Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

E&P article re: Valerie Plame & how her testimony may be limited to Libby

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
DemsUnited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:23 AM
Original message
E&P article re: Valerie Plame & how her testimony may be limited to Libby
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:27 AM by DemsUnited
Read the whole article, but here's what caught my eye are some paragraphs which basically limit Plame's testimony to Scooter, no one else (like Bolton).

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.

It's even possible that it was Fitzgerald who ultimately "cracked," eager to produce indictments but with the grand jury session wrapping up without Miller's key testimony on Libby. Or, on the contrary, Miller might have finally blinked, fearing that the prosecutor would extend the life of the grand jury, leaving her behind bars for many more months.

It may become clear within a week whether Fitzgerald gets those indictments, or has negotiated any plea bargains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Plame's testimony???
Maybe you should re-think your thread title.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemsUnited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. OOPS -- Yes, I meant to say Miller's testimony in Plame investigation.
Early in morning, precoffee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. Uh, do you mean Miller's testimony? (N/T)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. A possible explanation for the limits on Miller's testimony.
Warning: The following comment is just a wild guess, speculation, conjecture. Take it with a grain of salt, please.

Could it be that Fitzgerald is trying to bring indictments for conspiracy, has sufficient evidence against another participant (or against other participants) and only needs Miller's testimony to implicate Libby? That is, could it be that more than one person was involved in outing Plame. Fitzgerald has a witness or two as to the other people or person who outed Plame and needs Miller's testimony against Libby to establish either that he participated in the conspiracy or, if there is only one other suspect, that the outing was not the act of one person, but was a conspiracy involving at least two people.

Conspiracy is not my area of expertise. I'm just wondering. Maybe a criminal attorney could comment? Am I way off the mark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. question:
If both Libby and Rove claim they didn't tell anyone Plame worked for the CIA - then WHO DID?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. That's the beauty and power of a conspiracy charge.
It's like getting a whole big basket of fruit instead of just a sack full of apples. The prosecutor will be able to put a lot of pressure on Libby and Rove and other suspects to give information. He can pick and choose what pressure he wants to put on whom.

Think prisoner's game. The first one to spill the beans may be able to get a deal. The others will get a raw deal. No conspirator can be certain about what the other suspects or the other suspects' lawyers have said or will say.

At first the conspirators make a deal to stay quiet or agree on a story, and they trust each other to remain loyal. But they will all be watching each other, as paranoid as can be. Gradually, the prosecutor will start letting them or their lawyers know subtly that he just might have a lot more information and evidence than they think. Then the paranoia gets really bad and each conspirator questions whether the other one is singing. Each is afraid of being the last to squeal, the one that takes the rap. That's when their alliance breaks down and, hopefully, the prosecutor can get to the truth.

It doesn't always work out well, but there is a good chance it will here. These guys have a lot to lose. They live like kings compared to the rest of us. They have great careers, wealthy friends, power. They walk into a room and heads turn, fat and ugly as they are. Sure they can get pardons, but do they want to risk it. And how can they be sure that their friends in high places won't fall either before or with them and not be able to deliver on the pardons after all.

Whoever outed Plame must be getting just a little edgy right now. They'd be best off just admitting the truth here and now, all of them, getting their pardons and starting over. They are about to find out what it feels like in Hell.

Of course, they may have already decided to blame the whole thing on just one of them and be done with it. That's the deluxe version of the prisoners' game. Choose a patsy and get it over with. Wouldn't put it past Rove to get out with that strategy. He could persuade the rest that the future of the Bush administration depends on him and it's better to sacrifice someone else, not him. If that is the case, the patsy will probably plea bargain and get pardoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I Think You're On The Right Track
I think Fitz may be looking for corroborating evidence if for nothing else than to put the squeeze on the likes of Libby and Rove. After all, there is very little discussion about who supplied them with the info, or was the source of it. Neither of those two, I believe, had the security clearance at the time to cherry pick the intel. Bolton did and I'm sure hoping he is indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Right.
Keep in mind that this is just the grand jury. What is going to count more is what happens in the criminal trials. Judith is just being used to firm up the foundation .... which gives new meaning to the concept of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. Nice to know that the indictments are on the way.
Sounds like Fitzgerald got tired of waiting, saw Delay get nailed, and wanted to wrap this up before deadline. Good for him. Miller can't be the lynchpin to this case, so there's no need to hold it up for her.

I get the impression that she talked to Rove too, and that's what Fitzgerald wanted, but he finally decided that he could still make the case without it, and would rather just get on with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. Fitzgerald is a thorough guy
If all he needed was her testimony against Libby, then that is all he needed to corroborate other stuff.

Otherwise, she would still be in lockup. He has other stuff...Judy Miller is not the base for the entire case. Just one of the cogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
11. An alternative theory about why Miller only had to testify about
Libby. Maybe the prosecutor is looking for a perjury charge against Libby. Let's say Libby's testimony contradicted the testimony of one or more other witnesses. Miller's testimony as to what Libby told her could be crucial to determining whether Libby or the other witness or witnesses was telling what really happened. Just another theory, as lacking in factual or evidentiary basis as my first one. Just another guess. Can't help wondering. This is an intriguing puzzle.
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 Tue Jul 25th 2017, 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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