Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times Gets Two More Subpoenas in Valerie Plame Case
Editor and Publisher ^ | 8/17/04 | Joe Strupp

Posted on 08/17/2004 9:54:11 AM PDT by gopwinsin04

The New York Times has recieved two more subpoenas from prosecutors investigating who leaked the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame to the press, Editor and Publisher has learned.

'We now have a total of three subpoenas,' Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said today.

'We will have to comply or file a motion to quash by August 20. The Times will move to quash.'

The subpoenas are the latest in a string of actions taken in recent weeks against journalists by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the investigation into the Plame identity leak.

The Plame investigation stems from a July 14, 2003 column by Robert Novak the revealed Plame, married to a former diplomat, as a CIA officer.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Gertz may be in trouble over there as well, according to the article..
1 posted on 08/17/2004 9:54:12 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

It's not GERTZ.......it is Jeff GERTH.


2 posted on 08/17/2004 10:00:30 AM PDT by Dog ( Attention: Everyone check their briefcase for their "magic" secret agent hat... That is all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

My dyslexia surfacing..


3 posted on 08/17/2004 10:01:56 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

The elephant in the room is the fact that the subpoena net is spread out so far in this case. It raises a tremendous number of questions -- such as, how long had reporters known that Ms. Plame was allegedly an "undercover agent?"


4 posted on 08/17/2004 10:03:48 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Well then whose this GERTZ fella that's in all this trouble/


5 posted on 08/17/2004 10:06:01 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Heck I researched using opening sources that Plame and Wilson were best buddies with Walter Pincus and his Clinton Admin. State Dept wife......who would host the Wlison's at the Pincus's home.


6 posted on 08/17/2004 10:11:08 AM PDT by Dog ( Attention: Everyone check their briefcase for their "magic" secret agent hat... That is all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
No subpoena for Novak?

He's the first who should be testifying with a hot electrode up his rectum...if this investigation is really about finding out who leaked the info on Plame.

7 posted on 08/17/2004 10:15:08 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Novak knows where all of the skeletons lie in Washington, my guess is that he hadnt known long.


8 posted on 08/17/2004 10:20:30 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; backhoe

The Plame game goes on...


9 posted on 08/17/2004 10:21:31 AM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

I dont think Novak has even said whether he has spoken to the grand jury yet.


10 posted on 08/17/2004 10:23:28 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I'm sure you're all for seeing a "hot electrode" shoved up
Sandy Bergler's rectum, as well, RIGHT?
Quite frankly, you libs lost the moral authority
to sit in judgment of ANYONE, after
standing by your man, BJ.
11 posted on 08/17/2004 10:28:46 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
Novak knows where all of the skeletons lie in Washington, my guess is that he hadnt known long.

I've read that Ms. Plame's alleged status was "common knowledge" in DC -- which is supported by the fact that so many reporters have been subpoena'd on the matter. That raises the issue of "when did they know it." If it was all in a matter of a few days or weeks, it points to a single leaker. If it was over a matter of months or years, it's an entirely different ball of wax.

As for Novak, the question of timeliness still remains. He, too, may have known about it for a long time, but the opportunity to publish that knowledge had never before presented itself.

Note, BTW, the cleverness of the "special investigation" strategy -- it's still keeping the spotlight off of Joe Wilson's fraudulent "investigation" in Nigeria, and wifey's role in it.

12 posted on 08/17/2004 10:29:24 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
"The Times will move to quash."

C'mon, you hypocrites - FULL DISCLOSURE, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW!!! Remember Jayson Blair? Are you making things up AGAIN?
13 posted on 08/17/2004 10:30:17 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
Larry's right, Mama -- if it's just a matter of finding out who leaked to Novak, then Novak should have been grilled. He apparently hasn't been (or he has, and isn't talking).

Instead, we see this extraordinarily large subpoena net cast out there for other reporters. What it tells me is, there's something else afoot here.

