My Worries: Fitzgerald's Investigation & the News About Miller & Cooper

[David Zephyr]

In my mind's eye, there are few -- very few -- possible explanations as to why Patrick Fitzgerald, John Ashcroft's proxy in this cover-up, spent the last six months of his phony investigation chasing Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller instead of squeezing Bob Novak.

Everyone on earth already knows that Bob Novak learned about Valerie Plame's position in the C.I.A. from either Karl Rove, George H. Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, or Mary Matalin. That's a given. They all had motive and opportunity to attack Plame's husband, Joe Wilson.

So after Ashcroft's obvious pissing away the most critical early months of the investigation in classic stall-and-delay tactics, why did his proxy, Fitzgerald, piss away still another NINE MONTHS in the courts persecuting Cooper and Miller? I think I know why.

If Cooper and Miller learned essentially the same thing that Novak had learned, but through a lower-level White House aide...then Fitzgerald would be able to pin the crime on that lower echelon White House staffer and thereby let Rove and the rest off the hook.

And because it would be a low-level staffer, President Bush could then pardon the individual upon exiting the White House and not draw much wrath from the public because the individual would be so down on the totem pole that there might even be sympathy for him or her...just an over-enthusiastic person who made a mistake.

I believe this as sure as the sun rose this morning.

Novak gets a pass. Bush and the White House all get a pass. And the public feels like justice was done.

Someone has already agreed to take the fall and Fitzgerald just needs the name of one low-level leaker to save the hides of the higher-level leakers.

Bob Novak could not provide a low-level name in the White House, but perhaps Judith Miller or Matthew Cooper will.

[blm]

1. Exactly what I think.

.

[David Zephyr]

6. Most all other explanations fail.

Glad to know that I am not alone, blm.

It is really highly unlikely that a high level White House name leaked to Cooper or Miller. But they would feel comfortable leaking to Novak.

Lower level leaker to Cooper and Miller. They spill the beans and presto, Fitzgerald has the "culprit".

Or, we can trust Fitzgerald.

[blm]

64. I'm kicking this, because I think it's the most insightful assessment

so far, and needs more eyeballs.

[Ksec]

2. I was shocked when Fox had a segment about Novak skating

Novaks bad karma is megahumongous. Hes gonna get it Reeeaaally bad when it comes.

[merh]

3. Nobody said Novak gets a pass.

I'm willing to wait to see what happens. After all, grand jury proceedings are secretive.

The only reason we know about any of these proceedings is that the press has tried to use their position in our society to defend themselves, protect the admin and thwart justice. IMHO.

[xray s]

4. Or maybe there is more than we know

You might want to check out this thread at DailyKos. We can only hope its true...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/30/123531/610

Some snippets

It wasn't about retaliation, it was about tarnishing Wilson by tying him to the antiwar faction at CIA

and

What started as a potential case of intentionally leaking the identity of an agent has now become about perjury and obstruction of justice in an attempt to conceal White House involvement in fixing the intelligence that led to war.

[Hepburn]

5. Why do you think this is a phony investigation?

I do not see it this way at all ~ but rather see it that Fitzgerald is leaving no stone unturned. From what I have read, the testimony of Miller and Cooper were the only two matters left which he had to bring before the GJ. When they refused to testify, he went balls to the wall after them and pursued them to the point that the judge found them in contempt. My read on Novak is that he was called and testified. To me, as an attorney who was in practice with a former US Atty, since the information outing Plame was revealed by Novak, there simply is no way Fitzgerald did not issue a subpoena to him. And since Fitzgerald did NOT go after Novak for a refusal to testify and reveal his sources, then it would appear that Novak did testify. Matter of fact, that is the accepted rumor in the legal community ~ that Novak was called and testified.

[David Zephyr]

9. I am certain he issued a subpoena to Novak. He would have had to.

It's the questions that Novak would have been asked...and not asked that would be important.

There should have been an independent outside investigation will full grand jury and subpoena powers. Instead, we have an Ashcroft proxy in Chicago (I believe) handling it all.

Do you actually believe that Fitzgerald would charge Dick Cheney or Karl Rove or the former President Bush with a felony?

[Hepburn]

21. I have NEVER seen Pat Fitzgerald...

...as an Ashcroft proxy. That is just not his reputation. And as to charging someone, anyone with a felony? There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that if anyone could do this, Patrick Fitzgerald would. I am a lawyer and my office did a great deal of criminal defense work. My partner was from the Chicago area....and I can tell you, that THERE is no way that very many defense counsel from the Chicago area sees him as such. He is simply RELENTLESS and his reputation is that he cares NOT where the chips may fall. I would opine from what I know of him, that he is a defense counsels worst nightmare. Intelligent, relentless and determined.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. How do you know this?

It's entirely possible that Novak was not subpoenaed and never appeared before the grand jury. If you think that Novak wouldn't get a bye from a partisan investigator, I invite you to consider Kenneth Starr in reverse.

Here in Washington, our legal community believes Novak drew the bye.

[David Zephyr]

12. I agree.

And if Novak was subpoenaed, then the questions he would have been asked or not asked would be up to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald could have his fig leaf of an investiagation and still leave Novak off the hook.

I agree with you, OldLeftieLawyer, that is in possible that he wasn't even subpoenaed at all.

[Pathwalker]

24. I thought the grand jurers could also ask questions -

is this not so?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. Yes, they are encouraged to ask questions

and the person called before the grand jury is not allowed to have counsel in there with him or her.

He or she can, however, go out into the hall and confer with counsel before answering any questions.

That always makes a really first-rate impression on the grand jurors.

:sarcasm:

[Pathwalker]

40. Then, don't they have some control over the outcome,

since they'll be the ones voting on whether or not charges will be filed? Why is it assumed that Fitzgerald(sp?) will be the one who decides - does he get to overrule them, if he chooses? If the grand jurers are merely puppets - how do we know this? Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand how or why the decision on whether or not to charge is assumed to rest with just Fitzgerald.

Thank you for answering my question.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

42. They decide

whether or not enough evidence has been presented that would make an indictment necessary.

That's the only outcome they can control.

No one overrules a grand jury. Torquemada would be proud.

The decision does not rest with Fitzgerald - it rests with the grand jury, which is the only body with the power to bring an indictment. If the grand jury decides not to return an indictment - if they think the evidence they've seen and heard hasn't been enough to reach the permissible level - then Fitzgerald is done.

Thank you for asking such a smart and literate question. Most people have no idea how a grand jury works, and, frankly, the prosecutors would like to keep it that way. But, believe me, they're scary. Grand juries are powerful, scary bodies.

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[Pathwalker]

44. Well, then the possibility is there for indictments!

Thank you again for answering my questions, I appreciate it very much.
I have no idea WHO these particular jurors are (I think that's supposed to be a secret - no?), but I will hope they do the right thing, until it is proven otherwise.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond.

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[Hepburn]

25. I cannot say it for certain, but...

...I am a lawyer and my office did a fair amount of criminal defense work, both state and federal and that is my read on the matter. I have been involved in somewhere around 15 GJs with various clients and my former law partner was an AUSA and a contender for USAtty when he decided to go into private practice. What the considered opinion of my friends in the defense bar is that Novak sung. That is the opinion on the left coast.

I do not see Fitzpatrick as a partisan. LOL, and in NO manner Ken Starr in reverse. Pat's rep is that he is relentless and will not back down IF he has the facts to go forward. But, IMO, from what I have heard, he is not stupid about it like Starr was. Starr could not care less about the facts ~ he was just a pure asshole. And his little assistant, Mike Emmick, what a total asshole. He (Emmick) came out of the Central District of Los Angeles, and IMO, a bigger slug does not exist than Emmick. IMO, he fed Starr a bunch of shit ~ but that is not to say that in and of himself Starr was not a complete ass. Emmick, IMO, just helped him perfect the status.

Why do you think Fitzgerald did NOT call Novak? That would be hard to fathom since it was Novak who did the outing of the ID of Plame. And IMO, you would agree ~ a GJ is the tool of the prosecutor and would indict a ham sandwich (as the saying goes). So eventually, there will be IMO some indictments coming down. If this goes to trial, at some point in time, Novak is going to be involved. IMO, Pat Fitzgerald, even if he were a partisan, is not so stupid as to have a loose end like Novak floating around. And that impacts on Pat's reputation. He had to have called him and had to had legitimately questioned him. Fitzgerald himself has too much to lose to not have done this.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. It seems so obvious, I agree

The likeliest scenario is that Novak was subpoenaed and ratted out everyone. It would make sense.

Except, that's not how Washington works. Keep in mind that this world is different from anyplace else in the US. Sometimes that's good, but, usually, it's not.

I am not certain that Fitzgerald, unlike Starr, understands how DC works, and I suspect that's part of why he was brought in on this matter. Starr was an old pro who knew how to work it and Fitzgerald isn't. That's a huge difference, and that's where the "Starr in reverse" reference came from. Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but, unlike Starr who brought in that ham sandwich (people who aren't familiar with grand juries actually think they're, ahem, fair) over and over, Fitzgerald is keeping it close to his vest. I hope.

Or else he's getting stonewalled. That would explain his relentless pursuit of Cooper and Miller. Now that Time, Inc. has caved, what will the TImes do? This becomes a corporate policy decision spilling over into a possible challenge to Branzburg v. Hayes. One thing for sure is that the press's relationship with sources is totally fucked now.

Maybe he's trying to nail Novak and going through the back door. Ever consider that? Cooper and Miller are younger and healthier than Novak, and it would be a smart move to put the pressure on the Prince Of Darkness by coming up behind him. But, do not, for one moment, underestimate the power of Novak in DC - there is a different set of rules that are in play in this city. Hateful, but true.

The notion that the Washington Post, no matter how far it's fallen since its heyday under Katharine Graham, would meekly and silently surrender one of its columnists to the grand jury in order to reveal a source, if true, will leave me in a web of despair from which I might never escape.

[Hepburn]

36. Well, what I am thinking...

...is that Fitzgerald as an outsider does NOT play by the DC rules. And he is pursuing the case just like it should be done. That could be even more dangerous than the insiders in the DOJ suspected. Just a thought....

I do agree, tho, that the relationship between the WH and the MSM is really fucked up by TIME caving in. But, the judge was going to sanction the shit out of them for not obeying the subpoena for the records. No matter what, they do answer to the stockholders. Can you imagine explaining NOT giving over documents that were subpoenaed and that the expense of the fines levied cut into the dividends? OUCH! So maybe there was a bit more to the decision ~ corporate financial considerations ~ than we may have considered as being relevant in the TIME decision.

Interesting that the view of the matter that I am getting in discussions with my pals in the crim defense bar on the left coast is so different than what you are getting in the DC area. Obviously you locals are much more aware of the "office politics" that goes on. IMO, most of us out here are looking at Fitzgerald's rep and IMO to us that makes him dangerous to the games which have gone on before. I think he will bring indictments from the "ham sandwich" stampers of the agenda of any prosecuting atty ~ the GJ ~ and I am very curious as to who is named. It if goes close to the top ~ then IMO it will show that Fitzgerald dug and did get to the nitty gritty. If not, I would have some questions on that and would have to start looking at where you are coming from in your opinion.

BTW: Did you catch the remarks from the judge about Novak's sources? That they had come forward on their own? Interesting ~ that does concern me a bit and it does make me buy into your theory somewhat. And the reason for this is that ANYONE could have come forward and copped to being Novak's contacts and the source or sources. That did leave a bit of a "hmmmmmmm" echoing in my lawyer's perception of this case.

BTW: Nice chatting with you!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. Backwards

The pleasure's all mine, my left coast leftie!

We'll see, won't we? I wish I could explain to you what practicing law in DC and Virginia (across the river) is like, but, having practiced in CA and a few other bars, I'm telling you that "Through The Looking Glass" doesn't begin to describe it. I like your view, though, virginal as it is, and let's stay in touch on this one, comparing as it goes.

Left and Leftie - together we might even get a 360 degree view. (Fat chance.)

By the way, don't you find it interesting that the matter of Plame's classification, which is vital to establishing that the law's been violated, has not been made public? That's one huge escape hatch, should Fitzgerald (or the CIA or the WH) want it.

See how we play the game here?

Thanks - this was grand.

[Hepburn]

39. Interesting....

...you brought up the one thing that I have had in the back of my mind for some time ~ the classification as "covert." I cannot imagine the govt putting on this dog and pony show unless Fitzgerald started out with proof on some of the BASIC elements of the crime. Like....she was in fact a covert operative. But then, I have seen the government do some very stupid things.

Hey, next time I go back to DC to argue a case....you will have to fill me in on the local skinny about some of the judges!

{LOL....begging and pleading here!)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

41. Never underestimate

the lengths to which this "administration" will go to divert the attention of the populace from the horrible crap it's pulling everywhere.

Can you say "Porter Goss is as big a whore as George Tenet" without stopping to take a breath?

Welcome to DC, and whatever I've got on the good judges, including who or what they're having for lunch on any given day, I'd be glad to share.

[Hepburn]

49. Woooooohoooooooo, now if and when I get back to DC...

...again, I will buy YOU lunch!

I love to talk to the locals...so much insight that you cannot get anywhere else.

:hi:

[stickdog]

51. No, I don't see. If Plame's status wasn't covert, why the special

prosecutor?

Are you suggesting that Joe Wilson was paid off by BushCo to distract us with a dead-end legal non-issue?

[Toots]

43. "the press's relationship with sources is totally fucked now."

I don't buy this at all. Only a source that wants to commit an illegal act or get the journalist to committ an illegal act will think twice now. A source that is a whistleblower to an illegal act will still be allowed protection. It is about treason and breaking the law and aiding and abetting the breaking of laws and committing treason.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

47. Huh?

That's just not so. So much depends on sources, so much, and now no one is going to be comfortable talking to a reporter, since there is no longer any guarantee of protection the reporter can offer.

I don't really follow what you said about the "illegal act" stuff, since most sources are simply imparting information, not breaking laws.

Treason? I think, perhaps, you might want to look up the meaning of that word.

[stickdog]

50. There hasn't been any guarantee of source protection against a

federal grand jury investigating a criminal case for well over 30 years.

Bad law or not, ripe for overturning or not, Branzburg v. Hayes has been the law of the land since 1972:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/branzburg.html

The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof.

So, at worst, the "free press" is "losing" a right that it currently does not legally enjoy.

[Toots]

55. Maybe you don't consider outing an undercover CIA Agent as Treason

but I do. When the source is engaged in illegal activity there is no protection for them. Most sources are whistle blowers the exact opposite of what this case is about. There never has been and there never will be protection for someone committing an illegal act. There always will be protection of the source as long as laws aren't being broken. You seem to have a very mixed up idea about what a source is. A source is not someone that uses the Media to committ a Crime. That is a Criminal. A source is someone who gives incriminating evidence or embarrassing information on a government agencey or person. A Reporter has never been able to protect criminal activity as it makes them accessories to the crime. Revealing Secret or Confidential material particularly something of this nature is IMHO more than just a Crime. It is Treason in the same way that trading weapons with the enemy is Treason and the same people have done both. Iran-Contra for instance.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

59. There's so much

that's incorrect in your post.

First, you have to know Plame's status in order to know if a law was broken. It's a lot more complicated than you seem to think.

Second, you really have to read up on what constitutes "treason."

Then, you need to learn some about how laws evolve in this country, how the grand jury system works, and how to break sentences and thoughts down into readable paragraphs.

Oh, and you might want to consider the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," too. It's a nice one, something America really should be very proud of.

[htuttle]

7. Problem is...

...a lower level staffer would not have both the security clearance and the NEED to know the identity of the CIA's clandestine operatives.

They don't leave the NOC list just sitting on a White House coffee table for anyone to browse through. At least I hope they don't.

[David Zephyr]

11. Someone higher up told them.

It may be that Scooter Libby, who might not have known Plame's status, but was told by Cheney, made the call to Miller and Cooper. He may be the low level aide. But I doubt that Novak heard it from Libby.

[htuttle]

13. Then the person higher up violated security practices

And I don't even think Scooter Libby would have a high enough clearance for the actual names and identities of clandestine agents. Strictly need-to-know, in addition to needing the highest clearance.

As far as I know, they don't even generally inform the President about actual agents names and identities...unless he asks about it, I guess.

[David Zephyr]

14. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

htuttle, I am agreeing with you. It may be that Scooter is the low-level individual who will take the fall and then be pardoned. He would not, as you say, have had clearance for the names of CIA operatives, but his boss, Dick Cheney would have and could have told him. Libby's name has already been mentioned so many times that I expect he is in deep trouble.

But could Libby have leaked to Miller and Cooper, while Novak got it from someone higher? I think so.

[htuttle]

15. Ah, I see

Right. Cheney would be guilty of improperly handing classified information by leaking it to Libby, but who is going to charge him with that? -- he's the (Vice) President.

But if Cheney tipped off Novak directly, that would seem to be a more prosecutable matter.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. Scooter Libby "low-level"??

Are you kidding?

Forget his title - he's one of the Mr. Insides.

You're looking in the wrong place for the culprit, by the way. As a matter of fact, you're looking in the wrong area code.

[David Zephyr]

17. Well, I did mention a certain fellow down in Tanglewood.

Unless you are thinking of someone other than GHB...who does know a little about the CIA since he was Director once.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. Tanglewood?

You lost me, but, no, that's not the area code I was thinking of.

You want to get away with something? Remember the first rule of hiding?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. "Everyone on earth"????

Come on.

I have no idea who passed the information, and neither do you.

My theory is that it's just a timekiller, going nowhere except to achieve the final stage of Bush's wet dream - to eviscerate even more the First Amendment. The news today that Time, Inc. will be turning over Cooper's notes is devastating, absolutely devastating. I'm not sure people understand how terribly serious this is for each and every American.

Whatever free press we ever had - and it's only gone crappy these past two decades - we'll never have again if these thugs are allowed to take away the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Ratface In The White House must be giddy with joy at this latest turn of events, even as the death toll mounts in the Middle East. Who cares, when you can keep the public distracted AND fuck the First Amendment at the same time?

This whole Plame thing is bullshit, a red herring. Who cares? It's nothing but a diversionary tactic, and, clearly, it's working even better than expected.

[David Zephyr]

19. I care.

Who cares? I do.

The fact that Joe Wilson was targeted by the White House after he exposed the President for lying in his State of the Union address before we went to war...well, that's important to me.

Fitzgerald cleverly turned the focus off of the White House and on to two reporters and was able to undermine the first amendment and delay his "investigation" all at the same time.

I think he wants to squeeze these two for lower level names (Libby being the highest of the lows) in order to protect someone much higher.

[stickdog]

20. Do you think for a MINUTE that some left wing publication could out covert

agents without having its reporters, publishers and sources prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

The "free press" you are pining for HAS NEVER EXISTED! All of this chicken little "the free press is falling!" crap is driving me around the bend. The Supreme Court make its decision in 1972 and NOTHING'S CHANGED SINCE!

It's NEVER BEEN LEGAL to assert source confidentiality in order to withhold information about felonies from a federal grand jury. NEVER. So why the hell are we pining over a couple of media whores who are protecting BushCo felons?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. A thing called "Watergate"

Remember that?

Two reporters started it.

You're quoting bad law - Branzburg v. Hayes - and you're jumping to a very wrong conclusion when you assert that any law has been broken. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that a law was, in fact, broken, since Plame's status is not known.

You really might want to read some about the history of American journalism. There's a grand history of the free press that you'll love learning about.

The situation now - I hope the Times won't cave - will be a great challenge to Branzburg, the case to which you refer, timely, ripe, and meeting all the requirements to reverse that very bad decision.

The fluidity of the law - it's a beautiful thing.

[stickdog]

30. Dude, the SCOTUS just REJECTED the fricking case.

It's a nice dream world you've got there where source confidentiality trumps covert CIA agent confidentiality. While we're living in your little dream world where "bad law" is always ripe for reversal, maybe we can make Gore president retroactively?

Seriously, the reversal you're looking for ain't even close to happening -- certainly not when the very activity you are seeking to protect is ITSELF a federal felony. If that wasn't clear to you before, it ought to be right now. So let's live in the real world, you know, the one where outing a covert CIA agent is a felony and reporters (like doctors and accountants, etc) are NOT allowed to withhold information pertaining to felonies from a federal grand jury.

Yes, law is fluid. It's also applied on a case by case basis. And the bottom line here is that the First Amendment was not written to protect the rights of high ranking government officials to commit felonies that compromise national security in order to PUNISH the families of those who dare dissent to STIFLE free speech. Granting such activity source confidentiality serves no public interest whatsoever.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. "Dude, I've got a vagina"

Now that we have that sexist little assumption of yours set straight, let me explain to you that people who use acronyms for the Supreme Court are the same ones who don't understand that laws change because they're challenged, not because "SCOTUS" decides to change them one day.

You do not know, by the way, whether any law has, in fact, been broken. You have no idea of what Plame's classification was, and that's the viable fact that will define everything in this matter.

It occurs to me that I've probably been practicing law in DC longer than you've been aliive. Dude, your "dream world" just blew up in your pants. Look down.

You're watching "Countdown" and just heard that bit about privilege, but you garbled its meaning.

"Dude," go watch more MSNBC.

[stickdog]

45. Sorry, I assumed you were a man and Plame was a covert agent.

If Plame's classification wasn't covert, what's the entire investigation about? Why bring in a special prosecutor in the first place?

And why protect a source who has already voluntary forfeited confidentiality and who needs no protection in any case?

Certainly, if the action of outing Plame to the press was not a felony, that changes the legal status of this case quite significantly. But we're still taking about a high ranking government official who sought to use the press to RETALIATE against the family of a whistle-blower in order to STIFLE free speech. Considering how this compromises any "public interest" argument, you surely must agree that there have been and will be far better cases for any legal team intent on overturning Branzburg v. Hayes.

Finally, if you've really been practicing law in DC for over 40 years, then congratulations, your handle is well chosen.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Slow Wheels Of Justice...Took Him 5 Years To Get George Ryan

I've seen Fitzgerald in action...or at least seen the results so far. He started investigating George Ryan's ponzi schemes right in the middle of the '98 campaign, and it took 4 years of work to finally get some headway in the case and now there are indictments and a trial scheduled for next year.

This Fitzgerald is the "legacy" of Peter Fitzgerald...not quite the BFEE's favorite Repugnican here in Illinois (they dumped him like a hot rock in '04 for Playboy Jack Ryan) and the story was that he was put upon Ashcroft and the rest by Repugnicans in the Judiciary committee just to keep things on the up and up.

Let's see how Fitzgerald plays things out now. I suspect he has something big and was hoping the testimony of Cooper and Miller would fill in some gaps. Now that the chips have fallen, let's what shakes out.

