thunder wrote:
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.

It's odd that the right wing loved Ken Starr's investigation, which, by
the way, was supposed to be about White Water, but now that the tide
has turned, they are crying like little babies.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:31:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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.

Not at all. First, we do not know the testimony. Second, Woodward's and
Pincus's situations *could* be unrelated, but most importantly, they do
not materially effect on Libby's charges.



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.


My guess, and I don't know this, is that those notes have already been
looked at. This investigation has taken 2 years, Fitzgerald is thorough.


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.

We do not as yet know if exposing the name was a crime. The IIPA may or
may not apply, but there is an entire arsenal of laws that *may* have been
broken. Stop looking at the little picture, start looking at the big
picture, and how the pieces are starting to fit. It is quite possible
that Woodward's testimony adds to a *potential* conspiracy case.

Cheney testified, with Bush, but *not* under oath, so no perjury. "All
Fitzgerald can do now. . .", that "all" still amounts to 30 years for
Libby, and it is quite possible that it is not *all*.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:22:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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:

NOYB, not a "huge hole". Look, this article has no effect on the charges
Libby is facing. Neither you nor I, know Fitzgerald's strategy, or what
he knows. Don't be looking at Libby as if he was "the leak", we still do
not know.


"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).

Timing, NOYB, timing. When did they know? How did they know? I'd point
out, IIRC, all evidence of Plame's employment status, was after the Niger
documents were questioned.




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!

Not obviously lying, and not most likely Wilson. The story is unfolding,
and I suspect you may not like the tale. Personally, I think the story is
getting more interesting, and I'm quite happy the Bush administration did
something right, appointing a quality prosecutor.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:31:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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.

Not at all. First, we do not know the testimony. Second, Woodward's and
Pincus's situations *could* be unrelated, but most importantly, they do
not materially effect on Libby's charges.



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.


My guess, and I don't know this, is that those notes have already been
looked at. This investigation has taken 2 years, Fitzgerald is thorough.


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.

We do not as yet know if exposing the name was a crime. The IIPA may or
may not apply, but there is an entire arsenal of laws that *may* have been
broken. Stop looking at the little picture, start looking at the big
picture, and how the pieces are starting to fit. It is quite possible
that Woodward's testimony adds to a *potential* conspiracy case.

Cheney testified, with Bush, but *not* under oath, so no perjury. "All
Fitzgerald can do now. . .", that "all" still amounts to 30 years for
Libby, and it is quite possible that it is not *all*.

He needs a conviction against Libby. But the problem Fitzgerald now has is
that he must rework his timeline in the case. In his original press
conference after the indictment, Fitgerald stated that Plame's identity "was
not widely known" until Libby told Miller and/or Cooper. Fitzgerald based
that statement on the facts he gathered in the interviews of Russert,
Pincus, et al.

But now, Woodward states that Plame's identity *was* widely known among
reporters in Washington (at least he and Pincus knew about it. And Andrea
Mitchell admitted she knew too. Of course, Mitchell claims that she
"misspoke"). The fact that so many people knew about Plame's identity
before the Novak column is a major problem for the prosecution's case. It
shows that Libby's testimony about the conversation with Russert may have
been accurate (ie--Russert told Libby that "all the reporters" in Washington
already knew).

If there's a conspiracy case, it could just as equally be levelled against
all of the reporters who testified that they didn't know about Plame's
identity until Libby apparently leaked it to Miller and/or Novak.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:22:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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:

NOYB, not a "huge hole". Look, this article has no effect on the charges
Libby is facing.

Sure it does. Libby says that he spoke with Russert, and Russert told him
that "all of the reporters in Washington" already knew Plame's identity.
Russert denies this is how the conversation transpired. But Woodward's
testimony would certainly support Libby's statement that he was hearing
about Plame from the reporters themselves.

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

Not obviously lying, and not most likely Wilson. The story is unfolding,
and I suspect you may not like the tale. Personally, I think the story is
getting more interesting, and I'm quite happy the Bush administration did
something right, appointing a quality prosecutor.


If Cheney leaked the name, then what?

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

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:22:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...sp?vnu_content
_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:

NOYB, not a "huge hole". Look, this article has no effect on the
charges
Libby is facing.

Sure it does. Libby says that he spoke with Russert, and Russert told him
that "all of the reporters in Washington" already knew Plame's identity.
Russert denies this is how the conversation transpired. But Woodward's
testimony would certainly support Libby's statement that he was hearing
about Plame from the reporters themselves.

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

Not obviously lying, and not most likely Wilson. The story is
unfolding,
and I suspect you may not like the tale. Personally, I think the story
is
getting more interesting, and I'm quite happy the Bush administration
did
something right, appointing a quality prosecutor.


If Cheney leaked the name, then what?

Such a quality prosecutor.........that went public with all the backup for
his indictment that turns out to be in such error. Libby's attorney;s will
have a field day in court.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:22:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...sp?vnu_content
_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:

NOYB, not a "huge hole". Look, this article has no effect on the
charges
Libby is facing.

Sure it does. Libby says that he spoke with Russert, and Russert told
him
that "all of the reporters in Washington" already knew Plame's identity.
Russert denies this is how the conversation transpired. But Woodward's
testimony would certainly support Libby's statement that he was hearing
about Plame from the reporters themselves.

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

Not obviously lying, and not most likely Wilson. The story is
unfolding,
and I suspect you may not like the tale. Personally, I think the story
is
getting more interesting, and I'm quite happy the Bush administration
did
something right, appointing a quality prosecutor.


If Cheney leaked the name, then what?

Such a quality prosecutor.........that went public with all the backup for
his indictment that turns out to be in such error. Libby's attorney;s
will
have a field day in court.



It is certainly appearing as if Fitzgerald jumped the gun on his indictment.
2 years and a unlimited budget to investigate this thing, and he gets his
sole indictment wrong!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:22:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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:
NOYB, not a "huge hole". Look, this article has no effect on the
charges
Libby is facing.

Sure it does. Libby says that he spoke with Russert, and Russert told
him that "all of the reporters in Washington" already knew Plame's
identity. Russert denies this is how the conversation transpired. But
Woodward's testimony would certainly support Libby's statement that he
was hearing about Plame from the reporters themselves.

Pincus is obviously lying about when he knew Plame's identity. So who
is
Pincus trying to protect? Most likely his "source": Wilson!
Not obviously lying, and not most likely Wilson. The story is
unfolding,
and I suspect you may not like the tale. Personally, I think the story
is
getting more interesting, and I'm quite happy the Bush administration
did
something right, appointing a quality prosecutor.


If Cheney leaked the name, then what?




He has to move to Derby, Kansas.

Why? Did he, too, leave the boating lifestyle because of bad knees?

Harry Krause wrote:


Derby is the stop-off place where you buy lunch before going to hell.


Yeah... cow pate on a cracker.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:25:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It is certainly appearing as if Fitzgerald jumped the gun on his
indictment. 2 years and a unlimited budget to investigate this thing, and
he gets his sole indictment wrong!

Really? Let's see how it fits, Woodward was told about Plame in mid-June,
2003. In Fitzgerald's indictment, on May 29, 2003, Libby was informed
that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the Niger trip. The clock
starts ticking.

On June 11, or 12, an Under Secretary of State advised Libby that Plame
worked at the CIA.

On June 11, a CIA officer advised Libby that Plame worked at the CIA.

On June 12, Cheney told Libby that Plame worked at CIA.

On June 12, the Pincus' article was published.

On June 14, Libby discussed Plame with a CIA briefer.

On June 19, the New Republic publishes an article about the Niger
documents.

On June 23, Libby meets with Judith Miller and informs her that Wilson's
wife "might" work at the CIA.


Now, tell me again how Fitzgerald has it wrong. Woodward's timing seems
to fit rather well with the doing of the day.