Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Facts needed! The future of Fitzgerald's investigation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
discopants Donating Member (457 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:40 AM
Original message
Facts needed! The future of Fitzgerald's investigation
Is it fact or wishful thinking that Fitzgerald's investigation continues and that more indictments may be delivered?

Is it fact that he is continuing the investigation to discover 'intent'?

I've heard and read plenty of opinions on the subject, but today is there anything that points to the FACT that Fitz is working to expand the investigation that might include the VP and Rove? Or, is it most likey the Libby indictment is it and the trial is what there is to look forward to.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. IMO.
It's all speculation. We will just have to wait & see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. met with Bush's Lawyer
last week.......... that's interesting.

Though "they" say Fitz was just telling James Sharp (bush's atty) that Rove wasn't going to be charged. Which makes absolutely NO sense!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. From Mr. Fitzgerald directly:
"I will not end the investigation until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility sufficiently to be sure that we've done what we could to make intelligent decisions about when to end the investigation. We hope to do that as soon as possible. I just hope that people will take a deep breath and just allow us to continue to do what we have to do."

From the transcript at the NYT site.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. i see it as all guessing too
jsut been reading as it comes. like the other poster, we will all have to just wait and see. when i listened to fitz it seemed to me he was saying wrapping it up. but...... also saw an example of his case in chicago starting with one idictment and exploding to more.

i am in the "who is to know" crowd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hard to know 'facts'
I believe Fitz is continuing the investigation and will not stop until he has gets to the bottom of this. That's pretty much what he said in his news conference. I trust Him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. It is a FACT that WE DON'T KNOW.
Fitzgerald has purposefully made it impossible for us to know for a FACT, anything other than what was in the indictment of Libby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. Fitz is not talking other that to say the investigation is not over.HERE:
Edited on Wed Nov-02-05 09:51 AM by emulatorloo
he said in the press conference that he cannot talk about what he is doing unless it relates to an indictment. So he will not discuss futures. If I can find a link to his press conference I will. He does say this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

<snip>

<snip>

QUESTION: What can you say about what you're still working on then?

FITZGERALD: I can't. I don't mean that fliply, but the grand jury doesn't give an announcement about what they're doing, what they're looking at, unless they charge an indictment.

<snip>

I will not end the investigation until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility sufficiently to be sure that we've done what we could to make intelligent decisions about when to end the investigation. We hope to do that as soon as possible. I just hope that people will take a deep breath and just allow us to continue to do what we have to do.

<snip>


others have reported that Rove is still under investigation.

WAPO yesterday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
<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>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's hard to say but based on Fitz's history with other trials involving
the mafia/politicians he has started off cases exactly in this way by indicting one person that is part of the network, and then he ends up indicting several years later. For example the case in Illinois that started in 1998 with 1 indictment and then 5 years and 65 indictments later he indicted Jack Ryan on the same case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
9. There may be more indictments
but some of them will depend on events that are yet to happen.

If a fed prosecutor encounters any lying or obstruction when he's preparing for trial, he asks a GJ to indict the person in question.

I also believe that Fatboy Rove may yet be indicted based on things that have already happened.

I'd like to mention something interesting about a federal appeal I saw once: a lawyer had been convicted of a federal crime. He got some jail time, and appealed in an attempt to reduce the sentence (or to eliminate the jail time altogether). When the appeals had run their course (the feds answered his counsel's briefs, of course), and the smoke had cleared, the lawyer ended up with a LONGER jail sentence than he had originally been given.

Don't mess with the fed criminal prosecutors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loge23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-02-05 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
10. Facts:
Fitzgerald knows that a crime has taken place.
He also knows that someone is hiding something.
He has acknowledged that he is still looking for the motive.
This may or may not end with more indictments.
Everything else is speculation.

Speculation: If he finds the motive, he finds the main criminals.
The lead time on shredding at the beginning of this thing probably destroyed the smoking gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC