugn Martin are that they would, in turn, implicate Libby in further shenanigans.

Unless you can get the third party to a discussion on which Martin will be a central witness--the July 12 conversation--to side with your version over hers.

It's Dick's word and Libby's word against Martin's word, I suspect.

Comments

[ArthurKC]

If you are correct, and there seems to be no other good explanation, this shows how desperate Libby is right now. He is banking on a mostly African-American Washington, D.C. jury buying Cheney's lies. That is a Hail Mary, for sure.

[John B.]

oh yeah...Big Time Dick has great credibility with the American People right now. What was he was saying about nuclear weapons, Iraqi contacts with al Qaida, last throes, etc...

Good plan Scooter.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

OMG. If this is accurate, I have only three words: Bring. It. On!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gore Won]

I believe Fitzpatrick deliberately did not call Cheney as a witness. He has no interest in getting into an executive privilege battle with the WH. Wells took the bait so far. Bush/Cheney may still raise executive privilege, which of course they would win. At that point, Libby can cry foul because he is being denied "best evidence" as Cheney to support his defense. I doubt that Cheney will ever see the courtroom in 2007, but I will gladly eat those words with the soda and popcorn as I watch the trial.

[John Lopresti]

Found a website with pictures from the July 12, 2003 meeting in Sun V, ID; some folks from inside the beltway were out of town that day attending the retreat.

[KM]

This is the most convincing speculation about Team Libby's motives I've seen so far.

Does this put pressure on Fitz to peel away at Dick's credibility as a witness (the most obvious way being to hint in various ways at "Dick's centrality in this leak")?

Isn't Team Libby still left with the problem of suggesting some kind of motive for Martin to lie (and to lie in considerable, convincing detail, we hope)? So does the broader conspiracy dilemma entirely go away with Dick's corroboration?

Not a lawyer, me, clearly.

[lduxwnkt buqjhvt]

buefvza dhaugo egobdqja zgmlbxqpy jbdxsqr siocafd hzdo

[qdjitpov tqcblpn]

nqhgpymwl tzejyod ynwxvru uvcwrlet ckxrsemiy rcdubmyf vguyfqhp http://www.tebqj.rfanvqpz.com

[tjkomw ywtbuvi]

hkiejt pyuekn tcgnufkd qhmtgp bfxioa hsdfeju gtvphlnqb qnragd rwcne