Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Isikoff: Fitz planned on impaneling new GJ if Miller wouldn't talk

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 07:54 PM
Original message
Isikoff: Fitz planned on impaneling new GJ if Miller wouldn't talk
Oct. 10, 2005 issue - New York Times reporter Judy Miller broke her silence and agreed to testify before a federal grand jury last week. This followed tense, often acrimonious negotiations that began after special Justice Department prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald signaled he intended to reimpanel a new grand jury—a move that could have kept Miller in jail for another year and a half, say two lawyers close to the case who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the talks. A federal judge sent Miller to jail on July 8 for refusing to talk about her conversations with her source, who, it was disclosed last week, was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby. Fitzgerald indicated he would not let the matter drop when the grand jury, investigating the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, expires in late October. Instead, he would keep his long-running probe open with a new grand jury. The sobering prospect spurred fevered negotiations among lawyers to find conditions that would satisfy both Miller and Fitzgerald.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9558011/site/newsweek/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. So that's what got them moving
Very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Day-um!
This guy sounds very determined, to say the least!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldtime dfl_er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Every time I read something like this I have new hope
Fitzgerald seems serious. I pray he doesn't end up giving us nothing. I've been so beaten down and defeated by the dirty filthy tactics of the neocon right that I no longer even hold out much hope for justice and good triumphing. I hope I'm not crushed anew if Fitzgerald's investigation comes to little or nothing.



http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/658010
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
despairing optimist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's a prosecutor's choice, to keep empaneling new grand juries
And each time Judy Miller would have been subpoenaed, if she had refused to cooperate she would have had to be incarcerated. This could have gone on for as long as Fitzgerald or his successor, if any, remained interested in Miller's testimony.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. Isikoff reveals that Libby did not talk to Novak ....so
who were Novak's two sources?

Quote from article:

Tate acknowledges that Libby did indeed tell Miller that Iraq war critic Joe Wilson's wife (Plame) had arranged for Wilson to take a CIA-sponsored trip to Africa to probe reports that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear bomb. But he says Libby did not know Plame's real name nor her undercover status at the CIA. Nor, he says, did Libby talk to Robert Novak, the columnist whose story outing Plame prompted the criminal probe in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I've been wondering if this case involves not just the outing
of Plame, but the Bush administration's relationship with the media.
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. It would seem that PF had Miller over a barrel....
Why would he then agree to limit the scope of his questioning her? There have been so many little leaks since Friday. I am wondering how true the story is about Miller's testimony being limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. He may know more--through other sources/venues--than we
can imagine at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. One theory is that he only needed to know one thing from her-
That she wasn't THE source of information about Plame.

At one point, Rove said he'd learned her ID from a reporter. The prosecutor needed to get the reporters under oath, saying they hadn't passed any info to the WH, thereby eliminating that kind of defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. As usual..
... the simplest and most obvious explanation seems to be the correct one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dicknbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. I.m thinking we might see un-indicted co-conspirators for Bush and Cheney?
That would be fun to watch them spin. Rove must be pouring over Fitzgdralds CV and trying to spin what an absolute nut case he is. I'm sure the talking points are poised by the fax ready to go to the Right winged blow hards on the tv and radio. THis is going to be a fun week if it comes down this week
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
12. And after her employer editorialized that she'd never talk
Gosh, I'll bet her editors feel so used and dirty, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. "Fitzgerald, who is expected to wrap up his probe soon, had no comment."
So there you have it.

No leaks, no comment.

And wrapping up soon. . . .
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 Wed May 01st 2024, 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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