Plame Game - End Game II

"Ok, we're down to the wire Mr. Fitzgerald? What is you're verdict?"

That seems to be the edict from the MSM this last week. Chris Matthews holding preliminary Plamegate hearings on his show Hardball last week on, when on Wednesday's show NBC News's Andrea Mitchell threw this out:

"And except that this really is a crisis for journalism. Maybe it‘s inside baseball, but journalism has been laid bare and what people have seen is not very pleasant. And the situation at the “New York Times,” all of the controversy over Judith Miller—there is going to be testimony tomorrow. She is supposed to testify about whether or not there should be a shield for journalists. These are not good times for journalists."

Andrea's third-degree of separation.

According to this story in the Washington Post, and not mentioned in any timelines I've come across, it tells us, that the initial investigation into the leak was finished in October 2004 - just prior to the election.

Actually I was surprised today when a commentor on the this blog mentioned this article, and there it was the above article in the side bar.

You see, most of my "theory" of a CIA/MSM plot has been based on what I knew back last year what this article told us. I thought everyone knew this. Well, if you didn't know it, you know it now.

"The special prosecutor investigating whether Bush administration officials illegally revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative says he finished his investigation months ago, except for questioning two reporters who have refused to testify.

The information in a March 22 court filing by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald suggests that syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published the name of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, has already spoken to investigators about his sources for that report, according to legal experts. Novak, whose July 2003 column sparked the investigation, and his attorney have refused to comment on whether he was questioned.

Legal experts and sources close to the case also speculated yesterday that Fitzgerald is not likely to seek an indictment for the crime he originally set out to investigate: whether a government official knowingly exposed a covert officer. The sources, who asked not to be named because the matter is the subject of a grand jury investigation, said Fitzgerald may instead seek to charge a government official with committing perjury by giving conflicting information to prosecutors.

Fitzgerald's filing was part of his effort to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that he needs the testimony of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper to wrap up his investigation.

The two reporters and their news organizations have refused to discuss their confidential sources with prosecutors. They appealed to the full court after a three-judge panel ruled last month that Miller and Cooper should be held in contempt and face possible jail unless they agree to be questioned before a grand jury.

In the court documents, Fitzgerald said that by October 2004, "the factual investigation -- other than the testimony of Miller and Cooper . . . was for all practical purposes complete."

In fact, it would have been complete had Time Inc (Cooper) and the NY Times (Miller) not fought the prosecutor. So the natural question to ask is, "Why all this extra time?" Fitzgerald filed the document saying, "Look, I'm done, I just need these two to testify and we all go home!"

So to the answer of what has taken so long, the obvious answer is that simply he obviously found descrepancies in the what he knew from other witnesses before Cooper and Miller testified, and what he knew so far when he filed that paper. Yet you'll notice he never recinded it, therefore the initial leak investigation was still not the question. In reality, since July when Cooper started to cooperate and recently with Miller, Fitz now can finish up.

Now of course the MSM is all a gaga about Libby and Rove and perjury and obstruction, but that a lot of nonsense. I've never seen someone get a perjury rap who had so many chances to testify. In my experience with Grand Juries ( and they can be hard to figure out), those who end up in trouble aren't the one's who repeatedly testify, but those who don't.

No doubt what we have at this point is a bunch of "he said, she said, and then he said that she said". Judy then puts a nail in it by saying, "Hell I don't know who told me" and leaves to write her book.

However, over the last week I've noticed something. First, I know for a solid fact that there are some people who don't work in the White House who are sweating bullets right now. For all the media recreation of the events taking place, I know that one of the first things the FBI and Fitz's office did was tear Langley apart.

Already you see that some in the media know what is really going to happen. Almost to a pen the MSM has turned on Judy Miller - even her editor casting her to the side. Yet as AJ Strata tells us, Judy by her testimony implicated Kristofand from him I can tell you the ball rolls downhill.

Time Magazine managing editor stepping down (said it was planned - yeah, Ok). It's going to be something to see this week as it becomes apparent that what they though, isn't what it's going to be.

So where are we? Like Andrea said, the "Beginning of a crisis for Journalism". The MSM has been looking to relieve their perceived "glory" of Watergate. Yet when it's said and done, it's going to be more like "Media-gate".

Filed under: