Did Libby Make a Deal?

"At the Bush White House described in the Libby trial, news media advisers were frozen out of decisions about how to respond to a crisis, colleagues kept from one another which reporters they had talked with, and the president declassified parts of a highly significant national security document without the knowledge of his chief of staff. . . .

"Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, a research group promoting access to government records that has combed through the Libby trial exhibits.... said the evidence presented at the trial that ended Tuesday in Libby's conviction demonstrates that 'this administration's obsession with secrecy' extends to the way Bush's aides interact with each other. In particular, Blanton said, 'the Cheney office seems to have raised information-hoarding ... to a real fine art.'"

Goldstein also notes: "Time and again, witnesses gave fresh details of a zeal to manipulate and monitor the administration's portrayal in the news media that reached the top echelons of the White House."

Adam Liptak writes in the New York Times that "the institution most transformed by the prosecution, and the one that took the most collateral damage from Patrick J. Fitzgerald's relentless pursuit of obstruction and perjury charges against Mr. Libby, may have been the press, forced in the end to play a major role in his trial. . . .

"'Every tenet and every pact that existed between the government and the press has been broken,' said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a media lawyer who represented Time magazine and one of its reporters in their unsuccessful efforts to fight subpoenas from Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the Libby case.

"Others say that sort of talk is alarmism tinged with self-importance."

Liptak writes: "An earlier generation of reporters had maintained that there were no circumstances under which they would testify against their sources and that the flow of important information to the public could only be guaranteed by taking an absolutist position."

But then he quotes Jane Kirtley, who teaches media law and ethics at the University of Minnesota, noting that the earlier journalists who set that standard "'were proudly outsiders.' By contrast, the journalists who testified at the Libby trial were Washington insiders, and they gave the public a master class in access journalism. It was not always a pretty sight."

Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, opined to Liptak that the reporters involved were "not fearless advocates ... but supplicants, willing and even eager to be manipulated."

Also, as I wrote yesterday in a post on the Nieman Watchdog Blog, Fitzgerald went to some lengths on Monday to say that, when it comes to the issue of reporters and confidential sources, he considers the Libby investigation unique -- and hardly a precedent to allow government investigators to go after journalists who protect whistleblowers.

Eyes on Cheney

"Dick Cheney in Twilight" is the cover story in the new issue of Time. Michael Duffy writes: "Cheney has become the Administration's enemy within, the man whose single-minded pursuit of ideological goals, creaking political instincts and love of secrecy produced an independent operation inside the White House that has done more harm than good. . . .

"[M]ore Republicans with each passing week have acknowledged privately what is felt across Washington when it comes to the Vice President: his time has passed.

"And what a time it was."

Indeed, the heart of this big, two-fisted piece is a look back at Cheney's heyday, when "aides to Cheney loved to regale journalists with tidbits about the scope of the Vice President's influence and the intensity of his commitment to protecting the U.S. from a terrorist attack. He was so driven and hands-on, the aides would say, that he and Libby would routinely ask to see raw intelligence rather than the processed analysis put together by the CIA and other agencies. 'He's a voracious consumer of intelligence,' said an admiring aide to the Vice President. 'Sometimes he asks for raw intelligence to make his own judgment. He wants it all.'

"He may have come across as deferential to the President in public, but friends and advisers in the fall of 2002 described Cheney as nothing less than the engine of the Administration. 'There's no way in which he is not driving the train on this,' said one, referring to Cheney's role in pushing Bush and the Administration inexorably toward an invasion of Iraq. 'Analysis, advocacy -- it's all done by Cheney or his proteges or his former mentor [Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld]. It's about context. It's reflective not so much of Cheney's direct influence on the President as it is of his influence on-his dominance of-the decision-making process. It's about providing the facts and analysis to the decision maker that the decision maker needs. Bush is making the decision, but the Veep is directing the process toward the decision that he thinks is the right one.' In other words, Cheney had so rigged the process that important decisions were foregone conclusions, ones that had been reached by the Vice President well in advance.

"So when the verdict against Libby came down, it was also a rebuke to that hermetic power-sharing arrangement at the top of the White House."

Thomas M. DeFrank, James Gordon Meek and Kenneth R. Bazinet write in the New York Daily News: "The White House rallied around Vice President Cheney yesterday, dodging repeated questions about evidence implicating him in the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

"A day after ... Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing a federal probe into the leak, White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted the veep 'remains a trusted aide.'

"'The vice president is somebody on whose counsel the President depends,' Snow said. 'Any idea that the vice president has been in some way diminished, no.' . . .

"Cheney has been embarrassed and damaged by Libby's conviction, but there is zero discussion of his departure.

"'Of course this isn't good at all for him,' said a Bush insider, 'but he'll no more resign than Bush will get out of Iraq. It's not going to be volunteered and he isn't going to be asked.'"

Jim Hoagland writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Is the vice president losing his influence, or perhaps his mind? That question, even if it is phrased more delicately, is creeping through foreign ministries and presidential offices abroad and has become a factor in the Bush administration's relations with the world.

"'What has happened to Dick Cheney?' That solicitous but direct question came from a European statesman who has known the vice president for many years. He put it to me a few days ago -- even before the discovery of a blood clot in Cheney's leg and the perjury conviction of Scooter Libby, his former chief of staff, brought headline attention to the volatile state of the vice president's physical, emotional and political health."

Hoagland concludes somewhat elliptically: "However beleaguered, Cheney will not resign over the president's refusal to take his advice. The only force that could drive him to that dramatic step would be that unshakable sense of loyalty to Bush, who desperately now needs a vice president in stable physical, emotional and political health. That is the equation you want to be watching."

On Openness

Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write in Newsweek that "current White House officials (none of whom would speak on the record) understand that their claim that they can't comment for legal reasons is weak. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald initially warned White House officials not to speak publicly or privately about the investigation because it might serve as evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. But that was before he indicted Libby. Once the wheels of the trial began to move, officials heard from their own defense lawyers that they should avoid commenting on the issue. Several White House officials (current and former) feared they could get sucked into the trial right up to the moment that Libby's defense rested. But all those legal cautions have now passed their expiration date. Fitzgerald says he's going back to his day job; the private lawyers can stop charging by the hour. Since there's only an appeals court judge to worry about (rather than a jury), there's not much plausible concern that the White House might prejudice any legal proceedings.

"So why the stonewall? According to one former White House official with close ties to the current staff, there's a sense that Libby deserved his fate--and nobody wants to look like they are defending him. 'What you saw was a vice president's office that was out of control,' said the official, who declined to be named while talking about the case. 'I felt that way as somebody inside the White House. I think Karl [Rove] and Ari [Fleischer] weren't guilty. They went up to the line and didn't cross it. But the vice president's office crossed it.'"

I suppose that could be one explanation.

In a back-and-forth for the Los Angeles Times opinion pages, Byron York suggests that "the Bush White House's handling of the Fitzgerald probe has been astonishingly open."

Jeff Lomonaco responds that "cooperation is hardly equivalent, as you seem to assume, with being open. Open means George W. Bush, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney would not still be hiding behind the pretense of the Libby trial--for goodness sake, the trial is over--to refuse to explain their own roles in the case. Or to explain why, in light of Bush's pledge to get rid of anyone involved, Rove still has a job now that we know he did leak Plame's CIA identity to at least two reporters, serving as Novak's confirming source for the original public outing of Plame in his July 14, 2003 column, and retailing the information at greater length to Matt Cooper of Time magazine a few days later. Maybe Bush should explain how he was parsing his words in fine casuistic fashion and didn't really mean he would fire anyone involved in leaking about Plame, only that anyone who was convicted of knowingly leaking classified information would be fired. (Maybe he should rehire Libby on those grounds?) Or maybe Bush can explain that when his people promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House, they just meant they wouldn't be indicted."

At yesterday's press briefing, reporters didn't make any headway with Tony Snow about the preposterous position that the "ongoing criminal case" precludes the White House from commenting. But they didn't try either.

Another Juror Speaks

MSNBC reports: "Saying 'I don't want him to go to jail,' a member of the jury that convicted I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case called Wednesday for President Bush to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

"The woman, Ann Redington, said in an interview on MSNBC's 'Hardball' that she cried when the verdicts against Libby were read Tuesday. She said Libby seemed to be 'a really nice guy.'"

Here's the video of the interview. Redington, apparently one of those people who sees good in everyone, called Libby "a ton of fun." And what she actually says about a pardon is: "Whether or not he should get one I don't know that I have a valid opinion, but I would like him to get one . . . It'd be more fun."

Bush's Trip

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush will challenge a widespread perception in Latin America of U.S. neglect that has helped fuel leftist leader Hugo Chavez's rising influence in America's backyard.

"Bush, who leaves Thursday on a five-nation tour, will argue that strong democratic governments hold the promise of prosperity. . . .

"But Bush, with just two years left in his presidency, has a weak hand. Anti-Americanism and Bush's poor image, tainted by the war in Iraq, have only fueled Chavez's influence in the region and beyond."

JoAnne Allen writes for Reuters: "Addressing speculation his trip was a response to Chavez, Bush said his intention was to show the United States cared about its neighbors.

"'It's nothing more than to say we want to be your friends, and we've got a very strong policy of improving the lives of others,' Bush said in an interview with Colombia's RCN TV on the eve of his departure.

"'My trip is a chance to tell the people of Colombia, Uruguay and Brazil and Guatemala and Mexico that the United States cares deeply about the human condition,'"

The best news for Bush: Latin Americans hate Chavez, too.

Catherine Dodge and Roger Runningen write for Bloomberg: "A poll conducted by Latinobarometro, a Santiago-based public opinion research company, in 18 countries and published Dec. 9 by the Economist magazine found 30 percent of those surveyed had a 'positive' image of Bush, while 28 percent viewed Chavez positively."

Richard Lapper and Jonathan Wheatley write in the Financial Times: "Such is the scale of Latin American disillusionment that it seems much more attention and money may be needed to turn the tide in Washington's favour. Some sceptics think the tour could turn into a public relations disaster on the scale of Richard Nixon's 1958 visit, when the then vice-president's entourage was stoned by protesters in Caracas. At the very least, Mr Bush risks being upstaged by Mr Chavez, who travels to Argentina this week to head a march of anti-Bush protesters."

Bush's Book Club

Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon about the latest meeting of Bush's book club, where the guest was "Andrew Roberts, an English conservative historian and columnist and the author of 'The Churchillians' and, most recently, 'A History of the English-Speaking People Since 1900."

"The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God."

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles; Tony Auth; and Steve Sack on the Libby verdict.