Fitzgerald has decided to seek indictments,---Story is up

[hang a left]

Fitzgerald has decided to seek indictments, those near inquiry say

Jason Leopold and John Byrne

Print This | Email This

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided to seek indictments in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and has submitted at least one to the grand jury, those close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Fitzgerald will seek at least two indictments, the sources say. They note that it remains to be seen whether the grand jury will approve the charges.

Those familiar with the case state that Fitzgerald likely will not seek indictments that assert officials leaked Plame's name illegally. Rather, they say that he will focus charges in the arena of lying to investigators.


Any possible indictments are now in the hands of the grand jury. They are expected to be made public later this week.

RAW STORY has not learned who Fitzgerald is seeking to charge. Reports indicate that of those fingered in the case, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, is in the most jeopardy. President Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, also appears to have given conflicting testimony to the grand jury.
is not a target of Fitzgerald's investigation.

snip>

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_has_decided_to_seek_indictments_1025.html

[Coexist]

1. Only two - darn it - I guessed three.

You win the "Quicked on the Refresh Key" award!

[jsamuel]

2. "will not seek indictments that assert officials leaked Plame's name ille"

"will not seek indictments that assert officials leaked Plame's name illegally"


I don't believe that at all.

[still_one]

15. if true it is a crock, and means that nothing will happen

[demobabe]

34. They're not saying only two

That's just all the non-information they have right now to hype and drive people to their site.

None of this is new - this is the same regurgitated information we've been hearing for weeks now.

Why can't they just post a story when they HAVE a story?

[still_one]

39. I am just lowering my expectations, and hope it is much better

It is hard for me to believe that they work on this for two years, and only come up with two indictments, and only on perjury

[Roon]

18. How reliable is rawstory anyway?

Anyone know?

[jsamuel]

20. rawstory is reliable, but doesn't mean their source isn't giving a little

wishful thinking along with their facts...

[Roon]

3. Later this week...Later this week

ARRRGH!!! I can't take it anymore!!

[highplainsdem]

4. Raw Story's "developing" story on indictments now online:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_has_decided_to_seek_indictments_1025.html


<snip>

Fitzgerald will seek at least two indictments, the sources say. They note that it remains to be seen whether the grand jury will approve the charges.

Those familiar with the case state that Fitzgerald likely will not seek indictments that assert officials leaked Plame's name illegally. Rather, they say that he will focus charges in the arena of lying to investigators.

<snip>

[Just Me]

5. Two?

Bull!!!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. Well, it says at least two

But I reacted the same as you when I first saw it.

More than one but less than a million... would be my guess. :P

[Teaser]

6. "at least 2"

What this means is that 2 people have received target letters so far, and their lawyers are leaking to someone, who is then leaking to rawstory.

[Jersey Devil]

19. 2 indictments does not mean 2 people

Each indictment could name several people. You do not issue separate indictments for each defendant in a conspiracy charge, for example. All are named as defendants in the same indictment.

[Verve]

27. Hmmmm! You're getting hopes up again.

However, if he's not considering any indictments illegally outing Plame, does conspiracy fall under this category?

[Jersey Devil]

30. conspiracy to obstruct justice, to commit perjury

certainly, but multiple defendants in the same indictment is not limited to a conspiracy charge. It's done all the time.

[Verve]

38. You should post this seperately Jersy Devil.

You'd help all of us, non-attorney folks, out. Thanks!

[jasmeel]

43. I agree, I think people (incl me) will be disheartened if there is

only two people indicted. Two indictments could include more people--that's good news. i would still like to see the charges include the leak though.

[jasmeel]

41. Didn't know that--thanks!

[Just Me]

50. Um,...no,...one indictment for each crime.

Having recently testified before a GJ, I feel quite confident about how that works. Most of the time, there will be multiple indictments against one defendant.

[mattomjoe]

7. oh gawd, I really hope it's more than that after all this

[stop the bleeding]

8. Let down,

:argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[Quakerfriend]

9. "at least two"...Mmmmmmmmmm.

[HereSince1628]

10. Geez, all the hype and it's a rerun.

[Walt Starr]

59. I know. I've read that same thing before.

The only thing that I think has changed is the "this week" part instead of "by the end of the month".

:eyes:

[Midnight Rambler]

11. Remember, it's not the sex, it's the lying

I'm sure conservatives will stand on principle and not display hypocrisy of mindblowing proportions. They're good, decent Christian people, who will certainly be consistent in their beliefs. Right...?

[Verve]

16. LOL! Yeh, Right!

:sarcasm:

[Marie26]

24. But if they only charge them with perjury

it makes the "charged on a technicality" argument conservatives are trying to make more plausible. If it's only 2 indictments for perjury the neocons can just waive this whole thing away & continue w/their agenda. I sure hope this isn't true. ;(

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[annabanana]

17. this is all the same from "laywers familiar with the investigation"

There isn't a shred of new info in here..
(It's been at least 2 for awhile)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Hmm. Makes me think Kay Baily knew something ?? Like she

was setting the stage with all that "only perjury" rap>>

[jasmeel]

47. Exactly! The repubs know the MSM won't throw their words from

the Clinton years back into the repubs faces so they'll rely on people's short memories and make it look like a vast left wing conspiracy... <sigh>

[hang a left]

14. THIS STORY SUCKS!!!!!!11111!!!

[DearAbby]

23. Patience, At least two...could be more.

wonder how long it takes to make the case to the Grand Jury to indict a person? He has a list and is checkin it twice...

[still_one]

21. this is why I have low expectations

for the past six years everytime things looked good for us, it never worked out

I still am pessimistic, and have very little faith in the system, since most of the democratics don't even act as an opposition party in Congress

my fingers are still crossed

[meganmonkey]

22. First of all - no one actually knows ANYTHING yet

as some wise person (thanks Teaser) upthread said, all this means is that at least two lawyers have leaked re: targe tletters. That's where the info is coming from.

Fitzgerald has not leaked ANYTHING, we know that isn't his style.

Second, PERJURY GOT CLINTON IMPEACHED. It is a serious offense.

Don't panic, everyone!

[mmonk]

28. Perjury probably won't get

anyone in this administration impeached. Different time, different government, and different system.

[Veronicrat]

29. IMPEACH BUSH

Time to call all our senators and act decisively
Bush MUST be impeached he has LIED to the american people.
Clinton lied about an affair !!!
Bush has lied about weapons of mass destruction and reasons fopr spending 152 BILLION dollars & 2,000 lives lost
IMPEACH-
we have to stat calling
this is adefining moment in AMerican politics

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

40. Clinton "misleading the Court" was not perjury 'cuz it was not material

This is material - it is perjury.

There is no double standard.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

54. I disagree - "memory" problems put many in jail. Human nature is

a defense only if a physical problem.

You tell truth to a Court officer - as best you can.

A two year con - with media helping in getting the lies out - should stink enough to get max - or at least a nickel - as the sentence. Throw in war dead "embarrassment" as a motive, and the Iraq War is on trial - and it loses.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

58. Giving Permission to go to war over National Security" is not the same as

telling lies to get us into war.

Sorry - I don't buy the "our party is (as)in much in bed with PNAC/Sharon/AIPAC as the repukes"

They voted an Iraq resolution dealing with if there was a national security problem.

Bush took us to war.

[meganmonkey]

42. That's the whole point! FITZ ISN'T TELLING ANYONE ANYTHING YET!

:eyes:
Until he does, we won't REALLY know anything. I don't see why everyone is getting so worked up over RawStory posting 2 leaks from the attorneys of the CRIMINALS. We can rest assured that Fitz didn't leak this info, so who else could it have come from?

[deadparrot]

36. Thank you.

These wild mass mood swings are natural, but more than a little annoying.

[flyarm]

60. thank you meganmoney....

first of all..no one knows anything!!

not raw story, not wash.post, not nyt...not cbs, abc, nbc, not o'leilly, not olberman, not tweety..no one..

the only people who know whats coming down are the grand jury , and fitzgerald..

they are doing it prob now..tuesday..they normally do not meet until wednesday..they moved it up and are meeting today..fitzgerald places the info in the hands of the GJ..and they decide who and how many get indicted..

the grand jury decides...so don't believe anything you hear..because it is all guessing!

fly

[DemNoir]

26. Typical crap from Rawstory

That "story" says exactly nothing that hasnt been guessed at already.

But, they did succeed in getting a bunch of suckers to click on them all morning.

[sleipnir]

33. Ding! Ding! Ding! We Have a Winner!

Raw Story is just a step above Drudge Report, in my book. I take whatever they say with a grain of salt.

Can you imagine how much cash they must be making from ad clicks today?! I'd venture a guess of at least $800-$1000 for the day...Popular websites can be big business...

[KyndCulture]

31. Let's don't freak out.. this is a glorifed rumor..

from a source we trust, but until I see something on the DOJ website, I ain't believing ANYTHING yet.

[Bluzmann57]

35. Until Fitzgerald announces it

it isn't official. Quite frankly, Rawstory sort of reminds me of an online tabloid. Not saying they're wrong, just saying they need to confirm sources like any good journalist. Until Fitzgerald announces any indictments, we should all just calm down.

[flyarm]

61. thank you..a reasonable mind!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

fly

[Bluzmann57]

62. Well...very few people think I am a reasonable mind

But thanks. We shall see when Mr. Fitzgerald makes his decision what it is. I suppose it is fun to throw around rumors though. Just don't want to get high expectations and then have them dashed.

[Halliburton]

37. this story is hardly newsworthy

"sources close to the investigation" have been saying that Fitzgerald has been examining perjury charges for months. nothing new. why did they even post this?

[meganmonkey]

44. I don't know, but it's getting to be almost funny watching everyone react

to it...

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

49. To Get Clicks

Why else?

[Tummler]

45. The story seems incomplete, at best

Based on a few tidbits that we know, it seems Fitzgerald could make a good case against the leakers under various provisions of the Espionage Act. And if that's so, then a wide-ranging WHIG conspiracy to leak Plame's identity (and thus violate said Espionage Act) should certainly net more than two of these crooks.

I find it hard to believe that Fitz would come this far, or that federal judges would allow the jailing of Miller while commenting on the gravity of the matter, without sufficient evidence of a "substantive" crime.

Of course, if Raw Story's sources are defense attorneys, then they really won't have any clue about Fitzgerald's complete plans.

[Verve]

48. See Jersey Devil's Post #19. 2 indictments DOES NOT = 2 people!

It can be numerous people under 1 indictment. (If I understood it correctly.)

[Tummler]

55. Thanks -- but I still have concerns about this article's accuracy

The suggestion that Fitzgerald will not pursue espionage/IIPA charges, only perjury/obstruction, doesn't square with the in-depth nature of his investigation or his reputation as a bulldog.

[Connie_Corleone]

46. I think I'll just wait for Fitzgerald to say something.

There's nothing new in this story

[Halliburton]

52. yeah I agree

we don't know who's doing the leaking here.

[Maddy McCall]

56. Me, too, Connie.

[Maddy McCall]

53. Bullshit.

"RAW STORY revealed last week that David Wurmser and John Hannah, both aides who worked with Cheney, were cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe. The story was later confirmed by the New York Daily News."

Nope. The NYDN had the story first.