http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10077
Miller's source was one I. Scooter Libby, apparently 6 days before Novak column.
Too inebriated to write about ramifications
More tommorrow
Cheers
Cycloptichorn
Link isn't working, Cyclops.
Waiting. Couldn't get link to work either.
Click
HERE and then click on The Meeting.
HIGHLIGHTS
Quote:Scooter Libby and Judy Miller met on July 8, 2003, two days after Joe Wilson published his column. And Patrick Fitzgerald is very interested.
. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has told federal investigators that he met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to legal sources familiar with Libby's account.
The meeting between Libby and Miller has been a central focus of the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald as to whether any Bush administration official broke the law by unmasking Plame's identity or relied on classified information to discredit former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, according to sources close to the case as well as documents filed in federal court by Fitzgerald.
The meeting took place in Washington, D.C., six days before columnist Robert Novak wrote his now-infamous column unmasking Plame as a "CIA operative."
The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in his administration have done everything possible to assist Fitzgerald's grand-jury probe. Sources close to the investigation, and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal probe, said that Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may have played a significant role in Miller's decision not to testify about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8, 2003.
Libby signed a more generalized waiver during the early course of the investigation granting journalists the right to testify about their conversations with him if they wished to do so. At least two reporters -- Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC -- have testified about their conversations with Libby.
But Miller has said she would not consider providing any information to investigators about conversations with Libby or anyone else without a more specific, or personal, waiver. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, has previously said Miller had not been granted "any kind of a waiver
that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given."
Libby has never offered to provide such a personalized waiver for Miller, according to three legal sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter. Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for Libby, declined to comment for this story.
The one person with some of the answers as to whether Libby is telling the truth very well may be Judith Miller. But she currently is incarcerated in an Alexandria jail. Lewis Libby appears to have the ability to ascertain Miller's release by simply signing a specific, personal waiver that she disclose what she knows.
But Libby does not appear to be willing to do that.
And the president of the United States -- at whose pleasure Libby serves and who has vowed to do everything possible to get to the truth of the matter -- does not appear to be likely to direct Libby to grant such a waiver any time soon.
It's interesting that Murray Waas does not give HIS source. I'm betting my two bits this is debunked based on the fact that the press hasn't been all over it.
Washington is a sleepy town when Congress is in recess and the President is on vacation. Today's papers lead with the vaccine for the avian flu, the rescue of the Russian submariners and the lack of critical acclaim for the the Dukes of Hazzard movie, not neccessarily in that order.
Here's the way out for Karl:
Newsweek
Aug. 15, 2005 issue - The departure this week of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who has accepted the post of general counsel at Lockheed Martin, leaves a question mark in the probe into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Comey was the only official overseeing special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation. With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recused, department officials say they are still trying to resolve whom Fitzgerald will now report to. Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum is "likely" to be named as acting deputy A.G., a DOJ official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter tells NEWSWEEK. But McCallum may be seen as having his own conflicts: he is an old friend of President Bush's and a member of his Skull and Bones class at Yale. One question: how much authority Comey's successor will have over Fitzgerald. When Comey appointed Fitzgerald in 2003, the deputy granted him extraordinary powers to act however he saw fit?-but noted he still had the right to revoke Fitzgerald's authority. The questions are pertinent because law-yers close to the case believe the probe is in its final stages. Fitzgerald recently called White House aide Karl Rove's secretary and his former top aide to testify before the grand jury. They were asked why there was no record of a phone call from Time reporter Matt Cooper, with whom Rove discussed the CIA agent, says a source close to Rove who requested anonymity because the FBI asked participants not to comment. The source says the call went through the White House switchboard, not directly to Rove.
Joe( can you say Saturday Night Massacre?)Nation
Well, how about something novel: like have Fitzgerald report to Congress and with a 'length of investigation' assignment with no possibility of revocation, by anyone?
Interesting also on who refused to comment to Waas when approached for the story.
Too bad that site requires a paid subscription. Wouldn't mind hooking up to Waas' blog either, but could not locate anything to link too.
If Fitzgerald starts getting squeezed or cut out now surely it will be seen as something fishy by the public? He should be given a free hand until the job is completed however long it takes.
revel wrote:If Fitzgerald starts getting squeezed or cut out now surely it will be seen as something fishy by the public? He should be given a free hand until the job is completed however long it takes.
you'd think so, revel. but if he got bumped today, 42% of the people (hmmm. that sure seems like less than 51%, doesn't it?
), would say that is great.
but, i agree with you. if it was seen fit to start, it should be completed and the results should be publicized.
It's already taken two years. I'm not sure how many staff he has working on this project, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took another five years.
cicerone imposter wrote:It's already taken two years. I'm not sure how many staff he has working on this project, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took another five years.
if it does, it does. i don't want to let this go. i've had enough of the bush administration nonsense and i want dubya to be a man for a change and accept responsibility for his, and his team's, actions.
if he did, i might think better of him. as it is, he continues to be exactly what i thought he was in 2000. a spoiled little frat boy.
Better get this who does Fitzgerald report to issue squared away.
Another Nixon-era saturday night massacre?
Another Nixon-era saturday night massacre?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56440&highlight=
I wonder if Bush would dare? Good pickup, BBB. I wonder where I got this idea that he would continue to serve for another year?
I'd have to say that i don't think this investigation rises to the level of the Watergate investigation. Deep sixing Fitzgerald will not have the effect that the "Saturday Night Massacre" did.
Set
Setanta wrote:I'd have to say that i don't think this investigation rises to the level of the Watergate investigation. Deep sixing Fitzgerald will not have the effect that the "Saturday Night Massacre" did.
Set, will you share the basis for your conclusion with us?
BBB
