Posted on 10/22/2005 7:16:36 PM PDT by churchillbuff
"In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the specialcounsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’stestimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crimeand the low value of the leaked information, no privilege barsthe subpoenas."
Since you seem to have a reading comprehension, let me explain this very complicated passage for you.
The judge is saying that the 1982 IIPA is a law. If it was broken, it's a serious felony. That was why he thought it was important for Mr. Fitzgerald to get testimony from Ms. Miller.
Prosecutors often have to prove that a serious law--such as a felony--is in play to compel reporters to give up their so-called "journalistic priviledge" of protecting their sources.
So, on the basis of a possible felony, the judge agreed to throw Ms. Miller in jail for not testifying.
After 85 days, Ms. Miller decided she should testify and she did. She testified that Libby did NOT give her Plame's name, and thus no felony has occured WRT her.
Got it? LOL
You have one of those maniac tendencies to always laugh. There are pills for that - see a doc. Because you shouldn't be laughing when you're displaying ignorance. Neither you nor I know what's in those redacted passages. For you to say that you can mind-read judge Tatel and visualize the redacted pages - that's not funny, that suggests you might need help.
We'll see soon enough what it's all about - if there are indictments. If there aren't, we may never know, since Fitzpatrick might be prohibited from issuing a report.
Either way, consider getting help, bucko.
I laugh because you are so laughable.
Even you quote the Solon O'Donnell who in turn quotes the judge:
"O'Donnell continues: "Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.”
Er, that's what it is about. An allegation of the exposure of a covert agent.
But you know something the judge doesn't, I guess. LOL
Who died? Did the Belgian guy who did the copying meet his demise?
There are several other "leaks" in this case to which Judge Tatel may have been referring.
Notice that ALL the Plame "leak" accusations are included in his decisions ~ the "leak" that causes him to lock up Miller is not!
That would certainly amount to a grave crime and nailing it wopuld be worth the time and frustration this episode has caused.
In my dreams, a number of those connected to and abetting Wilson would be named democrats - who like Kerry during Vietnam would go down in infamy. A dream?
So what do you infer from that?
The extent of Fitzgerald's investigation is revealed by who has appeared before the Grand Jury. This is about the Plame leak and nothing else.
Hotline On Call: The F List
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10/the_f_list.html
If some WH official had actually leaked Plame's name--and she was at the time a covert officer--and it had been done intentionally to cause harm--then hell yeah, that is a serious crime.
And that was the initial allegation. But it turns out it didn't happen that way.
The fantasists are having a field-day. Next week they will have forgotten all about it and be on to other fantasies. (Oddly, their fantasies are always bad for the GOP or the US in general.)
I've been trying to figure out how Fitzgerald could conduct a trial against anybody involved in this for any reason whatsoever and hope to get a conviction when the CIA is going to be in there quashing all requests for information about Plame's real job!
If the IIAP law had actually been broken, it would have been easy enough for Fitzgerald to have Plame as well as some top level person from the CIA confirm her status (as covert) at the CIA.
That's all it would have taken. So I don't see that as being any kind of an obstacle.
I think it's very clear from the preponderence of the evidence (such as we've heard) and the press accounts that there was no "leak" in the sence of the Agee/IIPA law.
That's why everyone in the DNC/media has moved on to hoping there was some slip up in testimony so that they can salvage at least a perjury charge out of all of this.
It's pretty pathetic, really.
"WHY WAS WILSON SENT TO NIGER TO REPRESENT THE USA REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT IRAQ WAS BUYING YELLOWCAKE? WHY? WHY? WHY?"
See this FR post, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506711/posts
The title is "Was the Joe Wilson Valerie Plame Affair a CIA Plot?"
There are segments in the CIA and the State Department who are very much opposed to the policies of the Bush Administration. They are particularly incensed against Dick Cheney and are out to get him.
Another useful source is Laurie Milroie's book "Bush Against the Beltway."
FEBRUARY 2005 was when Fitz sought phone records of NY Times reporter Phillip Shenon in the probe of a leak by a government employee about a planned raid on the offices of the Global Relief Foundation.
Nobody seems interested in the Holy Land Foundation angle but it was a Leak was it not, and wouldn't you just love to know who really tipped her off, who was giving her information? Sounds much more like a national security risk than the Non-outing of non covert agent. I guess we will just have to wait and see but I like the possibilty.
Again, I would love to why Fitz limited his own scope and met with Bennett before Miller's testimony. IIPA and Section 793 are a non starter.
The Sept. 11 report says that ``press leaks plagued'' most actions to freeze assets in the United States taken by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. -------- "U.S. Probes Alleged (NYT) Leak on Terror Probe," by CURT ANDERSON, AP Writer , Associated Press (The Guardian), 9/10/04 Friday
[* Hmmm- then could someone at Treasury be the leaker?
Could it be Paul O'Niell?
2002 : (US TREASURY : TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL O'NIELL IS FIRED) President George W. Bush's performance at cabinet meetings resembled that of "a blind man in a room full of deaf people", according to Paul O'Neill (pictured), who was fired as Treasury secretary in 2002. The remarkable personal attack is made by Mr O'Neill in a forthcoming book, according to excerpts from a television interview to be broadcast on Sunday.----------- "Bush savaged by former Treasury chief," Financial Times, by Alan Beattie, Jan 9, 2004 ]
... and then in Feb 2005 Fitzgerald tried to get the courts to agree to obtaining Shenon's phone records.
The court blocked him at least inititally and perhaps that required a route to the source through Miller.
churchillbuff, I'm enjoying your posts...What do you make of the information at the link in this post? TIA
To: RAldrich
Anyone seen this? http://cryptome.sabotage.org/plame-eyeball.htm ... at the bottom of the page: JACQUELINE C WILSON, 55, 4612 CHARLESTON TER NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20007 (202) 3429888, in the center VALERIE WILSON
4612 CHARLESTON TER NW
WASHINGTON DC 20007
(202) 342-9888
I find this strange.
3 posted on 10/22/2005 8:08:58 PM PDT by pnut22
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/plame-eyeball.htm
SO SORRY...Meant to post a thread link too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507520/posts
Plame and her husband and others in the CIA ran a rogue operation to discredit a president. And? They had the help of journalists in the effort, including (it appears) journalists at the New York Times.
That is the only thing that makes sense, and it explains why Dowd and the rest of them are acting so worried. Wilson was supposed to finger Rove. She didn't. And now they're deathly afraid of what might happen.
Plame and her husband and others in the CIA ran a rogue operation to discredit a president. And? They had the help of journalists in the effort, including (it appears) journalists at the New York Times.
That is the only thing that makes sense, and it explains why Dowd and the rest of them are acting so worried. Wilson was supposed to finger Rove. She didn't. And now they're deathly afraid of what might happen.
"My point in posting this judicial opinion is that, unlike a lot of folks who haven't seen Fitzgerald's evidence (and who are saying Fitzgerald has nothing of substance), the three federal appellate judges who HAVE seen the evidence, said that it was "grave" enough to justify jailing Judith Miller to procure her cooperation."
I haven't seen the judicial opinion. I have only seen L. O'Donnell's report.
Mr. O'Donnell has spun stories before.
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.