home

Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 04:50:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Investigative journalist Jason Leopold writes that sources at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council, as well as lawyers close to the Valerie Plame investigation have told him that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is getting ready to indict Karl Rove or Stephen Hadley, or both, perhaps in about a month.

Neither Hadley nor Rove disclosed the existence of the email when they were questioned by FBI investigators or when they testified before a grand jury, the sources said, adding that Rove testified he found out about Plame Wilson from reporters and Hadley testified that he recalled learning about Plame Wilson when her name was published in a newspaper column.

Leopold writes that Fitz wasn't persuaded by Rove lawyer Luskin's most recent entreaties to avoid indictment, particularly Rove's explanation about his e-mail with Hadley.

Yesterday, I wrote a long legal analysis of Raw Story's report that Rove was responsible for directing Fitz to the 250 pages of e-mails discussed at the Scooter Libby hearing on February 23.

I don't think anyone has posted a transcript of that Feb. 23 hearing -- so here it is. There are some other juicy tidbits disclosed by Libby's lawyers, for any serious Libbyphiles out there.

Update: Christy at Firedoglake analyzes the transcript.

< Why Moussaoui Should Live | Sen. Durbin on Immigration Reform >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments | 15 comments (15 topical)
    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 06:35:12 PM EST
    Hmm. An indictment in the midst of primary season.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#2)
    by rdandrea on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:01:00 PM EST
    Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Too bad it's only him and not the staffers he's sent into Colorado to try to sway the legislative elections in order to reclaim the majority before reapportionment. He doesn't trust the State party to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#3)
    by orionATL on Tue Mar 28, 2006 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    good source. thanks for persisting.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 04:52:47 AM EST
    Well, Fitz ain't gonna stand for Karl's crap no more No he ain't gonna stand for Karl's crap no more. 'Cause he leaks to all the press corps About Plame and Joe and John Everyone knows he's the brains Behind shrub He slimes them every time They open the door. Well, Fitz ain't gonna stand For Karl's crap no more. Well, Fitz ain't gonna stand for Hadley's jive no more. No he ain't gonna stand for Hadley's jive no more. As he lectures all the people on these neocon nitwit laws. Everyone can see it's just one shrubco nitwit fraud He thinks we can't see it ain't no good in Baghdad Nah, Fitz ain't gonna stand For Hadley's jive no more.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 04:54:26 AM EST
    Well, Fitz ain't gonna stand for Karl's crap no more No he ain't gonna stand for Karl's crap no more. 'Cause he leaks to all the press corps About Plame and Joe and John Everyone knows he's the brains Behind shrub He slimes them every time They open the door. Well, Fitz ain't gonna stand For Karl's crap no more. Well, Fitz ain't gonna stand for Hadley's jive no more. No he ain't gonna stand for Hadley's jive no more. As he lectures all the people on these neocon nitwit laws. Everyone can see it's just one shrubco nitwit fraud He thinks we can't see it ain't no good in Baghdad Nah, Fitz ain't gonna stand For Hadley's jive no more.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 06:30:40 AM EST
    Call me cynical but sounds like wishfull thinking. I'll believe it when I see it. He couldn't charge Liddy with an actual crime other then lying so what is he going to charge Rove with? Obstruction?

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    Slado Where is your Outrage! I remember when you guys were so outrage over Bill's Lie. It was a terrible Crime worthy of impeachment. So now when a guy like libby is charged for a bunch of those very same lies you want us all to dismiss that great importance you one place on it. A breach of Nation Security was commited and becuse of Lies by libby and others Fitzgeral was prevented from finding out exactly who committed those crimes. Id like to remind you Your Preznit like to constantly remind all Americans "We are at war"!

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 09:47:49 AM EST
    He couldn't charge Liddy with an actual crime other then lying so what is he going to charge Rove with? Obstruction?
    Must be a freudian slip although not too far off a prediction, as Liddy
    ..... was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping, and received a 20-year sentence. He served four and a half years in prison before his sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter.
    link

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    Hahaha, good catch, Squeaky. To be fair, though, Republican thugs all kinda run together after a while.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    Squeaky, excellent call. Total slip. I actually think if Rove broke the law or obstructed the investigation he should be charged. A) Becuase it's against the law B) Because he should have been smart enough to come clean. However I'm not outraged over this because I don't believe the outing of Plame was a crime. But there was an investigation and like LIDDY, Clinton and Martha you screw with the lawyers and you're gonna get screwed. However my first post still stands. I'll believe it when I see it.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    Well folks we now are to discuss issues base on Slado's beliefs! Lets just ignore the facts The CIA determined that An active CIA Undercover Aget was exposed putting her and all her contacts in grave danger. They referred it to the the Dept of Justice and a highly respected prosecuter was appointed. After a carefull in depth investigation he determined the facts and referred them to a Judge who also concurred with Fitzgerald. He then determined Libby had lied to the grand jury and the Grand Jury based on the Facts issued an indictment. This places us in a real dilema doesn't it. I just don't know who to put my faith in the Facts of Slado's belief. Help me out here Slado.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    Ed, of what facts do you speak? That Libby obstructed the investigation or that Plame was "covert" and Libby or anyone else broke the law by outing her? Here is an interesting article from the highly right wing newspaper the Washington Post. This directly refutes your "facts". Note that this was before Rove was put in the crosshairs and only reporters heads were on the line so the wPost did actual reporting not wishfull thinking. Not a crime I believe no one will actually be convicted of the supposed "crime". Why? IMO because no law was broken and Plame was not covert. IMO this was the CIA firing back at Bush. And again I'll believe someone else will be prosecuted for lying to lawyers when I see it.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peaches on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    slado, Whether there was a crime or not will be for the courts to determine. Whether or not you will see it, I cannot predict-but it doesn't look good for a couple of fellas. As far as whether Plame was covert, it should be enough to know that Fitzgerald, in fact bleieves that her status as a CIA agent was classified and not well-known. Her cover was blown and this was a sreious breach of national security--again according to Fitzgerald From his press conference in October on the Libby incictment
    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was
    not widely known
    outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    Slado you may as well go back to 1999 or 1899 to prove your point. Articles at those times show clearly that there was no crime committed either. BTW Victoria Toensing is a hack reporter who is fed her news by the WH. Not so far from Bumiller at the NYT.

    Re: Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    Slado Since you ignored every logical argument about the illegality of outing plame. I'll try a different tact. Now it really doesn't matter whether a Crime was comitted or not does it. They did after all charge Clinton for a lie he made over a perfectly legal relationship and behavior he had with an intern. So I wonder what your point is other than to obviscate the issue. Going back to my original point. You shold be showing the same kind of outrage and emphasis over libby's lies to the prosecuter as your indignance ofer Clinton's lies. Stick to the issue. Now we can move on.

    Leopold: Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments | 15 comments (15 topical)