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.
The implication of the Times article was that Rove and Libby were in danger of being indicted. Newsmax has used the words in the article to imply the opposite.
Hopefully I cleared up your confusion.:)
Were you the lucky one that got the Cracker Jacks with the liberal media spin decoder ring?! :)
They are probably doing a CYA. Think about it. It's illegal to leak GJ testimony. This case is investigating a leak of a CIA person's name and the Prosecutor has thrown people in jail over it (even though he knows no law was broken). So what do you think he'll do if he believes someone illegally leaked GJ testimony?
He might just lock up all the press until they reveal the source.
By hedging off initial reports they can say they were just wildly speculating.
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.
Not really. This article says that prosecutor is still contemplating Martha-Stewart like charges.
Is this the TRUTH or not?
I said "supposed leaks"... I think Fitz's office is tighter than a drum. He's not leaking a thing. However, the press continues to imply it has some kind of source verifying their anti-Bush wishful thinking and speculation.
I had totally forgotten about Cisneros until yesterday when I saw reports the Republicans in congress were moving to close down the investigation. Why, you ask, is there still an ongoing investigation anyway? Well, until the special prosecutor finishes the investigation there can be no final report. Since the final report in the Cisneros case is going to embarrass a lot of very important Democrats they've kept the investigation open to preclude the issuance of the report.
It's ironic. Democrats can't wait for the Fitzgerald report and are howling for blood but refuse to clear the way for the Cisneros report because it's going to hurt them.
You are exactly right. I assume Scooter and Rove were savvy enough to testify with the appropriate disclaimer if they were not absolutely sure what the substance of the conversation was. Even if someone took notes there can be disagreement as to what was written. I am wondering if there were tapes that no one but the taper and the SP knew about.
"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."
1) All attorneys tell their clients not to offer any more info than what they've been asked. If Rove was not asked about this in the GJ, then I don't see how he was obligated to share the info.
2) I recall that he found an email that made him remember a meeting or conversation and asked to testify again. Not sure if it was re the meeting w Cooper, but I think it may have been. If that's the case, then, he came forward as soon as he 'remembered' it.
I think the Times is implying that even if there are no indictments, there still was wrongdoing. In other words, even if there's no there there, there's a there there. So there!
Is that clear?
It is so New York Times.
Wish I had a snappy comeback. I do know that they and sites like theirs are doing us a great service by completely fracturing the Democrat party.
Miller also forgot things and then remembered - why no threats or rumors of charges against her?
LOL! I've got secret access to their Official Cone of Altered Reality, where nothing is as it seems. Where even nothing is something, by it's very nature, and can be acted on.
Drudge still has the following headline:
NYT: Rove and Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy...
While Newsmax has this headline:
NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate Charges
WHICH IS IT?
"Is this the TRUTH or not?"
At first, I was really concerned about the alleged crime of intentionally mishandling classified info. But now, if the prosecutor can't make that charge stick, how will he convict Rove and Liddy on intentional perjury? I think he's got an even harder task of proving that.
The MSM has over reached on this story. I'm betting against their instincts because they're so often wrong. I realize this approach doesn't work in court, but it's the equivalent of political instincts.
For once, Hardball would have well over 100,000 viewers!
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.