14 posted on 08/17/2004 10:31:36 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dog

The Pincus/Wilson connection is very suspicious. Pincus made claims that an administration official admitted to him that Plame was deliberatley "outed" (by two other administration officials) to embarrass Wilson. First of all, it's never been clear why knowledge of Plame's CIA identity would "embarrass" Wilson; that has always seemed a non sequitor to me. Pincus - very suspiciously - had an unnamed "administration official" admitting to the same motive for the leak that Wilson later floated. I suspect some of these folks were - and are - in cahoots, and that's why the press is stonewalling.


15 posted on 08/17/2004 10:36:51 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

So, Larry, are you really liberal? Then you should be against torture, even the mild, panties on the head torture.

Nevertheless, if you got your way, you might not like what Novak reveals--namely that the perps were most likely one or both Wilsons.


16 posted on 08/17/2004 10:37:30 AM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
What it tells me is, there's something else afoot here.

I agree...

17 posted on 08/17/2004 10:48:21 AM PDT by Dog ( Attention: Everyone check their briefcase for their "magic" secret agent hat... That is all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Larry's right, Mama -- if it's just a matter of finding out who leaked to Novak, then Novak should have been grilled. He apparently hasn't been (or he has, and isn't talking).

That may or may not be the case-------and for all we know
he HAS BEEN grilled.
MY point is the liberal double standard.......
ie: throw Novak to the wolves over a leak, but Berger
was just being "stupid" stealing classified docs
from the National Archives.
It gets old

18 posted on 08/17/2004 10:55:02 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci

Perhaps I missed the thread where Larry dismissed Sandy Bergler's antics as merely "stupid."


19 posted on 08/17/2004 10:59:54 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Perhaps I missed the thread where Larry dismissed Sandy Bergler's antics as merely "stupid."

I didn't.

20 posted on 08/17/2004 11:02:14 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

He will be called an forced to testify once these other suopenas are all upheld through the higher courts (the district court already OKd them). Then he will be put right in jail if he doesn't testify. He obviously won't hold out long from there.


21 posted on 08/17/2004 11:11:37 AM PDT by OneTimeLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; MamaLucci
Perhaps I missed the thread where Larry dismissed Sandy Bergler's antics as merely "stupid."

Read it again. I didn't "dismiss" his antics as "merely" stupid. I said I was amazed that anyone could be so stupid.

If you're going to attempt a districting smear - like kindergarten kids - at least try and get your facts straight.

22 posted on 08/17/2004 11:25:31 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Perhaps I was too subtle, but I was actually defending you.....


23 posted on 08/17/2004 11:28:49 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

Mission to Niger
Robert Novak
July 14, 2003
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030714.shtml

The CIA leak
Robert Novak
October 1, 2003
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

Novak Recuses Self from CIA Leak Probe
Posted by Scott Ott
December 31, 2003
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001463.html

Judge Upholds Media Subpoenas in CIA Leak Case (PLAME/WILSON)
Reuters ^ | August 9, 2004 | James Vicini
Posted on 08/09/2004 12:30:56 PM PDT by cyncooper
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188136/posts

Court Holds Reporter in Contempt in Leak Case (WILSON/PLAME)
Washington Post ^ | August 9, 2004 | Carol D. Leonnig
Posted on 08/09/2004 12:37:45 PM PDT by cyncooper
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188142/posts


24 posted on 08/17/2004 11:36:01 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Read my posts. You'll see that I support torture in any case where I think it's justified - such as preventing a terrorist attack on a major population center.

I'm not thrilled with Abu Ghraib because I think it's an example of sadism, torture for the pleasure of the torturers...

...and I find your "dismissal" of it as "mere" fraternity pranks utterly disgusting. Or do you know for certain that torture there was administered on orders from high administration officials for the purpose of getting important information?

Nevertheless, if you got your way, you might not like what Novak reveals--namely that the perps were most likely one or both Wilsons

Gee, why don't we dispense with the whole expensive system of justice and just come to you...since you claim to know it all...or do you just claim to be a know-it-all?

25 posted on 08/17/2004 11:37:40 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Then I apologize for misreading you. I wasn't offended in any case, just annoyed.

Considered by itself, the Plame case isn't that important. A relatively minor breach of security with few harsh consequences.

But it's not an isolated event. It's political. We all know politics is a dirty business where winning by any legal means is the norm. The problem here is that someone may have stepped over the line and is now trying desperately to hide it. That's a no-no. Getting caught cheating is a sure sign of incompetence and usually causes grief far beyond the importance of the event.

In this case, I believe the Administration could have done far better defending its case without bringing in Plame. It's clear that Wilson could not back up his initial charges. There was too much evidence that Iraq had made contact with Niger and had the opportunity to arrange to purchase yellowcake in the future by various means.

Bringing in Plame made the Administration look mindlessly vindictive, short-sighted, and unprincipled. If someone high in the Administration is now shown to be responsible it will probably cost Bush the election.

26 posted on 08/17/2004 11:50:37 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
In this case, I believe the Administration could have done far better defending its case without bringing in Plame.

You're assuming that the source of the leak was the Bush Administration. The breadth of the subpoena net could cast doubt on that assumption. At any rate, it seems clear that the "leak" (or leaks) were passed out pretty widely, and I'm guessing over a long period of time.

I'd be really interested to know how many of the subpoena'd journalists knew Wilson/Plame on a social level. I'm guessing it was more than one of them... and that helps to explain why it was supposedly "common knowledge" that Ms. Plame was allegedly an undercover agent.

As it happens, I believe that Ms. Plame's role in the selection of Joe Wilson for his trip is actually quite relevant. My wife has been known to volunteer me for things at church and such, but that's not the same as a wife recommending her (manifestly unqualified) husband to go on an extremely sensitive intel-gathering mission. There's something very smelly about that, and it merits investigation.

27 posted on 08/17/2004 11:59:10 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
You're assuming that the source of the leak was the Bush Administration.

I am assuming that...because that's what Novak said. But he could be lying and the assumption could be wrong. Who know's for sure?

manifestly unqualified

This is just plain wrong. He was manifestly qualified, and, even so, those who sent him were not satisfied just hearing from him. They also got reports from our Ambassador from Niger and from a four-star General with extensive experience in Africa. The reports of the latter two have never been released but Wilson has said that the Ambassador agreed with him.

28 posted on 08/17/2004 12:15:26 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
This is just plain wrong. He was manifestly qualified

You'll have to provide me with specific references showing that he was capable of performing an intelligence field investigation.

I have not seen such qualifications presented, nor do his actions indicate that he was in any sense qualified. Indeed, by his own admission, Wilson's "investigation" consisted of sitting in a room, inviting people in to drink sweet tea, and basically asking if there was any truth to the claims.

29 posted on 08/17/2004 12:20:17 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
You'll have to provide me with specific references showing that he was capable of performing an intelligence field investigation

Don't be ridiculous. They had agents to do that kind of work.

Wilson, the Amabassador, and the General were selected because they had extensive, high-level contacts in business and government. Specifically, Wilson has such experience and contacts with both Iraqis and Nigeriens.

30 posted on 08/17/2004 12:38:29 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Don't be ridiculous. They had agents to do that kind of work.

Precisely. So why did Joe Wilson go to Nigeria?

Wilson, the Amabassador, and the General were selected because they had extensive, high-level contacts in business and government. Specifically, Wilson has such experience and contacts with both Iraqis and Nigeriens.

And all he did with his "experience and contacts" was to drink sweet tea, ask a few questions of folks who had a vested interest in lying to Joe Wilson. That's by his own admission. And then he wrote a widely circulated report that said "there's no yellowcake," thereby contradicting the reports of those agents who (through real intel work) had concluded otherwise. The sheer arrogant incompetence of Joe Wilson's "investigation" and "report" is stunning.

And dear Ms. Plame recommended her husband for just that job.

31 posted on 08/17/2004 12:54:46 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"Bringing in Plame made the Administration look mindlessly vindictive, short-sighted, and unprincipled."

You seem to accept the assumption that identifying Plame as a CIA employee would somehow discredit or embarrass Wilson. That is the basis of the whole "outing" charge, and it has never made sense to me. If Plame suggested Wilson for the Niger trip, so what? Why is that embarrassing or shocking? How would that discredit Wilson? The whole thing is a "non sequitor." The story makes MORE sense as an attempt to "get" Bush; and that, in fact, is what Wilson has publicly said he wanted to do.
32 posted on 08/17/2004 1:02:27 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
So why did Joe Wilson go to Nigeria?

He went to Niger because talking to high-level people is important and often yields more and better information than talking to traitors, spies, pimps, and assorted low-life.

ask a few questions of folks who had a vested interest in lying to Joe Wilson. That's by his own admission.

I don't think so. Where did he say that?

The sheer arrogant incompetence of Joe Wilson's "investigation" and "report" is stunning.

That's your characterization. And if the Ambassador and the General agree with him...are they, ipso factor, also stunning in their incompetence? And, in this day, why would you decide that "real" intelligence work yields better results by definition? Do you really think the truth is written in secret ink on gifts inside of wheaties boxes?

And dear Ms. Plame recommended her husband for just that job

The strongest evidence indicates that she provided his resume when asked (and probably said he was a good and competent fellow with the requisite experience). No doubt your wife would do considerably less? :)

33 posted on 08/17/2004 1:07:28 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

I love it, the Democrats piled on Novak, claiming that he should give up his protected sources, now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are crying foul. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, but the Democrats never seem to get that.


34 posted on 08/17/2004 1:11:12 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
And if the Ambassador and the General agree with him

According to you, Mr. Wilson says they agreed with him, which is not the same as them actually saying that. Given that Mr. Wilson's credibility is the issue at hand, it is not really convincing to invoke Mr. Wilson's own claims as "proof" of his credibility.

From this thread, we see Mark Steyn's take on it:

Even his original New York Times piece must rank as one of the paper’s weakest efforts to damage Bush: in Niger, Ambassador Wilson says he spent ‘eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country’s uranium business’. He concedes he never filed a written report and most of the rest of the column reads like a travelogue (‘Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger river’). As a claim to expertise, it’s laughable.

35 posted on 08/17/2004 1:13:09 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

I should have mentioned that one other motive for "outing" Plame that I've heard is that it was an attempt by the Bush administration to put her at risk of physical harm or even to get her killed. I think anyone who believes that has been watching too many made-for-TV movies. It's as bad or worse than the "Hillary killed Vincent Foster" theories.


36 posted on 08/17/2004 1:14:02 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eva
"I love it, the Democrats piled on Novak, claiming that he should give up his protected sources, now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are crying foul."

Did they? I know a lot of conservatives wanted him to, including me. And how has Novak avoided a subpoena?
37 posted on 08/17/2004 1:18:04 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

Seeing how it's employees of the New York Times involved, they may be in trouble, as reporter shield laws only apply to bonafide reporters, not liberal puppets with a pen and typewriter..


38 posted on 08/17/2004 1:18:30 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

I don't claim to "know it all" (point out where I said so, please); however, the question remains--what if Novak reveals that it was one or both Wilsons, or a 'Rat hack, that did the leaking? The likelihood of this is far greater than it being someone from the Bush camp--otherwise the reporters would have given up their source faster than you can pull a pair of panties off the head of a leaker.


39 posted on 08/17/2004 1:28:47 PM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eva
It has never made sense to me that the Bush administration thought it could somehow punish or discredit Wilson by revealing that his wife is a CIA employee. It doesn't make sense, which is my main reason for not believing it.

I think someone in the Bush administration offhandedly mentioned that Plame was CIA when Novak asked how Wilson got the Niger assignment. That is Novak's story, and it makes sense. Then after Novak's story came out, Wilson or someone else (in the CIA? in the media?) saw an opening to turn the leak into an anti-Bush scandal.

