I think feedback at # 31 is on to something too, at least as far as theorizing the illegal outing of Plame is not the serious national security threat which Fitzgerald used to convince the 3 judge panel to jail reporters, if they refused to testify. There has to be another, bigger crime. OR could it be Fitzgerald was looking to indict the Vice President for outting Plame? Now THAT would qualify as a BIG crime, worthy of all those redacted pages Fitzgerald sent to the 3 judge panel.
Considering his reputation, I can't imagine Fitzgerald would use over the top, hyperbolic language to sway those judges. He had all those redacted pages of proof he was after something big, something that affected our national security.
Perdogg at #34 raises another question when he writes: "the proscecuter goes to the gJ and asks if there is enough evidence to issue a bill of indictment on preponderance of the evidence. 12 jurors out of 16-23 must vote in the affirmative to carry the bill of indictment. This is according to Rule 6(e)."
According to all accounts I've read, Fitzgerald hasn't decided yet whether to issue indictments or not, which defies logic, considering the language Fitzgerald used to convince the 3 judge panel to let him jail reporters to force their testimony. Has the GJ voted already? Do they have to vote, or could Fitzgerald simply say "thanks" and send them packing without voting? The Grand Jury doesn't meet again till Wednesday.
One thing for certain, finding 12 DC jurors out of 16, who would vote to indict any Bush administration member, would not be hard at all.
I go from optimistic to gloomy doom. Mostly, I just want this suspense to end.
I live my life in a constant state of gloomy doom. It's not so bad. You get used to it.
I think in DC, there are 23 Grand Jurors, so he needs 16 (but it doesn't change your ratio and if he wanted to, he could get indictments).
Fitz could send them packing without taking any vote if he does not find any crime was committed or if he thinks the evidence is way too weak for conviction. If he wants he could probably explain to them why there was no evidence of crime.
I think it was something really big, Fitz would still not be at month 22 1/2 figuring out if anyone should be charged with a crime. Plus, I believe chances of anything big resulting in indictments are just as likely for the bad guys (CIA/reporters).
From what has been leaked, I see nothing that would be a problem for Rove. The only thing mentioned so far is Rove forgetting about the meeting with Cooper at his first GJ session. But as soon as Rove found the e-mail he notified Fitz and testified again. Per another posting, from Perdogg, perjury should not be charged if the witness comes forward on their own to correct their testimony and it is not too late in the game.
Libby may have some risk since he seems to have spoken with reporter's the earliest (Miller on 6/23). But even from Miller's statements it sounds like Libby did not know much about Wilson or his trip. And she admits to having other sources (and so does Novak).
With that said, I would not be surprised at anything at this point. It's not hard to feel gloom and doom based on the media reporting on this case. Hopefully, we will know within one week.
Recalling that Judith Miller was placed in the federal lockup in Alexandria, Virginia, one does suppose the grand jury membership could be drawn from the entire Metro area, not just DC.