Scooter Libby's Defense Goes after Antique Media Reporters

American Thinker ^ | 01/30/2006 | Clarice Feldman

[Grampa Dave]

I would not want to be any life insurance company with a big policy on any of these MSM bozos.

[STARWISE]

What do you think of this as a potential stategery (at the very end)?

"The Libby trial

Last week Clarice Feldman left a comment on American Thinker that sums up why the Scooter Libby trial is likely to turn out to be such fun.

As I have observed, the Special Prosecutor, constrained by the DoJ regulations on questioning reporters about their sources and by his felt need to do so, conducted a perfectly ridiculous inquiry in which reporters who quite obviously had prior independent knowledge of Valerie Plame’s identity were never asked about that knowledge of the source(s) of it, as Fitzgerald accused Libby of being the person who started the rumors of her employment.

Bob Woodward’s voluntary acknowledgement of independent knowledge well before any conversation by Libby cited in the indictment was further evidence of this fact.

Today Libby’s lawyers filed a motion which (a) will establish the half-baked nature of the investigation and (b) his right to independently question the media about matters which Fitzgerald should have, but failed to inquire, to make the investigation a fair one.

Lurking in the dim recesses of my mind is the suspicion that Fitzgerald knew exactly what he was doing. What better way to put the press on trial."

[Howlin]

I want to see Andrea Mitchell's name on this list.

[Howlin]

Oh yeah, come on, Andrea; let's put you under OATH and see what you have to say.

[righttackle44]

"discovery" can bite them on their backsides."

I am ill even thinking about the backsides of Democrats and dinosaur medium reporters, editors and newsreaders.

The thought of one belonging to Diane Sawyer makes me want to scream and run down the hall to beat my head on the butcher block in the kitchen.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[potlatch]

LOL, very neat effect!

[Steve_Seattle]

Finally, Libby requests all subpoenas and agreements to limit the scope of documents or testimony by reporters. It is clear that there were such agreements. I have argued that they prevented a full exploration of the facts and made it more likely than not that the grand jury findings would be skewed. I think this request will be granted, and when it is many more members of the press will in Leggett’s words join the file of “mechanical ducks in the arcade.”

Not only do I love the mechanical-ducks-in-the-arcade image, I think Feldman makes a key point. Those agreements did indeed skew the findings by keeping from the grand jury much of what the journalists knew and when they knew it and who they knew it from. So far, I am VERY impressed by Libby's defense team. They are doing all the things I think they should be doing. In trying to get someone in the Bush administration via this idiotic investigation, the MSM has grabbed on to a tar baby.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Lurking in the dim recesses of my mind is the suspicion that Fitzgerald knew exactly what he was doing."

I disagree. His demeanor at the press conference/love-in suggested to me that he was caught up in the idea of making history, and had actually come to believe that this was a serious investigation about a serious matter. In my opinion, he was utterly blind to the overall dynamics of what was really going on, and mostly - if not entirely - bought in to the media version of events. To his credit, he admitted - an admission which the press almost universally ignored - that there was no political pressure from the White House. I'll give him credit for that, but not for much else.

[shalom aleichem]

Reversible errror yes, but we've all seen cases where Judge allows all kinds of junk in seemingly to achieve a conviction (or out of laziness or due to pressure), "knowing" an appeals court will sort it out later and do the right thing. The initial conviction is all that makes news. The reversal, if reported, says the accused got off on a technicality.

[Enchante]

....that Fitzgerald is obligated to turn over. The fact that he won't indicates to me Fitz is hardly the "straight arrow" we've been led to believe.

yes, that is the point that strikes me as critical - why is Fitzgerald resisting so hard at what seems (at least to a non-lawyer like me) as obvious and necessary "discovery" materials??? It would seem obvious that the defense has to receive these materials to prepare a competent defense and that the prosecutor is obliged to turn them over. Fitzgerald is resisting because he "might not" introduce them at trial? Sounds to me like he is trying to protect his media sources and is not playing straight with the judge and the defense team....

[Enchante]

How 'bout if discovery just gives them all some hearty KICKS in their backsides......

[righttackle44]

"How 'bout if discovery just gives them all some hearty KICKS in their backsides...."

I checked with my panel of experts, and we all agree that this is a good strategy.

(If the MSM can do it, so can I.)

[colorado tanker]

Sounds to me like he is trying to protect his media sources and is not playing straight with the judge and the defense team....

I think that's right. Until now, the reporters' situation has been somewhat ambiguous, which benefited that profession. They had avoided a decisive showdown on a so-called reporters' privilege and reporters had mostly avoided deciding on jail versus revealing confidential sources.

This idiotic investigation, egged on by the New York Times, is changing all that by creating clear precedent that there is no privilege and forcing a New York Times reporter to jail. IMHO, Fitz is trying to avoid going down in history as the prosecutor who busted the reporters' privilege and limited freedom of the press in the U.S., which is why he's raising these silly discovery objections.

But he's gone too far down the road. That is exactly what his legacy is going to be unless the Libby case is thrown out of court. And the curtailing of press freedom and use of confidential sources will happen because the New York Times thought it could launch a "get" on V.P. Cheney.