Libby Trial Continues With Memory Attacks

For an account of the opening arguments of the Libby trial, click here.

On the second day of the Scooter Libby trial, Ted Wells, the defendant's attorney, continued with his double strategy of challenging the memories of the prosecution's witnesses and of creating a series of narratives that could end up confusing jurors.

The first witness called to stand by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was Marc Grossman, who was the No. 3 at the State Department in the summer of 2003. His testimony was clear-cut. On May 29, 2003, he was contacted by Libby, who was seeking information on former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. Three weeks earlier, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof had written a piece--without mentioning Wilson by name--citing Wilson's mission as evidence that the Bush administration had hyped the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Few in the media had paid any attention to Kristof's column, but Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus was looking into Vice President Dick Cheney's connection to the Wilson affair. (Wilson had been sent by the CIA on this trip in 2002 after Cheney had asked an intelligence briefer for more information on the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.)

It was while Pincus was sniffing around that Libby, according to Grossman, called him and asked for information on Wilson's mission. Grossman testified that he had known nothing about the trip, then learned the basic details from others at the State Department, and shared this information with Libby. He also testified that he had asked the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a memo on the trip. The memo noted that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA division that had dispatched Wilson. Grossman testified that he shared this fact with Libby during a face-to-face meeting on June 11 or June 12, 2003.

This is important because after the CIA leak criminal investigation was launched, Libby told the FBI and a grand jury that when he heard from Meet the Press host Tim Russert on July 10 or 11 that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA, he believed he was learning this fact anew. (Russert denies saying anything to Libby about Valerie Wilson.) Fitzgerald's plan is to demonstrate that Libby aggressively gathered information on Joseph and Valerie Wilson before the leak to prove that his story to the grand jury and the FBI--that he had forgotten he knew anything about Valerie Wilson and had merely passed along to reporters rumors about her he had heard from other reporters--was an intentional lie.

If Libby was pressing Grossman for official information on Wilson and receiving information on Wilson and his wife (which was classified), it means he possessed far more than scuttlebutt. And Grossman was only the first of several witnesses Fitzgerald expected to call to make this point.

What could Wells do? Go after Grossman's memory. He noted that the written report of his first interview with the FBI--which occurred on October 17, 2003-says that Grossman told the bureau that he conveyed information on the Wilson trip to Libby during two or three telephone calls. Yet now, Wells said, Grossman was testifying that there had been a face-to-face conversation. "I don't know how to explain this," Grossman said. Wells continued: An FBI memo regarding Grossman's second interview with the bureau also said that Grossman had told the FBI he had informed Libby about Wilson's wife in a phone call. "Again," Grossman said, "I recall that as a face-to-face meeting." Wells cited another discrepancy between the FBI reports of Grossman's interviews and his jury testimony.

It was not devastating. But it was a shot across the bow of Fitzgerald's case. Part of Libby's defense is that he did not lie, he merely falsely remembered matters that were not so relevant at the time. If Wells can show the main witnesses against Libby have memory problems of their own, he will be quite pleased.

With Grossman on the stand, Wells also took a stab at bolstering one of the narratives he intends to throw at the jury: that Libby did not engage in any illegitimate effort to harm Joseph Wilson. Wells has signaled he will present the jury a complicated story--part of which will claim that Libby had been tasked by Bush and Cheney to address Wilson's accusations on the merits. Referring to the memo and attachments pulled together for Grossman (in response to Libby's request), Wells asked Grossman if one of the attachments showed that Iraq had indeed tried to purchase yellowcake uranium--which can be enriched for a nuclear bomb--from Niger. That's not what the document said. It noted merely that a former Nigerien prime minister had told Wilson that in June 1999 a businessman had asked that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" and that he (the former prime minister) had interpreted this request to mean the Iraqis were interested in uranium purchases. But the former prime minister said he let the matter drop because he was not interested in dealing with Iraq (which was subject to United Nations sanctions) and angering the United States.

Wells was clearly looking for material to support the argument that Wilson was wrong in assessing the Niger charge as improbable and that Libby and the White House were right (perhaps even obligated) to challenge his accusation. But Wells did not go too far down this road. "Now, are we arguing this again?" exclaimed a reporter in the press room.

With his second witness--Robert Grenier, a former Iraq mission manager at the CIA--Fitzgerald developed his narrow narrative. Grenier testified that on June 11, 2003, he received a phone message from Libby at 1:15 in the afternoon. Previously, he had been in interagency meetings with Libby, but this was the first time the vice president's chief of staff had ever called him. Grenier immediately phoned him back. Libby, according to Grenier, told Grenier that a former ambassador named Joseph Wilson was "going around town" claiming he had been sent to Niger by the CIA to determine if there was any truth to the Niger charge and that this trip had occurred because the office of the vice president had expressed an interest in the allegation. Was this true? Libby asked. He sounded, Grenier said, "a little bit aggrieved," and Grenier worried that Cheney's office suspected the CIA of leaking information harmful for Cheney and the White House.

Grenier testified that he had heard nothing about Wilson's trip prior to this conversation. He called a unit within the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and obtained information about the Wilson matter--and he learned that Wilson's wife worked at that particular unit. (He was not told her name or position.) But before he could call Libby back, Libby phoned again, and Grenier was pulled out of a meeting with CIA Director George Tenet. He conveyed to Libby what he had learned from CPD, including the information about Wilson's wife. A few days later, when Grenier saw Libby, Grenier testified, Libby thanked him for the information and said that it was useful.

By Fitzgerald's count, there were now two former government officials who maintained they had told Libby about Wilson's wife in response to questions from Libby. Then Bill Jeffers got hold of Grenier. On the cross-examination, he dug into a problem with Grenier's testimony. Grenier had conceded that when he first talked to FBI agents investigating the leak and when he first appeared before the grand jury he had said that he did not recall having told Libby about Wilson's wife. He explained that he had recalled that he had done so only after thinking about the matter in response to stories in the media about the leak case. "I was going over it again and again in mind," he testified. Then in the spring of 2005--more than a year after his initial grand jury appearance--he spoke to CIA lawyers and arranged to reappear before the grand jury to say he now realized he had spoken to Libby about Wilson's wife.

Jeffers poked at Grenier's claim that his recollection of his discussion with Libby had grown. He asked why he could not recall this phone call during his FBI interview and first grand jury appearance. And Grenier conceded that his recollection of his conversation with Libby "has a fair amount of vagueness attached to it." Jeffers also pointed out that during Grenier's first grand jury appearance Grenier had said that he did not even recall that a Counterproliferation Division staffer had told him about Wilson's wife. But, Jeffers added, Grenier only had a clear recollection of this at his second grand jury appearance. Grenier could not explain the disparity. And he asked Grenier a series of questions that raised the notion that the CIA and the White House at the time of the leak were feuding over responsibility for the faulty prewar intelligence, perhaps in preparation for suggesting to the jury that Grenier and/or other CIA officers might have an interest going after Libby and Cheney.

Next up was Craig Schmall, who in 2003 was a CIA briefer for both Libby and Cheney. He testified that during his June 14, 2003 morning briefing of Libby, the vice president's chief of staff had raised a few matters that were not part of the official briefing. One was a visit Libby had just had with actors Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. "He was a little excited about it," Schmall said, explaining that Cruise had come to talk to Libby about Germany's treatment of Scientologists. (Cruise had met with Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state on June 13.) Another issue was the Wilson mission and Valerie Wilson. Schmall's handwritten notes on the table of contents of Libby's briefing that day indicated that Libby had mentioned both Wilsons to him. Here was more evidence suggesting that Libby was on top of the Wilson business (before it became public) and knew about Valerie Wilson.

Schmall also testified that after the leak had occurred, while he was briefing both Cheney and Libby, they asked him what he thought about the leak scandal. Noting that some commentators had dismissed the leak as "no big deal," Schmall explained that he considered it a "grave danger." He explained to Libby and Cheney that foreign intelligence services could now investigate everyone who had come into contact with Valerie Wilson when she had served overseas. "Those people," he said, "innocent or otherwise, could be harassed...tortured or killed." With such testimony in hand, Fitzgerald will be able to argue that Libby had motive to lie about his connection to the leak: he would not want to be implicated in a chain of events that could lead to the torture and death of innocent people.

There was not much Libby attorney John Cline could do to challenge Schmall. The CIA briefer had admitted that he had a "poor memory" of the specific briefings. But his notes said what they said. So Cline mainly asked Schmall about the other subjects on Libby's plate during those briefings: bombings overseas, an arrest of a suspected terrorist, a proposed Middle East security plan, assorted possible terrorist attacks against the United States. This will be useful ammo if Libby's lawyers later claim he was too damn busy with protecting America to have recalled accurately what he knew about Valerie Wilson. Yet he wasn't too preoccupied to talk to Cruise about Scientology.

There were no bombshells today. It was hours of tough legal slogging. Fitzgerald is trying to create a chronology using witnesses who have--as most witnesses do--imperfect memories. Put enough of them together--and he's not done yet--and he could have a case. Libby's lawyers are doing what all defense attorneys do: raise doubts about the memories and motives of the prosecution witnesses. They landed a few blows. But Fitzgerald has more witnesses coming. After Schmall, the next scheduled witness is Cathie Martin, who was a spokesperson for Cheney. She was, in a way, a witness to the Grenier-Libby conversation and also spoke with Libby and Cheney several times about the Wilson affair. She was involved in the damage-control operation mounted in response to Joseph Wilson's revelations. Might she have a better memory than the initial witnesses?

*****

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (49)

1. Question for any criminal defense attorneys out there...

   Libby blames Rove, says Rove is scapegoating him. But Fitzgerald couldn't get an indictment on Rove.

   So, if the jury believes Libby's lawyers and thinks it was Rove (even unindicted Cheney)...Libby walks, but doesnt mean resurrecting any charges against Rove, after all Libby can't be pressured to testify against Rove once he's been cleared....right?

   Posted by Mask at 01/24/2007 @ 7:59pm

2. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/24/2007 @ 7:59pm |

   wouldn't hurt to check into how and when she made those cattle futures...did the village help?

   Posted by john maasch at 01/24/2007 @ 8:31pm

3. “This will not be an easy trial for either side.” And if the press has any balls at all – don’t even bother to look between legs at NBC – they will keep the focus on the MOTIVE – to destroy Wilson’s credibility because Wilson was blowing the whistle that might eventually reveal that the war in Iraq was all a charade of lies employed to exploit 9/11 so that they could rationalize – by calling it a war on terror – and to carry out the neo-con inspired adventurism in the Middle East that (1) promised to secure the Middle East in the vacuum of the USSR’s demise of Cold War power in the region; (2) opened the back door to the oil rich former Soviet Caspian states; while at the same time it (2) benefited the security of Israel; (3) enabled the opportunity to control the world oil market; (4) preserved the dollar as the “gold standard” and thereby permitted the ongoing monetary manipulation of the deficit and the national debt; and (5) enriched the oligarchy itself (not only the “military industrial complex” but also the new “robber barons” of banking & high finance in New York, London and Tel Aviv).

   Unless one is given to a more isolationist, egalitarian and non-interventionist dream of American’s participation in the World community of nations – the American forefather’s vision for an Enlightenment Democracy – the above goals represent the “noble” goals of the vision of “Pax Americana” proffered by the “Neo-Conservative” elite, more properly referred to as “Straussians,” the American political philosophers and economists who not only hoped to strengthen the security of the West at the close of the long Cold War, proffering policy initiatives “For a New American Century;” but who also sought to insure their more ethnocentric, Zionist dream of the long waited return of the Nation of Israel to the “Holy Land.” The former is as American as 20th Century Wilsonian liberalism; the latter as conservative in foreign policy objectives as the long-standing strategy to preserve the geopolitical gains of the former British Empire. These were achieved by the British in the wake of WWI, resulting from the fall of both the Holy Roman/Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, which then enabled the contemporary Zionist dream, formally achieved in 1948 after the financial and military dissolution of Britannia’s Empire during WWII. More tragic and personal for the Jewish people, the return to the Homeland was overwhelmingly inspired by the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitic pogroms across Europe since the Fall of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Great Diaspora of Judea at the hands of Rome.

   These goals for American foreign policy are indeed noble, given this context, if one accepts the imperial-- or materialistic --paradigm, certainly diametrically opposed to that of a "kingdom of heaven," if hypocrisy can be accepted as a mitigating factor in the legitimacy of these objectives for a "Christian nation," as we are so often described by the evangelicals who have formed a coalition with the neo-conservative ideologues who, until now, have short-leashed the Administration under presumption of blind partisan Congressional support.

   But the current Bush Administration’s strategies for “nation building” and the establishment of our own impirial legacy in world history are bereft of the lesions of history. As a mere continuation of that great Western karma – that tradition of conquest and world dominion by it’s warring peoples – the United States has come to the place of financial dissolution experienced by all former Western Empires – those noted in the histories of Rome, of Christendom, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch and the British: Macro-economists tell us that once the economy of the “homeland” becomes dominated by the financial sector, the winter of its life has began. These conditions have been established in America at an all too modern pace -- the end is near. For next in the cycle, under the weight of foreign debt and the outsourcing of production in search of cheap foreign labor and the exportation of capital itself, comes empire-wide depression beginning in the homeland itself.

   By continuing a war in Iraq (and perhaps in Iran, Syria and Lebanon), one that even Rome would have delegated to mercenaries but which America could not sell to its “allies” -- mistakenly thinking it would be as easy as selling whores on a troupe train -- the United States risks military overextension and a financial crisis of apocalyptic proportions, especially if OPEC is able to wrestle control of the oil markets and the standard (the dollar) that serves as the monitory exchange of the realm. The Bush Administration -- for its lack of diplomacy among its allies and enemies alike, its lack of military planning for the insurgency that sprang up when the Iraqi government and its military were dissolved, its horrendous foreign debt to China and other financial blunders, its allowing neo-conservative policy to dominate so exclusively as to allow their ethnocentric driven objectives to dominate on behalf of Israel when legitimate national interest dictated a change of course in the Middle East, its abuses of governmental power in the name of a war on terror that is nothing more than an operational mirage -- will go down in infamy and the names Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove will serve as historical tropes for “tyranny” and the selling out to plutocracy.

   No, the Libby trail will result in a hung jury or even less spectacularly, in a guilty verdict. Then everyone will move on, aided by the ignorance and plutocracy serving narratives of the 4th Estate, held as material and abstract assets. The greater lessons will be roundly ignored and more ironic still, everyday-Jews-in-the-street will fall as scapegoats, blamed for this whole neo-conservative fiasco.

   Posted by cliffhammond at 01/24/2007 @ 9:03pm

4. Posted by CLIFFHAMMOND 01/24/2007 @ 9:03pm

   Another Rese and the jews cabal?

   Posted by john maasch at 01/24/2007 @ 9:12pm

5. That's a little overly negative, don't you think, Cliff? Here's an alternate opinion [tinyurl.com] from, I would guess, some of the patriotic, advanced political science-oriented, great power strategy experts who post here.

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/24/2007 @ 9:26pm

6. David,

   Your coverage of today's proceedings at the Scooter Libby trial are the best I've read yet.

   I've been following the action via liveblogging by Marcy Wheeler at FDL, and before her Pachautec - who you met. The blow by blow is interesting becuase it requires the listener (reader) to put the pieces together on their own; see the forest through the trees.

   The MSM's interest in this story falls into one of two storylines; the first followng Fitz's opening argument, and the scond following Theodore Wells' opening.

   The former narrative includes the revelation that Cheney was deeply involved in this and the latter is that everyone forgot everything and it doesn't matter anyway because there was no need to lie.

   I suspect your interest in this story remains high, as you had so much involvement breaking news in it from the beginning. Keep the great summary coming..

   That was me who inquired during voir dire if you have plans to re-open your comments section. Thank you so much for your answer. I getthe idea you were more likely to review feedback when you had comments on your own site, then when you have to come here or to alternate reality to see them.

   Posted by NeilSagan at 01/24/2007 @ 9:50pm

7. OK FROMRED, This is from the site you recommended, i hope it is accurate. I am tracking down a parts list so don't want to take the time to go to the links given. I post this while waiting for the pages to load.

   it appears that one Mr. Libby helped get one Mr. Marc Rich pardoned by the Blowjob.

   allegedly from WSJ-"Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon."

   I do believe I have read some disparaging of the Rich pardon around here. Now the neo's defend Riches defender. Fascinating.

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/24/2007 @ 10:25pm

8. Even if Libby walks, damage has been done to our national security. And i thought we were at war, not playing politics with our defense. Silly me.

   Posted by crabwalk at 01/24/2007 @ 10:32pm

9. "damage has been done to our national security"

   From where? Wilson? What has been the fall out? did it damage Vogue or where ever she posed?

   Posted by john maasch at 01/24/2007 @ 10:49pm

10. after all Libby can't be pressured to testify against Rove once he's been cleared....right?

    Posted by MASK 01/24/2007 @ 7:59pm

    Not sure if you are assuming Libby is testifying here in his own defense, or if his defense just brings in other evidence fingering Rove. But, sure, Libby could be forced to give testimony at Rove's trial - if he was issued a subpoena. If he testifies at his own trial, he'd have to own up to it at Rove's or risk perjury charges.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/25/2007 @ 12:31am

11. This series of reports is really -- funny? The subject is so serious, but the way it's put together does make me laugh. The jury selection report was hilarious and tragic.

    Then there was the one about the opening statements, and the defense's convoluted arguments. How did it go? Libby didn't lie when he said he learned about Plame from Russert; he just confused Russert with Bob Novak.

    Or, maybe he did learn it from Russert after all, who could have heard it from David Gregory, but Russert and Gregory are in collusion with the prosecution. [I wish.]

    Or, maybe Libby learned it and forgot the details, because [my favorite part] Libby's known around the office for having a bad memory.

    And to all of this, Fitzgerald has to keep stating, repeatedly, that Libby didn't "learn" it from anybody, remembered or forgotten, because he already bloody knew it.

    But he has to prove it. High drama, brought to you by the Bill of Rights.

    Posted by RLawrence at 01/25/2007 @ 01:57am

12. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/24/2007 @ 7:59pm |

    wouldn't hurt to check into how and when she made those cattle futures...did the village help?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    The trolls are wandering off topic into their usual favorite territory: rehashing all the Clinton loony fringe claptrap. You can deflect and dismiss what will happen to Libby, but my bet is on Fitz taking Libby down along with some other surprises...memory lapses are very common at trial...I have seen it myself, so hold little concern for any setbacks on this for Fitz. Cheney better start worrying, too...let's see if he will be proclaiming criticism of him as "hogwash" when he is doing a perp walk...oh the joy it would bring!

    Posted by MCE337 at 01/25/2007 @ 04:00am

13. Posted by HMAN23 01/25/2007 @ 12:31am

    Oh, I know he could be subpeonaed to testify against Rove....but FIRST Fitzgerald would have to INDICT Rove and present enough evidence to warrent a trial. He tried once and failed.

    And if Libby doesn't testify at his OWN trial, there's no basis for Fitzgerald to say that Libby would present enough evidence to "get" Rove. And if Libby's freed, there's no way he can be pressured into even issueing a deposition that can be used against Rove.

    Basically, I'm saying if the jury believes Libby's lawyers and thinks it was "all Karl Rove and Dick Cheney" (essentially the position the Blogosphere AND David Corn took)....Libby walks.

    And if Libby walks, then there's no much way for Fitzgerald to get Libby to "flip" and turn on his former boss or even Rove.

    Therefore...."Plame-gate" fizzles away.

    And of course we haven't even gotten to the part where if Libby IS convicted...while Fitzgerald goes to him with the promise of a lighter sentence if he'll testify against Rove or Cheney.....Rove or Cheney go to him and promise him a Presidential pardon if he keeps his mouth shut.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2007 @ 08:39am

14. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/24/2007 @ 10:49pm

    Uhh, John, she posed after she was outed. Again, if Clinton had done this same thing, you guys would be screaming at the top of your lungs. Look at the outrage over Berger, and he did nothing to damage national security.

    Here are some facts, Plame was involved in a CIA job to discover Irans wmd. Iran is a "nexus of evil". She can no longer do that. Anyone associated with her can no longer protect you from Iran.

    Just think, if Iran gets The Bomb, you may have helped!

    the only reason you guys back Libby is because of who he worked for, period. He worked on freeing Marc Rich, and I know you hate that pardon. Face it, it is partisan politics that you play.

    Ollie North-Hero

    G. Gordon Liddy, producer of "stacked and Packed" (boobs and machine guns)= hero

    E.Howard hunt= hero

    Achmed Chalabi=hero

    Moqtada Al Sadr=hero

    fine company you keep.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2007 @ 09:28am

15. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/25/2007 @ 09:09am

    memory lapse, the republcan defense strategery. One of many things that makes Hillary a republican.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2007 @ 09:32am

16. Rio, how did Chimpy make his money in baseball?

    hint: eminent domain, public funding of private stadium.

    How did he make money of his oil company?

    hint: Saudis bailed his as out.

    funny company you keep. Partisan hack. Liar. Sinner.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2007 @ 09:41am

17. off, "off"his oil company. the one that couldn't find oil in Texas.

    the company that had as investors members of the Bin Laden family. Also doing business with the Bushes were many members of the corrupt dictators of Saudi Arabia. Bush Sr. and these nice Saudis were also deeply involved in BCCI, the bank that helped many a terrorist and drug dealer hide their money in plain sight, including a Mr. Saddam Hussein. Mr Cheney also did business with Mr. Hussein after the 1st Gulf War, as well as with Iran.

    ARBUSTO, in any language means incompetence and graft.

    your a joke Rio. A bad one at that.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2007 @ 09:50am

18. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/24/2007 @ 8:31pm | ignore this person

    your constantly trying to change the subject is getting tedious. we are talking about Libby's legal problems, not Hillary's.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2007 @ 10:06am

19. JR,

    THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS MEMORY LOSS AND THIS FITS HILLARY, TOO.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2007 @ 10:30am

20. "Look at the outrage over Berger, and he did nothing to damage national security. "

    You are not out raged? You should be...stolen classified documents smuggled, lies to a judge about the events,lite penaltys...and this from a guilt admitted and sentence felon...

    Libby, currently is charged with nothing that the original investigation was empanneled to find...

    or is there no outrage because he is a Clinton man? HMMM?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2007 @ 10:37am

21. "Here are some facts, Plame was involved in a CIA job to discover Irans wmd. Iran is a "nexus of evil".

    More is coming out on this..Cheney was not the source of anything and was outraged that his name was even associated with the trip...more will come out...

    but Berger,,,tell me you are not defending him...or his actions..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2007 @ 10:40am

22. Maasch, Hillary blah blah blah, Berger, blah blah blah. this all you got?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2007 @ 10:43am

23. David, doesn't the sound of crickets ever, like, bother you?!

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/24/2007 @ 11:44pm | ignore this person

    nothing but sniping?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2007 @ 10:44am

24. How silly to prop up the poor Sandy Berger who screwed up in his retirement and paid the price for it. On the scale of the historic corruption and incompetence of the Iraq adventure, it doesn't even register. Nor does anything Hillary ever did.

    The verdict on Libby will go to whoever tells a simple and convincing story. So far, Wells is blowing it with his obfuscations.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/25/2007 @ 10:46am

25. Cheney was not the source of anything ...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/25/2007 @ 10:40am

    At the close of this trial, it will be a matter of record that he was, I predict. He was very interested in Wilson's trip, hoping it would bolster his case against Saddam. And hell hath no fury like an executive who doesn't get the answer he wants to hear.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/25/2007 @ 10:51am

26. So let me get this straight - the lemmings have no problem spinning and rationalizing the leaking of a CIA operative for purely political reasons, as long as the leaker is one of the faithful?

    Says a lot about where their loyalties lay, wouldn't you say?

    And they also keep repeating the mantra "innocent until proven guilty" with regards to Libby, Cheney, Rove, etc., but in the late 90's, the Clintons were tarred and feathered long before they were tried (and acquitted!) - and have the lemmings ever apologized for their scurrilous prosecution? Ever admitted that they were wrong? I don't recall any such behavior - and yet we are hounded daily by the lemmings that Fitzgerald is vile in his persecution and prosecution of such paragons of virtue, even though there is apparently significant evidence to the contrary.

    And the lemmings still bring up failed land deals and blowjobs to rebut leaking of government personnel for purely political reasons (personnel who, by the way, was trying to keep us safe from terrorists) - yeah, those issues are exactly the same in magnitude and intent.

    Posted by Turk33 at 01/25/2007 @ 10:57am

27. Outraged? I wouldn't use that word. What Berger did was wrong, and weird, but i haven't seen anything that causes me to think it harmed our security. He paid a big fine, lost whatever reputation he had and is on probation.

    I just find it so funny that so many are able to overlook the damage done by this whole Plame debacle and try and deflect attention to Clinton. You know i am no fan of Clinton or his admin, but like his BJ compared to Chimpies crimes, comparing Berger to what was done to Plame is worthy of a good belly laugh. you guys have a whole stable of convicted felons that you defend, some are listed above. And you claim the moral highground. hehe, very amusing.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2007 @ 11:07am

28. Remember when the spokesman for the President of the United States told the nation that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with Plame?

    ahh, good times.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2007 @ 11:16am

29. Speaking on Iraq and Sadam..."If he were still there today," Cheney added, "we'd have a terrible situation."

    "But there is," Blitzer said.

    "No, there is not," Cheney retorted. "There is not."

    Peachy keen in Iraq.

    Then Cheney refused to answer questions about his unmarried pregnant daughter, questions posed by conservatives.

    Better than SNL.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/25/2007 @ 11:30am

30. "they were tried (and acquitted!) -"

    Like OJ?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2007 @ 11:42am

31. Crab,

    "I just find it so funny that so many are able to overlook the damage done by this whole Plame debacle and try and deflect attention to Clinton."

    I can't find the damage to the US for the Plame thing either,,,she was at a desk in Langley...Berger committed something worse in my opinion...but the real problem is if you or I stole classified material..we would never see day light....again.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2007 @ 11:46am

32. On Wolf Blitzer's interview Cheney looked like a beady-eyed company bookkeeper telling the owner's that they're in fine financial condition after he loaded up the company with debt and transferred it all into his personal checking account.

    2008 can't get here soon enough. We will more than likely end up with a Republican-Democrat in the White House but it will still be sweet watching the American electorate snatching up the Republicans by the collar and then going, "Bang! Zoom!"

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/25/2007 @ 12:04pm

33. Remember when the spokesman for the President of the United States told the nation that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with Plame?

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/25/2007 @ 11:16am

    Well, uh, CRAB...isn't that Patrick Fitzgerald did when he didn't indict them?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2007 @ 12:05pm

34. I wish someone would explain why Republicans think it's alright to expose the cover of an American CIA agent for personal political advantage. Are Republicans . . like . . really Americans? Or what?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/25/2007 @ 12:07pm

35. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/25/2007 @ 12:04am | ignore this person

    so, what's Bush's excuse?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2007 @ 12:10pm

36. Maasch et al, you are the only ones still flogging that dead horse with Berger, to draw attention away from Libby who is on trial. it won't work. that Libby thing will fester for months, and for months the public and you too will have their face rubbed in the fact that Bush was without scruple and shame when it came to sliming a critic of the war justifications. Hurrah for the Libby trial.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2007 @ 12:14pm

37. JR,

    2 points..

    1. I don't think Berger is over as of yet

    2. Nothing can ANYTHING will distract attention from Libby trial...look at the MSm and the NAtion MAg....

    what should be looked at are American security issues for person or political protections and looking only at Libby and not Berger is one sided...to many they are the same.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2007 @ 12:26pm

38. Should read NOTHING can distract ANYTHING from...

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2007 @ 12:26pm

39. 1. I don't think Berger is over as of yet

    how so? he was found guilty and fined, and he's on probation.

    only in your mind is it not over.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2007 @ 12:29pm

40. "they were tried (and acquitted!) -"

    Like OJ?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/25/2007 @ 11:42am

    Not exactly - OJ was acquitted in a criminal trial, where the jury had to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - tough after the prosecution acted like they wanted to lose. However, he was found liable in a civil trial.

    I could be wrong (it has happened once or twice), but I think an impeachment is more like a civil trial, where there needed only a preponderance of guilt (that means even a lower threshold) to reach a guilty plea.

    Posted by Turk33 at 01/25/2007 @ 12:40pm

41. I don't have a damned thing to add to this discussion, so I think I'll

    blame Clinton.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/25/2007 @ 12:51pm

42. but I think an impeachment is more like a civil trial, where there needed only a preponderance of guilt (that means even a lower threshold) to reach a guilty plea.

    Posted by TURK33 01/25/2007 @ 12:40am

    Not going to go back into my "Why It Is STILL 'Off The Table'" Argument, TURK, but...

    in impeachment, NOTHING causes a President to "reach a guilty plea", since that means he pleads guilty to charge.

    To reach a guilty VERDICT....a 2/3 majority (67) of the US Senate must agree to the bills of impeachment and demand the the President be removed from office. That'd be 16 Republicans agreeing with all 51 Democrats....and no Lieberman defection (or they'd need 17 Republicans).

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2007 @ 12:52pm

43. I don't have a damned thing to add to this discussion, so I think I'll

    blame Clinton.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 01/25/2007 @ 12:51am | ignore this person

    you seem to have plenty company in this, Doc.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2007 @ 12:58pm

44. To be fair on the Rio's and Mush (for brain's) there actually are similarities between the Sandy Berger situation and the Libby situation.

    If you come from that camp....you believe Berger stuffed those documents in his underwear to OBSTRUCT justice (the "justice" of tarring Bill Clinton).

    The charges that Libby are facing are and stem from an obstruction of justice Only this time it's criminal).

    From a layman's moral point of view....is it better to obstruct justice when Bill Clinton's legacy is on the line or is it better to obstruct justice when you, Rove, Chenney are criminally implicated in the outing of a CIA operative?

    For the record, I don't buy the rightwing THEORY of why Berger was lifting those papers (their theory is that it was to protect Clinton's legacy). I think it was probably more likely that he was interested in those documents for his own personal reasons (like to write a book, which if true would damage Clinton's legacy rather than hurt his legacy).

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2007 @ 1:34pm

45. Posted by MASK 01/25/2007 @ 12:52am

    You're right, Mask. After I've been wrong once or twice, I make two mistakes in the same blog:

    1. Responding to Maasch's non sequitor;

    and

    2. Of course it's guilty verdict, not plea. I was in a rush and didn't preview my post.

    Posted by Turk33 at 01/25/2007 @ 2:00pm

46. Posted by TURK33 01/25/2007 @ 2:00pm

    No biggie, but I will say that among the MANY reasons that Bush and/or Cheney will NOT be impeached, is the Constitutional passage I cited.

    Lieberman is obviously not going to support it...hell, the guy still supports the SURGE. So...that leaves the Dems with 50 and a need to pick up SEVENTEEN Republicans.

    Now the theory (from the Impeachmentos) is that "Once evidence of Bush and Cheney's criminality is revealed...the public will lose ALL support of them and DEMAND that the Senate remove them....and even the most-hardened Bush supporters will vote him and Cheney out!!!!!" (you always have to add the 5 exclamation marks).

    Problem...all the charges against them pose atleast SOME difficulty in proving "criminality"....Did they LIE about WMDs in Iraq or merely "exaggerate"?....Was NSA Spying illegal or "Constitutionally murky"?...Did Cheney LIE in the Libby trial, or "forget"?

    As for the public....HOW MUCH LOWER CAN THE APPROVAL RATINGS GO?!!?!? Plus there's "crises/scandal fatigue"....no impeachment could get started until Fall 2007 (HSUB and others admit this)....and with the EARLY Presidential primaries talking about 2008, who in the public REALLY wants to go through an impeachment over two guys out of office in less than a year?

    Of course all this is logic and reason....something few Impeachment Fans take into account!

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2007 @ 2:36pm

47. Is it true that the Republican Party is trying to organize a campaign to get Monica Lewinsky's face added to Mt. Rushmore?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/25/2007 @ 5:42pm

48. Basically, I'm saying if the jury believes Libby's lawyers and thinks it was "all Karl Rove and Dick Cheney" (essentially the position the Blogosphere AND David Corn took)....Libby walks.

    Posted by MASK 01/25/2007 @ 08:39am

    Maybe so, but how exactly do Libby's lawyers make this case without Libby testifying?

    Perhaps Libby does not testify. Pretty big risk to not have the guy accused of lying explain himself in a perjury case - in my opinion.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/25/2007 @ 8:36pm

49. Posted by HMAN23 01/25/2007 @ 8:36pm | ignore this person

    pretty big risk either way.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2007 @ 10:31am