Posted on 07/05/2005 11:16:02 AM PDT by summer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention _ instead of jail _ for refusing to reveal their sources....
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...
Maybe he was having first post at Free Republic jitters. LOL
because to not go after them, essentially means that the court system will have granted them one of two new rights - some new confidentiality right (they lost that in the SCOTUS), or some new right to perjury. Fitz doesn't want to see that happen.
"This weekend I thought O'Donnell was implying people in the grand jury room told him something -- but, no, O'Donnell was implying what you said, above."
Time leaked a name to Newsweek/O'Donnell, one name of many Cooper contacted. They chose Rove because the word "Rove" has a magical effect on the loony left.
Yeap, cyncooper did a good job refuting the talking points.
Just for the record, I noticed our new FRiend's signup date but like to play "follow the logical path of your assertions" with such types.
heh
;)
In my guesstimation Wilson's blunder here comes from two directions. 1. Trying to hide that his wife told him all about the report from Italy and 2. Trying to hide that as part of his project to portray himself as the hero central to the story he stepped too far, claiming he had a role in debunking the forgeries.
Or he knew all along about the forgeries...C'est possibile?
Thank you for the support.
:)
My understanding is the NYT reporter never even interviewed the source. That's one reason I'm thinking he's set a perjury trap for someone.
Boy, that would sure get Fitzgerald's attention. If he even thinks Larry was leaked information from HIS case, Larry will be getting that invitation he has been longing for.
Well, one thing you can bet on is that when it is revealed that the leaker is a Dem the libs will be telling us that it is old news and it is counterproductive to waste time dwelling on the issue as the President is trying to take over the courts (or some such nonsense).
I'd have to say any of the three are possibilities.
He never had to go after the reporters in the first place to create a showdown. What he's doing conflicts with DOJ policy as to subpoenaing reporters. My guess is that he knows the source and is trying to snap a trap on him/her, but to do that needs testimony from the Time and NYT reporters.
It won't make any difference if he testifies or not. He will lie. I would expect nothing else from someone who works for NYT.
Re your post #70 - Well, I thought that because O'Donnell was demanding Rove publicly disclose "WORD-FOR-WORD" what Rove testified in the jury room. That was just such an assisine demand; it seemed like O'Donnell was saying 'I KNOW what you said in there, Rove; now let's see if you can repeat it accurately.'
assisine = assinine
....Mandy is a very, unusual looking....person.....
Oh, I think they are gong to cry FOUL! Or whatever if it turns out to be a Dem.
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.