Jeff Toobin on CNN says no one will get jail time in Plame. Says only one

[saracat]

to go to jail will have been Miller! WTF?????? I thought he wrote a good book about election 2000 and was supposed to be credible! Or is he with that awful scenario??????

[AuntiBush]

1. Wait for Fitz & Grand Jury Announcements

Only One: (?) Libby or Rove

Would Rove take jail time for Pretzel-boy? I don't think so. Why, one might ask. He's too arrogant, smutty, haughty.

Don't buy everything you here on tube-propaganda. Read bet some lines, but most is BS!

[colbushwhacker_2000]

9. I agree

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Well that is disappointing

but you don't need jail to bring them down, which is priority number 1. The jail would be icing.

[Maine-ah]

39. as if Bushco would let that happen

I can see them putting him on an air plane to nowhere....

[Caution]

3. The NY Times report this morning leads me to believe he is correct.

It pretty clearly states that Fitzgerald is leaning away from bringing charges.

[DemsUnited]

7. Nope, at least not the NTY article I read, which states Fitzgerald

looking at bringing some very serious espionage charges.

<snip>
Mr. Fitzgerald has focused on whether there was a deliberate effort to retaliate against Mr. Wilson for his column and its criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Recently lawyers said that they believed the prosecutor may be applying new legal theories to bring charges in the case.

One new approach appears to involve the possible use of Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law, which makes it a crime for anyone who "willfully communicates, delivers, transfers or causes to be communicated" to someone "not entitled to receive it" classified information relating the national defense matters.
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/politics/07leak.html?hp&ex=1128744000&en=249147369de1936e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Plus, Fitzgerald still additionally bring on the usual coverup charges: perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy...

[Loge23]

13. The article clearly suggests an aggresive stance...

...by Fitzgerald. It's all specualtion right now and that is a credit to Fitzgerald. Unlike the hack, Ken Starr, who never met a leak he didn't like, Fitzgerald is taking his time and treating this matter with the confidentiality it deserves.
Let's face it, nobody really knows anything yet. However, the recent movements are not favorable to the administration.

[Caution]

15. Yes I agree that this seems to be the new thrust

However, tiem is now VERY short and bringing a charge of espionage is about as serious as you can bring and I think there will be a LOT of pressure on Fitzgerald not to do this for purely political reasons. Let's be honest, that kind of charge could bring about a serious Constitutional crisis. There aren't a lot of people out there willing to do something that drastic. I hope Fitzgerald has the will to go for it, but we'll just have to wait and see.

As for the standard perjury, obstruction and conspiracy, well, those are generally considered to be "I don't have enough real evidence to convict, so I'll throw out a conspiracy charge" type things. Making something like that stick against someone like Rove won't be easy and they are also easily pardonable crimes. If a treason charge was brought and Bush pardoned Rove, there would be true hell to pay, it might literally destroy the Republican party.

I hope things progress but remember the way Iran/Contra went down. That was one of the worst white washes in recent history. A clear cut violation of laws that these maniacs simply got away with.

[acmejack]

17. And we all know how credible the NYT has been of late.

Their unblemished record of factuality in important matters is what counts, so I'm ready to believe whatever they say! s/off

[Toots]

28. Wouldn't that be ironic

This Administration hides everything under the cloak of National Security. The bigger they are the harder they fall and eventually they all fall.

[hlthe2b]

10. which article are you referring to?

See post 7. That NYT article is the one I just read and seems to contradict your impression?

[maryallen]

37. Would you link to the NYT article that supports this position?

[panader0]

4. Plame

Obviously someone is guilty. If nonone is indicted it's going to look awfully fishy.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Don't rely on CNN -- or the NY Times -- to tell you

the truth.

[liberalnurse]

8. Let us go check with a real journalist.....

What does Amy Goodman think? She is the last standing journalist.

[rainy]

16. I just saw Amy Goodman in Norfolk at the Nero

She is great and so brave. Love her.

[liberalnurse]

29. I just saw her an Phil Donahue in Dayton, Ohio.

They make a dynamic team. She mentioned how right-wing the NY Times really was too. Judy Miller is a she-devil.

[Cha]

47. That's an apt description..

a "She-Devil" with sanctimoniuos dribble emanating from her pie hole.

[SharonRB]

6. This is a bad way to start the day...I hope he's wrong.

[Jim__]

11. That's his best guess.

But, why does he say it? If rove and libby are indicted and convicted for perjury and/or obstruction of justice, they almost have to go to jail. Otherwise, the process stinks too much and the people get restive.

[kstewart33]

12. This story has gone up, down and sideways

No one, including Toobin, the NYT or the WPost, knows what is going to happen. Which makes it so interesting.

[snippy]

14. Toobin is wrong. He hasn't seen Fitzgerald's evidence, but the Court

of Appeals has seen the evidence. Read what Judge Tatel wrote after reviewing that evidence. He seems convinced that serious crimes were committed. That is the only reason he was willing to agree that Miller and Cooper had to testify.

[Darkhawk32]

25. Very good point. n/t

[1932]

18. Anyone else see this? Can anyone confirm the impression?

[Richardo]

19. If Toobin says it, bank it.

He's an excellent legal analyst.

I first noticed him when he called the OJ acquittal weeks in advance, when everyone thought it was a slam dunk conviction.

[nvliberal]

22. Toobin is right.

This case is going nowhere.

[zanne]

27. Sounds like wishful thinking. n/t

[spooky3]

23. I bought and read his book on Clinton and it was awful.

I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen in this case because Fitzgerald has been doing a good job of playing it close to the vest. An excellent legal analyst would know he has too little information to make a prediction at this point. As a pundit, however, he can take an educated guess (as has Lawrence O'Donnell, and whose guess is completely different from Toobin's) and if by chance he turns out to be completely on target, he looks very good. But lucky.

[Skittles]

33. aw I knew OJ would be acquitted

anyone who was really paying attention knew that

[Lugnut]

34. I knew he would be acquitted too

And I didn't need Toobin to tell me either. The prosecution was out-maneuvered.

[chelsea0011]

20. Toobin is stuck with his comments. He has said many months ago

how impossible it is to try someone with these charges in this case and has stuck with his comments. He is like Thomas Friedman. He can't change at this point without looking foolish in his mind.

[AtomicKitten]

21. Yeah, well, I predict Bush will erupt in a ball of flames.

Saw it in chicken entrails. Or was it tea leaves? Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Jon Stewart did a montage of these "expert" predictions.

[Marie26]

24. But Toobin's a legal analyst, could this just be his own legal opinion?

Well, Toobin doesn't seem to be an insider on all this. Lawrence O'Donnel & Stephanopolous have been very accurate with the predictions/info they've released so far, which means that they have an inside sources. I haven't heard Toobin talking about inside scoops about the grand jury before, which probably means he doesn't have a source there. Besides, he's a legal analyst, not a reporter. I think he's probably "analyzing" the evidence so far to make his own opinion; not repeating a source's information. It's opinion, not fact.

[RebelOne]

26. I'm a pessimist, so I tend to think he is right. n/t

[DemsUnited]

30. Here's the transcript for Toobins commentary, for what it's worth

Do a search for Toobin to find the relevent bit about 1/4 of the way down the page.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/07/ltm.02.html

[1932]

31. Here's the relevant section:

Toobin: {snip} And I think he's going to let the chips fall where they may, is going to be his rule. He's not a professional Republican. He's not a Democratic hatchet man. He's just a prosecutor. And if he thinks there's a case, he'll bring it.

S. O'BRIEN: Meaning it could wrap-up when?

TOOBIN: I think it will wrap-up by the end of the month. Prosecutors don't like to extend grand juries, don't like to have to bring in a new grand jury. October 28th, I think, given how much time has passed, we'll know one way or the other whether there'll be indictments. There's no guarantee that there will be any indictments at all. But I think we'll know by the end of October.

S. O'BRIEN: I know you hate it when I make you guess, but I'm curious to know if you think Judy Miller is going to be the only person who spends any time in jail regarding this sort of overall story?

TOOBIN: I do.

S. O'BRIEN: Really?

TOOBIN: I do. I think...

S. O'BRIEN: She's -- no one is going to go to jail?

TOOBIN: You know, even if there are prosecutions, I think the odds of jail time way down the road are very remote. And that's just -- it just shows how unpredictable these investigations are. If you had said, you know, at the beginning of the investigation, the only person who's going to spend any time in prison is some reporter for the "New York Times," people would have said you're insane.

[Neshanic]

32. Nothing big will come of this. All documents shredded, people..

have the stories in line.

Worts case....wrist slapping.

Sorry, they learned from Watergate, and they are good criminals.

[No Exit]

35. If he's right: just 'cause they don't do time, doesn't mean they

won't be ruined politically and (possibly) otherwise.

Even if they are convicted, they have clean records. (Not because they're clean, but just because they've never been caught before.) The Federal Sentencing Guidelines (which are, shall we say, kind of in tatters, anyway) don't usually mandate jail time for "first offenders" for these types of offenses.

[newsguyatl]

36. toobin's a smart guy and all

but he isn't exactly known for being right all the time.

in fact, he misses quite often.

[Marnieworld]

38. nah

No one knows what's coming except Fitzgerald.

[Disturbed]

40. GJ Indictments are only the 1st step.

A trial must then proceed. Any trial(s) could take months and then there could be appeals. If Rove, Libby or anyone else is indicted they would prolly still maintain their job. No one is guilty until they are tried and convicted. That is what the WH will state.

[NYC Liberal]

46. And once the guilty verdict has been handed down, it will be:

"We're waiting for the appeals to take their course."

[CTyankee]

41. No jail time? Then we've lost a big one

I truly this crowd doesn't give a sh*t what anybody thinks about them. They have no shame. They couldn't care less. They will get a nice bonus from their rich friends who have benefited from their dirty deeds. They'll retire, go on cruises, buy mansions and one die in the comfort of their own beds.

[incapsulated]

42. I've never been an optimist when it comes to politics

But I'm really starting to feel like everyone is pissing in my cornflakes, lately.

[Ignacio Upton]

43. Reading other posts here about his prediction on OJ

That was different, because the OJ Simpson Trial was broadcast every day, while the PlameGate has not been discussed publicly. With OJ, people could make a prediction easier based on what they saw on television. People knew about the major details of the trial because it was heavily analyzed. Fitzgerald will not allow for such an open process, because when you are handling a case with this matter, it would not be in the best interests of those involved on both sides.

[Kagemusha]

44. And it's kind of the law.

Rove's only indicted when the jury says he is. Until then he's not even accused. So Fitzgerald hasn't been accusing him - just gathering lots and lots of evidence that doesn't jive with Rove's story.

[cassiepriam]

45. I think they will walk, they always have. They are above the law. nt