Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/5/2005 7:25:15 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said on Wednesday.

As a first step, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was expected to notify officials by letter if they have become targets, said the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Fitzgerald could announce plea agreements, bring indictments, or conclude that no crime was committed. By the end of this month he is expected to wrap up his nearly two-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

The inquiry has ensnared President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The White House had long maintained that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak but reporters have since named them as sources.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by Fitzgerald. In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a target.

Libby's lawyer was not immediately available to comment.

"It's an ongoing investigation and we're fully cooperating," said Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride.

The outcome of the investigation could shake up an administration already reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House Republican leader Tom DeLay on a conspiracy charge related to campaign financing.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to the grand jury on Friday about the conversations she had with Libby.

Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of leaking her name, damaging her ability to work undercover, to get back at him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy.

Fitzgerald's agreement to limit the scope of Miller's testimony to her conversations with Libby -- a proposal he rejected a year earlier -- suggested that Libby had become "the focus of interest," said one of the lawyers involved in the case.

After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:36:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 7:38:36 PM EDT by raven]
Not likely. He cooperated fully with the special prosecutor. It was the NY Times reporter who went to jail to protect her source, and the source that declined to waive the secrecy agreement between he and the reporter Miller was not Karl Rove.

I cant see how Rove could get nailed here in a serious way but the Bush haters have no compunctions about indicting Republicans to give them the taint of impropriety, and then they can wail about how the system is so corrupt when they walk once the ludicrous charges make it to court.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:38:43 PM EDT
I figure he gets indicted regardless of the evidence to bring him and Libby down.

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:12:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
I figure he gets indicted regardless of the evidence to bring him and Libby down.

Yep… Witch Hunt

From rumors floating around conspiracy charges because the prosecutor can find no evidence anybody broke the law… so charge them with conspiracy to break the law… don’ make any fucking sense.

No crime committed so manufacture a charge.

Why the fuck did Miller get an agreement to limit the scope of her testimony to her conversations with Libby… the prosecutor appears to really not want to know the facts.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:20:48 PM EDT
BTW you been keeping up with the DeLay witch hunt.


Apparently the first set of charges were no good under Texas law.

So Ronnie Earle gets a grand jury over the weekend and that grand jury NO-BILLs DeLay... so then Earle gets him another grand jury Monday to indict on money laundering charges.

What is that 9 grand juries to get 2 charges?
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:21:41 PM EDT
Never happen.

You'll see.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:24:07 PM EDT
Yep six plus 3.

And he still hasn't disclosed any real evidence.

Earle is a prick.
Top Top