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.
Sounds like Drudge was wrong on what the article would be.,
Welcome to FR! If this is your first post, it's a good one.
Drudge is a bit closer to the actual story.
If the NYT is reporting that there may not be any indictments, there must be something to this. Does this indicate some truth hitting the ashen Grey Lady in the face? A little backtracking to CYA? I can't wait for the facts to come out...I think journalists' credibility is taking another dive with all of the innuendo and supposition. Oh well, too bad.
"If true Chrissy Matthew's head will explode."
That is something I would like to see!!
Martha Stewart probably was guilty of insider trading and so there is at least an ounce of rationale (but not much more) for the pursuit of her case on a perjury basis.
But this is not a "lack of evidence" case since Ms. Plame did not fall under the protection of the applicable national security statute.
How can possibly justify indicting someone for being "untruthful" about their own perfectly legal actions? Beats me. Maybe there is a lawyer somewhere who can explain it.
An error of omission? That is far different from lying about it a la "I did not have sex with that woman."
I think this is phoney.
One difference between Fitzmas and Christmas is that on Fitzmas morning you might wake up to a pile of horse manure, but there's no pony!
It happens all the time. Its called perjury. Lying under oath. If Libby or Rove lied under oath, they should be held accountable.
what's phoney?
I wish people would read my postings. I posted the section 1623. There is a lot of important stuff in it.
NYT is outraged at leaks! Except for those supposed leaks coming out of Fitzpatrick's office.
Of course Miller omitted an entire meeting for which she had notes and for which there is a White House log. It will be interesting to prosecute an administration official for faulty memory and fail to prosecute a reporter for the same crime.
Well take down the Fitzmas Pole. The Annual Airing of Grievances was overshadowed by the confusion on just who has been naughty and who has been nice.
BINGO!
"If true Chrissy Matthew's head will explode."
"That is something I would like to see!!"
If you could provide me with date and time, then I could record it to play at my Halloween party. This is a dagger in the heart of MSM.
Holy nothing Batman
This is the same story that was posted earlier, viewed through Newsmax's prism. It reiterates the other story saying there will be no indictments under the original charge, but possibly for secondary things like perjury. The headline is misleading.
It happens all the time. Its called perjury. Lying under oath. If Libby or Rove lied under oath, they should be held accountable.
_____________________
I woudn't want to have to repeat the same facts, to the best of my recollection, about something that happened two years ago FOUR different times in front of a grand jury and a prosecutor who's being pressured by the media to indict.
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.