http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5494
The Good Ship Fitzgerald Is Listing
May 14th, 2006
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]While the media focuses [/FONT][FONT=times new roman, times, serif]on handwritten notations by the Vice President on a newspaper article, there is much more to be gleaned from late Friday’s court filings in the Libby case. The spin says that damaging new evidence has surfaced. But the filings by Fitzgerald reveal how rapidly his case is sinking.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Discovery in legal cases is rather like playing the old game “Battleship” where you can surmise from your opponent’s responses to your blind probes where he is hiding his fleet. So you can sink it. Scooter Libby’s legal team is playing the game masterfully and as the latest filings late Friday show, Fitzgerald’s fleet is taking on a lot of water.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]News articles as evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]In the course of the May 5 hearing it was revealed that Fitzgerald intended to offer as evidence at trial a series of news articles (obviously sourced by Wilson). The Court asked the prosecution to identify any news articles it anticipated offering into evidence in its case in chief. The first is the op-ed in the New York Times written by Wilson which appeared on July 6, 2003, with the Vice President’s notes on the margin [scroll to page 3 for an image].[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Before getting to the arguments Fitzgerald makes for its admission, let’s consider the actual motivation for placing this item before the jury. I don’t consider those to be identical to the stated reasons. He wants this before the jury because he has said he has no intention of calling Wilson to the stand as his witness. He has said clearly that he does not stand by Wilson’s credibility and yet he wants the jury to buy into the Wilson revenge theory first peddled by Ambassador Munchausen and his pals David Corn, Ray McGovern and Marc Grossman. It’s that simple. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Wilson is radioactive and will be demolished by the defense, so Fitzgerald wants to distract the jury’s attention from that indisputable and damaging fact while forwarding Wilson’s attack on the Administration. Put Wilson’s article in front of the jury, not the man himself.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]In this latest pleading, the Prosecutor contends that he wants to show how beginning from the date of the op-ed, Libby’s attention was focused on responding to the issues in that article. Even then he is quick to add that the statements in the article “may not be considered as proof of the matters asserted therein.” Indeed.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Of course, Ambassador Munchausen’s tale of his truth-seeking Mission to Niger actually began earlier, about May 2, 2003 at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee Meeting, (now mysteriously scrubbed from its website), during which he first peddled it to Nicholas Kristof. The tale continued on for two months during which time he spoke to numerous journalists, all of whom were equally focused on it. And some, including David Corn (who has never been questioned in this inquiry), seemed to have knowledge (probably from Wilson) of his wife’s position in the agency. Libby says he has five or more witnesses that Wilson outed his own wife, (and a wise bettor would put his money on more.)[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Fitzgerald also wants to show the jury annotations apparently made by Vice President Cheney to the article to demonstrate that he and Libby were focused on the assertions in the article and in responding to them. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]So what? This is evidence in a case which the prosecutor claims is a small case about perjury respecting conversations with three reporters. Nowhere in the op-ed does Wilson mention his wife or her role or her employment. If every article that caught an official’s attention—because, I might say, it involved a pack of lies harmful to an important matter—were to be considered evidence of wrongdoing, no one would be safe from such ridiculous probes.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Fitzgerald also wants to offer in redacted form 5 other articles: the May 6, 2003, NYT article by Kristof; the June 12, 2003, Washington Post article by Walter Pincus (which was a pack of lies, as I reported, and the Post, 2 ½ years after it was published, admitted), the June 30, 2003, New Republic article by John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman; the July 14, 2003 Chicago Sun Times article by Robert Novak and the July 17, 2003 Time.com article by “Cooper and others”.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]As to the first three articles, Wilson was the admitted or obvious source. Plame may as well have been a source for at least the Kristof piece. The Novak article was sourced by the man Fitzgerald is protecting, apparently Richard Armitage. [/FONT]
The Good Ship Fitzgerald Is Listing
May 14th, 2006
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]While the media focuses [/FONT][FONT=times new roman, times, serif]on handwritten notations by the Vice President on a newspaper article, there is much more to be gleaned from late Friday’s court filings in the Libby case. The spin says that damaging new evidence has surfaced. But the filings by Fitzgerald reveal how rapidly his case is sinking.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Discovery in legal cases is rather like playing the old game “Battleship” where you can surmise from your opponent’s responses to your blind probes where he is hiding his fleet. So you can sink it. Scooter Libby’s legal team is playing the game masterfully and as the latest filings late Friday show, Fitzgerald’s fleet is taking on a lot of water.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]News articles as evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]In the course of the May 5 hearing it was revealed that Fitzgerald intended to offer as evidence at trial a series of news articles (obviously sourced by Wilson). The Court asked the prosecution to identify any news articles it anticipated offering into evidence in its case in chief. The first is the op-ed in the New York Times written by Wilson which appeared on July 6, 2003, with the Vice President’s notes on the margin [scroll to page 3 for an image].[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Before getting to the arguments Fitzgerald makes for its admission, let’s consider the actual motivation for placing this item before the jury. I don’t consider those to be identical to the stated reasons. He wants this before the jury because he has said he has no intention of calling Wilson to the stand as his witness. He has said clearly that he does not stand by Wilson’s credibility and yet he wants the jury to buy into the Wilson revenge theory first peddled by Ambassador Munchausen and his pals David Corn, Ray McGovern and Marc Grossman. It’s that simple. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Wilson is radioactive and will be demolished by the defense, so Fitzgerald wants to distract the jury’s attention from that indisputable and damaging fact while forwarding Wilson’s attack on the Administration. Put Wilson’s article in front of the jury, not the man himself.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]In this latest pleading, the Prosecutor contends that he wants to show how beginning from the date of the op-ed, Libby’s attention was focused on responding to the issues in that article. Even then he is quick to add that the statements in the article “may not be considered as proof of the matters asserted therein.” Indeed.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Of course, Ambassador Munchausen’s tale of his truth-seeking Mission to Niger actually began earlier, about May 2, 2003 at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee Meeting, (now mysteriously scrubbed from its website), during which he first peddled it to Nicholas Kristof. The tale continued on for two months during which time he spoke to numerous journalists, all of whom were equally focused on it. And some, including David Corn (who has never been questioned in this inquiry), seemed to have knowledge (probably from Wilson) of his wife’s position in the agency. Libby says he has five or more witnesses that Wilson outed his own wife, (and a wise bettor would put his money on more.)[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Fitzgerald also wants to show the jury annotations apparently made by Vice President Cheney to the article to demonstrate that he and Libby were focused on the assertions in the article and in responding to them. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]So what? This is evidence in a case which the prosecutor claims is a small case about perjury respecting conversations with three reporters. Nowhere in the op-ed does Wilson mention his wife or her role or her employment. If every article that caught an official’s attention—because, I might say, it involved a pack of lies harmful to an important matter—were to be considered evidence of wrongdoing, no one would be safe from such ridiculous probes.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Fitzgerald also wants to offer in redacted form 5 other articles: the May 6, 2003, NYT article by Kristof; the June 12, 2003, Washington Post article by Walter Pincus (which was a pack of lies, as I reported, and the Post, 2 ½ years after it was published, admitted), the June 30, 2003, New Republic article by John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman; the July 14, 2003 Chicago Sun Times article by Robert Novak and the July 17, 2003 Time.com article by “Cooper and others”.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]As to the first three articles, Wilson was the admitted or obvious source. Plame may as well have been a source for at least the Kristof piece. The Novak article was sourced by the man Fitzgerald is protecting, apparently Richard Armitage. [/FONT]
arty: 
