Now THIS Is Journalism
By: Mark W Adams

Laura Rozen is an accomplished journalist and a blogger. She's a jouralist first, and a first rate one at that. We are fortunate to have someone like that who shares her work on these Tubez.

So, when she says something like this, you better damn well click the link.
Murray Waas has a scoop
No one has gotten inside the Valerie Plame story better than Murray Waas. No One. There's been a lot of good journalism about a lot of pathetic journalists and Machiavellian politicians in this case.

According to Waas, it ain't over.
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.
Remember, one of the charges against Libby is obstruction of justice, that he threw "dust in the umpire's eyes." The perjury, lying about learning Plame's identity from Tim Russert, was just one of the means to put the FBI and Fitzgerald's grand jury off the scent. The investigation, had it not been obstructed, would have lead straight through the Office of Vice President, and stopped at Dick's Desk.

How sad, for us and for history that Fitzgerald didn't get a swat at the Vice Decider in a forum where he couldn't call a questioner's inquiry "hogwash," or that the prosecutor was "out of line," just for asking the hard questions.
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."
Hey, I know what your thinking, this is America and we always give the innocent the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It should be no different with Darth Vader Dick the Vice Decider.

It should be. But as for me, I'm going to take this moment, this naughty little moment where I envision this giant slug of a man hauled before some trumped-up military tribunal, answering for crimes of treason -- and as a bonus, just as the verdict is read he's handed a summons from The Hague.

I'd bet he'd want his habeas rights then.

powered by performancing firefox