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

Skip to comments.

US officials brace for decisions in CIA leak case Wed Oct 5, 2005 9:07 PM ET
Reuters ^ | 10-5-05 | Reuters

Posted on 10/05/2005 6:57:48 PM PDT by dogbyte12

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said on Wednesday.

As a first step, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was expected to notify officials by letter if they have become targets, said the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Fitzgerald could announce plea agreements, bring indictments, or conclude that no crime was committed. By the end of this month he is expected to wrap up his nearly two-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

The inquiry has ensnared President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The White House had long maintained that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak but reporters have since named them as sources.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by Fitzgerald. In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a target.

Libby's lawyer was not immediately available to comment.

"It's an ongoing investigation and we're fully cooperating," said Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride.

The outcome of the investigation could shake up an administration already reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House Republican leader Tom DeLay on a conspiracy charge related to campaign financing.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to the grand jury on Friday about the conversations she had with Libby.

Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of leaking her name, damaging her ability to work undercover, to get back at him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy.

Fitzgerald's agreement to limit the scope of Miller's testimony to her conversations with Libby -- a proposal he rejected a year earlier -- suggested that Libby had become "the focus of interest," said one of the lawyers involved in the case.

After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: oceanview

No, it doesn't matter. Oceanview, if YOU were in the crosshairs of a special prosecutor with a federal grand jury considering whether to issue felony indictments against you, I have no doubt that YOU also would try not to gratuitously piss off said special prosecutor.


61 posted on 10/05/2005 8:38:11 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup
Fitzgerald is a Democrat. Expect a slew of ham sandwich indictments.

Except that Fitzgerald isn't a Democrat. And were his indictments of Mayor Daley's cronies a slew of ham sandwich indictments?
62 posted on 10/05/2005 8:39:35 PM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

unless there was some agreement for Libby such as "I can't clear you unless Miller is given some face saving means of testifying" - I would not have provided it.


63 posted on 10/05/2005 8:42:49 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle
I suppose perjury if either of them lied to the grand jury. obstruction of justice depending on what they did or said. Conspiracy the ever available catchall if they conspired in some way with the media to obstruct justice. But those are all pie in the sky. I still don't know if any crime has been committed. I don't think so under the statute covering exposing undercover CIA agents.
64 posted on 10/05/2005 8:59:31 PM PDT by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: RedStateWarrior2000

Damn that was quick!


66 posted on 10/05/2005 9:13:43 PM PDT by IGOTMINE (Front Sight. Press. Follow Through. It's a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
Except that Fitzgerald isn't a Democrat.

I had read that he was a Democrat, but perhaps I merely read that from another poster and assumed it was true and repeated it. In looking now, I can't find any information on his official political affiliation. Do you have any specific information on this?

His background -- from Brooklyn, parents first generation Irish, went to Harvard Law School. Was appointed US Attorney by this administration. Seems utterly apolitical in his career so far. Guess one can make what one will of that.

67 posted on 10/05/2005 9:33:43 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn; oceanview
Reading Fitzgerald's letter is quite revealing. Fitzgerald argued in court and won at every level that a valid waiver had been given to Miller by Libby, both by written waiver and by conduct. And then he turns around and gives voice to the totally incompatible notion that Libby has not given her a proper waiver, or at least a waiver sufficient to satisfy her standard for voluntariness - a standard that he has definitively established in court is the wrong standard. Moreover, she could have - at any time - done what Matt Cooper, Tim Russert, Walter Pincus, et al. did, and that is to approach Libby's counsel to confirm that the waiver applied to them personally. So for Fitzgerald to cast blame for her incarceration on Libby seems quite ridiculous. Moreover, as reported on Powerline, http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011865.php, *after* all this developed she fired Floyd Abrams, hired Bob Bennett, and then cut a deal to limit the scope of her testimony *before* she agreed to testify and before she was let out of jail. So, responsibility for her languishing in jail simply cannot be ascribed to Libby. Here are the words of Floyd Abrams on the subject:
I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby. She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them.
As for what Fitzgerald will do, I have no idea. Regards,
68 posted on 10/05/2005 9:59:07 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
The fact that he accepted Miller's proposal that he rejected a year later tells me he has nothing and he's going to offer up a goat to save his own skin to live another political day.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, because that's the kind of thing these special prosecutors do routinely. They take forever and a day to investigate the original charge, but typically find nothing there. So they indict some hapless individual for "perjury" even though no charges are ever brought on the original "crime."

Fitzgerald is a Democrat who has been given free rein to damage a president he opposes politcally. I don't trust him one tiny bit. He'll find some reason to bring an indictment, just like Ronnie Earle, only more slick.

69 posted on 10/05/2005 10:02:02 PM PDT by Wolfstar ("And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm." GWB, 1/20/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
I had read that he was a Democrat, but perhaps I merely read that from another poster and assumed it was true and repeated it. In looking now, I can't find any information on his official political affiliation. Do you have any specific information on this?

What I had read is that he was determined not to be part of any political party so he registered to vote as an independent. He later was aghast to learn that he had unintentionally registered with the Independence Party! He certainly seems to be an equal opportunity indicter.
70 posted on 10/05/2005 10:06:20 PM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Indicted for what?

Doesn't matter. They're Republicans. That's enough for indictment in this country.

The sad thing is the the White House will probably sing the praises of the prosecutor. Have him over for popcorn and a movie. Give him a high profile government assignment. Then kick a conservative in the head.

71 posted on 10/05/2005 10:18:35 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Peace Begins in the Womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I think if Rove or Libby perjured themselves they deserve jail.

Perjury in front of a grand jury? Everybody does it.

72 posted on 10/05/2005 10:21:01 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Peace Begins in the Womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead

Yes, the idea that she was sitting in jail for three months because she didn't believe she had a real waiver from Libby is simply not credible.

Interestingly, after that absurd explanation was floated and greeted with skepticism, Floyd Abrams gives the interview with Howie Kurtz of WaPo, in which he claims that the real reason she sat in jail for so long was because they couldn't come to an agreement with Fitzgerald on the agreement limiting scope of questioning.

But I find that equally not credible. If that was the reason she was languishing in jail, then wouldn't Fitzgerald be aware of it? Yet in his letter to Libby's lawyer he leaves the definite impression that he believes the only reason she is in jail is the "misunderstanding" over the Libby waiver.

And it appears to me from the press reports that reporters Kessler and Cooper probably also received agreements limiting scope of questioning, and neither of them had to go to jail in order to face down Fitzgerald to get such agreements.

So neither the Libby waiver explanation nor the agreement to limit scope of questioning explanation credibly explains why she went to jail.

The best theory I have at the moment is that Floyd Abrams and the NYT have been pushing the Federal Shield Law, they saw who they thought would be the perfect poster child for this, and convinced Judy Miller to drink the kool-aid.


73 posted on 10/05/2005 10:21:06 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Does anyone here have any specific quotes from anyone in the Bush administration specifically saying "Wilson's wife name is Valerie Plame and she works at the CIA, possibly covertly". If this was never said I don't see any indictments anywhere. Plus, it has to be proven she was indeed a covert agent at the time. Right???
74 posted on 10/05/2005 10:32:44 PM PDT by Cougar66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

A long time ago, someone around here said he was a Kennedy relative. Ya know, cuz of JFK's middle name.

Anyway, I did a google to see if I could find anything to confirm it, I came across a far out, tin foil, black helicopters, Build a Burger site... I just had to share it with someone & since you were the one I was gonna tell about the Kennedy connection, you're it. LOL

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/BushCheneyIndicted.htm


75 posted on 10/05/2005 11:06:07 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

As we all know, if there really were such indictments they also would have named Halliburton, LOL!


76 posted on 10/05/2005 11:20:25 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak

Luskin's silence worries me....he didn't hesitate in the past to say that Rove was not a target...

---

Agreed. I can only pray that Wilson and the rest got indicted as well and this isnt a one sided attack. This fall keeps getting worse and worse.


77 posted on 10/05/2005 11:36:00 PM PDT by BoBToMatoE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

Libby will be indicted.

I predict this since the political winds just aren't great for the GOP right now.

Hopefully, it won't happen.


78 posted on 10/05/2005 11:39:56 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

If there is any justice in the world, Joe Wilson will be indicted for perjury or obstruction or some comparable offense.


79 posted on 10/06/2005 12:09:17 AM PDT by mondonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I don't know,I just got a bad feeling.Their out to get this administration anyway possible,I pray I am wrong.
80 posted on 10/06/2005 12:10:05 AM PDT by patriciamary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next 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