Dick’s Talking Points, Two

When Libby was first asked about any discussions he had with Cheney in response to Joe Wilson’s op-ed, he first claimed he had not discussed the op-ed until after the Novak column (though with his aborted discussion of a "conver–"sation, he may have been thinking of the July 9 conversation he had with Novak and subsequently hid).

I don’t recall that conversation until after the, until after the Novak piece. I don’t recall it during this week of July 6. I recall it after the Novak conver — after the Novak article appeared I recall it , and I recall being asked by the Vice President early on, you know, about this envoy, you know, who is it and — but I don’t recall that, early on he asked about it in connection with the wife, although he may well have given the note that I took.

Q. And so your recollection is that he wrote on July — that you discussed with the Vice President, did his wife send him on a junket? As a response to the July 14th Novak column that said, he was sent because his wife sent him and she works at the CIA?

A. I don’t recall discussing it –yes, I don’t recall discussing it in connection with when this article first appeared. I recall it later.

Then, when Fitz points out the utter absurdity of discussing with Cheney, speculatively, that Plame was purportedly involved in sending her husband, after Novak had already reported that fact directly, Libby shifts, and tries to claim they talked about it after July 10 when–he claimed–Tim Russert had told him of Plame’s identity.

Q. And are you telling us under oath that from July 6th to July 14th you never discussed with Vice President Cheney whether Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA?

A. No, no, I’m not saying that. On July 10 or 11 I learned, I thought anew, that the wife — that, that reporters I lwere telling us that the wife worked at the CIA. And I may have had a conversation then with the Vice President either late on the 11th or on the 12th in which I relayed that reporters were saying that.

Basically, Libby was trying to date the notations Cheney had made on Wilson’s op-ed ("Or did his wife send him on a junket?") to a time after journalists might have known of Plame’s identity. If he couldn’t do that, after all, it would serve as proof that Cheney knew of Plame’s purported role in Wilson’s trip–and was obsessing about it–shortly before Plame’s identity got leaked to at least four different reporters. It would highlight the fact that Cheney’s notations prettly closely matched the talking points given to Matt Cooper and Walter Pincus and Bob Novak. 

The problem is–as I pointed out during the trial–Cheney’s own talking points made it clear that he had already read Wilson’s op-ed on July 8. Cheney actually changed his talking points in direct response to Wilson’s July 6 op-ed on July 8, proving Libby’s lies to be false, but also proving that Cheney was well aware of Plame’s purported role (and therefore, her CIA identity) when he was responding to journalists on the day Plame’s name was first leaked to Bob Novak.

That’s the context for Murray Waas’ report today–that Cheney admitted to Fitz and the FBI that he had changed his talking points on July 8 in an attempt to get journalists looking into Plame’s purported role in Joe’s trip.  

Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a still-highly confidential FBI report, admitted to federal investigators that he rewrote talking points for the press in July 2003 that made it much more likely that the role of then-covert CIA-officer Valerie Plame in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa would come to light.

Cheney conceded during his interview with federal investigators that in drawing attention to Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s Africa trip reporters might also unmask her role as CIA officer.

Cheney denied to the investigators, however, that he had done anything on purpose that would lead to the outing of Plame as a covert CIA operative. But the investigators came away from their interview with Cheney believing that he had not given them a plausible explanation as to how he could focus attention on Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s trip without her CIA status also possibly publicly exposed. At the time, Plame was a covert CIA officer involved in preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and Cheney’s office played a central role in exposing her and nullifying much of her work.

As Fitz pointed out in his closing argument, Cheney changed his first talking point from,

The Vice President’s office did not request the mission to Niger.


It is not clear who authorized Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger.

(The "VP did not request" became his second talking point.)

That is, Cheney’s new talking points raised a question the answer to which was–Cheney believed–"Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson’s CIA spook wife." Which, as Cheney apparently admitted to the FBI, might raise the chances that Plame would be outed–as happened like a charm with Matt Cooper and John Dickerson. Dickerson, recall, was instructed to look into who sent Wilson, and Cooper answered that question for Dickerson with help from Rove: Wilson’s wife.

Now, Murray points out that Cheney’s admission–certainly from the perspective of June 2004, when Cheney was interviewed–would make it more likely that Cheney had a role in outing Plame. Frankly, when you put Judy’s testimony together with Libby’s notes and Addington’s testimony, that case has already been proved, and for much earlier in the week than Murray’s discussing (since it proves that, on Cheney’s order, Libby was asking Addington about both Plame and Wilson in the preparation to talk to Judy). But, people are thick, so hopefully Murray’s reporting–apparently direct from Cheney’s FBI interview–will convince some people to actually look at the available evidence.

There’s a lot more that Murray’s post suggests, though, both about Fitzgerald’s investigation and about Cheney’s direct role in Plame’s outing. Only, you’re going to have to wait until tomorrow to get that!!

46 replies
  1. rkilowatt says:

    re Murray Wass…scanned thru the linked article and seems telling data was omitted, namely, Liby’s delicate meet w Addington to query Pres authority to declass and risking treason w leak of covert agent.

    Also, in MW’ 9th para, “Still, for those in search of the proverbial “smoking gun, the question as to whether Cheney directed Libby to leak Plame’s identity… will almost certainly remain an unresolved one.” That only serves nicely to discourage further pursuit.And I thing there are more damning questions. Besides, postulating need for a “smoking gun” warms the heart of a defense attorney.There rarely ever is such a thing, and even then it is always arguable…confessions not excepted.

    The MW article is superbly dressed filler. Even has the requisite teaser or two for “credibility”.

  2. freepatriot says:

    Geez ew, you must have been an exceptionally GOOD person this year for santa to leave something like THIS under your festivus pole

    happy Kwanza everybody

    and in honor of billo o’liely, HAPPY HOLIDAYS TOO

  3. plunger says:

    Great work, EW!

    First there’s this:

    “Cheney conceded during his interview with federal investigators that in drawing attention to Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s Africa trip reporters might also unmask her role as CIA officer.”

    Followed by this?

    “Cheney denied to the investigators, however, that he had done anything on purpose that would lead to the outing of Plame as a covert CIA operative.”

    Does it get any more contradictory or unbelievable than that?

  4. plunger says:

    In a court of law, the entire Agenda would be revealed. The Agenda was the acquisition of both Afghanistan and Iraq, by any means necessary. The Agenda was set by globalists whose interests include both banking and oil, at whose service lies one George HW Bush. The multi-year plan to fulfill the globalist Agenda was conceived by Ken Lay, GHW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, David and Myrav Wurmser, Michael Ledeen, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith, Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz and others PRIOR to pushing Poppy’s spawn, GW, forward to run for the Presidency in 2000.

    Using Lay’s Enron energy trading platform, these conspirators employed tactics against the United States designed specifically to cause the appearance of an oil crisis for the purpose of predisposing the electorate to vote for the “oil experts” in the forthcoming election. Cheney was effectively positioning himself as the savior to fix the problem that he conspired to cause.

    Remember Cheney’s first act of criminal hubris? Notes, charts and direct testimony from those who attended the Cheney Energy Task Force meetings that took place once he was in office (but well prior to 9/11), would reveal foreknowledge of a shock to the system that would serve to “justify” the use of military force to invade and occupy both countries, to include the acquisition of pipeline routes and indeed, entire oil fields. Testimony from those at the meetings would further reveal that Cheney, Lay and others were effectively divvying up the assets of these two countries among their energy industry cronies – not the least of were Exxon-Mobil (Rockefeller), BP (The Crown), Royal Dutch Shell (Queen Beatrix) and Halliburton (Cheney/Bush).

    Keep in mind that when Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, he acquired Dresser Industries (a major holding of the Bush Family), despite it Asbestos Liabilities. As a direct result, the stock of HAL had subsequently plummeted with the onslaught of class action law suits related to asbestos exposure. The only way the acquisition could ultimately enrich the prior shareholders of Dresser and the then-existing shareholders of HAL was if HAL’s stock value was driven much higher. But how? The asbestos liabilities needed to be mitigated, and new contracts needed to be secured. The Twin Towers were in fact a $12 billion asbestos liability of HAL. In the aftermath of 9/11, you’ll recall that HAL received no-bid contracts directly from Cheney’s office to implement the invasion and occupation – sending HAL’s stock price soaring. Bush did his part in his SOU speech, declaring class action lawsuits related to asbestos to be frivolous.

    This is the context within which all that followed must be viewed. The Agenda was the taking of Middle East Resources (to include Iran) via psyops, false flag attack, or any other means necessary. Controlling the message to the American people was critical, and the timing of the Wilson OpEd was an assault on their Agenda at a most crucial juncture.

    There’s a government, and there’s a Shadow Government. It was the latter that implemented the California Energy Crisis, manipulated the vote count, got itself installed in the White House and the Pentagon, and implemented the PNAC plan – using 9/11 as “justification.”

  5. BayStateLibrul says:

    So, did Fitzy think Libby would flip if marched to jail.
    Ergo, Bush’s commutation indirectly obstructed justice?

    • emptywheel says:


      But we already knew that. More important than the talking points was the question of what Cheney told Libby to tell Judy. Libby had once said, it was possible that Cheney told him to leak Judy. Note how prison served to clarify Judy’s mind about what went on (though I still believe she lied about whether Libby told her Plame was covert)? I’m guessing the same would have happened for Libby.

  6. plunger says:

    The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999* was signed into law by the President on October 20, 1998. Among its provisions, the Act directed that the Headquarters compound of the Central Intelligence Agency located in Langley, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the “George Bush Center for Intelligence.”


    Historically, the CIA and society’s elite have been one and the same people. This means that their interests and goals are one and the same as well. Perhaps the most frequent description of the intelligence community is the “old boy network,” where members socialize, talk shop, conduct business and tap each other for favors well outside the formal halls of government.

    Many common traits made it inevitable that the CIA and Corporate America would become allies. Both share an intense dislike of democracy, and feel they should be liberated from democratic regulations and oversight. Both share a culture of secrecy, either hiding their actions from the American public or lying about them to present the best public image. And both are in a perfect position to help each other.

    How? International businesses give CIA agents cover, secret funding, top-quality resources and important contacts in foreign lands. In return, the CIA gives corporations billion-dollar federal contracts (for spy planes, satellites and other hi-tech spycraft). Businessmen also enjoy the romantic thrill of participating in spy operations. The CIA also gives businesses a certain amount of protection and privacy from the media and government watchdogs, under the guise of “national security.” Finally, the CIA helps American corporations remain dominant in foreign markets, by overthrowing governments hostile to unregulated capitalism and installing puppet regimes whose policies favor American corporations at the expense of their people.

    The CIA’s alliance with the elite turned out to be an unholy one. Each enabled the other to rise above the law. Indeed, a review of the CIA’s history is one of such crime and atrocity that no one can reasonably defend it, even in the name of anticommunism.

    Or its new name, “anti-Terrorism.”


  7. skdadl says:

    Only, you’re going to have to wait until tomorrow to get that!!

    Oh, we get presents! Good morning, and merry happy jolly, everyone.

    I’m left wondering why Fitz didn’t believe he could take Cheney’s case to trial and win (and a few others too). Maybe EW’s answer is our present?

    The Libby jury sounded as though they were already wondering about that too, and they didn’t have this evidence. But then Cheney didn’t testify for Scooter. Oh. I see.

    • emptywheel says:

      The Libby jury recognized that the NIE story was a lie. But then they put it aside because that was not what they were required to answer–it was not one of the charged lies.

      That said, I still think Fitz didn’t indict for two reasons: 1) there are all sorts of legal questions about whether Cheney could be indicted as sitting VP and whether Cheney could have declassified Plame’s identity, and 2) I’m not sure Fitz had the smoking gun, the document (I suspect) from which CHeney learned Plame was covert. I think that was one of the memos Plame wrote in relation to Wilson’s trip, but I’ve never seen any evidence Fitz had identified Cheney with that doct.

        • emptywheel says:

          I don’t think it’s a matter of shredding. We know the document exists–we’ve even seen quotes from it.

          It’s just a matter of proving that Cheney saw it before he told Libby that Plame worked in CPD.

    • plunger says:

      The ONLY way I was finally able to wrap my head around any of this was to let go of everything I ever learned about ethics, moral, religion, and my country, and put myself in a total Dr. Strangelove mindset – to contemplate the world and all of these related events from the perspective of the true evil-doers. It’s like you need to turn off your morality switch and view the world from the perspective of those for whom money and power is their God, and the value of a human life is zero.

