Posted on 10/21/2005 7:13:40 AM PDT by procomone
NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate Charges
Reprint Information
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has likely decided not to indict top White House aides Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby based on allegations they "outed" CIA employee Valerie Plame, lawyers close to Fitzgerald's Leakgate investigation have told the New York Times.
Instead, the paper said, conflicting accounts given by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been the focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's probe "almost from the start" - raising questions about whether the respected prosecutor continued his investigation after determining that no underlying crime had been committed.
It's not clear whether Fitzgerald believes that Rove and/or Libby had indeed violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but couldn't prove his case. Or whether he realized early on that the law didn't apply to Ms. Plame, who doesn't qualify as a covert agent because she hadn't served abroad within five years of her "outing."
Instead, the Times said: "Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement" - raising speculation that the Leakgate case may devolve into a Martha Stewart-like prosecution, which drew howls of derision from legal critics.
Story Continues Below
Stewart was sentenced to jail in 2003 for lying to investigators after the Justice Department abandoned its insider trading case against her for lack of evidence. Unlike the Stewart case, however, it's hard to see how Fitzgerald could have ever believed that the 1982 law in question had been violated, when a quick check of Ms. Plame's work history would have rendered his investigation moot from the start.
Even the Times noted: "Possible violations under consideration by Mr. Fitzgerald are peripheral to the issue he was appointed in December 2003 to investigate."
In Mr. Rove's case, Fitzgerald's prosecution may rest, not on any false testimony, but instead on Rove's failure to tell the grand jury early on about a conversation he had about Ms. Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
"Mr. Fitzgerald has remained skeptical about the omission," the Times said.
It's still not clear that Rove and Libby would be indicted even if Fitzgerald could prove they gave false testimony to the grand jury.
In 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that then-first lady Hillary Clinton had provided materially false testimony in the Travelgate investigation.
Mr. Ray declined to indict, however - explaining that he could not prove that Mrs. Clinton's false statements were intentional.
Wildy optimistic? No - not really. The NewsMax story merely states that Fitzgerald has probably abandoned any prosecution based on Plame's "outing" - and is instead going after "peripheral" [the Times' characterization] issues.
That's not spin. It's re-prioritizing the facts reported by the Times in the order of what's most newsworthy.
It's not newsworthy to speculate that Rove and/or Libby may be indicted for perjury, obstruction, etc. Lib news reports have been doing that for weeks.
What is newsworthy is that Fitzgerald's probe - according to the Times - focused on conflicting testimony "almost from the start" [again, the Times words] - which indicates he knew his Leakgate case [the actual Plame outing] didn't amount to a hill of beans.
If indictments do come down, Bush defenders will want to scrutinize this aspect of Fitzgerald's probe - i.e. - If Fitzgerald knew "almost from the start" that his leak case had evaporated, then why did he continue to pursue an investigation into lies about something that was already understood not to be criminal.
impeachable = unimpeachable
Better think again. Judith Miller is not pereceived as a liberal by other reporters nor by the NYT. She is dispised by many as the "Cheerleader for the War". She worked closely with the administration to write a series of influential stories in the Times promoting the need to go to war because of WMD. From my recollection, Karl Rove was not one of her sources, it was Libby and I doubt most liberals even know who he is, so he's not the most hated Republican. Get a grip. Learn a few facts instead of just quoting what someother no nothing said on a thread.
And oh by the way, there are statutes on the books about not releasing classified information regardless of whether it pertains to a CIA agents identitity or not. Also statutes about proudly saying yeah I told that reporter about Wilson and his wife rather than lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury. There was even article in one paper the other day that indicated that Rove had lied to Bush about his involvement. More than likely next week we will know a whole lot more.
I hate to say this, but it's starting to look like (to me, at least) it's better to say 'I don't recall' when under oath and being asked something you're not dead sure of, than to say something that might end up being found faulty, flawed or untrue. Hence, the "I don't recall" mantra used by others (like Hillary). I mean, if you simply say 'I don't recall', they can't get you on a trumped up perjury charge. Right?
"In every trial there is conflicting testimony, that does not actually constituted lying which is a willful act. Two people at the same incident will always give different accounts. It is a function of perspective and an imperfect memory."
The Times is deeply saddened.
Your explanation reminds me of Alice in Wonderland. Pretty accurate. What else were they supposed the tell the SP that they did not know they knew?
While Newsmax has this headline: NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate Charges
WHICH IS IT?
Did you bother to read the article. Very plainly says they are not likely to be charged with the statute covering identifying covert CIA agents but they may very well be indicted for releasing classified information, lying to an FBI agent, lying to the grandjury, obstruction of justice, and/or attempting to get another witness to lie. If you say those dont count because the original statute was not broken, two words...Martha Stewart.
Is the NY Times story printed in a peripheral font, like the CBS memos?
I dont know that we have any idea of what Rove did at this point. If Rove said I had nothing to do with outing Plame but than later has to admit that he did tell Cooper about Wilson and his wife who works at the agency, he's not telling the truth.
I'm trying to figure that out myself.
Not sure what NewsMax is doing here, but I suspect they're doing a 'meta-analysis' of today's NYT story, putting a more positive spin on the facts-as-the-NYT-thinks-they-know-them than the NYT does.
IOW I think NewsMax is deducing from the NYT's muddy reporting that the NYT thinks that Libby and Rove will not be indicted -- for "Leakgate."
But NewMax OTOH does not seem to be saying they won't be indicted at all. For something else.
Gawd, how convoluted is that? Cloudy spin extracted from muddy speculation on top of filthy reporting that is already more toxic than the waters of NOLA.
Hope I'm wrong but I don't think this is the ray of hope the headline would indicate.
The NY Times article includes this paragraph: But Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby may not be the only people at risk. There may be others in the government who could be charged for violations of the disclosure law or of other statutes, like the espionage act, which makes it a crime to transmit classified information to people not authorized to receive it.
In 1997, Valerie Plame began having an affair with a married man, Joseph Wilson. Early in their affair, Valerie devulged to him that she was a covert CIA agent. She blew her own cover when she transmitted that to an unauthorized person, Joe Wilson. Idiots.
Retyping other people's articles is real bottom barrel.
Wait a minute.
Would you agree that the so-called "outing" happened in Novak's column?
It's been pretty well-established that Rove was only a secondary/tertiary source ("I've heard that too.") and not the primary source, whose name is still unknown to us. Novak's un-named source did the "outing".
The MSM is stuck in the past, as Mr. Rush has repeatedly said. This case has nothing to do with previous cases, such as Martha Stewart's case. What a bunch of B.S. that is, in all liklihood, being fed to the stoopid reporters by some lawyers who have an agenda.
Don't be naive. I have no doubt that, if the Euro socialists had a chance to execute Bush, they would manage to make an 'exception' to their anti-capital punishment laws. Hell, they'd probably even make an exception for Cheney. They are, if nothing else, hypocrites.
""On local lib talk radio this morning the conversation is "Can Bush be executed for war crimes?" They already are planning the war crimes trials and yesterday were debating whether Bush and company should be tried in the US (unlikely because he would be protected by his own), or would the Libs have to go to the world Court.
No limit to the stupidity of libs. Dont they realize that there is no capital punishment in Europe and that the World Court can not sentence anyone to death even Osama Bin Laden. They should ask Kerry to thank his French friends.""
Weak law and poor chance of being able to prove violation in court is not same as clearing someone. Fitzgerald may be going after Libby and Rove the same way the feds went after Capone by getting them on some violation they could prove (in Capone's case, income tax violations).
Right. Just like Slick Willy was held accountable for lying under oath.
Her testimony said she contacted Libby for the first time on July 12th after Novak's column had gone to the wire.
Libby knew she was lying. He had records of her June 23rd contact and they WERE given to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald gave Miller an opportunity to clear it up with 85 days in jail and then called her in on the carpet to explain the June 23rd meeting. Man, did she hustle!! Miracuously, she found her "very ambiguous" notes. She knew she was in deep sh** and resorted to the old "I don't recall, maybe".
But how did she know that Valerie would be exposed "in the future". Because she got wind of the plot.
If I'm wrong on any of this timing, please correct me.
No, not from a legal standpoint. Novak published the article with the name but Libby leaked the same info to Miller who was pissed that Novak beat her story to print. Rove also provided the same information to Cooper. Depending upon what was said, the intent of saying it, and the source of their knowledge that Wilson's wife was with the CIA has to do with whether Rove or Libby are guilty of crimes, not who told Novak.
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.