KipWellsFan Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odo...-ne_b_8457.html This just in from the AP: Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation. What this means is Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, believes his client is defintely going to be indicted. So, Luskin is sending Rove back into the grand jury to try to get around the prosecutor and sell his innocence directly to the grand jurors. Legal defense work doesn't get more desperate than this. The prosecutor is happy to let Rove go under oath again--without his lawyer in the room--and try to wiggle out of the case. The prosecutor has every right to expect that Rove's final under-oath grilling will either add a count or two to the indictment or force Rove to flip and testify against someone else. O'Donnell was the first guy to identify Rove as Matt Cooper's source. More of his analysis here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odo...tep_b_8447.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Is it too much to hope for a White Sox advance to the ALCS and an indictment of Darth Rove all in the same week? Quick, W, have a big news conference and warn everybody about the threat of militant Islamists to create a diversion! No, wait. He already tried that today didn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 6, 2005 -> 03:39 PM) Is it too much to hope for a White Sox advance to the ALCS and an indictment of Darth Rove all in the same week? Quick, W, have a big news conference and warn everybody about the threat of militant Islamists to create a diversion! No, wait. He already tried that today didn't he? NYC Heightens Subway Security After 'Credible' Bomb Threat foxnews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Oct 6, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) foxnews.com LOOK AT THE MONKEY!! LOOK AT THE FUNNY MONKEY!!! Ah, the old Chewbacca Defense in action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 You think Rove will be a caged bird who sings? If so, this could be a very bad time for this country. I hope that there is just smoke, no fire. But frankly, I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Oct 6, 2005 -> 04:59 PM) You think Rove will be a caged bird who sings? Based on his past I would say yes, but the stakes are too high here. He's going to fall on his sword most likely, as will Scooter. Can't go as high as the POTUS and Veep or they would be traitors to the administration. (Not like being found to be traitors to the country wouldn't already be enough.) Edited October 6, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 (edited) "he is definitely target of the investigation now there shouldn't be any doubt about that" "he[Fitzgerald] is running, by far the most professional, leak proof, high profile Washington investigation we have ever seen" -Lawrence O'Donnell on Olbermann http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown...ve-10-06-05.mov Edited October 7, 2005 by KipWellsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 FWIW, Luskin is still perpetuating the incorrect belief that Rove had to receive a target letter befor being indicted, which is not at all the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 Recently lawyers said that they believed the prosecutor may be applying new legal theories to bring charges in the case. One new approach appears to involve the possible use of Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law, which makes it a crime for anyone who "willfully communicates, delivers, transfers or causes to be communicated" to someone "not entitled to receive it" classified information relating the national defense matters. Under this broad statute, a government official or a private citizen who passed classified information to anyone else in or outside the government could potentially be charged with a felony, if they transferred the information to someone without a security clearance to receive it. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/politics...agewanted=print Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 That is definately a way to get around the intentional vaguaness fo the Espionage Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 The Washington Post's Leonnig and VandeHei have this detail: "A source close to Rove said Bush's chief political adviser and his legal team are now genuinely concerned he could face charges. But, the source said, his lawyers are hoping that Fitzgerald's warning of the chance of indictment is simply the move of a conservative, by-the-book prosecutor wrapping up a high-profile investigation. Prosecutorial guidelines require prosecutors to warn witnesses before they appear before a grand jury if there is a chance they could face criminal charges." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Criminal defense lawyers I’ve spoken to who are friendly to the administration are very worried that there will be one or more indictments in the next three weeks of senior administration officials, just looking at what Fitzgerald is doing and taking him at his word, you know, being a serious prosecutor here. And I think it’s going to be bad for the Bush administration. ... I hate the criminalization of politics. -Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/09/kristol-indictments/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 11, 2005 Author Share Posted October 11, 2005 Libby Did Not Tell Grand Jury About Key Conversation, and Fitzgerald expressing interest in Libby's potential involvement in pressuring Miller to stay in jail In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony. Libby also did not disclose the June 23 conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents working on the Plame leak investigation, the sources said. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald apparently learned about the June 23 conversation for the first time just days ago, after attorneys for Miller and The New York Times informed prosecutors that Miller had discovered a set of notes on the conversation. Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame. She was released from jail after she agreed to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation. Miller testified before the grand jury on September 30, and attorneys familiar with the matter said that she agreed to be questioned further by Fitzgerald today. Meanwhile, in recent days Fitzgerald has also expressed significant interest in whether Libby may have sought to discourage Miller-either directly or indirectly through her attorney-from testifying before the grand jury, or cooperating in other ways with the criminal probe, according to attorneys familiar with Miller's discussions with prosecutors. http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/...05/1011nj1.htm# more at link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 In some places...not truthfully answering a federal prosecutor's questions while under oath is known as perjury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 News Orgs Working On Stories Tying Cheney Into Plamegate… Developing… The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are working on stories that point to Vice President Dick Cheney as the target of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/10/11/n...tor_n_8705.html Report: Lawyers say investigation into CIA leak widens to probe 'broader conspiracy' around Iraq http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Report_Lawye...o_CIA_1011.html full story at link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 This is where I pretend to be shocked and stunned. :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2005 -> 05:10 PM) In some places...not truthfully answering a federal prosecutor's questions while under oath is known as perjury. Well thankfully purjury isn't enough to get you convicted by Congress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112....html?mod=blogs Nothing tying Cheney into this whole mess but Fitzgerald is apparently now investigating a "broader conspiracy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 12, 2005 -> 07:06 AM) Well thankfully purjury isn't enough to get you convicted by Congress... According to this, support for impeachment of Bush by the American public is much higher than it ever was for Clinton http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528 "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement 44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error. Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed. ... In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition. more at link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 (edited) You can't compare the two. It's not even the same thing. You ask leading questions like that, OF COURSE they are going to answer that he should be impeached. Stupid polls. I will say that if they broke the law, and it can be proven, hang them all. Edited October 12, 2005 by kapkomet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 A source close to the Plame case is saying that Fitzgerald met alone with Judge Hogan yesterday, presumably to ask for an extension of the Grand Jury. -Jane Hamsher http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_10_09...907869787730572 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Contempt Finding Is Lifted in Case of Times Reporter Bill Keller, The Times's executive editor, said: "It's a great relief to have Judy out of legal jeopardy. And it should clear the way for The Times to do what we've been yearning to do: tell the story." Mr. Keller had said in an earlier message to the paper's staff that once Ms. Miller's "obligations to the grand jury are fulfilled, we intend to write the most thorough story we can of her entanglement with the White House leak investigation." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/national/13leak.html more at link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Vice President's role in outing of CIA agent under examination, sources close to prosecutor say http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_role...f_CIA_1012.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 The contempt order against Judith Miller has been lifted. NYT will get a chance to clear the air in their and Miller's involvement in PlameGate. WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge in the CIA leak investigation lifted a contempt order against New York Times reporter Judith Miller, clearing the way for the newspaper to fulfill its promise to publish a full account of Miller's conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/13/lea...n.ap/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 Senior Aide on loan from Bolton to Dick Cheney might have made deal with prosecutor, what a stooly! A senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney is cooperating with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, sources close to the investigation say. Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald’s case tell RAW STORY that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson’s name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation. Others close to the probe say that if Hannah is cooperating with the special prosecutor then he was likely going to be charged as a co-conspirator and may have cut a deal. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_...uting_1018.html more at link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.