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.
Hahahahah, newsmax is hilarious sometimes
Didn't this same rag predict indictments?
Can they get their stories straight?
...hmmm...noticing Miller's name not in the "cleared" column
could it be...???...
Doogle
And there it is. He was merely trying to bring down the Bush administration. It's out there now and nothing will erase it from people's minds especially come election time.
So, Rove is guilty of not answering a question the Grand Jury did not ask?
Technically you are correct of course.
What I am really asking is what possible rationale is there for a prosecutor to purse a long drawn out Grand Jury investigation when there is no underlying crime. That is just silly. The only reason I can think of: to catch somebody telling lies to the Grand Jury. What a system.
That makes sense. So it's Newsmax's spin. This is quite a spin job based on the original NYT article.
You're right. That is why prosecutors use their judgement to figure out if someone intentionally lied, or just honestly forgot something.
No one has been charged with anything yet, and if they are charged, they are innocent until proven guilty.
Such news "items" are meant to drag their names through the mud. If they can get 4 weeks of negative press and "drop" the story the day after the man is cleared, the public will walk away with a negative perception of Republicans.
Some will never hear the exoneration. Some will have nagging doubt. And some will consider future charges "par for the course".
Of course some realize that this is just the MSM throwing mud and crying wolf.
the title "NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate Charges"
Should read
NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate accusations
Time for another DU "I Believe..." thread. I do so love lurking there. It's sort of like a Bizarro World Groundhog Day. False expectations built on bullshit, resonating in an echochamber of insanity, puncuated by the all too frequent fund raising huckster, inevitably followed by the dashing of all hope, until the next time the cycle is repeated. This is a ratcheting downward spiral that is Stuck On Stupid.
Perhaps it's not to my credit that I take pleasure in their pain, but they continue to hit bottom and then keep on digging.
Drudge told us the opposite. Who to believe?
Hopefully I cleared up your confusion.:)
He may just indict everyone whose stories contradict and let the courts hash it out.
Is this NewsMax grasping at straws? It seems to be the NYT story spun more positively. What about the broad conspiracy I keep hearing about.
It seems that the Democrats (Hillary) are luckier in getting their indictments not acted on than the Republicans. Apparently, prosecutors feared Hillary and her friends in the media more than Bush. Fitzgerald will be pilloried by the media if he does not indict and they really want Rove, they could care less about LIbby.
Judith Miller went to prison for two months -- accompanied by plenty of outrage among the media at the prosecutor -- because she refused to divulge her confidential source(s) for a story she was writing. When she eventually testified, it turned out that her testimony actually went a long way toward exonerating Rove and Libby of any wrongdoing in the so-called "leak."
This -- aside from the fact that there is no such thing as "protection of sources" under the First Amendment -- is precisely why the media should never be permitted to hide behind its sources in refusing to divulge information related to a criminal investigation. Anyone who refuses to provide information in a criminal investigation in which his/her testimony would exonerate an innocent person should serve a minimum of 25 years in prison.
...a sure sign of insanity, keep doing the things that don't work,over and over again,until......????
Doogle
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.