This looks like lots of fun. I don’t feel at all guilty about admitting that I smiled a little on the inside when I let my imagination go a little bit and pictured that smug, self satisfied twit behind bars. Of all the members of the administration, both current and former, my reaction to Fleischer has always been the most visceral. Pipe dreams probably. As several of the commenters point out, the idea that the self satisfied bastard would intentionally perjure himself today is hard to imagine. Unless he just wantonly lies for the pure sport of it (not entirely unlikely), he really has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Update: John Dickerson says that Ari is basically full of shit, though not a liar, which is making me feeling a bit tingly in a not entirely unpleasant way. His theory about why Ari may have given the testimony he gave today is interesting.
So, why was Ari testifying about something that I don’t think ever happened? I don’t know. Ari asked for immunity from prosecution based on the idea that he’d told me and David Gregory of NBC that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, so Ari clearly believes he spilled the beans. But my memory is just the opposite. Could I have forgotten that Ari told me? I don’t think so [...]
So, how to explain Ari’s testimony? I’ve covered him for 12 years, since I reported on tax policy and he was a spokesman for the Ways and Means committee, and he’s never lied to me. Shaded, wiggled, and driven me around the bend with his spin, yes. (I wasn’t a fan of his book, either.) But he never outright lied, and I don’t see how it would be in his interest here. More likely, he admitted to prosecutors more than he may have actually done because better to err on the side of assuming he disclosed too much than assuming he gave over too little.
Let me see if I have this straight. Ari’s not lying, but he’s not telling the truth because he’s so untrustworthy and conniving that he doesn’t even trust himself enough to be certain he didn’t out Plame. Or more likely, just to cover all his bases, avoid obstruction and get his immunity, Ari admitted to all the things one might plausibly assume that a low quality sleaze, such as himself, might do if given the opportunity.
With Dickerson becoming part of the story, what should Slate do about reporting the trial?
Hard to say, but that’s a question for a lot of news organizations. With so many political reporters and pundits knee deep in this particular pile, ethical problems abound. I don’t really mind Dickerson’s approach, at least as far as the linked article goes. As long as he’s upfront about his role and he’s writing from a personal perspective, I’m ok with it.
Just in general, how does the general public really know when a reporter is upfront with his or her role, especially in a case like this?
They don’t.
I’m trying to figure out Bushco’s game plan for this trial.
Are they sacrificing Libby to protect Cheney?
Or Rove?
Was Fitz a Bushco agent chosen to put on a good show
but ultimately contain the damage? How could he have investigated so long and so much,
yet only come up with one medium-small fish?
Why wasn’t Novak charged? Or Rove? Was Cheney ever interrogated under oath? Was Bush?
Can there be any further prosecutions as the result of this trial?