      This CIA backgrounder does as much to explain the evil mindset as anything:


      “We’re killing you, but it’s for your own good.”

  8. radiofreewill says:

    EW – If Cheney became aware that Plame was part of CPD – “wife works at CPD” – wouldn’t a quick check with Former-CIA Insider, Addington, have told him that that organization falls under the Directorate of Operations and is 95% Covert?

    Isn’t that what Libby and Addington ‘knew’ when they met in the little ’side office’ after Cheney tasked Libby to leak ’something’ to Miller on the morning of the 8th, and Libby asked Addington about ‘inst-declassification’?

    To me, it would be enough of a ’smoking gun’ if Libby ’showed’ Judy the information in the ‘wife works at CPD’ note – a note which exists in a couple of forms –

    – the ‘original’ of that note has the markings of a SCIF-Protected Document all over it – it was a Note taken in a Classified Briefing, within a Highly Secure setting, conforming to all the standard security protocols.

    – there is a ‘copy’ of that note which has the ‘information’ on it, but the SCIF Markings have been covered with a “Treated as…” Stamp.

    IIRC, Libby told Fitz in his GJ testimony something about ‘cutting and pasting’ what he showed Judy?

    Is it possible that Libby showed Judy the “Treated as…” version of the highly-classified original, on Cheney’s instruction, the morning of the 8th?

    • emptywheel says:

      First, the briefing was not a classified briefing per se. At least according to Libby, it was a phone call–unclear whether it was over a secure phone or not.

      And those stamps were not put on until they prepared to pass the documents over to the FBI. THey weren’t there in July 2003.

      That said, I do think it quite possible that Libby showed it to Judy.

  9. Mary says:

    This is the only part I disagree with EW

    But, people are thick, so hopefully Murray’s reporting–apparently direct from Cheney’s FBI interview–will convince some people to actually look at the available evidence.

    I think most people are pretty convinced that Liby acted at Cheney’s behest – the only thing that makes them uncertain isn’t that they aren’t looking at evidence; it’s that they are looking at prosecutions and most of them just don’t “get” that Cheney, Rove and even Armitage all skated. It’s not that they don’t believe in the evidence, it’s that they don’t believe in the Dept of Justice.

    • plunger says:

      Murdoch belongs to the same tribe for whom the protection racket exists.

      Karma dictates that Murdoch’s media empire will crash in flames, as would-be advertisers slash their budgets in anticipation of the “Great Bush/Cheney Depression.”

      FedEx just announced yesterday that they are pulling out of their Super Bowl Advertising commitment. Expect the worst for the MSM, as they begin to eat their own.

  10. BayStateLibrul says:

    Such fuckery from WSJ… my memory made me lie

    “Mr. Libby didn’t leak Ms. Plame’s name to journalist Robert Novak; Mr. Armitage did that deed, though neither he nor his close friend, Mr. Powell, bothered to tell Mr. Bush or the world. Based on the trial record and our own long experience with Mr. Libby, we also don’t think Mr. Libby lied. As Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecution circled back again and again, Mr. Libby’s defense that his memory faltered in recalling the details of long ago conversations is entirely plausible for a busy White House aide.”

  11. lllphd says:

    no time to read the comments now, but wanted to throw this out there.

    i’ve always been suspicious of this “wife sent wilson on a junket” talking point. i mean, what IS that?? are we supposed to believe that wilson’s op-ed would suddenly be discredited because his trip was arranged by his wife?? again, what IS that? what was that supposed to accomplish? it never added up for me at all. even wilson’s claim that this was a warning shot to other whistleblowers is unconvincing; who else blowing any whistles might have a wife in the cia?? cheney is more a bully than brilliant, but i still cannot believe his excuse was no more carefully thought through than it was. who was going to question wilson’s trip because his wife worked at the cia and arranged it? more importantly, why would cheney et al. risk so much, knowingly outing an agent, just to point this flimsy as all hell finger at wilson?

    i have therefore from the beginning believed that cheney’s primary agenda was always to out plame, first and foremost, wilson being the convenient icing on the cake. if cheney knew she was an agent, then he had to know what she was up to. if he knew what she was up to, he no doubt knew she was working against many of his old company’s illicit efforts in the middle east, including – or in addition to – the asserted attempt to smuggle WMDs INto iraq to prove their purpose for war.

    the idea that cheney believed the cockandbull story that a wife’s arrangement of a junket would tank wilson’s efforts against him is simply laughable. i’ll always believe he had been looking for a way to get rid of the director of the agency’s joint task force on iraq, namely plame, who was not singing his score. she therefore posed a far more formidable threat to his plans than wilson ever did.

    moreover, i suspect wilson and plame know all this, but of course are completely unable to assert as much because there is too much top secret stuff in there even open the can of worms. not to mention what plame has been prohibited from saying.

    that excuse is beyond trivial, so why don’t we hear more about that?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      You’ve made every point better than I could, although it took me awhile to be able to articulate that I thought it way too bizarre this was about making Joe Wilson look like a dilettante, dependent husband.

      Yes, look at Plame’s job — the elephant in the room, so to speak.
      Then look at billions going to Pakistan, the Khan network, the Afghani heroin trade, and it seems there are no end of potential nefarious actors or suspects.

      Although I regret to say that I have a (male) acquaintance who, in a group of people in conversation, actually said something along the lines of: “What’s that Wilson guy bitching about? He’s the one with the gorgeous blond wife.” No one in the group disagreed with him, but that comment has rattled around in my brain for years — if the American public is that damn stupid, I lose hope. And yeah, the guy voted for Bush and thought the War In Iraq was going to show the world the US couldn’t be pushed around. So there is a part of the American public that is so bloody stupid that Cheney’s bullshit goes right by them – especially if it’s associated with the (to them) venerated Wall Street Journal, as is that Libby bleating today.

      But here’s the rub: once these guys start losing money, they get pissed.
      That same jackass who bought Cheney’s bullshit five years ago is now almost bankrupt.
      I regard it as cosmic justice, but maybe that makes me a jerk ;-))

      • lllphd says:

        thanks for the compliment. that whole question has bugged the dickens out of me since the original episode in 03; it’s just too stupid.

        but of course, there are those guys out there swallowing the crapola, like your now bankrupt pal.

        dicks. the lot o’ them.

  12. Phoenix Woman says:

    Why Salon dumped Murray Waas and kept Camille Paglia is beyond me.

    For that matter, it’s beyond me how somebody like James Poniewozik could wind up pulling down big bucks with ABC when Charles Taylor was the better reviewer and writer.

  13. timtimes says:

    Didn’t Ken Lay die before making it to court, or jail? I see a direct parallel with Cheney’s bad ticker. He’s never gonna make it to THE TRIAL OF WAR CRIMINALS, the worst abuses included TORTURING TODDLER’S TESTICLES.

    I don’t want to prosecute out of spite. I want to prosecute because Jesus loves the little children. All the children of the world. Wanna bet MY meme has more power than the recently coined ’Jack Bauer’ replacement?


  14. jurassicpork says:

    How you wanna bet Cheney’s at the Naval Observatory right now with a shotgun aimed at the chimney, keeping careful track of Santa’s route on NORAD?

    Anyway, the wrapping’s done, I’m dressed in my monkey suit and I’m waiting to commute to Boston to make small talk while dinner’s made with in-laws and a certain daughter’s beau that I really don’t like.

    So I might as well take the time to wish ya’ll a safe and happy holidays.

    • Mauimom says:

      Anyway, the wrapping’s done, I’m dressed in my monkey suit and I’m waiting to commute to Boston to make small talk while dinner’s made with in-laws and a certain daughter’s beau that I really don’t like.

      What comes from reading @ 1 am, Maui-time: on first read, I really thought you were dressed in an actual monkey suit, and was wondering how that was going to turn out on a “commute to Boston” [AMTRAK?? TSA screeners?]

      On second reading, I believe you are referring to a business suit or formal attire as a “monkey suit.” Right?

  15. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Shuster tries to call the question: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..9#28381679

    Jeebuz. His guest, Jennifer Skalka of ‘Hotline on Call’ insists,

    “I think it’s a closed case. I think what we’ve learned today is simply that VP Cheney revised Talking Points for WH officials. Coincidentally, of course, on the same day that Scooter Libby met with Judith Miller, the former NYT reporter, ummmm to talk generally about Plame and Wilson, so (you know) I don’t think we’ve learned anything that dramatically greater than what we knew going into this. And frankly, … as we know… the Special Prosecutor in this case has moved on to the very fascinating case involving the Gov of Illinois… so things have moved on politically”

    Shuster points out that things have ‘moved on’ only because Libby wouldn’t spill the beans, and his sentence was commuted. Does any of this change Cheney’s legacy…?

    Is Cheney afraid that GWBush might throw him under the bus?
    Because the Cheney forces certainly do seem to have their trolls and bots out in full force, insisting that there’s Nothing To See Here, Move Right Along…

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        I hadn’t thought of it that way until I saw your comment a few threads ago, but once you mentioned it and I started watching around… wow, is Cheney putting on the Pardon Me and Pardon Dear Scootie Poot show, or what?

        Watch that Shuster clip a couple times — including backing portions of it up — and see how unnatural that CheneyBot is; yet, like Nancy Pltotenhoffer (?sp) she’s blonde, cheery, smiley, and she’s clearly practice that ‘… the Special Prosecuter has moved on to that fascinating Gov of Ilinois…’ Let me guess, she minored in P.R. And I’d sure like to know how many times she practiced her delivery of that line, because it is perfectly phrased to suggest that Cheney is not the target, that this has all been resolved, that David Shuster is just being a bad, overbearing, terrible journo for even so much as inquiring about Cheney’s role in Plame.

        Crooks&Liars has a great commentary, however, on Shuster’s faillure to credit Murray Waas, and here’s hoping Shuster apologizes and gives Murray some onscreen love.

        But yeah, why the Full Court WSJ OpEd, along with the Cheney interviews, along with the PR babe on the news shows to make it seem like any journalist with the effrontery to even inquire about the significance of this whole Plame mess is just being so… overreaching and obsessive.

        Yeah, looks to me like something’s up.

        And the thing that REALLY makes me think something’s up is this: why in hell is Cheney’s testimony to the FBI being leaked? And why are we hearing about it now? And what else is going ass-over-teakettle now? (Apart from the markets, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the economy…?)


        • Hmmm says:

          Definitely Team W vs. Team Dick in some way, with Team W in ascendency at present. The financial crisis and bailout has to figure in there somehow, but I am not smart enough to see how.

        • lllphd says:

          ooh, VERY good point. there must be something up here; why WOULD cheney’s interview be leaked now?

          one possibility might be someone with ties to scooter maybe leaking in order to get cheney on the case, assuming scooter is getting nervous about the pardon not yet forthcoming. (am i remembering correctly that a pardoned scooter could no longer plead the 5th if subpoenaed by congress? this would present quite the dilemma for bush, if so.)

          but that’s not enough. cheney’s covering way too much territory for this to be only about scooter. there’s the torture and wiretapping stuff, too. i confess i had thought nothing of the dick’s taking this exit opportunity to ’set the record straight’, just for the record, you understand.

          one thing that he seems to be trying to accomplish is to shift the rhetoric from post-obama-election outrage over the bush administration’s criminal activities back to ‘legitimate’ debate on these issues, as if any of their activities could honestly merit ‘legit’ debate, so to speak.

          but the leak murray landed puts all that in a more interesting perspective. your point demands a lot of thought. we should be reviewing cheney’s recent comments and murray’s article for clues.

        • lllphd says:

          not likely you’re still checking in, but scott horton has asked the same question you have; why IS cheney doing so much asserting these last couple weeks of bush pardon time? new year’s eve will most likely be the day to watch.

  16. Kathryn in MA says:

    Jennifer Skalka – “Things have moved on Politically?” What does that mean? Other than the total politicalization of justice?

  17. tryggth says:

    EW, its the 24th… have more to share?

    Between this and the post of 8/1, it seems pretty plausible the Dick did it and that during leak week there was a two prong approach of leading the reporters to the nepotism poisoned waters.

    More than the “revelation” of Dick’s strategery, isn’t Waas’s buddy firing a shot across someone’s bow?

Comments are closed.