Cooper's Attorney: 'I Think People Are Going To Be Charged'

I'm sitting here watching "Hardball" with Chris Mathews, and his guest for the first segment was Matt Cooper's attorney, Richard Sauber.

While he was evasive in his answers during the interview about the facts of the case, Matthews asked about what he thought was going to happen at the end of the interview. Sauber said that from what he knows, Fitzgerald wouldn't have put Judy Miller in jail if he didn't have some type of case. He said that he expects indictments to occur.

I'll update the diary with the transcript from "Hardball" when it becomes available...

Update [2005-10-12 19:48:27 by Rimjob]:

Here's a transcript of the end of the interview...

Chris Matthews: Where's the prosecutor headed? Is he looking for obstruction of justice? Is he looking for a perjury, for the espionage act? What's he going to look for here?

Richard Sauber: I'm not exactly sure. I think that the statute about releasing the name of an undercover agent would be difficult, in these circumstance for all the reasons people have talked about...

Matthews: The "82" act?

Sauber: The "82" act. It does seem to me that people have testified inaccurately in the Grand Jury...

Matthews: Being kind.

Sauber: ...And whether Mr. Fitzgerald can muster the case...

Matthews: Does Mr. Fitzgerald strike you, going as he's gone after the Chicago orginization, the city out there, going after Lord Black, going after Governor Ryan, does he seem like the kind of a guy that means business here?

Sauber: It's hard for me to think that he would have kept Judy Miller in jail for 4 months, and then said "never mind" and gone home.

Matthews: So he's got a case to make?

Sauber: That's where it seems to be headed.

Matthews: Is this White House coming down?

Sauber: I think people are going to get charged, but...

Matthews: Top people?

Sauber: It seems to me that's where this is headed. Yes.

Matthews: Scooter & Karl?

Sauber: It's hard to say.

Matthews: (laughs) But you're getting there?

Sauber: (Grins) Mr. Fitzgerald, I think is heading in that direction.

...The other piece of news that I haven't seen reported here yet, was that Judy Miller WAS NOT given permission by Libby to reveal her June conversation with him. According to Reuters...

...After spending 85 days in jail for the refusal, Miller testified before the grand jury on September 30 about two previously disclosed conversations with Libby -- on July 8 and July 12, 2003.

Libby had referred only to the July conversations when he wrote Miller last month waiving a confidentiality pledge. The limited reference raised questions about whether he intended the waiver to apply to their conversation that June.

It was unclear how Fitzgerald learned of the June 23, 2003, conversation.

So if the NY Times & Miller are so committed to Journalist principals, why did they "drop dime" on a conversation that hadn't been waived? How did Fitzgerald hear about the June conversation?

Update [2005-10-12 18:3:6 by Rimjob]:

Matthews just discussed the lastest news of the "Leak Case" with the Washington Post's Mike Allen, and NBC's Norah O'Donnel.

Mike Allen said people inside the White House are readying their legal defense, and that it will be that the Valerie Wilson information came from the press to them, not the other way around. One problem though, is that Allen said members of the State Department (including Colin Powell) have testified that the White House specifically requested the information about Valerie Wilson before there were any press accounts.

Norah O'Donnel said people inside the White House have suggested fmr. RNC Chief Ed Gillespie might take Rove's place as political strategist, if Rove is forced to resign...

Update [2005-10-12 18:55:29 by Rimjob]:

I haven't seen this diaried yet & I'm on the East Coast watching the "NBC Nightly News", where Brian Williams & Tim Russert just released their new NBC/WSJ Poll. Here's the numbers for those of you on the West Coast...

Bush Job Approval?
Approve 39%
Disapprove 54%

Only 2% of African-Americans approve of Bush. Tim Russert said that was the lowest result ever in that measurement.

Direction Of Country?
Right Track 28%
Wrong Track 59%

Rep. Tom Delay's Indictment?
Little Merit 24%
Potential Illegal Activity 65%

Sen. Bill Frist's Stock Sale?
Little Merit 28%
Potential Illegal Activity 57%

Russert said that 50% of Republicans believe that it's potential illegal activity for both Delay & Frist.

Control Of Congress?
Republicans 39%
Democrats 48%

A 9 point advantage is the largest advantage for any party in the NBC/WSJ poll in a decade...

•  Can't wait to see the NYT explanation.

  Some tap dance they're going to have to do.

  by 2lucky on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:36:27 PM PDT

  •  One explanation

    At the risk of taking the role of apologist for the NYT (which might could get a man flamed around these parts on this topic): Libby gave a blanket waiver; by it's language including july conversations.  The waiver, arising as it did in the course of a criminal investigation, gave Miller pause w/r/t it's voluntariness and scope, and certainly didn't give her reign to discuss something, by it's language, not covered by the waiver.  At some point, Fitz. found out about the June discussion (from whence or from whom I cannot guess), "prodded" (read called his PR bullshit) Libby to make sure that Miller "knew" the waiver was good for all conversations, and she gladly walked out of the pokey.
     

    by pooplatter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:55:56 PM PDT

    •  Let's try this angle

      Let's say the prosecutor has hard evidence there was a conversation on 23-JUN-03 between Miller and Libby that neither Miller or Libby provided.

      Let's say that the evidence indicated there was nothing else to talk during this conversation about except...well...and let's say there might even be other corroborating witnesses.

      Would Miller really be obligated to stay within the limits of July meetings only as waived by Libby?

      How can Miller NOT respond without actually withholding additional validating or corroborating evidence, obstructing the investigation?

      The "newly discovered" notes were found in Washington, too, not in some other locale.  Who really discovered them -- Miller?  Or did the prosecutor tell her they knew about evidence in the form of "notes" and she was strongly encouraged to provide them...?

      by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:15:20 PM PDT

      •  Hmmmmm . . .

        Are you suggesting that someone else who works in the Washington Bureau of the New York Times may have tipped Fitzgerald off? That there may, in fact, be people working for the NYT who think JudyJudyJudy is a disgrace to the profession of journalism, not some national hero, and want to see her get her comeuppance?

        Maybe the Freeper Nation isn't the only group engaged in a Civil War right now.

        by jmart on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:32:57 PM PDT

        •  Arianna

          Ariana has written more than once that there are lots of appalled and pissed-off colleagues lurking about in the Times. I wouldn't be surprised if a co-worker turned up the "missing" notes.

          by saucy monkey on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:47:52 PM PDT

          •  I would think, that there are

            alot of appalled and pissed-off colleagues lurking about in the CIA.

            by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:17:13 PM PDT

            •  worse than that

              There are spooks lurking about all around them.

              by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:55:27 PM PDT

          •  someone is holding back

            the Times' right up on Judy today says:
            "Ms. Miller's meeting with the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, focused on notes that she found in the Times newsroom in Manhattan after her appearance before the grand jury on Sept. 30."

            Now, I dont want to get into the Washington vs Manhattan office detail here...like which office was it guys?...but more I want to say, like...uh, you just found this stuff?

            Was she directed to look around?  Did she just stumble upon these notes?  And who directed David Johnston to write this story like this.  If I was the reporter I would be asking a few more questions about such a non-sense statement.

            I'm nobody special in the world, certainly not a journalist for the NYTimes that is also being scrutinized by a special prosecutor...but I know I am busy enough that I could not just find yesterday's mail sitting next to my computer unless someone explicently said to me, "find it", and, "its right next to your computer dumb ass".

            How did Judy stumble upon these notes.
            I hope they hang her.
            

            by atomicBirdsong on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:44:48 PM PDT

            •  see my other post

              emptywheel's (or somebody's here) suggestion that her editor(s) coughed up a copy of those notes. Or allowed Fitzgerald to peruse the originals. And Fitzgerald caught her out. Miller producing the notes has nothing to with suddenly finding them but Fitzgerald demanding she hand over evidence he knows she has. So, a sort of discovery after all.

              Is it likely that an editor would keep a copy of a spiked story? Or do journos just keep the one copy? But it's moot if Keller just let Fitzgerald read them over coffee & danish in his office.

              by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:03:42 PM PDT

        •  This is my conjecture

          I'd commented yesterday:

          I'd put money on Fitz having evidence BEFORE Libby or Miller testified.

          Like a meeting notice or a sign-in log or badge access records or phone records or even security video...

          Something hard that documented Miller and Libby met in June.

          He let them both omit the June meeting, put Miller in the clink to think some more about things he knew she wasn't disclosing.  She was encouraged to come clean because it looked worse for Libby than for her -- which tells me the evidence is on Libby's side of the fence.

          Both of them get obstruction and possibly conspiracy, if other evidence links them to the rest of the food chain.  And at least one of them gets leaker status.

          Looks like there might be something to this; check out jblazs's diary on Sydney Blumenthal.

          Let's assume that the hard evidence that Fitz has on a 23-JUN Miller-Libby conversation or meeting actually concerns an article that Miller was going to do on Wilson to discredit him, as this latest diary suggests.

          I don't see how Miller can fail to disclose anything about this without actively obstructing justice.

          by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:54:46 PM PDT

          •  I suspected a dept phone or expenses log

            ... pointing to reporter's other note(book)s.

            The classic human struggle (no, not Man vs. Nature):

            No matter how discreet someone intends to be about a meeting (phone call yadda yadda), if there's a chance to be reimbursed for the expense s/he will declare it. (And of course, fork over receipts till Tuesday.)

            The temptation is too hard to resist for the average mortal. I know ... I've tried many times, and failed.
            .

            by Peanut on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:47:33 PM PDT

            •  Yup...the contractor edition

              If my theory is right, Miller probably had stuff she kept as NYT employee, and then another set of stuff she kept for contract work.

              We don't know that there weren't also financial records pulled up on these folks.  Might be the only time the Patriot Act was our friend...

              by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:01:10 PM PDT

            •  What about Susan What's her name

              Abramoff's ex-aide.

              by never forget 2000 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:28:08 PM PDT

              •  Ralston -- check out this little scam

                as detailed by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, in his 10/09/05 01:41 PM EDT post.
                .

                by Peanut on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:58:31 PM PDT

                •  tickets are probably being flipped

                  Graul might not know anything about it, actually.

                  by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:10:02 PM PDT

        •  bingo! you got !

          by stodghie on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:02:48 PM PDT

        •  there are plenty

          The Source of the Trouble
          Read it if you haven't. It's very helpful towards understanding St Jude and this mess she's backed herself into.

          by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:33:47 PM PDT

      •  Newly discovered notes

        Actually, there are conflicting reports on that. Isikoff says Washington, NY Times (and others that have picked it up) say Manhattan. Both, curiously, say NYT bureaus, which is odd for someone trying to maintain a clear line of distinction between writer and newspaper.

        by emptywheel on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:49:02 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, saw Manhattan

          on CNN site too.

          by Job52 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:19:32 PM PDT

        •  AHA!!!

          THAT'S THE GOLDEN TICKET!!!

          Judy's a target for charges on payola as a contractor, not as an NYT employee.

          NYT is trying like hell to put up a firewall between them and Judy because they'd be on the hook for propaganda, too.

          Explains the tepid protections they offered her, and the "downsizing" of her desk as well.

          Shoot me down now, quick, before I get my hopes up.  I have an LTE to write to the local newspaper who thinks Judy Miller is a f*cking saint, want to be grounded when I do it...

          by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:59:44 PM PDT

        •  Emptywheel - Miller Intelligence sources

          Off the exact Topic

          Did you notice in the LATimes quote I put up in the Miller Source diary that Miller names intelligence sources.

          
          Miller would not ask her sources to waive their anonymity. She said intelligence officials might feel coerced into admitting they had talked to a reporter.

          by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:16:24 PM PDT

          •  Fleitz

            I'm sure Fitzgerald's had more than one of these hanging beside his desk.

                                      Dick         Junior
                                        |            |
                                        |            | stooges
                                        |            |   /
            Fleitz -> Bolton -> Libby -> Rove -> stooges
                                         \               \
                                          \            stooges
                                           \
                                    Judy-Judy-Judayy!

            by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:32:42 PM PDT

            •  Fabulous n/t

              by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:45:40 PM PDT

              •  oh, i forgot

                also:

                  Libby -> Matalin -> Novak

                Remember when Novak stormed off the set? Most here were thinking that Carville new Novak was in up to his neck and was riding him a bit. I wonder if Matalin might've been his source and he flipped on her. I wonder if that's what Carville was being snippy about. Novak's been awfully quiet about his Grand Jury experience(s).

                by subtropolis on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 12:23:57 AM PDT

        •  2 cities, 2 sets of notes

          I still like the theory that her editor procured his copy and Miller got caught out. Fitzgerald's way of nulling their agreement and putting the heat on her (now that she's got a little taste of freedom) and by extension, Libby. And on up.

          I think that was your idea, i'm not sure. Head is spinning.

          by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:14:14 PM PDT

      •  Angle

        How about this angle?

        The New York Times is a crusading forcing in American journalism, known for seeking out truth and demanding justice.  As soon as they found out that Judith Miller had untoward ties to the Bush Administration and was being used to publish their lies, they fired her and began an investigation of everything she had written.  Then, they retracted her articles and asked the public for an apology.

        But this didn't happen.  The New York Times is not such an institution.  It doesn't care about truth or justice.

        And it never will.

        And this is the problem with the New York Times.

        They'll just dance around and try to do damage control and hope people forget.

        by bink on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:23:51 PM PDT

        •  Sorry, bink, I missed your post

          Was starting to type mine about the time you posted.

          Yeah, I agree, but I think payola enters into this somewhere after reading more in this thread.

          by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:02:26 PM PDT

        •  Another twist

          Is it possible that NYT is under some gag order by Fitz? It is hard to imagine that Miller's reputation alone is the reason for their inept silence. The aspens have tangled roots indeed.

          by never forget 2000 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:37:56 PM PDT

          •  If the NYT was under a gag order

            they'd be running that news on the FP of their paper, instead of suffering the slings and arrows they're receiving.

            by Terre on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:47:24 PM PDT

      •  notes provided by her editor

        I think it was emptywheel the other day who suggested that Miller was working something up on Plame/Wilson but that Joseph Lelyveld or Bill Keller spiked it. Perhaps realising what shit she was maybe dragging them into, or maybe just to be vindictive. In any case, the notes were still there. Fitzgerald comes calling around asking questions and Keller (or Lelyveld or whoever) quietly hands them over.

        When St Jude got herself sprung from the Tower, she had this agreement she thought might keep things cozy. But Fitzgerald, having the notes, knows about an earlier meeting with Libby. And – he knows what it was about. Being the wise prosecutor, he keeps asking questions he already knows the answers to, and pretty soon Judy pauses in mid-sentence, says, "...", and she's facing stir once again.

        Fitzgerald, being the nice prosecutor, let's her hum & haw her way into suddenly 'finding' the other notes. Because, although he's already got the notes, it's much better to have her copy.

        Oh, yeah, and she gets to do some 'splainin'. And the heat is turned back up on Libby. Waaayyy up!

        by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:53:14 PM PDT

    •  good analysis: JUNE conversations!

      
      Actually I think you have an excellent point there.  If I understand what you're saying correctly:

      If the original waiver said July, it didn't cover June.  Miller believed she was unable to talk about July without getting questioned about June.  For whatever reason she decided it was preferable to go to prison rather than getting dragged into talking about june.

      Then she got fed up with prison and used Libby's recent waiver as an excuse to be able to start talking, knowing full well the questioning would get into June, and she'd have to talk about that also.  But by this point she was worn down from prison and decided enough was enough, it was time to spill some more beans.  

      The smoking gun is probably something to do with June.  

      Is that approximately right?  

      The suspense, waiting for the indictments, is maddening.  

      by G2geek on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:43:39 PM PDT

      •  I may be incorrect, but...

        ...it seems to me that Miller could either refuse to appear before a grand jury (citing source confidentiality) or appear to answer questions, but could not appear and answer SOME questions but not others.  

        Hence the agreement with Fitzpatrick to limit the scope of questioning.  IIRC, once you agree to testify to the Grand Jury, it's all-or-nothing.  Libby's apparent attempt to limit it to July means nothing.

        (Why is that jingle suddenly running through my head--"When it says 'Libby's Libby's Libby's on the waiver, waiver, waiver then Fitzpatrick (-patrick -patrick) he will savor...")

        by Randomfactor on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:55:10 PM PDT

      •  something like that

        The gist of it is, that whether Miller could or couldn't appear b.f. a GJ and testify only as to limited matters, which in fact she could in my opinion, what matters in part, is whether she believed that by invoking confidentiality, if only in part, she would reveal more than she felt her source had allowed.  This even assuming that she felt a waiver signed at the behest of criminal investigators truly applied to her.

        She got fed up, yes, and more importantly, Fitz. called Libby on his bullshit attempt to parse out a partial waiver while acting like his shit smelled like roses on account of his previous waiver.  Miller's ready to talk, since lovenotes from Libby notwithstanding, she's sitting b/h concrete and barbed wire while folks trash her as complicit in a Libby coverup.

        by pooplatter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:19:25 PM PDT

      •  Some of the smoke in out

        Waas had yesterday that the June conversation was about Valerie Plame. The fact that they talked about Plame was not known before the Waas article yesterday.

        by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:52:55 PM PDT

        •  Bad enough the original reports

          only said the name Wilson was in the notes.  That it was specifically was about Valerie Plame is a really.bad.omen [understatement] for Libby, et.al.

          by Terre on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:11:22 PM PDT

        •  Here's where I lose it

          WaPo's Pincus and Allen article from 12-OCT-03 that said it came down to June 2003; they even reviewed a timeline in the article that appears to narrow down the timing of the leakage (between June 12 and July 12, two days before Novak's column).

          I've inferred from that the leakers/conspirators/enlisted propagandists were talking about Plame within that time frame.

          Do you think Waas has more specific info?

          by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:13:19 PM PDT

          •  That they were

            talking about Plame in June was reported, as you note, in 10/03. In what manner, inside the WH or with reporters, was not reported at the time.

            What is new information, from Waas, is that Miller was talking to Libby in June and other Bush administration officials at some unknown time about Plame.

            Previously there had never been a mention that Miller talked about Plame with anyone.

            The quotes and links are here.

            by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:28:55 PM PDT

            •  the

              "they" in the title to the previous post refers to administration officials not Miller/Libby.

              Sorry that wasn't clear.

              by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:31:42 PM PDT

              •  it's still my theory that miller

                had met both wilson and plame as the result of having spent so much time in and around middle-east issues, knew they were married, but probably not that plame was cia - until, perhaps, a day in june when libby mentioned that joe wilson's wife, who worked at the cia, was involved in covering wmd and/or setting up wilson's niger trip. penny dropped. miller told libby wilson's wife was actually valerie plame. they both figured out she was undercover.

                by yankeedoodler on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:58:51 PM PDT

      •  More likely

        she was threatened with criminal charges after the grand jury was disbanded end of month.

        by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:19:18 PM PDT

    •  Guessing Fitz knew all along about 6/23 and

      Gave both Libby and Miller ample opportunity to talk about it.  When neither offered up the info, he showed the cards.  That way, he has them both "caught" obstructing or lying, maybe, and has something to bargain with.  Tell me more or you're going down.

      The way I understand these things is that people have to "flip".  Fitz probably wants more than the usual number to make the case stick.  

      Also June 23 makes it obvious that they weren't responding to Wilson's op-ed.  Of course, they already knew about Wilson because he was already talking to someone, Pincus? or Kristoff? about the trip and not finding the info.

      I just hope hope hope that Fitz is looking beyond the "leaking of the name" to the real deal of "cherry picking" info by an intel organization operating without the knowledge and oversight of the Senate Intel Comm, as in the Office of Special Plans.  

      by Southern Mouth on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:14:45 PM PDT

•  A selective waiver

  is really no waiver at all, so far as getting to the facts is concerned.
  

  by justme2 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:37:23 PM PDT

•  Book Deal

  I''m thinking of titles for the upcoming best seller:

  When Liars Cave ?

  All the President's Lies

  The Death of a Presidency

  The Neo-Conservative Failure

  by egarratt on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:38:54 PM PDT

  •  "All the President's Minions" n/t

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

  •  how about

    "The Fall of a Bunch of Evil Fucking Assholes"?

    ....too subtle?

    by SamSinister on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:10:46 PM PDT

    •  How about...

      "The Fall of the House of bUsher."
      

      by dchill on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:18:34 PM PDT

    •  Tsk, tsk

      Thou art evil.

      (Translation: I wish I'd posted your comment first.)
      

      by loudGizmo on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:49:29 PM PDT

  •  The Aspen Clusterf**k

    n/t

    by mkt on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:48:41 PM PDT

    •  King of the Republicans

      Bush Palace Intrigues

      by x on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:09:38 PM PDT

      •  When Republicans Were King

        or The King that Was

        by mattes on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:18:46 PM PDT

        •  Even Cowboys Get the Blues n/t

          by PatsBard on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:24:50 PM PDT

    •  Cheney: Shove it up your aspen

      by Pen on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:18:46 PM PDT

    •  New theory on Aspens

      This from Wizbang he may have something.

      Late-night thoughts about falling trees...

      "It is fall now.... Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

      [From Libby's 9/15/05 letter to Miller, pg 2. Full letter, here.]

      How odd to be so personal in a serious letter and circumstance, to use such flowery, almost biblical or koranic speech. The mention of fall, and trees and biology lesson on roots seems so out of place... sounds like metaphor or code. The tree reference reminds one of McCord's 12/21/72 warning to the WH during Watergate:

      "...If Helms goes, and if the WG [Watergate] operation is laid at the CIA's feet, where it does not belong, every tree in the forest will fall. It will be a scorched desert. The whole matter is at the precipice right now. Just pass the message that if they want it to blow, they are on exactly the right course...."

      Ironically, a division of the CIA was up to their necks in Watergate, but McCord was fiercely loyal to then-CIA Director Helms, who was about to be fired by Nixon. As soon as Helms was fired, McCord carried out the threat and wrote to Judge Sirica that the Plumbers' guilty plea had been coerced. Then all the (wrong) trees began to fall.

       

      by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:57:40 PM PDT

      •  Excellent, dead-on

        Wow.  This fits like a glove!  Thanks, Polly!

        by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:18:45 PM PDT

      •  That is eerily similar. Don't Republicans

        ever learn?  Do they just have to keep on doing what did not work for them last time?  Evidently.

        by macmcd on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:32:02 PM PDT

      •  Absolutely

        Seemed bizarre to me that they would be interested in aspens and clones.

        by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:22:13 PM PDT

    •  Bush's Brain Has A Stroke <n/t>

      by litigatormom on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:03:37 PM PDT

  •  heh

    Fnord of the Lies

    by teedz on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:29:51 PM PDT

•  Any "agreement" Judy had with Fitz

  would become inoperative immediately if she lied. Fitz may have confronted her with evidence of the June conversations that he got from somewhere else. And maybe, sitting there in the chair, she just decided, "Ah, screw it.  Its not like Scooter Libby's one of the good guys."  Or something principled <snark> like that.

  Although, Lord knows, Libby's not one of the good guys....

  by litigatormom on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:39:57 PM PDT

  •  I think she's pissed as all hell at him.

    I think she's totally fine with testifying against him at this point. After that "gee, I didn't realize your ass was in jail because of me" fiasco, I think she's cut him loose.

    That's just speculation, but it's one I've been getting pretty comfy with, given the fireworks between their lawyers.

    by Hunter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:51:28 PM PDT

    •  Or maybe the jitters just got the best of her

      ala, the "Tell-Tale Heart".

      by ColoDemo on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:59:45 PM PDT

      •  Judt spends a lot of time angry

        From Sid's new piece on Salon:

        --------

        After her first appearance before the grand jury, Miller suddenly discovered notes of a conversation with Libby, having previously declared that she had no such notes. That conversation about Wilson took place on June 23, 2003, two weeks before Wilson's Op-Ed was published. Two people I spoke with who visited Miller in prison report that she appeared completely convinced of her stance as press martyr. But rumor-plagued Washington has divided into two camps: Was Miller a self-deluded dupe or a co-conspirator?

        The Times, meanwhile, has subordinated its news coverage to her legal defense, withholding reportage on what she has told the grand jury, though the Times promises a full account. Will it include her colleagues' recollections of how livid she was that the Times published Wilson's Op-Ed?

        ----

        Livid, eh? Wonder why, Judy??

        by Volvo Liberal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:17:47 PM PDT

        •  Link to Sid's new piece

          http://salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/10/12/plame_affair/index.html

          by Volvo Liberal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:18:22 PM PDT

        •  She has as much invested in discrediting Wilson

          as the WH does.  

          Tons of motive.  

          She was a leading purveyor of inflammatory WMD fabrications whipping up invasion frenzy, including the forged Niger letter.  

          Wilson threatened her career.

          by Job52 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:36:01 PM PDT

    •  you are dead on

      How would most of us react to someone pulling that shit? fry you motha fry....is what I'd be thinking. I detest her but I'll give her an inch on this one if that's the case.

      by michele2 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:03:17 PM PDT

    •  I bet Judith

      is blowing Scooter on the side.

      by ThunderHawk13 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:39:11 PM PDT

    •  that or they'll start dating

      Judy owes that guy a Birthday Present for getting her some jail time. You see the way the NYTimes walked her out like a little princess freed from the horrible Gargimel. Everyone except us is forgetting all about those mistaken little WMD reports she filed in 2003. So now instead of "Judy the lieing asshat", its Judy OUR HERO! looks toward sky in awe at her visage

      by atomicBirdsong on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:31:38 PM PDT

  •  Could Fitzgerald just have been bluffing?

    Maybe he really didn't know if any June conversation occurred, but surmised it may have, based on other information he received.

    Could he have couched a question to her that would lead her to believe he knew something (that he didn't really know) in order to trick her into answering something that he may have only surmissed?

    In other words, can prosecuters try Gotcha! questions that may have no basis in fact?

    by Terre on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:25:03 PM PDT

    •  Was the conversation on phone or in person?

      If it was on the phone, phone records might have revealed its existence to Fitz.

      If it was in person, people might have observed them together.

      by lysias on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:46:51 PM PDT

  •  A possibility

    that I offer as a possible, at least partial, reason:

    Saw a comment within the last day (here, maybe, can't remember where for sure) to the effect that JudyJudyJudy said in June or July that she wasn't going to testify because she was afraid of the government, that it was too powerful.

    It makes a certain amount of sense. Certainly, if I were faced with going up against people with such reputations for personal political and sometimes physical destruction as Rove and the Bush Crime Family, I'd be scared, too.

    by Mnemosyne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:37:43 PM PDT

    •  that was me

      Lips Zipped, Reporter In Jail

      CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports Miller said: "I won't testify. The risks are too great. The government is too powerful."

      by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:41:39 PM PDT

  •  maybe he'd read them already

    Better to catch her in a lie later (and still force her to hand them over) than to show his hand and subpoena them. If she lied, well, all agreements are off, she'll have to go straight back to the can. If she's lucky, she won't miss dinner.

    Maybe somebody at NYT gave him a look-see. So now, Judy 'finds' the notes, but that's all just show. A mere submitting as evidence something he already knows. The real good part is that he's got her feet to the fire. Oh, that week-end of drinks, going to see a show... all dashed now.

    And Libby's not getting any sleep.

    by subtropolis on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 11:48:43 PM PDT

•  why did they "drop dime"

  on a conversation that hadn't been waived?

  'cuz this is gonna sell a lot of newspapers.

  by DCDemocrat on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:41:04 PM PDT

  •  or

    Judy was about to be hit with a perjury charge for something that Fitz knew and called BS on her for it.

    What if <tinfoil> Fitz really DID know about the June conversations between Judy and Libby and only SAID he just found out about them last week, after Judy testified again?  Wouldn't be "entrapment" since he already got Judy back to talk, right?

    </tinfoil>

     

    by clammyc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:46:32 PM PDT

    •  Or maybe

      Perhaps Judy took the 85-day powder thinking Fitz was spoofing her to try and shake her down.

      And during those 85 days she realized he wasn't spoofing, that she could be in there to rot.
      

      by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:17:55 PM PDT

      •  That's a feeling I have

        Does she hold the record for the longest day behind bars for a journalist, or does that honor belong to someone else?

        by Terre on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:37:25 PM PDT

        •  there is a maximum...

          18 months is a number floating in my head, but don't quote me on that

          by swinginvoter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:39:58 PM PDT

          •  until the grand jury expires

            I believe.  After that, the prosecutor would have to charge her with criminal contempt, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.  Now that's press martyrhood

            by unterhausen on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:09:22 PM PDT

        •  I think there was a woman in Texas

          who was held longer.  The big controversy in that case, IIRC, was the debate as to whether or not the woman was a credentialed reporter or just a citzen who was doing research.

          by bulldog on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:05:41 PM PDT

          •  Thanks bulldog

            That what I was asking. If anyone had actually spent more time in jail than Judy did to protect a source.

            by Terre on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:16:12 PM PDT

          •  well, she was a journalist but more the freelance.

            wanna be type. still she planned on writing a book and didn't want to turn over her noted. she sat for a good, long time.

            by stodghie on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:07:25 PM PDT

            •  The book

              that's it!

              by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:26:49 PM PDT

        •  Susan McDougal

          She was in jail for refusing to testify in the Whitewater matter.  I can't recall how long, but it was for quite a while, more than 18 months I think.

          Of course, she was no reporter, but she was in jail for the same reason (i.e., refusing to testify).

          by Cracker on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:18:49 PM PDT

        •  No

          She has the record for the most days a PR hack stayed behind bars.

          by emptywheel on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:27:31 PM PDT

      •  Yep...

        I think that for whatever reason, she was playing a game of chicken with Fitzgerald...the wrong guy to indulge in such a game.

        Personally, I think she was more concerned about her fifth amendment rights than her first amendment rights...apparently she may be much more in the middle than she (or the Times) would have us believe.  Due to her fear of her own exposure, she tried to maneuver Fitzgerald and, despite her abundance of Mata Hari wiles, ended up on the short end.

        by mayan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:45:32 PM PDT

        •  judy should know better than play Fitz, Not her

          first tango with him. It appears these two have met before in an investigation Fitz had going on Islamic charities-money funneled to AlQaeda.

          It is reported on NPR, Judy tipped off one of the foundations to an impending raid (denied by the Times).

          Judy is not what she'd have us believe.  One of the sousChefs, if not the Chef is more like it. Up to her t*ts.

          Take a read  of transcript at:
          http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4953685

          by idredit on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:37:23 PM PDT

          •  Which I've mentioned elsewhere

            Perhaps Fitz is finding evidence to suggest she's no journo but an operative.

            A reporter who takes orders from a government agency or official isn't a journo, after all.

            Makes the crocodile tears over the First Amendment nothing but empty drama.

            by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:44:05 PM PDT

          •  Far-reaching implications indeed

            If she was involved with the Islamic Charities, too...
            From John Loftus Interview with Olbermann.

            Excerpts:
            MYERS (voice-over): Abdurahman Alamoudi, a consultant to the Pentagon on the Chaplain Program for more than a decade, now accused of helping Osama bin Laden and Hamas. Court documents filed late last night, claim Alamoudi has provided "financial support to Hamas" and "financial support to fronts for al-Qaeda." One of the groups allegedly tied to Alamoudi is a charity which gave this Virginia post office as its address. Alamoudi was vice president. Who founded it? Abdullah bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's nephew. Also ringing alarms, Alamoudi's palm pilot which the government claims included the names and numbers of six designated global terrorists.

            snip...

            and the really interesting part:

            OLBERMANN: Well, they sure vetted this guy. How-what happened here?
            LOFTUS: Well, you know, it's a funny story. About a year-and-a-half ago, people in the intelligence community came and said-guys like Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and other terrorists weren't being touched because they'd been ordered not to investigate the cases, not to prosecute them, because there were being funded by the Saudis and a political decision was being made at the highest levels, don't do anything that would embarrass the Saudi government. So, of course I immediately volunteered to do it and I filed a lawsuit, against al-Arian charging him with being a major terrorist for Islamic Jihad, most of his money came from Saudi charities in Virginia.
            Now, Alamoudi's headquarters were in the same place, he was raided the same day, on March 20. An hour after I filed my lawsuit, the U.S. government finally got off its butt and they raided these offices. And, the stuff that they're taking out of there now is absolutely horrendous. Al-Arian has now, finally been indicted, an along with Alamoudi, today.
            But, who was it that fixed the cases? How could these guys operate for more than a decade immune from prosecution? And, the answer is coming out in a very strange place. What Alamoudi and al-Arian have in common is a guy named Grover Norquist. He's the super lobbyist. Newt Gingrich's guy, the one the NRA calls on, head of American taxpayers. He is the guy that was hired by Alamoudi to head up the Islamic institute and he's the registered agent for Alamoudi, personally, and for the Islamic Institute.
            Grover Norquist's best friend is Karl Rove, the White House chief of staff, and apparently Norquist was able to fix things. He got extreme right wing Muslim people to be the gatekeepers in the White House. That's why moderate Americans couldn't speak out after 9/11. Moderate Muslims couldn't get into the White House because Norquist's friends were blocking their access.

            I don't know how to do those cool blue boxes, but there ya go.  

            by PatsBard on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:03:53 PM PDT

            •  thanks for this, good info

              by idredit on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:42:25 AM PDT

  •  what does "drop dime" mean?

    I've tried without success to figure it out from the context!

    by indybend on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:12:46 PM PDT

    •  drop a dime in the payphone

      and make an anonymous call to the police.

      by Pen on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:24:05 PM PDT

      •  Thanks!

        I never would have thought of that, even though I'm old enough to remember pay phones.   For some reason, all I could think of was "dime bag", which I was pretty sure had nothing to do with it.

        by indybend on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 06:05:15 AM PDT

    •  Drop THA Dime - tattle on n/t

      by Blue Tuscaloosa CPA on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:26:20 PM PDT

    •  Snitch.

      It's anachronistic what with both the pay phone and the cost of a call on said payphone.

      by pooplatter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:32:29 PM PDT

      •  Wow, remember payphones?

        When's the last time you used a payphone?
        (And when's the last time it cost a dime?)

        by peregrina on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:52:47 PM PDT

        •  Thought about it while cleaning my Roscoe

          ... and later when I went to the corner diner for the Blue Plate Special.
          .

          by Peanut on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:04:24 PM PDT

          •  heehee

            My son used a payphone to call me from his school recently...I was a bit shocked. He said the school wouldn't let him use their lines. He said he had to borrow a dime because the call cost 35 cents.
            I guess I've not used a pay phone since they increased the rate to 35 cents, at least.

            by rioduran on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:42:01 PM PDT

•  Maybe a Times reporter had had enough

  ...of Mattress Miller's antics and dropped dime on her...Will be interesting to find out how Fitzgerald learned of the June meeting....

  by Volvo Liberal on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:41:04 PM PDT

  •  Matress Miller

    I know that's not a reference to her sleeping accomodations in prison.

    While we're on the subject, there is word that Libby sent Miller [a second http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/12/132054/04} equally cryptic letter. The provenance of this second letter is still of sketchy attribution however...

    by mrblifil on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:39:32 PM PDT

    •  Matress Miller? sounds juicy n/t

      by station wagon on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:19:20 PM PDT

•  I caught the

  interview and you can tell Sauber is pissed at Rove.  Tweety has run this the top of his show each day this week.  Now, that's more like it Tweety.  Finally figured out this is a big deal huh?  Now he has that shitty Victoria Toensing on claiming Novak was exposing nepotism.  I swear to god if I needed a lawyer and they sent her I'd defend myself first.  She is a complete and utter waste of space.

  by demkat620 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:42:28 PM PDT

  •  Toensing needs to be slapped

    I turned it off.  I couldn't stand it anymore.  

    by dumbya on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:47:11 PM PDT

  •  Tweety

    didn't think it was so much of a big deal when Rove told him that "Wilson's wife is fair game?"

    Gee, Tweety, welcome to the reality based community.  Only 2+ years late.

    jackass....

    by clammyc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:48:47 PM PDT

    •  I'm never going to forgive him for this.

      ... for having story after story after story, and never bringing up that HE was one of the reporters that Rove called, and that HE was the one who told Wilson that Rove said his NOC wife was "fair game".

      Never. Not until and unless he sits his ass down in front of that teleprompter, and tells us what HE knows, as a f---ing involved journalist, about the case he's ostensibly reporting on.

      If there's any justice on this planet, professional sycophant Chris Matthews will be boiled alive in a vat of his own damn hairspray.

      by Hunter on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:55:34 PM PDT

      •  couldn't have said it better myself.

        I can't even watch him anymore.  Not even for 30 seconds.

        by clammyc on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:59:40 PM PDT

        •  Agreed!! He's disgusting!!!!!

          And in his interview with Sauber(?), he cut him off several times!!  Bastard!!!!

          by Phil S 33 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:12:51 PM PDT

        •   I know Sauber

          He was clearly pissed at Tweety.  He exhibited good self-control, though.

          by litigatormom on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:09:12 PM PDT

      •  I Continue to Come Back...

        to how complicit the MSM is in rise of the Bush Administration.  It was more than a free pass...it was active and non-neutral propaganda -from all outlets - that allowed both elections to occur.
        I guess it makes sense, given their corporate ownership but I despair for this country until we figure out some other ways of taking back the means of dispensing information and capturing getting the attention and imagination of the populace.

        by mayan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:32:54 PM PDT

        •  and complicit in the savaging

          of Al Gore in 2000, which led to the Evil Assclown Administration under which we all suffer.

          by jamfan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:17:18 PM PDT

          •  The complicity goes way back

            I first had it explained to me one day by a roommate who held a copy of, I think it was Newsweek, but it's been a long, long time ago so I may be mistaken.  Anyways, the cover showed Reagan, Carter and Anderson in a hurdle race.  Reagan led, barely breaking a sweat, chin up, smiling.  Carter was a bit behind, didn't look like one foot was going to clear the hurdle, not a happy face, Anderson was well in back, knocking down his hurdle.

            The thing was:  we hadn't even had the PRIMARIES yet and Reagan hadn't been picked to run against Carter.  And already the subliminal messages were being spat out to the public to manufacture the illusion that Reagan was the favorite to win the next election.

            The MSM hated Carter, loved Reagan, loved Bush, reviled Clinton and licked Bush jrs ass.   Gee, you think the MSM might have ALWAYS belonged to the GOP?

            by Pen on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:37:34 PM PDT

            •  I went for lunch once

              With Anderson's campaign manager after the election.

              An old friend of his picked up the tab.

              Not being an American I really didn't think all that much of it at the time, but it was VP Bush's brother, John, of Rigg's Bank fame (IIRC).

              It's only in later years that I wonder about it more and more, especially as one of the manager's other good friends was Negroponte.

              For me, I hear the Twilight Zone theme whenever I think of it.

              by Bionic on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 09:21:45 PM PDT

        •  Aren't we doing that?

          Dispensing information? And I think we're actually getting some attention now...

          So IMHO this is the future of journalism. Everyone's a reporter, everyone can refute everything, and as long we have access to the raw info, it can work.

          Wikipedia is the example. It works.

          by mmacdDE on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:20:36 PM PDT

          •  That's Right...

            Decentralize the mofo!!!!

            by mayan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:28:01 PM PDT

        •  I still haven't forgiven Dowd

          for that alpha male earth tones shit.

          by litigatormom on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:08:26 PM PDT

      •  Amen!

        Preach it Brother!

        by demkat620 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:38:19 PM PDT

      •  Boil Tweety in hairspray or Clairol Yellow No. 11B

        MSNBC really should add a disclaimer but look at how long CNN let Novakula slither around, not just on-air but as a sr. producer dictating content.
        .

        by Peanut on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

  •  Gotta like the "grins" part

    pretty funny that they actually put it in the transcipt.

    Sauber: (Grins) Mr. Fitzgerald, I think is heading in that direction.

    by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:47:46 PM PDT

    •  I Didn't Get It From The MSNBC Website...

      ...I practiced some stenography, after tapeing the first segment of "Hardball".

      by Rimjob on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:53:36 PM PDT

      •  well done

        I like your color commentary.

        by pollyusa on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:01:52 PM PDT

      •  My union...

        ...will be out picketing your house tomorrow morning.

        by DC Pol Sci on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:16:30 PM PDT

  •  What is the deal with that Toensig chick?

    What makes her a legal expert?  She sounds like a PR rep for the RNC.

    by litigatormom on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:06:21 PM PDT

    •  Victoria Toensing

      is a GOP hack, with a reputation for meddling in First Amendment law when it helps GOP business. Toensing's 15 minutes should have expired a long time ago, when those following the CIA leak case realized the 1982 Intelligence and Identities Act (which Toensing had a hand in drafting) won't be used by Fitzgerald.

      Unfortunately, Toensing was also the co-author of that ridiculous amicus curiae brief on behalf of 36 news outlets, which was filed with the Miller/Cooper appeal to the Supreme Court. In that brief, Toensing talked about the First Amendment, went on and on in full "Saint Judy" mode, etc. Hilariously, Toensing cited a Washington Times article, which suggested that Cuba's intelligence service already knew about Valerie Plame. As if to argue from that whether a crime had been committed by the White House...
      

      by QuickSilver on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:30:00 PM PDT

•  she doesnt need permission from libby to testify

  fitz threw her in jail for refusing to doso, and judges backed him up on it. when asked about any conversation related to the plame investigation, judy judy judy had better tell him everything she knows or she's going to be in hot shit with the rest of this bunch, if she's not already.

  I think a week from today - next wednesday, october 19 - will go down in history as the day the shit was officially introduced to the fan. I have got to get a TV this weekend.

  by skyterrain on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:48:43 PM PDT

  •  Costco

    has a nice Toshiba flatscreen for $199.00

    by x on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:21:33 PM PDT

  •  i watched that phony smile of hers today

    while she was going to testify. you could almost hear her teeth grinding.

    by stodghie on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 05:11:21 PM PDT

•  Another possibility

  While I'm hoping everyone involved in this treason is indicted, convicted and jailed, a more obvious reason that Libby's waiver was limited to the June conversations would be that at the time that is all the conversations they had recalled.  While I am loath to admit it, there is the possibility that they had in fact forgotten the June conversation--that would also explain why he didn't mention it in the grand jury testimony.

  That, or they trying to be deceptive.  You make the call. :).

  by Cracker on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:49:33 PM PDT

  •  These folks keep calendars

    and Miller had notes of the meeting. The White House was asked to give up all the e-mails, calendars, etc.. They may have originally negotiated a July time frame and thought they had out-foxed the grand jury. But somewhere somebody, or an un-sanitized e-mail or memo, led to the earlier conversations and broadened the probe.

    by ineedalife on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:26:01 PM PDT

    •  Scooter

      is reported to take extensive notes at every meeting he attends.

      by eafredel on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:34:06 PM PDT

      •  And I don't think either of them would forget

        that that meeting took place before the publication of Wilson's op ed.

        by lysias on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:51:58 PM PDT

        •  If Judy was billing

          Continuing my speculation that she was working contract for the White House on a payola basis, and assuming she was billing on a per diem and per article basis, I bet she'd be recording every minute.

          by Rayne on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 06:06:05 PM PDT

•  Mike Allen

  just said that if this becomes a legal case Rove and Libby plan to use the "we heard it first from Journalists" defense.  That wouldn't be needed for perjury or obstruction or conspiracy charges would it?  E-S-P-I-O-N-A-G-E baby!

  by demkat620 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:55:25 PM PDT

  •  Correct

    And I believe Fitzgerald has even more.

    by minndem04 on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:05:32 PM PDT

  •  1917

    See also, the Espionage Act of 1917.  The 1917 Act forbids "conspiracy to communicate national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. (18 USC 793 (d), (e) and (g)) and communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. (18 USC 793).

     This Act was used against Larry Franklin, one of Dougie Feith's office boys at DoD, who pled guilty to turning over info to Israel, even tho some of the info was not even classified. Rove and Libby's exposure under the 1917 Act is huge.

    by bobdevo on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:16:00 PM PDT

  •  Who cares?

    Their legal responsibility was to say no comment and then call the CIA and tell them an agent's identity is in question. If they in anyway discussed it or confirmed her status, or repeated it, they are culpable.

    by ineedalife on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 03:29:26 PM PDT

    •  Perfect distillation

      Seems so bloody simple, don't it?

      by jamfan on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:22:11 PM PDT

      •  yes, it does

        seem simple and I read Hunter's wonderful rant the other day, which tried to explain to the wingnut dumbasses just how simple it is but....

        and I am exposing my possible stupidity to all here, but if it is as simple as it sure seems, what possible defense will these people offer?  If someone as high up as Colin Powell is on record as saying (that is, on record with the Grand Jury) the information was discussed before any journalist brought it up - it seems they are completely trapped.  

        How will the right defend this?  Geez, all that outrage over lying under oath about sex.  How about actual espionage & treason?  And this particular CIA operative was working on wmds.  Kind of an overwhelming life and de