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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
To: dogbyte12
I think Reuters is just stirring the pot. I don't think they have any inside info on when Fitzgerald will hand dwon indictments, or whatever.
41
posted on
10/05/2005 8:15:59 PM PDT
by
savedbygrace
("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
To: mabelkitty
I think he was just clearing up loose ends. Unless someone did something stupid in front of the grand jury, there is nothing indictable here.
To: DMinus
Yes welcome. And the terror mosque case had nothing to do with the agreement. Per DOJ rules, Fitz could not question her on that anyway. The other sources relate to Plame case - her previous attorney Abrams made that clear the other day.
43
posted on
10/05/2005 8:16:44 PM PDT
by
frankjr
To: oceanview
Fitzgerald is a Democrat. Expect a slew of ham sandwich indictments.
44
posted on
10/05/2005 8:18:12 PM PDT
by
stocksthatgoup
(Polls = Proof that when the MSM want yo"ur opinion they will give it to you.)
To: Perdogg
I don't think the target of an investigation (you proposed Miller) is required to testify before a Grand Jury. Is that correct?
To: frankjr
That's my guess. He has nothing to justify to continue to GJ. Remember, his office stated or hinted that "the preliminary" crime had not been committed and that he was looking to investigate periphery crimes.
I cannot see conspiracy because there is no underlining crime. Perjury is impossible to prove. My guess is that he will slap Rove and Libby on hand, lecture about good government and move on.
46
posted on
10/05/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
To: SirJohnBarleycorn
what did Libby get it return? now we have a system of justice that dictates the accused fear "pissing off" the prosecutor - the fact that the re-affirmation was legally meaningless doesn't matter?
To: dogbyte12
That the investigation took TWO years is the real crime.
48
posted on
10/05/2005 8:20:19 PM PDT
by
razorback-bert
(Stupidty kills, but not fast enought)
To: Texas Songwriter
49
posted on
10/05/2005 8:20:24 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
To: Texas Songwriter
From what I have heard ( I am not a lawyer) a prosecutor generally notifies a target before they would testify if they are indeed a target. However, they are not obligated to do that.
50
posted on
10/05/2005 8:21:19 PM PDT
by
cohokie
To: Perdogg
Why not leave her in detention if he means to indict her?
To: Perdogg
" I cannot see conspiracy because there is no underlining crime."
Didn't stop Ronnie Earle ;)
52
posted on
10/05/2005 8:22:46 PM PDT
by
frankjr
To: mabelkitty
53
posted on
10/05/2005 8:22:56 PM PDT
by
Archon of the East
("universal executive power of the law of nature")
To: dogbyte12; All
HERE'S MY GUESS ABOUT PLAMEGATE... [John Podhoretz]
...for what it's worth (and what it's worth is about a nickel if you want inside information). My guess is: It has amounted to nothing.
Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is tying up loose ends, one of which is Judith Miller, toward whom he is hostile for reasons having nothing to do with Valerie Plame (she busted up his investigation of an Islamist terror front called the Holy Land Foundation by calling its officials for comment just before he was about to stage a midnight raid on the place). My guess: He has already determined there was no crime in the naming of Plame. Remember: He could have indicted people all along the way if he'd had the goods on them and probably would have done so in order to secure cooperation. (Remember that Ken Starr indicted, among other people, the McDougalls and Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker well before he got involved in Monica-gate.)
If there was no underlying crime in the outing of her name, the idea that there was a conspiracy to hide the fact of her naming (which is what the Washington Post is hinting at today) is a major, major stretch. Not an impossible stretch, but a major stretch, and a pretty unfair one too by any reckoning. Total runaway prosecutor stuff, and I trust people like Andy McCarthy who say Fitzgerald is a fair man.
So, unless somebody perjured himself explicitly before his grand jury -- and I submit to you it's highly doubtful that Scooter Libby committed perjury before a grand jury because he's one of Washington's toughest lawyers and would know how dangerous it would be to do so -- Fitzgerald is done. He will end the grand jury next month, will not indict anyone for anything, will not provide a long written report on the matter, and will be accused of being a White House shill by the Kos-maniacs.
Look, I could be wrong. But given everything we know and the fact that there have been no indictments by now and that Judith Miller is the last witness for Fitzgerald's grand jury, I think this is the most plausible scenario for the Plamegate endgame.
NRO: The Corner
To: frankjr
Fitzgerald was the one who put Miller in jail - her claim was litigated all the way to the SCOTUS. then suddenly he becomes concerned that Libby was "letting her rot"? he could have declared her testiomony no longer relevant at any time if he wanted her to be freed.
To: Texas Songwriter
Because he needed her testimony to conclude his report. Think about this logically. If Miller, or any body else said any thing bad about Libbey or Rove in the GJ, wouldn't this have been reported by now?
56
posted on
10/05/2005 8:25:06 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
To: Perdogg
I hear this special prosecutor, though a democrat, shoots straight as a grizzleys d**k. I admit I am concerned. The Administration does not neeed anymore hickeys anytime soon.
To: mystery-ak
Why? Have you not been called into the office at work during an investigation and told not to talk about it? I have. I wasn't the target.
58
posted on
10/05/2005 8:28:45 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
To: West Coast Conservative
"He could have indicted people all along the way if he'd had the goods on them and probably would have done so in order to secure cooperation."
I find this part interesting. Fitzgerald is currently leading a Grand Jury investigation in Chicago (city hall) and he has handed out indictments all along the way.
59
posted on
10/05/2005 8:30:05 PM PDT
by
frankjr
To: Texas Songwriter
He still has to prove a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt.
I think if Rove or Libby perjured themselves they deserve jail. Perjury is so difficult to prosecute, I am surprised it's still on the books.
60
posted on
10/05/2005 8:31:28 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson