On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:25:20 +0000, NOYB wrote:


So when will Fitz indict either Woodward or Pincus for lying or
obstruction
of justice?

Did Pincus already testify before the grand jury? If so, he's sunk.

LOL, you had better read the legal definition of perjury. Before you go
wetting yourself with excitement, I'd point out, Libby is still facing 30
years and the investigation is just getting deeper. More charges may, in
fact, be coming as a result of Woodward's testimony, but I seriously doubt
that they will be against Pincus.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:25:20 +0000, NOYB wrote:


So when will Fitz indict either Woodward or Pincus for lying or
obstruction
of justice?

Did Pincus already testify before the grand jury? If so, he's sunk.

LOL, you had better read the legal definition of perjury. Before you go
wetting yourself with excitement, I'd point out, Libby is still facing 30
years and the investigation is just getting deeper. More charges may, in
fact, be coming as a result of Woodward's testimony, but I seriously doubt
that they will be against Pincus.

Why not? Pincus's testimony directly refutes Woodward's testimony.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:36:18 -0500, P Fritz wrote:


I don't know if he testified to a G.J., but he was apparently questioned
by Fitz.......which would warrant a obstruction charge.

This should be interesting, how so?

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:03:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


LOL, you had better read the legal definition of perjury. Before you go
wetting yourself with excitement, I'd point out, Libby is still facing
30 years and the investigation is just getting deeper. More charges
may, in fact, be coming as a result of Woodward's testimony, but I
seriously doubt that they will be against Pincus.

Why not? Pincus's testimony directly refutes Woodward's testimony.

One, it takes more than one person's testimony against another for it to
be perjury. There is a reason for this. In the above, Pincus could be
lying, but then, Woodward could be lying, but most likely, neither is
lying. Faulty memory is not perjury.

This article doesn't change anything. The investigation continues, and,
no doubt, there will be more "revelations". Perhaps, you do not remember
Watergate, but it was a step-by-step unfolding. I read this article as
meaning, the investigation is getting larger, not smaller. For instance,
I'm sure Fitzgerald knows who all those "unnamed officials" are. We don't.

It has been rumored, that at least two officials are working with
Fitzgerald. He's running a tight ship, as he should, and Woodward's
testimony adds to the jigsaw puzzle. This is just more reason to believe
this investigation is not over.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:36:18 -0500, P Fritz wrote:


I don't know if he testified to a G.J., but he was apparently questioned
by Fitz.......which would warrant a obstruction charge.

This should be interesting, how so?


"Pincus gave his deposition to Fitzgerald in September 2004, in which he
spoke about a conversation with a source related to the Plame case, but has
never disclosed the identity of the source. "

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1001523334

The only people who Pincus was talking about the case to prior to Novak's
column were likely Wilson and Woodward. Woodward testified that he
discussed Plame's identity with Pincus 1 month before Plame's name was made
public by Novak. Pincus said that he never heard about Plame's identity and
her role at the CIA until Novak's column.

What Woodward's testimony does is blow a huge hole through Fitzgerald's
timeline laid out during his press conference:


"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie
Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it
was not widely known outside the intelligence community."

(except by journalists/reporters like Woodward, Pincus, Andrea Mitchell,
William Kristof, Tim Russert, etc).



Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003.

(Hogwash. Both Woodward and Pincus knew the identity before then)

The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a
column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife,
Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several
other reporters were told.

(By whom? Wilson? Cheney? Woodward said that Libby did not tell him)



In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when
he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

(But Woodward just testified that he talked to someone *other than*
Libby...and found out Plame's identity 1 month before the Novak column. So
this statement that "Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a
reporter...in June of 2003" is false!)



Pincus is obviously lying about when he knew Plame's identity. So who is
Pincus trying to protect? Most likely his "source": Wilson!

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:12:54 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


These days, probably the best approach when dealing with any law
enforcement or DoJ officials or federal officials or grand juries in
connection with some sort of "investigation" is to decline to comment so
far as you can. That way, even a sincerely fault memory will not trip you
up.

I had the distinct honor and privilege to serve on a county grand jury
many years ago. I was appalled by the over-the-top tactics the prosecutor
used in order to get true bills.

Ah, but the difference is, Fitzgerald has never been accused of being
over-the-top, or unethical. He has been accused of being relentless, as
in thorough.

NOYB wrote:

Pincus is obviously lying about when he knew Plame's identity. So who is
Pincus trying to protect? Most likely his "source": Wilson!

And that *is* the bottom line.

--
Skipper

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:03:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


LOL, you had better read the legal definition of perjury. Before you go
wetting yourself with excitement, I'd point out, Libby is still facing
30 years and the investigation is just getting deeper. More charges
may, in fact, be coming as a result of Woodward's testimony, but I
seriously doubt that they will be against Pincus.

Why not? Pincus's testimony directly refutes Woodward's testimony.

One, it takes more than one person's testimony against another for it to
be perjury.

How about the testimony of two different people?

Libby testified that Russert told him "all the reporters knew" about
Wilson's wife.

Woodward testified that he discussed Plame's identity with Pincus 1 month
before the name was made public.

Which means that both Libby and Woodward's testimonies refute Pincus's
deposition.


There is a reason for this. In the above, Pincus could be
lying, but then, Woodward could be lying, but most likely, neither is
lying. Faulty memory is not perjury.

LOL. Libby says that he heard about Plame's wife from reporters. Maybe he
heard it from Cheney? Maybe he heard it from Cooper? Maybe his memory is
faulty? Subpoena Pincus's notes and see if his current recollection
coincides with the notes he gathered back when he was writing about the
Niger document in May 2003.





This article doesn't change anything. The investigation continues, and,
no doubt, there will be more "revelations". Perhaps, you do not remember
Watergate, but it was a step-by-step unfolding. I read this article as
meaning, the investigation is getting larger, not smaller. For instance,
I'm sure Fitzgerald knows who all those "unnamed officials" are. We
don't.

But if exposing the name isn't a crime, then there can't be any indictments
for that. All Fitzgerald can do now is indict people who lied to him or the
grand jury. Did Cheney testify? If not, and if he's the leak, then there's
no crime.




It has been rumored, that at least two officials are working with
Fitzgerald. He's running a tight ship, as he should, and Woodward's
testimony adds to the jigsaw puzzle. This is just more reason to believe
this investigation is not over.

I hope it continues. Afterall, if Pincus and Russert lied, then what was
there motive for doing so?

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:03:37 +0000, NOYB wrote:


LOL, you had better read the legal definition of perjury. Before you
go
wetting yourself with excitement, I'd point out, Libby is still facing
30 years and the investigation is just getting deeper. More charges
may, in fact, be coming as a result of Woodward's testimony, but I
seriously doubt that they will be against Pincus.

Why not? Pincus's testimony directly refutes Woodward's testimony.

One, it takes more than one person's testimony against another for it to
be perjury.

How about the testimony of two different people?

Libby testified that Russert told him "all the reporters knew" about
Wilson's wife.

Woodward testified that he discussed Plame's identity with Pincus 1 month
before the name was made public.

Which means that both Libby and Woodward's testimonies refute Pincus's
deposition.


There is a reason for this. In the above, Pincus could be
lying, but then, Woodward could be lying, but most likely, neither is
lying. Faulty memory is not perjury.

LOL. Libby says that he heard about Plame's wife from reporters. Maybe
he
heard it from Cheney? Maybe he heard it from Cooper? Maybe his memory is
faulty? Subpoena Pincus's notes and see if his current recollection
coincides with the notes he gathered back when he was writing about the
Niger document in May 2003.





This article doesn't change anything. The investigation continues, and,
no doubt, there will be more "revelations". Perhaps, you do not
remember
Watergate, but it was a step-by-step unfolding. I read this article as
meaning, the investigation is getting larger, not smaller. For
instance,
I'm sure Fitzgerald knows who all those "unnamed officials" are. We
don't.

But if exposing the name isn't a crime, then there can't be any
indictments
for that. All Fitzgerald can do now is indict people who lied to him or
the
grand jury. Did Cheney testify? If not, and if he's the leak, then
there's
no crime.




It has been rumored, that at least two officials are working with
Fitzgerald. He's running a tight ship, as he should, and Woodward's
testimony adds to the jigsaw puzzle. This is just more reason to
believe
this investigation is not over.

I guess faulty memory is only valid if you are a liebral.


I hope it continues. Afterall, if Pincus and Russert lied, then what was
there motive for doing so?

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:39:48 -0500, P Fritz wrote:


I guess faulty memory is only valid if you are a liebral.

It worked for Rove. Remember those extra trips back to the Grand Jury to
"clarify"?