Judy Miller Being Released To Testify IS ALL GOOD!!! THINK ABOUT IT!!!

[Beetwasher]

If Judy lies, how does she know Fitz won't catch her in a perjury trap???? She takes a big chance if she lies, she has NO idea what Fitz already knows. Only good can come out of this. Indictments are so close I can taste them.

[wtmusic]

1. She's had a taste of life in the can

and she's prolly had enough about now.

She'll come clean.

[back2basics909]

4. .. no way, i wish, but its a fantasy..

.. they are backed in to a very small corner. They will, at this stage, do ANYTHING. They have little to loose. This is a bad sign IMHO. They are very vocal, and it's not spin. They have something.

[Beetwasher]

10. Ppppffffffftttttt!!!!

The fantasy is yours. I suppose you think Fitz has been wasting his time. Get real.

[Mr_Spock]

17. Some just see only negative. Like there was some "other" solution

that they knew would be best but nobody else could ever imagine :eyes:

It just makes me roll my eyes when I hear the "oh, dear, oh, my - something will go wrong - I just know it"

SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!

:D

[back2basics909]

37. Also don't be a dick..

.. I am glad you think there is room for optimism. But in reality so far we are just a little closer, no indictments yet and the investigation is not actually over.

It's like everybody thinks this investigation has run it's course and it's just tying up loose ends. That's not the case, we have no information to say that. If he didn't need Miller, we would have a indictments already. So he needs her. Again pessimism is not a bad trait, lashing out at other with the same goals as you is.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. She won't lie

If she does, her next confinement ought to be in a hospital for the criminally insane.

Miller has already been knifed in the back at least twice by her Republican patrons. They let her go to jail, and they "neglected" to get her sprung for about three months. That's a mighty long time to twist in the wind.

From what I've heard, they now have enough evidence to see through any lie she could tell. From this point on, it would appear that it's all damage control for the White House.

I hope the rats have been practicing their swimming technique.

--p!

[back2basics909]

8. She has also..

.. been attacked by us, visted by them (the neo-cons) and held out so long. She has a good story. We will get hit by at least two of these stories. My guess is DeLay and The Plame issues will be ripped apart. They have a long time to think.

[Beetwasher]

12. Your Guess?

LOL! Your guess is worthless.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ladyhawk]

42. Personal attacks are NOT okay. n/t

[back2basics909]

45. Thank you.

[Beetwasher]

46. Heh?

"Don't be a dick"

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr_Spock]

20. THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Oh my God!!! Run for your lives - we're all gonna die!!

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Doesn't matter, though

So much shit is hitting the fan that Tom Delay could be acquitted and the Plame Affair could go away, and there would still be enough whoop-ass left in the can to destroy the Bush junta.

I'm not certain that even another 9-11 type of event could help them out. If Osama bin Laden himself pushed the nuclear button on prime-time TV and caused NYC to turn into a lake of fire, people would immediately wonder how deep Bush was involved.

I have been wrong about political donnybrooks before, but this isn't a single-point political game, or even a bunch of 'em -- it's a sea-change. It is the political skin on a social and cultural change driven by both our increase in technological and intellectual prowess and the oncoming challenges of "peak oil" and a major climate change.

The only big decision left for any Bushista is to decide whether to cut and run early, or hang on and be trampled later.

--p!

[Gman]

3. It's all getting very interesting right now

October will be an interesting month.

:popcorn:

[Pirate Smile]

5. Of course it is good. Who is saying it isn't?

edit to add - I've obviously missed some threads.

[Beetwasher]

9. Just Take A Look In This Thread

n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

6. All together now....Anticipation.....is making me wait.

Savor the build-up before eating. Let's set the formal table, get some great lighting, enjoy good music, put on some great clothes and watch it together!

We want it to be air tight and nobody escapes the searchlight of truth or Justice! Our reality show has been going so badly, we need to have more than one episode of watching Democracy.

So let's snack first, just to take the edge off...:popcorn:

[Hardrada]

25. My wife thinks I snack too much

but if there are more indictments I will eat a whole cake!

[cynatnite]

7. Always know the answers...

That's what I've heard from lawyers and Fitz wouldn't go this far for nothing.

[SeattleGirl]

32. True

It is said that they won't ask a question they don't already know the answer to. They do get caught flat-footed, of course, but I am betting that Ronnie Earle would not have handed otu this indictment if he did not feel he was stanging on pretty solid ground. And methinks the Rethug talking points ain't gonna fly on the witness stand.

[TNMOM]

11. She and Libby have their stories

"fixed," I'm convinced of it. No way the rethugs give in this easy.

[Beetwasher]

13. They Have No Idea What Fitz Knows

Fitz is not an idiot and they would be setting themselves up for a perjury trap. Miller is not the only reporter talking or testifying. People seem to forget that.

[Disturbed]

16. Is it logical?

She had about a week or so left to serve and now she agrees to testify? Nope, it does not make a bit of sense. She was told that she would go on trial for criminal obstruction or another charge that could lead to a year or more in an actual prison. There is no reason for her to cooperate at this late date except a carrot or a stick. Think about that.

[Beetwasher]

19. Exactly

It only makes sense for Fitz to have her released if he's getting something. She's testifying, she's been released and if she lies in her testimony, she's probably fucked. Other reporters have testified. She has no idea what Fitz knows. It would be very dangerous for her to lie.

[CoffeeCat]

23. Are you saying...

...that Fitzgerald has let her know that he has something--and that is why Judy is agreeing to talk?

I agree that there really is no reason for her cooperation. I didn't realize she only had a week or so left to serve!

Something is up!

Any light you can shed on this would be most helpful! I've been taking care of two small kidlets with the flu and I've barely had time to catch my breath.

Thanks for any info...I'll hunt around here for more dirt, too! :)

[Garbo 2004]

31. I suspect it's more like Fitz let her know that criminal contempt charges

were next on the menu. Civil contempt is leverage to "persuade" people to talk. If they are willing to talk they're off the hook. Criminal contempt is primarily punitive.

[mmonk]

44. That's correct

"Releasing her from confidentiality" is nothing more than republicans blowing smoke. She can serve time or sing, her only two options. In fact, we really don't know what all the things that Fitz can charge her with are. She may be in deeper than conventional pundits are saying.

[Imagevision]

51. Kick & Recommend

[longship]

22. The leak is a fact!

At minimum, somebody in this administration violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act. It was discussed on Air Farce One on the way to Africa--Fitz supoenaed the phone logs. WHIG is deeply involved in this. That means conspiracy charges on top of the rest. The White House, promising to investigate this, has claimed all along that they can't find the leaker. Fitz knows who the leaker is, and it is somebody *very* close to the President. This means a two year cover-up which likely goes right to the top. That means obstruction of justice charges and probably more conspiracy charges. Then, there's a minor matter of perjury. But wait, with all these other things floating around, we might as well sweeten the perjury pot by adding charges of conspiracy to suborn.

This thing gets big no matter which way you slice it. A vast proportion of the West Wing may be under indictment before the next month closes.
This may include a sitting executive and his vice president.

[WinkyDink]

35. I love you.

That was just so pretty in print!

[halobeam]

48. LOL!!

:rofl:

[truebrit71]

54. As I've said all along...I think Fitz is hunting big game...

...REALLY big game...

You don't think all of this was just to get turd-blossom and Scooter do you?

Really?

Think about it for a second. Who do those two guys work for? Aren't their bosses RENOWNED for being vindictive, spiteful bastards?

Do you think, for one moment, that NO-ONE but Scooter and Rove in the WH knew what was going on? Nope. This came from the top. The very top.

Fitz is hunting big game, and I think that it won't be long before some of them start trying to grab life-jackets as the ship goes down....

You know the funniest part? If the indictments come out soon, the republicans will have shot themselves in the foot. By rejecting the idea of a congressional investigation, whereby they could have granted immunity from prosecution for any of the testifying weasels, their blind faith in Lt AWOL's teflon bullshit, means that these guys (Scooter, Rove and whomever else) have been left wide-open, with no protection against prosecution...

