CIA leak prosecutor says he needs to continue probe

CNN ^ | 11-18-05

[STARWISE]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said he will have to bring more information before a new grand jury in the CIA leak probe, adding that his work is not complete.

In a new court filing, Fitzgerald said sensitive information from his investigation still needs to be protected, especially since proceedings will involve a different jury than the one that indicted former Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.

The panel hearing that part of the inquiry expired that day.

Fitzgerald does not say that new charges definitely will be brought. Instead, the filing discusses what rules govern disclosure of information to the media regarding evidence in the case against Libby.

More at link.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby for supposedly lying to his grand jury. Why should Walter Pincus be held to a lesser standard?"

Why? Becaues he's a democrat.

[STARWISE]

I'm not buyin' that ... I think he's been caught flatfooted, but no opportunistic ... and I'm sure regretting the bravado of his press conference about Libby. I always try to remember this .. it's been proven out to me so many dozens of times over the years, and it's a lesson I try to live: he who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

This is why Fitz's is continuing.

This was posted by FP libstripper

I think he/she is hit the nail on the head in the post 133.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1518814/posts

---

Take a look at Fitzgerald's Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald He spent most of his career before September 1, 2001 in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, eight years of which was under the Clinton administration, whose AG was Janet Reno.

Fitzgerald was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on September 1, 2001. At the time it was likely he'd only serve about four years, ending September 1, 2005, after which he'd be looking for other employment. Indeed there were rumors to that effect in Chicago. Being appointed special prosecutor was a gold mine for him in that it opened up a host of new career opportunities, including becoming Hillary's AG if he could destroy the Bush administration with this investigation.


The investigation was of a non-crime, something he could have determined in the first few days just by looking a Plame's personnel record and discovering that she wasn't legally "covert" in the five years before her identity was revealed. If he wasn't a self-seeking climber out to destroy the Bush administration, he'd have wrapped it up right then. Instead he continued in an effort to manufacture "crimes" out of air.


In the course of this search he managed to develop discrepancies between the testimony of Libby and three reporters about alleged conversations between Libby and those reporters. At the time Libby didn't have any motive to lie about his recollection of the conversations because the incident Fitzgerald was investigating was a non-crime.


OTOH all three reporters either misspoke or had real motives to lie. Before Andrea Mitchel backtracked a day or two ago, she pointed out that Russert failed to remember, in his GJ testimony, how generally known Plame's identity was. Judy Miller was on the skids at the NYT because of her earlier, probably accurate, reporting on the WMD issue and had every reason to slant her testimony against Libby to try to keep her job. Cooper, of Time, had almost as much motive to slant his testimony against Libby because his employer was also trying to get the Bush administration.


Nevertheless, Fitz chose to believe these three very flawed witnesses instead of Libby. That leads straight to the reasonable conclusion that he did it for an ulterior motive, the most logical of which is being on Hillary's short list for AG.


A few weeks ago Newsmax picked up on the fact that Gerald Nadler, a far left New York Democrat, thought Fitz would be great to lead an impeachment investigation against President Bush. Nadler is a close ally of Hillary's. It's very unlikely he would have made this suggestion if he didn't know a lot about Fitz that we don't. Hence, I stand by my view that Fitz is an ambitious, unscrupulous lawyer who's just let his real colors show, something that would make him well qualified ethically to be Hillary's AG.


133 posted on 11/13/2005



Posted on 11/18/2005 6:34:04 PM CST by CHICAGOFARMER (Right to Carry (RTC))

[new yorker 77]

This is the clearest sign the the Libby Indictment is in jeopardy.

With falsehoods in Fitzgerald's original indictment, and new grand jury allows him to rewrite indictments and throw out the old ones.

It also allows him to save face after everyone and their mother is coming out of the Woodwork saying, I knew, I knew.

John Fund had the best analogy, "This is like an episode of Seinfeld. This entire special counsel is a show about nothing and everyone involved from the papers to the White House to the prosecutor ends up looking bad. On top of that, no one cares." (paraphrase)

[Sacajaweau]

I think this look see by Fitz is based on laws relative to leaks BY the media. That would be somewhat different than "by the Whitehouse". Remember that Cooper "dropped" Valerie's name to the Whitehouse.

[new yorker 77]

Jed Babbin Correctly Predicts that the Woodward Testimony would Force Fitzgerald to Clean Up His Mess and Save Face.

He decided on Option #3.

I posted this earlier:

Justice Rules Requires Fitzgerald to Throw Out Libby Indictment: Jed Babbin says to John Batchelor

This comes in the wake of the Woodward revelation that a former administration official discussed Plame/Flame with Bob Woodward before Libby ever spoke to a reporter. Also, that Woodward can not recall if he revealed the information to Libby.

I am paraphrasing what I heard on tonight's John Batchelor Program during the 10:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. EST time slot on 770 WABC here in New York.

Keep in mind that the last time I posted iformation from this program it was regarding John Fund saying Harriet Meirs Harriet Meirs nomination will be pulled. My post was two weeks before it actually happened.

FYI: I just heard Jed Babbin, a contributing editor for The American Spectator, say that Justice Department rules will force Fitzgerald to throw out the Libby Indictments. The Justice Department rule in question states that a prosecutor under juristdiction of the Justic Department can not proceed with an indictment if that prosecutor finds that facts material to the indictment are proven to be false in a continuing investgation by the prosecitor after the indictment was handed down.

Options Given By Babbin:

Either, 1)He throws out the indictment or it will be thrown out for him by a judge.

2)If he's stupid, he takes it to trial only to lose. Or.

3)He must start from scratch with a new Grand Jury with Justice Department permission that may take years to reinvestigate everyone and their mother.

[Cboldt]

Woodward now says he told Pincus about Plame some time in mid-June. Pincus says he doesn't remember that.

Which is what Pincus has to say. Because if Pincus acknowledged remembering Woodward's words, he would (one presumes) be admitting to having perjured himself before the grand jury. Fitzgerald will presumably not indict Pincus based on Woodward's words alone (that would be a he-said-she-said situation, and there's no way of proving Pincus knew). But if Fitzgerald now subpoenas a whole bunch of new executive-branch officials who never testified before -- including some people at State and CIA -- he will surely be doing so to find out whether Pincus spoke to them, and whether Plame's name came up. He might also want to see Pincus's contemporaneous notes, which he did not insist on in the first place.

Good speculation by Podhoretz. I don't recall hearing about Pincus testimony before the GJ to begin with. And if he's called to produce notes, etc. that have heretofore not been produced, I wonder if he'll claim the 5th, or otherwise stonewall production on the grounds that "there was no illegal outing and the investigation is bogus."

[STARWISE]

Will be interesting to see if Fitzie obeys the law.

[copycat]

From TIME...But it is the first time Woodward had contact with Fitzgerald, even though Woodward's name shows up on various White House officials' calendars, phone logs and other records during June and July, 2003, the time frame that is critical to determining whether a crime was committed when information about Plame's employment was shared with reporters.

No, it's NOT critical. Gerald Fitzpatrick already said the original act was not a crime. Plame was NOT covert.

[Cementjungle]

That's the plan. They will be able to say things like "The Bush Administration was engulfed in grand juries, criminal investigations and trials the whole 8 years".

[MilleniumBug]

Fitz has become the workhorse in the scam called Nigergate (Niger-Gate for Italians). That was where a bunch of disgruntled spies, Demo senators, French, and media operatives joined forces to forge WMD documents and mislead Bush so that he could be unseated. Joe Wilson & Valerie Plame are the operatives who got the CIA to implement the current phase of the "coup d'etat". Fitz is behind schedule so he's going to have to get a move on if he's going to trump up charges before the next election.

[Waco]

BUT, does he promise to continue his probe and NEVER put the Wilsons under oath? Of course!!!