Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does the Woodward revelation blow Fitz's case?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
thefloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 05:42 AM
Original message
Does the Woodward revelation blow Fitz's case?
I really do not know what to make of Woodward's involvement with plamegate. Makes me worried Fitz will not get libby charged. Anyone provide me reasons otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Details? What kind of involvement are you talking about? (NEVER MIND)
Edited on Wed Nov-16-05 05:53 AM by jefferson_dem
The only Woody - Plame involvement i've seen as a talking head full of nonsense.

EDIT : D'oh. Never mind. Must read headlines in morn before posting.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Punkingal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think so...
Libby still committed perjury and obstruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. i don't see how this affects the perjury/obstruction case
it might affect a charge that libby was the original leaker; but he's not charged with that. he still contradicted himself, didn't he?

generally, anything that furthers the investigation is good news for the prosecutor. the more things get leaked into the press, the more people talk, the more people realize or at least fear that others are talking, the better. it all gets other people to feel compelled to open up lest they be the only one remaining tight-lipped while everyone else is pointing fingers.

besides, i'd be happy to let libby walk if it brings down cheney. this is not good news for woodward's source....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Ok great
I was not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. Not at all - it will open rich new areas that he will dive into. Read
the excellent analyses on this at Firedoglake:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/11/bobby-has-secret.html

and

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/11/mr-run-amok.html

In fact, I think this blog is the single best place to keep up with news and analysis of Treasongate/Fitz matters.

Woodward is in big trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
19. Thanks for the Resource
Definitely bookmark and read daily
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. Why? Libby still lied to FBI people about
his involvement for a month. And claimed he heard about Plame from Russert in July. And he lied in many ways about the June part of the Plame conversations he had.

How could the showing of even more proof to the truth (Libby knew and was repeating the Plame thing for a month) hurt the case against Libby?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
7. Libby is charged already.
And the only way he will NOT be convicted is if he makes a deal. The charges against him have to do with his lying to investigators and the grand jury. Keep in mind that a person can forget conversations that took place in the past -- that's an honest mistake. But Scooter is claiming to remember a conversation that never took place -- and that is distinct from an honest mistake.

Your concerns about Woodward are not unwarrented, however. He is coming forward at this point to distract attention from someone, and to misdirect it. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. I guess the real
question is how will the woodward accusation play in the press and public opinion. Good way for Bushco to help deligitimize Fitz and influence public opinion back towards Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
8. What to many headlines and Woodward did not get into it?
I guess I will have to figure out what you are talking about. My thoughts before I read about it is that Bob wants his nose under the tent in ALL things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. Details please. I can't find what you are talking about on Google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Look in the Washington Post as I just did
Still sounds like Bob wants in on this. I get the feeling that he feels he always knows what is going on even when he does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
10. It won't impact the current charges against Libby. However,...
,...I am very curious about whom he testified. I wonder, is he protecting Cheney by sacrificing Rove, or what? I'm clueless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. If reporters knew about Plame it's because Bush officials told them.
I don't see how this changes anything.

It may be too that Woodward had the security clearances to know this stuff and he is the "official" chroniclar of the Bush administration.

This wasn't gossip among reporters--although it may eventually turn out that there was some of that once enough reporters had been leaked to--the Bush administration was dropping clues to professional bloodhounds that Plame was a spy. They are the source of the information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
13. Libby has already been charged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
14. It's irrelevant to the Libby case
since he's charged with plain 'ol, time honored by the GOP, flat out lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice. As for the crime of outing Plame, I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
15. I think if anything
it's going to put a little more heat on the plump one, kkkarl rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
16. Woodward had to have told someone
How did Fitz get his name? This just gets juicier - and Woodward goes directly to the Top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
17. Did you read Woodward's statement?
Woodward was ratted out by one of his "sources."

Just another piece of the puzzle.

Google "Woodward and Plame."

Woodward was the one who lied about (maybe his source lied to him) the CIA's supposed internal investigation showing no damage was done when Plame's identity was disclosed:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511010002

Here's another Google goodie:

Bob Woodward, perhaps the preeminent investigative reporter of his time, believes in supporting journalists who are protecting sources. Yet he sees the use of confidentiality in this case — to hide the sources who identified Valerie Plame — as a weak reed to lean on. “I use confidential sources more than most anyone,” Woodward concedes, “but it has to be worth the risk involved. I don’t think outing Plame was worth the risk.”

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/2/mccollam-plame.asp?printerfriendly=yes

Happy Googling!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-16-05 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
18. I agree with everyone else.
Libby is still right in the cross hairs.

What this shows is that someone else was getting nervous that they may be found out for withholdning information and they outed Woodward.

The silence and stealth of Fitzgerald combined with his incredible reputation is just scaring the hell out of people. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC