Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fitzgerald Apparently Mulling Criminal Conspiracy Charges Vs. Libby, Rove

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 12:28 AM
Original message
Fitzgerald Apparently Mulling Criminal Conspiracy Charges Vs. Libby, Rove
As his investigaiton into the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame concludes, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is apparently mulling charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by senior Bush Administration officials, most likely including I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove.

The Washington Post, in a story in today's issue, said Fitzgerald may take this tact because he lacks evidence to prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which he first set out to investigate. To prove a violation of the act, Fitzgerald would have to show that government officials knew an operative had covert status and intentionally leaked the operative's identity.

According to lawyers who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity, Fitzgerald is apparently considering the alternative, which may be easier to prove.

Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials (conceivably, Libby and Rove) agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

While conspiracy cases are viewed by criminal prosecutors as simpler to bring than more straightforward criminal charges, they are also trickier to sell to juries. "That would arguably be a close call for a prosecutor, but it could be tried," a veteran Washington criminal attorney with longtime experience in national security cases told the Post.

The grand jury is scheduled to expire Oct. 28, and lawyers in the case told the <em>Post</em> that Fitzgerald could signal his intentions as early as this week.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether anyone illegally disclosed Plame's name or undercover CIA job in retaliation against Wilson. In a 2003 op-ed piece in the New York Times, Wilson accused the White House of using "twisted" intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

***

This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. just dragging them into court under indictment...
...would bring down the GOP agenda-- all their attention would be focused on keeping their fat asses out of prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polethebear Donating Member (190 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Don't get your hopes up........
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 01:23 AM by Polethebear
I have heard Larry F is incomopent as a prosecutor as chimp is a pres.

Let me look for a link....



Here you go

www.PeterLance.com

This guy has researched everything in regards to both WTC attacks and what Al-Qeada WANTED to do,which is enough in of itself. I heard him say something about how when Larry.F was at/in charge of the NY Fed proscuetor's office.They set up a bugged payphone conversation between ramzi youseff and of the al-qeada LTs. Anyway,they had a translator set up and ready but problem was they didn't bother to find out whether or not he could understand the terrorists' dilect......he couldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrankBooth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not really sure who Larry F. is
but if you mean Pat F., then you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polethebear Donating Member (190 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Maybe........
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 01:47 AM by Polethebear
my mistake......:yoiks:


I will doublecheck.


Right guy,wrong name
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Mulling thats an interesting word!!! Like it hadn't crossed his mind
To consider it carefully; to ponder on it.

Thesaurus: contemplate, ponder, think over, deliberate, ruminate, reflect on, cogitate, meditate, muse on, study, examine.
Form: mull something over (always now)

I think it came up in his mind and is a REAL Possibility!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. mulling
For Fitzgerald, this sounds like plan b, but he hasn't decided yet. Hence ... mulling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. So how will the Swiftboat Fitzgerald?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
22. See post 4? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Yep.
Too bad they can't get his name right. Maybe they are hoping Larry Franklin will be prosecuting the cases!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polethebear Donating Member (190 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. HEYYYYYYY!!!!
That was my fault and I was just being honest!

I'm one of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is fairly old news.
When Fitz was beginning to bring people from the administration into court in earnest, these speculations were a significant part of the press written about the case. The whole deal with the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act is that it is difficult to prove. As others have pointed out, including John Dean, there are other laws which may apply which are not so difficult.

Still if all we have is perjury and conspiracy charges that may be sufficient. Plus, there *has* been a cover-up. There may be obstruction of justice charges. The latter is the final blow that brought down Nixon, the smoking gun tape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. I am still holding out for Perjury and obstruction
I think the easier case to prove is that of cover-up ans stone walling. But throw in conspiracy what you might be looking at is a 1 0years sentence.

But here is the thing neither has codeword clearance....Who told them? and Why?

They will never flip Libby because he is a neo-con's neo-con and the end justifies the means...always. Rove I think is a lot more practical and I think he might be persuaded to give up Cheney.

Now here is the rub. Cheney would no doubt claim executive privilege but he would be excoriated by conservative pundit of all stripes. Congress will be called to investigate and Cheney will step down... You can count on a pardon. But here is the big story. Bush will nominate Condi and she will instantly become the heir apparent in 2008. Certainly would be a Neo-con pick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. If this hits Cheney, there may be impeachment for Chimp.
If this goes as high as Crashcart, I don't see them stopping there. It's been two years since Chimpy promised to find the leaker. We know he's known about this for at least that long. So why in the Hell can he get away with the claim that he couldn't find the leakers when they are all the people closest to him?

If he is lying, he is obstructing justice and is impeachable on that charge. If he is ignorant of this in spite of his attempts to find the leaker, then he is totally incompetent and is impeachable for that.

Either way, he's fucked. If Crashcart goes down, Chimp goes down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Not with a Republican house.
It just will not happen. Even if this thing escalated substantially You would see him indicted by Fitz before an impeachment occures. Then we would really be in uncharted waters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I realize the political situation.
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 02:53 AM by longship
But it is not a static situation. The House and Senate are becoming volatile. With the Hammer down, apparently for the count, and with Frist getting into deep water, soon there may not be a lot to hold moderates in line.

The House is crucial, it's also the wackier of the two Legislative branches. But every single one of them must stand for reelection. If the Dems are smart, they are going to start campaigning for the House right now by doing some of their own hammering. It is possible that many of the more moderate Republicans can be turned. Regardless of the difficulty of this task, it must be tried.

Here's why. We basically have a critically wounded government right now. One could successfully argue that our country is now in grave danger because of the inability of our government to respond to events, national and international. Chimpy and Crashcart and Company have put our entire country at risk and we need to act like patriots and do our best to get these incompetents out of there before some really serious damage is done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polethebear Donating Member (190 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. crashcart?????
that's too much......:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. I am still holding out for Perjury and obstruction
I think the easier case to prove is that of cover-up ans stone walling. But throw in conspiracy what you might be looking at is a 1 0years sentence.

But here is the thing neither has codeword clearance....Who told them? and Why?

They will never flip Libby because he is a neo-con's neo-con and the end justifies the means...always. Rove I think is a lot more practical and I think he might be persuaded to give up Cheney.

Now here is the rub. Cheney would no doubt claim executive privilege but he would be excoriated by conservative pundit of all stripes. Congress will be called to investigate and Cheney will step down... You can count on a pardon. But here is the big story. Bush will nominate Condi and she will instantly become the heir apparent in 2008. Certainly would be a Neo-con pick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
15. delete
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 08:18 AM by annabanana
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. What lawyers?
According to lawyers who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity, Fitzgerald is apparently considering the alternative, which may be easier to prove.

What lawyers? Fitzgerald lawyers? (I doubt that. His team has been so leak-proof.) Libby lawyers? Rove Lawyers? Just plain old shy lawyers?

Clearly the affiliation taints the assertion.

Clearly this is poor journalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Unlike witnesses,
lawyers can face consequences for discussing the grand jury proceedings outside of the courtroom. Hence, it is important that the journalists not identify the lawyers. However, it is fairly simple. The prosecutor's office isn't talking; they have no reason to. The attorneys who are speaking off the record are Matt Cooper's and Karl Rove's people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I Agree. WP today says just that
But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case.

link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. It's showtime.
Those lawyers are speaking for a reason. It really doesn't look good for the intel agency run out of the VP's offices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. And they're leading the show
in the direction they think most advantageous to their clients. They know they have this small window to set the talking points of the ignorant masses.

My money is still on straight up espionage, obstruction and related conspiracies.

I just hope that Sibel has testified.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. I think they are Fitzgerald lawyers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
17. can an un-indicted co-conspirator nominate a SCJ?
I am hoping this stops bush's next pick. My, I am optimistic this morning aren't I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cureautismnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Indeed, sounds like a conflict of interest...
... as if that would stop this corrupt, evil administration from doing the right thing. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
25. I'm putting the finishing touches on my film "Rove's War"
right now, expect to ship in a few days, and I've spent many months researching for this, it weighs in as a 2 DVD set at 150 minutes of definitive info on the entire Plame case, A complete Chronology, forged documents, the meeting in Dec of 2001 with Leeder, and Italian SISME (CIA) leaders, forgers, etc - Suskind's info that Bush was pushing for war way way back in 1999, Bolton and Rummy's ROGUE Intel, all mixed down with the Downing Street Minutes, Ex CIA Hearings, etc, etc..

THis is RED MEAT for political junkies and it's all there, plus some hilarious additions of graphics, cartoons, Jon Stewart grilling folks, etc to keep it fun at the same time - anyone that's seen my flash work, imagine my best flash amplified about 100 times and you'll see what I've got coming out of the DVD burner in a few days.

Some here donated a long time ago (and I apologise for being REALLY sick for a good month) but this is for you, and it's rolling out to the mailroom very soon - even wrote and performed a satirical song (which I think I'm going to release at the same time on the web, maybe send it to Al Franken, my pal Mike Malloy would probably play it, maybe Randi too) called "Secret Agent Plame" based on the old classic "Secret Agent Man" for the credits..

Once I've shipped to everyone I promised this film to, I'm going to hit up Skinner and see if I can use it to fund raise here..

I can't stop watching it and I should be bored as hell with it after editing and researching for months on end, going through hundreds of hours of film - it's my best..

Just getting the word out, that it'll be available at Takebackthemedia.com after I make my customers happy Look for it should I get the nod from Skinner (who will of course receive a Comp Copy for keeping us all sane :) )

Get out your popcorn and fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride - these guys are like tapeworms, they'll insist on practically killing the HOST to get rid of them..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC