Scooter Libby's defense

The Washington Post reports that prosecutors rested their case yesterday in the Scooter Libby perjury trial (Libby was the former chief of staff to VP Dick Cheney). The Post notes the key points the defense plans to raise. And they're pretty weak.

1. The defense plans to show that Libby did not mention Plame to every reporter he spoke to. The defense hopes this proves that Libby did not intend to leak Plame's identity, or he would have done it with every reporters.

Of course, this is bull. Anyone (smart) who works with the media knows that you don't leak a story to every reporter at once, otherwise the reporters get ticked when they find out that they've worked all day on a scoop and suddenly they're scooped by someone else. Also, typically, you leak things to different reporters depending on the kind of leak you're making. First, you choose the reporter based on what issues they cover. Second, you choose the reporter based on your perception of how you think they'll cover the issue - you want to give the story to a reporter who you think will spin the story your way (thus the reason the White House sends Cheney to Meet the Press, assuming he'll get an easy ride). All of these are reasons why Libby may not have told every reporter he spoke with about Plame's identity. It all could have been part of his grander plan to out her.

2. The article says that Scooter's defense is trying to undermine Tim Russert's credibility (since Russert's testimony suggests that Scooter may have lied to Fitzgerald, the prosecutor), claiming he was out to get Libby - which is kind of ironic since he's the reporter Libby's former boss, Dick Cheney, always went to first because he was allegedly Cheney's patsy.

The proof that Libby's team is offering of Russert's animosity is that Russert was excited by the prospect of Fitzgerald's impending indictments in the case. Libby's people are claiming that Russert was excited because he hated Libby.

Again, bull.

Anyone who's worked any amount of time in DC, and especially in news, knows that there is a weird phenomenon in town where you just get darn excited when bad things happen. Hurricanes, fun. Scandal, more fun. Anna Nicole Smith dies, well, I won't say "fun," but I will say that CNN was probably not upset about devoting all of their coverage yesterday to this woman's death. Tragedy and scandal are the lifeblood of the newsman. So you bet a good reporter would be excited about impending indictments against senior White House staff. It's not bias, it's a zeal for his job, it's excitement about having an impending exciting day. Sick, perhaps (though I don't think so), but we all have it in us. (In the same way that, I suspect, weathermen love a good hurricane or tornado.)

What I want to know is when the media is going to force George Bush to answer the question as to whether he's going to pardon Scooter, Cheney and Rumsfeld, among others, for their various offenses. Certainly, it's fair for the White House to postpone answering that question until Libby is convicted, if at all. But after that point, we need to demand answers, because you know they're all getting pardons.