Yo!! Thunder...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.


Oh, not so fast:

Just when you thought Fitzgerald was out, he pulls us back in. On
Monday, "Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward
testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior
administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and
her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was
disclosed." Woodward "refused to disclose the official's name or
provide crucial details about the testimony." Special Counsel Patrick
Fitzgerald sought testimony from Woodward after the unnamed source told
Fitzgerald about the previously undisclosed conversation on November 3.
Demonstrating a level of cooperation with his own newspaper reminiscent
of Judy Miller, Woodward "would not answer any questions, including
those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with sources."
While the details of Woodward's testimony are murky, one thing is
clear: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is far from
over. Fitzgerald is still pursuing the case very actively and senior
administration officials, including Karl Rove, remain in legal
jeopardy.

WHITE HOUSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ROVE: On July 11, 2005, White House
Press Secretary Scott McClellan said "those overseeing the
investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into
commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what
they requested of the White House." Apparently, Karl Rove is ignoring
those orders. Rove's spokesperson, Mark Corallo, said yesterday that
"Rove is not the unnamed official who told Woodward about Plame and
that he did not discuss Plame with Woodward."

FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS CALL FOR ROVE'S SECURITY CLEARANCE TO BE
REVOKED: Knight Ridder reports that "sixteen former CIA and military
intelligence officials yesterday urged President Bush to suspend the
security clearance of his top political adviser, Karl Rove." In a
letter to the President, the former officials wrote: "We are asking
that you immediately suspend the clearances of all White House
personnel who spoke to reporters about [Wilson's] affiliation with the
CIA. They have mishandled classified information and no longer deserve
the level of trust required to have access to this nation's secrets."
They also urged the President "to make clear that he wouldn't pardon
anyone who is convicted in the outing of Wilson."

PRIOR TO DISCLOSURE, WOODWARD WAS AN AGGRESSIVE, ANTI-FITZGERALD
COMMENTATOR: This is the first time Woodward has publicly disclosed his
role in the leak scandal. (He didn't even tell his own editor until
last month.) But that didn't stop him from taking to the airwaves to
attack Patrick Fitzgerald and his investigation. He has called
Fitzgerald a "junkyard-dog prosecutor." This summer on NPR, Woodward
said, "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going
to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP: Bob Woodward claims that, in June of 2003, "I
told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source,
that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus, however, "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that."
Asked about Woodward's recollection in an interview with the Post,
Pincus said "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Oh, not so fast:

While the details of Woodward's testimony are murky, one thing is
clear: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is far from
over. Fitzgerald is still pursuing the case very actively and senior
administration officials, including Karl Rove, remain in legal
jeopardy.

Yes, the radical elements of our society are out to damage this country
in any way they can. That is a given.

WHITE HOUSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ROVE

FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS CALL FOR ROVE'S SECURITY CLEARANCE TO BE
REVOKED: Knight Ridder reports that "sixteen former CIA and military
intelligence officials yesterday urged President Bush to suspend the
security clearance of his top political adviser

Yes, we understand there have been leftist elements infiltrated into the
State Department, CIA, and other government agencies. They hate George
Bush and real Americans.

PRIOR TO DISCLOSURE, WOODWARD WAS AN AGGRESSIVE, ANTI-FITZGERALD
COMMENTATOR

Not true.

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP: Bob Woodward claims that, in June of 2003, "I
told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source,
that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus, however, "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that."
Asked about Woodward's recollection in an interview with the Post,
Pincus said "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

You say his name is Pincus? I don't trust him to tell the truth.

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

P Fritz wrote:

While the details of Woodward's testimony are murky, one thing is
clear: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is far from
over. Fitzgerald is still pursuing the case very actively and senior
administration officials, including Karl Rove, remain in legal
jeopardy.

Yes, the radical elements of our society are out to damage this country
in any way they can. That is a given.

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP: Bob Woodward claims that, in June of 2003, "I
told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source,
that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus, however, "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that."
Asked about Woodward's recollection in an interview with the Post,
Pincus said "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

You say his name is Pincus? I don't trust him to tell the truth.

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

Fitz must please those screamin' hordes of radicals out to get Bush and
real Americans any way they can. He might just make a case against
Woodward for cheating at marbles in the 6th grade next.

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.


Oh, not so fast:

Just when you thought Fitzgerald was out, he pulls us back in. On
Monday, "Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward
testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior
administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and
her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was
disclosed."

Woodward also says that he discussed Plame's identity with Washington Post
journalist Walter Pincus before the Novak article.

I don't know if Pincus testified before the grand jury or not...but if he
did, then he should be facing a perjury indictment on the heels of the
Woodward testimony. Of course, if Pincus lied, then that sort of blows away
the Fitgerald theory that Plame's name wasn't widely known among reporters
prior to Libby discussing it with Judith Miller.

Watch for Pincus's name in the news over the next couple of weeks.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"Skipper" wrote in message
...

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP: Bob Woodward claims that, in June of 2003, "I
told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source,
that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus, however, "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that."
Asked about Woodward's recollection in an interview with the Post,
Pincus said "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

You say his name is Pincus? I don't trust him to tell the truth.


I told you guys about Kristof and Pincus a couple of weeks ago! I believe
Wilson discussed his wife's identity with both of them in early May...about
5 weeks before Libby found out that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Oh, not so fast:

While the details of Woodward's testimony are murky, one thing is
clear: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is far from
over. Fitzgerald is still pursuing the case very actively and senior
administration officials, including Karl Rove, remain in legal
jeopardy.

Yes, the radical elements of our society are out to damage this country
in any way they can. That is a given.

WHITE HOUSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ROVE

FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS CALL FOR ROVE'S SECURITY CLEARANCE TO BE
REVOKED: Knight Ridder reports that "sixteen former CIA and military
intelligence officials yesterday urged President Bush to suspend the
security clearance of his top political adviser

Yes, we understand there have been leftist elements infiltrated into the
State Department, CIA, and other government agencies. They hate George
Bush and real Americans.

PRIOR TO DISCLOSURE, WOODWARD WAS AN AGGRESSIVE, ANTI-FITZGERALD
COMMENTATOR

Not true.

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP: Bob Woodward claims that, in June of 2003, "I
told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source,
that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus, however, "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that."
Asked about Woodward's recollection in an interview with the Post,
Pincus said "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

You say his name is Pincus? I don't trust him to tell the truth.

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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Oh, not so fast:

While the details of Woodward's testimony are murky, one thing is
clear: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is far from
over. Fitzgerald is still pursuing the case very actively and senior
administration officials, including Karl Rove, remain in legal
jeopardy.

Yes, the radical elements of our society are out to damage this country
in any way they can. That is a given.

WHITE HOUSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ROVE

FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS CALL FOR ROVE'S SECURITY CLEARANCE TO BE
REVOKED: Knight Ridder reports that "sixteen former CIA and military
intelligence officials yesterday urged President Bush to suspend the
security clearance of his top political adviser

Yes, we understand there have been leftist elements infiltrated into the
State Department, CIA, and other government agencies. They hate George
Bush and real Americans.

PRIOR TO DISCLOSURE, WOODWARD WAS AN AGGRESSIVE, ANTI-FITZGERALD
COMMENTATOR

Not true.

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP: Bob Woodward claims that, in June of 2003, "I
told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source,
that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus, however, "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that."
Asked about Woodward's recollection in an interview with the Post,
Pincus said "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

You say his name is Pincus? I don't trust him to tell the truth.

--
Skipper


You don't trust someone with the last name of Pincus? Because...???


Because he's a partisan hack who operates under the guise of a "reporter" at
the Washington Post.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

NOYB wrote:

I don't know if Pincus testified before the grand jury or not...but if he
did, then he should be facing a perjury indictment on the heels of the
Woodward testimony. Of course, if Pincus lied, then that sort of blows away
the Fitgerald theory that Plame's name wasn't widely known among reporters
prior to Libby discussing it with Judith Miller.

Watch for Pincus's name in the news over the next couple of weeks.

Do you REALLY expect to see Pincus's name in the eastern liberal press?

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I told you Fitzgerald has squat.

http://tinyurl.com/7h9rt

Fitzgerald had two years and came up with bupkus - a perjury and
obstruction indictment against one person on a case where no crime
has
been committed. Apparently, it never occurred to Fitzgerald to check
with other journalists to see if they had heard of Plame and her
association with the CIA.

Fitzmas my ass.

Oh, not so fast:

While the details of Woodward's testimony are murky, one thing is
clear: Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is far from
over. Fitzgerald is still pursuing the case very actively and senior
administration officials, including Karl Rove, remain in legal
jeopardy.

Yes, the radical elements of our society are out to damage this country
in any way they can. That is a given.

WHITE HOUSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ROVE

FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS CALL FOR ROVE'S SECURITY CLEARANCE TO
BE
REVOKED: Knight Ridder reports that "sixteen former CIA and military
intelligence officials yesterday urged President Bush to suspend the
security clearance of his top political adviser

Yes, we understand there have been leftist elements infiltrated into
the
State Department, CIA, and other government agencies. They hate George
Bush and real Americans.

PRIOR TO DISCLOSURE, WOODWARD WAS AN AGGRESSIVE, ANTI-FITZGERALD
COMMENTATOR

Not true.

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP: Bob Woodward claims that, in June of 2003,
"I
told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source,
that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus, however, "said he does not recall Woodward telling him that."
Asked about Woodward's recollection in an interview with the Post,
Pincus said "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered
that."

You say his name is Pincus? I don't trust him to tell the truth.

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.

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

NOYB wrote:

Skipper wrote:

You say his name is Pincus? I don't trust him to tell the truth.

I told you guys about Kristof and Pincus a couple of weeks ago! I believe
Wilson discussed his wife's identity with both of them in early May...about
5 weeks before Libby found out that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

You really should forgive those of us that are middle-of-the-road
politically. We just don't pay much attention to political commentary in
this NG anymore. Raving Looney Leftist zealots like Krause have many of
us turning off *all* political posts. Your wise advisory seems to have
been the victim here. I'll be paying much better attention to your wise
words in the future.

--
Skipper

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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!

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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"?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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*.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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!

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

Harry Krause wrote:


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


Yeah... cow pate on a cracker.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

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.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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..._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.

I think that Russert's ass is on the line because as NBC News Washington,
D.C. Bureau Chief he was in a position to know everything that the
reporters knew.

Russert is looking at a purgery charge in the future.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"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.

Reporters are now looking at a conspiracy and purgery charges.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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 12th, Walter Pincus published an article about Wilson's trip. The
source for his article was Wilson (as conceded and referenced in the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence report). But remember that Kristof
published an article on May 6th about the Niger trip...and *his* source was
likely Wilson as well.

Libby didn't learn about Wilson's wife until June 11th or 12th...so he
certainly wasn't the source of any Plame leak that may have occurred to the
press prior to when Pincus's article went to press.

I believe that while Wilson was telling the Niger fairy tale story to
Kristof and Pincus, Wilson outed his own wife as early as May 2003.

But Pincus denied under oath that he knew Plame's identity prior to Novak's
article. Of course, Pincus's testimony (which was already suspect because
of the fact that he used Plame's husband as his source) is shot to **** by
Woodward's testimony...which said that he discussed Plame's identity with
Pincus in mid-June.

Any way you look at it, Walter Pincus is lying. So now ask yourself "why?"






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.

Woodward knew about Plame sometime before Libby spoke with Judith Miller.
Pincus knew because Woodward told him (and I believe Wilson told Pincus
too). If Woodward knew, and Pincus knew, it's safe to say that "all the
reporters in Washington" knew. And in his testimony, Libby said that
Russert told Libby that "all the reporters in Washington" knew. It appears
that Libby was telling the truth.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"Bert Robbins" 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..._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.

I think that Russert's ass is on the line because as NBC News Washington,
D.C. Bureau Chief he was in a position to know everything that the
reporters knew.

Russert is looking at a purgery charge in the future.

Russert, Pincus, and possibly Kristof.

And certainly Wilson.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:58:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I believe that while Wilson was telling the Niger fairy tale story to
Kristof and Pincus, Wilson outed his own wife as early as May 2003.

LOL, the Niger fairy tale, from Wilson? Lost is all of this Plame mess,
is the fact that there were two other officials that were in Niger
checking on the purchase of yellowcake. Both agreed with Wilson's
assessment, that Niger yellowcake was secure. Funny this administration
didn't drag their names through the mud. Perhaps, it's because one of
them was a Marine Four Star. Any fairy tales about Niger, were from this
administration.


But Pincus denied under oath that he knew Plame's identity prior to
Novak's article. Of course, Pincus's testimony (which was already suspect
because of the fact that he used Plame's husband as his source) is shot to
**** by Woodward's testimony...which said that he discussed Plame's
identity with Pincus in mid-June.

Any way you look at it, Walter Pincus is lying. So now ask yourself
"why?"

The way I look at it, as much as you would like there to be, there is no
evidence that Wilson outed his wife, none. And because you prefer
Woodward's recollection doesn't necessarily make it so. Woodward could be
mistaken, and Pincus could be correct. Neither of us knows for sure.



Woodward knew about Plame sometime before Libby spoke with Judith Miller.
Pincus knew because Woodward told him (and I believe Wilson told Pincus
too). If Woodward knew, and Pincus knew, it's safe to say that "all the
reporters in Washington" knew. And in his testimony, Libby said that
Russert told Libby that "all the reporters in Washington" knew. It
appears that Libby was telling the truth.

I know your dentist's mind isn't that logically challenged, therefore, I'm
assuming you know you are full of it. *If* all the reporters in
Washington knew, you have to ask how they all knew. Reporter'
s sources and information is their bread and butter. They keep then
close, and it's unlikely they would be spreading that kind of scoop
amongst themselves.

However, in your scenario, reporter's either gossip to each other, or you
have to place Wilson spreading the information around. There isn't any
evidence that is so. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence
that several officials in this administration were spreading Plame's
status around, a la conspiracy. We'll just have to wait and see.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:58:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I believe that while Wilson was telling the Niger fairy tale story to
Kristof and Pincus, Wilson outed his own wife as early as May 2003.

LOL, the Niger fairy tale, from Wilson? Lost is all of this Plame mess,
is the fact that there were two other officials that were in Niger
checking on the purchase of yellowcake. Both agreed with Wilson's
assessment, that Niger yellowcake was secure. Funny this administration
didn't drag their names through the mud. Perhaps, it's because one of
them was a Marine Four Star. Any fairy tales about Niger, were from this
administration.

Do you have some sources, preferably documented, for these two other people
that agreed with Wilson's verbal report?

But Pincus denied under oath that he knew Plame's identity prior to
Novak's article. Of course, Pincus's testimony (which was already
suspect
because of the fact that he used Plame's husband as his source) is shot
to
**** by Woodward's testimony...which said that he discussed Plame's
identity with Pincus in mid-June.

Any way you look at it, Walter Pincus is lying. So now ask yourself
"why?"

The way I look at it, as much as you would like there to be, there is no
evidence that Wilson outed his wife, none. And because you prefer
Woodward's recollection doesn't necessarily make it so. Woodward could be
mistaken, and Pincus could be correct. Neither of us knows for sure.

There has already been an Army two-star General that has said that Wilson
told him that his wife, Wilson's wife, worked for the CIA in the WMD section
on or before May of 2003.


Woodward knew about Plame sometime before Libby spoke with Judith Miller.
Pincus knew because Woodward told him (and I believe Wilson told Pincus
too). If Woodward knew, and Pincus knew, it's safe to say that "all the
reporters in Washington" knew. And in his testimony, Libby said that
Russert told Libby that "all the reporters in Washington" knew. It
appears that Libby was telling the truth.

I know your dentist's mind isn't that logically challenged, therefore, I'm
assuming you know you are full of it. *If* all the reporters in
Washington knew, you have to ask how they all knew. Reporter'
s sources and information is their bread and butter. They keep then
close, and it's unlikely they would be spreading that kind of scoop
amongst themselves.

You don't live in the DC area do you? The pecking order is determined by how
much you know and that can't be determined until you open your mouth and let
everybody know what you know. The reporters are no different.

However, in your scenario, reporter's either gossip to each other, or you
have to place Wilson spreading the information around. There isn't any
evidence that is so. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence
that several officials in this administration were spreading Plame's
status around, a la conspiracy. We'll just have to wait and see.

Both! Reporters gossip, it determines the peckiing order. And, Wilson
blabbed to anyone that would listen that his wife worked for the CIA, again
the pecking order thing comes up again.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:47:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Do you have some sources, preferably documented, for these two other
people that agreed with Wilson's verbal report?

The General was Carlton W. Fulford. The other official was Ambassador
Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick. A google search should produce plenty of
information. You could start he

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...521846767-1866


There has already been an Army two-star General that has said that Wilson
told him that his wife, Wilson's wife, worked for the CIA in the WMD
section on or before May of 2003.

Yeah, I've read about Gen. Vallely. Wilson and Vallely are both
threatening to sue each other. Personally, I'll wait and see how it
unfolds. It sounds a little hokey to me. Vallely seems to have
"qualified" his statements, and it seems to me, if Wilson was that loose
with his wife's status, there would be many more witnesses.


Both! Reporters gossip, it determines the peckiing order. And, Wilson
blabbed to anyone that would listen that his wife worked for the CIA,
again the pecking order thing comes up again.


If Wilson blabbed to anyone who would listen, where are they? So far, we
have the Vallely claim, but no others. It is not publicly known if Wilson
told any reporters. It is publicly known that administration officials
did.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:47:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Do you have some sources, preferably documented, for these two other
people that agreed with Wilson's verbal report?

The General was Carlton W. Fulford. The other official was Ambassador
Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick. A google search should produce plenty of
information. You could start he

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...521846767-1866

Niger's chief product is yellow cake urainium do you think that they are
going to come out and say that they are in contact with Iraq about selling
their chief product.

There has already been an Army two-star General that has said that Wilson
told him that his wife, Wilson's wife, worked for the CIA in the WMD
section on or before May of 2003.

Yeah, I've read about Gen. Vallely. Wilson and Vallely are both
threatening to sue each other. Personally, I'll wait and see how it
unfolds. It sounds a little hokey to me. Vallely seems to have
"qualified" his statements, and it seems to me, if Wilson was that loose
with his wife's status, there would be many more witnesses.

Get both of then in front of Fitzgerald under oath and the tiff can be
resolved quickly.

Both! Reporters gossip, it determines the peckiing order. And, Wilson
blabbed to anyone that would listen that his wife worked for the CIA,
again the pecking order thing comes up again.


If Wilson blabbed to anyone who would listen, where are they? So far, we
have the Vallely claim, but no others. It is not publicly known if Wilson
told any reporters. It is publicly known that administration officials
did.

The reporters are looking for a juciy storry, the longer it plays out the
better for them.

Yo!! Thunder...
 

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:08:39 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Niger's chief product is yellow cake urainium do you think that they are
going to come out and say that they are in contact with Iraq about selling
their chief product.

Guy, it has been well established that there was no Niger yellowcake going
to Iraq, none, zip, nada. Rather than clinging to the hope that it could
have happened, you really should be wondering how this bogus claim was
ever raised to the surface. If you are going to disregard 250 years of
precedent, and have a preemptive invasion, you should, at a minimum, have
a better line of BS.


If Wilson blabbed to anyone who would listen, where are they? So far,
we have the Vallely claim, but no others. It is not publicly known if
Wilson told any reporters. It is publicly known that administration
officials did.

The reporters are looking for a juciy storry, the longer it plays out the
better for them.

Come on, I'll ask again, if Wilson blabbed to anyone who would listen,
where are they? You can right off all of the worthless "liebral" media,
but you would think NewsMax or Rush could at least give us a few names.
Don't you think?

Yo!! Thunder...
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:08:39 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Niger's chief product is yellow cake urainium do you think that they are
going to come out and say that they are in contact with Iraq about
selling
their chief product.

Guy, it has been well established that there was no Niger yellowcake going
to Iraq, none, zip, nada. Rather than clinging to the hope that it could
have happened, you really should be wondering how this bogus claim was
ever raised to the surface. If you are going to disregard 250 years of
precedent, and have a preemptive invasion, you should, at a minimum, have
a better line of BS.

You have no proof that that yellowcake was or was not exported from Niger to
Iraq. It bas been accepted in some circles that no yellowcake went from
Niger to Iraq.

There is no line of BS. Iraq was still under the terms and conditions of a
surrender from the first gulf war. Iraq's failure to abide by the terms and
conditions there was enough reason to resume hostilities. Iraq was engaged
in acquiring nuclear weapons against the UN's own resolutions not to.

If Wilson blabbed to anyone who would listen, where are they? So far,
we have the Vallely claim, but no others. It is not publicly known if
Wilson told any reporters. It is publicly known that administration
officials did.

The reporters are looking for a juciy storry, the longer it plays out the
better for them.

Come on, I'll ask again, if Wilson blabbed to anyone who would listen,
where are they? You can right off all of the worthless "liebral" media,
but you would think NewsMax or Rush could at least give us a few names.
Don't you think?

Put Wilson under oath and let him answer the questions. This one simple
activity will bring clarity to this whole mess.