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.

[Praxeologue]

18 U.S.C. § 1001. Statements ...

The statements made by Rove and Libby were not "material" to the investigation of any crime being investigated, since Fitzgerald knew from the outset that no crime had been committed. I don't know why Rove and Libby could not have lied to their hearts' content about these matters, since what they said was not material to any crime that Fitzgerald could possibly have been investigating.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

So, it works like this?

[Dr. Scarpetta]

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

Clinton should have been indicted over the pardons. So very foolish to let him get away with it. Plus, they should have put Sandy Berger on trial. Republicans are gentlemen, and Dems are thugs. Thank you, House of Rep. for impeaching clinton.

[concrete is my business]

Personally I think a sixth grader would figure that Sadam shipped his weapon programs out of the country.

You would think that the fact that none have been found in Iraq would send off huge alarms not stupid recriminations about an imperial USA and her henchmen at Haliburton.

Sadam and cohorts have studied Giap and know the necessity for useful idiots to attack morale.

The success of Giap and North Vietnam depended on outlasting American commitment, and waiting for the United States to withdraw.

[hispanarepublicana]

very good.

[montanus]

None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.

Well that impeaches the integrity of the witness now doesn't it?

[robomurph]

Good post. Wilson's second wife was/is a French diplomat.

A newspaper owned outright by Saudi Arabia. Does anyone doubt that the NY Times is no longer an American "paper of record"?

Could you elaborate on the SA/NYT connection?

[airborne]

Bookmark.

[Fishtalk]

Could you elaborate on the SA/NYT connection?

Ah....well you'll have to buy into my theory. Although I'm not alone in my theory, more on this later.

Did you know Prince Bander purchased 5% of Foxnews? Just recently, yeah.

There's a propaganda war going on in this country and there's money behind it. There's just no other way to explain the Lamestream and how off the wall they are getting. I mean, I'm only buying this loony liberal stuff for so long. I think influential people and media are being BOUGHT by our enemies.

Specifically the NY Times. Which would sink like a rock if it had to rely on its AMERICAN subscribers. It's an international paper and nothing less, who are we kidding here?

Follow the money.

Below is an excerpt from Today's "American Thinker".

The New York Times hosts many ads from advocacy groups, seeking to bring their causes to the attention of the high income readership the Times still enjoys. The vast majority are left wing in politics. As reported in the Wall Street Journal today ($link) Janet L. Robinson, president and chief executive officer, cited weakness in travel and transportation, telecommunications, advocacy [emphasis added] and movie-studio advertising. As an investor I have perused many income reporting announcements over the years and I have not noticed “advocacy’ as an advertising category before. I think this illustrates how dependent the Times is on liberal advocacy groups. No wonder the Times is addicted to finding issues and creating conflict: they depend on creating pseudo-controversies and stirring the waters to drum up the dollars.

Who are these "advocates" supporting the NY Times? As Lasky points out, whoever heard of "Advocates" being a source of revenue for Journalists?

Ed Lasky 10 20 05

If you can't win at the ballot box, well they tried the Judiciary. Had a good thing going for a while too.

When the Judiciary starts closing up, then try to influence public opinion. So how you gonna do that?

Get some liberal newspaper owners and some liberal journalists, start making them beholden to you.

The NY Times is heavily financed by Arab oil money, Saudi, Syrian, Egyptian maybe. Thugs and thieves that stand to lose control of all that oil money should their citizenry get uppity and demand countrol of the natural resources of the land like those upstarts in Iraq.

It's all about the money, follow the money, there's lots of oil money. With oil money I can buy a Democrat or two, I can finance say a Moveon.org. I can get the NY Times to report things my way.

I'm not buying that there's even any idealogy in play anymore.

It's follow the money, pure and simple.

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmm?? I don't know. But .. why would they be "protected" - they didn't "whistle blow" anything. THEY LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

Wilson even wrote in his book that his wife didn't have anything to do with his going to Niger. THAT IS A BOLD-FACED LIE!! And .. Wilson lied again when he claimed that Cheney's office sent him; and that he gave Cheney a "written report" - another lie. And .. the claim of Cheney sending Wilson to Niger was the original reason Libby called Miller - to tell her Cheney did not send Wilson. The repubs were also telling the media who ask that they should be careful of the Wilsons because THEY WERE LYING. Rove didn't say that exactly, he just told the media people they shouldn't give credence to what Wilson was saying.

As usual, did the media get mad because we knew Wilson was lying ..?? I don't know .. but I do not believe Rove and Libby did anything wrong - other than try to play nice with the media - WHICH NEVER WORKS.

[SuzyQue]

Fascinating theory. Could be. It would go a long way to explaining the rabid-foaming-at-the-mouth hatred that the MSM has for the President.

[concrete is my business]

Martha Stewart is a really scary criminal OK. sarc

These prosecutions where it is a felony to lie to investigators while the investigators are lying to those being investigated seems to be what it is all about now.

Headlines trump results.

I must say to me it looks both easy and profitable, but then I am in the concrete business.

[CyberAnt]

I know it sounds that way .. but never forget this is the same media who said people were murdered and raped in the Super Dome - AND IT NEVER HAPPENED.

And .. according to NewsMax - which Rush was reading from this morning, there are no charges that can be brought against Rove and Libby. So .. what does NewsMax know that these liberal yahoos don't know ..??

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Decided to post this:

Bush Critic Became Target of Libby, Former Aides Say ~ wanted .. an aggressive campaign ...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is this:

*******************************************************

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left

And a very good review:

*********************************

Vastly Illuminating, September 25, 2004

Reviewer:

Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.

It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.

Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding.

This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

[gondramB]

"Denying a fact like whether you had sex with someone is different then remember a conversation a year ago. No one can plausably claim they forgot whether they were having sex with a person."

That might depend on how often one has sex and with how many people...

[LtKerst]

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


Posted on 10/20/2005 7:14:44 PM PDT by Pikamax


How Funny..at 2:44 pm today this story is already Old.

word is out now that the Prosicutor is more than likely to drop the whole thing...??WHY?? because PLAME has not been covert for 6 YEARS!!!! GEE that was revealed about 8 months ago on National TV.

What a Partizan SHAM!!! This will all fade away and The Liberal SCUM will slink off to plot their next False accusation.

The Mantra is "Get Bush Get Bush Get Bush..."

[skikvt]

"Rove ...'MAY' be in serious legal jeopardy"

I MAY have a date with Jennifer Aniston

I MAY win the lottery tonight.

And then again MAYbe not.....

[t2buckeye]

If LIbby said Russert told him about Plame...and Russert denies it, then will Fitz indict? It will be Russert's word against Libby's. But note that he is NOT trying to say Libby told Russert, but the opposite.
The reason Fitz wanted Miller's testimony was to back up Russerts' testimony....to imply that Libby had lied about where he heard it and had told Miller. But Miller says that Libby did NOT tell her about Plame...She can't recall who gave her the name, but it was not Libby.

What's so wacky is that all of this is irrelevant since (1) Plame was not covered by the law. The whole BASIS of this investigation is false and as such should have been concluded when that was determined. It is NOT illegal for the WH to try to discredit Wilson's LIES which is what they apparently did. HE said Cheney sent him (LIE) and they said, NO, his wife proposed it because she works at the CIA...AND that is in fact what happened.

[MNJohnnie]

Remember this. All these "Journalists" are hanging their credibility WAY out on this one. Time we chop them off at the knees. If this comes back as the big zero it is looking more and more like it will be, ANY thing these people write should be responded to "Right, just like you told us all about how Plame was going to bring down Rove and Libby". This time there must be retribution from the Right for their pure partisan scum bag behavior.