Tuesday, July 11, 2006


Plame Game - Spinning Insane -IV

Novak speaks about the who and what of his testimony to Fitzgerald (Yawn).

But I find this interesting:

"A mystery had swirled around Novak because he refused to say for 2 1/2 years whether he had testified while other journalists in the case -- Miller, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, NBC's Tim Russert and, it was later disclosed, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward -- appeared before Fitzgerald, sometimes under duress.

Seems the one's that weren't fully cooperating with Fitz weren't Rove or even Libby, but the reporters involved. So who are the real bad guys and gals here?

Call it Arrogance.

Heh..Pete Yost writing in the WAPO:

"WASHINGTON -- Now that Karl Rove won't be indicted, now that the president won't fire him, now that it really doesn't matter anymore, more details of the Valerie Plame leak investigation trickle out.

In his latest syndicated column released Wednesday, columnist Robert Novak revealed his side of the story in the Plame affair, saying Rove was a confirming source for Novak's story outing the CIA officer, underscoring Rove's role in a leak President Bush once promised to punish."

Let's get this together. At the end of 2 1/2 years, there has been no one indicted for "outing" Plame because as I will tell you over and over again that Plame couldn't be outed, she wasn't "covert" - end of the story. Rove simply confirmed the buzz that a lot of people knew - that Plame sent her husband on a boondoggle missing to discredit the Bush Administration in a time of war. Again, Bush didn't have to fire him simply because there is no law in telling the truth. The Wilson/Plame cabal is the real story here, and if lady Justice get's her day, so will they.

UPDATE II: Novak's column here. Same end of story:

"Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis."

So again, no secret, not covert. The only question now is who is going to tell the Plame Game story. That to come.


UPDATE IV: Clarice Feldman brings the house on Fitzgerald in her newest on American Thinker:

"If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and that it wasn’t Libby or Rove, why did he later call them to testify before the grand jury? Was it simply to determine whether he could trap them into making perjurious statements, something the law does not permit?

If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and knew it wasn’t Libby, why in August of 2004 did he represent to the Court that Miller’s testimony was “essential to determine whether or not Lewis Libby… has committed crimes involving the improper disclosure of national defense information or perjury”? Keep in mind that Miller spent considerable time behind bars to compel her testimony.

If Fitzgerald has known since January 12, 2004 of the name of the leaker, why is he still protecting him, and why is he treating the leaker’s (that is, Armitage’s) source, who is almost certainly Marc Grossman, former Under Secretary of State for political affairs, the man reportedly the source for the first accusations against Libby and Rove, as an impartial witness to the events? In the discovery process it turned out that Grossman was a longtime friend of Wilson’s, dating to their college days at the University of California—Santa Barbara. Is it likely that the famous prosecutor missed this fact?

Finally (and I hope to report more fully on this soon) what role, exactly, did former Deputy Attorney General Comey, who set up this extra-statutory (and I think unconstitutional) appointment of his friend Patrick Fitzgerald, play in steering Fitzgerald toward the mistaken notion that Libby was lying, not Wilson or the CIA? How hard did his office work to ascertain the truth of the essential elements of the referral—that Plame was covert and that there had been harm to national security in the disclosure of her name—when the prosecutor fudged those issues in the indictment and at the press conference announcing it and has since backed off of those claims at all? Was that office simply trying to hamstring the Vice President’s office which it viewed as a rival for the President’s ear in determining the legal policies to be employed in fighting the war on terror? Did the statement of Congressman Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed in the New York Times, to the effect that the Plame case was a set up by an anti-Administration clique in the CIA finally persuade Fitzgerald that he’s been badly misled once again into indicting an innocent man?

Get 'em girl! Clarice also details the inconsistencies myself and others have pointed out in the testimony - not of Rove and Libby - but of REPORTERS. Especially of Cooer told you back here, has more involvement in this than meets the eye.

Subscribe by Email

Follow Updates Articles from This Blog via Email

No Comments

Powered by Blogger.


Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Blog Archive



Pages - Menu

Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio


Go here.