[CANDO]

104. Presidential Pardons

If he doesn't shoot for the top, they'll just be pardoned, end of story.

[Mr_Spock]

14. I'm just glad it's moving again...

I'm not gonna be a grumpy negative pants and start coming up with wild crazy negative assumption schemes as to what's going on. I ALWAYS assume that nothing will come of this or any case - but if any of them do come to indictments - it's BIG news. Let's hope for the best - we have no other coice but to hope for the best. I can't understand what people who see something negative in this are thinking - what other better outcome were they waiting for anyway?? See, if you don't have an alternative "better" outcome then I say the negative people here should just shut up.

[Dr. Death]

38. Your point is well taken, but

it's not just that a lot of us are negative, we're just so used to getting our hopes up and then dashed that it's tough to believe that something good might actually happen.

As much as I want to believe that this will take down this corrupt administration, they've screwed us so many times that I'm afraid they will find a way to weasel out of this one too.

[earth mom]

50. Exactly-they've weaseled out of everything...and they just keep winning.

Rove is always 10 steps ahead of everyone else....

It's been a discouraging, frustrating, scary, and deadly 4 1/2 years.

[Beetwasher]

53. Oh Please

Rove is not omniscient, he's a thug and he's way out his league here.

[earth mom]

62. If Rove is such an easy to catch thug, why isn't he in jail already? nt

[Beetwasher]

67. Is That A Rhetorical Question?

Seriously? Why aren't a lot of criminals who are friends w/ the President in jail?

[earth mom]

81. Don't underestimate Rove or the rest of the BFEE.

Is all I've been trying to say since my initial post.

Jeez, gotta ask, but why are you jumping all over me? I want to see Rove and the BFEE go down in the worst possible way! But, while I believe in Fitz, I know that Rove and the rest of the BFEE must be feeling very nervous right now and a bit desperate too.

And you know what they say about desperate people...they are capable of anything.

[Beetwasher]

84. Not Jumping on You

Sorry if you thought so.

I just don't think Rove is as brilliant as many think. Desperate? Yes. But desperation more often leads to stupidity than salvation.

[earth mom]

90. Now that's a lovely angle I hadn't thought of! :) nt

[longship]

15. Federal perjury == 18 months in prison.

After this little taste of government prison system love, I'm sure she'll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Some prominent West Wingers are going down, and going down hard.

[texpatriot2004]

34. I understand that people have already committed perjury and

obstruction of justice in this "culture of corruption" we have.

[thereismore]

18. The truth cannot hurt us. This can only be good. n/t

[Halliburton]

21. she'd be stupid to lie

that's for sure. Fitz a lot of information that could be compared to anything inconsistent in her testimony. I think she is willing to lie for them but after 4 months of jail, she should know better.

[CoffeeCat]

26. I heard today that Judy's decision to talk, was based solely...

...on her source urging her to "tell what you know."

I'm really confused. I don't get that.

Why would her source (obviously, a WH higher up) urge her to sing--when she only has a week or so left on her jail term????

Is all of that fabrication????

It would seem to me--that Fiztgerald (or someone involved in the investigation) said, "Look Judy. We've got x, y, z. These people are going down. Tell us what you know, reveal your source--and you won't go down with them."

Maybe she called her source to let them know "they know everything and they've got proof" and then the source told her she was free to talk.

Then again, maybe I'm confused... :)

Does anyone else see it this way?

[Beetwasher]

27. That Particular Part Is Bullshit Spin

Libby doesn't really have a choice. "Tell them what you know".

"Maybe she called her source to let them know "they know everything and they've got proof" and then the source told her she was free to talk."

Correct. You certainly DO understand, you're not confused, you got it! Or something close!;-)

Fitz probably threatened her w/ more jail, told her he essentially already knows what he needs to know and she could be part of the indicted or get some sort of deal for her testimony. Libby had no choice really. He can TRY to spin it now at least as "Well, I released her because I didn't think I had anything to hide", or some such nonsense.

[CoffeeCat]

28. So....Libby is definitely Judy's source? Was that revealed today?

Thanks for your input and for helping me to clarify.

I've been taking care of two sick kids today--so I didn't get the full scoop on Judy.

I appreciate the insight!

[Beetwasher]

29. My Pleasure, Ma'am!

Yes, it would certainly seem that way, since he is who she spoke to before being released from jail and its being reported that she was released because her source released her from her confidentiality and she is testifying, tomorrow!!!

[flyarm]

33. well on ny and philly news they said she spoke to cheney!

when the story was breaking this afternoon philly and ny news both said she spoke to cheney ..not libby when she was released!

fly

[back2basics909]

52. Thats exactly where this is going..

.. firstly she agreed to a limited amount of questioning. That's in just about all of the papers this morning. Limited questioning, she set exactly what she wanted to be asking. Why? Why would she do that if she is not also trying to stop questioning on something else?

It's been said that Libby, did not say the name, but more importantly he only said she worked for the CIA. He is claiming that he did not know she was undercover. Knowingly outing an undercover agent is the law.

So exactly what do you think the charges will be?

[Beetwasher]

56. You Seem To Think Fitz Is An Idiot

You seem to ignore the fact that a whole lot of other evidence is involved in this case. Lot's of other people have testified like Cooper, Russert, Novak, Fleischer etc. There's phone records, memos, reporters notes (other than Miller's). 2 years+ worth of evidence and digging by Fitz.

I know that a prosecutor does not tenaciously hang onto a case for this long unless he's got something.

What do I think the charges will be? There's a whole range of possible charges, I really have no idea. Fitz is not an idiot prosecutor like Ken Starr. He's kept his case tight to his chest and that' smart and it means Bushco. probably has no idea either.

You're wrong about "knowingly" outing an undercover agent. Totally wrong. That's NOT the law. Do some research. There's also obstruction of justice. Perjury. Lying to Federal Agents etc. A whole slew of things.

Judy may not be able to afford to lie. She has no idea what Fitz knows. She would not have been released if Fitz wasn't getting what he needed.

[back2basics909]

57. I don't think he is an idiot...

.. I live in Chicago. I see almost every day his name in the paper.. another successful prosecution.

It is knowingly. I do not need to do any further research. It's clear, and the wording is exactly that "knowingly". That's for the conspiracy charge (which is what most people think he is going for, go read Kos, or TPM), which is exactly why I want you to say what charge you think it is he is going for. Is it the conspiracy charge or not? Because you are making it out like you are some kind of expert (when this is ALL speculation), but are not willing to say what you think is going on here.

If Libby made the connection between her and her husband, he IDENTIFIED. Remember all the talk about identification? Well he did identify, but if he says he did not know she was undercover and Fitz cannot prove he did know, then where is the case? Now it does seem he has something else, but we do not know. It seems he has some kind of contradicting statement from somebody on Air force 1, that says Libby was shown the memo. But you are all making it out like Miller is the whole case, if she is, we really are screwed.

"Judy may not be able to afford to lie. She has no idea what Fitz knows. She would not have been released if Fitz wasn't getting what he needed."

I totally agree, she has to be very careful. But she doesn't need to lie. She is out of court now, because she only needed to answer the questions she agreed to. She can just omit, a commonly used legal tool.

[Beetwasher]

59. You're Wrong

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cia/waxdavis121103ltr.pdf

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cia/conyersash92903ltr.pdf

There's more if you're interested.

[back2basics909]

63. Thanks for proving my point...

.. page 3 of the first doc "Knowingly, willfully or negilgently" disclosing classified information. Which is punishable by termination. It's not illegal if it is "negligently", only knowlingly with criminal intent.

[Beetwasher]

65. Willfully OR NEGLIGENTLY

It's called reading comprehension. the "or" means it only has to be negligent for action to be taken.

They also violation of non-disclosure agreements. Perjury. Obstruction of justice etc.

[back2basics909]

70. READ it

That is NOT a crime, just a offence that could result in being FIRED. Fitz is not after firing anybody, he is a PROSECUTER he deals with LAW.

The sentance RIGHT AFTER that quote, the very next one, says "may be subject to administrative penalties including the termination of security clearance and employment".

God how have you missed the months of debate over this? How could you miss the very next statement that puts it in context?

[Beetwasher]

76. Are You Feigning Ignorance Or Truly Ignorant?

Strawman noted, Chester, sicne I never said that THAT specifically would lead to criminal charges, though it still certainly could.

There's obstruction of justice, there's perjury, there's conspiracy, and of course the ID act is not the only law violated...There's viloation of non disclosure agreements.

Another article w/ more links that may seep through the dense fog you seem to be in.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Mills0722.htm

[writes2000]

79. Can you disagree without the mean tone?

It seems like we all want the same thing - Fitzgerald to nail whoever is guilty. I'm hopeful but also cautious.

I'm giving Fitz the benefit of the doubt, as you are, but I understand why others are nervous and concerned.

Can we disagree without being angry because we disagree?

[back2basics909]

85. Thank you..

.. not sure what his problem is.

[back2basics909]

83. Where?

No straw man at all.

Explain to me oh wise one, how he will prove INTENT for those crimes you listed.

[Beetwasher]

87. What?

You're basing your whole argument on points I never made. That's called a strawman.

[back2basics909]

91. EH?

You posted two items, your evidence, you didn't read them... but I looked at them and showed you where you were incorrect about "knowingly" and "intent" those were YOUR points.

I said that they would get off, because unlike you, I go by what we know to be fact. We have NOTHING, ZERO, NADDA to show us how he will prove INTENT. How many times do I have to say this before you understand.. I am trying to "project the propaganda" here by repeating the point you miss time and time again. Without a clear method of showing intent, he cannot even bring charges. He has never said charges will be brought, no incitements have been made and we both agree Miller is not the deal breaker (one of the few things we do agree on), so why has he not brought charges before today?

Here is the definition for straw man, you didn't even get that right...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:strawman

[Beetwasher]

92. Bullshit

You are trying to change the subject and creating arguments I never even addressed. Building a strawman. I never said the charges would necessarily be related to the ID Act. Never. So it's irrelevant.
And all that is beside the point and therefore, a strawman.

So, put up or shut up, Chester. Where did I ever say the charges would be necessarily be related to the ID Act?

[back2basics909]

94. WE WERE DEBATING...

.. as you know because you said this in the other thread, my point that no charges will be made.

You said they would and I was stupid to say they would not.

Then I continually asked you to MAKE A CASE as to why. I asked you to show how INTENT would be show (once you admitted you were incorrect about that point). You so far have not made a case, or said what charges will be brought or how they will be brought. I have never said you did say anything about the ID act. As you will see if you read back through the posts I ask about 2-3 times for you to MAKE YOUR CASE. You so far have not, so I KNOW you did not specifically say any act was used, I would LOVE you to so we can debate and you cannot pick and choose what points you answer.

That's why it's not a straw man as well BTW, but you clearly would not understand.

I am done with you, you are worse than a freeper. It's like debating a brick wall.

[Beetwasher]

96. Wow, Man, Are OK?

Take a deep breath Chester, your starting to lose it.

Why would INTENT need to be shown if the charges are perjury or obstruction?

Seriously man, you think intent needs to be shown for every single crime or violation that may have been committed???

That's called a strawman. You try to make the whole debate to be about "intent" when in actuality that's completely irrelevant to the whole argument, which is, as you just stated "my point that no charges will be made." It's a textbook case of creating a strawman. Intent may be necessary for SOME possible charges, but not all of them.

[back2basics909]

98. whoops.

.

[Beetwasher]

101. Oh Brother!

I posted links to show you were wrong about that being the only law that was involved that might have been violated and that he could be pursuing. Yeesh. AND I made the point that VIOLATION of the law included NEGLIGENTLY not JUST willfully, not necessarily that it was CRIMINAL or that that would definitely be what Fitz is pursuing.

[back2basics909]

75. Go read this while you are at it...

You may learn something, if you are capable of keeping an open mind.

Still needs to show intent, which Miller will not help with.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/29/233654/349

[Beetwasher]

78. You Have A Severe Problem W/ Comprehension

Really.

Where did I ever say that that was where the criminal charges would come from? There are OTHER CHARGES THAT COULD BE BROUGHT THAT. Duh.

[back2basics909]

88. Like what?

Make your case if you have one. So far you just insult without even saying what charge, or how intent (which is common to all the charges) will be shown. How it will be proved and why do you think Miller is so important? She clearly is not. In putting her in prison he was just following the law, he didn't need her. He must have more.

You cannot argue that conspiracy or espionage need intent to be shown. So you result to throwing more insults around. Its transparent to anybody reading this.

Back down or make your case. You just look like a really bad bully right now.

[Beetwasher]

89. Again W/ The Strawmen

Where did I say Miller was important?

I never said that. Put up or shut up.

I only said her testifying can only be a good thing, that doesn't mean her testimony is central, but it's good and nothing for people to be nervous about, as some were indicating that they were. I actually think her testimony may NOT be central at this point and merely icing, and I've never thought otherwise.

Reading comprehension is critical.

[back2basics909]

93. You are just funny now..

1) You still do not know what a straw man is.
2) You were the person offering up "evidence" for your case, but failed to read the line after (at least you admitted that).
3) Never said you in particular said Miller was important, it was a question in that last post. I was asking you to make your case, and part of that case would be why is Miller so important. As you said "Reading comprehension is critical". Three times, you incorrect resolution of straw man, not reading the line after the quote you used to justify you inccorect views and then taking a question out of context and making it out i said you said Miller was impotant. If you read the other post i made (prior to this one) i said the only thing we agree on is Miller not being important.

You really should heed your own advice, "Reading comprehension is critical".

[Beetwasher]

95. Now You're Just Babbling Incoherently

"Failed to read the line after" WTF are you talking about? The links I posted were for you to educate yourself about what exactly may have been the violations of law in the case. It's not JUST the ID act, but the non disclosure agreements etc. My point all along has been that there are numerous ways the law may have been broken that Fitz could be pursuing. Not being privy to the inside info, I have no idea what exactly he'll end up with and never claimed I did, only that I'm pretty sure he's getting close, and that Miller testifying is nothing to be nervous about, but rather only good news.

It's really pathetic how your backtracking now and your babbling makes me think you need to take your meds.

[back2basics909]

99. "Failed to read the line after"

"Failed to read the line after"

All this thread we were talking about of charges could be made. Which is where you initially insulted me.

1) You posted links to show that they did not have to "knowingly" identify her as an undercover CIA agent. That's what we were talking about then.
2) Your title was "Willfully OR NEGLIGENTLY" Link :http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
3) I pointed out that the line after that, from your link, in context, it says the person could be FIRED, NOT prosecuted as you were saying. "The line after", you did not even read, your own "evidence".. not even the line after the words you were looking for to try and make your point.

You must have a bad memory, and you accuse me of being on drugs?

P.S i never said intent was needed for perjury or obstruction, obstruction is easy, I am sure if he has wanted to he could have indictments for obstruction. But you have failed to make ANY case let alone perjury. If you did, we could have moved on. But you not only failed to, you didn't even try. More content with insults, as you have no case. Nobody expects perjury charges, not a single person is talking about perjury, I would be very interested to hear why you think perjury. But I will not hold my breath.

[Beetwasher]

102. And Here I Though You Were Done W/ Me

:eyes:

I posted links to show you were wrong about that being the only law that was involved that might have been violated and that he could be pursuing. Yeesh. AND I made the point that VIOLATION of the law included NEGLIGENTLY not JUST willfully, not necessarily that it was CRIMINAL or that that would definitely be what Fitz is pursuing.

What I wrote for your edification:

"You're wrong about "knowingly" outing an undercover agent. Totally wrong. That's NOT the law. Do some research. There's also obstruction of justice. Perjury. Lying to Federal Agents etc. A whole slew of things."

Where did I say negligently would lead to prosecution? The law states that negligence IS STILL A VIOLATION. I never said it would lead to prosecution, only that you were wrong and it didn't necessarily have to be KNOWINGLY for it to be a violation. And I'm right about that. Keep backtracking though. Pathetic.

[back2basics909]

68. Again second document..

.. it says (as would be needed for a criminal case) that they revealed that she was an undercover agent. Not sure where you have been for the last few days, but both Miller and Libby are both saying that he never did say she was undercover, he just identified her as a CIA agent which is not a crime. Once again it's ONLY a crime if he knowingly outed somebody he knew to be an undercover CIA agent. He defense is he did not know she was undercover.

Which part of this are you not understanding?

So Miller comes out confirms what we know that he did indeed identify her. Big deal!

So you fall back on "you think Fitz is stupid". No i don't but we know nothing else, you know nothing else. But you here whipping people up in to a frenzy over something you have no clue about (but are making it look like you do, by attacking others).

His other option is to work the angle that because a number of people gave out the same information, that shows intent.. but it's a pretty weak case, it's risky. So he either has information from somebody on Airforce 1, or he doesn't. Miller is a loose end, she will not make or break this case.

[Beetwasher]

82. Chester, You Are Utterly Clueless

First of all, YOU are the one claiming they will get off because they supposedly didn't violate the act. Not me. That's not the ONLY thing that could bring charges.

You're flailing and strawmen are totally pathetic. Just give it up.

"Miller is a loose end, she will not make or break this case."

Well, duh. No shit sherlock, you've finally come around to see things my way. That was my point. It's all good. It's icing.

[back2basics909]

58. "criminal intent"

You can ONLY prove that if somebody knowingly gave the information. Simple stuff really.

You know it's always the same with people who lash out with personal attacks, or insult others intelligence, as you have done with two people in this thread alone. Dig a little deeper and you find they are making it up as they go along.

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/CriminalJury/3-3.html

" ''A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy.''"

"Rather, what is important is whether the defendant wilfully participated in the activities of the conspiracy with knowledge of its illegal ends."

You owe me an apology.

[Beetwasher]

60. LOL!

Apology? For what? You're wrong. See my post above for links.

[back2basics909]

64. For your personal attack..

.. on me and others. See my response, seems like you didn't read your own evidence correctly or mine which outlines the conspiracy charge.

Still waiting for an apology.

[Beetwasher]

66. "Don't Be A Dick"

LOL! Personal attack my ass. I got your apology right here, Chester. "Waaaah! Apologize to me!!! Wahhhh!!". Welcome to the internet, Einstein.

[back2basics909]

69. Child.

[Beetwasher]

72. LOL!

Oh, that's rich. Have you finished you're tantrum yet, Chester?

[back2basics909]

73. I am done trying to reason with you..

.. you clearly have no idea.

I made points, you have just been a child.. with little attempted put downs that make YOU look rather silly. But you don't see that. Good day.

[Beetwasher]

77. LOL! Done? You Never Even STARTED W/ Reason

Yes, run away little boy..."WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!"

[back2basics909]

100. You live with your parents don't you?

.

[Beetwasher]

103. I Thought You Were Done W/ Me?

How pathetic. :eyes:

[writes2000]

74. I understand your concern but I do think Fitzgerald is a few steps ahead

He knows what information he needs from her. He knows the details of what happened for the most part. Notice that the judge told Judy Miller that her source had already "released" her to testify. That was months ago. So they already have a clear picture, IMO.

I think the reason Judy is insisting on limited questioning is because without it, Fitz can ask her anything about any source she's ever had. While I'm sure we'd love it, it sounds like Fitz doesn't want or need Miller to testify about anything else other than this case.

[back2basics909]

80. Thats what i was saying...

.. i doubt he needs Miller. As i said, if he does we are in trouble. He must have more, Miller must be loose ends. I am sure she is a small part in the puzzle, but she cannot be the deal breaker. She cannot prove intent, she can only confirm who gave her the information.

It all comes back to Air Force 1, thats how they prove intent.

He cannot prove it just by the several phone calls that were made. In each of the cases we have heard about, Miller and Cooper in both cases this issue is said to have been brought up by the reporter and was not the main item of the call. That again is part of their defence, they can use that and say "it came up in passing", so it does not show a conspiracy to get the information out there. He needs more than that, and we know a Memo on Airfoce one had all the information, it said she was undercover. If it can be show that Libby saw that memo, he has intent... and MORE because he also lied, so that would be obstruction. But who on airfoce 1 could have spilled those beans? If the administration knew about it, they would be far more scared than they are now. Some people think it's Powel.

So there must be more, has to be.

[writes2000]

86. The Bolton/Miller meeting is interesting though

Miller knows alot about alot, I suspect. Her fear about testifying at all probably relates to what she knows separate from this case.

Bolton probably visited her to remind her to keep her mouth shut about other things.

These thugs are truly repugnant.

[back2basics909]

97. The only reason..

.. I can think of for the visits, was to get some sort of story straight or a warning as you said.

We know she was helping make the case for war. She IS in bed with the neo-cons. They visit her in jail, they must be scheming. It's just like them. The only reason she is out now, is between her and Libby. She says she misunderstood that Libby has released her.. so he called up and released her. Why now? Were they stalling until they had a good defense? Were they making their defense?

I don't know but I do know that it wasn't Fitzgerald (as has been said in this thread) who forced her to talk *at this time* that was entirely between Libby, Miller and their lawyers.

[bunny planet]

30. Think about what's changed since Judy first went into the klinker.

Katrina. Katrina changed everything. The Blivet in Chief was not yet the emperor without clothes that he's become since he messed up in his response to that monumental tragedy. When Judy first began her stint as a martyred 'journalist' in prison, Jr. was still not the pathetic tarnished little monkey he is now. Judy probably realized that the powerful folks that she was in league with and who were being protected by her silence (or vice versa) are much more vulnerable now. Maybe they'd forget about her completely in their efforts to cover their own asses as the shite flys fast and furious. Maybe she'd rot in jail and noone would've been paying attention. Maybe she figures, I'll cut my losses, if these folks are going down, I need to rethink my position. Cut a deal, talk, shine the light back on me so I can get out of jail. Just my two cents.

[tableturner]

39. In court re: reporters, Fitz: their testimony raps up the case

Both in Fitz's pleadings and in one of the judge's decisions, it was stated that the investigation was over except for the two reporters' testimony. Unless something new has come up, this is it!

Also, without an extension of the grand jury, it ends on 10-28. You know Fitz does not want to ask for an extension. Fitz's statement in the pleadings, the judge's statement, and the close proximity of the Miller deal to the ending of this grand jury term, all say to me that he is in fact ready to finish up before the end of the month.

Expect news in a week or two.

[Imagevision]

55. Last minute effort by Libby makes him seem very concerned

Rove-Libby and Bush & Cheney because they knew about it all the time...!
Obstruction of justice.

[ComerPerro]

41. Maybe she'll confess that she has been conspiring with Snowball all along

[Imagevision]

49. Scooter was Judy'd source - Rove was Novaks source, they're both guilty

since Rove is Bush's adviser, we must know what Bush (& Cheney) knew and when they knew it - it's called obstruction of justice...!

[Norquist Nemesis]

61. Actually, Novak had TWO WH officials as sources

Rove and Libby

[writes2000]

71. Isn't Rove Cooper's Source & Novak's Second (confirming) Source?

From what I've read Rove confirmed what Novak had already heard about Plame working for the CIA.

But, to me, Cooper is the big fish. When Rove spilled the beans to Cooper, it was the first time Cooper had heard it.

That's what Rove kept the Cooper conversation underwraps at first.