Posted on 10/24/2005 1:40:04 AM PDT by kcvl
Obstruction, perjury cited among options By Adam Entous, Reuters | October 24, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald seems to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, according to lawyers and other sources involved in the case. In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the alleged underlying crime of disclosing a CIA operative's identity -- as a ''technicality." Speaking on NBC's ''Meet the Press," she suggested Fitzgerald may be trying to show that ''two years of investigation was not a waste of time and dollars." Fitzgerald's investigation has focused largely on Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis ''Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and their conversations about CIA operative Valerie Plame with reporters in June and July of 2003. Fitzgerald is expected to give final notice as early as today to officials facing charges and may convene the grand jury tomorrow to deliver a summary of the case and ask for approval of the possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury is to expire Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it. Fitzgerald still could determine that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges, but the lawyers said that seemed unlikely.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Amazing how many folks equate speculation with evidence.
Yes. Stat.
The Republicans really should not put Kaye Bailey Hutchinson out as a spokesman. She seems nice enought, and that may be a problem, but she does not make the case very well for the Republicans.
I don't think that there is much to see. From what I here, Plame was at a desk job in Langley at the agency, had her mug on the front of a magazine with Wilson, and on and on. She may have outed herself with that one.
What happened to what Robert Novak said, that it wasn't a 'partisan gun-slinger'- does the MSM forget that?????
How do they account for that??
As far as the VF article goes, it doesn't take much sense to recognize that it was done after her status was already published in the press.
The judges who reviewed the evidence presented by Fitz disagree. And there was at least enough to fill 8 redacted pages of the opinion.
From Mullings.com
If you click on the link you will be taken directly to the subscription page after which you can return here to read the rest of this edition of Mullings. I'll wait.
I see the bad moon arising, Dah, dee-dee-dee-dah-dah-dum. There's a bathroom on the right.
Done? Good. Thanks.
Official - and unofficial - Washington was abuzz this weekend with the twin developments in the Valerie Plame/Flame/Miller/Libby/Rove case.
First there was the news that the Special Counsel in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, has put up a web site (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/) which he had not done for the first three years of the investigation.
That led everyone to assume that indictments will be announced this week causing Washington-based reporters to cancel any travel plans they may have made so they can be in their actual offices in Washington if and when this happens.
The second CIA-scandal-related development was the extremely rare peek into the newsroom at the New York Times and the increasing tensions between reporters and senior management over the whole Judith Miller deal.
Veteran Washington reporter Kit Seelye was assigned to write a piece about a memo that executive editor Bill Keller sent to the staff which said Ms. Miller had "mislead" the Times' Washington bureau chief as to whether she was one of the reporters involved in the leak at the outset.
Keller's memo also said he had not been aware of the "entanglement" of Ms. Miller and the Vice President's chief of staff, Scooter Libby.
"Entanglement" is a very charged, very provocative word which Mr. Keller must have used with the full knowledge of all the eyebrow-raising it would certainly trigger.
Miller understood what was being implied and denied, in a counter memo, any "personal, social, or other relationship" with Libby other an as a source.
This is not an esoteric inside-the-Beltway deal. It now seems likely that someone (or someoneS) will be indicted and the New York Times apparently believes it was conned by its own, Pulitzer Prize winning, reporter.
On Friday, the NY Times had, in the lead paragraph of its front-pager on the scandal, the following:
… Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove … and I. Lewis Libby Jr. … sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.
Observers here (that's reporter-speak for reporters talking to other reporters, often at the bar in which the press filing center is located) are mulling over whether one of the "lawyers involved in the case" is Robert Bennett who is Judith Miller's lawyer, who is reportedly being paid by the NY Times.
The question overloading the local telephone lines on Friday was: If one of those lawyers is, in fact, Mr. Bennett how can he be used as an anonymous source (in a case which revolves around the misuse of anonymous sources) without disclosing who he is, and what his relationship is to the Times and Ms. Miller.
On the other hand, if Bennett was not one of the lawyers being referenced, why didn't the Times make that clear so that goofballs like me, who have nothing better to do than e-mail real reporters and ask them whether this makes any ethical sense at all, would not raise these uncomfortable questions.
Well said! I'm so sick of the "maybes, the seems-to-be, the possibles, the potentials, the others behind the scenes, sources connected but not revealed, some say," fake journalism of these rabid pinko leftie scumbags. They haven't been right YET. No reason to think any of these fake articles are right, either.
Note to media headquarters: lie requires more repetition. The Digital Formacid-American community remains unconvinced.
I think we're going to have to see what the prosecutor does. It is too easy to say "She was not an operative"--why did the CIA refer it to Justice, and why did Justice appoint a special counsel, if it was wrong on its face. Lets not kid ourselves.
Valerie Plame was exposed as a covert agent by Aldrich Ames many moons ago.
Why did the CIA refer it to the Justice Dept? And then why did the Justice Dept. refer it to a Special Prosecutor? And then why did a three-federal judge panel agree that serious crimes may have been committed?
Again, I'm saying lets wait and see. The easy answers being spouted out here are pablum, but don't provide me any comfort.
When the democrats run in 2006 they will be saying that this administration was beset by endless investigations and indictments, changes need to be made to stop the corruption.
The democrats don't have any ideas but as long as they continue to float allegations and then demand investigations, they are wasting our time as the majority party.
And they will have the full resources of Soros, Lewis, et.al (all the billionaires) at their disposal. And of course the "evil bad pubbies" will be constantly bad mouthed in the MSM.
Perjury and obstruction of justice sound to me like charges that would be made against reporters (and possibly Joe Wilson), not administration officials.
I think the likely outcome is that Rove and Libby will possible get indicted for perjury and/or obstruction in the investigation of an event that in and of itself was not a crime. Entrapment anyone?
Well .. I understand what you're saying .. but the Washington social circles KNEW she wasn't covert.
She and her husband were fund raisers for the Clintons. She was well known as working at the CIA. She had been an "operative" years ago .. but she hasn't been an operative for many years. Also .. the law says that you have to "knowingly" expose someone .. so if you say Valerie works at the CIA and you don't know she's an "operative" - then you're not outing her.
I'm not kidding myself. THERE IS NO THERE THERE!!!!
This is just another attempt by the democrats to discredit the Iraq war. It won't matter how good it gets in Iraq - the democrats will be against it. Fine! But .. they will not win national elections if they are not willing to defend America.
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.