RUSH: I want to get back to Valerie Plame, the CIA leak, and the Fitzgerald investigation because it is tied in here with a couple phone calls we’ve received today — and also, strangely enough, I believe it’s tied in with the whole Larry Wilkerson issue, not his speech and not him personally but the whole
MATTHEWS: Tonight on Hardball, we try to figure it out,
RUSH: Oh, yeah Chris, let’s go back and try to recreate Watergate. Let’s go back to the glory days, exactly what I’ve told you, the entirety of the Bush administration to these people is Watergate. There was a voice of reason that Matthews had on last night, Deborah Orin from the New York Post. Matthews says, “What do you make of this whole thing! Right up until this conversation, right now! What do you make of it, Deborah?”
ORIN: I think the important thing to remember is how much we
RUSH: It has been learned because there are people talking. Apparently lawyers for some of the people who have testified, when Rove went in there, for his last time, he was shown testimony from Scooter Libby, and Scooter Libby, I think, if I got this right said that he told Rove — or Rove said he found about it from Scooter Libby and Scooter Libby said he found out about it from Tim Russert! Scooter Libby said that said that he learned Valerie Plame’s identity from Tim Russert. Tim Russert said, “I didn’t know who she was, so I couldn’t have told Scooter Libby who she was because I didn’t know who she was,” but Libby told Rove that it was Russert, but Rove said it was Libby that told him who her identity was. It’s all… What’s the word? It’s not moot because it certainly isn’t “moot,” but it’s just ridiculous. She wasn’t even covert. Victoria Toensing, who helped write this law has been all over television trying to get anybody who will listen to understand that the law she helped write has
Now it’s who knew and who told who what, and Newt Gingrich last night had a pretty good point. He was on Hannity & Colmes. He was trying to explain this to Colmes. He said (paraphrasing), “Look, I don’t know what’s going on. I’m going to wait to find out, just like we’re all saying, what happened here. But it’s one thing if a hard, actual violation of law was taken place.” But Newt said, “The problem I have with this is, we have an investigation of a crime, and in the process of the investigation, we find there was no crime but we’re going to find a crime in the process of the investigation.” In other words, we’re going to bring people in for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of testimony. We’re going to conclude no law was broken, but then we’re going to say they are criminal because they changed their testimony ordered committed perjury or some other thing. He said it’s a dangerous thing when the process of an investigation leads to guilt, when the original crime cannot be proved to have been committed. Am I making this clear? Newt said it a little bit different than I did. In other words, folks, no real crime happened here as far as anybody can tell. So what everybody is talking about: What crimes occurred in the process of the investigation? In other words, all these people were brought in, did some of them lie? Did some of them get crossed up? Did some people say things that turned out to be not to be true? Does that constitute a cover-up? That would be one thing if there’s a genuine cover-up with something, but with no crime having been committed, what in the world is at stake here? And that is a dangerously thing, when all of a sudden — and you know this is how they got Martha Stewart — when they go and get a conviction on something totally unrelated to what they’re looking at that occurs in the process of their investigation. Once again, it constitutes out-of-control prosecutorial power — and I don’t know that that’s happened here but it’s what Newt says he’s concerned about as he watches all these things unfold before our very eyes.