Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

My mistake, the problem was not with Posner but the person that quoted him out of context. I guess Posner wasn't the idiot.

0 Replies

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_seen_to_press_for_Rove_1213.html

Quote:

Fitzgerald was long suspicious Rove had hidden evidence; Not swayed by last minute testimony, lawyers sayFitzgerald still looking to indict Rove

Short of a last minute intervention by Rove's attorney, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to ask a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove for making false statements to the FBI and Justice Department investigators in October 2003, lawyers close to the case say.

Rove failed to tell investigators at the time that he had spoken about Plame to Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and conservative columnist Robert Novak, both of whom later cooperated in the case. Novak outed Plame in a July 14, 2003 column.

The Chicago prosecutor briefed the second grand jury investigating the outing last week for more than three hours. During that time, he brought them up to speed on the latest developments involving Rove and at least one other White House official, the sources said. The attorneys refused to identify the second person.

As of Monday, neither Rove nor his attorney Robert Luskin has explained Rove's misstatements to Fitzgerald's satisfaction, those familiar with the case said

The noose grows tighter. Rove and one other 'unnamed official.' We've heard rumours that there was a third party involved with this, my money is on Hadley; but we'll see.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fitzgerald to brief grand jury Wednesday
Jason Leopold

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present additional evidence to a grand jury Wednesday morning in the CIA leak case that could result in an indictment being handed up against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, sources close to the investigation told RAW STORY.

Although the grand jury's term expires in 18 months, Fitzgerald is expected to wrap up the case as it relates to Rove before the end of the year, the sources said.

Fitzgerald intends to present the grand jury with the sworn testimony from Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak. The sources close to the case said Fitzgerald is still intent on seeking an indictment against Rove on at least one count of making false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators when he was first interviewed in early October 2003 about his role in the leak. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_to_present_more_information_to_1213.html

0 Replies

Bush can settle CIA leak riddle, Novak says
Rob Christensen, Barbara Barrett, Jane Stancill and Dan Kane, Staff Writers
Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush.
"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."

"So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' "

It was Novak who first revealed that Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Wilson had angered the Bush administration when he accused it of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat before the war.

Disclosing the identity of a CIA agent is illegal; the disclosure set off a furor in Washington, resulting in an ongoing investigation by a special prosecutor and the indictment and resignation of Lewis Libby, the chief aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Woodward, a Washington Post editor, recently disclosed that he, too, had been told by an administration figure about Plame's secret identity -- probably, he said, by the same source who told Novak.

Novak said his role in the Plame affair "snowballed out of proportion" as a result of a "campaign by the left."

But he also blamed "extremely bad management of the issue by the White House. Once you give an issue to a special prosecutor, you lose control of it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/12/14/robert-novak-im-confid_n_12251.html

0 Replies

blueflame, That's what I've been saying all along; president Bush needs to ask the question or he already knows. He just can't be trusted to tell the truth when he says, anybody in his administration convicted of a crime will not longer work in his administration. What a bunch of BS.

0 Replies

C.I.

Unfortunately we have a president in which veracity and he are at 180 degrees of separation.

0 Replies

At any rate Rove seems to be facing indictment for real this time. Hadley too. And who knows who else.

0 Replies

blueflame1
How about the chief conspiritors. Bush and Chaney. Nobody can convince me that they did not have a hand in it.

0 Replies

Of course they did. Cheney, at least. I still believe that Bush is pretty much led around by the nose around that place.

Just wait until people start trying to save their own hides; things could get real ugly around that WH.

That being said, what would the effects on the country be of upheval in the WH? I'm too young to remember watergate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au, one step closer to Bushie if Rove gets indicted.

0 Replies

Seems to me like "accessory" is a chargeable crime; both Bush and Cheney are criminals for assisting and abetting the outing of a CIA agent.

0 Replies

Watergate was just another day at the office in Washington.
This would be no different. The only problem is, can we recover from the Bush presidency.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Seems to me like "accessory" is a chargeable crime; both Bush and Cheney are criminals for assisting and abetting the outing of a CIA agent.

What are the facts you are relying on to arrive at that conclusion?

0 Replies

Feeling the heat, Tico?

Don't forget about that bet

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Arriving at the conclusion is easy. Bush and Cheney are the leaders that need only ask their staff who the guilty party is. This investigation has been going on for many months for no good reason, because both Bush and Cheney should have found the answer on the guilty party and revealed who they were. They failed in their responsibility as the leaders. They have by all observation failed the test of "accessory."

It seems by current revelations that their staff may be found guilty of perjury, a unnecessary process if the truth were revealed from the very beginning.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Feeling the heat, Tico?

Don't forget about that bet

Cycloptichorn

Not at all ... and I haven't.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Arriving at the conclusion is easy. Bush and Cheney are the leaders that need only ask their staff who the guilty party is. This investigation has been going on for many months for no good reason, because both Bush and Cheney should have found the answer on the guilty party and revealed who they were. They failed in their responsibility as the leaders. They have by all observation failed the test of "accessory."

What is this "test of accessory" of which you speak?

Let's say a middle manager at a corporation has embezzled funds from the company. Would you accuse the CEO of being an accessory to the crime? After all, the CEO need only ask his employees whether they committed a crime or not.

And I agree that this investigation has been going on for months with no good reason.

0 Replies

There's a big difference; the investigation on outing the CIA agent has been known to Bush and Cheney. Your example tries to compare apples and oranges. If the CEO knows there is a crime of embezzlement, he is also an accessory to that crime for failing to take action.

0 Replies

Cheney will have to testify under oath in the Libby trial. Bushie supposedly conducted his own investigation and allegedly, according to him, asked Rove if he leaked Plame's name. Bushie says Rove told him no. Bushie and Scott McClellan
then told that story to America many times. Seems to me lying to a President conducting an investigation is as criminal as telling lies to the FBI or Grand Jury. We now know that Rove did lie to Bushie. An outrage. But not for the Presidunce. He should have fired Rove as soon as it was revealed that Rove was a leaker.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

There's a big difference; the investigation on outing the CIA agent has been known to Bush and Cheney. Your example tries to compare apples and oranges. If the CEO knows there is a crime of embezzlement, he is also an accessory to that crime for failing to take action.

How is the CEO an accessory? If the press ran a news story about the embezzlement, and law enforcement began an investigation, what are the facts that would cause you to believe the CEO is an "accessory"?

And what is the test of "accessory" you are applying to the facts, in either the real case or my hypothetical? What did the CEO do to make him an accessory, in your view? You indicate he's an accessory for "failing to take action" .... what action did he fail to take?

I'm not sure this is apples to oranges, because you seem to think the CEO is guilty of a crime, as an accessory, just because you believe he has some ability to take some action and didn't. I'm trying to determine if you think anybody in a position of authority in an organization that does not solve a crime committed by someone else in their organization is an accessory to that crime.

If you will clarify, that might help explain why you think Bush/Cheney are "accessories" for "for assisting and abetting the outing of a CIA agent."

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know