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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-334 next last
To: Sam Hill

One could also argue that the indictment was just a tool for Fitz to continue getting a paycheck. No indictment, then no more SP and he has to go back to earning an honest living.


261 posted on 11/17/2005 1:18:35 PM PST by AmishDude (Amishdude, the one and only.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
The "deal" Fitzgerald made with Miller's attorneys to get her to testify had NOTHING to do with this other case.

OK then, supposing I am mistaken, what did it have to do with? What were the limits of her testimony?

262 posted on 11/17/2005 1:18:39 PM PST by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Are they gunning for Rove again

Woodward also stated that he had communications with 3 high ranking Bush administration officials of which 2 are current members and one is former and that the Plame info came quite casually and unauthoratively from the "former" offical, which would let Rove off the hook.

263 posted on 11/17/2005 1:21:48 PM PST by scannell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
If you're asking rhetorically, I agree. If you're actually asking a question, I assume that the statute would have some vague language that would have to be adjudicated by the judge of the case.

My guess is that any professional reporter and some amateur bloggers would be covered. I, for example, would not. But I'd rather like to think that the press has no greater entitlement to freedom of speech than I do.

264 posted on 11/17/2005 1:22:53 PM PST by AmishDude (Amishdude, the one and only.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
Plame was not a NOC within the time frame required by the IIPA. You need to read up on this subject.

How do we know when Plame was last out of country? How do we know what constitutes out of country? How do we know what she was doing and when? That's the problem for those of us unable to gain access to classified information about NOCs... ;-)

265 posted on 11/17/2005 1:22:55 PM PST by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn
"why would the Justice Department assign a special prosecutor to the case?"

Because the media was hounding for this and the the DOJ had a chain of recusals(sp) if I recall correctly. The MSM was pressing (NPI) for independent council.
266 posted on 11/17/2005 1:24:42 PM PST by Sunnyflorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: scannell

This should not be hard to figure out. Given the nature of his book, Woodward only talked to top people. I don't think Novak's source was high up, given the clues Novak has given out, but Woodward's may very well be Powell or Tenant.


267 posted on 11/17/2005 1:25:17 PM PST by AmishDude (Amishdude, the one and only.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn

I believe that (according to Miller and her attorneys) Fitzgerald in effect agreed to not ask about anyone but Libby.

But even that might not have been the exact truth, since it is clear from Miller's subsequent remarks that after saying Libby was not her source that she was asked the further question: "then, who was your source?" To which Miller replied she couldn't remember.

I'm not saying that your wrong, btw. It might turn out that Miller did have a hand in tipping off the Holyland foundation folks. But that allegation hasn't gotten very far as far as I know.

And part of me thinks Miller showed a lot of intestinal fortitude in standing up to the NY Times and telling the truth about her source (that is, not being Libby), which cost her her career. But it might turn out that I'm wrong about that, too.


268 posted on 11/17/2005 1:26:26 PM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
"Plame was not a NOC within the time frame required by the IIPA. You need to read up on this subject."

Likely true. Seems like Fitz would have have grounds to charge somebody if the leak "blew the cover of a NOC."
269 posted on 11/17/2005 1:27:28 PM PST by Sunnyflorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: huck von finn

"How do we know when Plame was last out of country? How do we know what constitutes out of country? How do we know what she was doing and when? That's the problem for those of us unable to gain access to classified information about NOCs..."

It's been widely reported that she hasn't been out of the country from (if I recall) 1995, or thereabouts.

But we know because Fitzgerald did not say anywhere in his indictment or even in his long-winded press conference that she was covert or that her identity was protected by the IIPA. And he was asked repeatedly.


270 posted on 11/17/2005 1:28:29 PM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Matthews spit and wept.

;-)

271 posted on 11/17/2005 1:29:28 PM PST by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Jaidyn
Fitzgerals isn't so stupid as to realize the American people will be up in arms over perjury charges to a case that is really a non-case. If there was no leak, then, how can Libby be indicted for lying? Because if the FBI asks you something and you lie about it (you are wearing a red tie, they ask you what color, and you say blue) you are breaking the law.
272 posted on 11/17/2005 1:30:17 PM PST by jern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

"she was asked the further question: "then, who was your source?" To which Miller replied she couldn't remember."

This is really the most unbelievable part of this story.


273 posted on 11/17/2005 1:30:45 PM PST by Sunnyflorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

Maybe you should read it again. Woodward was apparently recruited by the "boys" in college.


274 posted on 11/17/2005 1:31:33 PM PST by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

I agree that Woodward is comes across as less partisan than many others, namely his buddy Carl Bernstein (reeks of liberalism). Woodward has had unusual access to both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Based on his public comments just prior to the indictments, I tend to believe that he genuinely felt this would go nowhere. That belief would allow him to remain quiet with regard to his own sources.

The incident on the Larry King show reveals that he knows this whole "Bush lied" thing is bunk. Is he willing to take on his buddies in the mainstream media? It would be one hell of a story to cap off his career. Expose the willingness of the media and the Democrats to continue their lying to the American people.

I have thought that since the beginning of this BS that it would take a liberal or one from the mainstream media to wake up and realize that this is a house of cards waiting to fall.


275 posted on 11/17/2005 1:32:26 PM PST by Bayou Dittohead (This could be his next big scoop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida

It really is screwy.

And the media has really done their level best to confuse it further.

Heck, most of their stories still have Miller saying that Libby was her source.


276 posted on 11/17/2005 1:34:05 PM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
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.

I am a little alarmed that Sean Vanity has not mentioned Woodward once so far on his lame show. I wonder if there are some in the conservative media such as him who may know that this is not good news for our side.

Or, it's just that little Sean just forgot about it. To me, it's a huge story. I'm baffled about the non-coverage of this.

277 posted on 11/17/2005 1:35:17 PM PST by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: jern

"Because if the FBI asks you something and you lie about it (you are wearing a red tie, they ask you what color, and you say blue) you are breaking the law."

Completely and totally not true. You could tell the FBI you were wearing a pink tie and be completely naked and it not be against the law. It is NOT against the law to tell the FBI a fact and it is incorrect. There is no law that says people have to be accurate. None whatsoever.

It goes farther. I could be waring a blue tie, my wife calls and says "what tie are you wearing" I say "blue". The next call is from the FBI. They ask the same question, and I respond "red", I still have not committed a crime. If I tell some one especially in writing "I'm wearing a blue tie, but when the FBI asks me I'm going to say red." Then I am in big trouble.

Being wrong or forgetful or even stupid is not against the law.


278 posted on 11/17/2005 1:38:00 PM PST by Sunnyflorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
but Woodward's may very well be Powell or Tenant.

Wouldn't that be something if the perp turned out to be a Clinton Era appointee~!!!!

279 posted on 11/17/2005 1:43:27 PM PST by scannell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: scannell

" Wouldn't that be something if the perp turned out to be a Clinton Era appointee"

That could explain the otherwise inexplicable lack of interest in the media about finding out who it was.


280 posted on 11/17/2005 1:45:55 PM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 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