Posted on 07/23/2005 5:11:36 AM PDT by AliVeritas
WASHINGTON The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus from determining whether White House officials violated a law against exposing undercover agents to determining whether evidence exists to bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges, according to people briefed in recent days on the inquiry's status.
Differences have arisen in witnesses' statements to federal agents and a grand jury about how the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, was leaked to the press two years ago.
According to lawyers familiar with the case, investigators are comparing statements by two top White House aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, with testimony from reporters who have acknowledged talking to the officials.
Although no one has suggested that the investigation into who leaked Plame's name has been shelved, the intensity of the inquiry into possible perjury charges has increased, according to one lawyer familiar with events who spoke on condition that he not be identified.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, and his team have made no decision on whether to seek indictments.
The investigation focused initially on whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, in a campaign to discredit Wilson after he wrote an op-ed article in the New York Times criticizing the Bush administration's grounds for going to war in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
In an interview the other day,Bubba's face and words displayed his utter hate for Rove as a strategist.
My contention is that because Hillary is involved, she is blocked into a corner and the video bit (which was already underway) was all she could be visible on.
(He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.)
Whoa, indeed.
I do, and thank you for posting this here: It's also detailed in Ed Klein's book.
... and the OOPS is growing to include a number of outside-the-Beltway anti-American groupies, domiciled here in the US. How many U.S. Students were fed "fraud" about the WOT by their professors?
You may very well be right. There certainly seems to be a plot to it, much like Rathergate....Start with a false premise and just keep on hitting it.
How did Cooper know enough to even ask the question?.
Wow, nice catch! Yours could be a key question that should be asked.
This investigation looks more & more like a tight ball of twine where you'd keep pulling on a loop trying to find an "end".
Another question would be who are they & what was the motive of the disgruntled agency people who supposedly made up a false WMD report? Are they truly so crass that they would do this in a time of war, just to bring down the president?
When administrations change...there is a huge change in who's occupying a desk. There are plenty of plush jobs that go out the window one way or another. The bigger dudes, like Berger and Wilson, go begging back to their political parties with their "loyalty" credentials and turn up in advisory capacities.
Sac, I'm basically an optimistic woman who looks for the good in people, and I try to not question other's motives. So please be patient with me. I know there is turnover, but am I naive to hope that civil service career people owe their allegience to the country---not the ones currently in office. Are you saying that Dem opposition to Iraq is a smokescreen & their only motive is to bring down this administration?
Could career agents of the CIA, one of the most important groups in keeping the USA safe & secure, become so infected by partisans, that even in a time of war they couldn't put politics aside.
I believed they sincerely thought our war Iraq was a mistake based on wrong intellegence.
I would not take that as a given Judith Miller will be working as a reporter long after this President has left office, and without the ability to quote "anonymous" sources within administrations both Republican and Demorat...
Good point but I don't think the source that they're protecting is anyone inside the administration.
Well, in fact it does - at least as far as regards "government leaks", the biggest difference is that the UK press is subject to "prior restraint" on such issues.
Of course in the UK the political opposition plays a much more direct role of "devils advocate" in somewhat the same way that the press does here: Tony Blair has to respond directly to questions from the opposition in Parliament, President Bush does not have appear in front of Congress to be interrogated by Democrats.
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.