Posted on 12/11/2005 7:15:21 AM PST by frankjr
Edited on 12/11/2005 7:22:24 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
He asked how often Luskin and I met during the period from fall 2003 to fall 2004 (about five times), when, where and so forth. I had calendar entries that helped but weren't entirely reliable. Did I take notes at those meetings? No. Luskin was more likely to speak freely if he didn't see me committing his words to paper. Did Luskin ever talk to me about whether Rove was a source for Matt on the subject of Wilson's wife?
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
fyi ping
ping
Note: This body is an excerpt. I asked the moderator to please update the posting. Thanks.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1139780,00.html
I even find myself disinterested at this point, so you know average Joe is drawing a blank on this. The whole thing jumped the shark with Woodward's revelations.
Viveka is on a leave of absence...interesting. Her testimony must help Rove...if it didn't she probably would have been promoted. Cooper tried to pull a fast one by calling through the White House Switch Board, but I doubt that good old Fitz will see this as part of the overall set up that the media and the DNC colluded on.
One final note: Luskin is unhappy that I decided to write about our conversation, but I feel that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said.
She must've written that sentence while slithering about and flicking her tongue.
Luskin should be sued for malpractice. You don't talk about clients to reporters.
Wow, I don't think people realize how big this is. This reporter is now on record as stating that her original testimony to Fitzgerald was probably wrong. This article is an admission by Viveca that she mislead Fitzgerald. She is trying to act innocent about it, but clearly she "forgot" to tell Fitzgerald about the March meeting with Luskin.(Rove's lawyer) After testifying the first time and completely "forgetting" all about that meeting, she apparently can now, completly recall that March conversation. A meeting she had previously testified to having taken place in May. This is what she says about it-
"Fitzgerald wanted to know when this conversation occurred. At that point I had found calendar entries showing that Luskin and I had met in January and in May. Since I couldn't remember exactly how the conversation had developed, I wasn't sure. I guessed it was more likely May."
"A new meeting with Fitzgerald was arranged for Dec. 8. Leaks about my role began appearing in the papers, some of them closer to the mark than others. They all made me feel physically ill. Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin. One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out. I hadn't found that one in my first search because I had erroneously entered it as occurring at 5 a.m., not 5 p.m."
"The problem with the new March date was that now I was even more confused--previously I had to try to remember if the key conversation had occurred in January or May, and I thought it was more likely May. But March was close enough to May that I really didn't know. "I don't remember" is an answer that prosecutors are used to hearing, but I was mortified about how little I could recall of what occurred when."
THIS REPORTER SURE SEEMS TO BE DEFENDING WHY SHE MISLEAD FITZGERALD. CLEARLY, THE MSM IS TRYING TO MISLEAD AMERICA AND THIS REPORTER HAS BEEN CAUGHT RED-HANDED.
So why is it okay for this reporter to forget key information, but it is not okay for Libby to forget?
Because one hurts the Democrats and the other helps the Democrats. Despite the repeated claims that Fitzgerald is nonpartisan, he's acted through this whole process like a semi-competent Ronnie Earle (the Texas DA who is playing Capt Ahab to Delay's white whale).
I think we have to start looking at a "Special Gene" that Dems and reporters seem to have in common. I would name it the "IS" Gene after its most famous liar. Now, there's a legacy!!
You know, let's say these were lawyers instead of "journalists". One could go to their respective Bar Association and file ethics complaints against each of them; but since they are "journalists", there's no public recourse.
Maybe we as FReepers could pool resources and take out national newspaper ads with a "Bill of Particulars" demanding full disclosure of the actions of:
Two things. Patrick Fitzgerald is already working for the Fed. He can't bill more hours. Secondly, Plame was not out but nobody knew the difference. If she did more than people realized at the CIA how could you know. Her cover was to work at the CIA but just as a regular employee not an undercover employee. How is anyone supposed to know that she is undercover when undercover and cover are the same thing.
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.