Skip to comments.NY Times Gets Two More Subpoenas in Valerie Plame Case
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.
It's not GERTZ.......it is Jeff GERTH.
My dyslexia surfacing..
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?"
Well then whose this GERTZ fella that's in all this trouble/
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.
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.
Novak knows where all of the skeletons lie in Washington, my guess is that he hadnt known long.
The Plame game goes on...
I dont think Novak has even said whether he has spoken to the grand jury yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Perhaps I missed the thread where Larry dismissed Sandy Bergler's antics as merely "stupid."
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.