Fitzgerald Documents on his Website

Office of Special Counsel ^ | Oct. 28, 2005 | Patrick J. Fitzegerald

[FairOpinion]

THIS IS THE ACTUAL WEBSITE OF the Office of Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzegerald, with all the info, including full text of indictments.

Please click here:

USDOJ Special Councel, Patrick Fitzegerald's website

[FairOpinion]

Here is what's on the website (see link above)

August 12, 2005 Memorandum of Deputy Attorney General
February 6, 2004 Letter of Deputy Attorney General
December 30, 2003 Letter of Deputy Attorney General


News

October 28, 2005 Press Release
October 28, 2005 Indictment
October 28, 2005 Media Advisory


June 27, 2005 Statement of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
February 15, 2005 Statement of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald


Legal Proceedings
In Re: Special Counsel Investigation

[Mo1]

later read

[RepublicanCentury]

I have read the indictment, and I am dumbfounded. The most serious counts (perjury) are based on nothing more that a "he said/she said" - specifically, Libby said that both Russert and Time's Matt Cooper told him about Plame, while Cooper and Russert said they did not. That's it - one man's word against another - no other evidence (at least none disclosed). Very very difficult to get a conviction with evidence this flimsy.

[Paloma_55]

Headline on Fox News this morning "Rove will not be indicted"

Imagine, the media is so screwed up that it becomes news when you are not indicted for something. The whole last week has been a media circle jerk where the speculation was the news itself.

I imagine it must feel good (NOT!) to see my picture on the front page of the local paper with the headline "Paloma NOT arrested for murder!"

What a sad, pathetic joke.

[jaydubyagee]

thats what I am seeing too. "trustworthy" MSM's word against Libby.

Is anyone else disturbed that Russert continues to report on this story as an "impartial" member of the media?

[Rippin]

So why isn't Russert indicted for contradicting Libby?

[acapesket]

That's why Libby needs a kick ass Lawyer to rebut this idiocy!

[dead]

Libby said he told Russert he didn't know for sure that she worked for the CIA. Russert says he never indicated he wasn't sure.

This fascinating case could easily be lifted from today's headlines into the lamest episode of Law & Order ever.

[frankjr]

I only read the press release outlining the charges and even though it says that Libby alledgely knew about Valerie working at the CIA before speaking with reporters, no where does it say he knew if she was undercover or if it was classfied. I am guessing that is part of the reason no charges on Intel Identity protection act orleaking classified info.

Now sure 5 counts looks bad, but it is pretty sad that there is no underlying crime and the charges are based on the memory of the reporters.

[keat]

"Paloma NOT arrested for murder!"

Is this true? It wasn't in my local paper.

[An.American.Expatriate]

OMG is THAT LAME!!!!

Half of the case is a he says vs he says (Russert vs. Libby) and the rest is not much better.

Just about ANY defense attorney should be able to destroy the prosecution.

[Phocion]

Probably because the prosecutor has the testimony of numerous individuals (Ari Fleishcer, the Vice President, Karl Rove, the Under Secretary of State) who discussed Plame with Libby before he ever talked to Russert, thus contradicting the testimony of Libby but not that of Russert.

[angkor]

There's also a great deal in the indictment about Plame's alleged "covert" status (and presumably someone at CIA confirmed this for Fitzgerald), but there is no charge against Libby on that issue, and nowhere is there any indication that Libby knew of her "covert" status.

I'm having some difficulty seeing what the charges arise from. That he gave Russert, Miller, and Cooper a runaround? So what?

[dirtboy]

Hmmmm ... a lame-assed indictment .... handed down on the last day of the Grand Jury.

Maybe we should call him Fitzearle...

[angkor]

discussed Plame with Libby before he ever talked to Russert, thus contradicting the testimony of Libby but not that of Russert.

Hmmm... the way I read the indictment on the last count, Libby clearly says he knew she was CIA but didn't want Russert, Miller, or Cooper to know *how* he knew. So he said it was from other reporters.

Is it perjury to mislead Tim Russert?

[Phocion]

The charges arise from the fact that Libby said under oath that Russert told him, while loads of other people said under oath that they talked to Libby about it before he ever talked to Russert.

[dirtboy]

Is it perjury to mislead Tim Russert?

I guess it's making a false statement to mislead the FBI about misleading Tim Russert when Fitz is misleading about Plame's employment at the CIA not being widely known.

[dirtboy]

The charges arise from the fact that Libby said under oath that Russert told him,

That's not even the charge that I see. Basically, Libby said one thing happened during the discussion with Russert and Russert said another. Libby was under NO compulsion to tell the truth to Russert.

[Phocion]

Basically, Libby said one thing happened during the discussion with Russert and Russert said another.

That's part of the one charge, and I agree that's a weak point of the indictment. He's more likely to get nailed about saying (about his conversation with Russert) "at this point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this was something he was telling me that I was first learning." In the light of testimony from numerous individuals who had heard him speaking about Plame earlier, a jury might find that hard to believe.