Miller testimony to end grand jury CIA probe

[UpInArms]

When do the indictments come out?

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1578d752-31ef-11da-9c7f-00000e2511c8.html

A US grand jury investigation into whether White House officials broke the law by exposing a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative is set to conclude after testimony on Friday from a New York Times reporter.

<snip>

The conclusion of the investigation could multiply the woes of President George W. Bush if it results in indictments against one or more of his officials. It follows the resignation of Tom DeLay as House Republican leader after a Texas criminal indictment this week for alleged campaign finance fraud, and continued fall-out from the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The probe, led by Chicago prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, was launched after a newspaper columnist in 2003 printed the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent. Mr Fitzgerald is investigating whether White House officials illegally disclosed Ms Plame's name in order to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

<snip>

The two-year investigation could end this month with no charges being laid. But any indictments could prove damaging for the administration, which has so far escaped political consequences for misleading Congress and the public in the run-up to the war by insisting Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons.

...more...

[eagler]

1. Are the Bushes related to Nixon?

nt

[goforit]

20. Yes they are.

When you research the Backround, you'll find that
Poppy Bush worked for Kissinger while under Nixon.

Poppy also expected to be VP during the Nixon Presidency
but was turned down by Nixon.

Nixon never liked Poppy.

As crazy and as mean as a SOB Nixon was, I do give him credit
for rejecting Poppy.

And I do believe Rumsfeld and Cheney go back with Nixon.

I wouldn't be surprised if they set Nixon up for the big fall.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Wasn't Cheney

on Nixon's staff?

[gulfcoastliberal]

26. Reagan didn't like him either,

It was pure blackmail that got him on the ticket instead of Ford. Poppy had been CIA director and I'm sure had all kinds of juicy info of Ronnies Hollywood antics.

[johannes1984]

28. yip

cheney was working for rummy at the OEO under nixon .He got transfered to nato right before that shitstorm hit ....rummy got the nato job as a calmer ....he wanted to be VP ..and therefore send GB to the cia ...because it ensured GHB wouldn't run for VP .he had to say so before the commitee .it's all a long running line ....one story ....they have an insider name for themselves too ,...the vulcans :D funny innit

[texpatriot2004]

2. YES!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[MGKrebs]

3. The GJ issues the indictments, and

today is the last day of the session, so if there were going to be indictments, it should be today, right? Unless they need a day or two to process paperwork or something.

edit: Actually, the GJ term was to end Oct. 28, but Fitzgerald had said previously that the investigation was essentially complete except for Miller's testimony.

[leftchick]

8. I thought it was Oct. 28....

so they have a few more weeks.

[babylonsister]

4. This would be an absolutely charming Friday night

news dump! :bounce: :bounce::bounce:

[seemslikeadream]

5. I wonder who is the source for that?

"set to conclude after testimony on Friday from a New York Times reporter"

[babylonsister]

7. Another thread says the beans will be spilled next week,

per David Schuster on Hardball.

[seemslikeadream]

9. Her agreement to testify suggests that Fitzgerald is winding up

The grand jury's term ends Oct. 28



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aylpO0HhUh9Y&refer=top_world_news

Her agreement to testify suggests that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is winding up his investigation into whether someone in President George W. Bush's administration revealed the name of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame to reporters in July 2003.

...

Bernard Grimm, a Washington criminal defense lawyer, said Fitzgerald would not have gone to the ``extraordinary lengths'' of jailing Miller unless he was pursuing a serious criminal investigation.

``There obviously has to be something larger going on for him to take this kind of action,'' Grimm said. ``When you lock up a reporter, you're essentially locking up the First Amendment, and no prosecutor is going to do that in any kind of casual way.''

Fitzgerald said in court papers in June that the probe is mostly complete except for an interview of Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper. Cooper testified in July; the grand jury's term ends Oct. 28.


...

`Intense Negotiations'

The newspaper said on its Web site that Miller's lawyers had ``intense negotiations'' with Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, that were ``sometimes strained.''

Robert Bennett, Miller's lawyer, said that Libby made contact with her on Sept. 19 and authorized ``her to go forward.''

``This was the first time that there was this personal communication,'' Bennett said today on CNN. He said Miller didn't attempt to make contact with her source for permission to testify because such an approach may have looked like an attempt at ``coercion.''

[MidwestTransplant]

10. You have a link to that thread?

Shuster seems to be in the know on this.

Thanks

[babylonsister]

11. Yep, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2126043

[MidwestTransplant]

14. Thanks!

[lancdem]

21. Could you provide a link to that thread?

Thanks!

[babylonsister]

24. Up 2 responses, or here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2126043

[longship]

6. This is Grrrrrrreat!! Ooops!

Article provides no source for this information. It doesn't say "somebody close to the investigation said..." or anything else.

It merely says, "...set to conclude..." without citation of a source.

Although it might be true, I am wary of such speculative verbage.

[Rageneau]

12. This story is already being "spun" before our very eyes.

Reporters, through ineptitude or corruption, are missing the critical revelation from this story -- a fact that explains why Miller went to jail and why she stayed there so long, even though Scooter's lawyer said she knew all along she could walk free.

Deal is, it wasn't Libby (alone) that Miller was protecting. There are OTHER people that Miller talked to. It is those people she is protecting. Note the excerpt from the following article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092901974.html

"One lawyer involved in the case said Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions solely to Miller's conversations with Libby."

There are hints of the above "deal" in many of the stories out today. But Methinks any references to this critical fact will soon disappear from the MSM. After today, the spin will be that this deal involved Miller and Libby only. But that won't wash.

Because unless she was protecting someone BESIDES Libby (who had released her from her confidentiality pledge), Miller didn't need to go to jail in the first place. Nor did she have to stay there. Nor would she need to make a "special" deal like the one she made in order to get out. And the idea that her high-priced lawyers wouldn't know that -- or inquire into it -- or figure it out inside a week or so -- is absurd. (Although I admit that Bob Bennett is a pretty crappy lawyer, considering the job he did for Clinton.)

Ergo, there IS somebody besides Libby involved! Ergo, Miller is still protecting somebody. And all this blather about neither side's lawyers understanding what the TRUE situation was is just BS. Spin. Misdirection.

I suspect that Miller talked to both Libby and Cheney about Plame. I further suspect that Miller's deal with Fitzgerald is that (by testifying truthfully) she will sink Scooter and ONLY Scooter.

What I hope (evil me) is that Miller gives up Libby, whom Fitzgerald threatens with so much jail time that Libby can officially testifies against Cheney before he has his mysterious death in a plane crash.

[powwowdancer]

13. I like the way you think

The bit about cheney's plane crash was great. Old "hummingbird heart" might find his tit in the ringer yet!

:dem:
powwowdancer out

[leveymg]

15. No need to crash aircraft - his pacemaker can fail. His heart already did

Besides, no one would believe that Scooter did a thing without telling his boss, the ultimate detail man and control freak.

Cheney is going down soon, one way or another - if only into early retirement on the Maryland Eastern Shore after he's pardoned. Of course, that will be the end of Bush, as the Republican leadership (those who aren't in jail) clamour for his resignation to save what's left of the Party before the '06 elections.

[Demoiselle]

17. I don't believe that Fitz would give up a perp.....

..Unless he's NOT the straight shooting hard worker we think he is....why would he give Miller a deal to protect somebody else? He can slam her with a felony contempt charge, he can get a judge to prolong the investigation (Sure sounds like it, anyway, from the strong language the judge who sent Miller to jail used about serious wrongdoing in this case. ) I find it hard to believe any witness could get a prosecutor to give her a deal like that..."I'll give you perp A if you let me protect perp B." But then all I know about the law is whaI I see on Law and Order.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. maybe he is doing that

Knowing that nailing perp A gives him a means of hitting perp B.

[MADem]

19. I am on the same page as you are wrt Big Dick nt

[goforit]

22. Would if Barbara Olsen appeared on the scene?

LOL!!!....just a long shot.

[anotherdrew]

27. what if Judith Miller IS Barbara Olsen?! ? LOL

can't find pics atm

[seemslikeadream]

16. Fitz is planning on extending the grand jury

Arianna says that Fitz is planning on extending the grand jury


www.commondreams.org/views05/0930-24.htm



Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens
by Arianna Huffington

It’s time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking points.

The claim that Miller “has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver” is laughable… and, indeed, has already been laughed at by 1) my increasingly frustrated sources within the Times 2) a chorus of voices in the blogosphere (see here, here, and here) and 3) (and much more significantly) Joseph Tate, Scooter Libby’s lawyer, who told the Washington Post yesterday that he informed Miller’s attorney, Floyd Abrams, a year ago that Libby’s waiver “was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify”.

So it defies credulity for Miller, Sulzberger, and Bill Keller to keep insisting that Libby’s earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it wasn’t. I don’t have much good to say about the vice president’s chief of staff, but I don’t doubt that he knows the difference between being coerced and acting on his own free will. How deep is the Times’ contempt for its readers that they really think they’ll buy the “Oh, Judy finally has the right waiver” line?

The truth of the matter is there is no way that the New York Times editorial claiming “it should be clear…that Ms. Miller is not going to change her mind” can be squared with Ms. Miller changing her mind. And there is no way to accept at face value Miller’s grandstanding about “fighting for the cause of the free flow of information.” Who is she still trying to convince? Herself?

...

What made her refuse Libby’s waiver when it was first offered but accept it now? (Especially since Judge Hogan had told Miller that “she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she ‘alleges she is protecting’ had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.”)

Was Miller’s sudden eagerness to find a get-out-of-jail excuse prompted by Fitzgerald’s planning to ask for an extension of the grand jury?

...

And so we don’t forget what this story is really about, and given that the aluminum tubes crap that Miller put on the front page of the New York Times was being heavily promoted by Cheney, how much of that bogus information came to Miller via Libby?

And here are a few questions for the Times:

Had a Plame/Wilson story been assigned to Miller or not?

What, if anything, did she say about the story to anyone at the paper at the time… and what did they say back?

Why did the Times hold back the story about Miller’s release and let multiple other news sources scoop them? Were they trying to miss the evening news cycle and avoid the overnight thrashing their spin has rightly received?




I wanted to know that too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4935884&mesg_id=4935884

[jaysunb]

18. This is the best part...

But any indictments could prove damaging for the administration, which has so far escaped political consequences for misleading Congress and the public in the run-up to the war by insisting Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons.

The truth has an irrepressable nature !