Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wolf Blitzer just said that Libby let Miller off the hook a long time ago.

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:02 PM
Original message
Wolf Blitzer just said that Libby let Miller off the hook a long time ago.
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 03:03 PM by roguevalley
He is talking about it on CNN Situation Room.

update: She says only now he released her to speak. Blitzer says Libby's lawyer said Libby gave her persmission year ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wellstone_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. is that phot o "shopped?"
Can a dog really stand up like that ? How on earth do you teach it to do that? Disturbing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RubyDuby in GA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Oh it's not
That dog is a dachshund. I've had three in my lifetime (and hope for many more) and they've all been able to do that. That's how they beg for any morsel of food you're trying to eat.

See, here's my former beauty, Ruby (the original Rubyduby):


It's not that easy to see, but she's standing on her back paws too. She would use her tail to balance herself and stand like that for as long as she needed to to get a bite to eat.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wellstone_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. fascinating
I had no idea that they could do that---on a strange note, just recently I found out that my 32 y-old sister thought that Dachshunds were a specific kind of dog she wasn't familiar with but, when I mentioned that old Mrs. Kelly had one when we were kids, she said: "I thought that kind of dog was called a weiner dog!" She's no dope but she heard old Dempsey called a weiner dog so often that she actually thought it was the formal breed name.

She'll never live that one down, Christmas is going to be *extra* fun this year!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. that's not really a dog, it is a molded ham
yes INDEED :o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wellstone_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. lol
I thought maybe sculpted of chocolate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. She claims that the release a year ago was coerced and she didn't buy it.
She wanted to hear it directly from Libby.

There's something else going on here, but it's going to take time before we finally realize what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If that was true why didn't she call Libby a year ago and ask him
if it was coerced or not? This is a load of bull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Oh, Arianna already knows
two possible motives -- either Fitz was going to seek an extension of the grand jury term, which would have kept her in jail longer, or he was going to seek a criminal contempt charge against her, which would have kept her in jail a LOT longer.

To which I would add a third motive -- she finally realized Libby was going to leave her in the wind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Besides, waiting pushed all revelations back past the election
thus not damaging *'s chance for a second term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. The understanding is that she had Libby's permission, but that the
scope of the testimony would have been unlimited, and there are issues she still wishes to keep confidential, presumably regarding other related sources (cough...Rove...cough).

Fitzgerald seems to have decided that Libby is better than nothing and let her off the hook for the other one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. It might be that her other source wasn't Rove but someone at
the CIA.

Speculation at the NYT among some of Miller's journalistic peers (who purportedly hate her guts) is that after Wilson's article ran in the Times, Miller went ballistic because she saw it as challenging the integrity of some of her reporting. Judy then tapped into some of her sources at the CIA and learned about the existence of Valerie Plame. Judy then contacted Scooter Libby by phone on July 6th and later met with Libby on July 8th. The issue is who told what to whom. Some at the Times think Judy told Scooter about Plame at that time and Scooter took it from there. This scenario has Judy being the one that outed Valerie Plame. It also is consistent with Rove and Libby's testimony that they first learned about Plame's existence from "a journalist" whose name they couldn't remember. If Judy was Libby's source she'll look real bad and so will her paper. It would appear she was giving Libby and Rove ammunition to smear Wilson and out a CIA agent.

On the other hand, if Libby told Miller about Plame in connection with an interview for a story Judy was working on but that she never printed (as she maintains) and no more than that happened, the only thing new we learn is that that Libby knew about Plame prior to his and Rove's conversations with Novak and before Novak's article outing Plame went to print. There isn't much new in that. Also, it still leaves unclear precisely when and how Libby found out about Plame.

Under either scenario, Judy's 83-day stay in jail looks curiouser and curiouser. Fitz always knew Judy had talked to Libby. Libby signed a general waiver releasing Miller to talk. Yet Judy wanted more -- a personal waiver. Arguably she could have gotten this anytime she wanted simply by asking Libby if it was OK to do so. Libby's lawyer is claiming now that this permission was available for Miller any time she wanted it. Other journalists testified with Libby's consent -- Russert, Pinkus, and Cooper. Why wouldn't Judy?

Something smells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. That makes no sense at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. If the previous waiver
was coerced--who did the coercion? In what form was it? Witness tampering is a big f*cking deal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. It wasn't coerced. That "coerced" stuff is a lot of bull.
The whole spiel about general waivers being "coerced" or "not specific enough" is just a big red herring. This is the best explanation I've found about it:

<http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071405.shtml >

TAYLOR (2/14/04): The media's self-interested approach to such issues may explain the remarkably muted reaction to a February 10 Washington Post report that several White House officials have refused requests by prosecutors that they sign waivers releasing reporters from any promises of confidentiality to their sources in this case. The waiver forms reportedly request "that no member of the news media assert any privilege or refuse to answer any questions from federal law enforcement authorities on my behalf or for my benefit."

Why haven't the mediawhich have long clamored for Bush to order his aides to cooperate fully with prosecutorsmade a stink about his apparent failure to order them to sign these waivers? The answer seems to be that the media understand that such waivers would increase the pressure on them to disclose their sources.

Taylor closed his piece by requesting a more forceful effort by Bush to get his staff to come clean. But according to Taylor, a major insider, why werent his colleagues in the press talking about this failure by Bush? What explained their remarkably muted reaction to that February 10 report? Yes, the report was news, Taylor saidbut the press was taking a self-interested approach! In Taylors view, the media understood that such waivers would increase the pressure on them to disclose their sources. And because they didnt want to do that (more below), they were hushing the topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. This a.m. she said something about hoping the
bonds between journalists and their sources were strengthened as a result of her experience--or words to tht effect. Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Judy has been known to fuck her sources.
You can't get any closer than that -- or be more unethical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yikes!!
Who would have thought a champion of journalism ethics would seek a story regardless of the moral cost! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. No proof. That is what she needed. And when they did it this month -
they had a guarantee the Feds wouldn't prosecute them for conspiracy to obstruct testimony. I guess cause the discussion on freedom to speak isn't blanket - but what timeframe of when Miller could reveal discussion was an issue. If Fitz had them on tape negotiating "well - don't give up anything I said to you in June" that could be prosecuted.

IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
17. I love your puppy.... she/he is a doll baby. nt
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 Wed Jul 30th 2014, 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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