Now Dickerson Knows How Libby Must Feel

American Thinker ^ | January 30, 2006 | Clarice Feldman

[Tirian]

At yesterday's hearing in the Libby Trial, Ari Fleischer testified under an immunity deal that he had eaten a lunch with Libby, who told him Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA, that she played a role in sending her husband to Niger and the whole thing was "hush hush." Fleischer also testified that he told two reporters after hearing similar information from White House counsel Dan Bartlett, The names of the two reporters, David Gregory who works for Tim Russert's MSNBC and John Dickerson who once worked for Time and now works for Slate, were surprising because David Gregory seemed to deny knowledge of Plame before the Novak article and Dickerson had long ago written an account at complete odds with this version.

Dickerson quickly wrote of the experience of suddenly finding himself singled out in this way by a claim at utter odds with his contemporaneous recollection of the events:

So, how to explain Ari's testimony? I've covered him for 12 years, since I reported on tax policy and he was a spokesman for the Ways and Means committee, and he's never lied to me. Shaded, wiggled, and driven me around the bend with his spin, yes. (I wasn't a fan of his book, either.) But he never outright lied, and I don't see how it would be in his interest here. More likely, he admitted to prosecutors more than he may have actually done because better to err on the side of assuming he disclosed too much than assuming he gave over too little. (Emphasis supplied.)

How does Ari's testimony affect the perjury and obstruction of justice case against Libby? It certainly complicates it. For starters, when this piece appears, it may get me out of my press seat and into that uncomfortable little witness box. It hurts the prosecution if Ari admitted something he didn't do, because they're relying on his memory. Libby is on trial for saying he didn't know about Wilson's wife and that he learned it from NBC's Tim Russert. Fleischer contradicts that. He claims that Libby told him about Wilson's wife at a lunch in early July, long before Libby ever talked to Russert. If they can poke holes in Ari's recollection of what he told me, they can raise doubts about what Ari remembers Scooter telling him.

If Gregory and Dickerson take the stand and deny what Fleischer said, it will surely undermine his credibility. Dickerson denied the story absolutely. If he admitted it, his two written accounts would impeach that admission. But if Gregory confirms the Fleischer account, it becomes harder to believe Russert's fuzzy denial that he had no knowledge of the Wilson-Plame-CIA account. Either way, flaws in Fitzgerald's case are exposed.

Before this is over the media may find they should have been more skeptical of Wilson's account and less delighted that a special prosecutor with no constraints whatsoever was appointed to handle this matter.

Be careful what you wish for.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/now_dickerson_knows_how_libby.html

[Tirian]

Interestinger and interestinger, to quote Alice

[TexasCajun]

"Having Fun Yet? I'm laughing my ass off! "

[saganite]

This whole sorry mess should never have gone to trial but now that it's underway I would love nothing better than to see the whole thing blow up in Fitmas's face.

[quikdrw]

That would be enjoyable.

[Buck W.]

Curiouser and curiouser, but I agree with your point.

[Mr. K]

When are they going to indict David Gregory for lying?

[Always Right]

Everyone has different memories of events. That is not perjury, that is just the way human memories work. The only thing keeping this trial alive is the unlimited bankroll of the federal government and Fritzgerald's willingness to collect on that bankroll.

[detch]

They thought they would get Libby, and by extension, Bush and Cheney.

The folks whose reputations are forever damaged are: Wilson, Plame, Armitage and even Colin Powell.

And we'll get to see Gregory, Dickerson and Russert squirm.

[Parley Baer]

So the difference in memories is only 3 days. No big deal after the period of time that has gone by. I don't see anything in the testimony that hurts Libby with a normal jury.

[nctexan]

Is it just me, or are the similarities between these two becoming more and more obvious than just looks?

Remember, how the DEMs literally slobbered over Fitzgerald as "a prosecutor's prosecutor.

[raftguide]

Frankly, I think the Burger bungle, with its ability to completely change what's known about history is a far bigger story.

[popdonnelly]

Let's keep this in context. Reporters and government officials talk to each other all the time in Washington. I wouldn't be shocked if Fleischer told Dickerson.

[razorback-bert]

We need a flow chart on this.

[colorado tanker]

Oh man, my head hurts. It's beginning to look like reporters and officials in Washington are so incestuous and are talking so often that nobody can remember who said what to whom when.

[Matchett-PI]

You got it! bttt

[Steve_Seattle]

"I wouldn't be shocked if Fleischer told Dickerson."

Neither would I, but the point is that virtually all of the witnesses thus far have shown that their memories are no better than Libby's. Also keep in mind that Ari's revelation about Plame to reporters was allegedly greeted with a "So what?" response. So maybe this information about Plame was bandied about by these people, but it was considered of so little consequence that nobody remembered it the same way, or even remembered it at all.

When exactly was it that the press began making the claim that disclosure of Plame's identity was unethical or even criminal? And who first floated that idea? Was it soon after Novak's article, or did several weeks pass? If the "outing" story took several weeks to develop, it would not be surprising that people can't remember who told who about Plame, and when, because it was not yet considered a "hot" or potentially damaging piece of information. I remember that I myself wondered why revealing that Plame proposed Wilson for the Niger trip was supposed to be so damaging to his credibility. It was simply an explanation of how he was chosen, and did not address the core issue of whether his claims were true.

[GoldenPup]

I wonder if anybody really, really, really gives a rat's ass about this Plame/Wilson issue??? What a waste of time and taxpayer's money!!!

[Steve_Seattle]

"Frankly, I think the Burger bungle, with its ability to completely change what's known about history is a far bigger story."

It was, but that story sank like a brick, even though it touched on the big issue the press was pursuing at the time: what did we know before 9/11, and was there negligence or a cover-up of massive intelligence failures? But no one in the MSM showed any interest whatsoever in what Berger stole, why, or for whose benefit. I see no other explanation for their lack of curiosity than that this did not fit with the MSM's agenda of bringing down the Bush administration. A cover-up by a Clinton operative was not the story-line that interested them. On the contrary, the NYT wrote a piece defending Berger, making him sound like a loveable and charmingly absent-minded guy in a rumpled suit. No story here, folks, let's move on.

[Howlin]

It was after Novak's column. And I think it was that dreadful friend of Wilson's -- Cohen, is that his name -- who made the first charge.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with thinking that when two officials of the same administration discuss something like this, i.e., Plame, that is NOT leaking?

It sounds to me like Ari is the one who drew first blood.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I wonder if anybody really, really, really gives a rat's ass about this Plame/Wilson issue??? What a waste of time and taxpayer's money."

Most people don't, but it circulates in the press and gets into the wind and even people who aren't interested get the vague idea that Bush and his people did something unethical to silence a critic. And that is still lodged in their brain on voting day, and even if they think it's just politics-as-usual, it predisposes them to get rid of the nasty Republicans.