Posted on 11/17/2005 5:10:51 AM PST by veronica
November 17, 2005 -- CALL it "Deep Throat 2." The CIA-leak probe is in big trouble because superstar reporter and Watergate hero Bob Woodward has emerged as a surprise witness for the defense — potentially undermining the case against ex-White House aide Scooter Libby.
Woodward yesterday revealed that he's told prosecutors he could be the first reporter to learn from a Bush administration source that Iraq war critic Joe Wilson's wife worked as a CIA analyst — but Libby wasn't his new "Deep Throat."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
yes, but the trial will be about more then just these facts. John DeLorean was on video sitting in front of a pile of cocaine and cash - but he walked anyway. Anything that can demonstrate Fitzgerald's mis-steps in this, his smearing of Libby in the charging document, even for things he was not indicted for, his apparent willingness to let members of the media say anything they wanted in their testimony without fear of investigation for perjury - the whole thing just stinks.
Thanks.
Interesting question - What is "mid-June"? The 10th, 15th, 20th? Why didn't Woodward give the exact date when he revealing everything else but the "former" official's name? It makes a big difference here .....
Fitzgerald said "First person known" to have passed this information on to the press. But you miss an important part of his accusation. Fitz is not saying Libby committed a crime because he said he heard about Wilson/Plame from a reporter, its that he conveniently forgot the four people including Cheney who had told him that information prior to any reporter, that he had met with seven government officals on how to deal with the issue of Wilson and his wife. In fact he even forgot a meeting with Ari Fleischer where he told the press secretary that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that was a week before he supposely told Russert. The prosecutor is after him for conveniently forgetting this earlier knowledge so he could say he was just passing on one rumour from one reporter to another. Not the whole truth if even partially true.
if tomorrow, the charges against Libby were dropped - it would be a one day story running on page 26.
"It's common knowledge that he was a Registered Republican when he was investigating Nixon."
LOL. Woodward constantly claimed he had been a Republican to buttress his impartiality in his coup against Nixon.
He claimed to have worked for some local GOP candidate in 1965, for instance.
Woodward lives in Georgetown and is married to a writer for the New Yorker. He is the deputy manager (or whatever) at the Washington Post.
He's no Republican.
Where do you find evidence to support this belief? Miller went to jail to avoid testifying, and Cooper's testimony as recited in the indictment compares EXACTLY with his public testimony on the same subject.
Thanks for the information. I didn't know that. I figured it was another RAT attempt to replay watergate like they aretrying to replay Vietnam.
that "first government person to have leaked" part of the charging document is a smear of Libby - its not what he was indicted for, it was simply an additional smear of Libby by Fitzgerald to trump up the charge. just something he tossed in there to make his press conference sound more important then it really was, much like his prose about Plame and the sanctity of CIA covert status.
Read the WASHTIMES editorial today (sorry, I don't have time to get the link--there are threads on it)---lays it all out.
Libby is indicted for saying he got the info from Russert. But this shows he may have simply mistaken WHICH reporter he got the info from---he got it from Woodward. If that's a reasonable scenario, then he most certainly did not lie about having heard it from a reporter. He mistook which reporter he heard it from.
Also says Libby knew late May/early June. So Libby knew before Cheney told him.
If I'm not mistaken, Woodward already said it wasn't Rove. Some accounts have him saying it was a "former" administration official---which leaves open:
someone who was in the Bush administration, or
someone who was in the former administration (Clintoon)
Think Tenet, Powell, Hadley, etc.
Presumably he did to Fitzgerald but since he is still attempting to protect the identity of his source, he may have wanted to avoid being too specific to make it too easy for someone to check out travel schedules, meeting logs, etc to find out who Mr X is.
Also, remember Woodward only came clean on this because his SOURCE---the "former administration official"---ratted him out to Fitz.
Rove is not a "former administration official."
Also at this point can we see Rove going to Fitzie and saying, oh, this just in: I spoke with Woodward in 2003?
Don't think this is headed toward Rove.
It's kind of funny seeing your jihad against Libby. You want to throw him in the slammer for thirty years for perjury (a "process crime") where his testimony was not material because there was no crime. Never mind. It was illegal. (Name the last person who was prosecuted for perjury under such circumstances? Cite twenty cases.)
Hey, aren't you the same guy who defends illegal aliens? Don't you say, whem it's noted they have broken the law:
"Show me a person that has never done anything illegal and I show you someone with a poor memory or a damn liar."
Don't look now, but your agenda is showing.
Except when the "lie" he is accused of making (i.e. reporters told him about Plame) isn't a lie.
Libby could have got the information from the CIA and said "THAT Wilson, that was the guy who was sent to Niger?"
Miller went to jail to protect testimony about something/someone else - she wasn't protecting Libby, the 2nd release from Libby was simply "window dressing" for her. The part of the deal she cut with Fitzgerald to limit the scope of her testimony, do you know what that was all about? Because I do not.
we've had this discussion before - you can't prove perjury unless you investigate it. Libby was indicted for it because his testimony was investigated. once the GJ became a perjury venue, and not an investigation into the leak of a CIA covert ops identity - everybody is fair game in my opinion. So when Russert testifies he knew nothing, I want to see Andrea Mitchell in there testifying as to what her CNBC interview was all about. When Cooper testifies, I want to see Mandy Grunwald investigated for whether she knew who Wilson's wife was based on her prior role with the Clinton adminsitration, given that we know Wilson was dropping her status to people in the green room at fox news among other places.
Are you saying Russert and Cooper perjured themselves, and the indictment is backwards?
If it was on his list of questions to ask, it is highly likely that he did do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.