We haven’t heard Libby’s side yet.

I agree. We haven’t really heard Libby’s side yet. It might be a lot worse than even the left could imagine. We’ll have to see how carefully he constructs his answers and/or pleads the fifth.

I had written this post before seeing Mary Matalin in Hannity & Colmes Friday night. She has worked with Libby on Cheney’s staff. She pointed out Libby’s reputation for honesty and noted that he had handed over all documents, including those noting that he had learned Wilson’s name from the Vice President.

I have read the indictment and it looks bad for Libby, but realize also that Fitzgerald used only those segments of the transcript (of the grand jury sessions) which most buttressed his case. When this comes to trial, when we see the entire transcript, when Libby gets to make his case, we’ll have a chance to see his side.

We haven’t heard Libby’s side yet.

From what I can tell, all Fitzie has on Libby is stuff like Tim Russert disagreeing with Libby. A lot of “he said he said.”

Apparently Libby and Russert talked 1-on-1.

Libby says: We talked briefly about Wilson; Russert told me there was a rumor among reporters that Wilson’s CIA wife gave him the Niger trip; I said, yeah I heard that too.

Russert says: I remember it differently. What sticks out in my memory is the column 3 days later, where it told me Wilson’s CIA wife recommended him for Niger.

Stuff like that. That’s one example. There are more witnesses against Libby but I don’t know how much better. Don’t condemn Libby until the trial evidence and cross exam.

Comment 15: I also wonder about GC’s fulsome references to bathroom and bodily functions. But his quotation stands. Wilson lied – on that point, and others.

That person was told by the State Department that, well, you know, there’s four countries that export uranium. That person had served in three of those countries, so he knew a little bit about what he was talking about when he said you really need to worry about this. But I can assure you that that retired American ambassador to Africa, as Nick Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off, and has every intention of ensuring that this story has legs. And I think it does have legs. It may not have legs over the next two or three months, but when you see American casualties moving from one to five or to ten per day, and you see Tony Blair’s government fall because in the U.K. it is a big story, there will be some ramifications, I think, here in the United States. So I hope that you will do everything you can to keep the pressure on. Because it is absolutely bogus for us to have gone to war the way we did.

Joe Wilson, June 14, 2003

If Wilson was such an honest saint, why was he dropped like a digested burrito from the Kerry campaign?

I can’t wait to hear HIS testimony at the trial.

The indictment, as Fitzgerald, says has nothing to do with the war. Wilson addressed only the issue of whether Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger. He lied about who hired him and according to some reports, even misrepresented his own findings in Niger.

I think history has already proven that Wilson was right and the indictment further proves that.

And yes, I REALLY think that Cheney and others were not involved. Do you have any evidence (beyond your own suspicions) that he was?

Fitzgerald found no evidence of any conspiracy. Indeed, found no evidence whatsoever that anyone under investigation broke the law which he was initially hired to investigate.

And I never said that this wasn’t important. In this particular post, I make clear that if found guilty, Libby “should pay a heavy penalty.” But, in our system, which Fitzgerald so nicely praised today, he has the chance to defend himself at trial.

That’s assuming that you buy into Wilson’s lie that they were “smeared”. Nobody had to do a damn thing to smear him. He was doing fine all by himself.
One doesn’t have to shoot liberals. Just let them talk and they’ll do themselves in.
Don’t believe me? Just look at examples like Howard Dean, John F.You Kerry, your precious lord BJ, you, Kevin, Queer Patriot and Pussy Chumpler etc.

Of course now, when the special prosecutor for whom they were cheering before only brings one set of indictments against one person, these same liberal children go beserk trying to find conspiracy on every corner and sinister in every shadow, while the conservative children point out that this one person should be tried and, if found guilty, punished.

And then you talk as if this is over. It ain’t.

I remember reading something on here about Democrats being like children one day. Ahem. In this case, Mommy and Daddy’s people are caught breaking the law and having the book thrown at those people, in your mind, clears up any possibility of Mommy and Daddy’s wrongdoing or involvement in that wrongdoing? Even when the wrongdoers hold positions like chief of staff for Mommy and Daddy? Prehaps liberals and conservatives are both under age, but it is little/conservative children will do anything to exonerate their parents and render them angelic and good in their conceptions and the older/liberal children will rebel, attack, and call their parents out on their hypocrises.

But you can’t, especially in a case where the hypocrisy deals with breaking the law, argue that it isn’t important. Instead, the writers here attack Wilson and fantasize about the Clinton’s reactions. I’d ask that you apply your hermeneutics of suspicion to the occupants of Scooter’s former place of employment as well. See where that takes you.