Why a new GJ if "substantial bulk" of investigation is "concluded"?

[DeepModem Mom]

I was over in LBN and an article with this passage is posted:

"Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today."

http://www.wtkr.com/global/story.asp?s=4042769&ClientType=Printable

Yet another article, posted in the thread, says this:

"Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But ... very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=10092377&src=eDialog/GetContent


What do these two statements mean, taken together?

[napi21]

1. There's always a GJ available for any prosecutor to use.

That's what Fitz tried to convey. He said he isn't done and if he needs another Gj, there is always one available.

We'll see what happens. Unless Libby falls on his sword completely, his trial will broing out a lot of other things.

I know you're tired of hearing it, but try to be patient.

[melissinha]

2. this Grand Jury has expired, just need a new one

I think...

We know that the Grand Jury was to expire today and that Fitz is not finnished. He is merely saying that he could not continue with THIS grand jury because it has expired, but its not over, therefore a new Grand Jury is needed to continue.

[kurth]

3. All it means is he's got enough goods on Libby

There were numerous instances where Fitzgerald kept repeating himself about how serious this crime was and what it meant, and how you should look for "the truth". It's clear that he's not going to look into the Niger forgeries or whether Plame was a covert agent or the real reasons for Iraq - "It's not my job", he said. But it's clear that other targets are being actively investigated using a new grand jury.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Thanks all -- this was confusing to me. nt

[incapsulated]

5. He hasn't asked for a new Grand Jury yet

That's what I got from the press conference. That he could if he wanted one, but he has not at this point.

[Roland99]

6. They'll submit the "bulk" as evidence to a new G.J.

[longship]

7. Because there's going to be more indictments.

That's what I heard Fitz say, but not in so many words. Just the care in which he phrased his answers, and the care in which he refused to comment on even trivial aspects of the case speaks loudly for more to come, maybe soon.

One thing I thought about, since he said he can use any GJ, just maybe he already has. He might be ready to go on more indictments at any time, when we (and the WH) least expect it.

Stay tuned everybody. As Bette Davis said, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy evening." Well, it's daytime now, but the sun has clearly set on this administration.

[progressivebydesign]

8. Fitz struck me with his careful comments, I took away this..

he was clear that in order to investigate and prosecute the crime of importance to national security, it is crucial to have questions answered honestly, and not be lied to. My take on his careful words was that he was saying that in order to get to the TRUTH about the biggest issue here, as in WHO outed Plame and if it was in "appreciation" of what they were doing, you have to go after those that obstruct the truth. My take is that it ain't over. Libby has to go down because he lied trying to obstruct justice.. justice being the politically motivated revenge against Wilson by outing his covert CIA wife. It can't be over.. too many questions left unanswered.

[kurth]

9. Exactly. Obstruction was like throwing sand in Fitzgerald's eyes.. a NO-NO

The baseball analogy was a clear warning to others.

[spooky3]

10. agree

[bain_sidhe]

11. He said that last year too.

When he was seeking Miller's testimony. I wouldn't read too much into that. I suspect what he means, but won't say, is that he pretty much knows what happened. He just doesn't have all the ducks in a row in order to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt."