I’m worried that Fitzgerald “has not made any decisions” to indict

[Stevendsmith]

Whenever I hear that, I take it as he may not have a slam-dunk case. And if he doesn’t have a slam-dunk case:

A) no charges will be brought

or

B) minor charges will be brought, and the Bush criminals and their media mouthpieces will successfully spin and parse them into oblivion.

I hope I’m way off track here and Fitzgerald is just running the extremely tight and professional operation most people believe he is.

Bring on the major, criminal, spin-proof indictments this week!

[Spazito]

1. Don't worry, it is Rove's lawyer saying that so it means less than

squat, imo. He is trying to put the best face on a bad situation for his client.

[Stevendsmith]

5. That's right. Fitz has never stated he has not made a decision. NT

[lastknowngood]

2. He's just another repug. no charges will ever be filed unless it's

against Wilson and his wife.

[emulatorloo]

28. He's not a repug, he's an independent. Stop spreading FUD

If you haven't already, read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer

The Prosecutor Never Rests
Whether Probing a Leak or Trying Terrorists, Patrick Fitzgerald Is Relentless
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 2, 2005; Page C01

[kid a]

3. (B) is the most realistic and probable choice.

Anything else is wishful thinking.

[Oerdin]

4. Why?

Of course he'll say he hasn't made any decision. If he said he had made a decision then the reporters would ask the whos and whens while the Repuks would then be able to climb it was proof he was out to get poor innocent Karl Rove just like they've claimed was done to poor innocent Tom Delay.

[kstewart33]

6. If he had made some decisions, why in the world

would he tell the lawyers of suspects that he had? How does that benefit his investigation?

Fitzgerald isn't telling anyone anything about what he is thinking, except other members of his prosecution team.

So, stop worrying and let's wait and see.

[Stevendsmith]

7. Good advice. (n/t)

[crispini]

8. Fitz is playing his cards close to his vest, natch.

Remember that he had to have a judge's authority to send Judy Miller to jail. That judge must have ALSO thought he had something fairly big and important.

It makes me nervous too, but go back and read some of the articles about Fitz.

Edited to add: Here's a good thread if I do say so myself. :evilgrin:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4122819

[longship]

11. Re: Miller. *Two* judges signed off on her imprisonment.

nt

[Garbo 2004]

17. Three judge panel, appeals court for DC: ok to compel testimony. n/t

[longship]

23. Thank you for correction. All the better.

nt

[Garbo 2004]

25. And one of them was Tatel, who was for a fed shield law for journos but

not in this case, based on the evidence presented to the Court by Fitzgerald and the harm to national security.

He went to some lengths in his decision to discuss and justify his decision. Portions of his decision were blanked out due to references to evidence not public. (Likely including the damage to networks and nonproliferation ops from the blowing of Plame's and Brewster,Jennings' cover.) Clearly this guy wasn't an eager, easy sell on the matter and was loathe to compel testimony from reporters but was convinced that it was necessary in this case.

[napi21]

9. What you hear right now is spin! The media is pissed that

there have been NO LEAKS! Rove's atty has an obligation to his client to spin the story to atvantage his client.

From everything I've heard, Fitz is a workoholic, and Rottweiler type who grabs onto his case and won't let go until he finishes the job.

I doubt you will hear any final information from Fitz this week. Rove is testifying AGAIN, so is Miller! We don't know if there are even more than those two people. There are three weeks left for this GJ. Try to relax and have patience.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. We libs need to take advantage of this now!

We need to make sure this doesn't go away. We need to write the media, talk to everyone, make noise.

[Marr]

12. Fitzgerald seems like a professional. If he brings no indictments,

I would assume it's because none are warranted. He seems to know what he's doing.

[Kralizec]

13. There's a rumor for about every possible outcome of this thing right now.

I would suggest entertaining yourself with the multiple rumors, but don't get too worked up on the rumors going around. We'll know soon enough. I think we're all a little excited and worried at the same time!

Peace.

[Chan790]

14. another possibility

If he's playing it this close to the vest and the pieces are starting to fall-in (and they are...even if we have no clue what is going on it is clear from the amount of testimony over the last month that pieces are moving significantly.), perhaps it's not inconceivable that he's had his eye on the big prize all along and it's coming together. Miller, Rove and Libby are slimeballs, I'm almost certain that if Fitz called them back-in to offer them complete immunity to tie it back to the top (combined with a "a leak to ANYBODY nullifies our deal" clauses), they'd be on it like flies on hot poop and mute like mimes.

It's fairly clear that the Bush plan is for Rove and Libby to take the fall and do time in Leavenworth to cover his sorry ass. Something tells me that plan isn't the Rove plan. Nobody throws collective-themselves to the wolves quite like the GOP to save individual-themselves; Rove and Libby are no Haldeman and Erlichman...these republicans have neither honor nor a good soldier's sense of duty.

[Stevendsmith]

15. That is a tantalizing scenario! (NT)

[janx]

16. Until Fitzgerald himself says that,

don't believe a word of it. If I remember correctly, it's Rove's lawyer who keeps saying that--and how can anyone trust him?

[Seansky]

18. Keep in mind that Fitzgerald might just be a "have all you deck in

a row" type of person and he is just making sure that everyone involved is investigated as high as the investigation could lead.

Regardless of the result, it seems to me that Fitzgerald will do the right thing, otherwise he would have not been so careful with all the legalities and such.

I trust that if he doesn't indict it would be because there was no way to do so and not because any other reason.

I also trust that the damage has been done and that this adds to a long list of exposed corrupted actions perpetuated by this admin.

[tinrobot]

19. If he indicts, he can't offer immunity to get more information

It's best for him to threaten the underlings with indictment and offer them immunity or a plea bargain so the underlings will rat out the higher ups.

This case goes pretty darn high... I woudn't be surprised if Cheney was named in some way.

[Garbo 2004]

20. This week Rove's testifying again, Miller's having another chat with Fitz.

Wonder if Fitz is really done with Libby too, especially after his letter to Judy. Fitz reportedly told him as long as his communications with Judy were limited to the confidentiality release and did not venture into the substance of their previous discussions it wouldn't be obstruction to communicate with Miller. Arguably, Libby's letter could be read as coaching the witness and violating that agreement.

Fitzgerald is still getting information out of these folks. Judy suddenly "discovers" notes from June 2003 in the NYT Washington bureau (according to Newsweek I think it was). These are notes in an NYT office that the NYT previously claimed it didn't have, if I recall correctly?

I'm figuring people will be more inclined to talk and "cooperate" if they can figure they can talk their way out of an indictment. That may not at all be true, as Fitz reminded Rove and Luskin. But perhaps he's giving them enough rope...

And technically Fitz isn't legally obligated to tell people that they're about to be indicted. Despite what Luskin claimed, a target letter is not required to be issued prior to an indictment. At least that's what the DOJ grand jury procedure manual says.

[Spazito]

26. Interesting, if Fitz doesn't ask Libby to appear again, it might well

indicate he is the main target, with the smaller fish being Miller and Rove. I certainly will be reading carefully to see if Libby is asked or not in the next week or so.

[Singular73]

21. Hah!

A reporter went to jail for 3 months.

You bet your ass there will be indictments.

[hang a left]

22. I think what has been lost in all Rove's counsel's word parsing is....

Fitzgerald isn't the one who decides on the indictments. It is the GJ.

[Chan790]

24. also

A Grand Jury wouldn't have been convened to review the investigation for the purpose of ascertaining reasonable grounds for an indictment until he started pursuing indictments and had something to present to it.

As there is a convened GJ, he's clearly making an argument to that GJ for someone to get indicted.

[Garbo 2004]

27. Fitz appointed end of Dec '03, grand jury heard testimony in Jan '04.

Grand jury is part of the investigation process in this matter. With the assistance of the prosecutor, they take testimony, ask questions of the witnesses before them and review evidence developed by the prosecutor and investigators. (Cooper said about 1/3 of his testimony was spent answering the grand jury's questions. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083899,00.html )

In this matter, the grand jury clearly is an investigative tool. Fitz isn't just presenting them an already developed case and asking for an indictment as may typically be done in something considerably more simple such as a murder case (the "ham sandwich" sort of case).

Timeline for the case at Kos: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline