Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case - John Dean at Findlaw

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
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 12:47 PM
Original message
A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case - John Dean at Findlaw
A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case:
Insights Gained From The New Edition of The Book by Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
By JOHN W. DEAN

snip

Reading Joe Wilson's book, in combination with the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-war failures of the American intelligence community helps clear away some of the fog. In part, that's because Wilson's publisher, Carroll & Graf, retained Russ Hoyle -- an investigative reporter who has been a senior editor at the New York Daily News, Time magazine, and the New Republic - to do what it might be inappropriate for Wilson himself to do: look into the government's investigation of the leak of his wife's identity.

Hoyle's report - included in the paperback edition of the book - notes that "There is little question that the investigation of the White House leaks is now hostage to Fitzgerald's campaign to force Cooper and Miller to testify." But, again, why?

Other information provided in Hoyle's report provides insight. Hoyle writes that Washington Post reporter Walter "Pincus, for example, reportedly confirmed the time, date, and length of his conversation with a source…, but Pincus would not reveal his or her identity."

Hoyle continues, "That lent credence to reports that Fitzgerald had subpoenaed records of every contact that White House personnel had had with reporters during the period in question and was engaged in a meticulous search to match such times and dates with records of meetings and telephone calls between reporters and Bush officials gleaned from calendars and telephone logs."

more
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html


:evilgrin:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. One of the "big fish" has to be Rove. Who is the other? Cheney?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Maybe John Bolt-on?
Bwaaahahahaha!

Really, he was a nonprolif guy, had means and motive etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And he has a history of making life hell for strong women
Hey, Newsweek get all kinds of shit for a story which had been commented on elsewhere for two friggin years yet Novak is still on TV? Why aren't we screaming about that too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Scooter (Libby) from the get go
has been said to be either the fall guy or the real perp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. Dean raised the possibility of the Court taking this as a stalling action
From the link, down in the section subtitled, "Could the Supreme Court Become Complicit In Bush Administration Misdeeds?" (to which I would add, "Again?")

For this reason, a Court decision to docket the case should raise deep suspicions. This, after all, is the Court that installed Bush and Cheney in the White House with its dubious Bush v. Gore ruling. Delaying this case until the backside of Bush's second term could give the White House a pass through the mid-term elections as well.

Such delay, then, would suggest complicity by the conservative bloc (those most likely to take the case) of the Court in Administration crimes.


Back when Scalia went duck hunting with Cheney, while Cheney had business before the court, Scalia said it was okay because the two were "long-term friends" or "old friends." Scalia never mentioned this when he was helping install his friend in office back in 2000.

But judges recuse themselves as they see fit and the standards are vague. They are supposed to concern themselves with the appearance of impropriety. The hair that Scalia split in Duckgate was that he could hear Cheney's case as it related to his "official capacity" and not a personal one in which his friend could be facing penalties.

SO, my question is this: IF this case eventually winds up before the Supreme Court and Scalia recuses himself, can we not infer that just maybe one the "senior" members is Mr. Cheney?... not that it will do us any good. Apparently hell is going to freeze over before any of these evil f*s are actually held accountable, but interesting, no?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Scalia will never recuse himself from a case like that
He will merely claim that he can maintain his "unbiased" perspective, just like he has on the two occasions you cite. Scalia is a shit of the worst kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Fitzgerald went down this blind alley for one reason...
...to sandbag past the November 2nd election. And mission accomplished. Any second year APA would have had Novak's source indicted by June 2004, but, alas, that was not part of Fitzgerald's instruction.

Miller and Cooper are nothing more than roadkill for the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I agree, farmbo.
Nothing will ever come of Plamegate, or any of the other crimes committed by this atrocious republican-ruled country. This country is being run by a thuggish mafia, plain and simple. They never pay for their crimes, because they've bought and paid for all the cops and the judges.

America was once a great country. :cry:

:kick::kick::kick:
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 Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:00 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