Rove still in "significant danger"

[Halliburton]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000348.html

<snip>
But two legal sources intimately familiar with Fitzgerald's tactics in this inquiry said they believe Rove remains in significant danger. They described Fitzgerald as being relentlessly thorough but also conservative throughout this prosecution -- and his willingness to consider Rove's eleventh-hour pleading of a memory lapse is merely a sign of Fitzgerald's caution.

The two legal sources point to what they consider Fitzgerald's careful decision not to charge Libby with the leak of a covert agent's identity, given that the prosecutor had amassed considerable evidence that Libby gave classified information, which he knew from his job should not be made public, to reporters. Another prosecutor might have stretched to make a leak charge, on the theory that a jury would believe, based on other actions, that Libby acted with bad intentions.

Another warning sign for Rove was in the phrasing of Friday's indictment of Libby. Fitzgerald referred to Rove in those charging papers as a senior White House official and dubbed him "Official A." In prosecutorial parlance, this kind of awkward pseudonym is often used for individuals who have not been indicted in a case but still face a significant chance of being charged. No other official in the investigation carries such an identifier.
<snip>

[wookie294]

1. This bothers me

"Fitzgerald's careful decision not to charge Libby with the leak of a covert agent's identity ... the prosecutor had amassed considerable evidence that Libby gave classified information"

The article describes Fitz as "conservative", then says he had enough evidence to indict Libby for outing a CIA agent. But he refused to indict on that!! WTF???

[Halliburton]

5. I think he felt sorry for him

and felt that 30 years was enough.

[flyarm]

11. nonsence..no fed prosecutor feels sorry for anyone..they simply

follow the law and the search for truth..

he is looking i would bet on getting libby to sing...fitz is deliberate..and thorough...if he didnt get him on the indictment of outing valerie..he must think he can get him in court!

fitz is a pit bull..he feels sorry for no one that breaks the law...and he knows libby is a mere chess piece in the laws that were broken to out valerie plame...fitz is going for the bigger boys in this!

his eyes are zero'ed in on the biggest fish...libby did not get the info without someone telling him..and the orders to out her were not libby's..they came from "up " the chain!

[NNN0LHI]

17. Fitzgerald indicted former Gov. George Ryan when he was 69 years old

You think he felt sorry for Scooter?

Don

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Because he can put Libby away for 30 years

on charges that are easier and less complicated to prove.

Plus, if this goes to the next level and espionage or outing a NOC is the charge, we are dealing with a very, very difficult case in open court because of the national security issues and secrets that could be exposed. More people risk being outed, the more people talk about places like Brewster Jennings and Ambassador wives.

[xultar]

7. I don't think it is refused. Don't turn on Fitz yet. HE didn't because

proving the charge is very difficult. The key for a prosecutor is to keep it simple and get a conviction. Not to pile it on and hope one sticks.

Don't ya get it? :shrug:

IF they want to think of him as a conservative let him. Then he can do his work.

[wookie294]

10. The article says Fitz "had amassed considerable evidence" ...

... that Libby outed a CIA agent.

If Fitz had "considerable evidence" for outing a CIA agent, why did he refuse to indict on that? This really bothers me. You can't get to Cheney by indicting Libby for lying to FBI agents. You need to indict Libby on outing Plame in order to get to Cheney, who is the big enchalada in my view.

[emulatorloo]

15. could not prove Libby's "intent" because Libby lied lied lied

Libby outed her, but Fitz could not prove libby did it deliberately because Scooter lied.

Transcript of press conference -- read thru it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

<snip>

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

<snip>

[yodermon]

19. bcz then he couldn't use Libby as leverage any more.

If others were involved along WITH scooter, then there'd ba conspiracy charge against the lot.

If Fitz charges Scooter with IIPA &/or espionage NOW, he'd be going off half cocked. EVEN IF the case against Scotter (alone) is airtight. becuase there are much, much bigger fish to fry, and the grill is just gettin' hot.

[babylonsister]

2. I take heart in the fact that Fitz started w/one indictment

in the trial in IL involving the gov, and wound up indicting 66. I'm going to sit back and enjoy watching Fitz's brilliant legal mind run cartwheels around this admin!:)

[electropop]

13. 1 indictment -> 66? Inspiring.

Fitz is using Libby as a placeholder and a stoolie, I suppose. He's not gonna let this fade into obscurity if he can get the goods on these jerks.

[lonestarnot]

14. I'm with you babylonsister! once again waiting and watching.

[Frustratedlady]

3. Why couldn't Cheney be

Official A? With all the time he spent at the CIA, he would have had more of an opportunity to have that information than Rove and THEN pass it on to Libby and Rove. I can see where Rove would be the architect of the dirty tricks from that point on. Besides, Cheney is better at lying with a straight face. Has he ever testified under oath? (Not that it would matter.)

[babylonsister]

8. I think Rove's lawyer fessed up that Rove was Official A. nt

[Frustratedlady]

9. Thanks! I missed that. nt

[tabasco]

4. Personally, I think Rove is toast.

This Fitzgerald means business and I think he is after even bigger fish than Rove. I have thought for awhile that he is after Cheney, who I believe hatched the conspiracy. Cheney has always seemed to act like he was still A CEO, and could do anything he wanted because he's the boss. I hope Fitzgerald teaches him a lesson about the law. Of course, the entire criminal gang will be pardoned by Bush, but I hope the fallout illuminates the utter corruption of the republican party (for those too blind to see already).

[kstewart33]

12. Fitz wanted an airtight case, and he got one

I've read that he has NEVER LOST a case. He's got Libby over a barrel. Better to be overly conservative here and nail the guy, than to take chances and lose. Bush would have a field day if Libby were acquitted.

Fitz sees things in that 'massive' evidence that we don't. Let him make the call, and don't criticize. He knows what he is doing.

[emulatorloo]

16. yes and rereading the indictment, Libby cannot get out of this

Seems very well documented that he lied systematically -- "I forgot" is not gonna work.

[MellowOne]

18. I quit worrying about the indictments

Fitz said he's still investigating....there's more to come.