WaPo's VandeHei - and his buddy, Smith - front for Bushco once again - on the front page

you betcha... put it right up there on the front page where everybody can see that it's the top news of the day...

Disclosures Are Called Unrelated To Plame Case
Libby's Lawyer Rebuts Special Prosecutor's Filing

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 8, 2006; Page A01

The revelation of former White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's involvement in authorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence information does not undermine Libby's contention that he "innocently forgot"* about conversations he may have had with reporters regarding covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, Libby's attorney said yesterday.

and then spend the bulk of an extra-large, 21-paragraph story repeating over and over that libby's revelation...

• is irrelevant to Libby's defense
• "is a complete sidelight"
• [has] "nothing to do with Wilson's wife"
• the CIA's employment of Plame was of "peripheral" interest to Libby at the time
• "is not material in any way to what he charged, which is perjury"
• authorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence information does not undermine Libby's contention that he "innocently forgot"* about conversations

while at the same time not-so-subtly casting patrick fitzgerald as the bad guy...

• "allegations"* by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
  
• Fitzgerald's filing was meant specifically to undermine Libby's claim
• Lawyers who have been closely following the case offered contrasting views of the impact Fitzgerald's "allegations"* would have
• Fitzgerald's court filing does not provide the date when Bush and Cheney -- who have both been interviewed by the special prosecutor -- said they authorized Libby's disclosures

[* quotes added for emphasis]

and giving prominent play to the predicted outcome...

• Libby continues to expect to be exonerated at trial.

the only impression you can have after reading this article (and for headline-only readers, it's a no-brainer) is that we are witnessing a ploy by a grandstanding special prosecutor to ratchet up the importance of his investigation and create public support for it by focusing on libby's higher-ups, accusing them of the basest motives in what was not an illegal move in the first place... to give front-page space to the predictable spin from a defense attorney and twist it in this fashion is precisely the kind of "journalist-in-your-pocket" performance we've come to expect from our country's leading news media when they should be asking seriously hardball questions... it's shameful...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet