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

Skip to comments.

Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame
Fox News ^ | 7/13/05

Posted on 07/13/2005 12:00:18 PM PDT by areafiftyone

WASHINGTON — Journalist Matt Cooper (search) on Wednesday told reporters he would give them details of his grand jury testimony detailing a conversations with White House aide Karl Rove (search) about a CIA operative — in a future issue of Time magazine.

"I'm not going to scoop myself today," Cooper, a White House correspondent for the news weekly, said outside the U.S. District Court Wednesday afternoon.

Cooper spoke after a two-and-a-half hour appearance before the grand jury investigating the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's (search) identity. He was one of several journalists to whom Plame's identity was leaked following the publication of an editorial written by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson (search), in which Wilson criticized the Bush administration.

One of those journalists, Judith Miller (search) of The New York Times, is in jail for her refusal to name the person who revealed Plame's identity to her. Last week, Cooper escaped a similar citation for contempt of court when he told the judge his source had waived confidentiality, freeing him to testify before the grand jury.

"Today I testified and agreed to testify solely because of a waiver I received from my source," Cooper said outside the courthouse. "Once a journalist makes a commitment of confidentiality to a source, only the source can end that commitment."

The grand jury is tasked with finding out if whoever leaked her identity to the press two years ago did so with the intent of burning her cover, possibly in retaliation for Wilson's criticisms of the administration's claims that Iraq's nuclear program.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 07/13/2005 12:00:19 PM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

This still stinks abominably. I sure hope the prosecutor is turning over some rocks because horrifying creatures are gonna be crawling out.


2 posted on 07/13/2005 12:03:02 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (fiat voluntas Tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I thought what was said in a grand jury stays in a grand jury?
3 posted on 07/13/2005 12:03:11 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Im sure the hit piece has already been written...he knows full well Rove won't respond because Rove is honoring the SP request to stay quiet.


4 posted on 07/13/2005 12:03:17 PM PDT by mystery-ak (The real Supreme Court meets up here...God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

All this BS to sell magazines, who'da thunk.


5 posted on 07/13/2005 12:04:33 PM PDT by RckyRaCoCo ("When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak

Exactly - Rove is doing the right thing by keeping quiet and this big fat mouth Cooper is yapping! He's an opportunist!


6 posted on 07/13/2005 12:04:48 PM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers, Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak

Could Cooper be in trouble for writing about this matter before the investigation is complete? And when does anyone know this is going to happen? Time will tell I guess


7 posted on 07/13/2005 12:05:22 PM PDT by newconhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
"I'm not going to scoop myself today," Cooper

Not to worry, anything newsworthy will leak well before he can write his TIME article. Not to mention, people will first learn of any leak on the new media....talk radio and the internet.

8 posted on 07/13/2005 12:05:48 PM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

The husband of one of Hillary's closest advisors can be trusted to be fair and balaned, right? /sarcasm


9 posted on 07/13/2005 12:06:08 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Don't blame me. I voted for Sharpton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
"I thought what was said in a grand jury stays in a grand jury?"

That's what I thought, too. The Clintonistas kept leaking grand jury info and then blaming it on Kenneth Starr, and the media was all in an uproar about Starr. I don't know how this is different.
10 posted on 07/13/2005 12:08:57 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
"I'm not going to scoop myself today," Cooper, a White House correspondent for the news weekly, said outside the U.S. District Court Wednesday afternoon.


What Cooper is doing is not unethical to him....for he has no ethics. May his mercenary shameless selfpromition cause him great boils across his buttocks!!
11 posted on 07/13/2005 12:10:12 PM PDT by crazyhorse691 ( Heaven on Earth is where the nearest Starbucks is 60 miles away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crazyhorse691

ROFLMAO - boils and sores! YIKES!


12 posted on 07/13/2005 12:11:17 PM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers, Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
LOL!

It turns out he had already been released by Rove way back when and only after it looked like he might go to jail HIS ATTORNEY contacted ROVE's ATTORNEY to see if they still meant it! What a big coward!

