Wall Street Journal files motion to unseal redacted Fitz info re: Miller

[CatWoman]

Rather than join this parade of masochism, we thought we'd try to speed things along, as well as end one of the remaining mysteries in the probe. That's why Dow Jones & Co., this newspaper's parent company, filed a motion late Wednesday requesting that the federal district court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times in the slammer.

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/11/dont-say-it-if-you-dont-mean-it-tough.html

[Clark2008]

1. Why would they want it?

The WSJ isn't known for his championship of real news or its championship of anything that's not Republican.

What happens if they unseal the redacted information and it shows their darling Miller-baby is CIA? Will they print it? Doubtful.

[spindrifter]

3. Doesn't make any difference,

if they get the redacted information, anyone can print it. It will not just belong to WSJ or Dow Jones.

[Punkingal]

2. Ha!!!

Another long drawn-out battle, for naught!

[bklyncowgirl]

4. WSJ News Division is actually very fact based.

Businessmen and investors who are the Wall Street Journal's main readership rely on facts to make decisions. The WSJ supplies facts in its news division whether the truth is palatable to their readers or not.

Their editorial and opinion division of course is totally right wing propeganda. It's sort of like they make them eat their spinach for their own good with the real news and then serve them up a big helping of economic conservatism for desert in the editorials.

Businessmen and investors who refuse to eat their spinach often end up in bankrupcty court.

[KoKo]

5. Here's a snip from the article that gives more info on why WSJ is doing

this. It's worth reading the whole post by Jane...but here's snips of other comments on her comment:

Update: In the comments, PollyUSA reminds us that if the WSJ really wants to inform the public, they should start by talking abou their own role in this mess:

In my view the WSJ should be in the middle of this investigation. Three weeks after the investigation began the WSJ published an article discussing the contents of the INR memo.

This WSJ article was the first mention of the INR memo in the press. The memo was and still is a classified document. The leaking of classified material is at the heart of this investigation and the WSJ received just such a leak in October 2003. Who leaked to the WSJ?

Fess up, fellas. Won't cost you a dime.

--------------------
Update 2: Several people have noted that Libby's lawyers will, over the course of time, have access to the 8 pages. This isn't about getting it to Libby's lawyers. If Redd is correct and Fitz laid out his conspiracy case in the 8 pages (and let's remember, he's known for a very long time what happened -- he's just been about proving it for the past year) this is an attempt to let BushCo. know, who up until now have been gnawing each other's tails off in the wake of Fitzgerald's maddening silence. They can't spin what they don't know and it's killing them. Nothing good can come from forcing his hand at this early...and I emphasize EARLY... stage of the game.