Libby Trial: Russert Ruins the Cover Story

After jurors in the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial on Wednesday heard the defendant--on tape--cite Meet the Press host Tim Russert as his alibi, the alibi, using crutches, hobbled into the Washington courtroom and shot a hole in Libby's cover story.

For three days, the jury had been listening to audio tapes of Libby's two appearances before a grand jury in March 2004, when Libby repeatedly claimed that in July 2003, before the leak appeared that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer, he knew nothing about her until Russert told him that "all the reporters knew" she worked at the CIA. Libby acknowledged to the grand jurors that weeks earlier Vice President Dick Cheney had told him that Valerie Wilson was a CIA employee, but he said that he had completely forgotten this and had learned about her "anew" when Russert passed him this gossip during a phone call. It's an essential part of Libby's tale. When the FBI and a grand jury were looking for administration officials who had leaked information on Wilson to reporters--and Libby was a potential target--Libby told the Bureau and the grand jury that he had not disclosed any information gathered from official sources; he had only shared with a few reporters a rumor he had picked up from Russert. And you can't prosecute a guy for spreading gossip. Again and again, during his grand jury testimony, Libby pointed to Russert: he told me, and, boy, was I surprised.

But on the stand, Russert told the trial jurors the opposite. Questioned by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for less than fifteen minutes, Russert said he had uttered no such thing to Libby. Russert also noted that it would have been "impossible" for him to have done so because at the time of the call--July 10 or 11, 2003, and days before Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in a Robert Novak column--he knew nothing about her. Wilson's wife never came up in the conversation with Libby, Russert testified. Libby had called him to complain that Chris Matthews, the host of Hardball was being too hard on Cheney's office (and on Libby) as Hardball covered the controversy sparked by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's charge that the Bush administration had twisted the prewar intelligence.

Once Russert, with little elaboration, had punctured a main element of Libby's story, Fitzgerald was done with the witness. Then came Ted Wells, a Libby attorney. His mission was clear: destroy the credibility of the fellow whom earlier in the day Libby had described (on the grand jury tape) as "one of the best newsmen, one of the most substantive of the news people."

Wells took his shots. He grilled Russert about an episode in which the anchor in a 2004 interview had failed to recall a phone call he had made to a Buffalo News columnist who had criticized how Russert had moderated a debate during the New York Senate race in 2000. Wells noted that Russert has often described himself as driven to get the story first. If so, Wells wondered, how could Russert not have taken the opportunity to talk to Libby about the Wilson imbroglio (and possibly about Wilson's wife) when the vice president's chief of staff rang him up? Had he forgotten this part of the call? "Frankly, [Libby] wasn't in the mood to talk," Russert replied, noting that the Cheney aide was rather agitated about Matthews. Wells pointed out that Russert had no notes on the call and that he had told the FBI that while he believed there had been only one call perhaps there had been two. Wells was doing all he could to question Russert's powers of recall.

Wells tried a few other attacks as well. He cited an NBC News press release that was issued when Russert had challenged a subpoena from Fitzgerald. (Russert lost that fight.) The release noted that Russert had not said anything to Libby about Valerie Wilson's "role" at the CIA. Why the word "role"? Wells asked. Was it carefully chosen because Russert actually had told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but had not said what position (or "role") she had at the agency? This word-game was a sign of desperation on Wells' part. "As I read [the press release]," Russert answered, "it includes the fact I did not know that she worked at the CIA."

Wells also suggested Russert had lied to a federal judge when Russert had filed a motion to quash Fitzgerald's subpoena of him. In a declaration to the court, Russert had said that it was crucial that he be able to maintain the confidentiality of his sources. Yet, Wells noted, Russert had already told the FBI about his conversation with Libby. In other words, so much for protecting sources. Russert explained that in his earlier conversation with an FBI agent he had responded to an allegation that Libby had made about him (when Libby had spoken to the FBI) and that he had resisted the subpoena because he did not want to be in the position of appearing before a grand jury and being asked a wide range of questions about various sources.

Russert was unflappable during Wells' cross-examination. His voice remained steady. He took his time answering the questions. He was hardly animated--not his usual Sunday morning self. (Remember, he used to be a lawyer.) He noted that after Novak disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA identity, the NBC News Washington bureau--which he presides over--waited several days before reporting the story. "We worked diligently to vet it," he said, recalling "long and extended conversations" about the national security implications of the disclosure. That is, NBC News acted more responsibly than the Bush administration leakers.

As the court recessed for the day, Wells said he might have another two hours of questions for Russert. Does he have better stuff to throw at Russert? He had not made much of a dent. Nor had Wells done much to advance his contention (presented earlier in the trial) that Russert might have heard about Wilson's wife from an NBC News colleague--most notably, David Gregory, who may have received leaked information on her from then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. (See herefor details of that confusing subplot.)

Wells needs to score more points in his Meet the Libby Lawyer show. Libby had based so much of his grand jury testimony on his conversation with Russert. Yet Russert pulled the rug out. His testimony was a simple conclusion to the prosecution's simple case.

Before Russert came to court, the jury finished listening to the audio tape of Libby's March 24, 2004 testimony to the grand jury. And there were passages that might cause a listener to think of Tony Soprano.

During that session, Fitzgerald asked Libby about several interactions he had with Cheney in the fall of 2003, when the leak scandal was red-hot. The news had just broken that the Justice Department was investigating the White House to determine who in the administration had leaked to Novak and other journalists about Valerie Wilson. The Washington Post had reported--perhaps not accurately--that two senior White House officials had called six reporters to leak this information as part of an orchestrated campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson after he had published an op-ed claiming he had inside information proving the White House had manipulated the prewar intelligence. Senior White House aide Karl Rove was a suspect in the investigation. So was Libby.

With a full-force firestorm under way, Libby, according to his grand jury testimony, went to Cheney and "offered to tell him everything I knew." Libby had not been a source for the Novak column. But at the time of that leak, he had talked to reporters about Wilson's wife and her CIA connection. (What he said is at issue in the trial.) He told the grand jury that he thought he ought to let Cheney know what he had done in the days before the leak. Yet Cheney, Libby recalled, "didn't want to hear." When Libby offered to disclose all to the vice president, Cheney said, "You don't have to. I know you didn't do it."

Cheney's incuriosity went further. When Libby told the vice president that he had discovered a note in his files indicating that in early June 2003, Cheney had told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA's Counterproliferation Division (a unit in the agency's clandestine operations directorate), the vice president barely reacted. The note was a big deal. Libby was claiming he had known nothing about Wilson's wife until his conversation with Russert. But here was indisputable documentation that Cheney had informed Libby weeks before that--and proof that Cheney had been gathering his own information on the Wilsons and the trip Joseph Wilson took to Niger for the CIA to check out the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium there.

What did Cheney say when told about the existence of this note? Fitzgerald asked. "He didn't say much," Libby replied, adding that Cheney "titled his head...and that was that." Tilted his head? What did that mean? Libby had no more of an explanation. He also testified that in the days before the leak occurred he and Cheney had discussed many aspects of Wilson's trip to Niger but that the "only part" of the controversy they had not talked about was Wilson's wife and her CIA employment. (When journalists in the media room heard Libby make this claim, several laughed.)

Libby's grand jury testimony contained other intriguing nuggets. At one point, he noted that then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had leaked portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMDs to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. This happened after Cheney had asked Libby to get this information to the Journal. (The NIE selections may or may not have been classified at the time: it's complicated.) Libby, in turn, talked to Wolfowitz about doing so because he didn't "have as good a relationship with the Wall Street Journal as Secretary Wolfowitz did." (When the Journal ran an editorial quoting the NIE and insisting that Bush had been right to cite Iraq's alleged attempt to buy uranium in Africa, the paper's editorialists asserted "this information...does not come from the White House.")

