Salon.com describes how the media don't really know

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

what's going on:

"Patrick Fitzgerald still hasn't made announcements yet, but the New York Times seems to think it's got things figured out -- sort of.

In a two-steps-removed-from-first-hand-knowledge lead, the Times says that "lawyers in the case" are saying that "associates" of Scooter Libby "expect" that he'll be indicted on a charge of making false statements to the grand jury. Meanwhile, the Times says, "people briefed officially" on the case are saying that Karl Rove won't be indicted but will continue to be investigated. Fitzgerald, the "people briefed officially" say, likely will seek an extension of the grand jury term.

It all sounds a little speculative, and we haven't even gotten to the Times' disclaimers yet: A "flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions" has "left open the possibility of last-minute surprises," people "involved in the case" won't "rule out the disclosure of previously unknown aspects of the case," and the question of whether anyone other than Libby or Rove might be charged remains an "unresolved mystery." And then there's this: Contrary to the Times' suggestion, the Washington Post quotes "legal sources" who say that Fitzgerald has indicated that he won't be extending his investigation. But then there's this: Contrary to the Post's suggestion, the Associated Press says that a "person outside the legal profession familiar with recent developments in the case" says that Fitzgerald "signaled" Thursday that he'll keep his investigation open -- and that Rove will remain in legal jeopardy even if he isn't indicted Friday.

The Post isn't predicting who will or won't be indicted, only observing that Libby is shopping for a criminal defense attorney -- a move we would have recommended, if he'd asked us, long before today. As for Rove? He already has a criminal defense attorney. But as of Thursday night, "people close to the investigation" tell the Los Angeles Times, Rove hadn't yet received notice that he was going to be indicted. The paper said that Fitzgerald is expected to make his decisions known around midday Friday."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html

[longship]

1. R&K

:kick:ed

[NancyG]

2. I want to believe. r/k nt

[Spazito]

3. Absolutely, the media knows squat as to the facts, they have to rely

on the potential targets' lawyers to give them their 'take' on what is coming down which is worth squat, imo. I am, however, looking forward to reading the facts of the case on Fitzgerald's official website and/or hearing them from Fitzgerald directly. All else is propaganda, imo.

[deadparrot]

4. Fitz isn't your typical prosecutor, though.

He's known for being creative with his techniques, and his cases have always been leakproof. You can bet that what the NYT is coming up with is not anything close to the whole story.

[rucky]

5. My sources tell me that the corporate media is full of shit again. nt

[DemonFighterLives]

6. Olberman was saying that they already had an extension

And that Fitz would have to empanel a new GJ. I just hope they knock out a couple biggies now and then they can investigate until the cows come home. We need some of this misadmin. taken down now to get the rest. Once they are behind bars the truth may start to come out.

[Dr.Phool]

7. With my own personal knowledge of grand juries

It's highly unusual, that you are notified that you are going to be indicted. And from what I've seen, it's SOP for the feds to sweat you for as long as they can before issuing the indictment. Psychological warfare.

I knew a guy, a bookie, 20 years ago, who's offices were raided on the busiest betting day of the year for him. Lot's of evidence siezed, and the next day the FBI and IRS took millions out of his safe deposit box.

He wasn't indicted for another THREE YEARS. And he wasn't notified either. They just came out and arrested him.

[wryter2000]

8. This isn't all that weird, really

We've known all along that Fitzgerald was serious about not leaking information. It will be interesting (to say the least!) to see who's been the most accurate in the speculation about what's going to happen. In fact, it'll be very helpful in knowing which sources to believe in the future.

[progressoid]

9. I beg to differ

I doubt it will be helpful at all. Since Fitzgerald is serious about no leaks, most of what we are hearing is supposition and speculation. Those that get it right, may have done so just by chance. How will we know if they just guessed right or actually had the inside scoop? The media (and certainly not the sources) haven't exactly been transparent lately.

[politicaholic]

10. Speculation...the way to avoid expensive "investigative journalism"...

Corporations do it all of the time. Sort of like when Dominos Pizza decided to remove that budget busting "flavor" part of their pizza recipe, it made shoveling crap to the American public so much easier and profitable.

The corporate media has Jason Blair syndrome on this one I think.