Wednesday, October 26, 2005

F*CK

From the Star Tribune:

WASHINGTON - The prosecutor in the CIA leak case was preparing to outline possible charges before the federal grand jury as early as today, even as the FBI conducted last-minute interviews in the high-profile investigation, according to people familiar with the case.

With special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in Washington, lawyers in the case and some White House officials braced for at least one indictment when the grand jury meets today. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, is said by several people in the case to be a main focus, but not the only one.

In a possible sign that Fitzgerald may seek to charge one or more officials with illegally disclosing Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation, FBI agents as recently as Monday night interviewed at least two people in her D.C. neighborhood. The agents were attempting to determine whether the neighbors knew that Plame worked for the CIA before she was unmasked with the help of senior Bush administration officials. Two neighbors said they told the FBI they had been surprised to learn of her employer.

The interviews suggest that Fitzgerald wants to show that Plame's status was covert, and that there was damage from the revelation that she worked at the CIA.

Underscoring the uncertainty surrounding the probe, two Republican officials said deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove is not sure whether he faces indictment. He was said to be awaiting word from Fitzgerald, even as prosecutors questioned at least one of his former associates about Rove's contacts with reporters before Plame's name was disclosed. The White House expects indictments to come today,according to a senior administration official.

Before a vote on an indictment, prosecutors typically leave the room so jurors can deliberate in private, and ask that the jury alert them when it has reached a decision. Unlike a criminal trial, grand jurors are not weighing proof of guilt or innocence. They must decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and they must agree unanimously to indict. The prosecutor could seek to seal any indictments until he announces the charges. The grand jury's term expires Friday.

The news of the 11th-hour moves came on the same day that Cheney was implicated. In a New York Times report that the White House pointedly did not dispute, Fitzgerald was said to have notes taken by Libby showing that he learned about Plame from Cheney a month before she was identified by syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

There is no indication Cheney did anything illegal or improper, but the report was the first to indicate that he was aware of Plame well before she became a household name.


Fitzgerald's investigation has centered on whether senior administration officials knowingly revealed Plame's identity in an effort to discredit a critic of the Bush administration -- her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

On July 6, 2003, he accused the administration in the Post and the Times of using flawed intelligence to justify the war with Iraq. Eight days later, Novak revealed Plame's name and employer.Democrats in Congress and liberal advocacy groups sought Tuesday to turn up the pressure on the White House. The Center for American Progress, a liberal group, sought to focus attention on what Bush knew, saying in an e-mail message to supporters and journalists that the "question that must now be answered is whether Vice President Cheney had any discussions about Valerie Plame with President Bush prior to her outing."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called on Bush to assure that any administration officials who are indicted will resign their positions and not to engage in any criticism of Fitzgerald should he bring indictments. (Source: Star Tribune, Oct. 26, 2005)

10 Comments:

At 8:53 AM, Blogger North Star Politics said...

Republicans are corrupt, now they're going to get indicted. It seems almost like old news at this point. Do you support the (soon-to-be-accused) criminals in the Bush administration, RM?

 
At 10:28 AM, Blogger Mike S said...

It will be fun to watch them run. But even more fun to knock so many out of office for failing to act in their own self-interest and run from the criminals.

Wait, I thought liberals were the one's that hate their country...then why will GOPers be going to jail for treason?

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger Republican Minnesota said...

NSP -

In America, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 
At 12:05 PM, Blogger Toby said...

RM, would you support the death penalty for Rove and Libby if it turned out that they did commit treason and were found guilty in court? George H.W. Bush did say that knowingly leaking the name of a covert operative is treason, and we all know what the punishment for treason is.

 
At 12:23 PM, Blogger Mike S said...

Yes, they are innocent so far, but forgive us if we look forward to the potential downfall of alleged criminals who have brought so much harm to this country already.

By the way, Clinton was never indicted and was impeached anyway.

Something about roosters coming home, or something like that, is starting to ring a bell.

 
At 1:44 PM, Blogger Republican Minnesota said...

I only support the death penalty for heinous sex offenders with a high propensity of offending again.

No, that doesn't make me a liberal.

 
At 2:42 PM, Blogger Gary Matthew Miller said...

Mike S:

Please tell me you know that an impeachment IS an indictment...

 
At 3:59 PM, Blogger Mike S said...

I am talking about in a court. Not in a highly partisan legislative body. He was under grand jury scrutiny, and a court never indicted him.

I wish I could say the same for our current White House employees, but it appears that at least someone on Bush's staff will be an accused treasonist.

And I don't take treason lightly. Any GOPer who attacks this process, or claims it is not a big deal should be removed from office at the next election.

 
At 9:35 PM, Blogger Toby said...

RM, why not castration for those sex offenders?

 
At 8:03 AM, Blogger StPaul_DFLer said...

Impeachment is not an indictment. Indictment is handed down from our system of justice which gives everyone the right to be judged guilty (12 out of 15 jurors). Lawyers for each side get to choose jurors and even get to remove the judge.

Sounds fair to me. Clinton was never indicted.

If there case is strong, they can still indict him.

Impeachment is being judged by a legislative branch on the executive- or judicial. There is no say in who can vote, or judge (Chief Justice).

You can be censured, sanctioned or rebuked by the legislative branch. Tom Delay has been all three mutltiple times and has been indicted. Smoke that.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home