Posted on 10/30/2005 4:13:47 AM PST by SE Mom
I was wet, smelling of chlorine. It was July 12, 2003, in Washington, a beautiful summer day, and I had just come back from swimming. All morning I had been trying to reach I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby for a cover story about both President George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's controversial Op-Ed.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Nope the issue is this. Fitzgerald is saying that Libby lied because he claimed he got the information from reporters and not from the government. If Cooper is saying that Libby simply told him "Yeah, I heard that too", then Coppers tetimony is irrelevant since it doesn't establish where Libby heard the information.
Indictment: "LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA"
What Cooper claims he said and the indictment says that Cooper said are essentially the same.
The whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot, but apparently this prosecutor is not going to let Libby get away with false statements to the FBI and the grand jury. Either he believes that Libby lied intentionally or he is using the indictment to pressure Libby.
Only in Washington!
This guy Cooper has a wife who is a close Hillary Clinton cohort. That smells worse than Chlorine.
Why aren't Miller, Russert and Cooper under a gag order?
>>> I had a tuna sandwich and gave a deposition <<<
Very interesting.
This is an old trick used by savvy trial attorneys to enhance witness credibility. The idea is to get the jury to thinking, "Gosh, if he can remember that level of detail about the little stuff, his mind must be a regular Hasselblad camera on the important stuff!"
It generally only works well against a less experienced trial attorney. An equally or more experienced attorney will object immediately on grounds of relevance and hammer the witness relentlessly every time he tries to pull the stunt.
Or (and I've done this myself, but only in the occasional and "right" case because it is riskier), on cross examination he compliments the witness on his extraordinary memory for detail and commences to press the witness hard on fast on other details that MUST have been just as apparent as the "aspen" or the "smell of chlorine." One of two things generally happens: the witness tries to keep up by manufacturing a consistent reality on the truly picayune stuff until it becomes apparent he's lying through his teeth, or he stutters and stammers just a few feet out of the chute and finally admits he doesn't have a clue. Either way his credibility has been undermined.
Here the reporters are under no direct threat of being subjected to cross-examination and so the "jury" is left to marvel at the amazing detail provided by these professionals, these super beings with laser sharp memories. "Surely these are truthful witnesses!" gushes the readership. Or so it is hoped.
The only thing this article establishes, though indirectly, is that Valerie Plame's employer was common knowledge among reporters.
Gag order? How else would you poison the jury pool?
To buttress this in the indictment Fitz includes Coppers testimony but Libby never told Cooper where he heard the information so Coopers testimony is irrelevant.
Why would Timmy Russert not have his version scrutinized for truthfulness. Russert is going to get his nose rubbed in it if this ever gets to trial and that goes for Cooper too. What makes them more truthful than a government employee.
The press in this country is populated by liars and plagerists and should be the first to be indicted.
I don't knew what Libby said but Cooper sure the hell doesn't claim what's purported in the indictment.
I recall Fitzgerald saying that Libby had initiated the phone calls, that he was calling one reporter after another dropping the same lines. According to Cooper, he anxiously awaited Libby to return his calls. He said he ran from the parking lot to his car, checking his cell phone. Finally, he got the call and went home without showering.
I believe Fitzgerald exaggerated during his press conference to enhance his indictment of Libby.
It makes me so angry I could just spit.
I'm only focussing on the part of the indictment that will be trouble for Libby. All the he-said/she-said stuff should be easy for his lawyer to shoot down. I'm only concerned about what Libby said to the investigators, specifically "all I had was this information that was coming in from reporters". That statement to the GJ is independent of any conversations with reporters.
Are we talking about the same thing?
I agree with your point, but my "quotes" of Cooper and Miller were only satire. I was using Cooper's literary style combined with the wierd prose issued by Libby to Miller to convince her to testify.
" I was wet, smelling of chlorine. "
- You may not have caught the real reason for this opening line. It's intent is to impress upon you that, even after all this time, Cooper still has the memory of an elephant. You have now been set up to swallow any BS which might follow as the gospel truth, since how could a guy with a memory for detail like that possibly get his version of events wrong?
If anything, I hope the White House stops being the softies that they are. They could easily have been harder on Berger, x-president Clinton, and the whole bunch of crooks. Time to fight back!
LOL, I dunno!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.