This case is far from concluded, far from being stonewalled or covered up...other than by those wanting to mess up Fitzgerald's investigation...not by Fitzgerald himself.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. I agree

Fitzgerald's got a terrific reputation, but I also know that he's working in a milieu here that's not like Chicago, not by a long shot.

There's a matter of timeliness, though, in this Plame matter, and that's what I find troubling. If he's using Cooper and Miller to "fill in some gaps," it's at a price that I'm finding far too high.

Again, I think this whole thing is a red herring, especially in light of all the outrageous crap that this so-called administration is pulling.

[Justice]

33. I wondered why Fitzgerald was selected, given his reputation

for doggedness and fairness.

[wishlist]

26. Case is more complex than just I.D. of leaker- see this new blog article:

What this blog on Daily Kos says makes the most sense to me as to why Miller and Cooper and other reporters' testimony is so vital. The concluding paragraph of this blog expresses my hunches about the case:

"Fitzgerald needs the reporters to contradict whatever whitewash the WH has come up with for this mess. Its not just the identity of the source, it is what the WH was saying and when that will show that they lied to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury to cover up their manipulation of and lying about prewar intelligence. This is what happens when the administration's Orwellian alteration of history occurs in a venue where lying is a crime and providing talking points is conspiracy to obstruct justice."

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/6/30/123531/610

Another DU poster provided this link on another thread tonight.

[moondust]

27. The flip side.

Fitzgerald may be legit. Novak may have given him a low-level staffer, possibly trying to plant a fall guy, and Fitzgerald knew that a low-level staffer would not have access to such highly classified info. Instead of charging forward with Novak's ploy Fitzgerald decided to wait and see what would scare up.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

28. Or the simple and obvious answer

Novack sang like a canary but Fitzgerald needed and wanted a second
verification. I now truly believe that Judith Miller and Matt Cooper are wrong to protect this particular source who was committing a heinous act by divulging Valerie Plame. Whoever got their individual hands dirty by calling their contacts to reveal Plame was given the soil by the master gardener. And who is suddenly out of all political sight and access as we speak?

On a side note, is this not also revealing who were the favored sources to run the party line? I mean really, Judith Miller was the go-to girl for the run-up to the Iraq War. I think her editors put the kibosh on the Plame story, because I think she would have run with it if left to her own devices. I think her protection of her source may have another level. Was Judith Miller on any other payrolls than the NYT's?

[Justice]

34. But Papers said Fitzgerald already knew Miller's source

that person came forward voluntarily.

[David Zephyr]

35. I think there are at least two leakers.

One high up to Novak.

One, or more, lower down to Miller and Cooper and others.

And just like the Abu Graib "investigation", only the lowest level will take the hit.

[stickdog]

46. Maybe. But why would a whore like Miller cover for a low level scapegoat?

Surely you don't believe that Chalabi's whore has actual journalistic integrity?

My best guess is that Novak & whichever BushCo bigwig outed Plame conspired together to hand over a low level Bush administration patsy to Fitzgerald. Meanwhile, Miller and Cooper know better, but neither want to perjure themselves (especially considering the known existence of Cooper's notes) and neither have the inclination to finger the real culprit.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Fitz may not have bought it...he probly knew he was being fed

some bait to distract him from the real meat.

[H2O Man]

57. Yep. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. IMHO, you're selling Fitzgerald short. Let's see where he goes from...

...here before passing judgement.

[The Magistrate]

52. More Likely, Mr. Zephyr

One of these two scenarios is in operation.

Mr. Fitzgerald certainly has in hand a sworn statement by whoever did leak the information denying the act, and is seeking as much testimony as can possibly be acquired from persons this fellow actually did contact, in order to nail down a perjury conviction. On his record here in Illinois, Mr. Fitzgerald is a methodical and persistant man.

It may be that Novak has already talked, and said who told him: he would deny this publicly, of course, and grand jury testimony is secret. In this case, the testimony of others contacted would remain vital, to move the thing beyond a mere swearing match between two reputable persons.

It may also be that Novak has denied knowing the origin of the information, or named someone other than Mr. Fitzgerald's real target as its source. In this case, the testimony of the others becomes vital, and could land Novak in trouble as well.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. Madge, you're construing things about the way I do.

I bet Novak is ass-deep in the coverup, having perjured himself.

[H2O Man]

58. Perhaps

there are two mid-level White House officials who are attempting to fall on their swords, because they technically do not fit the requirements of the statute that allow for prosecution in this case. And perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald has found a connection between these two mid-level officials, and the higher-up source(s) that would be required for them to know that Plame was CI. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald has found the pieces of the puzzle that connect these fellows to the two WH "intel groups," one of which was disbanded shortly after the shit hit the fan. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald has traced this back to the March 8, 2003 meeting in VP Cheney's office, which Ambassador Wilson recognized as so important.

There are some old "Plame Threads" on DU:GD that are worth reading. I also strongly recommend people review some of the best work done in the beginning, that made everything else possible. Three sources stand out: Josh Marshall, Juan Cole, and some fellow named Will Pitt. Read their early works on this case, and everything becomes clearer.

[The Magistrate]

63. Never Heard Of The Mr. Pitt Fellow, Sir

Mr. Fitzgerald did excellent work here in Illinois, just about single-handedly ruining the state Republican Party. He is slow and secretive, but damned methodical, and my instinct is to trust him....

[H2O Man]

65. He's usually at Yankees' games, I think.

Fitzgerald has an interesting reputation. I like mad Irishmen. Some of them are driven, and when they are in law-enforcement, they don't give up easily.

[The Magistrate]

66. That Would Explain It, Sir

Never could stomach that team....

It would gave been more to my preference if Fitzgerald had broken Ryan before the '98 elections, but the job when done was thorough, and still unfolding. It seems the Republicans in Ohio are on the bring of a similar disaster today. Just as disunity is the traditional Achilles heel of the left, money corruption and boodling is the traditional downfall of the right.

[H2O Man]

67. In Wilson's book,

he tells of a republican bragging that "they've covered this with earthmovers." This was in reference to the administration's efforts before Ashcroft recused himself. It is not surprising that it has taken a long time to work through their efforts to conceal the truth. Our culture has become sadly demanding of instant gratification. Yet as our friend Spinoza remins us, all noble things are as difficult as they are rare.

[spanone]

It's going after the messenger and ignoring the message.

Stonewalling, dragging one's feet, keeping the dogs at bay from the White House. There are many ways of describing this investigation.
Just like Martha Stewart has been in and out of prison and we hear no word about Kenny Lay.

[spanone]

56. It's going after the messenger and ignoring the message.

Stonewalling, dragging one's feet, keeping the dogs at bay from the White House. There are many ways of describing this investigation.
Just like Martha Stewart has been in and out of prison and we hear no word about Kenny Lay.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

60. Isn't that interesting?

Fastow's wife just did her time, he's going next, I believe, others are in the system, and "Kenny Boy" (ah, that Ratface In The White House comes up with the most creative nicknames, doesn't he?) is just out there, living his life, blue skies all around his gazillion-dollar Florida spread.

Isn't that interesting?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

61. DING! DING !DING!

[ewagner]

62. Watching carefully from the outside

I am beginning to think that Fitzgerald has stumbled across something so complex that we don't have a clue of what it was.

At this point, all we can do is wait.

I'm reminded of one of Einstein's comments. He said that the Universe was not just stranger than we imagined, but stranger than we CAN IMAGINE. I suspect this investigation is much like that.

[Disturbed]

68. Most Amerikans are not following this case.

The missing girl is now the Big Case.

The Plame Case is way to complicated and dry for exciting public consumption. I find it highly interesting and have been following it from the get go. I don't have a strong opinion yet but am paying close attention. I feel that this case is not a red herring but may have real significance in it's outcome.