Posted on 01/28/2007 10:48:20 PM PST by the Real fifi
January 29, 2007 What You See (in the Media) is Not What You Get (in the Libby Trial) By Clarice Feldman
In the wake of the first week of the Libby Trial, Patrick Fitzgerald's soufflé has turned into a pancake. Of course, if you are getting your news of the trial from the press you're certain to believe Libby is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reporting is as bad as I've ever seen (Matt Apuzzo of AP being the rare exception of a reporter who's getting it mostly right).
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Has this trial started? And if so, what was Fitzgerald's opening statements to which Libby is being charged with?
Has this trial started? And if so WHY ???
This is a must read article. Thanks for posting.
Fantastic!
Thank you, trf.
(speculating on IF KR is called to testify).
"You can go to the bank on Rove repeating his G[rand] J[ury] testimony--and he won't just repeat his "story": Wells will make sure that the jury understands that the unindicted Rove said the same thing to the G[rand] J[ury], if at all possible. And that will be a BIG hit to the prosecution. If, as we and just about everyone else suspects, Russert will end up having to unpack his highly nuanced testimony, the perjury rap will collapse at that point."
I admire optimism, but this is being tried in front of a D.C. jury. The fix is in and Libby's dead meat-until it gets thrown out on appeal. But the headlines and the history books will have been written.
The article does not mention any charge(s) against Libby.
We know that Plame was not a secret agent in the field...so it cannot be an 'outing'.
One of the Just One Minute posters (the site that's been following this matter from the beginning) was always sceptical about the defense. Here's what he posted Sunday:
"To reiterate, Libby never said that those conversations didn't happen. Our buddy Fitzgerald has Dowdified five pages of grand jury transcripts with:
"When confronted on whether he had discussed Wilson's wife with other government officials earlier that week -- including White House press secretary Ari Fleisher, Director of Communciations for the Vice President Cathie [sic] Martin and others -- Libby's repeated refrain was that he could not have discussed the matter earlier in the week because he specifically recalled that he learned about Wilson's wife from Russert that week as if it were new information (Exh I. at 156-60)."
For Libby's formulation to ring true, the discussions with CIA or DoS or Martin must not have taken place in the week prior to his discussions with Russert, Miller, and Cooper. Fitzgerald has yet to present a witness who can plausibly date their conversation with Libby to a period outside of the discussions with Cheney.
Based on Fitzgerald's presentation (ignoring cross), the first three witnesses were cumulative of the Cheney information. That is, they testified, at best, that Libby was exposed to Plame at a time that he has already admitted knowing about Plame.
Martin did not testify to a date certain in her direct; and in cross admitted that her conversations could well have taken place during that same period.
So, the witnesses presented by Fitzgerald have not yet directly contradicted any point of Libby's testimony that we have seen.
I should point out that it is at least possible that Fitzgerald did not completely capture the nuances of Libby's actual testimony in his summary above. But, I submit it's unlikely that Libby's testimony is more damaging to him than Fitzgerald's understanding of his testimony is.
So, I see Fleischer as a key witness. If he and Addington don't back up the "Discuss on Monday, Learn as new on Wednesday" meme, I'm prepared to throw in the towel on my prediction of a conviction.
I really expected more out of Fitzgerald. After all, how hard is it to draft an indictment that matches the evidence and testimony you've gathered?
And I'm prepared to jump on the "Pardon Now" bandwagon if we learn that Fitzgerald granted immunity from prosecution on National Security grounds solely in order to pursue a perjury/false statements/"he hurt my feelings by lying to me" obstruction of justice prosecution.
Proportionality matters."
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/the_first_3_wit.html#comment-28383405
I admire optimism, but this is being tried in front of a D.C. jury.
Bingo, you get the prize. This is going to be a case of OJ jury nullification in the reverse. Libby is screwed. The jury will find him guilty without any cause.
I'm still waiting for the real Sandy Burger trial....the one where he actually gets an appropriate sentence.
You do know that Dion who headed up the Berger case is the man at DoJ who headed up this case, led the investigation until Comey and the mandarinate persuaded Ashcroft to recuse himself and turn it over to Comey who turned it over to Fitzgerald, don't you?
And Dion still has not required Berger to comply with the plea deal and take a polygraph test.
when libby is cleared it will not be reported...the story twil evaporate as if it never were...it still served its purpose to smear bush for a time
Doesn't Libby have the right of appeal? Especially on the grounds of a tainted jury?
BTTT
Clarice does it again. How come that name always conjures up Hannibal Lector, with Fitzgerald playing the role of the ultimate sadist? (Of course, Fitzgerald is not nearly as smart.)
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.