by Peachtree Pam » Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:51 am
FWIW, here is St Judith's own account of her grand jury testimony:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html">www.nytimes.com/2005/10/1...iller.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Comments from thenexthurrah:<br><br>The Judy Saga: My First Impressions<br>by emptywheel<br><br>Undisclosed Location--I was right about the sporadic Internet access, here in Undisclosed Location. I can only get two bars if I hold the laptop on top of my knees, over my head. I either get to look at the computer, or get a signal. [I'll try to come back and put in links when I happen to get two bars.]<br><br><br>And one more creepy thing about Undisclosed Location. There are aspens everywhere here. It's stunningly beautiful, really. Far and away the best fall colors I've ever seen (and I used to live on the edge of the Berkshires). But every time I look at the aspens I see clusters. And all I can think about is these biological clones, connected at the roots, and realize that Scooter Libby was clarifying for the entire world that Judy was first and foremost a part of this clique and only afterwards a journalist, if you can call her that. And I can't say Judy did anything to correct the impression Libby had left.<br><br>My first impression, having read the NYT whitewash and the Judy fiction, is that 1) either Judy is lying when she says Fitzgerald has told her she's only a witness in this case, 2) Fitz just set her up, she's made a plea bargain and the "witness" comment is her cover, or 3) Fitz just handed her some more rope to hang herself in the press, which our "fucking right" "I got it all wrong" diva did precisely according to script. Or maybe she was just parsing carefully. After all she says<br><br>Mr. Fitzgerald told the grand jury that I was testifying as a witness and not as a subject or target of his inquiry.<br><br>Which is not the same--at all--as saying she won't be called as a subject or tagert.<br><br>In short, I think her article only serves to prove as more implicated, more guilty. Judy comes off as so terribly complicit in this crime that I find it hard to believe Fitz has absolved her of her many crimes.<br><br>My Questions/Thoughts<br><br>Look at the way Judy has referred to Plame. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm working from memory, with a very sketchy Internet connection), but when Fitz refers to Plame in Judy's subpoena, he just says Plame or any other name she might be referred by. But in Coopers, Fitz names some of the "I can't recall" names Judy and her "sources" use, particularly Victoria Wilson. This suggests Fitzgerald has evidence of someone already using the Victoria Wilson name (and didn't feel like he needed to spell out all the pseudonyms for Judy, but did for Cooper). Where did he get this information? Have WE ever seen the use of Victoria Wilson before?<br><br>Judy seems to confirm that Plame worked at WINPAC. Hmmm. Has anyone interviewed Fred Fleitz, Bolton's deputy. Because it seems increasingly likely he's the need-to-know guy who started this leak (then again, given the information Fitz seems to know, I wonder whether Fleitz hasn't spilled some beans).<br><br>Judy is lying through her teeth in her own account of her notes. Repeatedly, she describes sentences as something that Libby has informed her. <br><br>Mr. Libby said the vice president's office had indeed pressed the Pentagon and the State Department for more information about reports that Iraq had renewed efforts to buy uranium. And Mr. Cheney, he said, had asked about the potential ramifications of such a purchase. But he added that the C.I.A. "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" by sending a "clandestine guy" to Niger to investigate.<br><br>But it ought to be clear to anyone who has read the SSCI report that no one who had a clue would present this as the truth. Either Libby was lying to Judy (this, a source she calls a good faith source). Or he is not telling her what happened. But he is telling her what she should say about what happened. I mean, no review of the lead-up to war pretends the CIA sent Wilson on their own. This is a lie of the caliber of "they're in their last throes." Let's be honest. It is much more likely Judy was recording what Libby told her to say about Wilson than what Libby told her was the truth about Wilson. Which means the comment...<br><br>"No briefer came in and said, 'You got it wrong, Mr. President,' " he said, according to my notes.<br><br>...is pretty damn ominous. Is Libby deliberately denying Bush was briefed the intelligence was faulty? Sounds like the kind of thing Tenet could testify to.<br><br>And here's another question about that meeting. Were they alone? Or was it a little meeting of winger journalists. Is it possible that Novak and Cliff May were there too? Because it is possible this is where the "inside the beltway" crowd Gannon once referred to got the idea that Plame's identity was public.<br><br>I'm presuming that Doug Jehls' weird July article was an un-edited response to having a story revealing the Plame leakers spiked. I've focused on his accusations against NYT management. But the main point of his article was to speculate or telegraph about Pincus' source. This is the third source, I'm fairly confident. That means that Jehl, Johnston, and (probably) Stevenson know the third source. Guys, I appreciate your efforts. And I appreciate your desire to avoid subpoenas. But I'm sure Fitz can use all the sources he can get to nail this third source. Or at least make it public! <br><br>And while we're at it, Judy admits she was writing on a team (if she doesn't admit the disciplinary side of it).<br><br>Now I was assigned to a team of reporters at The Times examining why no such weapons had been found.<br><br>But the NYT doesn't admit this. Why? Afraid to admit that Judy had "had her wings clipped"? Afraid to admit that they had already recognized she was a problem, but had only found a half-solution to the problem?<br><br><br>Fitz made an unaccompanied trip to visit Judge Hogan the other day, perhaps to extend his grand jury. When would we find out if he had tried to do so and if he had been successful? Would he need to tell the possible witnesses subjects and targets in the case that they needed to keep worrying? Because I think it's possible that Judy is playing for time, trying to make it through the next <br><br>I plan to write an article about the Enron management style of the NYT (if the Cougar-fired Internet connection holds out). I have to say I disagree with Rosen--there is plenty of evidence NYT management willfully rolled over well before the First Amendment ever became an issue. But that's whenever I can next get an Internet connection.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/">thenexthurrah.typepad.com...xt_hurrah/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Chig, Anti,<br>I cannot figure out exactly what Miller's status is with Fitzgerald. Does she have immunity? Is she trying to shield Bolton and Cheney by blaming Libby?<br><br>Clarke's role - he played a leading part in the distraction from the real perpetrators of 9/11, emphasising with his book the lack of interest by the Bush administration in going after "Al CIAda" . Do you remember his "tearful apology" to the victims of 9/11? He is a master dis-info agent, and according to Globalresearch.ca was the person who co-ordinated the establishment of the 'fake terror cells' in Hamburg (Atta etc), in France, in Spain, which would later provide the "terror attacks". <br><br>What Clarke was doing visiting St Judith in jail is a good question. He would not be there unless very high stakes are involved. Anti, any ideas?<br><br>I am not sure about Edmunds, but what has gotten out about her statements fits with CS's theory of the black market in nuclear components. Ashcroft certainly did all he could to shut her down, but that could have been fake cover as well. Remember, white is black, black is white in this game.<br> <p></p><i></i>
