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."
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.
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.
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.
Fitzgerald is a Democrat. Expect a slew of ham sandwich indictments.
I don't think the target of an investigation (you proposed Miller) is required to testify before a Grand Jury. Is that correct?
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?
That is correct.
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.
Why not leave her in detention if he means to indict her?
" I cannot see conspiracy because there is no underlining crime."
Didn't stop Ronnie Earle ;)
Sad but likely true.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.