[FairOpinion]

Here is what's on the website (see link above)

August 12, 2005 Memorandum of Deputy Attorney General
February 6, 2004 Letter of Deputy Attorney General
December 30, 2003 Letter of Deputy Attorney General


News

October 28, 2005 Press Release
October 28, 2005 Indictment
October 28, 2005 Media Advisory


June 27, 2005 Statement of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
February 15, 2005 Statement of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald


Legal Proceedings
In Re: Special Counsel Investigation

[Mo1]

later read

[RepublicanCentury]

I have read the indictment, and I am dumbfounded. The most serious counts (perjury) are based on nothing more that a "he said/she said" - specifically, Libby said that both Russert and Time's Matt Cooper told him about Plame, while Cooper and Russert said they did not. That's it - one man's word against another - no other evidence (at least none disclosed). Very very difficult to get a conviction with evidence this flimsy.

[Paloma_55]

Headline on Fox News this morning "Rove will not be indicted"

Imagine, the media is so screwed up that it becomes news when you are not indicted for something. The whole last week has been a media circle jerk where the speculation was the news itself.

I imagine it must feel good (NOT!) to see my picture on the front page of the local paper with the headline "Paloma NOT arrested for murder!"

What a sad, pathetic joke.

[dead]

Libby said he told Russert he didn't know for sure that she worked for the CIA. Russert says he never indicated he wasn't sure.

This fascinating case could easily be lifted from today's headlines into the lamest episode of Law & Order ever.

[An.American.Expatriate]

OMG is THAT LAME!!!!

Half of the case is a he says vs he says (Russert vs. Libby) and the rest is not much better.

Just about ANY defense attorney should be able to destroy the prosecution.

[Inwoodian]

Let's not forget that Russert was a Democrat operative who worked for Moynihan and the oily Mario Cuomo. It is 99% sure that Cooper is a Dem. Their word against the word of Mr. Libby and this twerp thinks he can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Venue is his best hope. Must be moved.

[anymouse]

Free Scooter!

[dirtboy]

This is stunning. Fitz is getting Libby for perjury based on his statements to Russert in an off-record discussion. Basically, Libby said Russert asked him if he knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and Libby said no.

So Fitz is saying this on Page 19:

That Russert never asked the question, and

That Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

BUT YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY INDICT LIBBY FOR BOTH.

If Russert never asked the question, Libby could not have answered it in the manner stated. If Russert did ask the question and Libby answered it in the manner stated, then he cannot be indicted for the first part.

And it is ALL boiling down to what Russert said versus what Libby said. Basically, Fitz is trying to indict Libby for making a false statement in response to a question that Fitz said Russert never asked!

[Mike Darancette]

He calls Plame a classified employee not "covert". Classified mean nothing.

[pawdoggie]

Unlike some, I'm not so sanguine about Mr. Libby's chances in court. What strikes me, however, is that for the first time, after Daniel Ellsberg, Philip Agee, Patrick Leahy, Jim McDermott and a host of others, Mr. Fitgerald is going to criminalize the Washington art and science of leaking. What Mr. Libby is accused of doing, assuming that it is all true, is a time-honored way that ______Administration officials (fill in the blank, 'cause they all do it) put out negative information on their opponents and critics: you say that you heard from "other sources" that so and so is a (somekind of) bad guy, and ask the reporter if they've heard the same thing. Since reporters have traditionally been exempted from interrogation, or have been allowed to protect their sources, it is often impossible to trace the source of leaks. Clearly, assuming the charges are true and accurate, that was what Libby counted on to protect himself from the truth he may have shaded with the FBI, the Prosecutor and the grand jury.

If this indictment spelled the death knell of the political leak as we know it, it would be a positive. That would explain why the Washington Post editorialized about the inappropriateness of prosecuting someone for crimes not directly related to the original allegation that prompted the investigation. Surely the terminal stupidity of some folks in the Bush White House, who thought that there are "good reporters" you can trust, especially as it concerns anyone from the NY Times, has been exposed. One can only hope that if the MSM thought that this White House was a closed-mouth operation in the past, they should find it even more so in the future.

[OldFriend]

This man is a disgrace and seemingly knows he's full of it too. He contradicted his own statement.

If this is how he ran an investigation, it's quite telling.

[pageonetoo]

[Paloma_55]

From the indictment: "Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

I think this statement has been proven false many times.