Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Continue Leaks Investigation

Patrick Fitzgerald said in a court pleading today that his investigation of the Valerie Plame leaks case is continuing with the grand jury currently sitting in the District. His affidavit was included in a Government motion seeking a modified disclosure order on discovery as a result of the Dow Jones objection to the government's previous version.

Fitzgerald is now requesting that classified information, grand jury transcripts and personal information (residence addresses, calendar items such as doctor's appointments and the like) be kept secret, but the rest, if Libby chooses, may be released. Here are his exact words:

As it now stands, there are two categories of unclassified items that are anticipated to be produced to Mr. Libby that should be protected from public disclosure. First, discovery materials will include grand jury transcripts which implicate traditional grand jury secrecy concerns, including the need to protect the reputations of witnesses and the “innocent accused,” that is, persons who may have been investigated but not charged with a crime. Moreover, because the investigation is continuing, and because the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jurythan the grand jury which returned the indictment, traditional concerns that underlie Fed. R. Crim. 6(e) very much apply.

Of course, some documents to be produced to Mr. Libby do not present any of the above concerns. The government respectfully suggests that it would be appropriate to mark documents falling into two categories, (a) grand jury transcripts, and (b) documents that may implicate personal privacy concerns, with the notation, DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LIMITED AS PROVIDED BY THE TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER.” Under this arrangement, the defendant will be free to disclose (or not disclose) any documents not marked as being subject to the protective order, as he chooses. If Mr. Libby or his counsel later identify marked documents which they think should not be governed by the protective order, the parties may remove the restriction by agreement, or if no agreement can be reached, the defense counsel may seek relief from the Court.

< Denials Come Streaming in From Could-Be Woodward Sources | Raw Story Cites New Evidence of Hadley as Source >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Question wouldn't this lead to selective disclosure by libby's defense? This could then be used to corrupt or prejudice the potential Jury pool via the press.

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Can we quit covering this charade parade of red herrings and concentrate on WHY we went to war? Please.....

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    lww-that would be easy if your pals in the WH would stop lying.

    I'm so confused. The headlines, even yours, of a new Grand Jury seem to me to be a bit misleading, since Fitzgerald is not asking for a brand new GJ to be empaneled. He said a different GJ. The article you site above, says he's going in front of a GJ that is already sitting in the district. So, essentially I can see these are new people who will hear evidence, but it is not a new GJ that is set up primarily to hear evidence on this case alone. Can someone please clarify this for me? Thanks!

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    WHY we went to war? Come on... that's really what this is all about, LWW.

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    OT - hey LWW, I don't know if you saw it, but I answered your stats question on the DNA marrow thread. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    maggie-sounds like you have it right. Fitzgerald doesn't need to empanel a new gj. He can and is using one that is sitting. What is there to explain?

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#8)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    LWW, The reason we went to war was because Sadam Hussein possesed nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction that threatened to kill milions of US citizens. Everyone knows he had them. Did you forget?

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    How can anyone forget? The NY Times, Wash Post,ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX the AP, magazines, Hollywood, the internet. I remember those heady ready days in 2002-03 when the fear was at a feverish hysterical pitch. Now the same people who produced and orchestrated this fear have the chutzpa to act like they didn't know what they were doing? Way beyond chutzpa.

    LWW, what is your point? Are you claiming that the news media were making decisions about things like going to War, and the WH just followed along?

    Squeaky, my confusion is between headlines and what is being said across the net about Fitzgerald going before a new GJ. I think some have the idea that Fitzgerald is going to get a new GJ all his own that will be sitting for another 18 months on this case alone. It's settled in my mind, now. I just wanted to make sure that I had the facts straight before I try to explain it elsewhere. It makes me nervous that the pushback is going to nitpick on this point to draw focus from what the substance of the announcement really means. Thanks, squeaky!

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#12)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    This is the same stuff that happened during Viet Nam. And every other war we didn't win.... Remember the movie "The Green Berets?" The media humps for the goverment war-mongers and war-profiteers before the war starts,then follows the rats who abandon ship when the war gets ugly. Where the hell have you been? The "rats" in this case are not people like Murtha but the sh*t-eatin grin likes of Schumer,Durbin and Reid. They walk up to the microphones and they KNOW anyone with half a brain knows they're full of it, yet they continue on with their "news conference" or whatever it is. Did I say chutzpa?

    On the first day of Fitzmas my true love gave to me......

    LWW Personally, I believe that the war in Iraq was unwinnable from the start, and was a miserable idea, probably criminal on the basis of the justifications given. But let's say I'm wrong about that. Let's ask "who lost the war"? People like me? A private citizen? Or people like the President and his Secretary for Defense? Who, given everything that they wanted to wage this war, decided to do it with insufficient troops and no plan for what to do after phase 1? Who made one tactical error after another? Wh foired everyone in the military with experience with these things who tried to point out their errors? And who, having created a massive insurgency through their torture, abuse, and indescriminant tactics, no admit themselves that the pretext was in large part in error? The ones who have allowed a major corruption cesspool to undermine all efforts to rebuild the country they destroyed? The ones who after several years cannot guarantee the security of the road from Bagdad to the airport? No, this is not the Green Berets all over again. Oh, and by the way, that was a MOVIE. Neither John Wayne or Ronald Reagan were ever war heroes. The fact that people like me think that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are criminals have had no effect on the outcome of the war.

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Ba'al, you missed the whole point. I don't think we've "lost" the war yet. We can still salvage something. I'm hopeful that in the years ahead these troops don't suffer the same problems as the Nam vets.

    lww I don't know about you but I spent 2 tours years fighting in Vietnam 1966-1968 the war dragged on for 9 more years and when we left we were no more closer to wining than we were when I got there in 1966. So you must explain to me how it was the Dems who cut and ran when it was Ike who got us into it and Nixon who sold us out of it! Your Coward in chief Preznet and 5 deferment cowardly lion Vp who also didn't have the Balls to fight in VN now want others to die for them and their war. By the way are you proud that you preznits twin daughters a on the front lines in Iraq risking their lives for their dads war. And you guys are trying to question the patriotism of Dems. You, I think haven't served a day in combat have you.

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    ED misses the point too. Thank you for your service ED. God Bless You. Do you hear me defending Bush or Cheney in any of this? Apparently some of you people are so trusting of the government and media that(since you were in diapers) you've never had a true cynical bone in your bodies... I can't believe it.

    This thread is about Fitzgerald and the grand jury. Off topic comments will be deleted. To answer Maggie above, as I have written many times before, Fitzgerald did not empanel a new grand jury for the case. There is always a grand jury sitting in D.C. He just continue with a different grand jury - one that is new to the case, but already empaneled.

    It is a new Grand Jury for these charges, that's the point. In other words, there will be a considerable delay in further charges, since the evidence will have to be readmitted, and the jurors brought up to speed.

    Re: Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Contin (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    maggie-Here is some more on the 'new' gj:
    Under court rules, Fitzgerald cannot use a new grand jury to gather additional evidence for an indictment he has already brought, or to wrap up unanswered questions in preparation for Libby's trial. He can only call on a grand jury to hear evidence if he is considering new charges against another person or additional charges against Libby.
    I see your point about all the confusion, as even Ariana got it wrong: she said that Fitzgerald 'impaneled' a new gj. WaPo

    Thank you all for the help. I know to some it seemed like nitpicking, but I think making the distinction between a brand new Grand Jury being empaneled versus going to an already empaneld Grand Jury is important in keeping everyone, especially those who want to down play this process, honest. Thanks again!