Or not. WSJ says:" Vice President Dick Cheney isn’t believed to have talked to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald since last year, nor has he given a waiver to Mr. Woodward. That removes him as Mr. Woodward’s source."
Not sure how’d they know wheather a waiver had been given by Cheney, but there you go.
Yea, but that was at least a decade ago, maybe two (his bio at MSNBC isn’t clear, but I think he gave up politics for journalism in '87). A lot of people that were Dems in 87 are Republicans now (see the make up of congress between now and then for evidence). If he self identifies as a Repub, I don’t see any reason to not take him at his word.
I don’t mean Woodward should go to jail, but his source. Like Libby, that other leaker committed a serious crime. Say it’s Cheney. He gave Woodward permission to name him in Grand Jury testimony as his source for the Plame outing. Cheney knew what he was doing with that leak. So, he should go to jail.
Previoudly, Cheney was interviewed by Fitz. He wasn’t under oath, but if he lied then about his leakiness, that amounts to lying to a federal investigator, so they can him for that, plus obstruction of justice, and most important of all, for being unremittingly repulsive.
Does anyone find it kinda weird that shortly after the public discovered who Deep Throat is, Woodward has found another seceret source involved in a Washington scandel that has everyone guessing about their identity. My theory is that Woodward made it up just cause he needed to fill the void in his life after Deep Throat came out
He’ll probably come up with some sort of tacky name too, Thin Lips or something.
Well, Cheney is unremittingly repulsive, but if Fitz is thinking about indicting Cheney, I’m glad he’s holding off until he’s absolutely sure he’s got the goods.
You get into this territory, you want to make damned sure that there isn’t the hint of a taint of a partisan prosecution. If anyone can do this right, I think Fitz is the guy.
Getting back to the OP: the reason Miller was in jail was for contempt of court - her testimony had been required, but she was refusing to testify. Under our system of justice, you don’t have to testify against yourself, but you can’t refuse to testify about what others have done if it doesn’t incriminate you. No such condition attached to Woodward - he testified pretty much as soon as he was asked to.
I think it was a substantial ethical lapse for him not to have gone to the prosecutors with what he knew, as soon as he realized he was in the middle of something big. (2003, if he was paying any attention.) But I don’t see a crime here.
And with respect to Woodward’s source, right now it’s just Woodward’s word v. the source’s, assuming it was a crime for the source to say what he did. That’s not what you call a strong case, and Fitz will need more than that to indict.