And in his grand jury testimony, Libby noted that both he and Cheney believed that Joe Wilson had been "qualified" for his mission to Africa. White House allies have long derided Wilson as an absurd choice for the trip. Will they retract that criticism? Or do they believe Libby was not telling the truth before the grand jury?

There also was an interesting absence in Libby's grand jury testimony. At the start of the trial, Wells suggested that Libby had somehow been set up by a White House cabal that was attempting to protect Rove at Libby's expense. Wells has yet to explain how this conspiracy worked. But during both of his grand jury appearances, Libby said nothing that hinted at the existence of a plot against him.

Perhaps Wells will get to this when he starts calling defense witnesses on Thursday or Monday. With Fitzgerald wrapping up his case, it's time for Wells to put up or shut up. He's tossed a lot of theories and notions at the jury over the past three weeks. It's easy for a defense attorney to cook up alternative explanations and dangle them in front of jurors. But if Wells calls certain witnesses to the stand--say, Rove or Cheney--jurors may well expect him to make good on his previous claims that the White House, the CIA and the State Department were each out to get Libby.

Wells has signaled that he intends first to put on the stand reporters who will testify that Libby didn't say anything to them about Valerie Wilson during the period he discussed her with Matt Cooper, then of Time, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times. That's a modest defense. Will Wells and his colleague Bill Jeffress venture further? Fitzgerald appears to have put Libby in a hole. The grand jury tapes were quite damning. One conservative columnist emailed me to say that he/she now believes Libby is probably guilty, and a conservative-leaning reporter told me that after hearing the tapes she/he had come to the conclusion that Libby was screwed. If folks sympathetic to Libby believe this, one has to wonder what the jurors think.

******

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 (25)

1. So Libby gets convicted...and like "Fitzmas" two years ago, we go through another Blogosphere hysteria that "Rove and Cheney are next!!! They are DOOMED when Libby rats them out for a lighter sentence!!!!" (three or four exclamations MINIMUM)

   Meanwhile, Libby is informed that if he keeps his trap shut, Bush will sign the pardon the day Hillary wins in Iowa or something...gets buried...and he gets the 500K a year Halliburton job on January 21st, 2009, the day after her Inauguration.

   Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 10:39pm

2. When will Bush give Libby the pardon?

   If Cheney is called to testify, will a pardon of Libby end the trial and prevent Cheney from having to perjure himself?

   It's getting interesting.

   Posted by jkrogman at 02/07/2007 @ 10:42pm

3. fitzmas?

   i think this is getting good.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 10:47pm

4. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ What? Wake me when it's over.............

   Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 11:08pm

5. TREASON.

   Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 11:09pm

6. Cheney or Rove will be forced to resign before the scandal ends......dont forget GWB's words after the story broke originally. I have asked them if they leaked the name, and was assured they did not. He then stated he would fire anyone who lied about the Wilson scandal. Hope he stays true to his word........but he hasn't really done that for six years......not expecting anything different here. Another monster cover up.........best Republican tactic of the Bush administration has been lie, spin, lie again.....if it doesnt go away.....lie some more.....dont worry another larger scandal will make this one go away......the war will overshadow it........lie some more.....spin it.....lie again.

   Posted by jpolston at 02/08/2007 @ 12:01am

7. We're not done yet. Next,the defense puts on its case and Fitzgerald gets to cross-examine defense witnesses under penalty of perjury. More nefarious facts will be revealed. Neither Libby nor Cheney are likely to testify. There would simple be too much risk.

   So far, Libby looks guilty on the five count indictment and Cheney looks like the mastermind behind the cover-up.

   Cheney has three big problems. 1) The evolution of his well documented talking points leaves a telling trail about his involvement and his knowledge. 2) He declassified the NIE after Libby and Wolfowitz began to leak its contents to reporters. 3) He declassified Plame's status for no better reason than political payback to Joseph Wilson who accused Cheney of using discreditied evidence about Niger Uranium to substantiate the pre-war case for war in Iraq. Finally, the law requires declassifying procedure to approve and document, with which Cheney did not comply. His lack of compliance may point to an intentional cover-up.

   Cheney is in hot water and the MSM is starting to catch on. Yje tipping point is near, where right-wing propagenda is overcome by the revelation of facts from court and the big picture of what happened and why.

   Where did I read that both Corn and Fitz graduated from their respective colleges in the class of 1982 both Phi Beta Kappa? I'm pretty sure that's accurate.

   Posted by NeilSagan at 02/08/2007 @ 01:41am

8. Libby claims to have learned about Plame "anew" from Russert. This sounds farfetched, but here's how that sort of thing works.

   Say you've been trying to follow a complex legal case from press accounts for two or three years. Sometimes, you lose the thread. Then later, you pick the thread up again. You see that the Administration selectively declassified NIE information in order to silence dissent and mire the country in an illegal war that has killed tens of thousands of people. Sure, you'd heard it before, but you had put it out of your mind. But when you see a new press account of it, you learn it As If For The First Time. And you are a bit surprised.

   See? Libby's lawyers should try explaining it with an example like this, so the jurors can relate to it.

   Posted by RLawrence at 02/08/2007 @ 04:12am

9. Cheney's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE extends far beyond the Libby/Plame fiasco. This is the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg. Follow the trail all the way back to 9/11 - and even prior to 9/11.

   GHW Bush, Ken Lay, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld conspired to take back the White House from the Clinton regime. They decided upon using Lay's Enron trading platform to create a FAKE ENERGY CRISIS in California to set the stage for the "oil experts" to seize power in order to implement the PNAC plan in concert with the Neocons. GHW forged this alliance when they conspired to plant Lewinski (a Mossad "Swallow") next to Clinton.

   9/11 was part of their plan. Bush, Cheney, and the rest all work for David Rockefeller. It is Rockefeller's globalists strategy (with Israel as its focal popint) that is being slowly revealed - piece by piece.

   Was it Cheney who ordered Chertoff to kill the Ptech Investigation??? And Remember "Operation Greenquest?" That investigation was killed too!

   http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/01/michael-chertoff-and-sabot age-of-ptech.html

   A tipster was Indira Singh, who has said she recognizes the separate command and control communications system Mike Ruppert describes Dick Cheney to have been running on September 11th as having "the exact same functionality I was looking for (Ptech)."

   The Ptech case turned into an ugly dispute last year when company whistleblowers told Greenquest agents about their own suspicions about the firm's owners. Sources close to the case say those same whistleblowers had first approached FBI agents, but the bureau apparently did little or nothing in response. With backing from the National Security Council, Greenquest agents then mounted a full-scale investigation that culminated in a raid on the company's office last December. After getting wind of the Greenquest probe, the FBI stepped in and unsuccessfully tried to take control of the case.

   Whatever the truth, there is no dispute that the case has so far produced no charges and indictments against Al-Qadi or anyone else connected with Ptech.

   What role did Dick Cheney play in killing the investigation into Al-Qadi?

   Now, how does Chertoff figure in the Ptech story? It goes back to the turf war of two years ago over Operation Greenquest, "the high-profile federal task force set up to target the financiers of Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups."

   Clearly ptech represent some nexus between the government and terorism that must not be revealed, and Chertoff is just the man to cover it up.

   Comverse/Ptech CEO, Kobi Alexander, is central to 9/11 along with Dov Zakheim. Alexander, though wanted on federal charges, is in the witness protection program.

   Ask Cheney specifically about Kobi Alexander - and the whereabouts of the $7 trillion of DOD funds stolen by Dov Zakheim to pay for the coup.

   Posted by plunger at 02/08/2007 @ 05:57am

10. FRAUD INDICTMENT PENDING FOR DICK CHENEY:

    The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefited as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries - to say nothing of Israel) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

    That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given (he ordered that the forgery be created and sent Ledeen to do it). That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

    Every time the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

    Indict Dick Cheney for Fraud. Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

    (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

    (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

    The outing of Valarie Plame falls into precisely the same category, as it was specifically designed to ensure that the lead up to war continued apace...

    Consummate diplomats like Wilson typically do not speak of "lies." So outraged was Wilson, though, that this bogus story had been used to "justify" an unprovoked war, that he made a point to note that the already proven dishonesty begs the question regarding "what else they are lying about."

    It was a double whammy. And, as is now well known, the White House moved swiftly-if clumsily (and apparently illegally)-to retaliate.

    Posted by plunger at 02/08/2007 @ 06:05am

11. Cheney is responsible for EVERY SINGLE DEATH in Iraq

    OSP = Office Of Dick Cheney Warmongering In Concert With ISRAEL.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

    excerpts:

    The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

    The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.

    The president's most trusted adviser, Mr Cheney, was at the shadow network's sharp end. He made several trips to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, to demand a more "forward-leaning" interpretation of the threat posed by Saddam. When he was not there to make his influence felt, his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was. Such hands-on involvement in the processing of intelligence data was unprecedented for a vice-president in recent times, and it put pressure on CIA officials to come up with the appropriate results.

    Another frequent visitor was Newt Gingrich, the former Republican party leader who resurfaced after September 11 as a Pentagon "consultant" and a member of its unpaid defence advisory board, with influence far beyond his official title.

    Mr Gingrich visited Langley three times before the war, and according to accounts, the political veteran sought to browbeat analysts into toughening up their assessments of Saddam's menace.

    Mr Gingrich gained access to the CIA headquarters and was listened to because he was seen as a personal emissary of the Pentagon and, in particular, of the OSP.

    In the days after September 11, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror. When the established agencies came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully.

    William Luti, a former navy officer and ex-aide to Mr Cheney, runs the day-to-day operations, answering to Douglas Feith, a defence undersecretary and a former Reagan official.

    The OSP itself had less than 10 full-time staff, so to help deal with the load, the office hired scores of temporary "consultants". "Most of the people they had in that office were off the books, on personal services contracts. At one time, there were over 100 of them," said an intelligence source. The contracts allow a department to hire individuals, without specifying a job description.

    "They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it."

    The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

    "None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

    The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

    In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

    The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.

    Posted by plunger at 02/08/2007 @ 06:07am

12. Posted by JKROGMAN 02/07/2007 @ 10:42pm

    As NEILSAGAN noted, Cheney's not going to testify. Fitzgerald has finished the prosecution case, and Libby's lawyers have no reason to put Cheney on the stand.

    In fact, on the "pardon issue", they have even LESS reason to put him on the stand. Again...Libby keeps his mouth shut and takes the fall, Cheney's people tell him pardon is in the works for a "fast news day"

    (Hillary's first primary victory would be perfect, it's less than a year away, so Scooter would serve SOME time, but not much...MSMedia would be in a titter over it and ignore Libby getting his "Get Out Of Jail Free" Card.)

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2007 @ 08:43am

13. I have to agree about Chenney now NOT testifying....the jeopardy is way too great (of course, that's yet another lie given how he's stated in numerous forums that he would be testifying, but the guy has no credibility with anyone so whats the difference?). I don't see this thing going to jury diliberation. I think Libby will cut a deal. The deal will include a delayed start to the sentence. He'll do less time than Judy Miller before the pardon....but he will do perhaps two or three months for the sake of appearances.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/08/2007 @ 09:16am

14. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 11:08pm

    watch out dave...you might wake up with a long grey beard and severe arthritis wondering where all the lawn bowling gnomes have gone...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/08/2007 @ 09:53am

15. Libby claims to have learned about Plame "anew" from Russert. This sounds farfetched....

    Posted by RLAWRENCE 02/08/2007 @ 04:12am

    It seems it's nothing new for the Great Minds of the Bush administration...for example, on 9/11/2001, Mushroom Cloud Condi learned anew that Islamic terrorists had plotted to fly commercial airplanes into buildings....

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/08/2007 @ 10:02am

16. The hypocrisy of the "law and order" crowd is breath taking. And they wonder why some people have absolutely no respect for the law.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 02/08/2007 @ 10:20am

17. Cheney sent Ledeen to meet with Ambassador Mel Sembler in Italy to plant the forged Niger document.

    COINCIDENTALLY... Mel sembler heads up Scooter Libby's Legal defense fund AND Despite the fact he's a lifelong Republican, Sembler held a fundraiser for Lieberman in Palm Beach - in coordination with Rove and the WH.

    Connect ALL the dots... Lieberman is now assigned the task of protecting Chertoff.

    How does McCain factor in?

    A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

    It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 "PULLED" by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:

    Pull the entire thread and don't stop pulling. The Asbestos liability belonged to Halliburton, having acquired it along with his acquisition of Dresser.

    GW included the issue in his State of the Union speech in 2005:

    "To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. (Applause.) Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year."

    FULL CIRCLE.

    Posted by plunger at 02/08/2007 @ 10:39am

18. I have heard that a pardon cannot be issued in mid trial. any seconds?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/08/2007 @ 10:41am

19. Sure looks to me like Libby is a liar, putting him right at home in the Bush admin. ChimpCO made a case foe an unnecessary war based on junk evidence, when people started to point it out ChimpCO went as far as releasing classified info to attempt to discredit the people that were telling the truth.

    And the neo's support this kind of action. Sad.

    Second helping of crow for the neo's. More like twelfths.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2007 @ 10:57am

20. Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/08/2007 @ 10:20am

    some people have no respect for the law because they think they are above the law. They know bestest what we need to know and how to run things. Into the ground.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/08/2007 @ 11:01am

21. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/08/2007 @ 10:41am

    I would think at that point (a trial) the idea would be "wait and see if he's not convicted, and then claim it was all 'out-of-control prosecutors'" as opposed to pardoning him mid-trial and leaving his guilt or innocence still questionable. After conviction the pardon can come and you (the White House) can spin the conviction as "dubious" or still politically motivated.

    By the way, researching pardons from Presidents, I found this interesting tidbit....

    Guess who commuted the sentence of G. Gordon Liddy?

    Jimmy Carter!!!! Probably regretting that about now given Gordo's take on "Peace Not Apartheid"

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2007 @ 12:15pm

22. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ What? Wake me when it's over.............

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 11:08pm

    Is that your manhood and Americanism taking another extended nap you weeny? You are a perfect example of Republicanism. You think it's OK for Republicans to expose the identity of an American CIA agent who was tasked with WMD counterproliferation, along with her whole network of contacts. All for the personal political gain of the Republican Party.

    On the other hand, someone like Lt. Watada, who has enough rocks, the ones you don't, to expose the illegality of your contrived, stupid war should be immediately clapped into Leavenworth.

    What a perfect picture you are of the treasonous, cowardly nature of the Republican party.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 12:36pm

23. RIO POLLO, you're another good example of the species- Polycowardus Americanus.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 12:39pm

24. What is it, tax-dodge preacher? A virus-laden adware package put out by Pat Robertson's money machine? You're pathetic. If your beliefs proved to be true Jesus would fling you into the lake of fire. You're an abomination, Satan's ambassador on earth.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 1:28pm

25. Please FRB, tell us how you really feel.

    I agree with most posters, Libby will do very little time when convicted. He will be pardoned. The masterminds, once again, go softly into the night. Just another day on Capitol Hill.

    Posted by k330k at 02/08/2007 @ 3:14pm