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

Skip to comments.

WOODWARD COULD KO CASE VS. SCOOTER
NY Post ^ | 11-17-05 | DEBORAH ORIN

Posted on 11/17/2005 5:10:51 AM PST by veronica

November 17, 2005 -- CALL it "Deep Throat 2." The CIA-leak probe is in big trouble because superstar reporter and Watergate hero Bob Woodward has emerged as a surprise witness for the defense — potentially undermining the case against ex-White House aide Scooter Libby.

Woodward yesterday revealed that he's told prosecutors he could be the first reporter to learn from a Bush administration source that Iraq war critic Joe Wilson's wife worked as a CIA analyst — but Libby wasn't his new "Deep Throat."

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


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 321-334 next last
To: quefstar
"I am lost in how the Woodward revelation is a good thing for the Whitehouse? If Woodward is to be believed, Senior Whitehouse staff was trying to discredit Plame/Wilson longer then had been known. Did this happen before or after Wilson went to Niger? I can only think that it would hurt not help the Whitehouse and have no effect on Libby- who is not charged with leaking the name, but charged with lying to the investigators-8 time."

Let me un lost you. Woodward said he talked to three "administration" people and one of which is "former" - think former CIA or State official. Do I have to name names. This could be quite innocent. Woodward hears about the trip from a CIA contact and makes a few calls. Reporter question? Who? When? Where? Plame is not covert so Woodward gets the connection. No harm. no foul. No discredit. Just the facts. If you wanted to discredit Wilson linking him to his wife seems pretty tame. The alleged lie is that Libby says a reporter started a chain that resulted in Plames outing. Fitz claims the lie is that Libby actually was the start of the chain. If reporters knew that Wilson's wife is CIA before Libby told them it makes the accusation less than credible. Libby could have been down the chain did leak and did lie, but the entire case is much weaker if reporters that Libby talked to had the data before or simultaneous.

The defense will have a field day with this. The left would have been better off if Fitz issued a report and not indicted. A trial will not be pretty for the MSM.
201 posted on 11/17/2005 10:52:18 AM PST by Sunnyflorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida

"The left would have been better off if Fitz issued a report"

He couldn't. GJ proceedings are secret.


202 posted on 11/17/2005 10:56:29 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

"This is exactly the plan. Libby wasn't a big enough catch so now they're using Woodward to try and pin someone else, and Rove would be the next likely target. The media is in on this too, which explains their prompt reporting of this yestreday."

Woodward was brought into this by (former) Bush administration people who testified to Fitzgerald. He testified about talking to Woodward. So Woodward had to testify.

The reporting was not prompt at all. The Washington Post, for instance, has sat on this since at least the 3rd of November. Woodward sat on it even longer -- since a couple of days after the GJ wrapped.


203 posted on 11/17/2005 10:59:15 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Eva
The significance is that Woodward admits that he may have passed that information on to Libby, indicating Libby may only be guilty of a faulty memory and so over confident in his innocense that he hadn't bothered to review his own notes before testifying. Forgetfulness and over confidence is not perjury

Libby's lawyer will try to make that point, however that is not what Woodward said. He said he didnt recall asking Libby about Wilson, he said if he had he would likely have recorded a note next to the question (there was no note). He had no reason to tell Libby about it. It wasnt something that was important to him in the preparation of his book. The clear point of his statement was that it was highly unlikely that he would have told Libby but since he has no recollection of it, he cant be certain to a metaphisical certainty. However, that only covers half his problem. He still needs to be able to explain why something that apparently so important to him and to the administration that he could forget to tell the FBI and the grand jury that Cheney, two CIA people, and a under secretary at the State Department told him earlier about Wilson and Plame both verbally and in writing. He also neglected to mention or recall that he had participated in meetings with three other administration officals including Ari Fleischer where Wilson and his wife came up in conversation. In case of Fleishcer, Libby told him that wilsons wife worked at the CIA on WMD. Libby still has major problems.

204 posted on 11/17/2005 11:03:29 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

"Having a "crypto clearance" means that you are allowed to type up messages that were decrypted. It's not a "most sensitive clearance" by any means."

Wrong! It means you have access to an area where crypto equipment is used and possibly to an area where the crypto keys are kept. It doesn't get much higher than that, unless you are assigned to the PSA (Presidential Security Agency).
You really need to go school on Clearances.


205 posted on 11/17/2005 11:03:57 AM PST by Prost1 (If you fight, fight hard, fight dirty, fight to win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

"Now I'm seeing rumors from DU, Daily KOS and ABC that Fitzgerald might convene a new Grand Jury"

Fitzgerald might do lots of things. DU, Daily KOS, and ABC are not exactly reliable sources.


206 posted on 11/17/2005 11:06:44 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'
FWIW, as I understand it Woodward has ALWAYS said this entire investigation should be dropped.

At first I wondered why, but I now believe that it is because in the end, Woodward knows that the press will be damaged the most and the White house will be left virtually unscathed.

I believe Woodward is no longer about "bringing down the White house." He is about saving whatever is left of the journalistic profession. He knows that history is a fickle thing and that if the press is shown to be lying idiots now, that will reflect back on what was done then. So he wants to "clean house" before there is nothing left.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The only apparent disconnect in Libby's testimony, that could not be explained away by muddled recollection is the Russert thing. As I understand it, Russert never testified under oath, or in front of the Grand Jury. RUSSERT continues to be the problem here and in the end I still believe that if the investigation continues this will destroy his career.

What I think will happen is the whole thing will be dropped and we will never see hide nor hair of it again.
207 posted on 11/17/2005 11:07:52 AM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
The underlying Wilson story doesn't even make any sense. In the late 90's, an Iraqi "trade delegation" made up of the Iraqi Defense minister and a number of nuclear experts goes to Niger.

1.The sole non-agricultural export of Niger is Uranium, which it regularly sells in large quantities to European and other customers.

2.. The yellowcake Saddam had purchased in the 80's was obtained from Niger.

3. The President of Niger says they did try to by Uranium.

4. British intelligence continues to say that they were seeking uranium.

....But, Joe Wilson, the inexperieced private citizen, Bush-basher, and husband of the glorious Valerie says it ain't so, therefore........the trade mission was really about getting enough honey-roasted peanuts to Iraqi soldiers??????? I swear, there is nothing more stupid than a MSM reporter.

208 posted on 11/17/2005 11:10:27 AM PST by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Ok. I can see that.

But if he knew that, but did not comment until he was told by a reporter...then what's the big deal?

Is it because he said he first heard it from a reporter? Or did he say he didn't talk about it publicly until he heard it from a reporter. If that is the conflict, whew. It's ridiculous.
209 posted on 11/17/2005 11:11:08 AM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

He may not be able to reveal details of the proceedings but he could lay out the issues - make a statement. Restate the law and say how serious it is. Say how "high officials need to be careful with classified info." Much of the press conference was a morality play anyhow. He could write a book. Everybody else does. Write a novel or fictionalized account. He could leak. Everybody else does. The weak indictment is going to backfire on the left and the MSM.

Rush has always said the left especially the MSM will regret they pushed for this investigation and that is likely how this will pan out.



210 posted on 11/17/2005 11:13:23 AM PST by Sunnyflorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

Comment #211 Removed by Moderator

To: Dave S

"Martha Stewart. If you want 20 do the research yourself."

I thought in Stewart's case, the crime was insider trading. Wasn't her broker convicted of something?


212 posted on 11/17/2005 11:19:25 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
"GJ proceedings are secret."

But he did issue a report it is in the guise of an indictment. He did indict but the indictment was for lying. If he was only supposed to reveal proceedings pertinent to the indictment he had no business mentioning the so-called outing. It is part of the proceedings but not part of the charge. No body was indicted for outing but he had plenty to say about it.

Following this precedent he could have indicted a ham-sandwhich then went on to describe what they learned in the proceedings.
213 posted on 11/17/2005 11:23:29 AM PST by Sunnyflorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish
Woodward said that the agreement on revealing Deep Throat was "death and/or mutual agreement". I'm having a hard time as to why Woodward stepped forward now. Is he just an ecape hatch for the Dems and media who now wish to "Stop the Game"?

Was the deal all along to come out at the sight of bad things ahead for the BIG media operators??

I'm having trouble convincing myself that Woodward is just being "a good person". You don't make "death pacts" if you're a good person.

Berger was a "good person" said Bubba. Saddam's buddies were "good people" says Bubba.

214 posted on 11/17/2005 11:25:05 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

I don't understand what the big deal is here, either. Joe Wilson says the Iraqis weren't attempting to get uranium from Africa, the White House says they were. Who you gonna believe? If Joe Wilson has a talent, it is for making a lot out of nothing.


215 posted on 11/17/2005 11:29:31 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper

I think it makes Fitzgerald look like an ass. Remember he held a press conference and stated that Scooter Libby was the first person to leak Valerie Plame's name and identify her as a CIA agent to the media. This was a threat to our National Security. And Libby lied about it.

FITZGERALD: And, given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

FITZGERALD: At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls,
passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false.
He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter.
And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

FITZGERALD: I will say this.
I won't touch the specific damage assessment of what specific damage was caused by her compromise -- I won't touch that with a 10-foot pole.
I'll let the CIA speak to that, if they wish or not.

FITZGERALD: If you're going to have a grand jury investigation into the improper disclosure of national security information and you're going to have someone in the position Mr. Libby is lying to the FBI .....
that, to me, defines a serious breach of the public trust.

FITZGERALD: It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected,
that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

FITZGERALD: This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter.

FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent.

Now- how does Libby get an impartial jury after Fitzgerald has just tainted the pool ?


216 posted on 11/17/2005 11:32:31 AM PST by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I think you're going to and are seeing a change in direction by the Dems. It's now a call for "when" are we going to get out of there not "how did we get there" because they voted for it based on the History of Saddam.


217 posted on 11/17/2005 11:32:31 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Hmmm...

I didn't mean to imply that he is "a good person."

I consider him a "behind-coverer" if you will. He tends to do things to take care of himself and his "legacy." Why did he come forward now? Because if he doesn't, he's going to get caught in something.

I believe that entire episode is far more about the unhealthy enmeshed relationship between the government, especially the entrenched bureaucracies, and the press than it is about this administration.

All I can say is, it's been very interesting, but a whole lot of nothing in the end.
218 posted on 11/17/2005 11:33:14 AM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: veronica

And Fitzgerald knew nothing about this.......


219 posted on 11/17/2005 11:35:53 AM PST by b4its2late (GITMO is way too nice of a place to house low life terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

Vallely and Woodward....all in one week!!


220 posted on 11/17/2005 11:37:32 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 321-334 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