Replies

And yet they didn't proffer any of those witnesses, even to have the judge deny them. Who are they? Where are they? Does the representation by a lawyer convince you of the fact of what was stated, when they have completely failed to offer such evidence?

Former General Paul Valleley would likely be one. I have not been watching this case all that closely and have no clue about the rest. I have no idea if the judge denied the witnesses because they had no ties to Russert. And, yes, a representation by a lawyer in open court is good enough for me.

If you think Joe Wilson is a doe-eyed innocent who told nobody that his wife worked for the CIA, I've got a bridge to sell you. When directly asked that question, he's never issued a simple denial. What would you infer from that?

Yep. I've heard Vallely talk about that. Though it is odd that no one seems to be able to put them in a green room together before all this happened. Vallely says Wilson outed his wife in Spring '02. Trouble is, no one can find a TV appearance by Wilson in that time frame, much less one concurrent with Vallely.

But that probably wouldn't matter to someone who simply believes whatever a lawyer says. Wells said they are five, so there must be five -whether five people ever make such a claim or not - right?