Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Woodward's Source Never Testified Before Grand Jury (A lawyer in the case said)
Reuters via CNN Netscape ^ | November 18, 2005

Posted on 11/19/2005 9:20:05 AM PST by new yorker 77

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"Fitzgerald is a dumkopf!"

Actually he is a very dangerous and predatory liberal masquerading as a moderate. Hopefully he will be a dumkopf as this rolls forward.

He will probably try again to slime Rove or Dick Cheney with his new game of who not to interview to slime the Republicans.

If he subpoenas Walter Pincus and David Corn and makes their testimony public, we can cut him some slack.

Now he is looking more each day like the left wing DA in Texas who is trying to smear/frame DeLay.


21 posted on 11/19/2005 9:38:19 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Watch the rats re Iraq in 1998: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

I think you are on the right track. I think he is lying and will name someone close to Chaney or Bush.

He and Fitz had this worked out.

Seeing that his entire career has been based on the lies he told about Watergate, what makes anyone believe he wouldn't do it again.


22 posted on 11/19/2005 9:38:22 AM PST by babydoll22 (If you stop growing as a person you live in your own private hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

Man. If a special prosecutor who was going after Democrats had screwed up like this, the MSM would bury him, and his investigation.

(steely)


23 posted on 11/19/2005 9:38:28 AM PST by Steely Tom (Fortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't include the word 'is'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

On to the Ronnie Earle .. shop FoR a Grand Jury phase


24 posted on 11/19/2005 9:38:55 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Yes, you nailed it.

Less witnesses means less chance of contradiction. This clown Fitzgerald wants to frame somebody good and he only wants to let in that testimony which supports his agenda. This is why he has had "meets" with people prior to bringing them in before the gj. He wants to know ahead of time exactly what questions to ask and what the answers will be.

It would not surprise me at all to find out that Fitz has had lunch with both Corn and Pincus.


25 posted on 11/19/2005 9:39:23 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere; new yorker 77

No idea myself.

Perhaps because Wilson himself was Corn & Pincus' source. Maybe he was afraid of where it would lead...


26 posted on 11/19/2005 9:39:42 AM PST by mosquitobite (As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I may have nailed. However, you have summarized what this left wing POS has been doing and apparently is trying to do:

"Less witnesses means less chance of contradiction. This clown Fitzgerald wants to frame somebody good and he only wants to let in that testimony which supports his agenda. This is why he has had "meets" with people prior to bringing them in before the gj. He wants to know ahead of time exactly what questions to ask and what the answers will be."

Yep, compartmentalize and never ask a question that you don't know the answer. Prearranged data insures the right questions in the Grand Jury.

"It would not surprise me at all to find out that Fitz has had lunch with both Corn and Pincus."

He probably had them report to one of his junior staff meetings. The jr staffer aske prearranged questions while Fitzy looked. After the prearranged questions, Fitzy told Corn and Pincus, we will not need your testimony.


27 posted on 11/19/2005 9:43:55 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Watch the rats re Iraq in 1998: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I tend to give Fitzgerald the benefit of the doubt, however, I admit to being disappointed when he called Wilson and had an informal chat with him.

This lead me to believe that Fitzgerald bought into the left's narrative on this. That's why his investigation is in such a mess right now.
28 posted on 11/19/2005 9:44:04 AM PST by Patriot from Philly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: new yorker 77

"A lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury in the leak case."

Well, maybe. Or this lawyer in the case could simply be mistaken.


30 posted on 11/19/2005 9:49:13 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drawinghome77
Another aside: Mort Kondrake made a good point Thursday:

Woodward claims that he spoke about the Plame issue with three White House officials. Both current and former officials.

Libby and Card are the current officials.

Meaning, the source is a former white house official.

Add to this the fact that 'a lawyer' says this person has not testified before the Grand Jury.

Woodward's Source: The source is a former White House official who never testified before the Grand Jury.
31 posted on 11/19/2005 9:52:24 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: babydoll22

Woodward also got a lot of mileage out of what William Casey (AKA "Mumbles") supposedly told him on his deathbed.


32 posted on 11/19/2005 9:57:00 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

This whole non story make me want to:



YYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.

I'm so tired of this bs.


33 posted on 11/19/2005 9:59:29 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77
I heard Morton Kondracke make this argument, but it depends on Woodward having said "current and former." Did he say that or "current or former" officials (that is, making the description vaguer)?
34 posted on 11/19/2005 9:59:57 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

You know what.

I am trying to be interested in this.

I can't.

It is so friggin boring.

403-3 and a sea of angry libs. That's interesting.


35 posted on 11/19/2005 10:02:46 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

Where has Woodward been for two years?


36 posted on 11/19/2005 10:03:34 AM PST by dervish (no excuse s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red

I don't believe Corn was ever interviewed and he should have been, Plame was obviously a source and known to him.
Pincus cut a deal where he responded under oath to some pre-agreed upon questions from the Prosecutor--questions which quite obviously did not explore his prior knowledge of Plame--And he certainly had some--both thru social and professional contacts in DC and because one of his first interviews was at the Wilson home and she was there at the time.


37 posted on 11/19/2005 10:05:15 AM PST by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77
"Meaning, the source is a former white house official."

I think the media is more accurately stating that it was an "administration" official. It is important to note that the State Department arranged the Wilson trip to Niger. There would therefore be a number of State Department employees who would be aware of the trip. All of these could be called "administration officials". Since Wilson was often bragging of his "Spy" wife, any of these could be the source.

38 posted on 11/19/2005 10:09:17 AM PST by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

He and his wife had far more contacts with State- which knew about the trip. I think Armitage is likely.

What is unlikely is that the prosecution was handled in a way designed to uncover the truth--her name and employment were no secret to the press many of whom knew about it well before the WH did.


39 posted on 11/19/2005 10:13:33 AM PST by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
Like I said.

"On Monday, November 14, I testified under oath in a sworn deposition to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for more than two hours about small portions of interviews I conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials that relate to the investigation of the public disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501829.html

"Mr. Woodward said he spoke with Mr. Libby by phone on June 23, 2003, and met with him at his office four days later."

"Mr. Downie also said yesterday that the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card Jr., spoke with Mr. Woodward at about that time, but did not mention Ms. Plame."

http://www.nysun.com/article/23154

Bob Woodward said a Bush administration official's reference to Plame was "casual and offhand."

"Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Post, said he provided a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald on Monday about conversations with three administration officials after being contacted by the prosecutor on November 3, almost a week after Libby was indicted."

"All three sources cleared the Pulitzer Prize-winner to testify."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Woodward+three+sources&btnG=Search

40 posted on 11/19/2005 10:22:53 AM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson