Posted on 02/14/2007 6:31:10 AM PST by theothercheek
With all the journalists testifying about how and when they learned Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent and anti-war diplomat Joe Wilson’s wife in the perjury and obstruction trial of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., The Stiletto thought that this handy dandy chart would help keep the story straight:
|
Libby Told Me |
Libby Did Not Tell Me |
| Matt Cooper (formerly with Time Magazine) | Walter Pincus (Washington Post): Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told me |
| Judith Miller (formerly with The New York Times) | Glenn Kessler (Washington Post): Topic never came up |
| Robert Novak (Chicago Sun-Times): Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told me | |
| David Sanger (The New York Times): Topic never came up | |
| Tim Russert ("Meet The Press"): Read it in Novak’s column | |
| Evan Thomas (Newsweek): Topic never came up | |
| Bob Woodward (Washington Post): Armitage told me |
If remembering who said what to whom and when between mid-June and mid-July in 2003 is the crux of this case, then Libby ain’t doing half bad – especially for a man who worked from 6:30 a.m. until 8 p.m. and sat in on a seemingly endless series of daily briefings and meetings about the Iraq war, terrorist threats, the progress of nuclear programs in Iran and Pakistan and assessments of the nation's defenses against biological attack, according to testimony from Cheney's current national security adviser, John Hannah.
Any juror who’s had to sit through meetings and conference calls at work while thinking about his own unfinished projects and fretting about how long he will have to stay after hours to make up for the time wasted will sympathize with Libby. The Stiletto can barely keep her eyes open during the one-hour conference calls she is expected to attend every Thursday between 2-3 p.m., especially as one of the remote participants has a very flat, droning voice that induces near-coma within a minute or two. Though she takes notes on what other people have talked about, if you ask her what this particular participant said – even five minutes after the call ends – she couldn’t tell you under oath or under pain of death.
Libby’s team is so confident that that the prosecution has not made its case, that it reversed course and will not call the defendant or Cheney to the stand.
NOTE: This time I know I put the links in correctly because I found an HTML editor for the chart! But you can go back to the original source to see what else is up there, if you like.
If you get some real "zealous out-of-control prosecutor" like Nifitz-Fongerald, willing to conduct a never-ending "fishing expedition" type of investigation in Washington trying to create a 'case", any "case', based simply on discrepancies of what people say in GJ without benefit of lawyers or notes, you will not find anyone without so much dirt you couldn't clean it with Lava soap and industrial strength degreaser, let alone the cleanest hands.
Considering what we know of this "investigation about nothing" and his now-obvious attempt to entrap and frame WH and OVP officials, it's simply amazing that the only dirt he could find and all he could bring to court as the end result is flimsiest of charges against the man who beat him as a lawyer in the past. And that his only real chance for a conviction lies not in brilliant prosecution or weight of the evidence, but the fact that trial takes place in DC and will have a jury that is more politically disposed to him and against the defendant than anywhere else in the country.
The Administration as a whole seemed more than willing to toss Libby overboard.
Other than sounding like a headline that I've seen in "the news" recently, I don't know where you got and how you can substantiate this idea. Cheney and Condi were not at all reluctant to testify on his behalf, his aide actually did. What more could they do, especially with their "see no evil, hear no evil" and a "new tone in Washington" attitude of "uniter, not a divider"?
Passing information in DC happens to be a paying gig. Indict everyone in DC who is passing information in DC, "offhandedly" or intentionally, and see who is left.
If anything, if anyone relied on Libby to pass information to reporters in order to 'smear" (how?) Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, he/she must be very disappointed at how bad a job he's been doing. And he had plenty of chances to pass information to many "important" reporters, as we can see, yet he somehow passed up the opportunities.
It was also the only way to save face and make a splash in the media. Smug little prick. Bush should have told the rats to pound salt when they first started sniveling about Plame. All they had to do was announce she wasn't undercover, period, so there was no crime, so just get over it. That's exactly what they do.
But no. Typical dumbass Republicans have to be big about it, make nice, turn the other cheek, go the extra step to seem fair, all of which always translates into a great big blunderbuss blast in the foot.
The whole issue of who said what and when is so unimportant and irrelevant, it's just ridiculous. This is all about Fitzie's ego and the arrogant federal government's attitude about how dare anybody lie to us almighty FBI agents, etc., even though they lie their butts off day in and day out.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to go on for three years and millions of dollars over whether their spouse told them in June that Aunt Mary was coming to stay or if they were told in July and, if it really was June but the spouse said it was July, they take the spouse to court over it because it's obviously a LIE and not a mistake!!!!!!
Honestly, this is the only subject you've posted on lately. Is that you, Fitz?
I really don't care when he processed it.
The FBI and the federal prosecutor have more valuable things to do than follow this network of he said-she said to the nth degree. There was no underlying crime so it's unimportant what motives the mind-reading Fitzie wants to assign to when Libby said what to whom and how it sounded in his FBI interviews. It's such a stupendous waste and display of federal arrogance. The referral from the CIA was unfounded, period, and that should have been the end of the entire matter. But no. The administration appointed Fitz, a rat, based on a referral from a rat-run agency about a supposed wrong done to a rat who was actually doing wrong to the administration, and then threw Libby under the bus.
You sound like a bored housewife explaining a useless, silly soap opera to the bored housewife from next door over coffee at the kitchen table.
What about Fleischer and Rove?
What about them?
If you get some real "zealous out-of-control prosecutor" like Nifitz-Fongerald, willing to conduct a never-ending "fishing expedition" type of investigation in Washington trying to create a 'case", any "case', based simply on discrepancies of what people say in GJ without benefit of lawyers or notes, you will not find anyone without so much dirt you couldn't clean it with Lava soap and industrial strength degreaser, let alone the cleanest hands.
Considering what we know of this "investigation about nothing" and his now-obvious attempt to entrap and frame WH and OVP officials, it's simply amazing that the only dirt he could find and all he could bring to court as the end result is flimsiest of charges against the man who beat him as a lawyer in the past. And that his only real chance for a conviction lies not in brilliant prosecution or weight of the evidence, but the fact that trial takes place in DC and will have a jury that is more politically disposed to him and against the defendant than anywhere else in the country.
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.