Shame On WaPo, Again

The Libby Trial Is Serious Business

Wednesday, February 21, 2007; A14

Shame on The Post for publishing Victoria Toensing's irrelevant opinings ["Trial in Error," Outlook, Feb. 18] as the case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby goes to the jury.

My issue is not legal. My issue is the extreme damage that occurs when CIA identities are bandied about by political hacks and the newspapers that cheer them on.

These leaks violate the code of blood honor of the CIA, MI-6, Mossad and every clandestine officer. Real people die. Real heroes are exposed and murdered. Real intelligence is lost. Real sources lose trust in our honor and refuse to cooperate. Real wars are fought mistakenly. Real troops are endangered. Real damage is done to U.S. credibility throughout the world.

War is not a dinner party for ideologues. Espionage is not a 007 movie. The lives of covert operatives are not petty cash to be bartered for spin.

If Mr. Libby is acquitted, God bless him. If he is convicted, President Bush should immediately renounce a pardon. Our heroes deserve a standing ovation, not a stab in the back.

BRENT BUDOWSKY
Washington

The writer served as an aide to former senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.), sponsor of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Why Haven't, at least, Some Of These People Been Fired?

Why are Bush and Cheney still in the White House?


WASHINGTON - Any staffer proven to have leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity "would no longer be in this administration," former White House spokesman Scott McClellan promised in September 2003.

But three years later, President Bush hasn't sacked anyone, even though the perjury trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby - which resumes today - shows at least 10 other top officials blabbed about the spy whose job as a covert agent was classified as an official government secret.

Vice President Cheney
When Libby reminded his boss the vice president that he learned about Plame from him, Cheney tilted his head quizzically and said, "From me?"

Karl Rove
Bush's top political mastermind told reporters Robert Novak and Matt Cooper about Plame.

Richard Armitage
The former deputy secretary of state gossiped about Plame to Novak, and marveled to Watergate icon Bob Woodward, "How about that?"

Ari Fleischer
Bush's former spokesman got immunity before admitting he told reporters John Dickerson and David Gregory about Plame. Reporter Walter Pincus said Fleischer told him about her, too.

Dan Bartlett
Fleischer claimed Bush's counselor blurted out to him on Air Force One in July 2003 that Plame "worked at the CIA."

Robert Grenier
The top CIA official overseeing Iraq operations got nervous over Libby's pestering and later "felt guilty" about telling Cheney's chief of staff about Plame.

Bill Harlow
The CIA spokesman told Cheney flack Cathie Martin.

Cathie Martin

She told Cheney and Libby about Plame.

Marc Grossman
The No. 3 at the State Department also told Libby about Plame.

Craig Schmall
Cheney's CIA daily briefer discussed Plame with Libby.

Originally published on February 20, 2007


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Libby Trial; Closing Arguments

Cover-up or scapegoating.

Nine conversations or two.

Scooter Libby the liar, or Karl Rove the liar.

A cloud unfairly placed over Dick Cheney, or Libby and Cheney placing a cloud over the White House.

David Corn

As the prosecution and the defense teams in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby presented closing arguments on Tuesday, each side tried to encapsulate its case--and portrayed distinctly opposing views of reality.

"This case was about lying," prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said at the start of the government's summation. He maintained that during the CIA leak investigation Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, lied to the FBI and grand jury about how he had learned that Valerie Wilson was a CIA employee, whom he had talked to about her, and what he had told others about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. Referring to the opening argument of lead defense attorney Ted Wells, Zeidenberg pointed out that Team Libby had contended their client was an innocent man who had been turned into a sacrificial lamb by a White House desperate to protect Karl Rove, the administration's uber-strategist. But, he continued, Libby's lawyers introduced no evidence to support that flashy charge. "Unfulfilled promises from counsel," he added, "do not constitute evidence."

Zeidenberg asked the jurors to recall that nine witnesses had each said they had spoken to Libby about Wilson's wife and her CIA connection In June and July 2003. They contradicted the tale that Libby had told the FBI and the grand jury. In his FBI interviews and grand jury appearances, Libby had conceded that around June 11, 2003, Cheney told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA's Counterproliferation Division (which is part of clandestine operations directorate). But he claimed that he had been struck by total amnesia regarding this critical fact in the following weeks and learned about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment "anew" on July 11--three days before the leak appeared in a Robert Novak column--when NBC News' Tim Russert told him that "all the reporters" knew Wilson's wife was CIA. In Libby's account, when he had talked to reporters about Wilson's wife prior to the leak he had merely been passing along gossip (not official and classified information) he had picked up from Russert. (Russert testified he had said no such thing to Libby.)

This was nothing but a cover story, Zeidenberg charged: when Libby was questioned by the FBI in October 2003, he had reason to fear being caught up in the criminal investigation and to worry about losing his job. The prosecutor reviewed for the jurors the conversations Libby had during the relevant time period. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, senior CIA officer Robert Grenier, CIA briefer Craig Schmall, Cheney press spokesperson Cathie Martin--each testified he or she had talked to Libby about Wilson's wife in mid-June, within days of when Cheney had told Libby about Wilson's wife. Zeidenberg reminded the jurors that former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified Libby told him about Wilson's wife on July 7, 2003, and that Matt Cooper, formerly of Time, and Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, testified that Libby had spoken to them about Wilson's wife and her CIA employment prior to the leak.

The defense had taken shots at several of the prosecution witnesses, and Zeidenberg did his best to bolster their credibility. None, he argued, had reason to lie, and their accounts all pointed in the same direction. Could they all be lying or misremembering in a similar fashion? When Russert had been on the witness stand, Wells had accused him and NBC News of harboring a bias against Libby and the office of the vice president. Then why, Zeidenberg asked the jurors, did Cathie Martin testify that she had suggested that Cheney appear on Russert's Meet the Press in July 2003 to combat charges the White House had misrepresented the prewar intelligence?

Zeidenberg took on the defense's claim that Libby had been too busy with national security matters in 2003 and 2004 to remember accurately what he had known and said about Valerie Wilson. Listen to this, Zeidenberg told the jurors, and he played a portion of Libby's March 2004 grand jury testimony during which Libby was able to recall in detail a conversation he had with Rove on July 11, 2003. In that discussion, according to Libby, Rove told him that Novak had informed Rove that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that he (Novak) would be publishing a column about Wilson. Libby also told the grand jury that during this conversation he said to Rove that he had just heard from Russert about Wilson's wife. (Oddly--or not--the defense never called Rove as a witness to confirm Libby's claim that he had given Rove the same account of his Russert conversation that he had provided the FBI and grand jury.) Why could Libby, Zeidenberg asked rhetorically, recount specifics of this discussion but couldn't "recall one out of nine conversations that he himself had about Mr. Wilson's wife because it is a trivial detail?" There is a pattern, Zeidenberg added: Libby remembers the conversations he had with the government witnesses but never "the piece about Mr. Wilson's wife."

Libby, he argued, could even "remember with specificity what he didn't talk about" the week before the leak. When Libby appeared before the grand jury, he testified that in the days after Joe Wilson published a July 6, 2003, op-ed article--in which Wilson revealed that he had gone to Niger for the CIA to check if Iraq had been uranium-shopping there and reported back the charge was highly unlikely--he and Cheney talked about Wilson's mission. But Libby maintained that Cheney and he had not discussed the wife's CIA position until after the leak appeared in the Novak column. Zeidenberg reminded the jurors that Cheney had written a series of questions on a copy of the Wilson op-ed, including one asking whether Wilson's wife had sent him on a junket? "Ask yourself: the vice president has those questions," Zeidenberg said, "who is he going to discuss them with? Is he pondering these things on his own? Or discussing them with his chief of staff?" And is there nothing suspicious, he added, that Libby told the grand jury that he and Cheney in the week before the leak discussed all of Cheney's questions about the Wilson trip except the one about Wilson's wife?

The case has pitted Libby (and his claimed recollections) against several reporters (and their claimed recollections). And Libby's lawyers tried to knock down the testimony from Cooper, Miller and Russert. But Zeidenberg emphasized the core issue: could Libby have completely forgotten about her CIA connection and then learned it "anew." Addressing the jurors, Zeidenberg said, "Forget for the moment about the testimony of those nine conversations...it's simply not credible to believe that he would have forgotten this information about Wilson's wife from June 11 to July 11.....The vice president's office [at this time] is in the hot seat...They're asked the question over and over: why did Mr. Wilson say he was sent [on his Niger trip] by the vice president....Mr. Libby thinks he has an answer: the wife....And he wants you to believe...that he so completely forgets the information about Mr. Wilson's wife that when Russert tells him about it...it rings no bell?...It's just not credible."

Zeidenberg's summation of the case was straightforward and compact. He poked at Libby's hard-to-accept position: I knew, I forgot, then I knew again but forgot that I had forgotten. He explained there was a motive for Libby to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. It was a coherent tale about a fellow who tried to fib his way out of a tough spot. Perjury cases can be difficult because the prosecution has to prove the defendant's intention and state of knowledge. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and Zeidenberg argued a hard case well.

"Maybe I was drunk when I made my opening," Ted Wells said, as he began his closing statement. He was referring to Zeidenberg's characterization of his opening presentation: "Sure sounded like I said a lot of things I could not deliver on." Wells claimed he had not promised to put on "a whole case of evidence" about a White House conspiracy to sacrifice Libby for Rove. "I promised I would show you a note," he said. And Wells pointed to a note written by Cheney in October 2003--after the White House had declared (erroneously) that Rove had not been involved in the Valerie Wilson leak--that said, "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder."

Why is this so significant? According to Wells, the note--written by Cheney in response to Libby's request that the White House also clear him of any wrongdoing in the leak case--is evidence Libby is innocent. Only an innocent man, Wells contended, would ask the White House to absolve him publicly and then--when rebuked by chief of staff Andrew Card and press secretary Scott McClellan--would beseech the vice president. Wells insisted that Libby had been hung out to dry by a White House eager to protect Rove.

But this was not a strong argument. After Cheney wrote that note, McClellan did clear Libby. And given that the White House had declared that Rove had not participated in the leak--even though Rove had been Robert Novak's second source--the fact that Libby wanted similar treatment does not prove his guilt or innocence. Sometimes guilty people want to be declared innocent.

Wells moved to another line of defense. He told the juror the case was simple: it was about two conversations. He meant Libby's phone call with Russert and a conversation Libby had with Matt Cooper. And, Wells added, this is all "he said/she said." He revisited questions about Cooper's and Russert's powers of recall that he raised earlier in the trial. But Wells was also being sly. The case is not merely about whose recollections are more accurate: the reporters or Libby. Wells was trying to distract the jurors from the nine conversations Zeidenberg had reviewed. A case based on two conversations--where there are no notes or third-party witnesses--is "madness," Wells proclaimed, adding, "there's a craziness to this case."

The defense team's closer had an air of disorganization. But that was the point. Wells and co-counsel Bill Jeffress threw whatever they could at the jury. That Russert has a memory problem and a vendetta against Libby--and that Russert actually may have known about Wilson's wife prior to his conversation with Libby. That Libby talked to eleven reporters and did not volunteer information to any of them about Valerie Wilson. That only Judy Miller said he leaked to her--and, Wells added, she cannot be believed. That Libby was too busy protecting the United States from terrorists to recall what had happened. That Libby would not have concocted such a cockamamie cover story that positioned Russert (whom Libby barely knew) as an alibi. That Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were the real leakers. That Libby was not at all worried about losing his job. That every participant in the case has forgotten one fact or another. That Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection was not important to Libby because, Wells said, "nobody cared at the office of the vice president." That Libby had no reason to fear any investigation because he had not known that Valerie Wilson was a clandestine CIA employee.

The defense was not linear. There was no narrative. There were many assertions and questions. The closest the defense came to a competing explanation of what happened was its tale of the Libby sellout. Noting that the White House had said that Rove had not leaked, Wells declared, "Rove lied....Rove did talk to Novak." And he put up a slide for the jury that showed photographs of Rove and Libby and carried the bottom-line explanation: "Save Rove/Sacrifice Libby." By complaining about this in October 2003, Scooter Libby, Wells reiterated, had demonstrated he was innocent of any wrongdoing in the leak case. (Wells was operating under the assumption that leakers never lie.) And Libby's lead lawyer slammed the Bush crew for not initially standing by his man: "That's not a team I'd like to be part of. They sure didn't treat [Libby] like he was part of the team."

Over and over, Wells and Jeffress did what defense layers routinely do: drill into the jurors that the government has the obligation to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby lied deliberately. The prosecution must present "powerful" evidence, Wells said repeatedly, and the jurors have to base their deliberations upon the presumption of Libby's innocence. Wells told the jurors, "There was memory problems with every witness" and he recalled that Grenier, a prosecution witness, had testified that his recollection of a conversation with Libby had "a fair amount of vagueness attached to it." Jeffress asked, "Which witness came in here and didn't get something wrong?"

Wells finished his case by returning to the sacrifice quasi-narrative, asking the jurors not to treat Libby as he was mistreated by the White House: "[If] someone [in the jury room] starts to say, 'He was a Republican, he worked for Cheney, let's do him,' help that person....Don't sacrifice Scooter Libby for how you may feel about the war in Iraq or how you may feel about the Bush administration. Don't sacrifice Scooter Libby."

His finale was emotional. Scooter Libby is "a good person," Wells proclaimed, noting that Libby, during the trial, had been under Wells' care and protection. "I give him to you," he told the jurors. "Give him back to me. Just give him back." Wells voice broke; he choked back a sob. He sat down.

Then it was Fitzgerald's turn. After three years of working on this case, he, as is customary for prosecutors in a criminal case, would have the last word. "Madness," he exclaimed. "Madness. Outrageous....The government brought a case about two phone calls." He was mocking Wells.

This was not a case of he-said/she-said, he explained; it was a case of he-said/he-said/he-said/she-said/he-said/he-said/he-said/she-said/he-said and he-said. "Is this the world's greatest coincidence?" he asked, contending that there could not be nine conversations with everyone remembering the wrong thing. And forget about Russert, he said. If Russert had been "run over by a bus and gone to the great news desk in the sky," the prosecution's case would stand: Libby learned about Wilson from Cheney and others yet claimed he had not.

Valerie Wilson and her CIA affiliation was no trivial matter for Libby and Cheney, Fitzgerald insisted. For Libby and Cheney, Fitzgerald said, Valerie Wilson "wasn't a person...she was an argument...a fact to use against Joe Wilson." He pointed out that there is physical evidence. According to the notes of Libby's CIA briefer, Libby told the briefer about Wilson and his wife a full month before Novak's column--and Libby did so during a briefing that covered heavy-duty national security issues, such as terrorist plots and the war in Iraq. This document, Fitzgerald said, "is a fingerprint of the defendant's brain."

Fitzgerald called the jury's attention to other documents that showed Libby and Cheney were nearly obsessed with the Wilson matter. He demonstrated that Cheney himself had helped create a set of talking points in early July about the Wilson imbroglio that began, "It is not clear who authorized Joe Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger." This showed, Fitzgerald argued, that the boss was concerned with the origins of Wilson's trip. (Cheney and Libby believed the media accounts made it appear that Cheney had directly dispatched Wilson, though Wilson had only been sent by the CIA in response to a question Cheney had put to his intelligence briefer.) Fitzgerald recounted how prosecution witnesses had testified that when Libby talked about Wilson's wife he did so in an unusual manner, as if Libby knew the subject was sensitive.

Fitzgerald came to the rescue of Judith Miller, whom he had sent to jail for 85 days before she agreed to cooperate with his investigation. The defense had had easy work in undermining her credibility--especially because she had forgotten in her first grand jury appearance to recall an entire meeting with Libby. But Fitzgerald walked the jurors through key portions of a memo on the Wilson trip that was sent to Libby on June 9, 2003. He then showed the jury portions of Miller's grand jury testimony in which she noted that Libby had shared these same specifics with her during a July 8 meeting at the St. Regis Hotel. This exercise was a twofer for Fitzgerald. He demonstrated that Miller could be a reliable witness and that Libby had been quite interested in and able to recall details about the Wilson matter. It seemed Libby did have a good memory on this topic.

Fitzgerald chugged along. He undercut the defense team's contention that Cooper's notes back up Libby's claim that he only shared scuttlebutt with Cooper. Fitzgerald scored points in rebutting the defense attorney's attacks on Russert. And he took on Wells' charge that the prosecution had throughout the trial attempted "to put a cloud over" Cheney.

