puts a bunch of puzzle pieces together that suggest a deal between Bush and Libby for a pardon.
The center of his argument is the abrupt change in the Libby defense during the trial. If you'll recall, Ted Wells (defense attorney for Libby) made charges in his opening statement that Libby was a fall guy for the White House and that Karl Rove was really the bad guy. The defense also seemed poised to put Cheney on the stand, which did nothing but make Fitzgerald drool.
As it turned out in the trial, nothing else was said about Rove by the defense, and as we all now know, Cheney did not testify. Froomkin points to this bombshell hidden in a WaPo story:
"Despite the defense's trial argument that Libby was made a scapegoat by the White House, aides and advisers said there is no anger toward him in the West Wing. Libby's defense team reached out to an intermediary after its opening statement to reassure the White House about its strategy, according to a source close to the situation."
Hmmm. Reached out eh? Anyone reach back? What was discussed and with whom? And if it's nothing, then why the sudden change in the defense strategy?
There's been much debate about whether a pardon for Libby is in the cards. Bush, apparently, has a personal policy against such acts. However, the circumstantial evidence continues to mount in the direction of pardon. A pardon after the 2008 election would seem most likely as Libby can stay out of jail until then with appeals. The political fallout would be large, but at a minimum during the Nov-Jan period of 2008-09. Of course Republicans who still face election can all head to the fainting couches while Libby heads for conservative welfare.
And so it goes ....
Update: Put Froomkin's info together with this post by Digby
regarding a recent article by Sidney Blumenthal and it gets interestinger and interester .....