Could there still be indictments in the Plame Leak case?

[garybeck]

Do we know the status of the CIA Leak case?

It seems like the media keeps spinning it like the only thing to come out of the CIA leak case is the Libby perjury/obstruction case we are now watching. In most of the reports I watch and read, it seems they imply that the Plame Leak case is all but closed.

But do we know that is really the case? We know Rove is off the hook, and supposedly Fitz sent him a letter to that affect. But do we know the case is closed? Do we know others are not still being investigated for the original crime - outing a CIA agent?

Has Cheney received one of those "you're off the hook" letter from Fitz?

How do we know the CIA leak case isn't still ongoing? Is it?

Has Fitz made any statements to the effect that the investigation to the CIA leak is over?


When Fitz read the indictments of Libby on TV, I remember him saying, that his investigation into the CIA leak case was hampered because Libby was lying, and he couldn't get to the truth of the matter. It seems to me, that with this Libby trial, perhaps he can get to the truth, and that it would enable him to continue his investigation into the original CIA leak case.

Forgive me if I missed this detail, and I know many here are more informed on this than I... so can you tell me, is there any reason not to believe the CIA leak case is still ongoing? And perhaps someone other than Rove could be the target? Is it possible that after this Libby trial, there could still be indictments in the original CIA leak case?

Thanks for clarifying.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. I have seen nothing from Fitzy that says this case is closed

so, I have hope.

[garybeck]

2. doesn't logic seem to be pointing in that direction?

after only 2 weeks of the libby trial, everything seems to be pointing at Cheney at the center of the Plame leak.

if he has not received an "off the hook" letter like Rove has, and the case is still open, it certainly makes you wonder, if Fitz has his sights on Dr. Evil himself.

[Fovea]

4. Yeah, the Dickster - Simple Scotty

note with the scratch out might as well have been written in Valerie Plame's blood.

But even if there were no new indictments, this will really flashboil when it hits the congressional investigations.

I predict Conyers will end up barbecueing them all over a slow fire.

[speedoo]

5. What makes you think Rove has received an "off the hook" letter?

He and his lawyer would like you to think so, but there is no evidence that he has received such a letter.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. Can A Sitting Vice-President Be Indicted Outside Of Congress?

Is it possible that Fitz has wanted to indict Dick, but there is some rule which forbids this? Just curious.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Yes, both the President and VP can be indicted and convicted, but it's up to

Congress to remove them from office. Same with a Senator or Congressman. They can be indicted and convicted and remain in Congress--unless Congress impeaches and removes them. Goes back to ancient days of many kinds of abuse of authority--for instance, Star Chamber/Inquisition-type prosecutions and court proceedings (Kenneth Star comes to mind) used to persecute political enemies, or the king rounding up his enemies in parliament and throwing them in jail. Our Founders intended Congress in particular to have absolute immunity from misuse of the courts, and the police, to prevent them acting as an independent power, representing the people. Similarly, the President and VP can be indicted and convicted, but not arrested, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress--to preserve the OFFICE of the President from interference by politically prejudiced judges or by any other power within the government. The President, and, for that matter, a Congressman, could be accused and convicted of committing a murder and he cannot be arrested until Congress (the most representative body) says so. Same for a federal judge. The "separation of powers" was not meant to encourage crime by officeholders, but rather to protect them from politically motivated use of court, prosecution and police powers. Provision for their conviction (impeachment) and removal from office was made. But if they are convicted by an outside court (not Congress), they cannot be arrested until they are officially removed from office (by Congress).

This is why it was so wrong of the Democratic leadership in Congress not to back Cynthia McKinney, when she was strongarmed by a Capitol Hill guard and asked for an ID. She was perfectly within her rights--and even had an obligation--to prevent ANYONE from stopping her entrance into Congress. When she is doing the peoples' business, she CANNOT BE ARRESTED. And I don't care if she socked him or not. She was protected by the Constitution!

So, there is NO rule that forbids indictment of Cheney (or Bush), but it COULD be within a prosecutor's considerations to leave it to Congress--for instance, Fitz could bring a conspiracy charge against those involved in the Plame and Brewster-Jennings outings but name Cheney as an "unindicted co-conspirator." This would mean: Congress, do your duty! Congress would then impeach Cheney and remove him from office--but he would not go to jail. When people at the level of power of President and VP are found guilty of something serious, some strange protective magic kicks in, in this country, having to do with preserving the august office itself and not tainting it with the spectacle of such powerful people behind bars. I don't understand it. I'm afraid it has to do with nuclear weapons and how they have turned the Presidency into some sort of magical-mystical kingship. The President and Congress (and judges) SHOULD BE preserved from political arrests. But they should never ever be considered above the law or immune to its consequences, once they have been properly impeached, convicted and removed from office by the only authority that can do so, Congress.

[Igel]

9. He could be.

I don't think he can be for this.

[murielm99]

6. Everyone should look at

The former Governor Ryan case in Illinois.

Fitz started small, and indicted about 39 people before he got to the governor. I think he will do some of the same things in the Plame case.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Well, it's quite interesting what Fitzgerald is doing--granting what may be

limited immunity to people like Judith Miller, Ari Fleischer and probably Karl Rove, and surrounding Scooter Libby with a wall of testimonies (many others in addition--FBI agent, news reporters, a Libby assistant) to his lies and obstructions of the investigation, to add to all the other evidence. He's made a very strong case for Libby lying. He appears to believe that Libby is the deliberately narrowed peephole to the bigger picture, which, at this point, looks like it to goes to Cheney at least. I don't think he is at all finished with this investigation. And I don't think Karl Rove is off the hook. His lawyer could be lying about a letter from Fitzgerald, or the letter could say that Rove won't be prosecuted IF he testifies truthfully in the Libby trial. (The lawyer has refused to make the letter he purports to have public. Fitz has said nothing about it. I would think that Fitz would say something if there was no letter at all--or maybe not. But I tend to believe that there is a letter with conditions--and that is why it hasn't been released.)

My read on things so far is that Rove, in this case, was something of an errand boy. He was carrying out a political errand (divulging Plame's identity to a reporter--something a number of other people were ALSO doing) on behalf of a conspiracy that Cheney probably led (that's what Fitz is pointing to), but that also ultimately points to Rumsfeld, whose Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon was designed to get around the honest professionals at the CIA, and who had the most operational connections to WMD intel, to the phony "hunt" for WMDs in Iraq, and to all covert activities with regard to WMDs (for instance, the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries may have connections to people on the Pentagon payroll; the false bioweapons claim certainly did--Ahmed Chalabi was getting millions--and probably still is--for cooking that evidence). Ergo: Rumsfeld had the most direct interest in disabling the CIA counter-proliferation network that Plame headed.

What we may be looking at currently is the second layer cover story--that Cheney did it for political reasons (the first layer cover story being that Rove did it for political reasons). But, when you think about it--nasty as the Bushites can be toward political enemies--they really didn't have much trouble with the war profiteering corporate newsstream in 2003, and an ex-diplomat criticizing them publicly wasn't that big of a deal. I suspect that the only reason it WAS a big deal is that they were trying to PLANT nukes in Iraq, after the invasion, to be "found" by the U.S. troops who were "hunting" for them (accompanied by NYT war propagandist Judith Miller). And the foiling of that nefarious scheme caused them to be angry, nervous and panicked. What if it came out that they weren't just making things up in the National Intelligence Estimate--but were trying to plant the evidence on Saddam?

Their actions speak much more of panic at the potential disclosure of a worse crime than we can see, than they do of political annoyance that someone was criticizing them. They didn't out just Plame (Wilson's wife)--they ADDITIONALLY outed the entire network of deep cover foreign WMD counter-proliferation agents and contacts--the kind of network that takes decades for the CIA to build, and whose job it was to keep us all safe from dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands.

Odd thing for them to do--when, on the surface, they claimed to be SO VERY CONCERNED about WMDs in Iraq, Iran and No. Korea!

Anyway, I think Fitz is looking through the peephole--and seeing Cheney and the gaggle of political criminals around him. But he perhaps can't see what lay behind the political end of the conspiracy: WHY did they destroy this network? I mean, why REALLY?

THIS was the question that Fitz identified as the most critical--in the one press conference he has held on this matter. He said that WHY Plame was outed was a grave matter of national security. Not just who. But why.

Right now, he's got a bunch of people by the short hairs--including Rove. Rove has likely agreed to testify against Libby both to save his own skin (I think he lied initially, got caught, got threatened with indictment and caved) and because it appears that Libby tried to finger Rove as the perp (and his lawyers are still doing it--just did it again in court the other day--they said the WH is "scapegoating" Libby to protect Rove).

This case is snakepit of lies. It's really difficult to keep your bearings. Rove could be deeper in this shit than I thought at first. (I have always been suspicious of Rove as chief perp--that Rove would risk his pudgy hide by outing a CIA network on his own.) But I have to say that Libby's lawyers--who are also a bunch of liars--give me a bit of a pause. Bush/Rove on one side. Cheney/Libby on the other. Both claiming "scapegoating" of the second in command. Who is telling the truth? Neither? And where is Rumsfeld? The Lurker, I call him. (My question on 9/11, too--where was Rumsfeld, who pulled all NORAD decisions into his own hands six months before? Seems to have gone AWOL during the critical hour.) Does he have his tickets to Paraguay yet?

To answer the OP question: No, I don't think Fitzgerald is done yet, with indictments--by any means.

[speedoo]

10. I'm beginning to believe this is what happened.

Lots of loose ends of course. One of which is why the CIA was unable to prevent the destruction of BJ. Were they completely unaware of what Cheney et al were up to? And, how does Tenet's resignation fit into this?