Posted on 10/20/2005 7:14:44 PM PDT by Pikamax
Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.
Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.
Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.
With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments. None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Then why are the lawyers talking to the Times? Maybe Fitzgerald ought to be investigating this leaky sieve of a case.
Remember, this is the New York Times. They could very easily be making the whole thing up.
It's rhetorical.... I'm well aware of how things work (or don't) in DC.
as expected, the crime that was being investigated is not the one that will be charged. what nonsense.
And the NYT knows this how? The only way this could possibly be true is if Fitzgerald or one of his employees is LEAKING. Isn't leaking information about grand jury proceedings a crime?
In other words, the NY Times' lawyers said this.
I sure am glad all this Grand Jury stuff is secret. Time for an investigation of the Prosecutor, Grand Jury members and everyone in the courtroom. Someone needs to tell them this is how court is done in third world countries. Are they American or not?
ONLY if you are a Republican and part of the Bush administration. Does that clear things up for ya?
It wasn't Rove, Libby, or Cheney who tried to cover up. It was Miller.
Yes and yes.
Of course, I don't expect that we'll see people prosecuted for those.
Frankly, Bush should pardon anyone charged in relation to outing that traitor Plame, especially if they've been ensnared by a runaway Federal Prosecutor.
Thanks again Pikamax, and here is my repeat....
If Fitzgerald is thinking "Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - " then that is B.S. No underlying crime...but he made some up during the proceedings. Come on Fitz! If those weak charges are made, I hope Bush pardons then promotes any indicted.
The term "lawyers involved in the case" is intended to mislead the reader. That term is designed to make the reader think members of Fitzgerald's staff have leaked this information. The most likely source of this information are lawyers for individuals who have testified before the grand jury -- which if my memory is accurate includes Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame (a/k/a Veronica Flame).
this is actually not as bad as Drudge has it - basically no crime on the outing maybe on obstruction of justice, etc. but no underlying crime. I think Rove most likely does not get indicted because the case is weak - Libby is more likely since he seems to left out more info on contacts etc. -- then the thing that would really tweak the left is Bush nominates Fitzgerald for a court of appeals post - then at the hearings they demand to know why he did not indict Rove
Fitz is hanging his 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on...
". But Mr. Fitzgerald may have doubts about his account because the journalists who have been publicly identified as having talked to Mr. Libby have said that they did not provide the name, that they could not recall what had been said or that they had discussed unrelated subjects."
What?
it's a LEAK FEST ! good grief .
I still have no idea how to apply italics or underlining to my postings.
"WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday."
That has been my only real concern for the last couple of months. It doesn't take much of a contradiction for them claim obstruction.
Yeah the clear cut intention is pretty bad if true. However, this whole thing is still a big if.
I like the headline "Rove ...may be in serious legal jepardoy"
It's sort of like going to the doctor and hearing that "You might be sick"
Man, I agree, I am not gonna get worked up over this, I just don't see the crime, I am just going to wait and see.......
I read the article and NOWHERE does it say Karl Rove and Libby have been ADVISED of anything
There's a big ol' "MAY" in the middle of the article. It's made up!
This whole deal is the most overblown bunch of hooeey I have ever seen.
Joe Wilson is the only person cited for lying, and he has been lying since the day he wrote his Op Ed in the NYT's
Me too. Please let me know if you find out anything on the italic thing.
IHowever, you still have to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt."
Is that true in a perjury case?.... I guess that makes sense because otherwise every mistake on the stand would be perjury.
But in the Clinton case I don't remember them proving his intent..we all just assumed it based his character.
"But Mr. Fitzgerald may have doubts about his account because the journalists who have been publicly identified as having talked to Mr. Libby have said that they did not provide the name"
Russert said "wife" not Plame or wilson. He never denied he said wife.
All stories need to be parsed for this distiction.
A Martha Stewart-type indictment.
IOW, chicken-s**t. When these gutless prosecutors can't indict someone on an actual crime, they attempt to trap them into lying about it.
Fitzgerald is no better than a jack-legged, small-town DA who needs a case to get his budget approved.
I agree .. But who's to say the charges being contemplated for "two" aren't for Joe and Valerie Wilson ..??
And .. Rove and Libby have stated several times - that Fitz has told them they are not the focus of the investigation. It's only the press who wants them to be the focus of the investigation.
The press has already admitted on TV that Fitz has not REVEALED ANYTHING .. so how do they know even this much.
And I loved this comment in the article: "None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case." So the lawyers are talking even after the prosecutor told them not to. That's just great. Or .. maybe Fitz knew they would talk .. and he misinformed them of his intentions ..?? We can always hope.
I still have no idea how to apply italics or underlining to my postings.
(But no spaces between the < >.)
Yep. Remember, it was the Times that had a front page story on how US troops were hopelessly bogged down in the sands of Iraq two days before Baghdad fell. They don't have a clue. A lawyer talking to a journalist without attribution. Not my idea of solid information.
The worst part of all of this...
"The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week"
Next week? Doesn't Fitz know that I have been spending an unhealthy amount of time online waiting for an answer!?!? My wife doesn't understand, she is like "Who is Karl Rove?"
As I said elsewhere, the Times story makes it sound like they've both received Target Letters.
He has the weight his probably of conviction v the seriousness of the charge. I still say no indictment of Libby or Rove.
Thank you.
The "Old Grey HO" don't carry no weight around here no mo !!!
This had better be good.
Okay hr, your next assignment is to show the class how to conjugate their Latin verbs.
I hope you are right. I still think Rove is ok, but I don't know about Libby.
My guess is based upon the 1/10th of 1% of the testimony that I read (of which, half may be made up by the reporter).
For a carriage-return, you use either < p> or < br> (without the spaces).
Technically you don't need a letter. That's why I am still wondering about why Fitz called Wilson prior to Miller testimony. I wonder why Fitz met with Miller prior to her testimony.
To make italics < i > in front of the sentence (without the space between the brackets and the i. At the end just do < /i > again without the spaces.
Martha Stewart is fresh out of jail and has a new TV show, all is forgotten.
It's entirely possible that the NY slimes is just creating their own tangent based off of old data. For instance since rove could not be guaranteed that he would not be indicted during his 4th interview that could constitute legal danger. Anything else is speculation unless Fitzgeralds boys are leaking as a sieve and then an investigation needs to be made into that.
How can there be a coverup if nobody knew or believed that they were breaking any law? ...and in fact weren't breaking a law? A coverup of failing to break the law?
So in this next week, go out see what others are really concerned about. You'll notice it's not this stupidity that's going on in the media/wilson/or Delay.
It's gas prices, hurricanes and flooding in many parts of the country. Let's hope all this Washington stuff has mesmerized those who hate us long enough to mess up their plans of attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.