9/30/2005

The Next Hurrah: I may not know why a caged bird sings--but I've got my guesses

Emptywheel sez: "If I had to guess, I'd say she backed Libby into a corner so she could get her "release."... I bet there's a signed statement already too. No way [Fitz] let her out before he made sure he knew what she was going to testify (and if something happened to her ...)"

More on Emptywheel post:


...there is more than posturing in the NYT article. There are, for example, more details about just how negotiated this agreement was.

First, Fitz had to reassure Judy that talking to Libby wouldn't get her busted for obstruction.. of justice..
Fitz also had to reassure Judy that he wouldn't ask about any of her other sources.

Since we're discussing the issue of other sources Judy might implicate, perhaps we should look at the timing of this, which I find incredibly interesting.

We know ..that Bolton visited Judy in mid-August. Negotiations between Bennett and Tate started a week or so after that.. The negotiations, as I pointed out, took at least two weeks... And just as interesting, Judy says she was released two weeks ago. We're to believe, you see, that Judy rotted in jail for two more weeks while she pondered Libby's voluntary waiver. What's up with that?

Couple of comments.
First, I don't think Fitz needs Miller to get to her first source. I think the NYT turned enough materials over that he doesn't need her corroboration. Remember, Arianna said the NYT was getting more realistic, not Judy. They turned over earlier materials (just as Time turned over their materials) which was enough evidence to sink Judy on conspiracy if she didn't testify.

Second, I think the obstruction concerns were over conversations in jail. Not over the original conversations.

Third, Fitz is none too worried about what Judy will say tomorrow. She's had TWO WEEKS in which he has been grilling her. And I bet there's a signed statement already too. No way he let her out before he made sure he knew what she was going to testify (and if something happened to her ...)
Posted by: emptywheel | September 30, 2005 at 00:18

Is there any indication that the NYT turned over notes?
Posted by: firedoglake | September 30, 2005 at 01:36

>And I bet there's a signed statement already too..
Yikes... well, Fitzgerald just indicted those 16 "Insane Deuces" gang members, and the Gambinos before that, so I guess he's used to planning for that sort of eventuality. It's scary, really. How far will these guys go to stay in power? Or to stay out of the Alexandria Detention Center? And with the kind of power they wield, what desperate options are available to them, and how tempting is it to use them after having all these months to torture themselves about it? They're only human. Cheney's been staring down the Grim Reaper since he was in his 30's and Rove doesn't look like a healthy man. In their own minds, how long has it been since they wrote off any sense of morality?
I guess what I'm saying is: they've committed one unthinkably immoral act after another ... but now, their careers, their fortunes, and their very freedom are all at stake. They've devoted their lives to amassing ultimate power and wealth, but if convicted, they're unlikely to live out their sentences. What do people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney do when they're cornered?
Posted by: obsessed | September 30, 2005 at 02:42

>Firedog: Is there any indication that the NYT turned over notes?
¡por supuesto!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219289
"A Times story late on Thursday revealed that as part of Miller's agreement, one of her attorneys, Robert Bennett, gave Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, edited versions of notes taken by Miller about her conversations with I. Lewis Libby."
Posted by: obsessed

The Next Hurrah: I may not know why a caged bird sings--but I've got my guesses

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home