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.

[Perdogg]

I like the headline "Rove ...may be in serious legal jepardoy"

It's sort of like going to the doctor and hearing that "You might be sick"

[cmsgop]

Man, I agree, I am not gonna get worked up over this, I just don't see the crime, I am just going to wait and see.......

[MJY1288]

I read the article and NOWHERE does it say Karl Rove and Libby have been ADVISED of anything

[Perdogg]

However, you still have to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt.

[muawiyah]

There's a big ol' "MAY" in the middle of the article. It's made up!

[MJY1288]

The only mention that they were ADVISED was second hand hearsay and probably lawyers representing Joe Wilson :-)

This whole deal is the most overblown bunch of hooeey I have ever seen.

Joe Wilson is the only person cited for lying, and he has been lying since the day he wrote his Op Ed in the NYT's

[cornfedcowboy]

Me too. Please let me know if you find out anything on the italic thing.

[gondramB]

IHowever, you still have to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt."


Is that true in a perjury case?.... I guess that makes sense because otherwise every mistake on the stand would be perjury.

But in the Clinton case I don't remember them proving his intent..we all just assumed it based his character.

[Shermy]

"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"

Russert said "wife" not Plame or wilson. He never denied he said wife.

All stories need to be parsed for this distiction.

[sinkspur]

Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement.

A Martha Stewart-type indictment.

IOW, chicken-s**t. When these gutless prosecutors can't indict someone on an actual crime, they attempt to trap them into lying about it.

Fitzgerald is no better than a jack-legged, small-town DA who needs a case to get his budget approved.

[CyberAnt]

I agree .. But who's to say the charges being contemplated for "two" aren't for Joe and Valerie Wilson ..??

And .. Rove and Libby have stated several times - that Fitz has told them they are not the focus of the investigation. It's only the press who wants them to be the focus of the investigation.

The press has already admitted on TV that Fitz has not REVEALED ANYTHING .. so how do they know even this much.

And I loved this comment in the article: "None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case." So the lawyers are talking even after the prosecutor told them not to. That's just great. Or .. maybe Fitz knew they would talk .. and he misinformed them of his intentions ..?? We can always hope.

[Perdogg]

a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States. (c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if— (1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and (2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section. In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true. (d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed. (e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

[hispanarepublicana]

I < i> still< /i> have < u>no idea < /u> how to apply < i>italics< /I> or < u> underlining< /u> to my postings.

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

(But no spaces between the < >.)

[speedy]

Yep. Remember, it was the Times that had a front page story on how US troops were hopelessly bogged down in the sands of Iraq two days before Baghdad fell. They don't have a clue. A lawyer talking to a journalist without attribution. Not my idea of solid information.

[frankjr]

The worst part of all of this...

"The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week"

Next week? Doesn't Fitz know that I have been spending an unhealthy amount of time online waiting for an answer!?!? My wife doesn't understand, she is like "Who is Karl Rove?"

[furquhart]

As I said elsewhere, the Times story makes it sound like they've both received Target Letters.

[Perdogg]

He has the weight his probably of conviction v the seriousness of the charge. I still say no indictment of Libby or Rove.

[frankjr]

thank you Hey, it worked!!! At least in the preview!!! Wait, the carriage return is missing.

[gondramB]

Thank you.

[HP8753]

The "Old Grey HO" don't carry no weight around here no mo !!!