What is a "source close to the investigation"?

bluestateguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 12:27 AM
Original message

What is a "source close to the investigation"?

I'd really appreciate a lucid explanation of just what that phrase means. Hearing it all these weeks brings back maddening memories of 1998, Monica Lewinsky and Jackie Judd's nightly reports of "sources close to the investigation..."

Just what the fuck does that mean!?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

thinkingwoman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 12:29 AM
Response to Original message

1. Defense attorney, or

defense attorney's lackey.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hiaasenrocks

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 12:31 AM
Response to Original message

2. Many possibilities...

Edited on Fri Oct-28-05 12:32 AM by hiaasenrocks

Could be someone in Fitz's office (doubt it). Could be Libby's lawyer, or someone who works in Libby's lawyer's office. Same for Rove's lawyer and people who work for him. It could be any number of people in the White House who have heard things, or who have been told to say things. No way to know for sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

longship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. Not Fitz office

If there were leaks from Fitz's office we'd have better information. We've got shit. There's no concensus at all among the major news outlets, other than those who merely parrot news off the wire. Check out the Salon article that describes this. LA Times says that Fitz has the WH baffled. The WH!!! Certainly the press is baffled, too. He's got the leak-proof investigation.

Wait for Friday afternoon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #2

8. It could even be a spouse, or a pissed off in-law

Sometimes, it is even the person who is the subject of the investigation. Remember, Scooter demanded to be identified as a 'former Hill staffer' which is a disingenuous description.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

deadparrot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 12:34 AM
Response to Original message

3. Those who have been called to testify,

or those representing them. AKA, the people who might already be in trouble.

Fitz doesn't leak. The GJ doesn't leak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

countryjake

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 12:54 AM
Response to Original message

5. It's all the mad-hatters concerned for the White House...

sitting at the grand tea-party, with a cell-phone in one hand, names and numbers of all the sell-out journalists in the other, and a keyboard in their lap. I envision Cheney at the head of that table, with Andrea Mitchell, Bob Novak, Tim Russert, and Bill Kristol, lapping wildly, debating strategy, while Rove serves it up. Oh, and Bush is napping peacefully, with his face fallen in his cup, dreaming of coke in Columbia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

applegrove

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 01:07 AM
Response to Original message

6. It could easily be Rove's patsies in a full court press trying to intimid-

ate someone who doesn't give a shit and will indict him anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

longship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 01:08 AM
Response to Original message

7. Rove, or his attorney

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LSdemocrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 01:11 AM
Response to Original message

9. Whatever a reporter defines it as

Reporters could just be picking up rumors from across the street and calling them "close to the investigation."

I say just sit back and wait until the results are made public.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Spazito

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-28-05 01:20 AM
Response to Original message

10. In this case, it is the lawyers of the potential targets working

to 'set the stage' for the best case scenario for their clients. In the Starr investigation, it was, for the most part, those on the Starr team leaking 'headline' info. That is the difference between an investigation based on politics ala Starr and an investigation based on probable criminal action ala Fitzgerald. One leaks the other does not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 03:37 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.