13 posted on 07/13/2005 12:11:34 PM PDT by The G Man (The Red States ... the world's only hope for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette; PatrickHenry
I thought what was said in a grand jury stays in a grand jury?

There's no restriction on a GJ witness's ability to talk about his own testimony. The restriction is on revealing GJ testimony of anyone other than yourself, AFAIK.

14 posted on 07/13/2005 12:11:38 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crazyhorse691

LOL!


15 posted on 07/13/2005 12:12:13 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (fiat voluntas Tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
I thought what was said in a grand jury stays in a grand jury?

Everything about a grand jury is cloaked in secrecy, and most jurisdictions make it a crime to violate that secrecy. In the federal system, for example, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that "matters occurring before the grand jury" be kept secret. The rule also says that if anyone bound by secrecy reveals "matters occurring before" a grand jury, this is "CRIMINAL contempt." The rule of secrecy binds everyone with access to grand jury proceedings (prosecutors, grand jurors, court reporters, and clerical personnel who help a prosecutor prepare for grand jury appearances), except the witnesses who testify before a grand jury.

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq7.htm

See also http://www.ishipress.com/rule6e.htm <- Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
16 posted on 07/13/2005 12:13:06 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

17 posted on 07/13/2005 12:13:34 PM PDT by freedrudge (fan of drudge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thanks for the GJ info.


18 posted on 07/13/2005 12:15:17 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Don't you remember all the Clintonites who gave testimony coming out and immediately revealing their testimony? I do. Some of them even LIED about what happened, we later found out. They are allowed to talk about their own testimony, nothing else. In the case of Rove, he has said the prosecutor asked him not to discuss his testimony.


19 posted on 07/13/2005 12:19:53 PM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Could it be that Dem operative Mandy Grunwald learned from Joe Wilson that his wife, Valerie Plame, had sent him to Niger? Could Grunwald then have conveyed the info to Judith Miller, who relayed it to Grunwald's husband, Matt Cooper, in an attempt to obfuscate the connection? (Miller isn't in jail because the Times wanted to protect Rove.) Could other Dem operatives with whom, and for whom, Wilson worked also be involved? Does the name Kerry mean anything to anyone? Just a few speculative questions to ponder.


20 posted on 07/13/2005 12:22:41 PM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
I thought what was said in a grand jury stays in a grand jury?

Exactly! Therefore, this person can fabricate a completely new story out of whole cloth and the prosecutor will not be able to dispute it. I couldn't figure out why he agreed to testify in the first place. Now I understand!

21 posted on 07/13/2005 12:24:24 PM PDT by Conservative Infidel (How come they call it "Tourist Season" if we can't shoot them??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; cyncooper; Fedora; Dog

"Once a journalist makes a commitment of confidentiality to a source, only the source can end that commitment."

B.S. Jail scared him. Rove (if he's the only source) gave a waiver long ago.

Miller's got guts, admire her for that.


22 posted on 07/13/2005 12:29:42 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
"Miller's got guts, admire her for that."

Maybe, but possibly the identity of her source would be a profound embarrassment both to her and her employer, the NYT, an embarrassment compared to which jail time would be preferable.
23 posted on 07/13/2005 12:33:08 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Senator Kunte Klinte
Karl Rove and Occam's Razor


There's an old law in logic called "Occam's Razor." It states that, when presented with multiple solutions for a given problem, the simplest one is usually the best one.

I figured I'd apply Occam's Razor to the Rove/Plame issue, and see what comes out.

Let's see. Ambassador Joseph Wilson goes to Africa to investigate rumors that Iraq is looking to buy uranium to develop nuclear weapons. He pokes around a bit, drinks some tea, comes home, and writes his report.

Then he starts talking publicly about his investigation, saying that he found no evidence to support those rumors.

The only problem is, his report actually DOES support them.

So, at the White House, they have a dilemma. Wilson is out-and-out lying about his report, but they can't contradict him because his report is classified.

So, when reporters start calling White House officials for comment, they can't tell them that Wilson is talking out of his ass. Instead, they try to warn off the reporters from putting too much stock in his statements.

"So, Rove, we have Joe Wilson saying Cheney sent him to Africa, and then completely lied about his report. Does the White House have any comment?"

"You know we can't comment on classified reports. But I can tell you that Cheney didn't send Wilson."

"Oh, he didn't. Then the CIA Director did?"

"From what I understand, his wife works at the CIA, and she pushed him forward. All I know is, nobody here even heard of him before he was recommended for the job by someone at CIA."

Again, that's just speculation. And I have no problems with the ethicality of that. To me, it looks more and more like Wilson exploited his wife's position for his own political purposes, in effect politicizing her for his own gains. At the point she went along with it, she stopped being an "honest employee" at the CIA and instead became a political operative and forfeited any claim to protection from political retaliation. Once you decide to play political games from your job, you run the risk of people taking similar measures to fight back. It's the nature of politics.

But let's AGAIN look at the facts. The evidence against Rove is -- as of this writing -- virtually nonexistent. Nor is there real evidence that a law was broken. It's highly questionable at best whether or not the law would have covered Ms. Plame, or Mr. Rove, for that matter. Nonetheless, Democrats are fighting over microphones in order to publicly call for his firing.

This is nothing new. In the summer of 2003, Wilson himself said he wanted to see Rove "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs" over the publication of his wife's employment.

And again there seems to be no one who wants to actually get the best evidence in the whole Plame dustup, and talk to Robert Novak. If whoever told Mr. Novak that Plame worked for the CIA broke a law, then his publishing of that name was a crime of at least equal magnitude. He could settle the whole matter in seconds, but apparently no one wants to do just that.

But again, I have no "inside knowledge" of what's going on, nor do I want any. I'm just one guy sitting back and looking at as much of the big picture as possible, and trying to make sense of it all.

And that last part is what separates me from a lot of people on the left, who have their conclusions already worked out (Rove must go!) and are working backwards from there to try to make the evidence fit their goal.

-- Jay Tea, wizbangblog.com/
24 posted on 07/13/2005 12:33:41 PM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Since Miller is known for her WMD stories, I believe she sent Cooper down a bogus trail on the Cheney/Wilson story and then he, although possibly inadvertently, set Rove up. Otherwise, why would she be involved at all, considering she did not write a story about the Plame leak. Remember, Cooper originally called about a story he was doing on welfare reform, not the Cheney/Wilson controversy. That in itself is suspicious.


25 posted on 07/13/2005 12:33:52 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Senator Kunte Klinte
You'll have to speak up, I'm liberal


I have absolutely no use nor respect for Michael Savage, but one thing he says a lot (it's kind of hard to avoid people quoting him) is that "liberalism is a mental disorder." I dunno if I'd go quite that far, but I think I've started to notice that certain strains of liberalism do seem to have a poor medical effect.

In particular, on their hearing. They hear certain things, but for some reason, it comes out another way. Here are a few examples:

1) Bush says about the Plame leak: If any laws have been broken, appropriate measures will be taken.

Translation: As soon as there's the slightest evidence that Rove might've been even tangentially involved in this, I'll fire his ass. But for heaven's sake NOBODY go to the horse's mouth -- Novak -- and find out the TRUTH!

2) Bush says we have evidence that Saddam is pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and he is resisting our attempts to make sure he isn't -- in clear violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire.

Translation: Saddam's got nukes! He's gonna use 'em!

3) Bush says Iraq clearly isn't an imminent threat, but we don't have the luxury of waiting for him to pose one -- he has to be dealt with BEFORE he progresses that far.

Translation: Saddam's got the nukes on a five-minute countdown! We gotta hit him NOW before he hits us!

4) Ambassador Joseph Wilson's report on his trip to Niger clearly supports other evidence that Saddam was looking to obtain uranium -- despite his frequent public comments to the contrary.

Translation: Wilson found no proof Saddam was trying to get WMDs, and he's being crucified for being honest!

I think it's time for some serious federal funding into investigating this spreading disorder. It's already showing signs of becoming an epidemic.

-- Jay Tea, wizbangblog.com
26 posted on 07/13/2005 12:35:47 PM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Regarding Miller, is it true her source also waived confidentiality? If so, if Miller won't divulge their name, why won't the 'source' come forward?

Sorry if this has been discussed into the ground before; been woefully busy and unable to keep up lately. Any opinions welcome to help me get up to date!

27 posted on 07/13/2005 12:40:03 PM PDT by uvular
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

I heard Rush say yesterday that Valerie Plame had not been an outside Agent in over nine years. Can anyone verify that? If so, why aren't we hearing more of that. If she was just a regular CIA employee, not a covert agent, what would be the crime?


28 posted on 07/13/2005 12:42:24 PM PDT by Primetimedonna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Primetimedonna
I heard Rush say yesterday that Valerie Plame had not been an outside Agent in over nine years. Can anyone verify that? If so, why aren't we hearing more of that. If she was just a regular CIA employee, not a covert agent, what would be the crime?

CIA officer named prior to column - July 23, 2004
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.

Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

The terms "plame" "moscow" "ames" in a Google search turn up a number of similar articles.

The function of the media is not to illuminate the truth.

29 posted on 07/13/2005 12:54:37 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

This is won't be the last run they take at Rove. They are desperate to get him out before the mid-term elections...


30 posted on 07/13/2005 12:57:26 PM PDT by WestTexasWend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thanks for the link. I still wonder where Rush got his info that she had not been a covert Agent in over nine years. I still would think that would be a factor.


31 posted on 07/13/2005 12:58:30 PM PDT by Primetimedonna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Primetimedonna
I still wonder where Rush got his info that she had not been a covert Agent in over nine years.

Maybe somebody clipped the news and showed it to him.

Here's another ... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_10/002395.php

October 11, 2003

VALERIE PLAME'S CAREER....Today's Nick Kristof column on Valerie Plame actually contains some new information:

First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.

Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.


32 posted on 07/13/2005 1:08:48 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OESY

"From what I understand, his wife works at the CIA, and she pushed him forward. All I know is, nobody here even heard of him before he was recommended for the job by someone at CIA."

Something about the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief makes me wonder if Rove even mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Cooper wrote that Rove said it was wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

What I wonder is, did Rove say "wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd . . .", or did Rove only say "wilson's wife", and Cooper, who already knew where she worked, himself added the explanation of where she worked?


33 posted on 07/13/2005 1:10:10 PM PDT by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: newconhere
Could Cooper be in trouble for writing about this matter before the investigation is complete?

No. He's free to talk about what he was asked and what he said. It better match what he said or Fitgerald may bring him to court again to find out why the discrepancy. Novak, is free to talk as well, althought the Prosecutor asked him not to. He cant force him not to.

34 posted on 07/13/2005 1:17:04 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The real solution to all this mess is to quit talking to reporters!

When will we learn that they are NOT our friends.

35 posted on 07/13/2005 1:23:41 PM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment (Is this field required?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
If whoever told Mr. Novak that Plame worked for the CIA broke a law, then his publishing of that name was a crime of at least equal magnitude.

Novak could only be in legal trouble if he got his information from classified material which he had access to as part of his government job. But Novak doesnt work for the government. Even if someone gave him a classified document, it would not be "crime" for Novak to publish it.

36 posted on 07/13/2005 1:25:14 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Primetimedonna
If she was just a regular CIA employee, not a covert agent, what would be the crime?

Even if Rove had given Plames name to Novak, highly doubtful (I think Powell or Tennant did it), he would have to have gotten the name from classified information to which he was entitled as part of his job, for it to be illegal. From what I read a few days ago there are like five or six factors that must be true for a crime to have been committed. Its likely that Fitzgerald is working on perjury charge.

37 posted on 07/13/2005 1:34:00 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Didn't Cooper stab Rove in the back?
Who released the e-mail to Newsweak?


38 posted on 07/13/2005 1:47:43 PM PDT by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Agent Smith, the husband of Mrs. Smith, works for the CIA. Oops. I outed someone. Call the Dems, quick.


39 posted on 07/13/2005 1:55:54 PM PDT by jw777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

The Special Prosecutor is forbidden by law from confirming or denying what was said. Cooper could leak. Just like the Dems leaked the Starr investigation.


40 posted on 07/13/2005 2:03:02 PM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

I've been attributing Miller's behavior to extortion rather than courage. She's compromised sources before, hasn't she?--think I remember another thread where we were just discussing that. That would seem to rule out principle as her motivation for protecting her source here.

If Cooper's grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed, it seems like he can say anything he wants about it and no one else can confirm whether it's true or not.


41 posted on 07/13/2005 2:06:53 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thanks for clearing up the nine year reference. So, if she was still working undercover in "private industry" type jobs, she would still technically be undercover.


42 posted on 07/13/2005 2:07:20 PM PDT by Primetimedonna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dave S

Would Fitzgerald be trying to get a perjury charge against Rove or someone else?

Thanks for the clarifications.


43 posted on 07/13/2005 2:08:36 PM PDT by Primetimedonna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Primetimedonna

I don't know. Cooper seemed smug to me. Hope this turns out OK.


44 posted on 07/13/2005 2:16:15 PM PDT by Patriot from Philly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BushisTheMan
Didn't Cooper stab Rove in the back? Who released the e-mail to Newsweak?

AHA!

Finally someone asks the right question, the one NOBODY in the MSM wants to touch. How did Newsweek get this email??? And why??? These are the two most competitive magazines on the planet! WHY would anyone at Time "leak" something this explosive to Newsweek???

45 posted on 07/13/2005 2:16:44 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (We will NEVER surrender! -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Primetimedonna
... if she was still working undercover in "private industry" type jobs, she would still technically be undercover.

As a practical matter, I think that scenario is an impossibility. Once outed as a spy, the person is no longer suitable for spy duty, regardless of any supposed cover story.

Plus, it's well assumed that nobody retires from the CIA, ever.

46 posted on 07/13/2005 2:17:14 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Miller isn't in jail because the Times wanted to protect Rove.

By William E. Jackson, Jr.
Published: April 07, 2005 3:00 PM ET

It is my contention, based on conversatons with legal sources, that she basically was a "carrier," around Washington, of the rumor about Plame's real identity, but not a reporter actively covering a story. She was, in this view, both a source for, and a witness to, disclosure by sources of Plame's identity.

Plame Game Enters Bottom of 9th Inning

See also What was Judith Miller Up To?

I recently (as in, in the last hour or so) read a very unflattering piece about Miller in Editor and Publisher, that paints Miller as "unstable" during her talking tour.

47 posted on 07/13/2005 2:39:21 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Shermy, did you see this in the article? Senate hearing next week. I'm sure all involved will put on quite a show, most likely to the detriment of transparency, truth and real reporting.

Cooper also said he would be testifying next week before a Senate committee on a federal shield law for reporters, a measure he supports.

48 posted on 07/13/2005 2:42:30 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

I can't go that far with someone who tipped off potential terrorist fundraisers, allowing them to shred documents beofre investigators could get to them.


49 posted on 07/13/2005 2:43:30 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("Familiarity doesn't breed contempt, it IS contempt."--Florence King)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
I thought what was said in a grand jury stays in a grand jury?

You may say whatever you want about your own Grand Jury testimony, but no one else may.

You're thinking Vegas =)

50 posted on 07/13/2005 2:44:33 PM PDT by pbear8 (Navigatrix, Tomas Torquemada Gentleman's Club - Ladies Auxiliary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 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