Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Miller testimony to end grand jury CIA probe

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:28 PM
Original message
Miller testimony to end grand jury CIA probe
When do the indictments come out?

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1578d752-31ef-11da-9c7f-00000e...

A US grand jury investigation into whether White House officials broke the law by exposing a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative is set to conclude after testimony on Friday from a New York Times reporter.

<snip>

The conclusion of the investigation could multiply the woes of President George W. Bush if it results in indictments against one or more of his officials. It follows the resignation of Tom DeLay as House Republican leader after a Texas criminal indictment this week for alleged campaign finance fraud, and continued fall-out from the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The probe, led by Chicago prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, was launched after a newspaper columnist in 2003 printed the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent. Mr Fitzgerald is investigating whether White House officials illegally disclosed Ms Plame's name in order to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

<snip>

The two-year investigation could end this month with no charges being laid. But any indictments could prove damaging for the administration, which has so far escaped political consequences for misleading Congress and the public in the run-up to the war by insisting Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons.

...more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eagler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Are the Bushes related to Nixon?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Yes they are.
When you research the Backround, you'll find that
Poppy Bush worked for Kissinger while under Nixon.

Poppy also expected to be VP during the Nixon Presidency
but was turned down by Nixon.

Nixon never liked Poppy.

As crazy and as mean as a SOB Nixon was, I do give him credit
for rejecting Poppy.

And I do believe Rumsfeld and Cheney go back with Nixon.

I wouldn't be surprised if they set Nixon up for the big fall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Wasn't Cheney
on Nixon's staff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Reagan didn't like him either,
It was pure blackmail that got him on the ticket instead of Ford. Poppy had been CIA director and I'm sure had all kinds of juicy info of Ronnies Hollywood antics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johannes1984 Donating Member (210 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. yip
cheney was working for rummy at the OEO under nixon .He got transfered to nato right before that shitstorm hit ....rummy got the nato job as a calmer ....he wanted to be VP ..and therefore send GB to the cia ...because it ensured GHB wouldn't run for VP .he had to say so before the commitee .it's all a long running line ....one story ....they have an insider name for themselves too ,...the vulcans :D funny innit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. YES!
:applause: :applause: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. The GJ issues the indictments, and
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:46 PM by MGKrebs
today is the last day of the session, so if there were going to be indictments, it should be today, right? Unless they need a day or two to process paperwork or something.

edit: Actually, the GJ term was to end Oct. 28, but Fitzgerald had said previously that the investigation was essentially complete except for Miller's testimony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I thought it was Oct. 28....
so they have a few more weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. This would be an absolutely charming Friday night
news dump! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. I wonder who is the source for that?
"set to conclude after testimony on Friday from a New York Times reporter"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Another thread says the beans will be spilled next week,
per David Schuster on Hardball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Her agreement to testify suggests that Fitzgerald is winding up
The grand jury's term ends Oct. 28



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ayl...

Her agreement to testify suggests that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is winding up his investigation into whether someone in President George W. Bush's administration revealed the name of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame to reporters in July 2003.

...

Bernard Grimm, a Washington criminal defense lawyer, said Fitzgerald would not have gone to the ``extraordinary lengths'' of jailing Miller unless he was pursuing a serious criminal investigation.

``There obviously has to be something larger going on for him to take this kind of action,'' Grimm said. ``When you lock up a reporter, you're essentially locking up the First Amendment, and no prosecutor is going to do that in any kind of casual way.''

Fitzgerald said in court papers in June that the probe is mostly complete except for an interview of Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper. Cooper testified in July; the grand jury's term ends Oct. 28.


...

`Intense Negotiations'

The newspaper said on its Web site that Miller's lawyers had ``intense negotiations'' with Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, that were ``sometimes strained.''

Robert Bennett, Miller's lawyer, said that Libby made contact with her on Sept. 19 and authorized ``her to go forward.''

``This was the first time that there was this personal communication,'' Bennett said today on CNN. He said Miller didn't attempt to make contact with her source for permission to testify because such an approach may have looked like an attempt at ``coercion.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You have a link to that thread?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:53 PM by MidwestTransplant
Shuster seems to be in the know on this.

Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yep, here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Could you provide a link to that thread?
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Up 2 responses, or here:
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 08:17 PM by babylonsister
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is Grrrrrrreat!! Ooops!
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:50 PM by longship
Article provides no source for this information. It doesn't say "somebody close to the investigation said..." or anything else.

It merely says, "...set to conclude..." without citation of a source.

Although it might be true, I am wary of such speculative verbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. This story is already being "spun" before our very eyes.
Reporters, through ineptitude or corruption, are missing the critical revelation from this story -- a fact that explains why Miller went to jail and why she stayed there so long, even though Scooter's lawyer said she knew all along she could walk free.

Deal is, it wasn't Libby (alone) that Miller was protecting. There are OTHER people that Miller talked to. It is those people she is protecting. Note the excerpt from the following article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

"One lawyer involved in the case said Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions solely to Miller's conversations with Libby."

There are hints of the above "deal" in many of the stories out today. But Methinks any references to this critical fact will soon disappear from the MSM. After today, the spin will be that this deal involved Miller and Libby only. But that won't wash.

Because unless she was protecting someone BESIDES Libby (who had released her from her confidentiality pledge), Miller didn't need to go to jail in the first place. Nor did she have to stay there. Nor would she need to make a "special" deal like the one she made in order to get out. And the idea that her high-priced lawyers wouldn't know that -- or inquire into it -- or figure it out inside a week or so -- is absurd. (Although I admit that Bob Bennett is a pretty crappy lawyer, considering the job he did for Clinton.)

Ergo, there IS somebody besides Libby involved! Ergo, Miller is still protecting somebody. And all this blather about neither side's lawyers understanding what the TRUE situation was is just BS. Spin. Misdirection.

I suspect that Miller talked to both Libby and Cheney about Plame. I further suspect that Miller's deal with Fitzgerald is that (by testifying truthfully) she will sink Scooter and ONLY Scooter.

What I hope (evil me) is that Miller gives up Libby, whom Fitzgerald threatens with so much jail time that Libby can officially testifies against Cheney before he has his mysterious death in a plane crash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
powwowdancer Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I like the way you think
The bit about cheney's plane crash was great. Old "hummingbird heart" might find his tit in the ringer yet!

:dem:
powwowdancer out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. No need to crash aircraft - his pacemaker can fail. His heart already did
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 05:51 PM by leveymg
Besides, no one would believe that Scooter did a thing without telling his boss, the ultimate detail man and control freak.

Cheney is going down soon, one way or another - if only into early retirement on the Maryland Eastern Shore after he's pardoned. Of course, that will be the end of Bush, as the Republican leadership (those who aren't in jail) clamour for his resignation to save what's left of the Party before the '06 elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demoiselle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I don't believe that Fitz would give up a perp.....
..Unless he's NOT the straight shooting hard worker we think he is....why would he give Miller a deal to protect somebody else? He can slam her with a felony contempt charge, he can get a judge to prolong the investigation (Sure sounds like it, anyway, from the strong language the judge who sent Miller to jail used about serious wrongdoing in this case. ) I find it hard to believe any witness could get a prosecutor to give her a deal like that..."I'll give you perp A if you let me protect perp B." But then all I know about the law is whaI I see on Law and Order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. maybe he is doing that
Knowing that nailing perp A gives him a means of hitting perp B.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I am on the same page as you are wrt Big Dick nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Would if Barbara Olsen appeared on the scene?
LOL!!!....just a long shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. what if Judith Miller IS Barbara Olsen?! ? LOL
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 08:33 PM by anotherdrew
can't find pics atm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. Fitz is planning on extending the grand jury
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:05 PM by seemslikeadream
Arianna says that Fitz is planning on extending the grand jury


www.commondreams.org/views05/0930-24.htm



Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens
by Arianna Huffington

Its time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking points.

The claim that Miller has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver is laughable and, indeed, has already been laughed at by 1) my increasingly frustrated sources within the Times 2) a chorus of voices in the blogosphere (see here, here, and here) and 3) (and much more significantly) Joseph Tate, Scooter Libbys lawyer, who told the Washington Post yesterday that he informed Millers attorney, Floyd Abrams, a year ago that Libbys waiver was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify.

So it defies credulity for Miller, Sulzberger, and Bill Keller to keep insisting that Libbys earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it wasnt. I dont have much good to say about the vice presidents chief of staff, but I dont doubt that he knows the difference between being coerced and acting on his own free will. How deep is the Times contempt for its readers that they really think theyll buy the Oh, Judy finally has the right waiver line?

The truth of the matter is there is no way that the New York Times editorial claiming it should be clearthat Ms. Miller is not going to change her mind can be squared with Ms. Miller changing her mind. And there is no way to accept at face value Millers grandstanding about fighting for the cause of the free flow of information. Who is she still trying to convince? Herself?

...

What made her refuse Libbys waiver when it was first offered but accept it now? (Especially since Judge Hogan had told Miller that she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she alleges she is protecting had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.)

Was Millers sudden eagerness to find a get-out-of-jail excuse prompted by Fitzgeralds planning to ask for an extension of the grand jury?

...

And so we dont forget what this story is really about, and given that the aluminum tubes crap that Miller put on the front page of the New York Times was being heavily promoted by Cheney, how much of that bogus information came to Miller via Libby?

And here are a few questions for the Times:

Had a Plame/Wilson story been assigned to Miller or not?

What, if anything, did she say about the story to anyone at the paper at the time and what did they say back?

Why did the Times hold back the story about Millers release and let multiple other news sources scoop them? Were they trying to miss the evening news cycle and avoid the overnight thrashing their spin has rightly received?




I wanted to know that too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. This is the best part...
But any indictments could prove damaging for the administration, which has so far escaped political consequences for misleading Congress and the public in the run-up to the war by insisting Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons.

The truth has an irrepressable nature !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC