Karen Hughes refused to answer questions about Plame

deminks

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 03:58 PM
Original message

Karen Hughes refused to answer questions about Plame

Raw Story has the list of Kerry's questions for her committee hearing yesterday:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Karen_Hughes_refused_to_answer_questions_about_Plame_outing_during_confirmation_he_0727.html

(snip)

Hughes response was curt: "Because of my ongoing contact with the White House, I was interviewed as part of that investigation and was happy to cooperate, as I noted in my Senate Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire. As you know, these questions relate to an ongoing criminal investigation. I believe that I should honor the prosecutor's request not to discuss this matter until he has completed his investigation."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

napi21

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message

1. Well, she's got the talking points down pat!

Wonder if they have a group gathering just to practice?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eleny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. She probably helped to write them

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Richard Steele

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #1

7. At what point did "talking points" cross into "Conspiracy to OBSTRUCT"?

I ask, because it's apparent that they CROSSED that line long ago.

You see, they are only "talking points" when we are discussing
matters of OPINION or "Political Viewpoints".

But when testifying _Under Oath_ in regard to a Criminal Investigation,
any 'pre-agreed' testimony concocted by DEFENDANTS and/or
"Hostile Witnesses" isn't just a "talking point" anymore...

It's called "Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice",...
and here in the REAL world, folks go to PRISON for it
EVERY DAMNED DAY.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Catrina

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:07 PM
Response to Original message

3. Why would the prosecutor

ask anyone who wasn't somehow involved in the investigation to be quiet? They sure weren't quiet until they all began to look guilty! It might be worthwhile to do a google search of what she was saying about all this from July, 2003 until they all realized finally, that they just might be in trouble!

'Ongoing investigation' and 'we're honoring the prosecutor's request not to discuss this matter' ~ sounds just like Scottie. Wish they all didn't sound like clones! It would be so refreshing to hear people use their own words instead of the words they are programmed with!! I just find it very disturbing, for some reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Geoff R. Casavant

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. She mentioned PlameGate in her book

to the usual extent, leaking bad, leaker bad, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stephanie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #3

11. I don't believe the prosecutor asked anyone to be quiet

Matt Cooper told everything. The articles said that as a grand jury witness he was under no prohibition - he was free to say what he testified to in the grand jury. I doubt Fitz would have one set of rules for journalist testimony and another for WH testimony.

Someone should ask Fitzgerald's office if he actually made this request.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rose Siding

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:11 PM
Response to Original message

4. In her book, Hughes admitted Plame was undercover and acknowledged damage

Another on-the-record oops...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102567.html

snip>
Speaking of Hughes, in her acclaimed book "Ten Minutes from Normal," the former White House counselor opines about the investigation into the leak on Valerie Plame . She suspects columnist Robert D. Novak 's sources may have been in one of the agencies, not the White House.

"But regardless of the source, the leak compromised the confidential identity of a longtime public servant, which was wrong, and unfair to her and those who worked with her. Whoever did it should come forward and not hide behind journalistic ethics for his or her self-protection."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

im10ashus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:14 PM
Response to Original message

6. They should refuse her confirmation then.

Until after the investigation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fooj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #6

9. No kidding. Do not pass go...

Peace,

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

im10ashus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Peace, n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fooj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-27-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message

8. Interesting. The AG apparently didn't honor the request then?

She is full of shit!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:04 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.