Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
...Developing...
OfficialMORE: A quick survey of my friends on the left finds reactions ranging from anger to denial. I take that as good news for Libby.
Jane Hamsher: Fred Fleitz may be the source (I add a crumb of evidence in support below); Woodward lacks credibility; Woodward lacks credibility.
Ms. Hamsher is focusing on Woodward's report that the national security implications of the Plame leak were minimal. I have more on that here., but let's say, I am skeptical of the leak telling us this:
The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted.
Please - lives on the line, networks in jeopardy, and they want to wait three years until the investigation and trial is complete to see if there is a problem?
Nonsense - the CIA doesn't want to prepare an official "No Damage" report that will be subpoenaed by the defense; the informal assessment was (my guess) just as Woodward said.
Jeralyn Merritt: She bets the source is David Wurmser.
I disagree - I am having a hard time believing that the "senior Administration official" (WaPo) who recently stepped forward has previously testified to Fitzgerald or his investigators - what questions could the investigators have been asking that the contact with Woodward never came up?
Per Jane Hamsher, neither Fred Fleitz nor John Bolton have given evidence to Fitzgerald (we are both sure about Bolton; I don't think she is more sure about Fleitz than I am, but I am counting on her).
Other little hints that might support Fleitz - the WaPo says this:
It is unclear what prompted Woodward's original unnamed source to alert Fitzgerald to the mid-June 2003 mention of Plame to Woodward. Once he did, Fitzgerald sought Woodward's testimony, and three officials released him to testify about conversations he had with them. Downie, Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month.
Downie defended the newspaper's decision not to release certain details about what triggered Woodward's deposition because "we can't do anything in any way to unravel the confidentiality agreements our reporters make."
Woodward never mentioned this contact -- which was at the center of a criminal investigation and a high-stakes First Amendment legal battle between the prosecutor and two news organizations -- to his supervisors until last month. Downie said in an interview yesterday that Woodward told him about the contact to alert him to a possible story.
Well. If the question was, why did the official come forward a week late (as opposed to, say, a year late), maybe he/she was traveling, sick, on leave or some such. We have a bit of a hint from Steve Clemons on Oct 27:
...a short while ago -- one of America's top journalists called me to ask what I knew about Fleitz. He said rumors were swirling everywhere and that a "really wild rumor" was that Bob Woodward had a piece appearing in tomorrow's Washington Post focusing on Fleitz. Realize -- NOTHING substantiated here.
Part of the rumor is that Fleitz is on leave.
I just tried to track that down. I just called Fred Fleitz, but got his answering machine and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. I then called Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph's office and talked to a person who told me that Fleitz was on leave for two days but would return to the office Monday morning.
If Woodward was planning a big story, that would tie to the news that he disclosed his situation to Downie last month. Does support for part of the rumor strengthen the whole?
And what happened with Fleitz - cold feet?
Armando at Daily Kos is in denial - Woodward has no cred, this his no effect on the case, move on. Whatever.
Kathianne said:Wow! Go to the link, this is the ending....
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/mr_fitzgerald_n.html
Mr. P said:Check-out what the DU crowd says about Woodward.
musicman said:"This little prick's nothing more than a collaborator now".
"his role in Watergate was to kill off the old repuke party so the neocons could take over".
These people are absolutely off the rails! I wish the truly ostentatious moonbats continued, unfettered access to the media spotlight. It can only do America good. Moreover - in light of recent Democrat behavior across the entire spectrum of discourse - I seem to be getting my wish. Rave on, assholes!
His father was a DuPage Republican judge all the time I was growing up. I logged over 100 hours in his courtroom on a court watching project for honors civics. Bob graduated from Wheaton Central I believe, before it was turned into Hubble Middle School!
Ain't it a hoot!??musicman said:"This little prick's nothing more than a collaborator now".
"his role in Watergate was to kill off the old repuke party so the neocons could take over".
These people are absolutely off the rails! I wish the truly ostentatious moonbats continued, unfettered access to the media spotlight. It can only do America good. Moreover - in light of recent Democrat behavior across the entire spectrum of discourse - I seem to be getting my wish. Rave on, assholes!
thanksKathianne said:Images in sigs has been eliminated, at least for the time being.
Mr. P said:Ain't it a hoot!??
I do agree with insein, it hurts to visit over there.
Why don't you read what Fitzgerald wrote?Cabernet said:LOL Why would you all think that Libby will get off? Fitzgerald did not base the indictment on Libby being the first one to tell a reporter about Plame. It was based upon Libby lying and obstructing justice.
Cabernet said:LOL Why would you all think that Libby will get off? Fitzgerald did not base the indictment on Libby being the first one to tell a reporter about Plame. It was based upon Libby lying and obstructing justice.
Kathianne said:Why don't you read what Fitzgerald wrote?
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...5.pdf+libby+indictment&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Bonnie said:Can I ask you then what exactly is the wrongdoing here?? If there was no crime of outing a CIA operative then how is anything else relevant????? How can you lie about something you never did??
Timing is everything, go back and read.Kathianne said:Why don't you read what Fitzgerald wrote?
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...5.pdf+libby+indictment&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Cabernet said:Libby has not been indicted based upon a violation of the statute. He was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury. There was nothing in the indictment that stated Libby was being indicted for leaking Plame's name. The statements made in that document that address the leaking of the name is just factual background.
Remember, when Fitzgerald was announcing the indictment, he said that he could not make a determination as to whether or not the statute was violated because Libby had thrown sand in his eyes.
