The Scooter Libby trial begins today with jury selection and promises to be a top news item for the coming 6 weeks. We know many of Fitzgerald’s witnesses have problems due to pre-trial transcripts. Clearly Mathew Cooper has provided conflicting testimony – the same cannot be said of Libby who was consistent, if not inaccurate, with his recollections. Marc Grossman also has credibility problems, and is key as the deputy to Richard Armitage – the actual source of the leak about Plame’s CIA role to the media. The question is how did Armitage know about Plame weeks before the story made waves? My theory is Grossman provided Armitage the information with full knowledge from Joe Wilson.

Grossman is also the one who authored the INR memo – TWICE! Once to provide his boss cover with Novak, and once even earlier coincidental with Woodward’s meeting with Armitage where he actually tattled on Plame again. The memos are identical except for the date and one sentence removed. Definitely not enough to warrant another copy be set in the files, so something is up here as well.

And we all know Wilson’s credibility problems go back to his first claim Bush and Cheney used forged documents to convince America to invade Iraq. That was the big news, that Bush and Cheney cherry picked evidence and that evidence was based on forgeries Wilson supposedly debunked. Watch for the prosecution to work to correct that claim over and over again. While the media can use ‘cherry picked’ as a white wash for a Wilson lie they bought into, the defense will not let that misconception stand. And they will use it to whack at the credibility of any witness they can.

The news media is probably more on trial here than Libby in many ways. And already they are failing. Note this San Francisco Chronicle joke of a news article where the key fact of the case is not mentioned: No Armitage. That is a clear case of biased and incomplete reporting. Anyone reading this rag must like being brain washed.

ABC News at leasts recognizes how many holes this case has in it.

When Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was indicted more than a year ago, the public was still largely supportive of the war in Iraq and Libby was still believed by many to be the source of the leak that outed former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Now, as opening arguments are set to begin in the Libby trial, the climate has changed both inside and outside the courtroom. On the one hand, we now know that the real source of the leak to columnist Robert Novak was not Libby at all, but former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The article then goes on to discuss the public’s sour mood on Iraq – as if they has or should have any bearing on a court case? The media is showing its uncontrollable partisanship again. But ABC does, again, state the correct scope of the trial after it get’s past its knee-jerk jab at the war:

First, let’s remember what this case is not about. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not allege that Libby broke the law by leaking Plame’s name in retaliation for her husband’s public criticism of the way the administration used prewar intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.

He did not charge that Libby participated in a conspiracy to disclose classified information in an effort to discredit Wilson. And he did not charge that Libby knew that Plame was in covert status when he disclosed her identity to three reporters.

In short, the indictment makes no mention, and Fitzgerald publicly acknowledged reaching no conclusions, about any of the central issues that formed the focus of his two-year investigation.

In short the trial is a scam perpetrated by a headline obsessed special prosecutor who wanted to parlay this case into elected office no doubt. Fitz-Magoo would have been better off dropping this, but his ego has taken over. As I mentioned in this previous post, Fitzgerald could not charge anyone with outing Plame because, quiet clearly, she outed herself as a collaborating source to Joe in the early stories. The evidence of the stories and the Senate investigation make it clear someone claimed to be at the debriefing and confirmed Joe’s claims of debunking the forgeries – which would not actually surface for another 8 months and were held in the safe in Valerie’s division at CIA. But ABC News goes further:

In fact, all five of the counts lodged against Libby essentially repeat the same simple charge: When asked about his role in the leak by FBI agents and by a grand jury, Libby lied. Without minimizing the seriousness of such crimes, we have to conclude that despite a long and exceedingly thorough investigation, there seems to have been insufficient evidence to charge Libby with any other offense.

Well, everyone knows we have a situation of differing recollections. The Mathew Cooper related indictments will fall apart because of Cooper’s own conflict in testimony trying to trap Libby in a lie.

The Tim Russert indictment charges are the goofiest of the lot. Fitzgerald claims Libby was attempting to smear Plame to get a Wilson. Libby claims he discussed Plame with Russert. Russert does not recall the topic coming up. In what is the epitome of Fitzgerald’s idiocy he has charged Libby for lying about a not smearing Plame in these indictments. Libby testified he thought he discussed the matter with Russert – basically admitting to the essence of talking to the news media about Plame. The prosecutor’s witness said Plame was never discussed. It still boggles my mind the prosecutor is calling Libby a liar for NOT using an exculpatory alibi.

The Judith Miller indictment (conspiracy) needs the other two to make sense. And she herself admits to having notes on Plame and Wilson prior to meeting Libby. She cannot recall who told her about Plame or whether she mentioned Plame first to Libby. The case is a joke, but the real joke is Fitzgerald and his media groupies.