Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate Charges
newsmax ^ | 10/21/05 | newsmax

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; libby; plame; plamegate; rove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-178 next last
To: Tatze
WHICH IS IT?

...wanna ask Dan Rather?

Doogle

81 posted on 10/21/2005 8:06:11 AM PDT by Doogle (USAF...7thAF ..4077th TFW...408th MMS..Ubon Thailand.."69",,Night Line Delivery..AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
I don't understand Newsmax sometimes.

They read articles, and then write an article telling you what they just read.

High quality journalism. At least it's free.

82 posted on 10/21/2005 8:07:49 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tatze
It's different spin on the same information.

There are no charges on leaking, but there may be charges on obstruction.

83 posted on 10/21/2005 8:09:39 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Tatze
Which is it?

Both, actually, but Newsmax confused the issues with a misleading headline. The NYT was saying they (Rove/Libby, or others) will likely be cleared of the original "outing" charge, but MIGHT face secondary charges for such things as perjury or obstruction of justice.
84 posted on 10/21/2005 8:11:27 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
why no threats or rumors of charges against her?

...psssssst, I started a rumor...see post #43...psssst

*grins*

Doogle

85 posted on 10/21/2005 8:13:18 AM PDT by Doogle (USAF...7thAF ..4077th TFW...408th MMS..Ubon Thailand.."69",,Night Line Delivery..AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dead

Liberals always accuse conservatives of uncritically lapping up info from conservative sources, but I'd say the percentage of people in FR who respect Newsmax is about 10% or less.


86 posted on 10/21/2005 8:14:26 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dansong
OK, I'm confused: Indictments not likely but other indictments are?? - that is they way I read it, they will not be indicted for the leaking of the agents name, they MAY be indicted for not telling everything they knew the first time before the grand jury (obstruction of justice).
It appears if you do not run up to a cop and tell him you ran a stopsign that would be obstruction of justice.
87 posted on 10/21/2005 8:21:21 AM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tatze

Tatze wrote:
Yeah, I cant reconcile these two developments, supposedly both from the NY Slimes.
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?
**endquote**

NYT's headline says they have been advised that they *may* be in serious legal trouble. If that advice came from the SP, it means the target letter, and that's not good. If the advice came from their own attorneys, so what? That would be SOP to say that to anyone testifying to a GJ, especially if conflicting testimony was an issue.

Isn't the question not being answered is, did they or did they not receive a target letter? Why doesn't the article come out and say what the answer was to that question, or say that they refused to answer that question?

This is a story without news, just more inuendo.

Newsmax just re-hashes it to point out that the "outing" part of the investigation is as dead as a Star Trek extra.


88 posted on 10/21/2005 8:23:15 AM PDT by leftcoaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
It's illegal to leak GJ testimony.

That's not true, witnesses are free to discuss their GJ testimony. Remember Matt Cooper's article after he tstified? The Times article (which is *not* a positive thing as Newsmax has tried to spin it) is clearly written based on information from Rove's and Libby's attorneys - those two players have obviously received their target letters. If you read the Times article itself, not the propaganda piece Newsmax made out of it, it isn't good. While Rove or Libby were apparently not the original leaker, they appear to have taken part in a conspiracy to spread the Plame information around between the time of the original leak and Novak's article. They also appear to have perjured themselves as part of an effort to obstruct justice. The article goes on to indicate that others in the administration are likely exposed to legal action as well, *including* the original leaker under the IIPA. Newsmax tried to make the fact that Rove/Libby weren't getting charged under IIPA mean that nobody was, which we don't know to be the case. And even if the narrow IIPA doesn't apply, the Espionage statues may still be in play. This is going to get very ugly next week.
89 posted on 10/21/2005 8:26:32 AM PDT by Walter F Starbuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: leftcoaster
Question: Why haven't we heard from Hannah or someone 'close' to Hannah denying the rumors he's working with Fitz? This loose end bothers me and I realize they may not want to respond........isn't that what leaks are for? Still expecting bs indictments regardless of the headlines and their interpretations. The one thing that is still consistent is Fitz himself and the direction he's been going from early on. He needs to show results for the money and effort.
90 posted on 10/21/2005 8:37:25 AM PDT by Bogeygolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Walter F Starbuck

The administration was merely defending itself from false statements circulating in the media about Wilson's trip, the nature of his findings, and Cheney's role in the process. It was inevitable that Plame's role would come out, and it was negligent for the CIA to have chosen Wilson for the trip knowing that Plame's identity would be compromised even more than it already was. It is ludicrous to see a crime in this. Compared to the Clinton administration's efforts to interfere with and onstruct Starr's investigation, this is nothing.


91 posted on 10/21/2005 8:38:44 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: procomone

Deciding not to charge is not clearing someone. Fitzgerald probably just believes given the high burden the law has that proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is not likely. It does sound like he may be charging Libby or Rove on any number of other fellony charges. We will know next week.


92 posted on 10/21/2005 8:39:20 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
We're doomed. Impeachment is coming.

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. Then I go over to Rush and all is wine and roses for the Repubs? This is not going to end until Bush is out of office and it is so sickening I am going to turn all radio off.

93 posted on 10/21/2005 8:40:25 AM PDT by p23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Walter F Starbuck

Witnesses are free to talk about their testimony, but the prosecutor's office is not, and there is an appearance that the prosecutor's office is now leaking like a sieve. There should be an investigation of the prosecutor's office to see if there were any illegal leaks. It sure looks that way.


94 posted on 10/21/2005 8:41:52 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Walter F Starbuck

Troll?


95 posted on 10/21/2005 8:43:19 AM PDT by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican
It appears if you do not run up to a cop and tell him you ran a stopsign that would be obstruction of justice.

Well that seems a stretch but if you lie to an FBI agent, or lie in front of the grand jury, or attempt to get someone else to lie or shade their testimony, you have committed a felony. Also if the information you provided to reporters was classified information then you could be guilty of another crime although not necessarily the statute that started the whole case.

96 posted on 10/21/2005 8:43:52 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: procomone
"Possible violations under consideration by Mr. Fitzgerald are peripheral to the issue he was appointed in December 2003 to investigate."

Like a Whitewater prosecutor investigating blue dresses? When you have these prosecutors, it's understood they can have a broad scope.

97 posted on 10/21/2005 8:44:55 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

Quick! Who did YOU talk with on June 23, 2003? Explain your very move, thought, word, and meeting that day and remember that if you make a mistake we will fry your butt for 'perjury'........


98 posted on 10/21/2005 8:46:57 AM PDT by Enchante (Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with any of the skeletons in my closet!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: saganite

From what I have heard, Barrett's report cites Clinton IRS abuses and a case of tax fraud by Cisneros that the DoJ under Reno had snuffed out. Kerry and crew tried to cut Barrett's funding to end the probe by attaching an amendment to a spending bill, which would have prevented Barrett from releasing his findings,
but fortunately it was defeated. The lawyers for Clinton and Cisneros, Williams & Connolly, are trying to get those parts of the report redacted for Hillary's '08 run. They have filed more than 190 motions and appeals, one of which alone took 18 months to deal with. On October 7, yet another secret delay order was granted by the court. The report is said to be a real eye-opener that Hillary doesn't want to see the light of day.


99 posted on 10/21/2005 8:47:31 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: procomone

Rove and Libby won't be indicted. Netiher will anyone else from the Bush administration. For one thing, does anyone really believe for a minute that a liberal Times reporter would go to jail for months to protect a Republican? And the most hated Republican at that? Come on! 8) No frikken' way. And now she's said she doesn't remember where she heard it from. Right. So she went to jail for months to protect a source, whose name she can't even remember. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!! I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's a liberal member of the media or some democrat she's covering up. The whole thing is such a joke, especially since it's still called the "CIA leak" case, since there was NO CIA leak. The broad wasn't covert for over five years before the leak supposedly took place, and the law protecting covert operatives covers three years AT MOST! NO LEAK! Anyone who knew wilson, knew that his wife was valerie plame and knew that she worked at the CIA. It was common knowledge to those who were just familar with either of them. Even more suspicious is the fact that all the media contacts with Rove and Libby were with the media calling THEM, NOT THEM calling the media. ALL Republicans should black ball the ny times from this day forward, simply stating, "Sorry, I can't talk to you about anything political or professional. Everytime my colleagues talk to your paper, we're threatened with indictments down the road. Put the slimes out of business once and for all.


100 posted on 10/21/2005 8:47:50 AM PDT by Allen H (Remember 9-11,God bless our military,Bush,& the USA! An informed person, is a conservative person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-178 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson