NYT: Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry [Rove & Libby advised may be in legal jeopardy]

NYTIMES ^ | 10/21/05 | DAVID JOHNSTON

[Pikamax]

Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry By DAVID JOHNSTON

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.

Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.

Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.

With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments. None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Lawyers for the two men declined to comment on their legal status.

Some could interpret the "no comment" to be uh-oh, deep do-do. Others could interpret this as our clients are in the clear, at least to major issues, and why screw things up now by commenting?

[mondonico]

18 U.S.C. § 1001. Statements or entries generally
Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

[mondonico]

semper ubi sub ubi

[JustaCowgirl]

carriage return you say? < br>
And you want a paragraph,< p>

< b>maybe some bolding?< /b>

Same as hr said, leave out the space inside the < > to make the html command take effect.

[areafiftyone]

The NY Times and the Washington Post have been printing rumor after rumor after rumor. They don't know anything more than we do. It will all be revealed when Fitzgerald is finished.

[Phsstpok]

lawyers involved in the case said Thursday

This wording says explicitly that it is not members of the Special Prosecutor's staff. That means it's lawyers representing people involved.

It is true that Libby and Rove have lawyers that this could be referring to, but in the past the Times and Post have generally made it clear, either explicitly or implicitly, that the sources were Libby's or Rove's lawyers.

So who else has "lawyers involved in the case?"

The New York Times
The Washington Post
Joe Wilson
Valerie Plame
The DNC
The CIA
et al

I believe this is a blatant attempt to either try and push the prosecutor to a conclusion that they hope will occur, or an attempt to deflect attention from their own client's guilt and preempt any contemplated indictment of them.

[gondramB]

"What happened to the initial intent of the Grand Jury?? Does that get thrown aside and you just bring charges Willy Nilly??"

As i understand it, grand juries have the right to deal with new crimes they discover in the course of the investigation.... of course, ideally, such crimes would be real and not politically motivated.

[Perdogg]

What is the important adverb in (a)???

Very important.

[ClancyJ]

Hm......

This appears to be coverup in case of no indictments.

The leak - possible serious legal trouble - means that the two are quilty of serious legal trouble whether they indict or not. If no indictments come down, the leak has already said they were guilty - so the republican prosecutor just decided to cover for them.

They are working on a win-win solution to this mess whether indictments are issued or not. How? By leaking that it was serious legal trouble for those two.

[tobyhill]

There has to be a crime to be a cover-up and two guys talking how much they would like Wilson to have his ass kicked just don't cut it

[Presto]

I agree.

“Lawyers involved in the case” is so vague that it could refer to lawyers representing any number of journalists who have been interviewed by Fitzgerald. Which means these “lawyers involved in the case” the NYT has anonymously quoted may not be all that sympathetic to Rove and Libby. Consider that if these lawyers were part of either the special prosecutor’s team or were a part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team that they would have confirmed or denied that target letters had been sent by the special prosecutor to Rove or Libby. But they didn’t. And the NYT piece is written as though these “lawyers involved in the case” weren’t even asked if target letters had been sent. I suspect that’s because there is no sense in asking someone a question who would have no idea what the answer is. Reporting an 'I dunno' would have undermined the entire authoritative premise that the NYT is relying on for its piece.

Instead it was said that Rove and Libby had “been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy.” That sounds like an answer from people who are not in a position to know whether target letters have been sent – i.e. lawyers who are not part of the special prosecutor’s team and who are not part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team. Further, any time a person is brought before a grand jury to testify in a case where he is not given assurances that he will not be prosecuted, it is reasonable to assume that he would be warned that it is possible that he could fall into “serious legal jeopardy” by the statements he makes. Sounds rather boilerplate.

If these lawyers that the NYT used as its source had been asked about target letters and they had refused to comment that could have been reported too. After all, the NYT did report on other lawyers who are in a position to know about target letters when it wrote in the VERY SAME PIECE: “Lawyers for the two men [Rove and Libby] declined to comment on their legal status.”

But a 'no comment' from the "lawyers involved in the case" that the NYT is relying on to indicate that Rove and Libby may be in “serious legal jeopardy” would have made no sense considering all the other 'inside' information they had divulged. An answer of 'no comment' would have undermined the piece almost as bad as an answer of 'I dunno'. So the NYT didn't ask these lawyers because they were in no position to know whether target letters had been sent. That way the NYT doesn't have to report an answer that would undermine the premise of the whole piece.

Since there are no new facts presented, the NYT's report is a cheap excuse for rank speculation.

Bottom line: Nothing new here.

[ravingnutter]

Lawrence O'Donnell (speaking calmly)

The prozac must be working, LOL!

[ravingnutter]

'Later, Mr. Rove said he had not recalled the conversation with Mr. Cooper until the discovery of an e-mail message about it that he sent to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser. But Mr. Fitzgerald has remained skeptical about the omission, the lawyers said.'

That was a sticking point for me, I don't understand what Fitzgerald is thinking...Cooper testified that he did not have a conversation about welfare with Rove, but clearly the e-mail indicates he did, just as Rove testified he did. And like I posted on another thread, if they asked me what I had for lunch yesterday, I couldn't remember without some thought. Much less a conversation I had a year ago, without checking such things as my e-mails.

[newzjunkey]

Of course not. It's ridiculous!

[newzjunkey]

Only Republicans get indicted and convicted. Dems, since we know they only want to help the little people, get a free pass.

[Steve_Seattle]

The other day, several threads reported that Fitz won't issue a report because all of the testimony is confidential. If indictments come down, the WH must immediately demand an investigation of these leaks from the past few days, which appear to be coming from the prosecutor's office. If Fitz is going to file cheap indictments, then the same level of scrutiny must be applied to his own staff. There is definitely the appearance that his staff is leaking GJ testimony.

[js1138]

I still have no idea how to apply italics or underlining to my postings.

<i>italics</i>

<b>bold</b>

<u>underlined</u>

<s>strikethru</s>

<i><b><u><s>all at once </s></u></b></i>

[threeleftsmakearight]

For what it's worth I sent this letter to the GOP today:

"We can only hope that this story will make some, should be all, Republicans realize that the media are not their friends.
Why Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or any Republican would feel a need to communicate with these people, except for the most perfunctory of reasons, is beyond me.
What would make administration officials believe they could trust anyone from the NY Times, Time magazine, or Tim Russert for that matter?
STOP trying to get along with these people...THEY HATE YOUR GUTS!

As if Matt Cooper of Time, or any other MSM regular, cares that Joe Wilson was lying. Joe Wilson was singing their tune, and if he lied, THEY (Cooper, et al) would make sure that aspect of the story got buried.

Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and the rest of the GOP hierarchy got played... by the CIA, Plame, Wilson, the media and the Democrats.
Lesson learned (we hope) the hard way."

[mondonico]

I agree.

[Grampa Dave]

No one who is connected with the Grand Jury is talking to the NY Slimes.

This is another one of their Perverted Lunatic Lefty Wet Dreams trying to be made into news. Just think of Jayson Blair, the lying pervert, who made up stories when he was not even at the news sites while he was getting stoned and whatever.