WOODWARD COULD KO CASE VS. SCOOTER

NY Post ^ | 11-17-05 | DEBORAH ORIN

[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."

[beyond the sea]

Right!

[huck von finn]

That's nice, except Libby isn't charged with leaking the information, but rather, he was charged with lying to prosecutors and the DA about something that wasn't a crime in the first place. The fact that someone else might have leaked the name is irrelevant.

True. This is just more speculation by the MSM. Since Fitzgerald isn't talking, they have to speculate each day in order to keep the story alive.

[expatpat]

He was probably also trying to worm his way into that woman's confidence, if the incident in the movie was true. Reporters are slimy like that.

[huck von finn]

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.

Fitzgerald and Miller had tangled before. Miller was responsible for botching an operation that would have bagged some terrorist organization, if I remember correctly. She didn't want any of that brought into the CIA Leak investigation inquiry. I'll try to find the information for you.

[Sam Hill]

Not that it matters, but Woodward was barely a reporter at the time of Watergate. He never went to J-School (which is probably a plus) and had only worked for a year on the (laughable) Montgomery County Sentinal.

This was his first real story. Which is why they didn't follow any known journalistic rules (as slack as they are) and they felt comfortable lying their asses off.

Woodward became an instant and never learned the concept of fact checking -- or truth telling. Of course in that respect it is fitting that he is the patron saint of modern journalism.

[oceanview]

I am saying that it was not investigated - if it had been, we might have been able to show their testimony was not truthful in some areas.

not backwards - but a more fair outcome might well have brought BOTH the Libby indictments and other indictments against the media "players" in this. if we are looking for the level of "fairness" in Fitzgerald's approach to this case, that certainly would have been a data point of note. As it is, I still don't know what deal he cut with Miller.

this whole issue of "prior knowledge", while again I understand it has nothing to do with what Libby is charged with, would certainly have been enlightening with regards to exposing the part of the story about how this whole Wilson thing got cooked up in the first place. and after all, if this investigation was really about a search for the truth - shouldn't we know that?

[huck von finn]

Here's a reference to it:

Secondary case In a separate case, Federal Judge Robert Sweet ruled on February 24, 2005 that Miller was not required to reveal who in the government leaked word of an impending raid to her. Patrick Fitzgerald, the same prosecutor who had Miller jailed in the Plame case, had argued that Miller's calls to groups suspected of funding terrorists had tipped them off to the raid and allowed them time to destroy evidence. Fitzgerald wanted Miller's phone records to confirm the time of the tip and determine who had leaked the information to Miller in the first place. However, Judge Sweet held that because Fitzgerald could not demonstrate in advance that the phone records would provide the information he sought the prosecutor's needs were outweighed by a 'reporter's privilege' to keep sources confidential.

Journalist shield laws have been enacted in most states, but not at the federal level. However, those state laws vary widely but generally do not provide absolute protection and journalists may still be compelled to testify if they have been witness to a crime or if there is no other way for the court to obtain the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)

[Sunnyflorida]

"These career types have almost no one that they must please."

If Libby gets acquitted, Fitz gets hung by the media. Not a good career move.

Also Fitz alleges that Libby is at the beginning of the chain where Ms Plame's identity became known by the press. If this is not true it raises serious doubt on Fitz's credibility. It suggests the investigation is not thorough. Credibility of the witness is the key to this case. If the accuser is not credible neither is the case.

The trial would be very interesting and embarrassing. The prosecution is relying on witnesses like Russert, Miller, etc. They cannot claim reporter-source confidentiality in a criminal trial or can they?. Unless all the reporters and editors and producers mentioned told a complete story and named names under oath the whole case would get tossed (at least that is what I would expect).

Pretty hard case to prove in any case. Fitz does not claim to have prima facia evidence Libby intended to lie.

[Cboldt]

... if this investigation was really about a search for the truth - shouldn't we know that?

The endeavor is odd. I am puzzled at why the WH endorsed and continues to endorse the investigation as "serious." Why not point out the obvious? If someone is known to work at the CIA, they are not covert.

But if you read the charge from the DoJ to the independent counsel, you will see why the focus was on government actors.

[Iris7]

I recall Woodward's "interview" of John Casey while Casey lay dieing. Woodward quoted all sorts of admissions from Casey. all were damaging to th Republicans.

Casey's family, though, said that a family member was with Casey every minute that Woodward claimed to be there and saw no sign of Woodward. Besides, Casey was in a coma, had been for days, and then died in this same coma. Casey could neither talk nor think.

Woodward is setting up an elaborate lie.

[Sunnyflorida]

"But now we see a different reporter knew about Plame a month before Libby was talking to anyone. Maybe Libby learned it from Woodward BEFORE all those pesky Fed Employees mentioned it to him. "I knew that, a reporter told me that" is now a much, much more plausible claim for Libby to make. It shoots the "timeline" that is the main evidence in Fitz's case."

Exactly!
Here is a possible scenario; Libby hears about Plame from a reporter. He goes to the proper channels to confirm it. Then talks to Miller, et al. In this case he did hear it first from a reporter. Could have been the day Wilson got picked to go. (Knowing the CIA it is entirely possible some reporter got a call the day the trip was suggested "Hey this is the NYT we hear Channey has asked the CIA to send some guy Wilson to Niger?".) In any trial Miller and that Time guy (whatshisname) and Russert get grilled. So does Mitchel and Woodward. Since they are major prosecution witnesses I would expect the judge would have to give wide leeway on the cross. (Any FR lawyers?)

[Mike Darancette]

its that he conveniently forgot the four people including Cheney who had told him that information prior to any reporter

What if Woodward told Libby?

[huck von finn]

Well, this ordinary non-lawyer American thinks it stinks to high heaven that a prosecutor would begin investigating Charge A, discover that no crime was committed on that allegation, yet continue to play games with a Grand Jury in an attempt to entrap somebody for perjury, making false statements, obstruction of justice, etc.

Fitzgerald did not discover that no crime was committed. The investigation is ongoing. Libby was indicted because the grand jury couldn't discover anything due (at least in part) to what they felt were Libby's obstruction and perjury.

[somerville]

As I said, it is also in the book, which was published first.

That Woodward is a Registered Republican has been a well documented fact for years. Just puruse the internet.

[Mike Darancette]

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.

Now that would seem to be a Lie and it is possible that a reporter did tell Libby. It is not a good thing for prosecutors to lie in public and in their filings.

Fitzgerald does not have a clue which reporters were told, when they were told and who told them you don't see a problem for Fitzgerald here?

[Sunnyflorida]

" I am puzzled at why the WH endorsed and continues to endorse the investigation as "serious."

Well if (when) Libby gets off he is vindicated by a serious process.

[beyond the sea]

you're right

[beyond the sea]

Read 'Silent Coup', by Colodney & Gettler for the real truth about Woodward (CIA) ...........rifled through Kissinger's briefcase for the Joint Chiefs.

[ameribbean expat]

anybody else notice how involved the msm is in this story? these people are running around giving testimony to grand juries then grabbing a few minutes of quality face time on the 24 hour cable news channels...they've become half the story themselves. oh well, they never claimed to understand the Heisenberg Principle in the first place. Except Dan Rather and he's convinced that as a minor deity in the Hindu pantheon he is exempt from natural law.