Libby Trial: What Scooter Didn't Do

Scooter Libby didn't tell Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby didn't tell Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that she was employed at the CIA. Libby didn't tell New York Times reporter David Sanger the envoy's wife was CIA. Libby didn't tell Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post anything about her. And he said nothing to rightwing columnist Robert Novak about the woman.

That's how the defense in the perjury trial of I. Lewis" Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, began its case on Monday. The aim was to show that Libby was not willy-nilly spreading information to reporters about Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment in the weeks before she was outed as a CIA officer by Novak's July 14, 2003 column. Libby stands accused of having lied to a grand jury and the FBI when he told both that he had not passed official information regarding Valerie Wilson to reporter Judith Miller, then of The New York Times (during conversations on June 23, July 8 and July 12, 2003) and correspondent Matt Cooper, then of Time (during a phone call on July 12, 2003). With the testimony of the journalists who appeared on Monday, Libby's lawyers will be able to argue to the jurors that if Libby was purposefully leaking information on Valerie Wilson, he sure let plenty of opportunities pass him by.

The defense also elicited testimony from two reporters who each said he had been told about Wilson's wife (before the Novak leak) by an administration official other than Libby. Pincus testified that on July 12 Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, said to him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had sent her husband on a boondoggle. (Pincus had previously disclosed that an administration source made such a remark to him without identifying the source.) And Woodward testified that on June 13 he met with then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had been involved with the trip Joseph Wilson had taken to Niger for the CIA to check out the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium there. (The day before Woodward saw Armitage, Pincus had reported on the trip in the Post without naming Wilson).

Libby's lawyers merged these two key points--Libby had not leaked to these reporters while other officials had leaked--and composed a timeline in front of the jury that listed Libby's conversations with Pincus, Woodward, Sanger, Kessler, and Novak and Armitage's conversations with Woodward and Novak and Fleischer's with Pincus. The Libby conversations were noted in black ink. (Black meant no mention of WIlson's wife). The other three were in red. (Red meant Wilson's wife was mentioned.) Voila! The only conversations on the chart involving Valerie Wilson were those between reporters and Bush administration officials besides Libby.

Libby is in legal trouble because in 2003 and 2004 he told the FBI and the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that when he discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper and Miller, he was merely passing along gossip he had picked up from Meet the Press host Tim Russert--not official information gathered from government sources. Fitzgerald has presented witnesses who have testified that Libby did seek and obtain classified information on Valerie Wilson's CIA employment from Cheney and CIA and State Department officials and then leaked it to Miller and Cooper.

During the prosecution's case, Libby's attorneys attempted to impeach the credibility of these witnesses--and suggested several conspiracy theories that they have yet to support with evidence. Now that it's their turn, Libby's lawyers began with a contextual argument: look at all the times he didn't leak. But in Washington not every leak is an equal opportunity leak handed out to all comers. A leak often can be selective. During his grand jury testimony--which was played for the trial jurors--Libby explained how he had been tasked by Cheney (with George W. Bush's approval) to leak selectively to Miller excerpts from the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (which the White House believed supported its case for war). Libby also told the grand jurors how he worked with then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to leak portions of the NIE to The Wall Street Journal--not to every reporter with whom he would come into contact.

Libby's I-didn't-leak-to-these-other-reporters argument has additional problems. When he didn't leak to Pincus, Woodward, and Sanger, the Wilson matter was not yet a firestorm. And some of these conversations did not concern the Wilson affair. Sanger testified that he had contacted Libby regarding Libby's role in Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations, during which Powell laid out a case for war based on false information. Is it fair to say your discussion with Libby did not involve allegations about Joseph Wilson? Fitzgerald asked Sanger. "That's fair to say," the reporter replied. And during the entire Sanger-Libby interview, Fitzgerald noted, Cathie Martin, Cheyenne's top press aide, was in the room. The prosecutor was suggesting it would be unlikely for Libby to leak classified information about Valerie Wilson to a reporter chasing another story while a press aide was watching. And Glenn Kessler of the Post testified that his phone conversation with Libby came about because he was helping a colleague at the paper gather answers to questions related to postwar planning. Kessler's phone call with Libby did not cover the Wilson trip.

Some of the testimony from the reporters did not enhance Libby's credibility. According to Pincus, Libby told him that Wilson's trip to Niger had been sparked by a question about the Niger allegation raised by an aide to the vice president. But the CIA had dispatched Wilson to Africa after Cheney himself asked about the NIger allegation. In talking to Pincus, Libby was dissembling to keep the boss out of the picture.

When Novak testified, he noted that on July 8, 2003, shortly after Armitage told him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA, he (Novak) called Libby--and Novak's phone records support this. Libby returned the call that day or the next, according to Novak, and the two discussed the ongoing controversy concerning Bush's use of the Niger allegation in his 2003 State of the Union trip. Novak told the court that he might have asked Libby about Wilson's wife during this conversation but had no recollection of doing so. Yet during his grand jury testimony, Libby denied talking to Novak in this period. Libby claimed he had not had any conversation with Novak at "any time near" Novak's July 14, 2003 leak column--noting he had spoken to Novak "maybe a year and a half" before that article and then a "week and a half or so" after the column came out. Why then does Novak clearly recall a conversation with Libby at that time? This conflict in recollection was not addressed by the prosecution and the defense.

Through the day, the testimony of the notable journalists yielded several news nuggets. Fleischer was revealed to be more of a leaker than previously disclosed. (When he testified as a prosecution witness, Fleischer admitted to leaking to NBC News reporter David Gregory and John Dickerson, then of Time--though Dickerson's emails from the time show Fleischer did not tell him about Wilson's wife.) And Novak confirmed that Karl Rove, the Bush administration's top strategist, was the second source for his column blowing Valerie Wilson's cover. On the stand, Novak noted that at the time of the leak Rove was a "good source" with whom he spoke to two or three times a week. He said that he and Rove had a "modus operandi" in which Rove would quickly confirm or deny information Novak possessed without Novak "getting into a long dissertation"--and that Rove confirmed the information leaked to Novak by Armitage. Anyone remember the White House vow made by then-press secretary Scott McClellan in fall 2003 that any White House official involved in the leak would be booted out of the Bush administration? Confirming a leak is certainly involvement. Rove, though, still works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (Tony Snow, care to comment?)

On the stand, Novak also said that he shared a draft of his leak column three days before it was published with a good friend and Republican lobbyist named Richard Hohlt. (Hohlt has represented BMW, JP Morgan Chase, SBC Communications, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Northwest Airlines, and other corporate clients.) Novak testified that he had a "vague recollection" that Hohlt that day told the White House that a "very interesting" piece would be coming out. This seemed curious: Novak slipping a column to a GOP lobbyist who then immediately provided a head's up to the White House. But nothing else about this episode was disclosed.

When Woodward was on the stand, the prosecution introduced as evidence an audio clip of two minutes from Woodward's taped June 13 interview with Armitage. This was the first time--as far as the public record goes--that a Bush administration official told a reporter that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA. (Woodward did not report the information.) Armitage, according to a transcript of this exchange, showed Woodward a classified memo noting that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. (The memo had it wrong; Valerie Wilson was operations chief for the Joint Task Force on Iraq of the Counterproliferation Division in the agency's clandestine operations directorate.) "His wife is in the agency....," said Armitage, who is well-known for his use of salty language. "How about that [expletive deleted]." (The transcript introduced in court redacted Armitage's salt.)

With Monday's testimony, the defense took a stab at providing a behavioral alibi for Libby. He didn't leak here, so he didn't leak there. It's unclear what the rest of the defense is going to cover. Libby's lawyers have said they expect to call Jill Abramson of The New York Times (supposedly to impeach Judith Miller's earlier testimony) and NBC News' Andrea Mitchell (supposedly to impeach Russert's earlier testimony). Libby's attorney have also mentioned bringing to the stand former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow and John Hannah, Cheney's current national security adviser. Hannah would presumably testify as to how busy Libby was with national security leaks at the time of the Valerie Wilson leak. His lawyers could then argue that Libby cannot be expected to remember accurately such minor business as the leak.

The defense has not yet declared whether it will call Cheney or Libby as witnesses. And the defense and prosecution have been squabbling over what evidence could be introduced should Libby not testify. Libby's lawyers began their case with a side issue: what Libby didn't say to other reporters. They have yet to disclose all that will follow.

******

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 (94)

1. Wake me up for the update on the pardon....

   until then, it's worse than the OJ trial.

   Posted by Mask at 02/12/2007 @ 6:55pm

2. He isn't guilty because he never told X. A defense that plays well with the pinhead Republican drones. LOL!

   Posted by fromredbird at 02/12/2007 @ 6:56pm

3. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZguess he committed a sin of omission....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

   Posted by davebarlett at 02/12/2007 @ 7:03pm

4. yawn. have they found him not guilty of the.....what were the they looking for again?

   Posted by john maasch at 02/12/2007 @ 7:05pm

5. Chimpy said he would fire the leakers. Another whopper. He should have been looking for a whole new staff.

   All over forged documents Chimpy still stands by. Worst Potus ever.

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2007 @ 7:17pm

6. MAASCH!!

   DId you feast on crab w/butter in NC?

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2007 @ 7:20pm

7. Crab,

   I was in SC at Hilton Head Island..golfing 36 a day...it was great...I did eat some fine grouper, tho...love the south.

   Posted by john maasch at 02/12/2007 @ 7:50pm

8. he didnt kill hoffa either...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2007 @ 8:14pm

9. This just in.....

   Scooter Libby is claiming he is the REAL father of Anna Nicole's baby!

   Posted by Mask at 02/12/2007 @ 10:15pm

10. Posted by MASK 02/12/2007 @ 10:15pm

    oooooh....juicy....

    drudge report?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2007 @ 11:33pm

11. Even if the entire NBC newsroom was ablaze with Plame chatter, it doesn't matter, because by the time of the Russert-Libby conversation, Libby had known about and was telling others about Plame for a month. That's what easily a half dozen administration and CIA witnesses have already testified to. The defense lawyers can call Andrea Mitchell to the stand and try to impeach Russert all they want. Libby lied about "learning" the info from Russert.

    The NY Times buried its spirited condemnation of the crimes being revealed in this trial -- buried the editorial in its Saturday edition, along with a spirited condemnation of the Feith operation's fabrication of an Iraq connection to 9-11, as documented in the Pentagon audit reported last week. (Levin or Rockefeller to hold hearings.) The NY Times is shocked, shocked by this! And now back to our drumbeating for war with Iran....

    Posted by RLawrence at 02/12/2007 @ 11:53pm

12. Posted by RLAWRENCE 02/12/2007 @ 11:53pm

    Libby lied about "learning" the info from Russert.

    Who gives a shit?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 05:20am

13. The FBI and the special prosecutor the CIA asked for PONTI.

    Do you think Palestinians convicted of obstruction of justice should be released? Should Clinton be pardoned for lying under oath? these were not the original charges against them. Are you a pile of POLLO like RIO, afraid to answer simple questions?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 08:49am

14. Who gives a shit about me?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/13/2007 @ 05:20am | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 08:53am

15. Can any of the nationalist apologists explain the reasoning behind going after Wilson? after all he was only doing the job the CIA asked of him, and doing what nay good citizen should, expose lies by an admin bent on an unnecessary war. Yes, he went overboard with some of his comments. But is that any reason to destroy his wife's career and ruin the work of the Iraqi wmd program within the CIA? I would think a good conservative would see that as treason. Look at your reaction to Berger stealing a few pages. (Not Foley pages, paper pages) .

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 08:56am

16. Look at your reaction to Berger stealing a few pages.

    Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 08:56am

    Well, CRAB doesnt that cut both ways? I mean lot on the Left/Dem side saying "So what? No big deal" about Berger.

    Seems everybody is taking a dip in Hypocrisy Lake.

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 09:09am

17. I have seen zero evidence that Berger did ANY harm to national security. And he admitted his wrongdoing, paid 50k fine and is on probation for 3 years. Libby, Armitage, cheney, and everybody else that leaked the name of a classified wmd analyst is walking free, even after Chimpy promised he would at least fire them. And the Nationalist apologists back them, because the echo-chamber tells them to.

    Maybe if Libby had attended a madrassa as a 6 year old they could sink their teeth into it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 09:17am

18. Can any of the nationalist apologists explain the reasoning behind going after Wilson?

    the Wilson op ed piece was one of the first cracks in the facade of lies. today of course that crack is so wide , you can drive an unarmored Hummer through it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 09:19am

19. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 08:49am

    The FBI and the special prosecutor the CIA asked for PONTI.

    Do you think Palestinians convicted of obstruction of justice should be released? Should Clinton be pardoned for lying under oath? these were not the original charges against them. Are you a pile of POLLO like RIO, afraid to answer simple questions?

    I think it's patently clear that this is purely a politically motivated prosecution. Primarily, it is clearly distinguishable from other prosecutions, such as that of Bill Clinton, where there was an underlying crime (e.g., sexual harassment) where perjury and obstruction were used to shield the object of the investigation from prosecution. In Libby's case, there is no underlying crime. Ergo, this was an investigation without a purpose, and it actually looks like Libby's misstatements are being trumped up as perjury.

    In other words, a complete waste of time, money, and the taxpayer's resources all to satisfy a partisan vendetta. Yawn.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 09:27am

20. I meant a legitimate reason. A reason that a group of men that said "we will restore credibility to the White House" would use.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 09:29am

21. PONTI, a judge threw out Jones case.

    what about the Palestinians? Or Jose Padilla? He has not been charged with anything related to a "dirty bomb". Should he be let go?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 09:31am

22. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 09:17am

    Libby, Armitage, cheney, and everybody else that leaked the name of a classified wmd analyst is walking free, even after Chimpy promised he would at least fire them.

    Chimpy said he would fire them if they did anything wrong. If Cheney or anyone under him was authorized to release classified information it was entirely legal, as opposed to the routine leaks of classifed information from Congress to such Democratic Party organs as the WaPo and the NYT, which are, in fact, illegal, even if they are never prosecuted. What exactly are you complaining about?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 09:35am

23. And you are comfortable with your VP and his staff ruining a CIA program to find wmd's in Iraq while we are at war to find wmd's in Iraq? For political purposes, ie a "vendetta" against Wilson for outing the presidents lies in his SOTU speech. The speech that had a convicted felon seated next to Laura. don't you think the people had a right to know that the documents Chimpy was clucking about were forgeries, almost crayon like in their amateur like appearance?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 09:36am

24. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 09:31am

    PONTI, a judge threw out Jones case.

    Not before Clinton lied under oath.

    what about the Palestinians? Or Jose Padilla? He has not been charged with anything related to a "dirty bomb". Should he be let go?

    What about them? We're talking about the Libby travesty here.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 09:37am

25. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 09:36am

    And you are comfortable with your VP and his staff ruining a CIA program to find wmd's in Iraq while we are at war to find wmd's in Iraq?

    I disagree with the premise of your question.

    When did you stop beating your wife?

    For political purposes, ie a "vendetta" against Wilson for outing the presidents lies in his SOTU speech.

    I think it's been shown pretty clearly that Wilson was a politically-motivated liar himself. In other words, he said she said. Not a good basis for a prosecution.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 09:42am

26. ahh, yes. The "we did it so it is OK, but if you do it it is bad" defense.

    A classic neo-conundrum.

    The CIA disagrees with you, PONTI and FREI. That is why THEY asked for the special prosecutor.

    Nobody did anything "wrong". Sure, if you are a nationalist apologist. I bet you think bush "never lies" too. And the war is going according to the (no) Plan.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 09:51am

27. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/13/2007 @ 09:37am

    You have been saying for weeks that there is no crime of obstruction because there was no crime in outing Plame. goose and gander thing.

    -And you are comfortable with your VP and his staff ruining a CIA program to find wmd's in Iraq while we are at war to find wmd's in Iraq?

    I disagree with the premise of your question.-PONTIapologist.

    disagree all you want. that is what happened.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 09:54am

28. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

    The day I met my MIL.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 09:55am

29. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 09:54am

    You have been saying for weeks that there is no crime of obstruction because there was no crime in outing Plame. goose and gander thing.

    You either misunderstood or weren't listening.

    I said there was no motivation to risk perjury or obstruction, because there was no crime to cover up, and that therefore it is very unlikely that Libby would have consciously committed either one. Clinton clearly had a reason to lie under oath, because he had a history of exploiting his employees for sex, which is clearly material to any sexual harassment charge. Moreover, I stipulated that it was unlikely that Berger would commit a felony without a good reason.

    disagree all you want. that is what happened.

    In your mind, or in the real world? Can you tell the difference?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 10:00am

30. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 09:51am

    Nobody did anything "wrong". Sure, if you are a nationalist apologist. I bet you think bush "never lies" too. And the war is going according to the (no) Plan.

    You're losing your veneer of rationality, here, Crabbie, and flapping your moonbat wings. It's wrong for Congress to release classified info to newspapers, and I think someone should be prosecuted for it when it happens. But the President and VP have the legal authority to release classified info, so that is an entirely different matter.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 10:06am

31. So, Plame is still working to uncover Wmd programs in the ME? Hmm. news to me. I thought she was out of a job, as well as all of her contacts.

    You said Libby should be let go because there was no crime. there was no crime in the Paula Jones case. there was no crime in the case of the Palestinians, Padiila was not charged with a dirty bomb plot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 10:06am

32. So, Dick "duck Harry!" Cheney can declassify things to make him look good, but congress cannot out illegal activities of the admin? (plus, there is some evidence that Chimpy post dated Dicks "de-classification of Plame) That sounds like the reasoning of a nationalist apologist to me.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 10:09am

33. "I will fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. But if it turns out to be Karl Rove -- or anyone in my administration -- then I'll modify that standard and promise to fire 'anyone who committed a crime.' A few weeks after that I'll probably make it 'convicted of a crime.' Then, if necessary, 'convicted of a crime but awaiting the outcome of an appeal.' And finally, 'I'll fire anyone who is incarcerated, but only after a 180-day transition period.' "

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 10:11am

34. Crickets.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/13/2007 @ 09:34am | ignore this person

    perhaps a bit too pithy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 10:16am

35. Crickets.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/13/2007 @ 09:34am | ignore this person

    yes, this is the band that the Beatles, get it?, patterned themselves after. three guitars and drums was a somewhat unusual line up. as they were in the beginning somewhat of a cover band, they covered some Buddy Holly and the Crickets songs, such as Words of Love.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 10:24am

36. I suspect that people on the right aren't as ignorant as they are claiming to be.I suspect that they know that it's Libbys motives for lying that have relevance and that this case has little in common with the Clinton thing.You'd think that those that voted for bush/cheney would want the truth more than those who didn't vote for them,but maybe guilt and shame is causing them to want to hide from the truth.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/13/2007 @ 10:31am

37. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 10:06am

    So, Plame is still working to uncover Wmd programs in the ME? Hmm. news to me. I thought she was out of a job, as well as all of her contacts.

    The reason why arguments based on false premises are ruled out in debates, Crabby, is because they indicate faulty and biased thinking. Your premise is that Plame was somehow important in the war against terror, and I dispute that. In the first place, it appears to me that she was just a political mole, like so many others, left in the CIA by the Clintons when they gutted that Agency, and I doubt that there are many indispensable desk jockeys in Langley in any case.

    You said Libby should be let go because there was no crime.

    You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. If he committed perjury, he should go to jail. I simply speculated that it was highly unlikely that he would commit a crime if he had nothing illegal to hide.

    there was no crime in the Paula Jones case.

    Hmmm...really? Then why was Clinton disbarred and why did he pay $750,000 to shut her up?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 10:44am

38. Nobody,

    The apologists that still come here are in way too deep. Vast swaths of Bush voters have now seen the light. The ones that are here are the ones that held the guns to the heads of those waivering on whether to drink the Koolaid in Jonestown.

    Consequently, they have no interest in the Rule of Law, our Republic or democracy. Then simply have an indefatiguable interest in the Republican party at all costs to the republic itself.

    Take heart though as they do not represent the great vast majority of American voters.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/13/2007 @ 10:47am

39. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 10:09am

    So, Dick "duck Harry!" Cheney can declassify things to make him look good, but congress cannot...

    That's correct, Crabby...see, you can learn something.

    out illegal activities of the admin?

    Again, an argument based on a false premise, signifying that youre arguments presuppose your conclusions. Who has been convicted of illegal activities based on a classified leak by Congress? Surely you're not suggesting that allegations alone suffice?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 10:49am

40. Mr. Corn, please, sir, for the sake of your mental health give it a rest!! You are obsessed with this Libby trial. It isn't healthy....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 02/13/2007 @ 10:53am

41. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/13/2007 @ 10:47am

    Gee, FREE, it's funny because it's YOU and your screaming meemee buds that look like the koolaid drinkers to us. Quite the conundrum.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 10:54am

42. I think it's been shown pretty clearly that Wilson was a politically-motivated liar himself. In other words, he said she said. Not a good basis for a prosecution.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/13/2007 @ 09:42am

    Well, I am not aware that Wilson has been shown to be a politically-motivated liar, but anyway he said-she said is not the basis in this case. The basis is obstruction of justice, if I recall correctly...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 02/13/2007 @ 10:56am

43. You said Libby should be let go because there was no crime.

    You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. If he committed perjury, he should go to jail. I simply speculated that it was highly unlikely that he would commit a crime if he had nothing illegal to hide.-Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/13/2007 @ 10:44am

    Really?

    "Perhaps you can explain to us all why someone could commit perjury in a case where there was no crime to cover up."-Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 09:01am

    So, to re-ask the question which you ignored, what was the basis of an investigation in a case where the investigator knew a priori that no crime had been committed?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 09:32am

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 10:59am

44. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 10:59am

    The question stands, Crabbie, lo all these many days:

    "Perhaps you can explain to us all why someone could commit perjury in a case where there was no crime to cover up."-Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/02/2007 @ 09:01am

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 11:02am

45. Grape kool-aid is now available in the Lincoln bedroom.

    How many illegal acts shall I list? Just because the repub congress and the Justice Dept poodles don't press charges does not mean crimes shave not been committed. Mr. arar would agree with me, I bet. As would the 400 people taken hostage, held for years and then released. why are warrants now OK in wiretaps? Germany has indicted 13 US agents, Italy has done something similar.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:04am

46. CRABWALK If you are not going to use italics or bold to denote what the other person says, it will be difficult for some of us to decipher your posts. I still haven't figured out your last one...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 02/13/2007 @ 11:06am

47. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 11:04am

    Grape kool-aid is now available in the Lincoln bedroom.

    How many illegal acts shall I list? Just because the repub congress and the Justice Dept poodles don't press charges does not mean crimes shave not been committed. Mr. arar would agree with me, I bet. As would the 400 people taken hostage, held for years and then released. why are warrants now OK in wiretaps? Germany has indicted 13 US agents, Italy has done something similar.

    Ah, thanks for answering my question, Crabbie. Accusations alone will do for you, no legal process necessary. And I would add that Germany and Italy are foreign governments, if you consult your atlas, and are therefore not pertinent to our legal system, not now, not during WWII, and not anytime in the foreseeable future. Thanks for the clarification, and you'll pardon me if I pass on further expositions of your theory of government.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 11:09am

48. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 02/13/2007 @ 10:56am

    Well, I am not aware that Wilson has been shown to be a politically-motivated liar,

    There is a good case for it. He misrepresented his findings, for one thing. I'm sure you can google it.

    but anyway he said-she said is not the basis in this case. The basis is obstruction of justice, if I recall correctly...

    And the obstruction charge relies completely on differing memories of who said what, when. In the absence of a motive, perjury or obstruction seems very unlikely, as I have said.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 11:15am

49. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/13/2007 @ 11:02am

    Easy, they lied to a grand jury and the FBI. That is what the trial is about, einstein.

    Wow, that was tough. But I know you guys have a hard problem with lies. If it supports your conclusion, it is not a lie. see: "we were never stay the course" or "there is no doubt Saddm possess large quantities of biological and chemical agents" or "I have never been arrested" or " I fulfilled my time in the TANG"

    You are willing to allow innocent men and women to be deported, tortured and even killed, based on flimsy evidence, but when the same organizations put one of your pols on trial, somehow it is now a witch hunt? Have you seen any evidence that Fitz is a political hack? I have read copious comments from any sources that claim he is anything but.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:17am

50. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 02/13/2007 @ 10:53am

    It's a "Grail Quest", ILP.

    Mr Corn, rightly or wrongly, believes that "Plame-gate" will "lead to Cheney/Rove eventually" and be the straw that breaks the camel's back...or some metaphor for the "ultimate downfall of Bush/Cheney".

    If he didn't he wouldn't devote ALL his time to it. What would be the point, if ...Libby is found not guilty or WORSE, found guilty and does six months in Seagoville Federal Correctional Institution and then gets a pardon the day Hillary wins Iowa...and then gets his Halliburton job on Inauguration Day 2009?

    Unless it's to maybe do some "Questions still remain in the Plame Affair" stories for the next 20 years....or some post-mortum assessment of Cheney when he kicks the bucket in a dozen years about how "In retrospect, Cheney is considered by most in the know as the man behind the Valerie Plame outing".

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 11:18am

51. Mr. Corn, please, sir, for the sake of your mental health give it a rest!! You are obsessed with this Libby trial. It isn't healthy....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 02/13/2007 @ 10:53am | ignore this person

    are you kidding? this trial is gold.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 11:18am

52. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 02/13/2007 @ 11:06am |

    Sorry, my browser does not let me. I copy and paste, that is what comes out. Or my HTML skills are those of a neo-luddite. Or both.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:18am

53. Mr. Corn, please, sir, for the sake of your mental health give it a rest!! You are obsessed with this Libby trial. It isn't healthy....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 02/13/2007 @ 10:53am

    Oh, I disagree. It is very healthy. It brings joy to my life, seeing FBI agents and former members of the admin repute what Libby claims. Even if he walks, the circus will have it;\'s share of clowns. Like Ponti.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:21am

54. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 11:17am

    Easy, they lied to a grand jury and the FBI. That is what the trial is about, einstein.

    Wow, that was tough. But I know you guys have a hard problem with lies. If it supports your conclusion, it is not a lie. see: "we were never stay the course" or "there is no doubt Saddm possess large quantities of biological and chemical agents" or "I have never been arrested" or " I fulfilled my time in the TANG"

    You are willing to allow innocent men and women to be deported, tortured and even killed, based on flimsy evidence, but when the same organizations put one of your pols on trial, somehow it is now a witch hunt? Have you seen any evidence that Fitz is a political hack? I have read copious comments from any sources that claim he is anything but.

    Another Crabby judge-and-jury job, I see.

    Sorry, crabby, you're just raving now, you'll have to do better to merit another response.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 11:22am

55. Mask,

    Or ummmm....it's about acting as a journalist and fulfilling what he feels is his part in the unofficial fourth branch of our system!!

    Mask, why do you come here? To get informed to engage in debate, which somehow amuses you AND somehow fulfills YOUR duty to maintaining a viable democracy.

    Good for you and good for Corn (and good for PONTI too although he's dead wrong on this one).

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/13/2007 @ 11:22am

56. from any sources that claim he is anything but.

    Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 11:17am

    M-any sources

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:23am

57. Well, ponti, how about when you said you never said no crime had been committed? Or how about Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen who was shipped off to be tortured?

    Maybe I am just a little "ranty" because the war has taken more than a few weeks, cost more than 2B and no wmds have ever been found. Or because "the most vicious criminals" tunred out to be cabbies and farmers. Or maybe it is because the insurgents are not "in their last throes". And you still trust these "people".

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:28am

58. Posted by CRABWALK 02/13/2007 @ 11:23am

    Who said Fitz was a political hack? I think he's an ambitious prosecutor who's doing what's in his own best interest and doing what prosecutors do best: find crimes to prosecute.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 11:29am

59. Which doesn't mean that he'll find any here, but he certainly seems to have a liberal fishing license, pardon the pun.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/13/2007 @ 11:30am

60. I guess the conviction of all those dems in Illinois by Fitz were all political witch hunts. All those guys and gals should be pardoned.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607070350jul07,1,211 3207.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

    "Former Streets and Sanitation managing deputy commissioner John Sullivan, 39, was found guilty of one count of lying to federal agents about political hiring and acquitted of another count for the same offense"

    No crime was committed, right Ponti?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:35am

61. Crabwalk,

    You have to let "good soldiers" like PONTI go in this case. He comes from a different viewpoint than the vast majority of the country (in other words he's extremist).

    His basis (if you can call it that) in this case is that Bush / Chenney are so familiar with the inner workings of the CIA that they know who and what is dispensible within the inner workings of the CIA when the Republican Administration might otherwise take a slight bruising.

    It is estimated that we spend $40 BILLION a year on the CIA (my taxes) precisely so that we can gather the types of information that Valerie Plame was an integral part in collecting / analyzing / vetting.

    People like PONTI would like to convince themselves that either this info is not worth getting (and if so let's dismantle the CIA) or that the info is worth getting yet the Admin knows that there is fat and they are the best placed to start slicing the fat off!

    It is an utterly preposterous basis for rationalization, which is why he's an extremist, but you have to understand that it's unshakeable (sadly).

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/13/2007 @ 11:38am

62. Libby may in fact go down as the biggest ham sandwich in history. But you will still be a sheep, Ponti. Sorry.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:40am

63. Sorry, crabby, I'm just raving now, you'll have to do better to merit another response.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/13/2007 @ 11:22am | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 11:45am

64. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/13/2007 @ 11:38am

    Like a monarchy?

    Peace. outa here, have fun.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:46am

65. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/13/2007 @ 11:45am

    hehe, thank you, made my am.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2007 @ 11:48am

66. ponti You seem to be able relate to libbys memory problem.If that's the case you may want to see a doctor or an herbalist.This is very treatable these days.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 02/13/2007 @ 11:50am

67. Lemming logic - Libby is innocent because everybody in the administration was spreading the good news about Valerie Plame! And it's legal for the executive branch to declassify information, but it's also fine for the executive branch to declassify information for no reason other than to discredit administration critics.

    Makes my heart swell with pride to know that the leaders of this great country are so interested in national security that they will hand out classified information like candy if it suits their purposes. And I'm proud to be an American as long as patriots like Ponti defend them.

    Posted by Turk33 at 02/13/2007 @ 12:08pm

68. Golly, the Pontifurbator makes so many good points!

    It's hard to believe that Libby won't take the stand in his own defense to tell the jury about how this politically motivated investigation was instigated at the insistence of the CIA; that he had no motive to fabricate portions of his FBI or Grand Jury statements (even though Shrub gave the "leakers will no longer be part of this administration" comments); and that, anyway, Deadeye Dick de-classified Valerie Plame's undercover assignment at the CIA because, in the National Interest, it was better to attempt to defame Wilson than maintain Plame's ability to work in the Counterproliferation unit.

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/13/2007 @ 12:15pm

69. It's hard to believe that Libby won't take the stand in his own defense

    Libby WILL NOT TAKE THE STAND. any bets?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 12:17pm

70. If he takes the stand and sticks to his story, he will end up being indicted for perjury. Hence, he will not take the stand.

    Posted by jorcheim at 02/13/2007 @ 12:21pm

71. If he takes the stand and sticks to his story, he will end up being indicted for perjury. Hence, he will not take the stand.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 02/13/2007 @ 12:21am | ignore this person

    isn't that what his indictment is now?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 12:28pm

72. That it is. But it's the day before Valentine's Day, and everyone's gearing up by practicing circular logic.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/13/2007 @ 12:37pm

73. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/13/2007 @ 12:17am

    Bet: Libby WILL NOT take the stand

    Double Down: If he takes the stand, the verdict will be GUILTY

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/13/2007 @ 12:38pm

74. I meant convicted, rather than indicted. Sorry... working... lol.

    Posted by jorcheim at 02/13/2007 @ 12:38pm

75. Pontificus -

    I am guessing you say there is no underlying crime for the Wilson leak because nobody was indicted or convicted for it. But, yet you somehow say there was an underlying crime (sexual harrasment) for Clinton. You do know, don't you, that Clinton was never found liable or indicted on anything connected to that allegation, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/13/2007 @ 12:45pm

76. HMAN23:

    It comes down to politics. He will deny criminality in the Wilson case simply because of the party involved. Were it a Democrat who had perpetrated the leak, it would be an entirely different story.

    Posted by jorcheim at 02/13/2007 @ 12:49pm

77. Watching Ponti today is just like watching him back on the 3rd of the month... He bailed out on the Libby thread that day when the going got rough... All of the apologists bail out around here when the going gets rough... Go figure.

    I notice that you still never answered for any of your accusations about me and the whitewash you spray over other liberals, instead just trying to slither on like nothing happened. I'll let you keep your head in the sand on that note, and just try to politely retort.

    You whitewash liberals as excusing away Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger all the time, but you don't listen when we respond. As I said before:

    "Yes, it is a clearly established fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath, and I don't "excuse" him for doing so, for any reason. I do understand that lying is lying, period - however, I also know that lies to cover up sex are not the same as lies about imminent threats from other countries that bring us into wars."

    You replied:

    Well congratulations ND that little revelation puts you light years ahead of half of the shitheads on this site in terms of credibility and integrity. Yet having opened the door to reason wide enough to admit this vanishlingly small shaft of light, you let your partisanship slam it shut once more. In trivializing Clinton's lies under oath as a 'lie about sex', you trivialize every sexual harassment investigation ever conducted in this country, not to mention the standards of office that Clinton violated, and the harassment and character assasination by his minions of every woman who dared to step forward to verify those accounts.

    Ah, but Paula Jones' case was thrown out, Pontificus, and Bill Clinton did not "sexually harass" Monica Lewinsky, as she was a legal and consenting adult. I'm searching the net for "Clinton sexual harassment convictions", and nothing's coming up... Hmmm.... Curious...

    A sexual harassment case, in any case, would still not be the same as taking a country to war under false pretenses. Apples and hand grenades. You have no argument.

    You put more words in my mouth that I never spoke back on the 3rd, words that, in fact, you got from another poster who neither speaks for me nor for liberalism in general:

    Next you'll be telling me that although it was certainly wrong for Berger to steal and destroy uncatalogued and original documents from the National Archives dealing with the Clinton's efforts against terrorism, that it's all okay because he was probably just trying to write a book.

    Once again, I never said nor implied that I believe or think any such thing, nor do most of the posters here.

    Your track record for putting words in my mouth (and the mouths of others) is astonishingly inaccurate and pervasive, Pontificus. Did you know that outright fabrications do not shelter your weak arguments any more than your misrepresentations?

    I did actually say:

    "Anyone who argues [that "lying about sex" is synonymous with "lying a country into war"] is confusing the consequences to our country of telling said lies. One shames the dignified office of the presidency - the other shames the office AND includes the added bonus of wasting billions of dollars and American lives in the failing adventure that is Iraq."

    You replied:

    The problem here is your accusation presupposes a conclusion that is not proven: that Bush lied to bring this country to war. Despite the ravings on this site and thousands of similar ones throughout the country and the world, no proof has ever been offered for this.

    Hundreds of articles, books, and websites offer proof of this - hundreds of prevarications, misdirections, misstatements, falsehoods, flip-flops, and outright lies have come out of this President and his familiars. You adamantly refuse to acknowledge a single one of them.

    Ponti - please explain how the statement "We were never stay the course" is not a lie.

    You just don't like the word "lie", and I can see why - the truth hurts, since to admit a single lie on the part of these liars would make you the fool who believed them, and you have far too much foolish pride for that. It's like your refusal to apologize for misrepresenting me and my positions even though I have repeatedly shown you to be wrong. Of course, I don't imagine you would ever accept the word "wrong" any more than you accept the word "lie".

    Maybe you missed Joe Scarborough's article from a couple weeks back, even though I've posted it several times, so I'll use his words to help you understand, one more time:

    "Even if you agree with me that this war was worth fighting as long as we believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's aimed at America, at some point you have to face the facts: the Bush administration was wrong about those weapons, wrong about the nuclear program, wrong about their refusal to quell rioting early, wrong about Bremer's gutting of the Iraqi army and police force, wrong about refusing to kill or capture al Sadr in 2003, wrong to tell the generals not speak of the coming insurgency, wrong to stubbornly refuse to give generals the troops they needed to win this war, wrong to make the "Mission Accomplished" declaration, wrong for the VP to claim that the insurgency was in its death throes and wrong to push a surge plan that the president's top generals opposed.

    The list could continue for pages but I will be generous to the White House and leave it at that."

    Now, if Bush was "wrong" about all those things, then, at the very least, Bush and his administration were grossly, monstrously incompetent in every regard.

    Either that, or they have intentionally lied and twisted and spun information all along, cherry-picking only what Bush wants to hear and carefully speechcrafting bumper-sticker Band-Aids like "cakewalks" and "last throes" in order, like a slimy used-car huckster, to shuck-and-jive American taxpayers into buying the Iraq lemon.

    And no testimony under oath regarding such matters has ever been uttered by this President, has it, Ponti? Darth Cheney even had to hold his widdle hand the last time serious questions were put to him.

    I believe that George W. Bush and his administration clearly manipulated and spun the evidence that was used to take us to war in Iraq. You and your kind refuse to do so, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

    I believe that there is clear evidence that this administration initiates, supports, and enables character assassinations on its detractors. You and your kind refuse to do so, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

    I believe that the Bush administration intentionally tried to discredit and shame Wilson and his wife (which is what accusing her of sending him to Niger was intended to do) as retaliation for shedding light upon Bush administration lies. You and your kind refuse to do so, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

    So be it.

    But you and the other 30 percenters are still all wrong, and you've been wrong all along - every day, a few more Americans wake up from their long slumber and come to that conclusion. You apologists just go on with your bad selves and slumber on, though.

    I will hold out hope for continuing investigations and see what they uncover. I won't count on them, but I will count on this: Bush is history in two years, anyway, and 70% of the world still disagrees with you.

    While I can't imagine a worse president than G-Dub, the "Republican evangelical compassionate conservatives" crowd has never once failed to amaze me in the last six years.

    Hell, with willing dupes like you and your kind, who knows what they can accomplish?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/13/2007 @ 12:49pm

78. JR -

    As I said the other day, I will take that virtual bet. The risk for the Libby testifying is the same risk that is always there for a testifying defendant in a perjury/obstruction case. It's my understanding that, irrespective of the risk involved, most defendants end up testifying in cases like this. There is a need for the jury to hear from the horse's mouth - if only to rebut the element of intent. Even if Libby only convinces one juror that he honestly remembers his conversation with Russert diferently, that could be enough to get him off. If he does not testify, it is a gaping hole in the juror's minds - even with an instruction from the judge not to draw any conclusions about Libby's failure to take the stand.

    Obviously, this is just a hunch. There are very good reasons to keep Libby off the stand.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/13/2007 @ 12:54pm

79. Hman, I of course remember our bet. I was trying to scare up some more action,

    cue music: I got the horse right here...

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 12:57pm

80. LOL... see, now this is the sort of jockeying (pardon the pun) that made me want to return. I love you guys.

    Posted by jorcheim at 02/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

81. In a fully platonic way... of course. We wouldn't want to get the neo-nuggets in a tizzy, their minds all a-flutter over the possiblity of homoeroticism on The Nation.

    Posted by jorcheim at 02/13/2007 @ 1:04pm

82. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/13/2007 @ 11:22am

    FREE, I'll grant Mr Corn the benefit of the doubt on his "journalistic interest" in this story....

    as long as TWO OTHER possibilities are considered--

    2. Keeping the story going, as it is a major component of his "seminal work" "Hubris", and therefore needs vindication.

    3. An obsession with this trial, and a desire for some "major outcome" out of it, such as Cheney's resignation/impeachment or the "collapse of the whole Administration".

    If # 1 alone, play-by-play coverage of this trial, to the exclusion of all else, seems rather dull and pointless. Nobody "out here" is going to determine Libby's guilt or innocence and most of those here have ALREADY DECIDED on his guilt....so it's preaching to a choir who are ready to lynch him regardless.

    Anybody here been swayed by Mr Corn's recounting of the trial....to a position you didn't have before???

    If # 2, that's fine...."Hubris" with "no convictions" doesn't really stand the test of time, and may fade away like a Paul O'Neill or Kitty Kelley book. So can see Mr Corn's need to get vindicated on Libby, Cheney, Rove et al.

    # 3..??? Well, seems even odder, given even Mr Corn has said that impeachment is a distraction and something Dems need to avoid.

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 2:12pm

83. I think it's been shown pretty clearly that Wilson was a politically-motivated liar himself. In other words, he said she said. Not a good basis for a prosecution.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/13/2007 @ 09:42am | ignore this person

    Actually, Pontificus, you are the liar. If you care to read the original NYTimes Op-ed, by Wilson- the correct assessment that lured out the shrill, Right Wing Smear Machine- you'll see for your own beady eyes exactly what Wilson said, in contrast to your Chickenhawk liars. The Washington Post has always helped peddle the Bush perspective, which is consistent since they were promoting the Iraq War from the beginning.

    Summary: On Washington Post Radio, the Post's Richard Cohen falsely claimed that Joseph Wilson, in his New York Times op-ed, wrote that Dick Cheney sent him to Niger. In fact, Wilson wrote that "agency officials" from the CIA "asked if I would travel to Niger" and "check out" a "particular intelligence report" that "Cheney's office had questions about," so that CIA officials "could provide a response to the vice president's office."

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200701310003

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 2:41pm

84. Ted Wells announced they will rest their case tomorrow. Neither Libby nor Vice President will testify.

    Hman, I like my Kielbasa with onions and sauerkraut.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 3:01pm

85. JR -

    ha-ha. You got it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/13/2007 @ 3:08pm

86. Neither Libby nor Vice President will testify.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/13/2007 @ 3:01pm

    A "loss" for the Left, JR. Getting Cheney on the stand and hopefully getting him to perjure himself, even in the slightest way, was the "ticket" to his impeachment.

    Apparently he or Libby's defense team...didn't take the bait.

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 3:31pm

87. I didn't for a moment think either would testify as the stakes were too high. I also had opined several days ago that at this stage Libby would seek to cut a deal rather than let the jury deliberate. Look for the deal to include a delayed start to the jail sentence (knowing that the pardon is perhaps more than a year away). Libby will actually spend about 90 days behind bars (at least less than Judy Miller).

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/13/2007 @ 3:36pm

88. MASK 02/13/2007 @ 2:12pm

    You have obviously not read the book. As such, stop talking about it as if you had.

    It's really quite good, moves along nicely and the density of information is very consistent. It's shockingly fair to the Bush administration.

    And it's NOT about the CIA leak case per se. But it does use it as a lens to focus the book's theme.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/13/2007 @ 4:02pm

89. Apparently he or Libby's defense team...didn't take the bait.

    Posted by MASK 02/13/2007 @ 3:31pm

    Or...

    They don't have the balls...

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/13/2007 @ 4:15pm

90. they were prudent not to put Libby on the stand. I'm sure Libby no longer remembers which lie he told when. the prosecutor would have sliced him to ribbons. I hope the jury takes its time, this is too good.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 4:52pm

91. All this just to cover up that political hacks in the CIA tried to undermine our country by sending someone's husband (Wilson) to niger to write an editorial for the all to willing press to gobble up and not even apologize for after the bipartisan report proved his "facts" to be wrong. After all, why wasn't he forced to sign a non-disclosure like anyone else "contracted" to do work for the goverment. Good thing no real crime was commited because the one who "outed" Plame was Corn himself. His "secret" source was Wilson himself. Instead he gets to sit here and try to sell his book to all the kool-aid drinkers. Wake up fools your being used.

    Posted by MJ Procko at 02/13/2007 @ 5:17pm

92. Posted by MJ PROCKO 02/13/2007 @ 5:17pm | ignore this person

    your lies don't cut it here. try another blog. maybe the Weekly Standard has a site.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 6:24pm

93. bold

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2007 @ 10:45am

94. Why exactly can't Rove be indicted now that he has been fingered by Cooper as one of his sources? Can't the prosecution go after Rove now?

    Posted by lmabsher at 02/16/2007 @ 4:19pm