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

Skip to comments.

WOODWARD COULD KO CASE VS. SCOOTER
NY Post ^ | 11-17-05 | DEBORAH ORIN

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 321-334 next last
To: Mike Darancette

Fitzgerald has blown this case.


161 posted on 11/17/2005 9:57:24 AM PST by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

I think it makes Fitzgerald look like an ass. Remember he held a press conference and stated that Scooter Libby was the first person to leak Valerie Plame's name and identify her as a CIA agent to the media. This was a threat to our National Security. And Libby lied about it.

I bet Fitzgerald used the same lines to the Grand Jury and that is why he was indicted.

Remember the only reason Woodward is talking is because his source (Cheney?) ratted him out. The source is probably in the clear because it sounds like he contacted Fitzgerald and said something like. "You know, I now recollect mentioning in passing that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife to Bob Woodward." Fitzgerald will probably have a hard time indicting this souce if he volunteered the information. JMHO.


162 posted on 11/17/2005 10:07:27 AM PST by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
It's kind of funny seeing your jihad against Libby. You want to throw him in the slammer for thirty years for perjury (a "process crime") where his testimony was not material because there was no crime.

We don't know that there was no crime. Fitzgerald was assigned, by the DoJ, to find out. According to the GJ, Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice prevented the GJ from finding out. So the investigation continues.

163 posted on 11/17/2005 10:10:25 AM PST by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ameribbean expat
...they've become half the story themselves

Good point, and a good reason to be skeptical about the coverage.

164 posted on 11/17/2005 10:12:30 AM PST by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

I read it when it came out. I'm not sure I believe it.

I don't recall what they said about Woodward being in the CIA. If they said that, I'm even more skeptical about the boook.


165 posted on 11/17/2005 10:17:26 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Matthews wept.


166 posted on 11/17/2005 10:18:12 AM PST by PJ-Comix (Join the DUmmie FUnnies PING List for the FUNNIEST Blog on the Web)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn

Horse puckey.


167 posted on 11/17/2005 10:18:21 AM PST by Wolfstar (The stakes in the global war on terror are too high for politicians to throw out false charges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

Perjury is a separate issue and charge, which Libby has to answer for.


However...Customary practice and DOJ guidelines state that before the investigatory nachinery of the government is brought to bear, there should be some case that a law has been broken. diGenova and Toensing have been saying from day 1 that there was no crime. There's at least a hint of prosecutorial misconduct, which Fitzgerald would have to answer for. Any competent defense attorney would seek to have the case thrown out on those grounds.


168 posted on 11/17/2005 10:18:30 AM PST by gogeo (Often wrong but seldom in doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn

We know there was no crime because there is no law against outing a CIA agent who is not "covert" by the definition of the IIPA.

The Espionage Act of 1917 does not apply and has never been applied for such. (Which was why the IIPA of 1982 was legislated.)


169 posted on 11/17/2005 10:19:27 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper

"Remember he held a press conference and stated that Scooter Libby was the first person to leak Valerie Plame's name and identify her as a CIA agent to the media. This was a threat to our National Security. And Libby lied about it.

I bet Fitzgerald used the same lines to the Grand Jury and that is why he was indicted."

Excellent point. I would bet you are right.


170 posted on 11/17/2005 10:21:11 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
I believe Woodward was an officer in Naval Intelligence.
That could have put him in contact (depending on assignments) with lots of people from the various Intelligence Agencies, (ie NSA, DIA, NRO, CIA...)
171 posted on 11/17/2005 10:23:59 AM PST by Prost1 (If you fight, fight hard, fight dirty, fight to win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: quefstar

"I am lost in how the Woodward revelation is a good thing for the Whitehouse? If Woodward is to be believed, Senior Whitehouse staff was trying to discredit Plame/Wilson longer then had been known."

The premise of Wilson and his water carriers in the DNC/MSM is that Plame was outed as payback.

Do you think George Tenet or Colin Powell would have outed her as payback?

Nobody does. Not even the lunatics in the DNC/MSM.


