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.

[Howlin]

Good question.

[gondramB]

" How do you explain Marion Barry?"

OK, good point.

[speedy]

so what're you gonna do until you wait to see if you're indicted or not?

You're right. I think I'll spend a little time reviewing the periodic table of the elements and then get some shuteye.

[lepton]

Back in the old days, if you didn't close your html tags (that's what the / in from of the i or u does) to end the formatting, then the ENTIRE REST OF THE THREAD would be in italics, or bold (which is a "b"), or underlining, or 18-point, red font. "Close your tags!" were frequent posts.

/marquee

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Lawrence O'Donnell (speaking calmly) was just talking to Tucker about how the worst thing that could happen to Rove and Libby would be for them to get indicted.

[carl in alaska]

"Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said."

This sentence is highly suspicious and leads me to doubt the credibility of this entire article. The word "may" makes no sense in this context. A prosecutor would never advise anyone that he/she MAY be the target of an investigation. Either a person is a target or is not a target.

The quoted sentence is a false statement, unless it's referring to advice from Rove or Libby's lawyers to their clients. Strangely, this article doesn't say who advised Rove and Libby that the may be in legal jeopardy. The author should have known who advised them if they've actually been advised by someone and that information was actually leaked to the author. So that sentence looks like it's just a rumor floating around with little substance. A substantial news story should say who gave this advice to Rove and Libby.

[muawiyah]

The Wilsons weren't called to testify were they?

Could that suggest that they are "targets"?

[counterpunch]

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

"

You have to wonder how these folks can keep a straight face with some of this stuff.

Yep. The same media elites who said it wasn't a crime when Bill Clinton did it are calling it the Crime of the Century when its alleged against Rove... before any charges, if any, are ever filed.

[pinz-n-needlez]

Would Libby think that you just said you're not spaghetti sauce? (Back on topic...)

Pinz

[speedy]

I would have to plead nolo contendre in the court of ridiculous claims.

[demlosers]

That same question repeatedly pops into my mind every time I read these inane stories.

[counterpunch]

How can someone be indicted for "covering up" something that wasn't illegal in the first place?

Ask Martha Stewart... or a character in a Franz Kafka novel.

[popdonnelly]

This had better be real good. First case where two officials talking about someone becomes a crime.

[Perdogg]

He has to prove more than that. He has to prove BRD that it was done knowningly.

[hispanarepublicana]

Au, Ru sure? No, U wouldn't Li Ne, I don't think.....Na.

[nopardons]

The N.Y. Slimes...home of Jason Blair. That's all that needs to be said and remembered; unless someone wants to talk about the Pulitzer, awarded to Stalin's propaganda agent there.

[Perdogg]

That's a possibility. If they tried to frame someone, that would be conspiracy to obstruct justice.

[counterpunch]

OK, at the possibility of sounding ignorant. How can Fitzgerald charge anyone without establishing that Plame was/is an undercover CIA agent actively engaged in an intelligence operation? Doesn't Fitzgerald have to prove that the 'US undercover operation law' has been violated before he can level charges at anyone?

No, because now its the alleged cover-up of the non-crime that is the crime. The original investigation is irrelevant. It's sort of like Tom DeLay's "conspiracy" to commit a non-crime. The government has laws to make sure they can lock anyone up that they want to.

[muawiyah]

Obviously they tried to frame someone ~ that's what this is all about. On the face of it Plame and Wilson are small potatoes when it comes to the sort of issues the White House folks have to face every day.

It's pretty clear that Wilson was bound and determined to disrupt the operation of government at the top.

Makes me wonder who he really works for ~ I've suspected France, but it's equally possible that it's another major industrial power. Fellow lives pretty well on a government pension.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

WAKEUP AMERICA!
Click Here for
Hanoi Kerry
Timeline of a traitor,
includes FBI files


"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win,
the little guy's going to win in court before me.
But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well,
then the big guy's going to win,
because my obligation is to the Constitution.
That's the oath," he said.

Judge John Roberts 09/15/05

See You hanoi kerry!
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts
knows U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
He has a lifetime appointnment
and can't be put under political pressure, by anyone.
He's taken an oath to uphold the Constitution
Game's Over hanoi kerry!
There are only 99 legal votes in the US Senate!