CLOSING ARGUMENTS. The...

CLOSING ARGUMENTS. The prosecution has offered its summation in the Libby trial and the defense is in the midst of its own summation, then Patrick Fitzgerald will offer the prosecution's rebuttal closing out the afternoon. It is riveting stuff. (Marcy Wheeler's liveblogging of them is here, here, and here.) The judge will give the jury its instructions and the jury will begin deliberations tomorrow.Meanwhile, some of what the trial has disclosed about the Office of the Vice President is nicely treated in Jim Rutenberg's article in the Times today. The key bit:

The evidence in the trial shows Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. Libby, his former chief of staff, countermanding and even occasionally misleading colleagues at the highest levels of Mr. Bush's inner circle as the two pursued their own goal of clearing the vice president's name in connection with flawed intelligence used in the case for war.

The Vice President played a significant, though not overwhelming, role in the prosecution's summation. When I first read Libby's indictment back in the fall of 2005, my immediate reaction was that Cheney escaped indictment by a hair's breadth, and nothing I have seen since has lessened that sense. But it's another question whether Cheney's fate is still up in the air. Waas's piece I linked to earlier is, I believe, the first concrete indication that if Libby is convicted, there might be more in store for Cheney. Crooksandliars has a short sharp summary of the upshot of Waas' piece:

After Scooter Libby knew he was going to be questioned by the FBI he devised a cover story. And who did he share it with?

You guessed it: Cheney. Why? Because knowing that Cheney was going to be questioned, too, Libby wanted to be sure both of them were on the same page, telling the same cover story. If Libby is convicted, expect Fitzgerald to vigorously pursue whether Cheney knowingly allowed -- or worse -- even encouraged Libby to lie to the FBI and a federal grand jury.

But is the public prepared for such a move? Would an indictment of Cheney be perceived as coming out of nowhere? And why would it depend on Libby's conviction -- that is, an acquittal would clearly be an end of the investigation, but from a legal perspective, why wouldn't Fitzgerald have indicted all accused wrongdoers at the same time?

There has to be some kind of account of new information that has been gained since Libby's indictment. Perhaps the prosecution is hoping that, if Libby is convicted, he either would agree or could be compelled to be more forthcoming. I'm skeptical. Has the prosecution gained new information from the man who just barely escaped prosecution, Karl Rove, and whom prosecutors were probably hoping to play off against Libby when they intended to indict him in October 2005 before Rove's lawyer pulled off a last-minute deferral? I'm skeptical too. If Fitzgerald is going to pursue Cheney upon a possible conviction of Libby, he's going to have to lay the groundwork for that; the only chance he will have is with what he has to say on the courthouse steps if Libby is indeed convicted.

--Jeff Lomonaco