172 posted on 11/17/2005 10:24:38 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
We know there was no crime because there is no law against outing a CIA agent who is not "covert" by the definition of the IIPA. The Espionage Act of 1917 does not apply and has never been applied for such. (Which was why the IIPA of 1982 was legislated.)

We are speculating, based on the above and more, that there was no crime. But the Dept. of Justice assigned a special prosecutor to find out, and until he is finished, we can only speculate.

173 posted on 11/17/2005 10:26:00 AM PST by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

I guess reporters need "beards" too.


174 posted on 11/17/2005 10:26:27 AM PST by gogeo (Often wrong but seldom in doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea
Fitzgerald has blown this case.

Now I'm seeing rumors from DU, Daily KOS and ABC that Fitzgerald might convene a new Grand Jury to present information he received from Woodward. The RAT spin is that the Woodward revelations will allow for the indictments of others. Were that true then Woodward would have been pressed to reveal his source.

IMHO: the new GJ is cover for dropping charges against Libby.

175 posted on 11/17/2005 10:28:54 AM PST by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a trial.

While I would like to see this go to trial also, there's only one problem. Libby has to pay for it. He could be ruined financially. It would take at least a year, maybe longer, for this case to come to trial. Libby has to twist in the wind until then. He can't practice law, and probably couldn't earn a living at all unless he was hired by some think tank or something. And his name has already been smeared.

176 posted on 11/17/2005 10:29:05 AM PST by Wolfstar (The stakes in the global war on terror are too high for politicians to throw out false charges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Yeah, probably half of Washington knew before Cheney knew. The thing is, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You could know that an Ambassador Wilson was married to someone at the CIA and it doesn't mean anything. Libby could have got the information from the CIA and said "THAT Wilson, that was the guy who was sent to Niger?"

What is your point. Libby said he found out from reporters. If he did, name them, and tell me why he bothered to ask the CIA and state departments who Wilson was and why he was sent to Africa. Tell me also why he conveniently forgot that they had reported back to him and to Cheney? Tell me why he was able to remember hearing about it from a reporter, although he cant remember who, and conveniently forgot that he had learned four times before.

177 posted on 11/17/2005 10:29:57 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

"I believe Woodward was an officer in Naval Intelligence.
That could have put him in contact (depending on assignments) with lots of people from the various Intelligence Agencies, (ie NSA, DIA, NRO, CIA...)"

No, he wasn't.

Knight Fellowships: 1998 Knight Lecture: Bob Woodward

"QUESTION: I don’t think Mr. Colodny, the co-author who wrote "Silent Coup," would agree with that. Do you want to include out of your comments whether or not you had an intelligence background in the Navy, whether or not you were placed in this role? You seemed to come on to the scene very timely, your relationship to, no, I’m just telling–

WOODWARD: No, no, this is a fair question. There are, that book, the book, "Silent Coup," I’m intimately familiar with, which has been just discredited up and down and the allegation is that somehow when I was in the Navy I worked in Naval intelligence which I did not, which there are records of. I worked in Naval communications. I had nothing to do with that."

http://knight.stanford.edu/lectures/knight/1998/


178 posted on 11/17/2005 10:30:19 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

Comment #179 Removed by Moderator

To: huck von finn

"We are speculating, based on the above and more, that there was no crime. But the Dept. of Justice assigned a special prosecutor to find out, and until he is finished, we can only speculate."

No. It went more like this:

1. Some cubicle drones (most likely blue-haired old ladies) at the CIA are assigned to scan the US newspapers for mention of the CIA.

2. They saw the name of Plame and that she was an agent. The bluehairs went to their computers and punched in a few words and sent the info to the Justice Department for investigation. (Something that happens more than once a week, by the way.)

3. We would probably have never heard another word about it, but Admiral Joe Wilson began to scream from the rooftops, and since he was working for the DNC and Kerry's campaign--he was able to get enough press that the (cowed) Bush administration decided they better put a special prosecutor on this.

If there had been a law broken, Fitzgerald would have mentioned it. He didn't.


180 posted on 11/17/2005 10:36:00 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 321-334 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