Remember, several weeks passed between the Novak article and the outbreak of the scandal. I think during those weeks, Wilson and others in the media and/or CIA conspired to turn the thing into a big "Bush attempted to smear Wilson" story, and they came up with the illogical notion that the release of Plame's identity would somehow embarrass or discredit Wilson. The press latched onto that flimsy motive with glee, never questioning whether it made any real sense. Plame recommended Wilson for the Niger trip? So what?

But we do know that Wilson publicly bragged that he wanted to bring down the Bush administration, so HE has a clear motive for wanting the leaking of Plame's name to appear as a scandal, as retribution for his NYT story.
40 posted on 08/17/2004 1:33:49 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
You seem to accept the assumption that identifying Plame as a CIA employee would somehow discredit or embarrass Wilson.

Plame was brought in to show that Wilson was not qualified to do the work, that he obtained his job through family connections.

41 posted on 08/17/2004 1:40:46 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Plame was brought in to show that Wilson was not qualified to do the work, that he obtained his job through family connections.

But you yourself have offered reasons in support of Wilson's qualifications, as have many in the media. But Novak never said the person who made the leak offered it in a snickering tone of "this is how this unqualified idiot got the job." Novak said the revelation was made "offhandedly," which indicates it was mentioned to explain how Wilson got the job, not to discredit him.
42 posted on 08/17/2004 1:45:55 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
According to you, Mr. Wilson says they agreed with him, which is not the same as them actually saying that.

Exactly so!

Realizing this, I searched out the names of the Ambassador and the General and Googled them, hoping to see what they actually said. No luck. Their reports are not available. So that's where we stand.

And Steyn says;

"Even his original New York Times piece must rank as one of the paper’s weakest efforts to damage Bush... As a claim to expertise, it’s laughable."

Which is my point exactly!

So why bring in Plame? No good reason. It was an egregious mistake for which the Administration may pay dearly.

43 posted on 08/17/2004 1:49:12 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

This thing must be backfiring big time because if it was bad for Bush it would be over already.


44 posted on 08/17/2004 1:49:31 PM PDT by tractorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

Novak said he got his info from Administration sources. If he now announces that he got it from the Wilsons or the Democrats his career is over. Nobody will believe him about anything.


45 posted on 08/17/2004 1:51:52 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

"Administration" can also mean 'Rats still working in the admin. Technically speaking, both Wilsons are also part of the admin.


46 posted on 08/17/2004 1:53:31 PM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

To complete my thought: Joseph Wilson was a former ambassador, not Billy Carter or Roger Clinton, and if his wife played a role in him getting the Niger assignment it would be hard to prove convincingly that he was unqualified and/or incompetent. And, as it turned out, the media generally did rally around him and defend his competence and fitness for the role. At best, "outing" Plame would show that Wilson's appointment was slightly irregular, but this is a far cry from discrediting him.


47 posted on 08/17/2004 1:53:41 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Novak said the revelation was made "offhandedly," which indicates it was mentioned to explain how Wilson got the job, not to discredit him

A possible interpretation, I guess.

If true, Novak is in deep, deep doo-doo. The CIA asked him not to reveal Plame's name and he did it anyway...apparently just to be the gossip with the most to tell.

48 posted on 08/17/2004 1:56:51 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Nah. Too far-fetched.

Post #40 makes a lot more sense to me; Someone off-handedly mentions Plame to Novak to explain how Wilson got the job. An error, but not a security violation, not mean-spirited, not vindictive, not vengeful. Novak sees a chance to be king of the hill and blabs...despite a CIA request that he not do so. That's believeable.

49 posted on 08/17/2004 2:09:41 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I said I was amazed that anyone could be so stupid.

Right......I must have missed the part where you said he should be indicted, or at the very least, have a hot electrode shoved up his rectum......although such mature discourse might have gone right over my little kindergartener head.

50 posted on 08/17/2004 2:20:52 PM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson