Interesting: Fitz cites Woodward in GOVT Miller Opposition Memorandum

[fearnobush]

Oct 7th 2004 ish
Something is going on here, it looks as if Fitz was using the "Miller and Cooper are no Woodward and Bernstein" argument to have the judge deny Miller's suitable confinement request (not jail). He then cites Woodward's opposition to jailing reporters to basically say that Woodwards claim is not credible.

Could Woodward be after Fitz for using his own words to get Miller jailed for her testimony. I don't know, but it appears that Fitz is no stranger to Woodwards opposition to his case.

Lawyers: need help on this one.

<http://72.14.203.104/unclesam?q=cache:VjkxokP2HIQJ:www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/miller_brief_july2005.pdf+woodward+fitzgerald&hl=en>

GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JUDITH MILLER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER DESIGNATING A PARTICULAR PLACE OF CONFINEMENT

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, SPECIAL COUNSEL, respectfully submits this Memorandum in Opposition to the “Motion of Judith Miller for Reconsideration of the Court’s October 7, 2004 Order Requiring Confinement ‘At A Suitable Place’ Or, In The Alternative, For A Supplemental Order Designating A Particular ‘Suitable Place’ Of Confinement” (hereinafter, “Motion)

.......

Interview with Geofrrey Stone, On the Media from NPR, Dec. 10, 2004(emphasis added)(“Exhibit 9”). See also Prof. Stones’s June 1, 2005, posting observing that Miller and Cooper are “not Woodward and Bernstein.” Geoffrey R. Stone, Deep Throat Redux: Are Miller and Cooper Woodward and Bernstein?, The Huffington Post, June 1, 2005, available at http://huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/geoffrey-r-stone (“Exhibit 10”). 11 Adam Liptak, Court Declines to Rule on Case of Reporter’s Refusal to Testify, N.Y. Times, June 28, 2005, at A-1 (quoting Professor Geoffrey Stone)(“Exhibit 11")

Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Post, agrees that confidential sources should be used only for important matters and clearly thinks that the Plame matter didn’t meet that test. “This is not the Pentagon papers,” Woodward dryly observes. “it’s not the case you’d choose to make law on.” By contrast, in our interview Arthur Sulzberger directly invoked the Pentagon Papers case in justifying the Times’ hard stand on Plame. And if others are put out with Miller and the Times, it’s just as clear that Miller and the Times are less than thrilled with the tepid support they received from .

[tulsakatz]

1. and Watergate began with a third rate burglary.......

....at the time that Woodward and Bernstein investigated that story, no one thought it would ever evolve into the huge story it eventually became!! They certainly never expected it to end Nixon's Presidency!

My point is, that Woodward (especially since he has a personal involvement in the case and therefore cannot be considered an impartial witness) doesn't have the right to judge if this story is important or not.