John Dean on why he believes Cooper and Miller's testimony is sought:

[Zen Democrat]

And it's not about outing Valerie Plame. It's about perjury and obstruction of justice -- and possibly conspiracy.

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

-- snip --

For months, it has been rumored that Fitzgerald has found only a low-level leaker in the White House - one who seems not to have violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to disclose an undercover CIA operative. But it is only criminal if the leaker knew the name was classified, and that the CIA sought to keep it classified. (A low-level person might not have had this knowledge.)

If so, that's odd. Remember, Novak credited two "senior" Administration sources. But let's suppose it's true. In that event, it is quite likely - and many lawyers following the case believe - that the investigation has shifted to possible charges of perjury and/or obstruction of justice, more than likely by big fish.

That would explain Judge Hogan's comment that the focus of the investigation, according to the government affidavit, has shifted. It would explain why a seasoned prosecutor has gone after Miller and Cooper, and why a number of federal judges have seen no problem in his doing so.

Finally, it would also explain why Cooper and Miller might now be central players: Their testimony may be needed to make a case of perjury or obstruction of justice.

-- snip --

[Quixote1818]

1. It seems more and more this scandal spreads out to many players

just like with Watergate. If Fitzgerald can tie everything together this would be conspiracy to defraud the Government and heads would be rolling all over the place. Hopefully even Bush but certainly at least Cheney and Rove.

I don't want to get my hopes up though.

[postulater]

8. Help me with some background here, please

Who originally appointed Fitzgerald and why should we think that he is unbiased?

[Callalily]

2. Fitzgerald has been undaunted

in pursuing this issue. Hopefully he’ll continue his mission for truth. But I’m with you, I’m remaining cautiously optimistic.

[Zen Democrat]

3. Cautiously optimistic is a good term. But remember,

Special Prosecutors never like to come up empty on these investigations. A crime was committed -- that's why these SP's are appointed. Failing to uncover the truth equals a failed prosecution -- and I don't think Fitzgerald is going to come up empty. He's the tenacious type.

[Callalily]

4. I sincerely hope that you are right. n/t

[damntexdem]

5. It's pretty clear that M & C's testimony is necessary for some prosecution

The rest is conjecture about the contents of that prosecution. Whatever that prosecution, it is likely to be a big one.

Nixon, Clinton -- now it's our turn again.

[eleny]

6. I thought this section was important

"There is no privilege in the law that protects criminal activity. Not for lawyers, not for priests, not for doctors -- and not for journalists. And I believe it unlikely that the Supreme Court would create one with this case.

So Cooper and Miller will very probably have to decide whether to defy the law - and go to jail - or testify before the grand jury. They should testify: What a shame it would be if they were to go to jail to protect law-breakers in the White House."

Listening to talk radio this week, lawyer and journalist talk show hosts keep saying that journalists need to have privilege. Even Lionel, late last week, kept asking callers why can't journalists protect people (sources) like priests and attorneys. And last night, Nate Clay was asserting that journalist privilege was paramount. It looks like they both missed the point that no one has the privilege of protecting criminal activity. Unless Dean is wrong. I'm confused.

But if Dean is right, then there's no debating the issue. If Fitzgerald is pursuing criminal action in the White House over Plame, then Miller may be complicit in the crime and jail is the right place for her.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. An interesting comment from a writer in the Findlaw Message section--

I think the leaker will prove to be John Bolton because his area of responsiblity is Arms Control, his forte is exaggerating weapons threats and his modus operendi is punishing any analyst who disagrees with him. He may have had White House aproval, he may not, but perhaps he was rewarded with his nomination to be Ambassador to the U.N. He does what Bush & Cheney want so well. Besides, according to a recent letter (March 1, 2005) from Congressman Waxman to Congressman Shays, State Department records indicated that John Bolton was actively involved in the creation and promulgation of a "Fact Sheet' on the sale of urnaium from Niger to Iraq. Since he had such a high professional investment in promoting this falsehood, it would not seem out of character for him to want Ms.Plame "reassigned", to use his term for it.

Kathleen Grasso Andersen

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

10. Very interesting point

Might the names that Biden and Dodd have been asking for Ambassador Wilson and Valerie Plame.

I, like most others in this thread, remain cautiously optimistic of what this case will result in.

[Cha]

9. That would make all this

posturing by bob woodward..disingenuous at best.

Course, maybe he doesn't know :wtf: is going on..maybe he's outta the loop this time.