"There is a cloud on the vice president," Fitzgerald replied, explaining that Cheney had written notes indicating he was interested in the Valerie Wilson connection and that Cheney had sent Libby to the meeting with Judy Miller where Libby (according to Miller) told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. "And that cloud remains," Fitzgerald declared, "because this defendant obstructed justice....That cloud was there. It was not something we put there." Cheney and Libby, Fitzgerald noted, could have held in July 2003 a press conference to reveal information they believed would undermine Joseph Wilson's attack on the White House. Instead, they went with a leak to Miller. But why would Libby rely on a Russert-told-me cover story that could not withstand close scrutiny? "The sad truth is that sometimes when people lie it looks dumb when they get caught," Fitzgerald said.

The prosecutor brushed aside the argument that Libby merely failed to remember what he had known and discussed about Valerie Wilson. Use your common sense, Fitzgerald asked the jury. Wells had earlier said that prosecuting Libby for not accurately recalling in October 2003 details of conversations he had in June and July 2003 was akin to asking a college student, who had spent a summer on a beach, to remember in the fall the specifics of a conversation he or she had the previous semester. That's nonsense, Fitzgerald retorted, noting that memories are dependent on "uniqueness, importance, and anger." Valerie Wilson's CIA connection was certainly unique, he maintained, and the vice president's office believed the Wilson trip was a significant topic. And Libby, according to the testimony of several prosecution witnesses, was angry about Wilson's claim that the White House and the vice president had manipulated the prewar intelligence. "When you think it's important, when you're focused on it, when you're angry about it--those are the things you remember," the prosecutor said. And, Fitzgerald added, Libby's CIA briefer had testified that he told Libby and Cheney that the disclosure of a clandestine CIA officer could lead to the harassment, torture or death of others. Even a 21-year-old, Fitzgerald said, would consider that important.

Winding up, Fitzgerald aimed at the entire Bush crew. "There's a cloud over the White House as to what happened" in the leak affair, he told the jury. There were questions as to whether the law was broken when Valerie Wilson's CIA cover was blown and "what role the defendant played...what role the vice president played." Looking straight at the jury, Fitzgerald asked, "Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury is entitled to straight answers." Instead, he said, Libby made up a story and obstructed justice. Echoing Wells' last lines, Fitzgerald declared of Libby, "He stole the truth from the judicial system. Give truth back." With that, Fitzgerald was done.

After weeks, each side had presented the expected arguments. The prosecution marshaled a set of concrete facts that appeared compelling and that supported a narrow narrative. The defense picked at each witness, raised a host of other matters, suggested alternative theories (and conspiracy theories) without proving any, cited reporters to whom Libby had not leaked, and claimed that Libby had testified accurately to the grand jury and the FBI and that if he had not he had merely committed good-faith memory slips.

Fitzgerald offered a solid case. Wells offered several possibilities for any juror looking for a peg for a reasonable-doubt argument. Now twelve jurors will have to answer the question: who was sacrificed--Scooter Libby or the truth?
******
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.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Libby Trial: Should Put Impeachment Back On The Table!

If it doesn't, there will be hell to pay!

Count on it!


During the 2006 mid-term campaign, Nancy Pelosi pledged that a Democratic victory would not mean a drive to impeach the President (and, by implication, the Vice-President). Much of the call for impeachment was based upon allegations of lying to Congress and the American people about the pre-war intelligence, and violations of the oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution when they knowingly violated laws and Constitutional provisions protecting individual rights and liberties.

Weighty stuff, to be sure, but taken off the table by the Speaker-to-be's pledge, based upon what was known then. As indicated in Libby Trial Shows Cheney Provided Aid-and-Comfort to Enemies of the United States, Libby and Rove could easily have said that they told reporters not knowing that Valerie Plame was undercover, but that would have pointed the finger at Dick Cheney as the person who learned of Plame's identity, and (whether properly declassified or not) decided to out her and her operation.

To protect Cheney, Libby and Rove conceived the alibi that they heard about Plame from reporters and, believing the reporters would not testify to their conversations, thought they had created a perfect circle.

The Libby Trial, therefore, presents information that it was Dick Cheney, who provided aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States.

Unlike the above-mentioned transgressions of the Bush Administration, that would be defended as "political" judgments (and they covered themselves with rogue legal opinions on torture, habeas corpus violations and illegal searches), Cheney's act is specific, concrete and traitorous. It is also new, outside the scope covered by the pre-election pledge.The Congress cannot ignore it.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Is Fitz Going After Cheney?

Oh, this could get really good!

If Libby is found guilty of perjury and/or obstruction, then there is a cause for looking into whom and/or what he was protecting?

People don't lie for no good reason, especially to the FBI and grand juries, unless they are just pathological liars, and I don't think that Libby is one. He may be ideologically brain damaged, but he is not pathogical liar.

Time to go after Vice, in a big way!



The Libby-Cheney Connection Libby Testimony Raises More Questions About Cheney's Role In The CIA Leak Case

By Murray Waas, National Journal© National Journal Group Inc.Monday, Feb. 19, 2007


The CIA Leak Investigation

Previous coverage from National Journal: • Cheney's Call (2/15/07) • Inside The Grand Jury (1/12/07) • Bush Blocked DOJ Probe (7/18/06) More related stories

In the fall of 2003, as a federal criminal probe was just getting underway to determine who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the then-chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, sought out Cheney to explain to his boss his side of the story.

The explanation that Libby offered Cheney that day was virtually identical to one that Libby later told the FBI and testified to before a federal grand jury: Libby said he had only passed along to reporters unsubstantiated gossip about Plame that he had heard from NBC bureau chief Tim Russert.

The grand jury concluded that the account was a cover story to conceal the role of Libby and other White House officials in leaking information about Plame to the press, and indicted him on five felony counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice.
At the time that Libby offered his explanation to Cheney, the vice president already had reason to know that Libby's account to him was untrue, according to sources familiar with still-secret grand jury testimony and evidence in the CIA leak probe, as well as testimony made public during Libby's trial over the past three weeks in federal court.

Yet, according to Libby's own grand jury testimony, which was made public during his trial in federal court, Cheney did nothing to discourage Libby from telling that story to the FBI and the federal grand jury. Moreover, Cheney encouraged then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan to publicly defend Libby, according to other testimony and evidence made public during Libby's trial.

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney.

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney. They want to know whether Cheney might have known about the leaks ahead of time or had even encouraged Libby to provide information to reporters about Plame's CIA status, the same sources said.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and defense attorneys for Libby are expected to begin their closing arguments in the case as early as Tuesday morning. Defense attorneys for Libby had said for months that they were going to call Cheney as a defense witness, but informed Federal District Court Judge Reggie Walton, who has presided over the Libby trial, at the last minute that they were not going to call him after all.

Had Cheney testified, he would have been questioned about whether he encouraged, or had knowledge of, the leaking of Plame's CIA status. Sources close to the case say that Cheney would have also been sharply questioned as to why, when presented by Libby with what prosecutors regarded as a cover story to explain away Libby's role in the leak, Cheney did nothing to discourage him.

Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York and a professor at Fordham Law School, said the significance of Cheney's reaction to Libby's version of events depends on exactly what Libby told him and what Cheney knew at the time. "Only Cheney and Libby know the import of their conversation, and as is often the case, each could have even come away with a different impression of what was meant" by what the other said.

"If Cheney was merely showing surprise and interest at what Libby indicating to him he was going to tell investigators, then the vice president is innocent in the exchange," Richman said. "But if he had reason to believe, or personal knowledge, that what Libby was planning to say was untrue then there is good reason to view Cheney's conduct in an entirely different light -- an obstruction interpretation."

Because nobody else was present during the discussion between the two men, and thus only the two of them know what was said, it is difficult to interpret the intent of either man, most particularly Cheney, Richman said. "One of the challenges for prosecutors, jurors, and historians is trying to recapture the signals incorporated in gestures and words between two close associates," Richman said.

Attorneys for Libby say he is innocent of all of he charges and that anything he told the FBI and the federal grand jury was either true or represented his best recollection. A spokesperson for Cheney declined comment because the issues raised in this article are currently "a matter before the courts."

Libby's Testimony Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he sought out Cheney as the federal leak probe was getting underway to protest his innocence and to complain that the White House was not aggressively defending him against allegations that he had leaked Plame's identity.

Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he told Cheney shortly after the CIA leak probe became public that even if he, Libby, had told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, he was only repeating unsubstantiated gossip that he had heard from NBC's Russert on July 10, 2003. But notes of Libby's entered into evidence during his trial indicate that Libby learned that Plame was a CIA officer from Cheney during a June 12, 2003 telephone conversation, almost a month before Libby spoke with Russert. In addition, a senior aide to Cheney testified during Libby's trial that, after learning herself from a senior CIA official that Plame worked for the CIA, she shared that information with both Cheney and Libby during a meeting she had with both men. And Cheney himself told the special prosecutor that he regularly shared any information he learned about Plame with Libby as well, according to people familiar with Cheney's interview with the special prosecutor.

Notwithstanding this, Libby later told very much the very same story he told Cheney during two FBI interviews in the fall of 2003 and later during two appearances before the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on March 5, 2004 and March, 24, 2004.

Libby's assertion that the information came from Russert and was only gossip was central to his claims that he did nothing wrong because if he instead had learned the information from government officials he might be in trouble for leaking classified information.

At Libby's trial, several government witnesses -- among them an under secretary of State, a senior CIA official, Libby's CIA briefing officer, and a senior aide to Cheney -- said they informed Libby that Plame was a CIA officer.

Testifying as a prosecution witness, Russert said that although he and Libby did indeed speak on July 10, 2003, they never discussed Plame during their conversation.

Libby is also alleged by prosecutors to have lied to the FBI and a federal grand jury in claiming that when he mentioned Plame's name to two reporters -- Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times -- he was careful to point out to them he was simply repeating rumors that he had heard from Russert. Cooper and Miller testified that Libby stated no such qualifications to them in telling them about Plame.

Libby also testified to the federal grand jury that when Russert purportedly told him about Plame, he had absolutely no memory of having heard the information earlier from anyone else, including Cheney, and was thus "taken aback" when Russert told him. In his opening argument, Fitzgerald, referring to Libby's conversation with Russert on July 10, said: "You can't be startled about something on Thursday [July 10] that you told other people about on Monday [July 7] and Tuesday [July 8]."

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified as a prosecution witness that on July 7, 2003, Libby told Fleischer, "Ambassador Wilson was sent by his wife. His wife works for the CIA." Fleischer testified that Libby referred to Wilson's wife by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. "He added it was hush-hush, on the Q.T., and that most people didn't know it," Fleischer said Libby told him.

Libby and other White House officials leaked information about Plame's identity to the media in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Bush administration's war policy.

Wilson had traveled to Niger in February 2002 on a CIA-sponsored mission to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime had attempted to procure weapons-grade uranium from the African nation. Wilson reported to the CIA that from what he could learn the allegations were almost certainly untrue.

In a July 6, 2003, op-ed in The New York Times, Wilson charged that the Bush administration had "twisted" intelligence information when it cited the alleged Niger-Iraq connection in the president's State of Union address earlier that year.

Cheney cut Wilson's op-ed out of the newspaper and scribbled in the margins: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

On the very next day, on July 7, 2003, Libby told Fleischer about Plame, and the day after that, on July 8, he leaked information to the Times' Miller about Plame, according to Miller's testimony.

On July 12, 2003, as Cheney and Libby flew back to Washington D.C. aboard Air Force Two from Norfolk, Va. after attending a ceremony commissioning the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, they strategized once again as how best to discredit Wilson. During an interview with the FBI and later during an appearance before a federal grand jury, Libby said it was possible that he and Cheney may have discussed leaking information about Plame to reporters. But Libby had claimed that neither he nor Cheney would have been doing anything wrong because the only thing either of them knew about Plame was what Libby had purportedly heard from Russert.
After arriving back in Washington, according to Cooper's and Miller's testimony at Libby's trial, Libby spoke to both of them by telephone and confirmed to them that Plame worked for the CIA and may have played a role in sending her husband to Niger.

Two days later, on July 14, 2003, a column by Robert Novak was published outing Plame as a CIA "operative." Novak testified at Libby's trial that he learned about Plame from then-Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage and White House aide Karl Rove.

Libby Talks to Cheney In the fall of 2003, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department had begun a criminal probe as to who leaked Plame's identity to reporters, Libby sought out Cheney to complain that while then-White House spokesperson McClellan was making public statements that Rove had not been a source of the leak, McClellan refused to do the same on Libby's behalf.

Asked by Fitzgerald whether during that conversation Libby might have in fact told Cheney that he had spoken to reporters about Plame, Libby answered: "I think I did. Let me bring you back to that period. I think I did in that there was a conversation I had with the vice president when all this started coming out and it was this issue as to, you now, who spoke to Novak.

"I told the vice- you know, there was- the president said anybody who knows anything should come forward or something like that... I went to the vice president and said, you know, I was not the person who talked to Novak.

"And he [said] something like, 'I know that.' And I said, you know, 'I learned this from Tim Russert.' And he sort of tilted his head to the side a little bit and then I may have in that conversation said, I talked to other -- I talked to people about it on the weekend," Libby said in apparent reference to his conversations with Cooper and Miller.

Fitzgerald then pressed Libby: "What did you understand from his gesture or reaction in tilting his head?"

Libby responded: "That the Tim Russert part caught his attention. You know, that he- he reacted as if he didn't know about the Tim Russert thing or he was rehearing it, or reconsidering it or something like that... New, new sort of information. Not something he had been thinking about."

Fitzgerald asked: "And did he at any time tell you, 'Well, you didn't learn it from Tim Russert, you learned it from me? Back in June you and I talked about the wife working at the CIA?'"
"No," Libby responded.

"Did he indicate any concern that you had done anything wrong by telling reporters what you had learned?" Fitzgerald asked.

"No," Libby responded.

Later, Fitzgerald asked Libby: "Did you tell the vice president that you had actually spoken to Time magazine and Mr. Cooper and had discussed Wilson's wife's work with Mr. Cooper?

Libby answered: "I think this conversation was about whether -- the leak to Novak. I don't know that I discussed that with the vice president. I did tell him, of course, that we had spoken to the people who he had told us to speak to on the weekend. I think at some point I told him that."

Libby had been frustrated that in recent days that McClellan had made statements saying that Rove had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's identity, but refused to do so for Libby as well. Libby then pressed his case to then-White House chief of staff Andy Card, but to no avail himself until Cheney intervened.

An agitated Cheney wrote in a note to himself: "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." Cheney also scribbled: "Must happen today."

Some time later -- Libby wasn't able to provide the grand jury with the exact date -- he went back to Cheney to tell him that he discovered a note indicating that he had first learned from Cheney, not Russert, that Plame was a CIA officer.

Libby told the grand jury: "In the course of the document production, the FBI sent us a request for documents, or Justice Department, I'm not sure technically. In the course of that document production I came across the note that is dated on or about June 12, and the note... shows that I hadn't first learned it from Russert, although that was my memory, I had first learned it when he said it to me.

"And so I went back to see him and said, you know, I told you something wrong before. It turns out that I have a note that I had heard, heard about this earlier from you and I just -- you know, I didn't want to leave you with the wrong... the wrong statement that I heard about it from Tim Russert. In fact, I had heard about it earlier, but I had forgotten it."
Asked by Fitzgerald what Cheney's reaction was, Libby responded by saying that Cheney hardly had anything at all:

"He didn't say much. You know, he said something about, 'From me?' something like that, and tilted his head, something he does commonly, and that was that."

Get more coverage of pre-war intelligence and the CIA leak investigation.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Victoria Toensing; Rethug Hit-Woman

Does anyone really believe anything Toensing or, her husband, Joe DiGenova, have to say about anything?

My God, the two of them were all for lyching Clinton, for lying about adultery, but, now, believe it is the prosecutor, investigating the outing of a CIA agent, treasonous in the extreme, who should be lynched.

These two are NUTZ!


Shame on the Washington Post, Again
By Robert ParryFebruary 19, 2007

Just days before the perjury/obstruction trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby goes to the jury, the Washington Post’s Outlook section published a bizarre front-page article by right-wing legal expert Victoria Toensing suggesting that the prosecutor and one of the chief victims in the case should be put on trial.

Beyond the absurdity – and dishonesty – of Toensing’s arguments, the Post illustrated the article with fabricated “mug shots” of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an Iraq War critic whose undercover CIA wife, Valerie Plame, was outed by the Bush administration.

In this lead opinion article for Washington’s biggest-circulation newspaper, Toensing, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, cites Fitzgerald, Wilson and several other targets in proposed “indictments,” each of which begins: “This Grand Jury Charges …”
Given the Post’s prominence in the nation’s capital and Toensing’s former position in the Justice Department, the article has the look and feel of an attempt to influence the jury that will be judging whether Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice.

Though the Post’s Outlook editors are sure to argue that the “mug shots” were tongue in cheek, the Post has editorially supported the Iraq War and disparaged American critics, especially Wilson who stepped forward in summer 2003 as one of the first establishment figures to accuse the Bush administration of “twisting” intelligence.
The Post also has bashed Fitzgerald for prosecuting Libby. So, there is a pattern and a motive to the Post’s behavior.

False Claims

Toensing’s article hinges largely on her false claim that Plame was not a covert CIA officer involved with sensitive counter-proliferation operations – and that therefore no real crime was committed when the Bush administration leaked her identity.

To bolster that central lie in the article, Toensing argues that Fitzgerald and the CIA may have described Plame’s status as “classified,” but that the prosecutor “never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status.”

Toensing leaves out, however, that it has been Libby’s defense lawyers who have fought to exclude evidence of Plame’s covert CIA status because they regard the fact as likely to prejudice the jury against their client. Plus, Plame’s covert status has been judged mostly irrelevant to a trial about whether Libby lied to investigators and the grand jury.

So, in muddying up the issue of Plame’s classified identity, Toensing is exploiting the limitations on evidence introduced at the Libby trial – and the unwillingness of the CIA to unnecessarily expose additional secrets relating to Plame’s sensitive assignments.

Toensing also recycles other misleading Republican talking points that have been used for three years to confuse the public and protect the White House. For instance, part of Toensing’s “indictment” of Wilson cites his correct belief that Vice President Dick Cheney instigated the investigation that Wilson undertook to Niger.

Ever since Wilson disclosed in 2003 that he found no evidence to support Cheney’s suspicions that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, the Republicans have made a big deal out of the fact that Cheney didn’t personally ask Wilson to go on the mission; Cheney asked the CIA which recruited Wilson for the task.

Why this minor point of confusion is deemed significant has been one of the curiosities of this sorry affair.

But it is stunning that the Post so values this argument that it would let a partisan writer like Toensing include it in an “indictment” of a citizen who undertook a difficult mission for the CIA, without pay, and reported back correctly that the Niger-Iraq suspicions appeared to be baseless.

Republicans also have condemned Wilson because he believed the substance of his oral report on his mission was conveyed to Cheney’s office. Though Wilson was essentially right – the CIA repeatedly intervened to strike Niger references from White House speeches – the supposed contradiction here was that a formal report on Wilson’s findings was never sent to Cheney.

So, Toensing writes in her “indictment” that “This Grand Jury charges Joseph C. Wilson IV with misleading the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife’s CIA status, perhaps for the purpose of getting book and movie contracts.” [Toensing's reference to "March 2003" appears to be another factual error in her article, since Wilson reported back to the CIA in early 2002.]

To back up her accusations, Toensing cites Wilson’s comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked [about the Niger uranium] and that response was based upon my trip there.”

With a dramatic flourish, Toensing then adds, “But Cheney said he had no knowledge of Wilson’s trip and was never briefed on his oral report to the CIA.”

What Toensing ignores, however, is that Cheney and other White House officials may not have known specifically about Wilson, but they were aware that the CIA had checked out the Niger claims and judged them to be unfounded.

That was why White House speechwriters had to sneak around the CIA’s negative findings and attribute the Niger claims to the British government in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address. But none of that detail finds its way into Toensing’s “indictment.”

Nailing Fitzgerald

In her “indictment” of Fitzgerald, Toensing accuses him of making “one factual assertion that turned out to be flat wrong: Libby was not ‘the first official’ to reveal Plame’s identity.” But, again, Toensing is playing games with a quote.

At his Oct. 28, 2005, news conference, Fitzgerald actually said: “Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.”

In October 2005, Fitzgerald’s comment was accurate. Libby was “the first official known” to have divulged Plame’s identity.

Only later did Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward reveal that he had heard about Plame earlier from deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. By editing out the full context of the quote, however, Toensing succeeds in maligning Fitzgerald’s honesty.

On and on Toensing goes, making one phony argument after another as she “indicts” pretty much everyone who played any role in advancing the case, from Fitzgerald to Wilson to the CIA to “the media” to the Justice Department. She does throw in two ex-administration officials, former press secretary Ari Fleischer and Armitage.

But Toensing leaves out of her “indictments” the principals who were responsible for misusing the Niger intelligence to scare the American people into supporting the Iraq War and who then organized the anti-Wilson smears that ended up exposing his wife’s clandestine work for the CIA.

Cheney, for instance, isn’t in line for a Toensing “indictment” although he was the sparkplug behind the outing of a CIA officer. Nor does George W. Bush merit an “indictment” although he issued misleading statements about the Plame leak that could have been interpreted as encouraging a cover-up.Before Fitzgerald was appointed as special prosecutor – and when it looked like the scandal could be contained – Bush disingenuously urged his staff to cooperate.

“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. “I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true.”

Yet, even as Bush was professing his curiosity and calling for anyone with information to step forward, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized the declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to arrange for those secrets to be given to friendly reporters.

In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started – since he was involved in starting it – he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House hand and possibly signal to others that they should follow suit in denying knowledge.

Toensing also spares White House political adviser Karl Rove from an “indictment” although he was another senior administration official peddling Plame’s identity to the press. One well-placed conservative source told me that Rove was a close behind-the-scenes associate of Armitage, and thus may have had a hand in coordinating Armitage’s role in the leaks. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “New Clues in the Plame Mystery.”]

The Post’s Role

Yet, while it may be understandable why a right-wing operative like Toensing would recycle these smears against Wilson and Fitzgerald at this time, what is more shocking is that the Washington Post would give her such prominence – as 12 Washington residents are about to be asked to weigh the evidence on Libby impartially.

By presenting these pro-Libby arguments in such a high-profile manner, including fabricated “mug shots” of prosecutor Fitzgerald, the Post could be seen as joining in a last-ditch bid for jury nullification to spare Libby from conviction.

While the Post’s behavior may be surprising to some, it actually fits with a long campaign by Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt to undermine Fitzgerald’s investigation and tear down Wilson. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com’s “Shame on the Post’s Editorial Page” or “Smearing Joe Wilson Again.”]

Yet, regardless of the Post’s editorial biases, there’s no justification for a newspaper publishing information that it knows to be false or intentionally misleading, even if the deceptions are in its opinion section.

Back in the late 1980s, I co-wrote a lead article for the Post’s Outlook section and the piece underwent intensive review for fairness and accuracy. So the argument doesn’t hold that the Post sees no problem in publishing reckless charges in the Outlook section just because it can be passed off as opinion.

Indeed, the Post editors never would have countenanced a similar “indictment” article that actually made sense – one that presented the criminal case against Bush, Cheney, Rove and, say, Fred Hiatt for participating in a conspiracy that involved exposing a covert CIA officer and then trying to cover up the disgraceful action.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Fitzgerald Rests Strong Prosecution

David Corn
Thu Feb 8, 4:13 PM ET

The Nation

It was Hail Mary time for Ted Wells, an attorney for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as the prosecution moved toward resting its case in the perjury trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

On Thursday, Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert was back on the stand to be cross-examined by Wells. The previous day, Russert had kicked Libby's cover story in the groin. He had disputed Libby's claim that in the days before the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer he (Libby) had learned about her CIA connection not from official sources but from Russert. No way, the newsman said. The Russert call is critical for Libby, who has maintained he never shared official (that is, classified) information about Valerie Wilson with other reporters and only passed along gossip he had picked up from Russert. But on the stand Russert stuck to his version: he didn't say anything to Libby about Wilson's wife during a phone call on July 10 or 11, 2003, because he knew nothing about Wilson's wife until the leak appeared in a July 14 Robert Novak column.

So what was Wells to do?

He started off Wednesday by taking shots at Russert's memory. He made little progress. On Thursday, he tried to undermine Russert's credibility on other fronts. Wells attempted to make an issue of the fact that until Russert appeared as a witness in this trial he had never divulged publicly that he had talked to the FBI about the CIA leak investigation in November 2003. Wasn't Russert's call with the FBI a "newsworthy event?" Wells inquired, hinting that Russert had for years hid part of his involvement in the CIA leak case.

Russert explained that he had not reported the conversation because the FBI agent had asked him to keep it confidential.

Wells then tossed far-fetched theories at the jury.

On the stand, Russert had said that none of his NBC colleagues had told him anything about Wilson's wife. What about David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell? Wells asked. None meant none, Russert noted. But Wells still was holding out the possibility that Gregory received leaked information on Wilson's wife from then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and then quickly relayed it to Russert, who shared it with Libby.

It's a thin theory--especially because neither Russert nor Gregory reported any news about Wilson's wife at the time. And the timing of real-world events may undermine the theory. But Wells keeps hammering at this possibility.

To buttress this part of his case, Wells tried to play for the jurors a video clip of Andrea Mitchell saying on CNBC in early October 2003 that she had known about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment prior to the Novak leak. But Mitchell, in two later interviews on Don Imus's radio show (which also aired on MSNBC), said she had misspoken and she retracted the comment.

Wells suggested that Russert and Mitchell had conspired to undo Mitchell's remark so Russert's statements related to the leak case would not be undermined. He asked permission to show all these tapes to the jury. "This is nitpicky at best," Judge Reggie Walton complained. He ruled the tapes could not be played.

Next Wells took another shot at Russert's credibility. He pointed out that during Russert's appearance the previous day he had testified that Libby used the words "hell" and "damn" when he had called Russert in July 2003 to complain about Hardball host Chris Matthews' on-air criticisms of Cheney and Libby. Yet, Wells said, when Russert gave a deposition to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in August 2004 about this conversation with Libby he had not referred to these curse words--as if Russert had somehow suspiciously changed his account.

Russert explained that during his deposition he had said that Libby had been "venting" and that word covered the cursing.

Such small stuff did not seem to impress the jurors; many appeared to be unriveted by Wells' questioning of Russert. Finally, Wells played his last card. Was there, he dramatically asked the witness, "bad blood" between Russert (and all of NBC News) and Libby? "No, sir," Russert replied in the quiet tone he had used throughout his testimony. But Wells had evidence to suggest otherwise.

It was another Imus clip. On the morning of October 28, 2005, hours before Fitzgerald was to announce indictments in the CIA leak case, Russert was on the show (via telephone) telling Imus about the mood of anticipation within the Washington press corps and his own NBC News bureau: "It was like Christmas Eve last night. Santa Claus is coming tomorrow. Surprises. What's under the tree?"

Citing this comment, Wells contended that Russert was "elated" that Libby was about to be indicted. No, Russert said, he was referring to the fact that a "big news day" was coming and that no one knew for sure what Fitzgerald would announce. Was Russert equating an indictment of Libby with Christmas "presents under the tree?" Wells asked. No, the television host said. "You looked very happy" in the Imus clip, Wells countered. That was a "still picture," Russert noted.

The cross examination was over

One more swing and a miss for Wells. In the first three weeks of the case, Wells and co-counsel Bill Jeffrey have suggested there have been a Variety Pak of plots against their client: a CIA conspiracy against Libby, a State Department conspiracy against Libby, a White House conspiracy against Libby, and, now, an NBC News conspiracy against Libby. But they have introduced no evidence to back up any of this.

Wells' attempt to transform Russert's Christmas comment into proof that Russert and NBC News were bent on ruining Libby was typical. It was silly. But Wells is merely acting as a defense attorney should. Pull on any thread you can. Raise any matter that might sow confusion or doubt among the jurors. Nevertheless, he failed to undercut Russert, Fitzgerald's final witness.

The prosecution ended strongly. Fitzgerald has presented a parade of witnesses who have contradicted Libby on the key points: what he had known about Valerie Wilson and what he had told journalists. The defense is expected to call its first witnesses on Monday. The lineup will probably include several reporters who spoke to Libby before the CIA leak happened and who will testify that he said nothing to them about Valerie Wilson's wife. But Wells might need more than that--and more than word games and hints of plots--to beat back Fitzgerald.


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. "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."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Libby Testimony Tapes Released

For audio and transcripts
NPR.org,

February 8, 2007 · A jury in Washington, D.C., has spent the week listening to audio recordings of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's testimony before a grand jury in March 2004.

These recordings – in which Libby allegedly lies under oath – are at the heart of the prosecutor's case against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of obstructing a federal investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity by lying to a grand jury and FBI agents. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a prominent critic of the White House's justification for war with Iraq.
The judge in the Libby case took the unusual step of releasing the audio recordings of Libby's eight hours before the grand jury. These recordings are now available publicly. Here are some of the highlights:

On Conversations with NBC News' Tim Russert

This section of Libby's grand jury testimony appeared in the indictment charging Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby recounts a phone call he had with NBC journalist Tim Russert. Libby says that during this call, Russert told Libby that Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Russert has testified "that would be impossible, because I didn't know who [Valerie Plame] was until several days later."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Russert is Grilled By Libby Attorney, Wells

They must be desperate to take off on Timmeh, since he has been one of the MSM's most reliable softball throwers

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

NBC's Tim Russert deflected criticism of his ethics and credibility as he completed a heated second day of cross-examination Thursday in the trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter Libby.

Russert, who testified that he never discussed outed CIA operative Valerie Plame with Libby, was the final prosecution witness before Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rested his three-week perjury and obstruction case. Libby's attorneys will begin calling witnesses Monday.

The journalist was subjected to the kind of interrogation he usually gives guests on his Sunday television show "Meet the Press," as attorneys flashed excerpts of his previous statements on a video monitor and asked him to explain inconsistencies.

A law school graduate, Russert avoided several traps defense attorneys laid before him. He seemed uncomfortable at times, however, as they asked him to explain why he willingly told an FBI agent about a July 2003 conversation with Libby, then gave a sworn statement saying he would not testify about that conversation because it was confidential.

"Did you disclose in the affidavit to the court that you had already disclosed the contents of your conversation with Mr. Libby," asked Theodore Wells, one of Libby's attorneys.

"As I've said, sir ... "Russert began.

"It's a yes or no question," Wells interrupted.

"I'd like to answer it to the best of my ability," Russert said.

"This is a very simple question. Either it's in the affidavit or it's not?" Wells asked. "Did you disclose to the court that you had already communicated to the FBI the fact that you had communicated with Mr. Libby?"

"No," Russert said.

Wells wants to cast Russert as someone who cannot be believed, who publicly championed the sanctity of off-the-record conversations but privately revealed that information to investigators.

Russert said he viewed the FBI conversation and testimony to prosecutors differently.
Russert's credibility is under fire because he and Libby tell very different stories about a July 2003 phone call that is at the heart of the case. The question of which to believe could be a critical jury room issue.

Both men agree that Libby called Russert to complain about a colleague's news coverage. Libby says at the end of the call, Russert told him "all the reporters know" that Plame, the wife of a prominent war critic, worked for the CIA. Russert testified that part of the conversation never occurred.

"That would be impossible," Russert testified Wednesday. "I didn't know who that person was until several days later."

Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing classified information from government sources.

Libby's attorneys say Russert knew about Plame from colleagues David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell said in an interview that she and other reporters knew Plame worked for the CIA but she later recanted that statement. Wells had hoped to play clips of Mitchell discussing her statements on the Don Imus morning show on MSNBC.

Fitzgerald successfully argued that the tapes not be played.

"We might as well take 'Wigmore on Evidence' and replace it with 'Imus on Evidence,'" Fitzgerald said, referencing the classic treatise on evidentiary law. "There's no Imus exception to the hearsay rule. This has no business in a federal court."

Wells has questioned Russert about other phone conversations he couldn't remember, inconsistencies between his current account and FBI notes of an agent's original interview with him, and the likelihood that he would've let such a high-ranking official off the phone without fishing for some news.

Suggesting that Russert was eager to see Libby face charges, Wells played a video of Russert discussing the impending indictment with Imus. Russert sounded giddy at times in the discussion, laughing and describing the anticipation as "like Christmas Eve."

Russert said he was eager for the story to unfold like any big event.

"Did you take joy in Mr. Libby's indictment?" Fitzgerald asked during follow-up questioning.
"No, not at all," Russert said. "And I don't take joy in being here."

Libby's attorneys also will try to undercut the credibility of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who testified that Libby revealed Plame's identity to her. Defense attorney William Jeffress said he intends to call Miller's former boss, Times managing editor Jill Abramson, to try to refute Miller and question her credibility.

Associated Press writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Oh, fer chissake, of course Libby lied; he isn't the only one.

Monday 05 February 2007

As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald gets ready to wrap up the government's perjury and obstruction of justice case against former vice presidential staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, he is fighting to introduce two "powerful" pieces of evidence he says will help convince the jury that Libby deliberately lied to federal investigators about how and when he discovered the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and whether he leaked the information to reporters.

(Of course he lied. They all did.)

Fitzgerald wants the jury to see two articles from the Washington Post, dated October 4 and 12, 2003, that his investigators obtained from Libby's personal files. The articles in question, written by Washington Post reporters Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, are damaging to Libby's defense, Fitzgerald said, because they contain specific passages that Libby had underlined concerning the harm caused by Plame's identity becoming public and the possibility that whoever was responsible for the leak may have violated a federal law.

Fitzgerald has argued that the articles with the underlined passages prove Libby feared he was responsible for the damage to national security the leak caused and therefore concocted a story about learning Plame's identity and work with the CIA from Tim Russert, host of "Meet the Press," in order to save his job.

( So, when you have damaged national security, ruined the career of a non-prpliferation expert, destroyed the front company associated with her and put the lives and well-being of foreign assets in danger, what do you do? Lie like a freakin' rug, and send your pundits out to say that the whole investigation is a boondoggle, a conspiraccy to get the administration.!)

Plame's name was revealed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003 - eight days after her husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify war with Iraq.

(Novak ought to be in the Dock for treason, as he was told that revealing her name could cause a lot of damage, and he did it anyway.)

It was only during the preparation of his first interview with FBI agent Deborah Bond on October 14, 2003, that Libby found the articles and other documents in his personal files that indicated he was actually told Plame's name and her employment status with the CIA by Cheney - far earlier than the July 2003 time-frame Libby maintains he first learned about her from Russert. Libby's defense is that he was wrapped up with more pressing issues, such as the war in Iraq and national security, and innocently forgot that Cheney had told him about Plame on numerous occasions in June and July 2003.

(Yeah, right. He forgot. If anyone really believes that, there is a bridge in Brooklyn.....)

But Fitzgerald said the articles in question established a motive for Libby to lie to Bond because the substance of the news reports was damning.

Libby's attorneys say the articles will prejudice the jury, and they have filed a motion seeking to block Fitzgerald from introducing them into evidence. The defense argues that the articles contain numerous references to Plame's "clandestine" status, and if introduced into evidence they will lead the jury to believe that Libby is guilty of leaking classified information, a charge Libby is not under indictment for. But Fitzgerald said the articles are relevant to his case in order to establish what Libby's state of mind was when he testified, not to establish the "truth" about whether or not Plame worked in a covert capacity.

"This is a trick, your honor," said defense attorney William Jeffress during a hearing on the issue Thursday, according to a copy of the court transcript. "Let's take the October 4 [2003] article. 'The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure ...' blah, blah, blah. Your honor, that would be so prejudicial to the defense, I don't think we would ever be able to recover. You have the same thing with the [October 12, 2003] article. Again, talks about how she was 'clandestine' blah, blah, blah. I mean, this is a trick, your honor. These articles cannot possibly go into evidence to the jury. No instruction to just not consider them for their truth could possibly overcome the prejudice."

Fitzgerald took issue with Jeffress's characterization, telling Judge Walton, "It's not a trick to offer evidence that goes right to the heart of the issue: Mr. Libby's state of mind."

(Which would be guilty, as un-charged)

"[There is] an article [Libby] printed on October 4 [2003], ten days before his FBI interview, that is in his file, indicating that there could be damage" that resulted from the Plame leak, Fitzgerald told Walton. "And I just think it's a trick to stand up there and say there is no motive to lie because all the evidence that shows he had a motive to lie comes from his own file. The jury is entitled to know what was in [Libby's] head and this was in his head and in his file. It's direct proof as what he had in mind when he made up a story that says, you know what, I forgot everything that came from the vice president."

"I think in opening [Libby attorney Theodore] Wells said it is stupid for the government to claim [Libby] would put this on Mr. Russert," Fitzgerald added. "But it's not stupid if what you are looking at is a fear that you may have, whether he did it deliberately or screwed up, but your fear that you may be involved in something that is a big mess in terms of law, in terms of politics, and in terms of getting yourself fired."

(He would not have been fired had he not been indicted. He was carrying out a vendetta under orders from his bosses, Bush and Cheney.)

If the articles were submitted into evidence, they would back up testimony Bond gave Thursday about her interviews with Libby in October and November 2003. Judge Walton is expected to issue a ruling sometime Monday on whether the articles are admissible.

Bond testified that the story Libby told about learning Plame's CIA status first from Russert and then later discovering through his own handwritten notes that it was Cheney who actually told him about Plame wasn't believable from the outset.

(Well, of course not. Especially, since Libby sought information on Plame/Wilson much earlier than his converstaion with Russert, whhich Russert claims did not touch on Plame/Wilson)

Bond testified that Libby told her he received a call from Cheney on either June 10 or 11, 2003, "alerting him that Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus intended to write an article for the paper scheduled to be published on June 12, 2003," about Wilson's claims that the White House manipulated pre-war Iraq intelligence.

(Which, of course, they did.)

"Mr. Libby told us the conversation with the vice president was in regard to an upcoming article being written ... for the newspaper for June 12, [2003]," Bond said during testimony Thursday. "Mr. Libby told us that during the telephone conversation with the vice president, that the vice president told him that the former ambassador's wife worked in the C.P. division of the CIA. Mr. Libby explained that the C.P. stood for counter-proliferation."

(Which should have been a huge red flag, alerting anyone with a grain of sense, that she might be under-cover.)

Libby told Bond that he forgot about the conversation he had with Cheney in June 2003, and that when Russert told him about Plame a few weeks later, it was as if he had heard the information about her for the first time.

(What the hell are they smoking in the White House? Are they drinking themselves into blackouts?)

Bond said Libby explained to her and other agents who were present at the interview how he suddenly triggered his memory.

"It was not until early October 2003 when he was searching through his documents for this investigation that he realized that he had actually learned about the former ambassador's wife working at the CIA [from Cheney] in June 2003."

(In other words, when Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself?)

She added that Libby also told her in a second interview on November 26, 2003, that while aboard Air Force II a week or so before Novak unmasked Plame's identity in his column, Libby and Cheney discussed telling the media that Plame worked for the CIA and was married to Wilson.

"Mr. Libby said that he went to the vice president's cabin and ... there was some discussion of whether or not they should report to the press that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked at the CIA," Bond said.

Jason Leopold is a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire. He has written over 2,000 stories on the California energy crisis and received the Dow Jones Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his coverage on the issue as well as a Project Censored award in 2004. Leopold also reported extensively on Enron's downfall and was the first journalist to land an interview with former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling following Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001. Leopold has appeared on CNBC and National Public Radio as an expert on energy policy and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two dozen energy industry conferences around the country.


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Vice Crack-up (Writing with Frank Rich)

In the days since Dick Cheney lost it on CNN, our nation’s armchair shrinks have had a blast.

(Real Shrinks, as well, Frank)

The vice president who boasted of “enormous successes” in Iraq and barked “hogwash” at the congenitally mild Wolf Blitzer has been roundly judged delusional, pathologically dishonest or just plain nuts. But what else is new? We identified those diagnoses long ago.

(Indeed we have, but no one seems to listen. The easiest solution would be to wait for a cabinet meeting, then throw a net over the White House and make it an annex to St Elizabeth's Hospital for the criminally insane)

The more intriguing question is what ignited this particularly violent public flare-up.

The answer can be found in the timing of the CNN interview, which was conducted the day after the start of the perjury trial of Mr. Cheney’s former top aide, Scooter Libby. The vice president’s on-camera crackup reflected his understandable fear that a White House cover-up was crumbling. He knew that sworn testimony in a Washington courtroom would reveal still more sordid details about how the administration lied to take the country into war in Iraq.

(Nothing new there! We have known that Intel. was cooked, stove-piped, exaggerated, etc. for years now. The Libby trail is only a reminder. The only real difference is that people are finally being put under oath in a public trial.)

He knew that those revelations could cripple the White House’s current campaign to escalate that war and foment apocalyptic scenarios about Iran. Scariest of all, he knew that he might yet have to testify under oath himself.

(Wait a minute! Is he not already on the witness list? What's this "might" business??

Mr. Cheney, in other words, understands the danger this trial poses to the White House even as some of Washington remains oblivious. From the start, the capital has belittled the Joseph and Valerie Wilson affair as “a tempest in a teapot,” as David Broder of The Washington Post reiterated just five months ago.

When “all of the facts come out in this case, it’s going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great,” Bob Woodward said in 2005. Or, as Robert Novak suggested in 2003 before he revealed Ms. Wilson’s identity as a C.I.A. officer in his column, “weapons of mass destruction or uranium from Niger” are “little elitist issues that don’t bother most of the people.” Those issues may not trouble Mr. Novak, but they do loom large to other people, especially those who sent their kids off to war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent uranium.

(Thus losing what credibility they had left. Of course, Novak and Woodward were in the middle of the whole disgusting mess. Does anyone, among the D.C. elite have any credibility left, at all?

In terms of the big issues, the question of who first leaked Ms. Wilson’s identity (whether Mr. Libby, Richard Armitage, Ari Fleischer or Karl Rove) to which journalist (whether Mr. Woodward, Mr. Novak, Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) has always been a red herring.

(Not to Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, the CIA front company, which was destroyed, or to CIA assets in foreign countries, who may have been imprisoned, tortured or killed because of the leak. Let's not forget what Mrs Wilson did at the CIA. She was an expert in, of all things, non-proliferation of WMD, especially of the nuclear variety, in places like Iraq and Iran. Could be that she was as much of a target as her husband if not more so.)

It’s entirely possible that the White House has always been telling the truth when it says that no one intended to unmask a secret agent. (No one has been charged with that crime.)

(Does the term "non-proliferation" mean nothing to these people? No one can convince me that when that term was known by simply everyone, as applying to Mrs. Wilson, it never occurred to seasoned D.C. operatives that she might be undercover, either official or non-official)

The White House is also telling the truth when it repeatedly says that Mr. Cheney did not send Mr. Wilson on his C.I.A.-sponsored African trip to check out a supposed Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. (Another red herring, since Mr. Wilson didn’t make that accusation in the first place.)

(It is true that Vice did not call Joe Wilson into his office and, personally, request that he go to Africa. Nevertheless, the CIA was being pressured non-stop to come up with evidence that would support crudely forged documents which did claim that Saddam had sough to buy, or did buy yellow-cake from Niger. They were being pressured by Vice and his little vice, Libby.)

But if the administration is telling the truth on these narrow questions and had little to hide about the Wilson trip per se, its wild overreaction to the episode was an incriminating sign it was hiding something else.

According to testimony in the Libby case, the White House went berserk when Mr. Wilson published his Op-Ed article in The Times in July 2003 about what he didn’t find in Africa. Top officials gossiped incessantly about both Wilsons to anyone who would listen, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby conferred about them several times a day, and finally Mr. Libby, known as an exceptionally discreet White House courtier, became so sloppy that his alleged lying landed him with five felony counts.

The explanation for the hysteria has long been obvious.

(We submit that the whole explanation is still not obvious to a vast majority of Americans. Who forged the Niger Documents and Why?)

The White House was terrified about being found guilty of a far greater crime than outing a C.I.A. officer: lying to the nation to hype its case for war. When Mr. Wilson, an obscure retired diplomat, touched that raw nerve, all the president’s men panicked because they knew Mr. Wilson’s modest finding in Africa was the tip of a far larger iceberg. They knew that there was still far more damning evidence of the administration’s W.M.D. lies lurking in the bowels of the bureaucracy.

Thanks to the commotion caused by the leak case, that damning evidence has slowly dribbled out. By my count we now know of at least a half-dozen instances before the start of the Iraq war when various intelligence agencies and others signaled that evidence of Iraq’s purchase of uranium in Africa might be dubious or fabricated. (These are detailed in the timelines at http://frankrich.com/timeline.htm.)

The culmination of these warnings arrived in January 2003, the same month as the president’s State of the Union address, when the White House received a memo from the National Intelligence Council, the coordinating body for all American spy agencies, stating unequivocally that the claim was baseless.

Nonetheless President Bush brandished that fearful “uranium from Africa” in his speech to Congress as he hustled the country into war in Iraq.

If the war had been a cakewalk, few would have cared to investigate the administration’s deceit at its inception. But by the time Mr. Wilson’s Op-Ed article appeared — some five months after the State of the Union and two months after “Mission Accomplished” — there was something terribly wrong with the White House’s triumphal picture.

More than 60 American troops had been killed since Mr. Bush celebrated the end of “major combat operations” by prancing about an aircraft carrier. No W.M.D. had been found, and we weren’t even able to turn on the lights in Baghdad. For the first time, more than half of Americans told a Washington Post-ABC News poll that the level of casualties was “unacceptable.” It was urgent, therefore, that the awkward questions raised by Mr. Wilson’s revelation of his Africa trip be squelched as quickly as possible. He had to be smeared as an inconsequential has-been whose mission was merely a trivial boondoggle arranged by his wife.

The C.I.A., which had actually resisted the uranium fictions, had to be strong-armed into taking the blame for the 16 errant words in the State of the Union speech. What we are learning from Mr. Libby’s trial is just what a herculean effort it took to execute this two-pronged cover-up after Mr. Wilson’s article appeared. Mr. Cheney was the hands-on manager of the 24/7 campaign of press manipulation and high-stakes character assassination, with Mr. Libby as his chief hatchet man.

(...and why not? Didn't Cheney head up the Iraq Study Group, the first one, which was more of a P.R. group than a real "study group," with the express purpose of selling the war on Iraq to the American people?)

Though Mr. Libby’s lawyers are now arguing that their client was a sacrificial lamb thrown to the feds to shield Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby actually was — and still is — a stooge for the vice president.

Whether he will go to jail for his misplaced loyalty is the human drama of his trial.

But for the country there are bigger issues at stake, and they are not, as the White House would have us believe, ancient history.

The administration propaganda flimflams that sold us the war are now being retrofitted to expand and extend it.

In a replay of the run-up to the original invasion, a new National Intelligence Estimate, requested by Congress in August to summarize all intelligence assessments on Iraq, was mysteriously delayed until last week, well after the president had set his surge.Even the declassified passages released on Friday — the grim takes on the weak Iraqi security forces and the spiraling sectarian violence — foretell that the latest plan for victory is doomed. (As a White House communications aide testified at the Libby trial, this administration habitually releases bad news on Fridays because “fewer people pay attention when it’s reported on Saturday.”)

A Pentagon inspector general’s report, uncovered by Business Week last week, was also kept on the q.t.: it shows that even as more American troops are being thrown into the grinder in Iraq, existing troops lack the guns and ammunition to “effectively complete their missions.” Army and Marine Corps commanders told The Washington Post that both armor and trucks were in such short supply that their best hope is that “five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky.”

( We wouldn't blame any military personnel who took off to places, unknown, to avoid the Iraq debacle, as well as to avoid obeying anymore illegal orders, a war crime.)

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of Colin Powell’s notorious W.M.D. pantomime before the United Nations Security Council, a fair amount of it a Cheney-Libby production. To mark this milestone, the White House is reviving the same script to rev up the war’s escalation, this time hyping Iran-Iraq connections instead of Al Qaeda-Iraq connections.

(What they are planning for Iraq may be an escalation, but the mention of Iran portends and even worse catastrophe; EXPANSION.)

In his Jan. 10 prime-time speech on Iraq, Mr. Bush said that Iran was supplying “advanced weaponry and training to our enemies,” even though the evidence suggests that Iran is actually in bed with our “friends” in Iraq, the Maliki government.

The administration promised a dossier to back up its claims, but that too has been delayed twice amid reports of what The Times calls “a continuing debate about how well the information proved the Bush administration’s case.”

Call it a coincidence — though there are no coincidences — but it’s only fitting that the Libby trial began as news arrived of the death of E. Howard Hunt, the former C.I.A. agent whose bungling of the Watergate break-in sent him to jail and led to the unraveling of the Nixon presidency two years later.

(Now that you mention it, we never did get a good answer as to why Nixon's men broke into the DNC in the first place. That may be ancient history, or it may be very revealing and pertinent, even at this late date.)

Still, we can’t push the parallels too far. No one died in Watergate. This time around our country can’t wait two more years for the White House to be stopped from playing its games with American blood.

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.