Feb 07 2007

Fitz’s Folly VIII

Published by at 5:36 pm under All General Discussions,Plame Game

The most interesting thing to come out of Russert’s testimony today was when he was hammered at the end of the day regarding his claims of journalistic privilege when fighting Fitzgerald’s subpoenas. The reality of the fact was he had testified under oath to FBI agents already, and failed to mention this. But so did Fitzgerald! I have said before Fitzgerald is on extremely thin ice because he misled the courts (appellate and supreme) on his knowledge of certain facts. He knew day one Armitage had admitted to being the one who leaked to Novak. He knew day one Libby had not. But here again we see him compelling reporters to testify at a grand jury when all he had to do was ask Russert to testify on what he told the FBI. Why didn’t Fitz do this? Why didn’t Russert note he testified and all Fitz needed was in that testimony? Fitz truly was on a blind fishing expedition.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Fitz’s Folly VIII”

  1. Carol_Herman says:

    There’s lots of media at the court house. Today, even brought out a who’s who list.

    Yet, I read, when Cooper came in on his second day of testimony, he had time to grab a bite at the cafeteria AND NO ONE FROM THE PRESS ACKNOWLEDGED HIM IN ANY WAY.

    Dan Rather’s table, where he was sitting alone, seems will pick up some traffic?

    Russert BOMBED. Wells crossed him so well, that not only did Russert (who IS a lawyer), end up admitting he LIED on filings with this court. He’s also placed his own attorney at risk for having taken these lies and pressed them into this judge’s hands.

    The argument about Andrea Mitchell (that Fitz attempted, also bit the dust.)

    And, the ruling on the jurors being given an exhibit between Russert’s attorney and Fitz? SHOWN.

    T’marra? There’s some bench-pressing to see if Jill Ambramson comes in tomorrow. (And, for some reason I think she’s Wells’ first witness?)

    What a wonderful day. Wells seems to know how to send the jurors home with the BEST DEFENSE LIBBY can get.

  2. Soothsayer says:

    Prosecutor’s Rag
    dedicated to AJ Strata

    Flog, flog, flog that dead old horse,
    Libby never did nothin’ wrong, of course
    Prosecutions’s persecutin’ him,
    Chances of conviction lookin’ dim . . .

    Meanwhile, in the real world, at the trial of I. Lewis Libby today, the most interesting thing to come out was :

    Tim Russert’s testimony he never told Libby about CIA agent Valerie Plame. Despite Libby’s assertion that Russert told him that the wife of former ambassador and Bush critic Joe Wilson, worked at the CIA, Russert “rebutted that totally.”

    Russert testified “that Valerie Plame Wilson never came up, there was no mention [Wilson’s] wife worked for the CIA. He never told Scooter Libby anything about that, that the entire subject was never broached in that conversation.”

    In the course of trying to punch holes in Russert’s memory as they’d done with other witnesses in the case, one of Libby’s attorneys asked Russert that since he’s known as a journalist,

    “Why in the course of that conversation didn’t you ask him one question about Wilson’s wife?”

    Russert replied he was in “listening mode” since Libby, the former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, “was calling to complain about coverage of this case on another NBC program.”

  3. lurker9876 says:

    Wells is successful in poking holes in Russert’s testimony. Russert bombed.

  4. smh10 says:


    That was a decent summation. I must say that since your little “conversation” with Clarice at JOM your posts are far more entertaining and information filled. Thanks for helping us stay updated.

    Here’s to a great day for Libby tomorrow..Wells is fantastic!

  5. Bill in AZ says:

    My take was that Russert did NOT talk to FBI under oath – worse, he blathered freely with someone on the phone who claimed to be Eckenrode from the FBI (remember me from church?) about his conversation with Libby – right after Eckenrode had interviewed Libby.

  6. sbd says:

    Why are we having this trial to begin with, I thought that lying to a Grand Jury was no longer illegal since President Clinton’s Grand Jury testimony?


  7. MerlinOS2 says:

    I really haven’t been following this case that closely, since it is going to follow the playbook of the beltway.

    It has all the ingredients of the beltway soup line.

    The State Department with leakers and ex member creeps. Condi has to feel like she is herding a bunch of cats and other pussies.

    The CIA which is playing turfball with the DIA and showing their nutroots origin before Kos was a gleam in someone’s eye. The vocal vets of that esteemed group including the VIPS.

    We have Fenton Communications in the middle playing pivot man calling the signals.

    We have the members of the press testifying and looking like members of the press.

    I’m still waiting for Jamil to be called.

    We have Libby stuck in the dock as the lone sacrificial anode the BDS inspired crowd which is like a school of shrimp being chummed by their man Fritz.

    Fritz gave a presser his case is not living up to.

    In my view this offense he has put forward strikes me as so effective that this guy is falling into a truck load of titties and coming up sucking his thumb.

    The only thing in play here is a DC jury.

    That’s like asking David Duke to get a fair hearing in front of a group select from the DNC and the Congressional Black Caucasus.

    You have a retired member of the MSM on the jury. How did this person survive to make the jury pool??????

    You have the trial judge asking Russert if he lied on his affidavit. How often does that happen? And this is Fritz star witness!

    Even Watson seems to be wondering who really should have been charged. If anybody.

    Were walking the legal yellow brick road and seeing so many beggars along the side as we take our tour.

    I will continue to watch, not out of interest, but just curiosity like watching a girl cat fight in middle school to see how much of a wardrobe malfunction might result.

  8. Soothsayer says:

    Ah, Merlin, such a great read early in the morning:

    I really haven’t been following this case that closely

    So, in spite of the fact you haven’t been following the case, you are able to parrot the Faux News talking points so well, while ignoring the fact that Fitzgerald has put together a masterfully concise case, presented it in near-record time, and the defense is is such disarray they don’t even know who they are going to put on the stand.

  9. Retired Spook says:

    In my view this offense he has put forward strikes me as so effective that this guy is falling into a truck load of titties and coming up sucking his thumb.

    LMAO, Merlin.

    Sooth, it sounds like you and Merlin are following two different cases. Even the mainstream print and TV media are not making it sound like Fitz “has put together a mastgerfully concice case”, at least not the ones that I’ve seen and read. But I too have to confess, that, as much as the case intrigued me from the start, I haven’t had the time to follow it as closely as I had wanted to. Unfortunately, even though I’m retired from the spook world, I still work for a living.

    BTW, what exactly was our dinner bet again — that Libby would be convicted or exonerated, or something else?

  10. Soothsayer says:


    Libby convicted – you pay.

    Libby found not guilty – I pay.

    Mistrial – a push.

    That work for you?

    On the issue of Fitzgerald’s case, the commentary I’ve seen from attorneys is they were impressed with the focus on the nub of the case: lying to Feds and the Grand Jury; the fact that every prosecution witness said Libby told them, they did not tell him; and then the recapitulation with the jurors hearing Libby’s own voice claiming that although he admitted he had learned of Plame’s identity from his boss, Dick Cheney, he had FORGOTTEN totally that was the case, and instead learned from Tim Russert, who tesitified that they never discussed Plame, and that he didn’t learn of her identify until after the conversation with Libby.

    If the jury believes Libby forgot his meeting with Cheney, Scooter skates and I buy the ribs.

  11. dennisa says:

    I think if guilt or innocence was determined by the news media, there would be no trial. Libby would have been found guilty already. Along with several other people. The news media’s function is to compete for public attention – not to provide us with any useful information.

  12. MerlinOS2 says:


    Glad I was able to lighten up your day.


    You took the lead in of my post to wedge your talking points. Now address the rest of my post if you can.

    As to your first post earlier in the thread, wash your hands before you eat, stirring around in the septic tank to look for the diamonds does not promote good health.

  13. MerlinOS2 says:


    I did baby back ribs on the grill last night.

    Sorry for all of the readers here stuck in the stuck in the great white north of freezer city.

    Hey it was in the 70’s here yesterday so that’s why I did it.

    Sue me, but my son liked and enjoyed the ribs, also so did I.

  14. MerlinOS2 says:


    If you ever get a chance to come down my way I have this place I know that has killer prime rib.

    I won’t even ask you to make a bet, I will foot the bill without a question because they make it so good.

    If you are with a significant other it is also a bang up seafood place if they are not into the real side of eating.

  15. ivehadit says:

    Did anyone here read Cashill’s article about the clinton holdovers,
    Swartz, Sklamberg, Fine and Dion who worked on the BERGER case (slap on the wrist) AND the Libby case? It’s VERY interesting.


    And I still love macsmind.com’s comment on this trial:

    snip”The fact of the matter as we all know is that Valerie Plame along with her cohorts in the agency to embarrass the administration by exposing a forgery that they in fact had a hand in performing. The motive? Yes, to stop the push into Iraq, but more insidious it was also to hide an elaborate yellow cake proliferation operation that had been ongoing since the early 90s.

    It might have all slid under the radar if Joe Wilson’s ego and big mouth hadn’t met up with “help” to get his tale published. It was THAT article which triggered the expected push back of the Administration and rightly so. Wilson was telling lies and any administration would have gone after that with everything they had.

    This case isn’t such much a travesty – as it is for Libby – as it is a dangerous precedent for future detection of illegal activity within the bowels of the agency. This is what they do when they get their hands caught in the cookie jar – they are masters at it.”

  16. Retired Spook says:


    Libby convicted – you pay.

    Libby found not guilty – I pay.

    Mistrial – a push.

    That work for you?

    I guess it depends on whether a potential mistrial results in a retrial. Otherwise, yeah it works for me.

  17. Retired Spook says:

    I did baby back ribs on the grill last night.

    Hell, it’s never too cold to cook out on the grill, Merlin. I did a BIG, THICK (1-1/2″) JUICY SIRLOIN last night, and the temp. was 2 below (zero, that is). But 70 sounds mighty tempting. What part of the country do you live in?

    Actually, between my wife and me, I’m the one that likes seafood. We both like steak and potatoes along with a big tossed salad and, in the summer, corn-on-the-cob (also cooked on the grill).

    God, I’m gettin’ hungry!

  18. MerlinOS2 says:


    I live due east of Gainesville Florida.