Scooter Libby told investigators that he learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent on July 10, 2003 when a reporter told him. But the prosecutors have three witnesses who testified that it was Scooter that told them. One was Matt Cooper who learned this from Scooter on July 12. But another was Ari Fleischer who learned this from Scooter at lunch on July 7. And then there was Judy Miller who was told this not once but three times by Scooter. The first time was on June 23, 2003. Anyone following this trial would scoff at the notion that Scooter Libby simply forgot that he knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. Anyone except this fellow:
A witness called by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald delivers testimony that seems clearly damaging to Libby, strongly suggesting that Libby lied when he testified before prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury in the CIA-leak affair. And then Libby’s lawyers take over, suggesting that the witness’s memory is so selective, or so flawed, or so sketchy as to render his or her testimony useless.
Could it be that Byron York’s hair clouds his brain? Or maybe he realizes his job is to excuse the actions of members of this White House even if it means spinning falsehoods into reality. He’s been at this game of serial dishonesty ever since PlameGate became hot. But to take the desperate queries from the defense attorneys as the gospel truth is just stupid – even for the National Review.
I can see it now. Mr. York witnesses a horrific murder and the memory is seared in his brain (assuming it all gets past that hairdo of his). The police – with his assistance – brings the culprit to trial and Mr. York shares with the jury what he saw. At cross examination, the defense attorney asks one question: “Mr. York, what did you have for breakfast on July 14, 2003?” The witness cannot recall and the jury has to acquit. A stupid analogy? Well yea – but not half as stupid as the coverage of this trial from the National Review.