Posted on 01/15/2007 7:22:18 AM PST by Laverne
When Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff goes on trial Tuesday on charges of lying about the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity, members of Washington's government and media elite will be answering some embarrassing questions as well.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's case will put on display the secret strategizing of an administration that cherry-picked information to justify war in Iraq and reporters who traded freely in gossip and protected their own interests as they worked on one of the big Washington stories of 2003.
Later, when a leak investigation was opened, prosecutors allege that Libby lied to FBI agents, telling them that he had learned about Plame from Russert in a telephone call on July 10 or 11 and that he had passed along that information as unconfirmed gossip to two other reporters. The plainspoken Russert will be a star government witness. He has told Fitzgerald that Libby fabricated parts of a conversation with him. He has said that when he spoke with Libby in mid-July, Plame never came up as Libby complained that MSNBC host Chris Matthews had an antiwar slant. Russert has said he did not know about Plame until he read Novak's column.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Scooter Ping
The only thing that can possibly shame those people is to have this report held up and compared with who actually gets humiliated (read: the leftist accusers). Then again, they probably have some kind of mental defense mechanism they can employ to wish away the facts and retain their dream.
They can't be any fun at parties.
WAPO... DU... what's the diff?
Why the huge difference in prosecution of Scooter Libby and Sandy Berger under the Republican watch?
That is the question of the day, or the question of the year, or the question of the century, imho. Sandy Burg(l)er allowed to get off essentially scott free, while Libby is being persecuted. Makes no sense to me and unfortunately I doubt we will ever know. One thing on the horizon is that the individual who let the burgler off is up for a judicial position and will be questioned by the committee before he goes to the senate floor for a vote. Perhaps a senator or two will demand an answer to this question, but I'm not holding much hope for that.
This guy is still having that same old masturbation fantasy of the liberals that the Plame case will destroy the President.
Sorry about that < A woman wrote the article. Oh well Change guy to gal and its still the same.
Trial begins tomorrow PING!
It is awful--paragrpah 2 is an outright lie. Oddly enough the NYT has a far better piece today.
Do you have a link to the NYTimes article? It doesn't surprise me to find outright lies in the WAPO....it does surprise me that these reporters clearly have no interest in maintaining any kind of reputation for journalistic integrity (oops, they are all democrats so integrity is a concept that is meaningless to them anyway).
When delusion goes to court:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson," Fitzgerald wrote in a court filing last year.
(snip)
"The plainspoken Russert ((((?????))))
will be a star government witness. He has told Fitzgerald that Libby fabricated parts of a conversation with him. He has said that when he spoke with Libby in mid-July, Plame never came up as Libby complained that MSNBC host Chris Matthews had an antiwar slant.
Russert has said he did not know about Plame until he read Novak's column. A source familiar with the case says his version will be corroborated by testimony from NBC News's former president, Neal Shapiro. Russert told Shapiro about Libby's complaint soon after the call, the source said, saying nothing about Plame."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further reading:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/
I have not yet prepared my Libby trial pre-game, but here is an excellent overview by Josh Gerstein of the NY Sun. I endorse this:
Members of both camps are seeking vindication from Mr. Libby's impending courtroom battle, but whether they will get it is another question. The former White House official is charged with lying and obstruction of justice, not leaking, so the trial may be so circumscribed that both cheering sections are left with an unsatisfying result.
Thanks Starwise!
Tomorrow's the day! Let the leaks begin!
Could this article have been written any more slanted against the Administration and Scooter Libby??
Well, they do try. :-)
LOL..I noticed you were just as "impressed" with that "the plainspoken Russert..."
BLECH...double and tripe BLECH!!!
Six weeks? Why on earth is it expected to be that long, or is this reporter dreaming?
And Russert, a democrat operative, is honest. Give me a break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.