Posted on 10/20/2005 7:14:44 PM PDT by Pikamax
Then why are the lawyers talking to the Times? Maybe Fitzgerald ought to be investigating this leaky sieve of a case.
Remember, this is the New York Times. They could very easily be making the whole thing up.
It's rhetorical.... I'm well aware of how things work (or don't) in DC.
as expected, the crime that was being investigated is not the one that will be charged. what nonsense.
And the NYT knows this how? The only way this could possibly be true is if Fitzgerald or one of his employees is LEAKING. Isn't leaking information about grand jury proceedings a crime?
In other words, the NY Times' lawyers said this.
I sure am glad all this Grand Jury stuff is secret. Time for an investigation of the Prosecutor, Grand Jury members and everyone in the courtroom. Someone needs to tell them this is how court is done in third world countries. Are they American or not?
ONLY if you are a Republican and part of the Bush administration. Does that clear things up for ya?
It wasn't Rove, Libby, or Cheney who tried to cover up. It was Miller.
Yes and yes.
Of course, I don't expect that we'll see people prosecuted for those.
Frankly, Bush should pardon anyone charged in relation to outing that traitor Plame, especially if they've been ensnared by a runaway Federal Prosecutor.
Thanks again Pikamax, and here is my repeat....
If Fitzgerald is thinking "Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - " then that is B.S. No underlying crime...but he made some up during the proceedings. Come on Fitz! If those weak charges are made, I hope Bush pardons then promotes any indicted.
The term "lawyers involved in the case" is intended to mislead the reader. That term is designed to make the reader think members of Fitzgerald's staff have leaked this information. The most likely source of this information are lawyers for individuals who have testified before the grand jury -- which if my memory is accurate includes Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame (a/k/a Veronica Flame).
this is actually not as bad as Drudge has it - basically no crime on the outing maybe on obstruction of justice, etc. but no underlying crime. I think Rove most likely does not get indicted because the case is weak - Libby is more likely since he seems to left out more info on contacts etc. -- then the thing that would really tweak the left is Bush nominates Fitzgerald for a court of appeals post - then at the hearings they demand to know why he did not indict Rove
Fitz is hanging his 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on...
". But Mr. Fitzgerald may have doubts about his account because the journalists who have been publicly identified as having talked to Mr. Libby have said that they did not provide the name, that they could not recall what had been said or that they had discussed unrelated subjects."
What?
it's a LEAK FEST ! good grief .
I still have no idea how to apply italics or underlining to my postings.
"WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday."
That has been my only real concern for the last couple of months. It doesn't take much of a contradiction for them claim obstruction.
Yeah the clear cut intention is pretty bad if true. However, this whole thing is still a big if.
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.