Posted on 10/11/2005 4:38:23 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Prosecutor asks NY Times reporter to testify again
36 minutes ago
A federal prosecutor has asked New York Times reporter Judith Miller to make a second appearance on Wednesday before a federal grand jury investigating who leaked the name of a CIA operative, a New York Times official said on Tuesday.
The decision by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald followed the disclosure that Miller had found notes
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
By whom?
Heck, Oreilly just had Bill Salmon (from the Washington Times) on his show and both he and BORe think Rove's 4 appearances before the GJ indicate he may be guilty of perjury.
Russert? Lots of reporters testified and "cut deals" like Pincus. Nothing there.
I don't claim to know what the WH was doing in May-June 2003, but I suspect that they knew if they simply held a press conference and presented the facts against Wilson's emerging jihad that little or no attention would be paid. Probably they were hoping that if MSM journalists worked through the story themselves it would be taken far more seriously by the media.....
OK, ignore my first post. I thought today was Miller's second visit to the GJ. It looks like that is tomorrow. I guess I need to wait for tomorrow's leaks.
Sammon may be quoting the Beltway "buzz". This has been the rumor on K street for weeks.
Reporters...Miller...for one... the missing notes...Cooper...willing to risk jail time. Russert striking a deal with Fitz to avoid appearing before the GJ. Pincus that old coot is up to his eyeballs in this mess.
Just noting the Olbermann bit is laden with words like Libby "apparently" "reportedly" and "it would seem" didn't tell about the meeting.
At least Craig Crawford points out that if they're going to say Libby didn't tell about the meeting, apparently Miller didn't either.
I stand by my guess (and it's just a guess) that Miller "found" her notes after Libby did tell about the meeting. So far they are guessing he and she didn't mention the meeting before.
"The thing that makes the most sense is Wilson told the press about his wife."
He was blabbing to the US and UK press as the "anonymous" ambassador at least a month before his article.
Shermy when did you rule out the media?
Where in the article does it say she met with CHENEY?
Is it possible the DA is using Rove's repeated testimony to "get" the reporters?
(I need all the help I can get to "debate" the K Street conclusion that Rove is going to be fitted for an orange pantsuit)
Excellent news. I hope Fitzgerald will ask Pincus whether his own well-known involvement with the CIA (According to published reports, Pincus worked for the CIA during the early 1960's, though when John Deutch was asked directly if Pincus was an "asset", he claimed not, but did express familiarity with the non-asset. The CIA did pay for him to attend two overseas conferences, by Pincus' own 1967 admission. The Washington Times (a Moonie publication) on 31 July 1996 described Pincus by saying that "some in the agency refer to [Pincus] as 'the CIA's house reporter.'"), his wife Ann's relationship with the US Information Agency ("The United States Information Agency (USIA), which existed from 1953 to 1999, was a United States agency devoted to what it called "public diplomacy." The term public diplomacy (q.v.) is closely related to the word "propaganda," possibly synonymous with it depending on how the latter word is defined."), and the Wilsons' relationship with Washington press circles afforded him awareness of Plame's CIA association prior to Novak's article.
Miller didn't tell them either?.........hmmmmm.
I'll say a prayer that BOR & Salmon are wrong. If Rove goes down, the dems will go nuts and the next thing you know, they'll morf GWB into Nixon and there'll be a clamoring for impeachment hearings. The thought sickens me beyond belief. The waiting is agony....
"Shermy when did you rule out the media?"
For what?
Do you know the date of the Novak article that broke this. I can't seem to find it.
Do you know the date of the Novak article that broke this. I can't seem to find it.
I don't know if you saw this segment tonight, but BOre went off on a tangent how a Rove indictment would "shake the foundation of the Bush administration"...and hurt the country immeasurably. While Sammon brought a little better perspective to that possibility, Oreilly always seems to hyperventilate and exaggerate Republican problems just so he can wear his fair and balanced hat.
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.