Cough it up.....or go to jail

[Kulaf]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160788,00.html

[Partha]

Good.

Hopefully Novak goes next.

[Klast Brell]

Good.

Hopefully Novak goes next.

It's a grand jury
Testimony is sealed
Novak already testified
He has not been charged
They refused to testify and have been charged

I can only assume that Novak sang like a canary, but we will only ever know if the testimony is unsealed. The state is prosecuting itself here. The chances are high that the Grand Jury will find that there is not cause to indict and all testimony will remained sealed as a state secret till 2055.

[Chants Evensong]

Just what really is going on here?

Back in the summer of 2003, Joe Wilson wrote an article entitled "What I did not Find in Niger." an editorial published in the NYT critical of Bush's mysterious 16 words that appeared in his 2003 state of the union address. These words stated, in short, that intelligence sources indicated that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, a country which exports goats, onions, and uranium. Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate if Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. He claimed he found nothing.

A week or so later, columnist Bob Novak wrote a pice in which he stated that based on adminstration sources, a CIA operative named Valerie Plame may have recommended Wilson for the Niger trip. Then all hell broke loose.

Wilson became incensed. He claimed that the administration was outing his wife as a CIA agent for revenge for his previous NYT op-ed critical on the president's 16 words. Also, if an administration official had disclosed the identity of a undercover, covert agent, then a crime may have, and probably did, occur. Wilson vehemently denied, time and again, ad nauseum, that his wife did not recemmend him for the Niger trip.

The MSM later -- some say too slowly, some say too softly, some say too wildly -- covered the story extensively. The coventional wisdom was that yes, the administration outed Plame for revenge. And that a crime had been committed. Wilson then wrote a book entitled Truth in Politics.

An specital/indeoendent prosecutor was appointed, Fitzgerald, to investigate the claim

Around the time the book came out in print, the SSCI, a bipartisan report came out stating that the president's 16 words were accurate, that contrary to Wilson assertions Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, and that his wife, Plame, had in fact recommended him for the trip. That was in the summer of 2004.

There are two NYT jounalists who have been subpoenaed to appear before Fitzgeral's grand jury. They have appeared. But they refuse to disclose a source. What information this source gave to them is unknown, but many people speculate that the information was Valerie Plame herself. Others speculate that they are protecting the disclosure of different information.

The two journalists have been found to be in contempt of court for refusing to disclose the source. The NYT supports the non-disclosure of this source. They have defended the non disclosure in court and have lost every time.

Ironically, in Decembed of 2004 the NYT published an editorial questioning whether the disclosure of Plame's name was even a crime. This stands in stark contrast to thier opinion back in 2003, where they urged an extensive investigation of this crime. They published Wilson editorial that started it all. One must ask, if there was no crime, why is there an independent prosecutor; why are people shouting treason; why did the NYT dedicate so much copy to the story; and, most importantly, if the Times did think sometthing was amiss, would not the disclosure of the source pretty much nail the supposed leaker, somthing the NYT stated was important?

Unless, of course, the information that the prosecutor wants did not involve the leaker, but something else the NYT does not want made public.

Well, that may be too much tin-foil for many. But I admit that it helps explain the NYT's backpedaling.

Here is what is most likely. The Fitzgerald investigation is over but for the NYT's culumnists' testimony. The NYT is correct to opine that perhaps the dsiclosure of Plame's name was not a crime. But a crime had been committed, that of perjury, by an administration official. And the NYT columnists have the goods.

[Klast Brell]

What information this source gave to them is unknown, but many people speculate that the information was Valerie Plame herself.

What a flaming bunch of bull shit. You had me until you got to that sentence. "Nobody knows what was said or by who so we are free to make anything up we please" You are throwing out hypotheticals in an attempt to create reasonable doubt.

[Tholiak Eladamri]

and you arent?

[Klast Brell]

No I'm not. Please feel free to quote what I said in this thread that makes you think otherwise.

[Chants Evensong]

Well, if we all know what information the source gave to Miller and Cook, then we don't really need thier testimony, or Fitzgerald's investigation then, do we?

Truth be told, we don't even know if the source is the same as Novak's. We don't know if it was the same source, but that different information was given to Miller and Cook.

We don't even know if Fitzgerald is even interested in what the source told them but, rather, their phone records. Technically, it is Miller's, Cook's and the NYT's refusal to turn over the subpoenaed phone records which has earned them a finding of contempt.

[Kulaf]

No I'm not. Please feel free to quote what I said in this thread that makes you think otherwise.

I can only assume that Novak sang like a canary...

[Klast Brell]

Perhaps I need to clarify.

Novak is not being charged with refusing to testify.
Therefore he must have testified.

[Relbeek Einre]

Or has curried special favor...

[Eidolon Faer]

Konspiracy alert!