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 ...
The Fitz man painted a picture of Libby eagerly telling anyone who would listen that Plame worked for the CIA and that it wasnt widely known....
Woodward's comments pokes a giant hole in that theory. And we still dont know who told Novak.
" But he did issue a report it is in the guise of an indictment."
That's a good point. You might also say his press conference was sort of a report.
Very unprofessional all around. And shows he's not quite what so many said he was.
"But Miller has been a very reckless reporter. I seriously question her ethics."
You sound like you work for the NY Times.
Name one instance of Miller's reporting being "reckless."
She passed on information she was told from sources who should have known what they were talking about.
That is what reporters do. (Or used to.)
"The big deal is he never told investigators of his independent inquiry to the CIA. The indictment alleges that Libby tried to lead investigators away from that."
You've been asked these questions in a dozen ways on a dozen thread, but I'll try again.
If Plame was not a covert CIA officer protected by the IIPA, what is the crime that was being investigated by Fitzgerald?
If there is no crime, how is Libby's testimony material?
If it is not material, how is it perjury?
And, also, can you name some other instances where someone had been indicted for perjury for similar non-material testimony?
Lastly, why is this so important to you? Do you think you have a higher regard for the rule of law than say, Joe DiGenova?
See post #147.
I hope most newspaper editors don't share your view that good reporters should simply pass on information from sources who "should have known what they were talking about."
A little critical thought and evaluation of sources before using them would help a little, no?
"3. Someone other than Libby has now been fingered as the original source of the leak, undermining Fitz's comments at the press conference and raising questions about what else he might have missed."
I tell you what it also raises. It raises the real point that Fitzgerald did a very botched job, that he would miss such an important element.
And it suggests that even after all this time it was more important for him to get this indictment (any indictment) out before the elections -- when they would do the most good.
That's a charge. Has it been proven?
Well now, that's a question that has been asked for a long time. The only answer that I've read about that makes any sense at all is that while Plame was not specifically classified as "covert," she was in fact an agent under "non-official cover." Whether exposing a NOC is against the law or not, I do not know. But I suspect it might be. Otherwise, why would the Justice Department assign a special prosecutor to the case?
"I hope most newspaper editors don't share your view that good reporters should simply pass on information from sources who "should have known what they were talking about.
A little critical thought and evaluation of sources before using them would help a little, no?"
Well, the NY Times certainly agrees with you and hates Miller for reporting that there might be WMD in Iraq or that Saddam might be seeking them.
Was she wrong? I'm not so sure she was. But in any case she was reporting what the leadership of our country and every other country was being told.
Shouldn't we know that?
"Well now, that's a question that has been asked for a long time. The only answer that I've read about that makes any sense at all is that while Plame was not specifically classified as "covert," she was in fact an agent under "non-official cover." Whether exposing a NOC is against the law or not, I do not know. But I suspect it might be. Otherwise, why would the Justice Department assign a special prosecutor to the case?"
You don't know what you are talking about. NOC is the most covert cover.
I have said why a SP was assigned--because of the media and Dem attention.
The orginal referral was almost certainly a matter or rote. The CIA sends the DOJ similarly referrals more than once a week. They clearly don't go into too great a depth in checking out the seriousness of the situation. That's what the DOJ is for.
Of course not, because under the deal that Miller's lawyer made with Fitzpatrick, the latter could not question her about it. Her lawyer cited (again) "reporter's privilege."
You think Fitzgerald was going to ask her about these Holyland charges?
You really don't know how a GJ works. That was not his purview.
Anyway, it seems you are saying you don't trust Miller's ethics because some people have alleged she did something that has not been proven -- or really all that well substantiated.
Just thought I'd point that out.
You have your answer then, because Valerie Plame was a NOC.
See post #147.
Plame was not a NOC within the time frame required by the IIPA. You need to read up on this subject.
Thank you for your advice.
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
Don't bump your head on the bottom of the bridge.
"in a separate case..."
Which had nothing to do with the GJ that Fitzgerald was questioning Miller before.
The "deal" Fitzgerald made with Miller's attorneys to get her to testify had NOTHING to do with this other case.
I've said that, too. Basically, SCOTUS said that there is no protection in the Constitution, but there's nothing stopping Congress from creating one.
yes, but do we all get it? how do they create a privilege just for ivy league reporters from the mainstream media, and constitutionally deny it to Matt Drudge (for example) or bloggers?
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.