Posted on 11/17/2005 5:10:51 AM PST by veronica
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.
OK then, supposing I am mistaken, what did it have to do with? What were the limits of her testimony?
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.
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.
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... ;-)
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.
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.
"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.
;-)
"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.
Maybe you should read it again. Woodward was apparently recruited by the "boys" in college.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Wouldn't that be something if the perp turned out to be a Clinton Era appointee~!!!!
" 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.
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.