Libby Trial: Chris' Big-House Bubba Fantasy

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Has Chris Matthews watched one too many episodes of "Oz," the hyper-graphic HBO original series about prison life?

Discussing the Scooter Libby trial on the 7 PM ET edition of this evening's Hardball, Chris spun a sanguine scenario in which Libby, facing the prospect of a long prison sentence in a vulnerable environment, might turn on Vice-President Cheney.

Matthews: "If Scooter's convicted, if you're looking at the number of counts facing him. If that jury really does go to town -- and I hope they're not watching -- and hits him with four or five counts, they add up to big time in some federal penitentiary, not necessarily Allenwood [known as the country club of federal prisons]. Someplace where a guy like Scooter Libby would not be very protected from the fellow prisoners. If he faces 20 years somewhere in maximum security, he's going to think again about his situation, isn't he?"

Attorney Sol Wisenberg dashed Chris' Big House fantasies. "I don't think so. He's not going to face 20 years. It's going to be a guideline sentence, it's probably going to be two to three years, something like that."

Chris tried to keep hope alive: "with all these counts facing him?"

Wisenberg: "Doesn't matter in the guideline system. They cumulate the counts. He'll probably be in a minimum-security camp."

Matthews had to face the disappointing reality: "So he'll be playing tennis somewhere."

Wisenberg drove a final stake into Chris' fondest hope: "Yeah. I don't think he's going to be the kind of person who's going to flip anyway."

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Matthews-Big-House-fantasy ping to Today show list.

[digger48]

Someplace where a guy like Scooter Libby would not be very protected from the fellow prisoners. If he faces 20 years somewhere in maximum security, he's going to think again about his situation, isn't he

Lot's of "S"s there....S-S-S-somebody got wet if they were within spittle spewing range of SissyChrissy

[Txsleuth]

Poor Chrissy.... I want Libby to be acquitted....not only because he is being wrongly prosecuted IMO...but to see Chrissy cry on national TV.

LOL

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"If he faces 20 years somewhere in maximum security, he's going to think again about his situation, isn't he?"

Twenty years for forgetting what you said to which reporter when?

Somebody should ask Timmy how many years he thinks Sandy Berger should get for committing an actual, documented crime against national security.

[roses of sharon]

Cheney will sue Chrissy someday.

[RichInOC]

You know, I really have no desire much less need to hear about Chris' hot prison-love fantasies.

[Viking2002]

I want to see Libby acquitted just to watch Pissy Chrissy blow an embolism and keel over on national TV.....HEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHA >:-)>

[Arizona Carolyn]

I don't know what they are putting in the water over there at MSNBC these days, but Chris Matthews has really gone off the deep end with stupid comments... his comments on Imus this morning were bizarre, too.

[Howlin]

What in the world made Matthews think he'd get maximum security?

[Anti-Bubba182]

CABLE NEWS RACE 2-5-07

Matthews does not appear in the lastest list. His obsession is hurting his ratings.

[Howlin]

Twenty years for forgetting what you said to which reporter when?

Did you read Timmy's testimony today?

[Howlin]

W: You wrote a letter to Buffalo News in June 2004 expressing regret for not recalling a telephone call to a reporter

T: I'd like to see the letter, because it involved a larger

W: Are you telling the jury you don't recall the letter?

T: That was a piece of it, but I don't remember the whole exchange

W: (refusing to let Russert see letter yet) Do you recall the letter?

T: Do you recall the letter but not the specifics

W: Do you write letters to newspapers apologizing for a faulty memory often?

T: No.

W: But you did write such a letter to the Buffalo News?

T: That was part of the letter.

W: But it was in the letter?

T: Could I see the letter?

W: I'm not going to let you see the letter yet. Do you remember the letter (describes it again, emphasizing faulty recollection)?

T: I do, but not the specifics.

(More back-and-forth like this.)

It's 3:45.

(Wells displays the letter Russert wrote, acknowledging a forgotten phone call.)

W: In a later interview with Howard Kurtz, you said you had just plain forgotten this phone call.

T: Yes.

W: I want to go through some of the background facts. Kurtz had asked about the newspaper's negative review of your conduct as moderator of a debate, right? And he asked if you had placed a call to the author to complain about the review, and you denied the phone call. (gets Russert to say yes at various steps along the way) The newspaper later challenged this denial in an article titled, "Tim, Don't You Remember?"

T: Yes.

W: When you denied making the phone call, do you feel you were giving your opinion in good faith?

T: Yes.

W: You weren't trying to lie, you were

T: Right.

W: You were confident in your recollection?

T: I'd like to know what I said. I did recall sending a letter to Mr. Sommers, and you saw the result of it.

W: You checked documentation to correct your recollection of the phone call… you do not have any documention of your conversation with Mr. Libby, do you?

T: No.

W: Libby's call was about not your conduct, but someone else's, right?

T: Yes.

W: The call you forgot was about your conduct, a direct criticism of you.

T: But it was four years ago.

W: (starts citing newspaper article) Do you recall those words?

T: No.

W: You don't recall such a personal attack?

T: It was a very difficult debate, and people chose up sides. I get criticisim

W: But the Buffalo News is your hometown paper.

T: Yes.

W: You're a Buffalo icon?

T: Yes.

W: And this paper criticized you?

T: But they've written so much positive about my family, I take it as it comes.

It's 4:00.

(Wells asks questions about newspaper's criticism of Russert — how did he feel about writer, etc. Russert tries to emphasize that he was just disagreeing over facts.)

W: But in talking to Howard Kurtz, you just completely misrecollected the events, didn't you?

T: The main thing was a disagreement over facts, which I recalled accurately.

W: It's fair to say the faulty recollection was well-publicized… anyone could find out about it in 2007 in an Internet search?

T: I suppose. I don't know the state of Lexis-Nexis, etc.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Former special prosecutor Sol Wisenberg, the man who pricked Chris' balloon:

[arazitjh]

Matthews is talking about the Libby trial....Gee, when Armitage came out as the leaker last summer, he dropped the story like a hot potato 'cause it was "too complicated"!!

What a moron Matthews is...actually saw him drooling on TV last week about Scooter, Scooter....Matthews=Moron!

[BurtSB]

you mean MS-DNC

[sgtbono2002]

Well: lets not even talk about innocent until proven guilty. Mathews has tried and convicted him and sentenced him already. Not bad for a Fair and neutral journalist huh!!!.

Good Lord, why is this man still on TV his bias is sticking out like a red flag.

[Tribune7]

Matthews makes me want to throw up.

[IrishRainy]

I accidentally stumbled onto Hardball today and almost had a coronary! I just lost it and had to dash off a response to MSNBC as follows:

I don't know if Mr. Matthews is being deliberately obtuse or if he truly is inflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). As far as the Libby trial, I mistakenly stopped on Spitball when I was channel surfing. To my dismay, I heard Matthews' synopsis of the trial which, again, is in direct contrast to the facts as I have been following the trial on the internet.

Evidently, Mr. Matthews didn't actually read the latest on the trial which included the introduction of two recently disclosed memos - which were actually withheld by the CIA during the Senate panel which investigated the matter in 2004 - a story in itself which Mr. Matthews might want to discuss in a future show (although I won't hold my breath!).

In those two memos, dated FEBRUARY 12, 2002, it was disclosed that Valerie Flame - er, Plame - had volunteered her husband for the trip to Niger to check out the statements that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake, which he corroborated, by the way.

However, the Vice President wasn't even told about these claims until FEBRUARY 13, 2002, which is when he requested that someone from the CIA check out the story. Therefore, it was already a done deal to send Joe Wilson before Cheney had even heard about it, so his office was NOT the reason for the trip in the first place, which is what Mr. Matthews has continued to breathlessly exclaim.

Once again, Mr. Matthews' sorry "reporting" has no basis in fact. Maybe if he'd spend less time excitedly spitting on fellow BDS sufferers - er, guests - on his show and more time actually investigating the facts, his credibility as a journalist would improve.

[Howlin]

We had to go out; was it really as bad as I am hearing?

[Howlin]

Um, that's kind of scary; how'd you do that?

And how do I stop it?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

View video here:

http://media.newsbusters.org/media/2007-02-07MSNBCHB.wmv

[goodnesswins]

Thanks for broadcasting it....NOT!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Thanks for posting that.

[goodnesswins]

Howlin....if you go to the danasoft website this is what you read....

Is the Danasoft signature a hacking tool, or can it be used to violate anyone's privacy?
Absolutely not! The Danasoft signature can never be used maliciously. Users come to Danasoft.com and create custom signs, with text that they choose, and they then display their custom signs in forums or on websites using a simple image link. We don't monitor or censor the text that users choose to display on their signs. Regardless of what prankster text might appear on a user's custom sign, the sign is totally harmless.


When you view the sign, you will see your IP address and computer info. When others view the sign, they will see THEIR information. Try it, ask a friend to visit danasoft.com. They won't see your IP, they will see their IP. Your information is never shown to others. This is always true, no matter where the Danasoft sign appears (within web pages, emails, etc).

Whenever you visit a website, your IP address is automatically broadcast to that site, and it's even broadcast to those sites that you don't visit when you load a website that contains images that are hosted by a third party, such as advertisements. When you load the Danasoft signature from a webpage, your IP address is automatically broadcast to us, just like any other site. Danasoft.com does not "hack" your computer to obtain your IP address. One of the purposes of the sign, besides for fun and amusement, is to spread awareness that your IP and other computer information is known to every website that you visit. If that concerns you, there are software programs available to mask your IP and other information when you surf the web, search Google for those.

Danasoft.com doesn't log the IP addresses of people that view our signature graphics - we simply host the custom signatures. When a request comes in to display a signature, our software creates the sign "on-the-fly", and displays the viewer's IP and other computer info on the sign. Our software draws a new sign for every single person that views it.

The Danasoft.com signature graphic is not a website statistics tool. It cannot be used to tell you who is visiting your website because we do not provide that service, and as mentioned above, we don't even know who is viewing the signs since we don't log that information.

For more info, read the privacy policy.

Go ahead, create your own sign to use in forums, on MySpace, on your website, anywhere!

[Arizona Carolyn]

~LOL~ yes.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Matthews of all people on that channel will not rest until someone, anyone, from the administration goes to prison for Joe.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

What does Matthews say when the acquittal comes down? The faulty memories of those who were central to this helps Libby a great deal. And I just cant see Fitzgerald establishing a motive for Libby to lie at that moment in the Grad Jury proceedings. Chris Matthews thinks he can see a motive - but even a jury picked in DC will not see guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So what does Chris say when he fills his diaper at the breaking news of acquittal on all counts? Huh?

[Arizona Carolyn]

I hope there is an aquital, but this being Washington, D.C... I have a bad feeling.

[IrishRainy]

It was typical Spitball, I guess, except that they're not in touch with reality. It's like an alternative universe, except the people in LaLaLand, the so-called "experts," make the big bucks....and for WHAT?

[Doctor Raoul]

What does Matthews say when the acquittal comes down?

Chrissy won't be able to handle being that wrong. Think Buddist monk on Rove's front lawn. His final act of defiance.

[Miss Didi]

I'm sure in his twisted fantasies about this ridiculous trial there's a President Pelosi as the grand finale.

[popdonnelly]

After Russert's testimony today, I'm starting to believe that Matthews is trying to cover Russert's ass.

[popdonnelly]

"Good Lord, why is this man still on TV his bias is sticking out like a red flag."

Ask MSNBC.

[weegee]

How is this any less of an offense than Michael Savage telling a prank caller on tv to choke on a piece of sausage, get foodpoisoning, or get AIDS (he said all 3 and lost his tv show)?

This is nothing less than a call for a lynching or prison rape.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Hey, that little troll is pretty cool! How did you do that???!??

[Loyal Buckeye]

mathews is a despicable creep.

[Republican Red]

After Russert's testimony today, I'm starting to believe that Matthews is trying to cover Russert's ass.

One of the funniest bits of info that came out of this "trial" is a note from Libby to Mary Matlin about Russert's distaste of Matthews. Matlin and Carville are great friends with Russert so I would tend to believe her.

link

Russert's presumed distaste for Matthews (so difficult not to speculate on its cause! Is it stylistic? Does someone hog the newsroom donuts?) came up in reference to the prosecution presenting notes taken by Libby during a conversation with former vice president aide Mary Matalin. She "has a colorful way of speaking" (something the press corps does know), and in the course of advising Libby on how to deal with the "Wilson issue," and in particular Matthew's attacks on the vice president, she advised Libby to call Russert to complain and she told Libby that Russert would have an especially sympathetic ear: "Call Tim. He hates Chris - he needs to know it all."

I think Russert is embarrassed by Matthews and Matthews is in love with Russert.