View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2007, 03:42 PM
JP5's Avatar
JP5 JP5 is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 23,121
us texas
JP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 152,508
Default Tim Russert at Libby Trial

"Mr. Russert could not remember the exact day of his telephone exchange with Mr. Libby, the time of day, or the duration of their conversation. A defense lawyer read an F.B.I. report where Russert said that he could not rule out discussing Ms. Wilson with Mr. Libby, but had no recollection of it. Mr. Russert said he did not believe he said that."

Well, now. With all these reporters lacking "memory" of important events----how in the heck is it that Libby was supposed to have had a perfect memory? No way this guys should be convicted of anything.

So far we have.....

--the original leaker being Richard Armitage from the State Dept---and who, BTW, was not keen on the Iraq war therefore would NOT have been interested in smearing Wilson or his wife.

--all the reporters who have testified being unsure of the timing, their notes, or lack of notes, and other details. Several of them said one thing to FBI investigators, one thing in the Grand Jury, and yet something else in this actual trial.

--no one who has testified either for the prosecution or the defense had any idea during that summer when they were discussing Plame and Wilson had any idea of a covert status. And in fact---there was NO covert status as no one was indicted under such law----EVEN THOUGH Fitzgerald knew early on that Armitage was the original leaker.

This trial is ONLY about memories. And it seems that no one person's memory was excellent. Not Libby's nor any of the reporters. And to have a cover-up or obstruction of justice, there must be some reason to lie. There must be a motive and proof of some kind of conspiracy. There clearly was NOT in this case.


http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/LIBBYDIARY.html
__________________
Clintonite after Clintonite. My question is, "So when does this so-called CHANGE start?"
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest