Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sources: No Indictments Wednesday in CIA Leak Probe
Fox News ^ | October 26, 2005 | Jane Roh

Posted on 10/26/2005 9:36:57 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative

A special prosecutor who has spent nearly two years investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity is not expected to announce his long-awaited conclusions on Wednesday.

Sources told FOX News that no indictments or other legal action were expected just yet by the federal grand jury investigating the leak.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was making his final presentation to the 18-member grand jury on Wednesday. The jury's term expires on Friday.

Meanwhile, the White House was attempting to go about its normal business, albeit under a very dark cloud: two top aides, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove, are at the center of the probe, and on Tuesday lawyers involved in the case revealed Vice President Dick Cheney may have tipped off Libby, his chief of staff, to the agent's identity.

Fitzgerald and the grand jury convened at the U.S. District Courthouse at 9 a.m. EDT, just two days before the jury's term is set to expire. Until then, when they decide to announce their findings is entirely at their discretion. Fitzgerald also has the option to extend the grand jury's term.

On Tuesday, investigators interviewed neighbors of the woman at the heart of the case, Valerie Plame. Marc Lefkowitz, who lives across the street from Plame, was interviewed by two FBI agents who arrived at his house without notice, his wife told FOX News. Lefkowitz was asked if he knew that Plame worked for the CIA before her name appeared in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak.

Lefkowitz's wife told FOX News that she and her husband believed Plame was "some kind of consultant," and did not know she worked for the CIA.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cialeak; doabloodysearch; fitzgerald; grandjury; plame; rove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-125 last
To: kabar
Yikes. I did leave out House. S/B White House. I hope the PC cops don't arrest me.

How are you so sure that a desk jockey like Valerie Plame would be above Top Secret? After all, she apparently didn't hide the fact that she worked for the CIA from her neighbors. You don't handle classified information like that if you work for the CIA and have to take those lie detector tests every few years. How would you like to be good old Valerie and be asked: "Have you ever mentioned to any of your neighbors that you worked for the agency?". The needle would jump off the chart on that one.

So I'm betting you are wrong. It's classified info but it isn't the Manhattan Project either.

101 posted on 10/26/2005 12:02:18 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Does it make sense that any President can divulge sensitive, classified information to a foreign power and can escape prosecution because he can automatically declassify it? No man is above the law, even the President.

Just came back from a run...

He can amend, rescind, or write another EO to cover his actions making it legal - dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's so to speak.

The distinction is between what should be political suicide and what is legal.

Lets use our "favorite" president Clinton as an example:

Clinton loosened the security in Energy Department where our nuclear secret where most likely stolen by Red China. Clinton exported missile technology to Red China via Bernard Schwartz & Loral Space by letting the Commerce Department decide what is and what is not sensitive, national security technology which can be exported to foreign powers. All legal but what I consider is treasonous action by the president - and all legal.

During Clinton's impeachment Ken Starr should have included charges to Congress that Clinton directly put the US in the future danger by nuclear strike. As we know, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding but an attempt to remove a sitting president because the impeachers believe he has committed acts that Congress disagrees with.

There may be a political price to pay for declassifying info, but it's legal for the president.

Like to stay and chat but I've got to go ...until this evening. :)

102 posted on 10/26/2005 12:03:00 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

This just in:

In hushed tones, the radio news guy said counsel is meeting with the judge. He could ask for an extension or a brand new grand jury.


103 posted on 10/26/2005 12:05:42 PM PDT by rwa265 (The Promise of the Lord, I Will Proclaim Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
104 posted on 10/26/2005 12:09:03 PM PDT by USAConstitution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rwa265

I think an extension would be a good news for liberals, as they are hoping for more out of this.


105 posted on 10/26/2005 12:17:30 PM PDT by NonAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: kabar

There isn't ONE neighbor who will tell the truth? I keep hearing that her identity was an open secret, but nobody is verifying it.


106 posted on 10/26/2005 12:25:02 PM PDT by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: rwa265

"...Your Honor, I am deeply sorry that so much of the court's time was wasted pursuing these frivolous charges; as you know, Friday is our last day, and I wanted you to know first that no indictments would be forthcoming. By the way, can I pencil you in for 18 next Wednesday morning?"


107 posted on 10/26/2005 1:00:24 PM PDT by Reagan80 ("Government is not the solution to our problems, Government IS the problem." -RR; 1980 Inaugural)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
However, if Miller or anyone in the press figures out Valerie Plame's identity and tells Libby that they know about it, what is Libby supposed to do? I would think that Libby was more concerned about Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's efforts to bring down the Bush Administration.
108 posted on 10/26/2005 1:13:08 PM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
How are you so sure that a desk jockey like Valerie Plame would be above Top Secret?

If you know post #76, I said that the identiy of a covert agent would be above TS. It is a life and death matter as Ames demonstrated. There is some dispute as to the status of Plame, so it depends on what her status was at the time.

After all, she apparently didn't hide the fact that she worked for the CIA from her neighbors.

Latest reports indicate that her neighbors deny knowing that she worked for the Agency.

You don't handle classified information like that if you work for the CIA and have to take those lie detector tests every few years. How would you like to be good old Valerie and be asked: "Have you ever mentioned to any of your neighbors that you worked for the agency?". The needle would jump off the chart on that one.

If you are asked that question.

So I'm betting you are wrong. It's classified info but it isn't the Manhattan Project either.

I wouldn't bet if I were you.

109 posted on 10/26/2005 1:14:20 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains

As I mentioned previously, you would have to be a fool to admit that you knew her identity. Who wants to be drawn into protracted legal proceedings and asked to testify?


110 posted on 10/26/2005 1:16:02 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

Please read the entire EO and then we'll discuss.


111 posted on 10/26/2005 1:16:41 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
If Judith Miller had a security clearance (story) would Libby have been legally able to tell her about Plame? Wouldn't it then have been illegal for Miller to tell someone else about Plame?
112 posted on 10/26/2005 1:21:45 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
Gergen was supposedly a conservative until he decided he needed a job in the Clinton Administration.

Which means what he REALLY is is a political whore.

113 posted on 10/26/2005 1:23:09 PM PDT by MamaLucci (Mutually assured destruction STILL keeps the Clinton administration criminals out of jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kabar
..........you would have to be a fool to admit that you knew her identity........

You would have to be a fool NOT to admit it, if the Feds are asking the question.

114 posted on 10/26/2005 1:27:27 PM PDT by MamaLucci (Mutually assured destruction STILL keeps the Clinton administration criminals out of jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

>>>Th news is There is no news?..........This is news?............

The media is trying to force an indictment by talking about it as if it is a done deal. That's what all the noise is, they want to pressure Fitz into the indictment mode.

patent


115 posted on 10/26/2005 1:33:34 PM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patent
"I'm NOT afraid of witches!"

"I'm NOT afraid of witches!"

"I'm NOT afraid of witches!"

"I'm NOT afraid of witches!"

"I'm NOT afraid of witches!"

"I'm NOT afraid of witches!"

"I'm NOT afraid of witches!"

Cowardly Lion in Wizard of Oz..........

116 posted on 10/26/2005 1:35:53 PM PDT by Red Badger (I've eaten so much crow in my life that I'm immune to bird flu.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
You would have to be a fool NOT to admit it, if the Feds are asking the question.

And how would the Feds prove that you knew?

117 posted on 10/26/2005 1:38:20 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The same way they prove lots of things...........by interviewing anyone you've ever spoken to in your life, looking at telephone and internet records, etc. The point is, as it always is with these types of investigations, you don't know what info the Feds already have when they question you. Just ask Martha Stewart.


118 posted on 10/26/2005 1:46:16 PM PDT by MamaLucci (Mutually assured destruction STILL keeps the Clinton administration criminals out of jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
I would think that Libby was more concerned about Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's efforts to bring down the Bush Administration.

I doubt Libby was concerned about Wilson's loony rantings at all- it's just that reporters seem to have kept asking various people about Wilson during conversations about more important- and unrelated- matters.

119 posted on 10/26/2005 2:00:18 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

>>>Wizard of Oz..........

Yep.


120 posted on 10/26/2005 2:46:54 PM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: kabar
There is some dispute as to the status of Plame, so it depends on what her status was at the time.

Well now I see why we are having this little disagreement. Of course a covert agent would be protected well above TS and might be known to only a few selected people.

But Plame clearly wasn't in that category, at least for the 5+ years prior to her supposed "outing". At least that is what I'm assuming since it fits with what we know about the case. I am assuming that the people who have stated that they knew she worked at CIA well before the Novak article was printed are telling the truth. For me that is enough to verify that she was no longer a covert agent. If, as it appears now, she was a desk jockey at Langley working in the WMD area then the fact that she was employeed by the CIA would be too easily discovered to justify a classification at the levels that you have indicated.

I don't budge easily. I'm sticking to my guns.

121 posted on 10/26/2005 3:06:43 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Her status is key. Some say she was in the process of changing her status since she left her last covert overseas assignment around 1997. Based on the law, five years would have elapsed and she woud then no longer be in a covert status. Fitzgerald will have to sort that out.

In additon to her personal status, there is also the outing of the front company she worked for. This could impact other agents who worked for this company.

122 posted on 10/26/2005 3:17:42 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

But after that argument is made, the lefties always ask why would the CIA want this matter investigated if she wasn't covert. I wish the CIA would just say if she was covert or not.


123 posted on 10/26/2005 5:50:23 PM PDT by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I'm holding you responsible for this! If it's wrong then ... then ... I'll be MAD !!


124 posted on 10/26/2005 7:52:53 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: piasa
"I doubt Libby was concerned about Wilson's loony rantings at all"

This is from the "Washington Post": "Miller described a meeting on June 23, 2003, with Libby in the Old Executive Office Building. . . Libby was angry about reports that Cheney and other senior officials had embraced flimsy evidence about Iraq seeking nuclear material in the African nation of Niger and was concerned about "selective leaking" by the CIA to distance the agency if no illegal Iraqi weapons were found. Libby noted that the CIA had sent a "clandestine guy" -- a reference to Wilson -- to Niger on a fact-finding mission."

And,

"Libby was concerned about CIA leaks and Wilson's part in it."

In another on line publication, "The Daily Kos," the following:

"He (Libby) was concerned about leaks from the CIA and the CIA not being on board with the administration. Libby claims the CIA, not Cheney, sent Wilson to Niger, and it's the first time Judith (Miller) claims she heard the name Wilson. Libby mentioned Wilson's wife might work for the CIA."

"Wilson's op-ed piece in the NYT appeared on July 6, 2003."

In the Turkishpress.com, this was revealed: "He (Libby) added that the CIA "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" about the uranium allegations without informing either the White House or its own director, the journalist (Miller) recalled."

It is interesting to note that Wilson's op-ed piece about a trip to Niger, taken February 2002, appeared almost a month (July 6, 2003) after the June 23rd interview between Libby and Miller. This says to me that concern was being raised about Wilson, his wife and the CIA before the June 23rd interview and before Wilson's op-ed piece.

125 posted on 10/26/2005 11:31:09 PM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-125 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson