« Imagine if Joseph McCarthy Invoked the Fifth | Main | Gonzales' Hack Prep Coaches »

April 05, 2007


Did Max Frankel's piece answer this key question: If Judy was such an honorable reporter, a champion for this ideals of journalism, why did the NYT fire her?

Nope. But then since Frankel wouldn't even tell us that Judy got a leak from Libby, I wouldn't expect him to be forthcoming about THAT.

The third case was the Safa raids -


I wonder how many real reporters at the NYT were laid off to pay for Judy's legal bills?

Oh, I was counting the Muslim charity tip-offs as number two. What's the other one, then?

EW, I remember reading something re Judy's connection with a couple of other cases. It was in regard to the negotiations between Team Fitz and Judy Judy Judy for her testimony. Sort of like they negotiated Russert's testimony. Judy or her attorney wanted TF to agree not to go into anything with regard to those other cases. I'll look for the link, but I won't have a chance 'til tonight.

I'm almost sure one had to do with the AIPIC (forgive me my acronym is off, I have a hard time remembering them all) (Israeli intelligence) case that Justice was pursuing.

Okay, let me lay thses out:

Plame: $1 million dollars to fight the subpoena relating to Libby's conversation

Muslim Charities: Likely close to that to fight turning over Judy's (and Phillip Shenon's) phone records so Fitz could figure out who tipped them off to the raids and why

Mohammed Salah: Judy testified for Fitz in the Mohammed Salah trial; she described witnessing his 1993 interrogation by the Israelis, and claimed he was not tortured before he admitted to being Hamas

AIPAC: Judy was referred to in discussions by the defendants, but AFAIK, she has not been called to testify in teh case

Lindy--I think that Pat Fitzgerald would see something like that as a totally reasonable request, but I don't think that's what Judy was negotiating for. She's got "Valerie Flame" written in her notebook, but she says Scooter isn't the person who gave her the name. Obviously, she must have been discussing this with someone else. (Or else she's got one hell of an Ouija board.) I think that THAT'S what she didn't want to talk about.

Frank, I'm sure you're right. I'm still trying to pin down where I read about that.

The New York Times and the Washington Post: had the current leadership of these papers been in charge 35 years ago, Nixon would still be Permanent President, despite his current residence six feet under.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad