Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here are two reasons why I believe JUDITH MILLER WILL NOT GIVE THE TRUTH:

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:29 AM
Original message
Here are two reasons why I believe JUDITH MILLER WILL NOT GIVE THE TRUTH:
1. There is no way to ensure that Miller's testimony does not include perjury about what was actually said in those Plame-related conversation(s). Her Iraq War work show she's perfectly comfortable with murderous lies, and the paper editors must be too because she still has her job after her criminal role in passing the Administration's lies in the leadup to the war. Why would she tell the truth if she can get away with lying about this? And how would we ever know?

2. According to the deal made with Fitzgerald's team and Miller's lawyers, she cannot be asked about any of her other sources. So if it was BOLTON who was the traitor who told her, or indeed if it was anyone but Libby, she DOES NOT HAVE TO TELL.

I'm betting it was Bolton who talked to her, and by the deal that has been made, she will not have to divulge this. This is JUSTICE???


The NYT article and the disgusting statements by Miller and NYT editorial brass are linked to and excerpted in this post (within another thread on the Miller release):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

(Don't miss the link to a thread on Conyers' blogging about this at the end of that post.)

And people, remember that Miller is STILL a valued employee of the NY Times after the murderous role she played in helping to push this country into the Iraq War by passing on the Administration's lies. The blood of thousands is on her hands. She does not care. Her editors and the owners of the New York Times do not care. Now she is spouting about protecting high principles (excerpts from http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di... ):

...I am also grateful to the many fellow journalists and citizens from the United States and around the world, who stood with me in fighting for the cause of the free flow of information. It was a source of strength through a difficult three months to know they understood what I did was to affirm one of my profession's highest principles....

And Bill Keller, the NYT executive editor, is spouting the most nauseating glop about this woman of murderous lies, published in his paper:

It's an enormous relief that Judy's ordeal is over. Her steadfastness in defense of principle has won her admiration from around the world, wherever people value a free, aggressive press.

(snip)

Her friends and colleagues are delighted she's free, and -- if there is satisfaction in what she has endured -- I am satisfied that she has held fast to a principle that matters deeply.


Judith Miller as a "defender of high principles." :grr: I can't stand this. The hypocrisy meter, which gets such a constant beating in this Administration, is absolutely PINNED.

Even now Miller is very likely covering for high traitors in the Iraq War leadup and in the Plame leak - this is no woman of any principle except furthering her own ambition at any cost. And remember, the outing of Plame herself was bad enough, a crime of a traitor, but even more substantial -and, I believe, a major intention in the whole exercise - is the fact that this step destroyed an entire long-term NETWORK involved in getting the TRUTH ABOUT WMDs IN THE MIDDLE EAST. It was obviously in the Administration's interest to block the truth, for their lies - obediently relayed to the public (including Congress) via Miller - served as the basis for the Iraq war. Is this not an act of an even WORSE traitor? Covering such a crime is no admirable thing, certainly not justification for the self-congratulatory back-slapping of Miller and her bosses at the NYT.

We need to BLAST the NYT and other newspapers with LTTEs to object to Miller's continuing employment by the NYT after her Iraq War lies and the sorry carrying on about how proud they are about her work in protecting murderous traitor(s) responsible for destroying most of our information network responsible for WMD information in the Middle East.

And she will STILL be protecting the traitor(s) during her testimony for Fitzgerald. I'm betting at least one of them is BOLTON. Why do YOU think he came to visit her in jail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Recommended!
You make some very good points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hold it
You are telling me that Miller has a deal with Fitzgerald wherein she does NOT have to reveal her source, only tell the court whether it was Libby or not? And if it was not, she walks?

Please tell me that isn't right. And if it is, can you source that for me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. yeah, I agree.. I can't believe that
if it is true, then there's NOTHING they (you know who I mean) can do that can be pinned on them ever... they could go around (shudder the sick reference) raping, killing, stealing at will and never have anything ever pinned on them... so I can't believe that, for justice's sake... I can't believe that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. That's how I interpret this bit about the insistence that NO OTHER SOURCES
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 02:58 AM by Nothing Without Hope
of Miller's be "implicated." They can talk about what Libby told her and that's it. And how would we know if she perjured herself or neglected to mention that someone else, say Bolton, was the primary source?

Note that even the notes on Libby she is giving to Fitzgerald are AN EDITED COPY. If YOU were the investigator, wouldn't you want to see the ORIGINALS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30COURT.html...
(snip)

As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett gave Mr. Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Ms. Miller about her conversations with Mr. Libby.

In statements on Thursday, Ms. Miller and executives of The Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Ms. Miller's lawyers had sought such an assurance as a condition of her testimony.


(snip)


Also see this from the Editor & Publisher article about this:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...

Judith Miller Out of Jail, Will Testify Friday


By E&P Staff
Published: September 29, 2005 8:00 PM ET

(snip)

Joseph Tate, an attorney for Libby, said to the Washington Post today, "We told her lawyers it was not coerced. We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration."

Miller met with Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, according to the Times. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation in the Valerie Plame case.

She was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony, the Times revealed. As part of the agreement, one of Miller's attorneys, Robert Bennett, gave Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Miller about her conversations with Libby, the Times said.

One lawyer involved in the case told the Washington Post today that Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions to her chats with Libby. Under one scenario, Miller won the right to not implicate others she may have talked to about Plame.

(snip)


Only edited notes about Libby, and get that last line: "Miller won the right to not implicate others she may have talked to about Plame." I smell a rat: i don't think the primary traitor is Libby, it is someone else - Bolton? Bolton was an ultra-hawk for Iraq invasion plus at the center of an effort to funnel tailor-made "intelligence" to Washington. He would have wanted all REAL sources of information shut down. Outing Plame was a way to do it while striking at Wilson at the same time.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. gosh.. that blows
ya know.. I can't put faith in mankind, that's why I believe what I believe. this just goes to show how SCREWED up 'man' can be. this is a horrible agreement. I do 'assume' that he still will get information out of her, but not the whole story, but then again, we knew that wouldn't happen... we just got excited. I agree with the other poster, why does this have to be so complicated!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. note the updated edit in my earlier reply to you - the E & P makes it
even clearer. I'll repost these excerpts in a separae mainline reply to make them harder to miss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. But once she gets into court, the Grand Jury can ask her anything.
That's my understanding. How can the prosecutor limit their questioning of Miller?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. We need more clarification on this. The agreement with Fitzgerald's
legal team was quite specific - MIller doesn't have to give her original notes or even xeroxed copies of them, only edited copies. And Miller doesn't have to divulge any other sources, INCLUDING ANYONE ELSE WHO TALKED TO HER ABOUT PLAME.

Remember, there were at least TWO Administration personnel who were telling reporters about Plame. According to Arianna Huffington, multiple sources have said that one of them was BOLTON's former chief of staff, Fred Fleitz. (see downthread reply #27 here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... )

By agreeing to talk in an edited way about Libby, it looks like she would be allowed to cover up any OTHER Plame sources - and the way to other traitors - Bolton? - would be blocked.

If the prosecutor refuses to ask these questions or call witnesses about them, how can we get the truth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. If this is a credible lead, why hasn't Fitzgerald obtained release forms
from Bolton or Fleitz?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Here is what I said about that downthread - Arianna Huffington wrote
in her blog on Sept 20:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/plameg...

(snip)
So could Ambassador Bolton actually be a target of Pat Fitzgerald's investigation? When considering this question, it's important to keep in mind that he's never been subpoenaed or questioned by the Plamegate grand jury -- and, as a lawyer who does work for the New York Times put it: "The target of a grand jury investigation would not ordinarily be subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury."
(snip)



So the lack of questioning of Bolton could be either a bad sign - that he is getting away with a crime - or a good sign - that he is a target of the investigation and Fitz is holding the cards close to his chest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
56. No that's not exactly right. Scooter was ONE of Judy's sources,
She made a deal with Fitz that he wouldn't ask her about any other possible sources. It sounds to me like she COULD have multiple sources on this same story, but will only have to speak about one. Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
5. eggz-sell-lent
Of course she will lie - look @ all the lies she gleefully regurgitated in print 2 please her masters. I gotta wonder about the timing as well - why now? things getting a little warm on the hill?

She is covering unca dick's dragging, pasty white ass as well as UN john.


good post - recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Why does it have to be so damn difficult?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiviaOlivia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. How about if Jackie Chan were to grab Bolton, Libby and her solider
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 03:05 AM by LiviaOlivia
boy lover from Gulf War 1. This would take place in the court room of course. And with a secret martial arts grip only given a name in Mandarin(no English translation possible) Chan would show the Queen of Iraq what will happen to her after he masterly whacks her BJ clients.

Anyone? anyone?

The evil bitch is a pathological liar. 30 years of dis-information journalism. She's incapable of telling the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
9. if there is any way fitzgerald can get these people he will
he`s been after the times since they blew his investigation of the saudi`s in chicago. he knew the saudi`s were dirty but someone tipped the times off and they called the saudi`s. fitz still went ahead and his case fell apart and he ended up with two small time convictions and a reprimand from the judge...i bet he is still pissed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. thanks for the "light"
I sure hope so... it's just so SAD what's been going on the past month especially... so much DIRTY behavior from the rethuglicans...

I pray to my God to lift my load, I care about the people they are hurting, and to see them get away with stuff for the past 5 years is sad to watch.

Thanks again for a lift-me-up comment! I know the prosecutor will do his best for justice's sake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladylibertee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
11. Aw man . Thats total BS. I doesn't matter though.The public will
never let it rest.Not only that,we are not gonna bye into any lie that Rove was not involved.He was,and it will be proven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
12. *** EXCERPTS TO SHOW THE CRIPPLING LIMITATIONS ON MILLER'S TESTIMONY***
The agreement worked out with Fitzgerald's and Miller's legal teams is that no other sources of Miller's be "implicated" and only EDITED VERSIONS of notes she took on the Libby call(s) can be seen by Fitzgerald. They can talk about what Libby told her and that's it. And how would we know if she perjured herself or neglected to mention that someone else, say Bolton, was the primary source? Under the agreement, SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO TALK ABOUT ANY OTHER SOURCE WHO TOLD HER ABOUT PLAME. If Libby was not her primary source, then we will learn NOTHING from her - and that will be quite legal.

Note that even the notes on Libby she is giving to Fitzgerald are AN EDITED COPY. If YOU were the investigator, wouldn't you want to see the ORIGINALS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30COURT.html...
(snip)

As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett gave Mr. Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Ms. Miller about her conversations with Mr. Libby.

In statements on Thursday, Ms. Miller and executives of The Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Ms. Miller's lawyers had sought such an assurance as a condition of her testimony.


(snip)


Also see this from the Editor & Publisher article about this:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...

Judith Miller Out of Jail, Will Testify Friday


By E&P Staff
Published: September 29, 2005 8:00 PM ET

(snip)

Joseph Tate, an attorney for Libby, said to the Washington Post today, "We told her lawyers it was not coerced. We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration."

Miller met with Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, according to the Times. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation in the Valerie Plame case.

She was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony, the Times revealed. As part of the agreement, one of Miller's attorneys, Robert Bennett, gave Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Miller about her conversations with Libby, the Times said.

One lawyer involved in the case told the Washington Post today that Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions to her chats with Libby. Under one scenario, Miller won the right to not implicate others she may have talked to about Plame.

(snip)


Only edited notes about Libby, and get that last line: "Miller won the right to not implicate others she may have talked to about Plame." I smell a rat: i don't think the primary traitor is Libby, it is someone else - Bolton? Bolton was an ultra-hawk for Iraq invasion plus at the center of an effort to funnel tailor-made "intelligence" to Washington. He would have wanted all REAL sources of information shut down. Outing Plame was a way to do it while striking at Wilson at the same time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
14. "And she will STILL be...
...protecting the traitor(s) during her testimony for Fitzgerald."

Perhaps. But she'd better be careful. When you agree to be forthright and truthful with a big shot prosecutor like Fitzgerald, and then don't, they tend to become a wee bit vindictive. If he senses this is what's happening he'll stretch out the inquiry and be looking to trip her up. Perjury's a serious wrap. The smart thing for her to do is sing like a canary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Oh, I hope he wraps her up like a rancid sausage. But the stage is set to
protect the primary traitor. Here's a very plausible scenario from another DUer, Marie 26 - I'll post it separately in another reply shortly:

From Wikipedia : "Novak is reported to have told Rove the name of the agent and her role in Wilson's mission to Africa. Rove is reported to have told Novak something to the effect of, 'I heard that, too.' or 'Oh, so you already know about it.'. Rove reportedly told the grand jury that at this time he had already heard about Wilson's wife working for the CIA from another journalist, but is unable to remember who that was." What if that journalist was Miller, who in turn got the info from Bolton? That would explain why Fitzgerald is going to such lengths to get her to testify - she'd be not just a tangential witness but the heart of the whole scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Interesting. I'm not sure...
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 03:40 AM by Mr_Jefferson_24
...who I'd like to see fall harder, Miller or Rove. I don't know if you've followed A. Huffington's "Judy File" over the past few months. I gather Arianna thinks Judy may well be at the center of it, and it sounds like Arianna has inside sources. Time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. No, I haven't been following the "Judy File," and I wish I had been. She's
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:08 AM by Nothing Without Hope
at the center of this all right, just as she was at the center of the Administration's efforts to push this country into the Iraq War.

Check out the excerpt from Seymour Hersh downthread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

BOLTON had a proven strong motivation for destroying sources of REAL WMD intelligence in the Middle East - and I believe that is the most important part of the Plame leak aftermath: THE DESTRUCTION OF THAT ENTIRE GROUP OF AGENTS AND THEIR INFORMATION NETWORK. It's no coincidence that Plame was working in a group specializing in MidEast WMD intelligence. The leak wasn't just to spite Wilson, it was to destroy sources of information so Bolton and the other neocons could use their lies - with Miller's help - to drive the country into war.

Why else would Bolton visit Miller in jail, if not to make sure his name was kept out of the Plame investigation and all other subsequent probes of the WMD lies? And doesn't the hateful, spiteful, over-the-top feel of the whole Plame leak story SOUND like something Bolton would do? The man is a vengeful maniac when crossed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
16. Miller's involvement
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 03:55 AM by Marie26
Here's a crazy thought: what if Novak's source was Judith Miller? That would explain a whole lot. Libby has said that did he talk to her about Ambassador Wilson, but insists he never revealed his wife's identity & had allowed her to speak to the grand jury. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20 ... ) Miller said she wouldn't testify to protect her confidential source, but apparantly, that source gave a waiver of confidentiality over a year ago. So who or what is she protecting?

When she was reporting for two years on WMD in Iraq, she could have easily learned of Plame's identity (as an agent in arena of WMD). As Undersecretary of Arms Control, Bolton was also a big backer of the "Iraq has WMD" agenda & could have fed her the info about Plame & about WMDs. This would also explain the Bolton jail visit yesterday - to assure she does not reveal his identity. If she really did have an agenda, she could have disclosed Plame's actual identity to Novak & others, leaving admin. officials to only add on pertinent information after the identity is revealed.

According to Novak's testimony, "he told Rove the name of the agent and her role in Wilson's mission to Africa. Rove is reported to have told Novak something to the effect of, 'I heard that, too.' or 'Oh, so you already know about it.'. Rove reportedly told the grand jury that at this time he had already heard about Wilson's wife working for the CIA from another journalist, but is unable to remember who that was." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_timeline . What if that journalist was Miller? That would explain why Fitzgerald is going to such lengths to get her to testify - she'd be not just a tangential witness but the heart of the whole scandal.

Looking at the words: Novak said "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this." That's true - he called them to confirm the info he'd already been given by Miller. Once he contacted them about Plame, the identity's been "revealed" already & ad. officials can feel free to comment and expand upon it. Her identity is now "fair game". Rove then coordinates to let media & officals know it's now legally safe to talk about Plame's role.

In the article, Novak's very careful to parse his words: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report." So Novak only links the "administration officials" to the info that Wilson's wife suggested that he take the trip. The key info, that Plame is a CIA agent, is not atributed to any source. Why? It's no crime to disclose the information about Wilson's trip, but it is a crime to disclose an agent's identity. It looks like they were being very careful to keep the two sources seperate; so administration officials aren't connected to the actual leak of her CIA position. So who did Novak learn Plame's identity from? Based on Novak's careful phrasing, it appears he learned this information from another source outside the Bush administration.

What if the source Miller is really protecting is herself? Maybe the flow was - Bolton - Miller - Novak - Rove (confirms & spreads). By referring the vital illegal information (CIA role) through a third party, the administration won't be directly implicated. By not actually publishing a story on this, Miller isn't directly implicated. By only repeating info he'd already heard, Novak isn't implicated either. It's a nice scheme, unless the vital link, Miller, is revealed. Maybe Miller is using "Libby" as a cover for the real sources she doesn't want to reveal - herself & Bolton.

Miller wrote many, many, Iraq/WMD scoops that turned out to be false. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2086110 /) Bolton was in charge of "Arms Control" & eager to spin intelligence about Iraq's WMD (to the point of punishng CIA employees who didn't comply). Bolton could use the NY Times & Miller to spread false lies about WMD danger and build public support for a war with Iraq. It's propaganda, really. And Miller was eager to publicize the "scoops" she received from Bolton about Iraq's WMD's - she eventually got a Pulitzer prize!

But if the grand jury asks about Bolton, she'll have to reveal her complicity in the propaganda machine for war & the false WMD info from Bolton that she spread; as well as the leak of Plame's identity. This makes her look very, very bad & possibly criminal. So she uses a cover - she claims she can't testify because of Libby to protect her true source of info (Bolton) & prevent the grand jury from investigating her relationship w/Bolton. It's like a shell game - distracting by focusing on Libby, not the real source she's potecting. So, now she's free, but that might not be a good thing. Fitzgerald promised to "limit the scope" of questioning & not ask about other sources. What if Miller gets up there & then testifies that Libby actually revealed nothing to her at all? By assuring her a limited scope of questioning, the grand jury can't go into her OTHER sources - or her true source of the information.

Thanks to anyone who actually reads this whole conspiracy theory. This is just a theory, but I think it could be a possible explanation for Miller's & Bolton's recent actions. What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I think your idea of BOLTON telling Miller, then Miller telling ROVE makes
a lot of sense and fits everything we know. As you'll see, I cited your theory in my previous reply to this thread (#17). I think you may be onto something here.

And according to the agreement, she cannot be asked WHO ELSE TOLD HER ABOUT PLAME. ONLY LIBBY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Right
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 03:35 AM by Marie26
This night be why Bolton was suddenly so eager to visit her yesterday, as you said. This could be why she finally agreed to testify - after Fitzgerald agreed to restrict it. What would be really sad is even if it's the same ultimate source, they couldn'f find him. If Cheney went through Bolton instead of Libby, both Miller & Libby could now honestly say Libby knew nothing. By limiting the scope, Fitzerald couldn't find the true conveyor of Cheney's request, even though it's the same ultimate target. But I have to believe he's smarter than that - he's been pretty aggressive & diligent about getting testimony & must know what's up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
58. Wouldn't this still make Rove the leaker though?
Note: Speculating and not a lawyer

Okay. Miller didn't write a story. That's a fact. Novak wrote a story which resulted in the outing of Plame. That's also a fact.

So, if we speculate the Bolton to Miller to Rove, BOTH Libby and Rove talked with Novak. Rove had to have told Libby. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
60. wait wait wait..let me ask this..has libby testified to GJ???
has libby testified to grand jury??

if so could they be setting judith up for perjury??

or could they have bugged it when bolton came to the jail to visit judith....after all he is not a lawyer..no confidentiality there...

look fitzgerald is nobodys fool...he knows how dangerous this is and he knows who the cast of characters are...could libby be saving his own neck and having it proven that he is the scape goat for more sinsiter characters?? more evil bastards ..and the only one who can really save libby is judith but by her implications be really setting up the bad guys like cheney and bolton??

just wondering...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #60
68. Yep, Libby's already testified.
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 01:25 AM by Marie26
Also, four other reporters that Libby talked to have testified after receiving the written waiver from him. (This is the same waiver that Miller found insufficient). And apparantly, all these reporters are consistent in stating that Libby never leaked Plame's identity - at least, this is what Libby himself says. I think he simply didn't know Plame's identity - apparantly this is info that only high-ranking CIA officials should have. This explains why Libby signed a waiver so quick - I'm guessing he didn't acutually "reveal" any confidential info. Sorry to disappoint, but if Libby or Rove really did learn Plame's identity from the media, it's hard to argue they are the original leakers.

Washington Post: "Several reporters have given limited depositions about their conversations with Libby in the days before the Novak column was published. All did so at the urging of Libby, who has told the prosecutor he heard about Wilson's wife's employment from someone in the media, according to lawyers involved in the case."

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified before the grand jury, saying he was alerted by someone in the media to Plame's identity, according to a source familiar with his account. Cooper has previously testified that he brought up the subject of Plame with Libby and that Libby responded that he had heard about her from someone else in the media, according to sources knowledgeable about Cooper's testimony."

So, both Rove & Libby are stating that they actually learned about Plame's identity from someone in the media. Who could that be?
Only one reporter refused to testify - Miller. Why would she care about testifying if Libby had waived, other reporters had already testified, & her supposed SOURCE has already testified? The news has it backwards - maybe the classified info didn't go from Libby to Miller, but the opposite, from Miller up to Libby, & from Miller to Rove. Libby & Rove then confirm the info later on when other reporters call them about the story. At best, they're secondary sources for these stories.

I think if Fitzerald is going after Rove/Libby for revealing classified info, he's going to come up empty. He might just ger perjury charges. But I hope you're right that he's nobody's fool & he may have been laying a trap all along. And maybe Miller & Bolton are the true targets. But the fact that he limited questioning to Libby, & not any other Miller sources is a little discouraging. I'm starting to think Miller got exactly what she wanted - covering for Bolton by falsely claiming that she was protecting Libby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
42. Another source
In Washington Post article on the Plame leak, reporter Carl Leonig states that: "Fitzgerald may learn more details from Cooper's notes. Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
49. Welcome to DU!!! Someone recommended me to this specific post!
This may very well be the case. Miller operated as an arm of the government in her reporting using as a sole source on WMD, the odious Chalabi. The Times published it and, as Hope showed so clearly, they're welcoming her back for more. Disgust is too easy a reaction for that.

A variation of this theory says that Fitzgerald will use her to let the * folks off; thus, poor little press getting picked on for doing its job.

Miller belongs in jail for other charges, conspiracy to maim and kill Americans. Also, her editor belongs there as do any other journalists, editors or owners who deliberately confabulated and promoted a war based on total lies. It's time for the "hammer" to fall on those who use the media to kill and maim our fellow citizens and those around the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
17. **** PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO: BOLTON told Miller, then Miller told ROVE ****
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:00 AM by Nothing Without Hope
Remember how Rove has always claimed he learned about the Plame leak from a reporter? We always assumed he lied - but what if that was the truth and MILLER was the reporter? This interesting and plausible scenario has been suggested by DUer, Marie 26 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ):


From Wikipedia : "Novak is reported to have told Rove the name of the agent and her role in Wilson's mission to Africa. Rove is reported to have told Novak something to the effect of, 'I heard that, too.' or 'Oh, so you already know about it.'. Rove reportedly told the grand jury that at this time he had already heard about Wilson's wife working for the CIA from another journalist, but is unable to remember who that was." What if that journalist was Miller, who in turn got the info from Bolton? That would explain why Fitzgerald is going to such lengths to get her to testify - she'd be not just a tangential witness but the heart of the whole scandal.



But according to the agreement, if it WAS Bolton who Miller knows to be the traitor, she doesn't have to tell. If it was in her notes, it would have been removed from the edited copy given to Fitzgerald.

I'll post more on Bolton and why he might well have taken steps to shut down sources of REAL intelligence about Iraq WMDs shortly. And of course, there was his visit to Miller in jail - I doubt he was coming to cheer her up.

EDITED TO ADD: Marie26 has added more on her idea of the Bolton/Miller/Rove route in another reply (#16) in this thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:49 AM
Response to Original message
21. BOLTON: excellent candidate for the leaker heres Seymour Hersh on him:
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 04:03 AM by Nothing Without Hope
Ill excerpt Hershs important 2003 Stovepipe article in the New Yorker which stirred up such a storm. I recommend the entire article. Bolton, of course, was one of the primary hawks driving the Iraq invasion. He is at the center of all of this. ??I strongly believe that it's not primarily about silencing or punishing Wilson, but about destroying the legitimate CIA WMD intelligence gathering by Plame and her cover company. We must not forget that she was not the only one burned - that entire program was shut down. That made it much easier for Bolton and the other neocons to stovepipe and publicize only cherry-picked, manipulated "information." Without "competition" from the REAL agents who were gathering information, the way was far more open to manufacturing only the "evidence" that supported the neocons' goals.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

THE STOVEPIPE


How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraqs weapons.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2003-10-27
Posted 2003-10-20

(snip)

A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Departments Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, who is a prominent conservative. Thielmann understood that his posting had been mandated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who thought that every important State Department bureau should be assigned a daily intelligence officer. Bolton was the guy with whom I had to do business, Thielmann said. We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. Thats what being a professional intelligence officer is all about.

But, Thielmann told me, Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear. Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Boltons early-morning staff meetings. I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, The Under-Secretary doesnt need you to attend this meeting anymore. When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.

Eventually, Thielmann said, Bolton demanded that he and his staff have direct electronic access to sensitive intelligence, such as foreign-agent reports and electronic intercepts. In previous Administrations, such data had been made available to under-secretaries only after it was analyzed, usually in the specially secured offices of INR. The whole point of the intelligence system in place, according to Thielmann, was to prevent raw intelligence from getting to people who would be misled. Bolton, however, wanted his aides to receive and assign intelligence analyses and assessments using the raw data. In essence, the under-secretary would be running his own intelligence operation, without any guidance or support. He surrounded himself with a hand-chosen group of loyalists, and found a way to get C.I.A. information directly, Thielmann said.

In a subsequent interview, Bolton acknowledged that he had changed the procedures for handling intelligence, in an effort to extend the scope of the classified materials available to his office.
I found that there was lots of stuff that I wasnt getting and that the INR analysts werent including, he told me. I didnt want it filtered. I wanted to see everythingto be fully informed. If that puts someones nose out of joint, sorry about that. Bolton told me that he wanted to reach out to the intelligence community but that Thielmann had invited himself to his daily staff meetings. This was my meeting with the four assistant secretaries who report to me, in preparation for the Secretarys 8:30 a.m. staff meeting, Bolton said. This was within my family of bureaus. There was no place for INR or anyone elsethe Human Resources Bureau or the Office of Foreign Buildings.

(snip)


And then there is Bolton visiting Miller in jailwere they were talking about how she had to keep his name out of the Plame investigation?

Rove claims he doesnt remember which reporter told him about Plame a most convenient lapse. Was it Miller? And is the lapse to cover BOLTON?



ed:typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
24. Maybe she'll say it was Delay?
Someone who's already been destroyed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. No, Delay wouldn't have been in that loop - just doesn't fit.
Bolton fits PERFECTLY, and they have set up the testimony agreement such that SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO REVEAL IT IF BOLTON TOLD HER ABOUT PLAME.

I think Libby is a red herring here and that the truth will be blocked from this source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:09 AM
Response to Original message
26. Washington Note: BOLTON WAS A REGULAR SOURCE FOR MILLER
a thread from July 22 2005, based on an article in the Washington Note:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title: Is John Bolton a big source for Judith Miller-Chalabi? The Washington Note

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000798.html
July 22, 2005
SCOOP: John Bolton Was Regular Source for Judith Miller WMD and National Security Reporting

TWN has just learned from a highly placed source -- and in the right place to know -- that John Bolton was a regular source for Judith Miller's New York Times WMD and national security reports.

The source did not have any knowledge on whether Bolton was one of Miller's sources on the Valerie Plame story she was preparing, but argues that he was a regular source otherwise.

It's all "thickening."

-- Steve Clemons

Posted by steve at July 22, 2005 03:45 PM

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #26
40. Delete - repetition
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 09:34 AM by Marie26
Sorry, I'm just repeating the same info NothingWithoutHope already posted in #21 above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
27. ***Ariana Huffington on 9/20: "Plamegate: The John Bolton Connection"***
This could be the path through which Bolton learned of Plame: Bolton's former chief of staff Fred Fleitz:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/plameg...

(snip)

According to two sources, Bolton's former chief of staff, Fred Fleitz, was at least one of the sources of the classified information about Valerie Plame that flowed through the Bush administration and eventually made its way into Bob Novak's now infamous column.

(snip)

"I perform liaison function for the and Mr. Bolton," Fleitz told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 2005 . What he would have said if he'd been given truth serum is: "I've kept my CIA portfolio, which made it easier to become an intel-gathering machine for Bolton, who in turn was Cheney's spear-carrier in the State Department -- working tirelessly to undermine Powell and Armitage while, at the same time, feeding the intel to Miller and the New York Times."

Over the years, Fleitz earned a reputation as Bolton's chief enforcer, a swashbuckler willing to go the extra mile to make the intel fit the desired policy -- even if it meant knocking a few heads. And his dual role (serving what he called his "two bosses") put him in the position to pick up -- and deliver to Bolton -- all kinds of information including, perhaps, the spousal standing of a certain CIA analyst named Valerie. Even though Plame was in operations and Fleitz was in WINPAC, he obviously was in a position to know.

(snip)

So what does this all mean to the ongoing Plamegate investigation? Well, another source close to Bolton recently described his management style to me as "Very hands on. Nothing goes by him. His staff does what he wants. He's not the kind of guy to have his staffers freelancing." So, if Fleitz was a key source of the Plame info and Bolton is not the kind of guy to have his staffers freelancing does this mean Bolton was being less than forthcoming when he told people around him that the first time he ever heard Valerie Plame's name was when he read it in the newspaper? Or was he merely sharing talking points with Tim Russert?

(snip)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
28. Arianna in today's Huffington Post: "Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens"
She too is disgusted with the blatantly false and self-serving spin given to Miller's actions by herself and her editors. She also has some pointed questions she'd like the NY Times to answer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/miller...
Arianna Huffington / The Huffington Post

Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens


9/30/05

(spin)

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?

So, as the image of Judy as a principled, conscience-driven defender of the First Amendment gives way to the image of Judy wearing her "new" waiver as a fig leaf allowing her to get out and sing, the big question remains: What is she hiding?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. The NYTs is as disgusting as possible.
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 08:38 AM by sfexpat2000
Remember, after the last stolen election, they sent us all a mass email which said "there is no story here"?

I kept it to remind myself of the level of mendacity that we're dealing with.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flordehinojos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
30. do not forget that we have a mafia running the government..JM is protected
by the government's mafia. they have the power. they have the answers. they know it all--bunch of assholes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourStarDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
31. This sucks-but maybe there's reason to believe tht Fitz doesn't need more?
Fitzgerald must have a ton of information by now--maybe he only needs Judy Miller to complete the Scooter Libby connection? He's good at what he does- and thorough--he must have a good reason for offering this particular deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. That's what I'm hoping. According to Arianna Huffington, there are
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:12 AM by Nothing Without Hope
multiple sources that Point to Bolton's former chief of staff Fred Fleitz as the "second leaker" - remember how the initial reports said the Plame info came from TWO administration officials?

Here's the post upthread about Arianna Huffington's piece on Fred Fleitz and the Bolton connection in Plamegate:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

If, on the other hand, Fitz has no route to anyone but Libby, we are all screwed, blued, and tatooed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourStarDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Thanks...on the surface it could mean Bolton walks
Unless Fitz has enough goods on the other sources, such as Fleitz. We have to have hope that Fitzgerald knows what he's doing. He's a serious man and doesn't look like one to waste an opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
52. Here is Arianna Huffington's reasoning on Bolton not being asked for
testimony - discussed in another reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Either Bolton isn't involved, he IS involved but Fitz can't or won't subpoena him despite the rumors Arianna Huffington mentions that his former chief of staff was the "second source" for the Plame leak, or he is a primary target and has not been subpoenaed because it's standard practice not to do that for a primary target.

If Bolton is never addressed in Fitz's probe, I will lose all my faith in the investigation and most of my residual fragments of faith in the legal system. As for the strange lack of Fitz subpoenaing of Bolton, there is OBVIOUSLY
  • Enough reason to believe he could be involved (those multiple rumors Huffington mentions that Fleitz was the second Plame source - see upthread in Reply #27)
  • Enough motivation for Bolton to destroy Plame's career and - more important, I believe - the entire long-term network of WMD intelligence gathering agents at her cover company (wanting to block true intelligence and substitute only "shaped intelligence" on Iraq WMDs and other potentially explosive truths about MidEast weaponry - see the Hersh excerpt upthread in Reply #21) as well as spitefully lashing out at Wilson for crossing him (an action entirely consistent with Bolton's character and previous acts)
  • enough opportunity to GET the information about Plame via Fleitz' CIA connections - and enough precedent too, according to Huffington (Reply #27)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
34. she'll be under oath, she won't lie
The thing is, woman's intuition is telling me that Fitz doesn't need her testimony about "other sources," only about Libby. I think he's got the goods on everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. I think you would be right about that and if she lies he can prove
PERJURY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #35
62. the thing is ..she can not lie...she
does not know what other info he has or who else has sang!! or which direction he is going...if she lies her goose is cooked...Fitzgerald has kept such a tight lipped grand jury that she could not possibly know what fitz knows...what if Tenent is a source??

suposedly he is furious about the leak of valerie plame..and he has been burned big time by the * crime group!!

i still think Tenent is a witness and a damn dangerous one to the * crime cabal.....no matter what we all think of the man..valerie was one of "his" agents..and other of "His agents" are furious as well...and once a cia family member ..always a cia family member...

Judith can not lie...but she may only have to verify what Fitzgerald already has...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. What oath could this criminal take that would prevent her
from lying?

She lie if she needs to. Remember, this is the woman who is in part responsible for all those dead soldiers. That's what her word is worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. I agree on both your points. She wouldn't hesitate to lie if she were
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:08 PM by Nothing Without Hope
sure she could get away with it - maybe that's why Bolton came to visit her.

And I am hoping like you are that Fitz has the line on the second leaker - which Arianna Huffington is Bolton's former chief of staff Fred Fleitz - from other sources than Miller.

But I do believe that Miller is at the epicenter of it all, and that Bolton probably is too. I also believe that Plamegate and the Niger yellowcake forgeries are part of the same story and that Miller knows about both of them.

Re Bolton NOT being called to testify, here is what Arianna Huffington wrote in her blog on Sept 20, discussed in another reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So either Bolton isn't involved, he is involved but Fitz can't or won't subpoena him despite the rumors Arianna Huffington mentions that his former chief of staff was the "second source" for the Plame leak, or he is a primary target and has not been subpoenaed because it's standard practice not to do that for a primary target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
37. EXACTLY
Believe me, this isn't on the up-and-up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
39. Have bolton or fleitz given testimony?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 09:46 AM by leftchick
I have not heard if they have. Curious if they have not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. Here is what Arianna Huffington said on 9/20 about Bolton NOT testifying:
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:09 PM by Nothing Without Hope
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/plameg...

(snip)
So could Ambassador Bolton actually be a target of Pat Fitzgerald's investigation? When considering this question, it's important to keep in mind that he's never been subpoenaed or questioned by the Plamegate grand jury -- and, as a lawyer who does work for the New York Times put it: "The target of a grand jury investigation would not ordinarily be subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury."
(snip)



So either Bolton isn't involved, he is involved but Fitz can't or won't subpoena him despite the rumors Arianna Huffington mentions that his former chief of staff was the "second source" for the Plame leak, or he is a primary target and has not been subpoenaed because it's standard practice not to do that for a primary target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. I certainly hope it is the third option
I was pretty sure he had not given testimony and believed that is because he is one of the targets. If he gets off scott free! :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alizaryn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
43. I this point all we can do is
place our hopes and trust in Fitzgerald. I SERIOUSLY doubt that Miller or her lawyers have the ability to "out play" Fitzgerald from all I have read about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
44. Well, it better match what Libby, Rove, et al have said.
If it doesn't Fitz is going to be pissed. Federal perjury is nothing to trifle with.

I think that there is *no* *way* that Miller will lie. She will not jeopardize her career for those schmucks. Would you go to prison and destroy your career for that?

No! Miller may be many things, but she is not stupid. She will tell the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
45. You're Forgetting Cooper, Novak, Russert etc.
There's lot's of other testimony in this case, as well as other reporters notes, phone records, memos etc. If Judy lies, she has NO idea what Fitz already knows.

Fitz is not an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
55. That's the chief source of my current hopes: "Fitz is not an idiot" and
also that he has a reputation for bulldog persistence/thoroughness and above all, HONESTY.

That's why if this all finishes without Bolton ever being mentioned substantively in the case, I'll lose most of what little remains of my trust in the US legal system. Whether or not Bolton is actually involved, there are far too many reasons to suspect him enough to investigate him and Fleitz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
50. Judith miller wouldn't know the truth if the truth introduced herself!
She's all about the lies, the vanity, the trade offs it takes to go from a Pacifica station to the "big leagues," the paper we love to mock and deride, the NYT.

I think Miller is a feint, a head fake, a long term diversion. Fitz studied these clowns or he had someone do it and he knows how Rove plays. Well, Miller is not the real prize, she's a tasty diversion.

He'll probably haul off and indict Cheney and name * a "person of interest."

Indicting Delay is part of the big message"...get out of town, we're tired of you, you are costing us too much and pouting our dominance at risk."

Signed, "Management"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #50
59. I agree. DeLay was becoming a liability and also OPPOSES SOME OF THEIR
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:52 PM by Nothing Without Hope
PLANS - for example the expansion of martial law. DeLay opposes the unconstitutional scheme now pushed by Bushies to put a "trigger" in place so that the President can unleash military police on whim for any purpose - though of course they are only TALKING about disasters. His reason: "Bureauocracy, bureauocracy, bureauocracy." Delay and the Bushies have always had an uneasy relationship, and now he is the way of their plans for military dictatorshp.

Think "military dictatorship" is overstating it? Read this entire thread, including the important articles linked to in the replies, and think again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title: Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY

By the way, the NEW majority leader, Blunt, is one of the most corrupt men in Congress, even worse than DeLay if you can imagine it. He is also far more spineless than DeLay - indeed, DeLay had little respect for him because he "could not deliver." Read these about Blunt and his over-the-top-sleaze:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.beyonddelay.org/beyond_delay/rep_roy_blunt_r...

There is also an article on Blunt's "questionable ethics" in the current LA Times - if no one else has done so, I'll post on it later today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bl...

Even DeLay has his limits, and the Bushies plan to cross them. Blunt has no lower limit at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #59
71. They overestimate their "hold" on the machines.
Their "masters" just might allow a fair election out of anger at neocon/extremist stupidity and incompetence. Would that not be ironic? We'll punish you with fair elections, well just this once!

Great threat and post. I'm more optimistic than you, however, when it comes to the legal tactics. I think it's all about ... well I'm not sure really. But I do know that I said Earle-Delay then Fitz-someone really big.

Lets see what happens. Can we have a lottery on the date the first indictment comes down? How about a full years subscription to "FromtheWilderness.Com's" Peak Oil watch.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
51. He might not need her
to implement other sources. In other words, someone else could have. Also, any targets may reveal other targets when faced with prison (depending on the charges leveled).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Those are my hopes. It is striking that Bolton has been left out of the
investigation and that Miller has been allowed to have an agreement that permits her to NOT NAME ANY SECOND PLAME SOURCE. Either the fix is in or Fitz has another route to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
53. If Bolton is never addressed in Fitz's probe, I will lose all my faith in
the investigation and most of my residual fragments of faith in the legal system. As for the strange lack of Fitz subpoenaing of Bolton, there is OBVIOUSLY
  • Enough reason to believe he could be involved (those multiple rumors Huffington mentions that Fleitz was the second Plame source - see upthread in Reply #27)
  • Enough motivation for Bolton to destroy Plame's career and - more important, I believe - the entire long-term network of WMD intelligence gathering agents at her cover company (wanting to block true intelligence and substitute only "shaped intelligence" on Iraq WMDs and other potentially explosive truths about MidEast weaponry - see the Hersh excerpt upthread in Reply #21) as well as spitefully lashing out at Wilson for crossing him (an action entirely consistent with Bolton's character and previous acts)
  • enough opportunity to GET the information about Plame via Fleitz' CIA connections - and enough precedent too, according to Huffington (Reply #27)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
61. Important new related thread: "Miller Testifies to Grand Jury on CIA Leak"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title: Miller Testifies to Grand Jury on CIA Leak

It isn't about Bolton, but it has important information - not only the latest but older memos. It's currently languishing without the 5 votes; I hope that changes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
63. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
64. Wash Post's Froomkin on Miller's decision to testify:
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:04 PM by Nothing Without Hope
Froomkin's piece is not an article, it's a blog associated with the WaPo. After Froomkin's comments are a selection of news reporting and several blogs, including progressive ones. The ones that caught my eye, besides Arianna Huffington, whom I've already cited above:


The Anonymous Liberal writes: "Now that we know (presumably) that Libby did not learn about Plame from Miller, the question remains: how did Libby first learn about Plame?"

Digby writes: "It seems obvious now that Jeralyn was right; Judy's real issue was being asked about her other sources under oath. It looks like they came to some sort of agreement about that."


I'll go check out Digby's full article and report on it below if there is more interesting stuff. And the Anonymous Liberal is quite right to ask the question: how did Libby first learn about Plame?

Here's Froomkin's WaPo-associated blog:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/...

Miller's Big Secret


By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 30, 2005; 12:03 PM

Can it be? That after all that, New York Times reporter Judith Miller sat in jail for 12 weeks to protect the confidentiality of a very senior White House aide -- even though the aide repeatedly made it clear he didn't want protecting?

(snip)

The man she was protecting, it turns out, was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Cheney -- sometimes called "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney" on account of his considerable influence in the White House.

Over the course of the investigation, Libby had freed several other reporters from any obligation to keep their conversations with him secret -- and his lawyer had apparently told Miller's lawyer more than a year ago that she was free to talk, as well.

So what was Miller doing in jail? Was it all just a misunderstanding? The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly -- and privately -- saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.

(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Judy Was Protecting HERSELF, Not The Source
She didn't want to talk until she got some kind of immunity. Fitz and her finally came to a deal after he threatened her w/ criminal contempt. That's my theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
65. Miller is a CIA media asset under Operation Mockingbird.... eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
66. Why would FitzGerald agree to this, after all this time?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 08:40 PM by WinkyDink
I mean, if DU'ers can figure out it's a bad deal if Bolton escapes, would not this occur to Fitz?

No, I must have hope that FitzGerald hasn't lost either his acumen or his tenacity.
Or his patriotism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
69. Arianna Huffington LA Times op/ed: "Who is Judy Miller kidding?"
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 06:14 AM by Nothing Without Hope
Huffington carries on her blistering criticism of Miller and her editorial bosses at the NY Times for their ridiculous posturing and failure to hold Miller accountable for her articles pushing the Administration's WMD lies. Good that this will get a wider, or at least a somewhat different, audience via this LAT op/ed than did would have in the Huffington Post.

Huffington isn't buying Miller's "extreme makeover." Is anyone? What will it take for the NY Times editors to realize that their over-the-top praise of Miller "defending high principles" not only is not convincing, but undermines their newspaper's credibility still further?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-huffington1oc...
October 1, 2005
latimes.com : Opinion

Who is Judy Miller kidding?


The New York Times reporter needs to write the truth about her involvment in Plamegate.

By ARIANNA HUFFINGTON

(snip)

It defies credulity for Miller and the Times to keep insisting that Libby's earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it wasn't. I don't have much good to say about the vice president's chief of staff, but I don't 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 it really thinks they'll buy the "Oh, Judy finally has the right waiver" line?

(snip)

The Plame scandal took shape not only when the White House was under attack but when Miller herself was increasingly being attacked by critics for her deeply flawed dispatches. When she met with her anti-Plame source or sources she was not only still on the WMD beat but still a true believer promoting the administration's lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD threat despite an avalanche of contrary information.

The inescapable fact is that Miller intentionally or unintentionally worked hand in glove in helping the White House propaganda machine sell the war in Iraq. And that includes Libby and his boss, Dick Cheney.

Before her transformation into a journalistic Joan of Arc, Miller was in a tailspin, her work discredited, removed from the WMD beat and forced to deal with colleagues who refused to share a byline with her. She desperately needed to change the subject and cleanse herself of the stench left by her misleading coverage leading up to the war coverage that makes the Jayson Blair scandal, by comparison, seem ludicrously insignificant. And there are few more effective acts of purification for a reporter than going to jail to (in PR theory) protect the 1st Amendment.

(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. It looks like even the NY Times is backing away from supporting her
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 02:32 PM by Marie26
In latest article, NY Times disputes Miller's claim that she was in jail to protect Libby as a confidential source. The article cites three letters showing that Libby actually waived any confidentiality a year ago: one from Libby waiving confidentiality, one from Libby's lawyer repeating the same thing, & one from Miller's lawyer that acknowledges that Libby's lawyer had said he had no objection to her testifying. My favorite part is the last sentence:

"Tate (Libby's lawyer) added that he understood from his conversations with Mr. Abrams that Ms. Miller's "position was not based on a reluctance to testify about her communications with Mr. Libby" but on journalistic principle and an effort to protect "others with whom she may have spoken."

Like, say, Bolton?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01waiver.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. Very interesting. The NYT effort to glorify Miller and cover up the lie
about her going to prison to "protect high principles" really went over like a lead balloon. I have not seen any mention of it anywhere that did not condemn it. Maybe they are recalculating just how valuable an asset to them Judith Miller really is.

It's about time.

It's unconscionable that Miller is still on the NYT staff after her groundless propaganda helped push the nation into war. She is no journalist, she is a political operative. She has single-handedly dragged down the credibility and reputation of the whole newspaper. I have never understood why they have continued to treat her with such care. And I would very much LIKE to know. Is it her access to power sources or something else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
70. It's okay.
The points you make are valid. But they don't change the fact that the investigation is right where it should be. The grand jurors have all the information they need to return indictments. The first round of indictments is not the last: if, for example, Libby feels he is being blamed for what Bolton did, he isn't about to go to prison quietly.

The jurors -- who hold the power now -- are going to realize that Judith isn't a saint, nor an honest person. Things are are okay .... in fact, they are better than okay. The truth will light the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Thank you, H2O Man. You've lifted my spirits and injected a voice of
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 01:11 PM by Nothing Without Hope
quiet insight.

You do that a lot and I thank you for it.

We must never lose sight of the fact that the truth is on our side and that more people realize it every day. I do believe that most people are "good" and will reject what the Bush Administration stands for when they see what has been done. To avoid chaos and burnout in the public when they do come to see how they have been duped, we must be ready with our positive message of hope and a real way forward. It's not enough to bash the GOP, we have to have a practical, solid alternative program to give hope and a route back to the rule of law and basic humanity.

Dem leaders who cannot rise to this will be left in the dust as we move ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. Right now
there is intense anger between the offices of the president, and of the vp. In the next month, it increases. Daily.

What Fitzgerald has done is, by no coincidence, exactly what the best prosecutors do when they go against organized crime. (Go figure!) It comes down to those grand jurors themselves now. I trust them to return the proper indictments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Why do you say specifically that there is intense anger between offices
of VP and Pres? I'm sure that's true, but I'm wondering why you bring it up in this context and would appreciate hearing your insight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. In Wilson's book
he addresses how two journalists had told him about this. In the time since, we have seen the White House lie that no one there was involved -- including Rove and Scooter -- be exposed as a lie. Someone has to take the weight for not just the lies, but when the grand jury returns the indictments, there has to be someone cut loose. Someone has to fall on their sword. And in this case, someone has to face felony convictions.

A large part of the operation was straight from the VP's office. But Karl ran with it. And Karl testified a couple times. He has blamed Cheney and Libby for this problem for two years now.

In the coming weeks/months, keep this in mind as more information becomes public. (In fact, even in the context of the off-the-record information that two lawyers gave to a WP reporter in today's news, regarding the charges they think are coming. For that matter, Libby's rather transparent message to Judith about staying rooted, and not being split, indicates that he knows he is in trouble.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. Thank you for putting this together. I can't see Rove, Cheney or Bolton
being willing to "take one for the team." They are are totally selfish predatory monsters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
72. #3. She's Judith Miller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
74. Two very important and also encouraging threads add more pieces:
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 01:51 PM by Nothing Without Hope
The judges who have seen Fitz's case, shown to support his demand for the reporters to speak, are very impressed indeed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title: A Plamegate refresher - Lawrence O'Donnell and the redacted 8 pages

New anonymous tips point directly at Cheney as being involved.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title: Taking Out the Trash: Cheney Directly Involved In Leak Scandal

I still suspect Bolton is another one who is in the middle of this; Fleitz may have served as the conduit of info from the CIA, and Bolton had motivation to push for undermining both Plame and the whole cadre of MidEast WMD intelligence experts her outing put out of business. They wanted their WMD lies to drown out the truth. I have never believed this was ONLY about discrediting Wilson.

It's also possible that the forgery of the Niger documents themselves is part of this story - maybe another goal of the Plame leak was to prevent its discrediting and keep the conspirators involved covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
78. WaPo Oct 2 on Plame case - Fitz may be going for CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 01:38 AM by Nothing Without Hope
OF SENIOR WH OFFICIALS.

This article is interesting to me primarily because it demonstrates so clearly how the reporters are speculating like mad all over the spectrum because Fitz's investigation has been so remarkable leak-free. It's driving them nuts. So they quote anonymous sources who suggest opposite things because it's all they have.

This will be changing soon when indictments are handed down. Those "eight redacted pages" mentioned upthread, show that Fitz has some solid and important finds.

Nice to see the subtitle stating in effect that the White House lied.

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

Role of Rove, Libby in CIA Leak Case Clearer


Bush and Cheney Aides' Testimony Contradicts Earlier White House Statement
By Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus?Washington Post Staff Writers?Sunday, October 2, 2005; A05

As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.

With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.

His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.

Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public.

(snip - long article, but mostly speculation. The most interesting is that Fitz may well be going for a criminal conspiracy case involving senior WH officials.)



Edited to add: After I posted this, I found it has been posted as a thread on its own here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title: WP: Role of Rove, Libby in CIA Leak Case Clearer (Conspiracy)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #78
81. This is an important
article. Keep in mind that the federal judges would not have forced the reporters to testify if the issues were simply perjury and obstruction of justice. Rather, the prosecutor has to be able to show -- convincingly -- that something far more important is at play here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
83. I'm putting the finishing touches on my film "Rove's War"
right now, expect to ship in a few days, and I've spent many months researching for this, it weighs in as a 2 DVD set at 150 minutes of definitive info on the entire Plame case, A complete Chronology, forged documents, the meeting in Dec of 2001 with Leeder, and Italian SISME (CIA) leaders, forgers, etc - Suskind's info that Bush was pushing for war way way back in 1999, Bolton and Rummy's ROGUE Intel, all mixed down with the Downing Street Minutes, Ex CIA Hearings, etc, etc..

THis is RED MEAT for political junkies and it's all there, plus some hilarious additions of graphics, cartoons, Jon Stewart grilling folks, etc to keep it fun at the same time - anyone that's seen my flash work, imagine my best flash amplified about 100 times and you'll see what I've got coming out of the DVD burner in a few days.

Some here donated a long time ago (and I apologise for being REALLY sick for a good month) but this is for you, and it's rolling out to the mailroom very soon - even wrote and performed a satirical song (which I think I'm going to release at the same time on the web, maybe send it to Al Franken, my pal Mike Malloy would probably play it, maybe Randi too) called "Secret Agent Plame" based on the old classic "Secret Agent Man" for the credits..

Once I've shipped to everyone I promised this film to, I'm going to hit up Skinner and see if I can use it to fund raise here..

I can't stop watching it and I should be bored as hell with it after editing and researching for months on end, going through hundreds of hours of film - it's my best..

Just getting the word out, that it'll be available at Takebackthemedia.com after I make my customers happy Look for it should I get the nod from Skinner (who will of course receive a Comp Copy for keeping us all sane :) )

Get out your popcorn and fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride - these guys are like tapeworms, they'll insist on practically killing the HOST to get rid of them..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Oh WOW!!! To see the whole story put together, to SHOW people the
whole story...I can hardly wait! Too many Americans can't see that the Niger uranium forgeries, the Plame leak, the "Downing Street minutes," so much more, is at the CORE of what these mad criminals have been doing all along: manipulating, lying, betraying our country into becoming a rogue fascist totalitarian state that is their tool for sating their limitless greed and insane plans for world domination.

Sounds like you've put together something that will show 'em. All of this is too awful for joy, but I hope that what you've done will open enough eyes that the "tapeworms" can still be removed before the host is dead. Horrifying metaphor but all too apt.

Then perhaps you could work on something like their continuing and well-progressed long-term program for domestic martial law and Orwellian societal "reshaping"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title: Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY
Part of that would include the "economic cleansing" and neocon socioeconomic reorganization they have been inflicting on the hurricane-torn American South.

Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
85. This is going to be an interesting week. The indictments may be coming
quite soon, and I think they will surprise a lot of people, whatever they may be. I keep thinking about the "8 redacted pages" by which Fitz convinced the judge to support his efforts to get the journalists to testify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. While it is possible
that he will wait, it seems equally possible that he will sum up the case for the grand jurors, and that we'll be in business soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
87. Let's hope the dots to the Niger uranium documents are connected. Here is
a thread discussing this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title: Miller, Chalabi, Franklin, AIPAC - dots begin to connect

I will be very disappointed if ONLY the outing of Plame and/or perjury about it are being pursued as the prosecutable crimes. And if it is indeed a conspiracy charge that will be leveled, please let it lead into these other areas. And may Franklin sing like a bird.
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 Sun Nov 23rd 2014, 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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