Wash. Post's Cohen on Libby trial, still defending admin officials with falsehoods about "silly case"

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."
On the January 30 broadcast of Washington Post Radio's morning news program, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen falsely claimed that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, wrote that Vice President Dick Cheney had sent him to Africa to investigate whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. Discussing what he called a "silly case," in which several administration officials allegedly leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative who purportedly set up her husband's trip to Niger, Cohen told Washington Post Radio hosts David Burd and Jessica Doyle that "all these [administration officials] were trying to do was get their story out, 'cause Joe Wilson had, in his New York Times op-ed piece, misrepresented the genesis of his trip to Africa. It was not Vice President Cheney who sent him, it was the CIA, and possibly his own wife." But, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Wilson, in his op-ed, did not say that Cheney sent him. Rather, Wilson wrote that it was "agency officials" from the CIA who "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."
Cohen stated, "I find myself in the odd position of almost feeling sorry for Cheney on this one." Outing Plame was, according to Cohen, "just [Cheney] trying to get his story out in the conventional Washington way."
Media Matters previously documented how Cohen, in his October 13, 2005, Washington Post column on the Plame leak investigation, falsely suggested that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald overstepped his authority as special counsel. Fitzgerald, Cohen wrote, should "[g]o home."
During his appearance on Washington Post Radio, Cohen also baselessly claimed that Plame's CIA employment was widely known. "Libby told a whole lot of people," said Cohen, "and a whole lot of people in Washington knew." After noting that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had told Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, and that two NBC reporters and a Time magazine reporter learned Plame's CIA identity as well, Cohen again stated that "this was not a tightly held secret." However, as Media Matters has noted, Fitzgerald, at his October 28, 2005, press conference announcing the indictment of Cheney's then-chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, said that "[t]he fact that [Plame] was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection and the protection of all [of] us." Moreover, as Media Matters noted, assertions in a July 19, 2005, Washington Times editorial -- later repeated in a July 26, 2005, editorial and news article -- that Plame's neighbors knew about her employment at the CIA were completely unsubstantiated, and neighbors quoted by The Washington Times denied having had any knowledge of her employment.
In addition, Cohen defended former New York Times reporter Judith Miller from questions about her credibility. When Doyle asked if Miller "has some credibility problems," Cohen, after separately addressing her credibility in the Libby case, responded, "I don't know what the credibility problem is that you're referring to with Judith. I mean she has [had], over the years, a lot of problems with her colleagues, and her reporting on Iraq turned out to be wrong," regarding "the build up of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]." Cohen continued, "But you could fill a very small telephone booth with the reporters who were right about it." But a May 26, 2004, New York Times' "editors' note" on that newpaper's pre-war Iraq WMD coverage specifically separated those stories that, as Cohen stated, "turned out to be wrong," from those that merited more criticism. While not naming specific reporters, the editors' note listed several Miller stories as examples of "a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged." This criticism was explicitly contrasted with "most cases," where the paper claimed that "what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information."
From the January 30 broadcast of Washington Post Radio's morning news program:
BURD: Former White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer is telling a couple of stories this morning, and here to talk about that, Richard Cohen. Ari Fleischer's testifying for the prosecution, Richard?
COHEN: Yeah, and it tells you just about everything you need to know about this kind of, I think, silly case. Now, here's Ari Fleischer, who's testifying under a grant of immunity -- he's a witness who's been given immunity. And why's he been given immunity? It's because after he learned about the identity of Valerie Wilson, Joe Wilson's wife who had worked at the CIA, after he learned this -- and he peddled it to the press, which was, after all, his job -- way down the road, he says, "Uh-oh, I may have committed a crime." And the fact of the matter is almost no one involved in this thing, I mean, maybe no one involved in this, thought they were committing a crime.
What was going on here was standard operating procedure for Washington, which was the character assassination of Joe Wilson. Las Vegas does gambling, Washington does character assassination.
There was no one who thought a crime was being committed, and even after Bob Novak ran his column, which was several days after Ari Fleischer says he had been told by Scooter Libby the identity of the CIA agent, even afterwards nobody much paid attention. So nobody knew that there was a law being broken or that Valerie Plame was a deep-undercover or whatever the case was; all they were trying to do was get their story out, 'cause Joe Wilson had, in his New York Times op-ed piece, misrepresented the genesis of his trip to Africa. It was not Vice President Cheney who sent him, it was actually the CIA, and possibly his own wife. So that side of the story the White House was trying to get out.
I find myself in the odd position of almost feeling sorry for Cheney on this one, and I --
BURD: You feeling all right, Richard?
COHEN: No, I think I'm going to have to seek therapy later today.
But the guy, you know, I mean, he was just trying to get his story out in the conventional Washington way -- and it also tells you something else about this White House, that under the veneer of that time at least, we thought, of great expertise and precision and great management, was this place that was a mess. They couldn't get their story out, nobody knew what they were doing, there was great, sort of, rivalry going on. The White House spokesman, who appeared every day, who looked so authoritative, actually knew nothing except what he'd been told. They might as well have sent out a mannequin, I mean --
[laughter]
Sorry to Ari about that, he's a decent guy, but the fact is that, you know, going back to the Kennedy years, we've expected White House press secretaries to be in the know. And especially this press secretary wasn't in anything, except a good suit.
DOYLE: Well, you know, it's proven again that he has those skills as a good spokesperson, 'cause he, under questioning from the defense, he didn't say anything, he talked a lot, but he didn't say anything. He was pretty hostile.
COHEN: He knows how to stay on message. That is his great talent, and that's what he did very well at the White House, and that's what he did here.
But I think it's important, as I say over and over again, to understand that he testified under a grant of immunity. And ask yourself why he got that grant of immunity, because it was only afterwards that he thought, "Uh oh, I might have committed a crime."
What bothers me most about this whole case is, one, it really does represent the criminalization of politics. I mean, nobody thought they were doing anything criminal here. They were just playing politics. And the second thing is, the only person who's gone to jail for this is Judith Miller, who's a reporter for The New York Times, and it's totally unrelated to any crime, it has to do with the fact that she just would not reveal her sources.
BURD: Right.
COHEN: And so far, I think, she's the only one who's acted honorably.
BURD: Now she's expected to take the stand today, that's going to be kind of hot and heavy for her, considering she has spent some jail time. Do you see this turning into a circus today because Judith Miller is testifying?
COHEN: Well, Judy's second-greatest talent -- she's a good writer -- is to create commotion, and it may happen, but the fact of the matter is, here once again we pretty much know what she's going to say, because she testified before of the grand jury, ultimately, and that is that Libby told her as well the identity of the CIA agent -- Libby told a whole lot of people, and a whole lot of people in Washington knew. Armitage told people as well, he was at the State Department. He told Woodward. And the fact of the matter is, what's amazing to me, is that a lot of the people who were told said, "So what?" They didn't even think it was a story. Woodward didn't run around and say, "Hey, it's a story." Two NBC reporters learned about it and they didn't do anything about it. Time magazine reporter -- I mean, this was not a tightly held secret. And a lot of people, as I said, you know, looked at it when it came out and said, "So what?" It's just another way for the White House to play politics.
Now it's a crime, you got a special prosecutor, somebody can go to jail. I even feel sorry for Scooter Libby, who I don't think, at the time, was thinking he was committing a crime, or was risking his career, he was just peddling a piece of information, and then later, if I had to guess, said, "Oh my God, look what I've done, I might have committed a crime," and, so the allegation goes, lied to the prosecutor when asked about it.
DOYLE: Now to the topic of Judith Miller, she had some inconsistencies in her testimony to the grand jury. Do you think she has some credibility problems?
COHEN: Well, I don't know -you know, I don't think she has a credibility problem as to what Scooter Libby told her, because I think it's consistent with what everyone else has been saying.
I'm going to have to tell you, I don't know what the credibility problem is that you're referring to with Judith. I mean she has, over the years, a lot of problems with her colleagues, and her reporting on Iraq turned out to be wrong, but -- the build up of WMD. But, I mean, you could fill a very small telephone booth with the reporters who were right about it.















The media is ignoring this trial , it is very imporant and shows the workings of the arrogant Bush administration. However the media wants to talk about American Idol.
Sure, perjury in front of a grand jury is a just a "silly case."
Either that or its ranks up there with "high crimes and misdeameanors" and deserves impeachment.
Now I can't remember which one it is.
The very people who are now trivializing Libby's perjury were all in a lather to uphold the "rule of law" when Bill Clinton lied about a hummer.
How can people who get lucky enough and are apparently at least educated enough to get jobs in the highest levels of government not believe for a NY minute that disclosing the name of a CIA operative is NOT a crime? My gosh, a 5th grader who reads spy books knows that you're not supposed to tell anyone someone is a spy. What a cheap excuse making tact by Cohen.
yeah nobody knew a law could be broken or that plame was "deep undercover" says cohen. "they just wanted to get their story out". this completely ignores the fact that the security pledges they all signed required that before releasing any material they had to know for sure that it was not classified. no assuming, they had to know definitely. david broder [who is appalled about all the obscentity on the internet, to tell you where his concerns are] has pulled this same kind of what's all the fuss about act? the fuss is about the fact that this action not only blew apart her network, which had to take years to build, but even more importantly, it had to make future overseas contacts think twice about dealing with us. because a blabbermouth in washington could cause you to end up dead in an alley in the middle east. these people are the ones always proclaiming their loyalty to this country?
I don't know what the credibility problem is that you're referring to with Judith...
Uhhhh... maybe it has something to do with published reports of Judith Miller becoming an admirer of Ahmed Chalabi and utilizing his lies as the basis of her reporting on Saddam's alleged build-up of WMD.
Exactly. She was a willing dupe the Bush Administration used to get otherwise dubious information into the mainstream media so they could cite it to back up their original dubious claims. Rolling Stone wrote an excellent article that explains how a company called the Rendon Group engineered the whole thing:
"Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.
It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.
...
The [Iraqi National Congress]'s choice for the worldwide print exclusive [for Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri's discredited story] was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times. Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.
Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."
For months, hawks inside and outside the administration had been pressing for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. Now, thanks to Miller's story, they could point to "proof" of Saddam's "nuclear threat.""
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks a bunch, Judith.
"I find myself in the odd position of almost feeling sorry for Cheney on this one..."
Ha...! That's a good one. My impression is that Cheney may not be out of the woods yet. I've been following the trial and Patrick Fitzgerald is doing a methodical job building his case brick by brick. What is becoming apparent is that both Libby and Cheney knew early on that Valerie Plame was a CIA counterproliferation officer. Cheney wanted to discredit the suggestion that he had anything to do with sending Joe Wilson to Niger by floating the story that Wilson's wife at the CIA had sent him. What is becoming clear is that whatever Libby did he was acting at the behest of Cheney. My impression is that once Fitzgerald gets a conviction on Libby, and Libby is facing jail time, he may try to lean on Libby to testify against higher ups (perhaps including Cheney) whose intentions were to out Valerie Plame. Seeing how methodical (and good) Fiyzgerald is, my guess is that conspiracy to out Valerie Plame may still be on the table as possible future criminal charges against others in the White House.
Remember this, too... Cheney has not yet given sworn testimony. However, in light of testimony already given in the Libby trial Cheney's public statements such as that he didn't even know who Valerie Plame was are looking more and more like fabrications. Also consider that in previous reports (I believe, perhaps, from grand jury testimony or court filings) when Cheney had instructed Libby to leak certain classified information, Libby balked because he was afraid that it was not legal to do that. Cheney, however, reassured him that the he (Cheney) had it from the highest authority (Bush) to leak the info... that, in effect, it amounted to a de facto declassification by Bush.
Just watching how Fitzgerald operates I wouldn't be surprised if he has more up his sleeve...
What is forgotten in this case is that Fitzgerald is no longer trying to get anyone for outing Plame. Plain an simple, he didn't build any case against anyone for 'outing' Plame. There is ample evidence that outing her was not a crime nor against the law.
So he's trying to "Nifong" Libby for lying about something that he hasn't proven was against the law.
It is another examples of prosecutorial power gone amuck.
"There is ample evidence that outing her was not a crime nor against the law."
Wrong...! At the time of Libby's indictment Fitzgerald could not affirmatively say that no other crime had been committed regarding the outing of Valerie Plame... all he could say was that the only evidence he was able to develop was that Scooter Libby lied in the broader investigation. To my knowledge, Fitzgerald has never said definitively or ruled out that there was no crime committed in the outing of Valerie Plame. The media, as it is wont to do, did not understand that point and, particularly the right wing media, have continued to erroneously report that Fitzgerald found that no other crime was committed. He did not... he just didn't find the evidence to prove another crime. But the door is always open if further evidence is able to be developed. This may sound like parsing of words... because it is. But that's what the law is all about.
"It is another examples of prosecutorial power gone amuck."
-----
That would be "amok." And how is outing a CIA agent and the entire CIA front company she worked for less serious than Clinton's girlfriend?
Plame was working on weapons proliferation, and they were certain that Sadaam had no WMD, no plans to get WMD, no nuclear weapons, and no plans to get or build nuclear weapons.
Of course the W maladministration felt they had to shut her up.
- outing a CIA agent and the entire CIA front company she worked for -
Richard Armitage was the leaker and Fitzgerald opted not to prosecute the fictional crime of outing a covert CIA agent.
Well King, this case is closed.
"...the fictional crime of outing a covert CIA agent."
The "fictional" crime...? Why did the CIA complain to the Justice Department? Why did the (Republican) Justice Department launch an investigation? Why was a Grand Jury convened? Sounds to me there were some responsible adults who correctly afforded this matter the seriousness it deserved. It was a shame that at least one member member of the White House (Libby) told untruths to the Grand Jury... perhaps to thwart the investigation, perhaps to protect his boss, who knows? (You will note, in contrast, that Richard Armitage voluntarily went to the prosecutor and explained what he had done.) But it is a fact that Libby was dishonest with the Grand Jury.. the issue at his trial is whether he intentionally lied. The fact also remains that Valerie Plame was, in fact, "outed" as a CIA agent... whether the circumstances of that outing were an intentional, provable criminal act under the exact wording of the statute is another matter. It doesn't mean she wasn't outed or that she and the CIA did not suffer harm. Whether it's a provable crime, though, based on the available evidence was up to Patrick Fitzgerald to decide. I will add that it must be hard for any prosecutor to develope evidence of a crime when witnesses lie before a Grand Jury. Nevertheless, to refer to the outing of a CIA agent as a "fictional crime" is... well, a fiction.
BTW, did O.J. Simpson kill his wife? A crime certainly was committed... but not enough evidence.
Not enough admissable evidence, that is.
Richard Armitage - member of PNAC.
I am not sure Armitage gets a free pass on this one. It may be he wasn't charged simply because intent is hard to prove without a smoking gun as well it should be and Armitage wasn't caught in a brazen lie like Libby was.
Armitage had a definite potential motive, which was to protect his baby - the Iraq War. Same as the rest of the gang in the Administration apparently.
Armitage, who was Colin Powell's deputy, shared Powell's apprehensions about the war. Eventually, Cheney and Rumsfeld effectively cut Powell and Armitage out of the loop. Armitage was no big neocon by any stretch.
That appears to be the conventional wisdom. It doesn't take into account his membership in PNAC though. Without PNAC I am not sure there even would have been a war at all.
wesley says that because one thing happened, therefore nothing else could have happened. typical mindless talking point. he says armitage was the "original leaker". but that ignores the fact that, before novak's column appeared, libby and rove were actively giving her identity to various reporters. the white house plan worked, one traitorous columnist printed her identity and damaged our ability to gather intelligence.
Wow, totally wrong. It is NOT a fictional crime. It is a law written so poorly that it will be hard to EVER bring anyone to court with it but it says that outing a covert CIA agent IS against the law. In no way a FICTIONAL crime just one very hard to prove, especially when your principles are LYING to the grand jury. Armitage was ONE of the leakers along with Libby and Rove as their lawyers admitted. Armitage convinced Fitz that his leaking was inadvertant which would NOT violate that poorly written law.
Thanks for the spelling tip. Lord knows I misspell a lot.
I know it's a little point, but the following is from the free online dictionary No need to apologize. ;-)
a·muck (-mk) also a·mok (-mk, -mk)
adv. 1. In a frenzy to do violence or kill: rioters running amuck in the streets.2. In or into a jumbled or confused state: The plans went amuck.3. In or into a uncontrolled state or a state of extreme activity: "This jam-packed area of Honolulu has come to stand for tourist development run amok" Ila Stanger.adj. Crazed with murderous frenzy: amuck troops."......I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake......"
mr. wilson was sent to see if there was any truth to the rumors that iraq had purchased yellowcake, not attempted to purchase it. there is a huge difference in the two. in fact, this was the difference between the "16 words" of bush's SOTU address in jan. 2003, vs mr. wilson's op/ed in the nyt's in july 2003.
if the "liberal" press can't even get one simple fact correct, why bother?
That is the usual Bush parsing of words: "sought" when the rest of the sentence and emphasis is on getting Yellow Cake. Deniability at its best! How 'bout them tubes only for atom bomb? Ha-Ha!
Richard Cohen looks like Brian Kilmeade with a white wig and a white beard and glasses. That may explain a lot. Anyone know where Brian "Leslie Hochsenwader" Kilmeade was when Richard Cohen was doing this interview with Washington Post Radio? This guy is supposed to be "liberal." He was the same clown who wrote a piece supporting the Iraq War after Colin Powell's fraudulent presentation before the United Nations and wrote something to the effect of "only a Frenchman could not be alarmed" by what Powell said. What a morAn.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
can you imagine the outrage if Julia Child was outed during WW2 ? Or even worse, what would have happen to her in the hands of the gestapo ?
Just as Joe Klein is Time Magazines faux Liberal, Richard Cohen is the Washington Post's. Klein and Cohen's careers are nothing more than the right leaning Corporate Media's means of controlling the debate and marginalizing the left. They are the good cops patrolling the borders of what the establishment considers legitimate debate. Their role is to manufacture consensus around the elite's world view. Klein and Cohen consistently attack Liberals and act as apologists for the Bush regime. Cohen pushes the lie that everyone believed that there were WMDs in Iraq when Cohen himself was one of those who assiduously ignored, attacked and demeaned those who were right in the lead up to the war. Richard Cohen is the poster boy for all that is wrong with the Corporate Media and the narrow range of debate, right to far right, that they offer to the public. There is nothing remotely Liberal about either Klein or Cohen on issues ranging from trade to foreign policy. They are deliberate fakers with an agenda of promoting right wing ideology under false cover as Liberal columnists.
Cohen excused Cheney because he was "just trying to get his case out." Fine, get your case out. But it was totally unnecessary against the law to out a CIA operative. They probably did that so she could not tell the true story of the status of Iran's nuclear development!
More words of wisdom about this "silly case"...
This is why I think if Libby is convicted the Valerie Plame case may not be over...
1. We kNOW for a fact that Scooter Libby gave "false testimony" (call it "incorrect testimony" or whatever you like... but it was not the truth) to the Grand Jury. That is why he is on trial.
2. Likewise, Karl Rove gave "false testimony" to the Grand Jury. The difference between Libby's and Rove's situations is that someone tipped off Rove's lawyer that a Grand Jury witnesss (or witnesses) had directly contradicted Rove's Grand Jury testimony. Rove then high-tailed it back to the Grand Jury and testified that he had mis-spoken in his previous testimony... he had been mistaken but now he recalled the truth, he said. That is how Rove escaped indictment at the last minute.
3. From trial testimony we know that the White House was attempting to discredit Joe Wilson. In their respective positions realtive to Bush and Cheney, Rove and Libby were at the center of the White House efforts to discredit Joe Wilson.
4. Scooter Libby's attorney suggested in his opening statement at trral that Libby was being made a scapegoat... possibly for Rove.
5. Do you believe that Scooter Libby told the Grand Jury everything he knew? If he was not being forthcoming with the Grand Jury (which we already know he wasn't), do you think he would have volunteered everything he knew about what others were doing in the White House to discredit Joe Wilson or to thwart the Grand Jury investigation?
6. Do you believe Karl Rove told the Grand Jury everything he and the White House were doing to discredit Joe Wilson or to thwart the investigation? Or did he tell them just enough to avoid indictment?
7. Karl Rove has been subpoenaed by Libby's lawyer to testify at trial. Consider that part of Libby's defense (according to his lawyer's opening statement) is that Libby is being made the "fall guy". That suggests that Libby's contention will be that whatever he did, he was just following orders... just going along with the White House plan. What do you suppose, then, Libby's lawyer is going to ask Rove on the witness stand? Why else would Libby's lawyer call Rove to testify if it wasn't to establish that whatever Libby did, Libby was part of a White House operation, which Libby will say thought was legal and proper?
8. Will Karl Rove tell the truth? What happens if Libby hears Rove testimony that he knows personally is an outright lie? And if Rove's untruthful testimony hurts Libby's defense...?
9. If Libby is convicted and he knows others in the White House lied and got off free how do you think he is going to feel about going to jail?
10. It is a text-book tactic for a prosecutor to lean on a convicted defendant for testimony about others in exchange for leniency.
One thing I have learned from the trial is that Patrick Fitzgerald is a sharp, methodical and tenacious prosecutor. It is quite possible that depending on the outcome of the Libby trial (and what Karl Rove says in his testimony) that this may not be the end of this matter. Other White House officials, maybe even Rove, could be targeted on obstruction of justice charges... who knows? Once a prosecutor nails a lower echelon particpant then everyone above him better start running for cover because the convicted guy knows where the skeletons are buried.
Stay tuned... this "silly case" may not end with Libby.
Accurate summation of my own hopes and dreams!
I just don't want to stop until we reach the titular head of the conspiracy, even though I am unsure we can convict Bungle before he leaves office. The fact that the path to the Oval Office apparently runs through Cheney's, is pure gravy.
Just in case anyone is unaware of the righty media spin on FitzGerald, I heard El Rushbo refer to him as "FitzFong".
As soon as they convinced their audience that the Duke rape case wasa "liberal hype" issue, it seemed an easy step to make the "prosecutors are stoopid" theory work.And I heard at least one dittohead caller prove that it wasn't entirely unsuccessful.
I actually missed this, earlier in the thread;
"So he's trying to "Nifong" Libby for lying about something that he hasn't proven was against the law.It is another examples of prosecutorial power gone amuck."- anotheramerican
Say what you want about Rush,he is a good shepherd.
And the sheep must be told what to think, say, and do...
your ad hominum attacks mean nothing except to show the rest of us that you simply like to try to insult others in place of honest debate.
AA,
What was that? All I read was "MMMMBAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"
Cohen: Libby told her ... Libby told a whole lot of people ... Armitage told people ... He told Woodward. ... Two NBC reporters learned about it ... Time magazine reporter
Wait - so it was okay to leak Plame's name and then lie about it later because they leaked her name to a lot of people? What?