Posted on 10/22/2005 7:16:36 PM PDT by churchillbuff
At the end of his long opinion on the jailing of Miller, which I have linked, Judge Tatel said that the reporters' privilege yields, in this case, to “THE GRAVITY OF THE REPORTED CRIME.”(My caps)
I don't like Laurence O'Donnell, but he's stating a fact when he reports the following:
"Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings.” "
O'Donnell continues: "Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.” Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.” "
""Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.” ""
""All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment. ""
Given that we have 2 distinct nations here in America just whose "national" security has been breached?
I think Larry O'D is having a flashback to "Scarborough and Company".
It is said Rove is bright. I believe he is. Why would one so smart fail to remember that what got Clinton impeached was not felatio and infidelity to his wife and family, but lying to a grand jury. His memory would remind him. His lawyer would remind him. George Bush demanded it of him. Why, then, would Rove commit obstruction and perjury? It does not make sense.
One more question....will someone please answer for me......WHY WAS WILSON SENT TO NIGER TO REPRESENT THE USA REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT IRAQ WAS BUYING YELLOWCAKE? WHY? WHY? WHY?
That's funny, but what do you say about the judges' comments - - their statement that this is a serious case, with serious evidence?
i don't know but maybe it was on feb.5th. secret evidence ? in this leak fest there are no secrets.
In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.” "
So the outing of Plame was harmful to "national security"?
I find it hard to reconcile with the numerous times liberal/socialists have revealed covert names and actually
caused the deaths agents with out suffering consequences.
What leaker, who caused deaths, went unprosecuted?
[sarcasm] Just what we need. [/sarcasm]
Another judge "making law."
Apparently a bipartisan panel of federal judges, having revealed secret evidence that neither you nor I nor Rush nor O'Donnell has seen, think it may have.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The only problem with this is EVERYBODY (even the NY Times) now concedes that no crime was broken by the leaking of Plame's name.
Any indictments, we are told, will be based on the "cover-up" of this non-crime.
But nice try. LOL
Uh, that referral was made two years ago. In the interregnum, it appears that neither Rove nor Libby actually revealed Plame's name or status (in fact, many have suggested she was not covert).
If there was no underlying crime, then perjury over no underlying crime seems to be a silly thing to persue.
Martha Stewart redux.
Not according to the federal judges who ruled on the reporters' jailing. And unlike you, me or the NY Times, they've seen Fitzgerald's evidence.
You have to remember the filing was dated in February. However, if we are to believe the press reports, Fitz decided to limit the scope of Miller's Testimony. Testimony which could have been regarding the "Holy Land Foundation".
The thing that I am not clear about is why Fitzgerald met with Bennett prior to Miller testimony.
Do the judges get to decide whether to prosecute? Or does Fitzgerald make the decision whether or not to prosecute?
No, the ruling - and the judges' statement that the secret evidence alleged a "grave" crime -- was last February. And why would the passage of time from February to now change the nature of the evidence that they saw?
All I can say is that it's certainly another straw in the wind. But the number of players who might be accused of violating secrecy is pretty large at this point.
It would be delightful if Porter Goss, about whom we haven't heard very much recently, weighed in and decided to throw all those leftist CIA leakers to the wolves, but if it happens it will represent a kind of hardball that the Republicans have never played before.
If there is any indictment, i'm willing to bet it wont be for any outing of Valerie Plame.
BS.
This was from last February, when Fitzgerald was trying to throw Judy into jail for not revealing her source. All he had to do was show that she might have been able to prove that Libby had leaked Plame's name.
Guess what, Bucko? Judy said Libby wasn't her source for Plame's ID. That she got it from somebody else she can't remember. She swore to that under oarth.
Why are you dredging up in this no-longer even slightly relevant material from last February? Are you that desperate?
Fitzgerald. Of course, he has to get the GJury to agree. My point in posting this judicial opinion is that, unlike a lot of folks who haven't seen Fitzgerald's evidence (and who are saying Fitzgerald has nothing of substance), the three federal appellate judges who HAVE seen the evidence, said that it was "grave" enough to justify jailing Judith Miller to procure her cooperation.
Uh, lots of folks testified who hadn't testified then.
If the evidence was so rock solid, why has Fitzgerald STILL not indicted anybody?
The "outing" of Plame is not necessarily the national security issue that was discussed in the ruling, and which the judges ruled upon.
The NYT finally admitted a day or so ago that Fitz decided early on that there was no exposure of a covert spy.
What of the info about the Niger trip that Wilson leaked to the press, and then wrote about under his own byline? Was the other source(s) of Cooper and Miller (neither Libby nor Rove) the target?
"No, the ruling - and the judges' statement that the secret evidence alleged a "grave" crime -- was last February."
The word "grave" does not appear in that opinion.
So much for your credibility. Sheesh.
It's serious because it involves Republicans. That is the only reason IMO.
Since fully one-seventh of Tatel's opinion was redacted, presumably because it discussed secret evidence -- evidence that neither you, bucko, nor I have seen -- you're in no position to say that it's not "revelant" - since YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, or to whom it might point.
It really irritating having to respond to taunts from somebody, like you, who shoots "knows it all" when he doesn't know jack.
Check me on this, but I believe two of the appellate judges are Republicans.
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. We'll find out if Fitzgerald brings indictments. If he doesn't, we might not find out.
We all know that at ONE time Plame was 'covert.' That has nothing to do with National security now that would require the portions to be blocked out on the judges ruling. There is more here than is being discussed in the msm. Some has been touched on here. I believe there was an attempt by Plame/Wilson to subvert the interests of the United States by having Plame get Wilson to go to Niger, with the intention of trying to discredit the Administration's forign policy in prosecution of the War on Terror, and I think in a treasonous way. It is now well known that the Wilsons have lib dimo connections, and these connections exisited before wilson rode off to Africa. What dim libs had knowledge of Plame's attempt to get Wilson on this mission, and did anyone conspire with Wilson/Plame to try to get Plame to seek her husband for this mission with the purpose of compromising the security of the US for political results that Plame/Wilson and lib dims wanted
The word "gravity" does - - - "crime of this gravity" Read the opinion before spouting.
LOL.
You're just doing what most of the DNC/MSM and their mouthpieces on the internet are doing: trying to make it look like some huge crime was committed that is going to be swept under the rug when Fitzgerald doesn't indict anyone.
Fitzgerald has commented about what this was about. It was that he needed Miller's testimony to wrap this whole thing up. Since he was charged to investigate the leak of Plame's name and the only law that would apply to that is the IIPA of 1982, we are safe in assuming that that is what this was all about.
You can jump up and down and go Larry Crazy O'Donnel, but there's all there is to it.
So sorry it didn't work out for you. Better luck next "crime."
Not real bright, are you?
I think you've got it.
If what Sandy Berger did is diddly squat in this justice system, then this is nothing more than a charade.
Thanks, Perdogg.
This certainly would merit national security interest and "graveness". And wasn't it Fitzgerald who was investigating this case in the first place when Judy tipped of the Holy Landers about the warrant?
anytime.
"In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the specialcounsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’stestimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crimeand the low value of the leaked information, no privilege barsthe subpoenas."
Since you seem to have a reading comprehension, let me explain this very complicated passage for you.
The judge is saying that the 1982 IIPA is a law. If it was broken, it's a serious felony. That was why he thought it was important for Mr. Fitzgerald to get testimony from Ms. Miller.
Prosecutors often have to prove that a serious law--such as a felony--is in play to compel reporters to give up their so-called "journalistic priviledge" of protecting their sources.
So, on the basis of a possible felony, the judge agreed to throw Ms. Miller in jail for not testifying.
After 85 days, Ms. Miller decided she should testify and she did. She testified that Libby did NOT give her Plame's name, and thus no felony has occured WRT her.
Got it? LOL
You have one of those maniac tendencies to always laugh. There are pills for that - see a doc. Because you shouldn't be laughing when you're displaying ignorance. Neither you nor I know what's in those redacted passages. For you to say that you can mind-read judge Tatel and visualize the redacted pages - that's not funny, that suggests you might need help.
We'll see soon enough what it's all about - if there are indictments. If there aren't, we may never know, since Fitzpatrick might be prohibited from issuing a report.
Either way, consider getting help, bucko.
I laugh because you are so laughable.
Even you quote the Solon O'Donnell who in turn quotes the judge:
"O'Donnell continues: "Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.”
Er, that's what it is about. An allegation of the exposure of a covert agent.
But you know something the judge doesn't, I guess. LOL
Who died? Did the Belgian guy who did the copying meet his demise?
There are several other "leaks" in this case to which Judge Tatel may have been referring.
Notice that ALL the Plame "leak" accusations are included in his decisions ~ the "leak" that causes him to lock up Miller is not!
That would certainly amount to a grave crime and nailing it wopuld be worth the time and frustration this episode has caused.
In my dreams, a number of those connected to and abetting Wilson would be named democrats - who like Kerry during Vietnam would go down in infamy. A dream?
So what do you infer from that?
The extent of Fitzgerald's investigation is revealed by who has appeared before the Grand Jury. This is about the Plame leak and nothing else.
Hotline On Call: The F List
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10/the_f_list.html
If some WH official had actually leaked Plame's name--and she was at the time a covert officer--and it had been done intentionally to cause harm--then hell yeah, that is a serious crime.
And that was the initial allegation. But it turns out it didn't happen that way.
The fantasists are having a field-day. Next week they will have forgotten all about it and be on to other fantasies. (Oddly, their fantasies are always bad for the GOP or the US in general.)
I've been trying to figure out how Fitzgerald could conduct a trial against anybody involved in this for any reason whatsoever and hope to get a conviction when the CIA is going to be in there quashing all requests for information about Plame's real job!
If the IIAP law had actually been broken, it would have been easy enough for Fitzgerald to have Plame as well as some top level person from the CIA confirm her status (as covert) at the CIA.
That's all it would have taken. So I don't see that as being any kind of an obstacle.
I think it's very clear from the preponderence of the evidence (such as we've heard) and the press accounts that there was no "leak" in the sence of the Agee/IIPA law.
That's why everyone in the DNC/media has moved on to hoping there was some slip up in testimony so that they can salvage at least a perjury charge out of all of this.
It's pretty pathetic, really.
"WHY WAS WILSON SENT TO NIGER TO REPRESENT THE USA REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT IRAQ WAS BUYING YELLOWCAKE? WHY? WHY? WHY?"
See this FR post, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506711/posts
The title is "Was the Joe Wilson Valerie Plame Affair a CIA Plot?"
There are segments in the CIA and the State Department who are very much opposed to the policies of the Bush Administration. They are particularly incensed against Dick Cheney and are out to get him.
Another useful source is Laurie Milroie's book "Bush Against the Beltway."
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.